OVERWHELMED with POSSIBILITIES: INTERPRETING ARCHAEOLOGICAL and OTHER HERITAGE RESOURCES in URBAN AREAS by Tristan John Harrenst

OVERWHELMED WITH POSSIBILITIES: INTERPRETING ARCHAEOLOGICAL

AND OTHER HERITAGE RESOURCES IN URBAN AREAS

Tristan John Harrenstein

B.A., The University of Nebraska – Lincoln, 2006

A thesis submitted to the Department of Anthropology College of Arts, Social Sciences, and Humanities The University of West Florida For partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts

The thesis of Tristan John Harrenstein is approved:

______Elizabeth D. Benchley, Ph.D., Committee Member Date

______John J. Clune, Ph. D., Committee Member Date

______Della A. Scott-Ireton, Ph. D., Committee Member Date

______William B. Lees, Ph. D., Committee Chair Date

Accepted for the Department/Division:

______John R. Bratten, Ph. D., Chair Date

Accepted for the University:

______Richard S. Podemski, Ph.D., Dean, Graduate School Date

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Like all projects of this size, this thesis would not have been possible without the assistance of others. Naturally, I would like to thank my committee for their help in guiding me through the process: Dr. William Lees, Dr. Della Scott-Ireton, Dr. Jay Clune, and Dr. Elizabeth

Benchley. I am particularly appreciative of Dr. Lees and Dr. Scott-Ireton for wonderful advice throughout and especially while I was developing my model.

The University of West Florida has a plethora of people who supported my thesis in indirect ways. I would like to thank my professors and fellow graduate students who provided moral support and commiseration respectively. I would particularly like to thank Ross Pristera from the University of West Florida Historic Trust for helping me understand the state of

Pensacola’s heritage resources today and April Holmes from the University of West Florida

Archaeology Institute who provided me with some excellent maps and insight into recent projects in downtown Pensacola.

Finally, I would like to thank my family and friends whose patience and encouragement saw me through this project until the end. None had greater influence than my mother and father who, through their love and understanding, have helped me become the person I am today. I feel their influence in everything I do.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... iv

LIST OF TABLES ...... viiii

LIST OF FIGURES ...... ix

ABSTRACT ...... x

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ...... x A. Why Pensacola Needs an Interpretive Plan ...... 1 B. Study Area ...... 3 C. Chapters in this Thesis ...... 7 D. Conclusion ...... 10

CHAPTER 2 INTERPRETATION IN PENSACOLA ...... 11 A. Previous Heritage Tourism Plans ...... 11 B. Heritage Organizations ...... 15 C. Conclusion ...... 19

CHAPTER 3 FROM TILDEN TO TORE: A MODEL FOR DEVELOPING AN INTERPRETIVE PROGRAM FOR URBAN ENVIRONMENTS ...... 20 A. The Basic Principles...... 22 B. The TORE Model ...... 23 C. Stakeholders ...... 24 D. The Model ...... 27 1. The Planning Phase ...... 28 2. The Design Phase ...... 34 E. Conclusion ...... 51

CHAPTER 4 RESOURCES FOR PENSACOLA AND INTERPRETIVE PLANNERS ...... 54 A. Historical Resources ...... 56 1. Prehistory ...... 56

2. The Colonial Period ...... 56 3. The American Period ...... 59 B. Archaeological Resources ...... 61 1. Seville Square ...... 66 2. Fountain Park ...... 66 3. Historic Pensacola Village ...... 67 4. T. T. Wentworth Complex ...... 71 5. Plaza Ferdinand VII ...... 73 6. Palafox Street ...... 75 7. Tarragona Street ...... 75 8. The Waterfront ...... 76 C. Stakeholders ...... 77 1. Heritage Tourists ...... 78 2. Cultural/Ethnic ...... 80 3. Economic ...... 81 4. Professional/Enthusiast ...... 82 5. Government ...... 82 6. Residents ...... 83 D. Themes ...... 84 E. Conclusion ...... 86

CHAPTER 5 FITTING THE PIECES TOGETHER: THE INTERPRETIVE MODEL APPLIED TO THE FORTS OF DOWNTOWN PENSACOLA ...... 87 A. Global Theme ...... 87 B. The Stakeholders ...... 90 C. The Topic ...... 90 1. The First Fort-Fort San Miguel (The Spanish) ...... 91 2. The First Fort-Fort San Miguel (The British) ...... 92 3. The Second Fort-The Star Fort ...... 93 4. The Third Fort-The Fort of Pensacola ...... 95 5. Archaeology of the Forts ...... 95 D. Themes ...... 97 E. Design Phase ...... 99

F. Putting It All Together ...... 115 G. Conclusion ...... 123

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION ...... 125

REFERENCES ...... 131

vii

LIST OF TABLES

1. The Archaeological Sites of Downtown Pensacola ...... 64

2. Some Potential Stakeholders for a Heritage Tourism Program in Pensacola, FL ...... 81

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1. The 1778 map of Pensacola by Joseph Purcell...... 4

FIGURE 2. The proposed 2004 plan for interpreting downtown Pensacola...... 14

FIGURE 3. The proposed 2004 plan for St. Michael’s Cemetery...... 14

FIGURE 4. The properties managed by UWFHT today...... 18

FIGURE 5. An example of a topical title (left) and a thematic title (right)...... 41

FIGURE 6. The archaeological sites of downtown Pensacola, FL...... 63

FIGURE 7. The study area for the archaeological discussion...... 65

FIGURE 8. A digitized map of the 1763 Spanish Fort San Miguel...... 91

FIGURE 9. A digitized map of the British modifications to Fort San Miguel...... 93

FIGURE 10. A digitized map of the British Star Fort...... 94

FIGURE 11. A digitized map of the 1778 Fort of Pensacola...... 96

FIGURE 12. The downtown Pensacola forts on the city grid in relation to each other...... 101

FIGURE 13. Fort San Miguel (blue), Star Fort (green), and the Fort of Pensacola (yellow) as each appears in open spaces around downtown Pensacola...... 102

FIGURE 14. Plaza Ferdinand VII looking southeast toward the current T. T. Wentworth

Museum...... 104

FIGURE 15. The barracks and soldier huts (red) and a segment of the Fort San Miguel wall

(blue) projected onto the modem city...... 111

ABSTRACT

OVERWHELMED WITH POSSIBILITIES: INTERPRETING ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND OTHER HERITAGE RESOURCES IN URBAN AREAS

Tristan John Harrenstein

The city of Pensacola, Florida, has been attempting to create a heritage tourism industry for half a century but has never achieved the same level of success of the other notable destinations that they were trying to emulate. This is, in part, due to a significant level of development in the historic district, much of which is now historic as well, combined with an impressively complex history concentrated in a relatively small area. If Pensacola, or any community in a similar situation, is to develop an effective heritage tourism program, then a well-organized plan is needed. This paper presents a model, along with the most basic level of information required, for the development of an interpretive program in downtown Pensacola which aims to provide the best possible results for the community, the tourist, and the archaeological resources.

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

The city of Pensacola, Florida, has been trying to develop a comprehensive heritage tourism program for itself for over 50 years but, despite some localized successes, has been unable to achieve a program of the desired scope. A large part of the problem is a lack of an organized plan which addresses the challenges of urban interpretation while making the best possible use of the available archaeological and other interpretive resources. These challenges are: a long, complicated history; valuable cultural resources which are no longer visible; overlapping and conflicting interpretive resources; and the concerns of local stakeholders. This thesis does not detail a plan itself; it presents a model and procedures for developing an interpretive plan in an urban environment which enables planners to overcome these challenges and create a successful interpretation for a heritage tourism program.

Why Pensacola Needs an Interpretive Plan

Heritage tourism is a fast-growing industry worldwide (Slick 2002:219–220). North

American cities, such as Annapolis, Maryland, and St. Augustine, Florida, have gone to great lengths to develop their historic districts so they appeal to heritage tourists, and they currently have some very successful programs (White 2002:147; Brosnaham 2010:52). The city of

Pensacola has a history every bit as complex and fascinating as these cities, but it has managed to capitalize on only a small portion of its tremendous cultural resources. This is, in part, due to previous attempts to develop a heritage tourism program which lacked a carefully thought-out interpretive plan to help overcome some of the challenges unique to a large-scale program in an urban setting.

The relative absence of heritage tourism in Pensacola is not entirely for a lack of trying as multiple attempts have been made over the years, though for a variety of reasons these plans were never fully realized (Brosnaham 2010:28–83). The most recent attempts were so focused on the business aspects of a heritage tourism program that the interpretation (which is the “heritage” in “heritage tourism”) was just an afterthought, and many professionals were concerned about the treatment of the city’s historic and archaeological resources. The subject of developing downtown Pensacola for heritage tourism almost certainly will reoccur, and material that lays some of the groundwork for a future interpretive plan is needed.

However, developing an effective interpretive plan for Pensacola (or any urban area) is not a simple matter. Pensacola has an exceptionally long and complex history, starting with the first settlement attempt by Tristán de Luna almost 500 years ago; the city has since changed hands eight times after it was permanently settled in 1698 (Coker 1999:5–60). This results in a very complicated past, with many subjects and structures overlapping and potentially interfering with other nearby interpretations.

Faced with so many possibilities, imitating programs like Colonial Williamsburg or St.

Augustine and selecting a single period to interpret is tempting. However, while this may have been the best strategy for these places, Pensacola has several centuries of material for interpretation, and this approach would squander the majority of the city’s historic resources. On the other hand, a broader, more inclusive interpretive plan has the opportunity to attract visitors with a wider spectrum of interests but, when focused on such a small area, risks either diluting the history so much as to make it largely meaningless or being so chaotic that it confuses visitors.

However, with both extremes, any interpretive plan for the city that is not carefully thought out

and well-organized will be either underwhelming or enigmatic, and the desired heritage tourism program will never be achieved.

Compounding this dilemma is the fact that a great deal of the city’s history is no longer visible (although very apparent in the archaeological record), and a number of more recent historical structures share the same physical location as buildings and places from the past.

Effectively interpreting an invisible past is difficult in the best of circumstances; doing so with layers of activity built up over centuries, and existing historical buildings on top of everything, is a daunting challenge. Fortunately, there are strategies to compensate for this obstacle, and access to an interpretive model will help to ensure their effective use.

Using downtown Pensacola as example, the model this thesis presents illustrates the steps necessary to develop the interpretive plan for a heritage tourism program in the city of Pensacola and, by extension, other urban areas. This thesis is not the plan itself, but rather, it is a guide designed to aid interpretive planners in making the best possible use of these different historic periods and hidden archaeological resources in a manner that complements, rather than hinders, nearby interpretive resources. The plan that will result from following this model will employ these resources in a manner that improves the quality of life for local residents and creates a critical part of a heritage tourism program.

Study Area

The target area for this thesis is downtown Pensacola; more specifically it is the roughly triangular-shaped zone between the two, now filled in, Washerwoman and Cadet Creeks that, for years, were natural boundaries for the city (Figure 1). Washerwoman Creek ran roughly from the corner of De Villiers Street and Main Street to Gregory Street and Palafox Street; Cadet Creek went from 9th Street and Bayfront Parkway to South Tarragona Street and West Garden Street.

FIGURE 1. The 1778 map of Pensacola by Joseph Purcell (Benchley et al. 2007:48).

To the north, the city was similarly constrained by a wetland, which was eventually drained, and as it runs through this wetland, I shall use West Garden Street as the northern boundary.

Developing this whole area for heritage tourism will not be necessary, but this zone includes the longest continuous occupation for the city, and the area will prove adequate for demonstrating the interpretive model presented here (Coker 1999).

The study area includes several distinctly valuable features for an interpretive program.

One of the more apparent challenges is the land south of East Main Street, as the street itself marks the historic shoreline until the city began to actively expand its commercial waterfront in the 19th century. These docks were one of the city’s more prominent features, until relatively recently, and were a hub for commerce and industry. Excellent opportunities exist to discuss multiple periods in Pensacola’s past involving the activities at the docks, how the land has changed over time, and the effect the docks had on the city itself (Bratten and Cook 2005:34–36;

Kennedy 2010).

Another interpretive resource is the collection of historic buildings and reconstructions from a variety of historic periods referred to as the Historic Pensacola Village. The Village is located roughly between South Tarragona Street on the western edge to South Adams Street on the east and East Main Street as the southern border extending to approximately half a block north of Church Street. The area is very appealing to look at, though several of the buildings are either reconstructions or were moved from their original sites.

Downtown Pensacola has four parks which must be considered independently. First,

Plaza Ferdinand VII is located at South Palafox Street and East Zarragossa Street at its southwest corner. This park is dominated by an obelisk in the center dedicated to William Dudley Chipley, with a bust of Andrew Jackson, a fountain, and a few random cannons located around the park.

The park’s layout is generally unchanged from its early-1900s design and is outdated by modern standards, though this in itself is potentially worth interpreting. Plaza Ferdinand VII has served as a town square for Pensacola throughout much of its history and, thusly, is the center of a great deal of activity and a number of potential subjects for interpretation (McGovern 1976:2).

Next, Seville Square is located at Adams Street and East Zarragossa Street at its southwest corner. In many ways, this park is a sister park to Plaza Ferdinand VII as it is approximately the same size and has a very similar colonial history (Johnson and Parks

1988:16). However, Seville Square did not serve the city in the capacity of town square like

Plaza Ferdinand VII, though in recent years at least, it has become a venue for local festivals and other social events.

Directly across East Zarragossa Street is a small park named Fountain Park, and across

East Main Street from Fountain Park is another called the William Bartram Memorial Park.

Unlike Seville Square and Plaza Ferdinand VII, Fountain Park did not remain an open space after the colonial forts were gone, and it contained residences until the middle of the 20th century

(Bense 1989b:22).

Other important features are some of the streets themselves as the centers of commerce and industry for the city. One block west of Seville Square and Fountain Park is Tarragona Street which runs perpendicular to the waterfront and East Main Street. This street was vital to the city’s, and the region’s, industrial past in the 19th and 20th centuries, and a few railroad tracks still run down the its center connecting to the port today (Kennedy 2010). Though the rail system is not as substantial as it once was, a footprint of an old line leaving Tarragona Street to travel west along Main Street, combined with the presence of several historic warehouses still in existence along the road, provide opportunities to discuss a more active street in the past.

Two blocks west of Tarragona Street, Palafox Street also runs perpendicular to the waterfront, starting from the docks heading approximately north through the city. Functioning as an early main street and downtown area for the city, Palafox Street is historically a commercial and community hub. Most of the buildings still standing along this street in the project area are historic, though as the area experienced occasional fires and constant development, the buildings represent a variety of time periods (Johnson and Parks 1988:13). Currently, the street serves as a social center for the city with a number of bars, restaurants, and small businesses.

There are also locations outside the downtown area that are of recognized importance, and a program should find ways of tying these places to the downtown interpretation. These sites include, but are not limited to, Forts Pickens, Barrancas, George, and McRee; the Pensacola

Lighthouse; the Arcadia Mill Archaeological Site; and the early Santa María de Galve and Santa

Rosa settlements. Any interpretation of downtown Pensacola would be poorer for not considering these sites, and in fact, their inclusion may be necessary to properly interpret the complex history of the city.

Chapters in this Thesis

Rather than providing the plan itself, the chapters in this thesis are designed to furnish the reader with a basic understanding of what is needed to begin developing an interpretive plan for downtown Pensacola. Some of this discussion is relevant specifically to Pensacola, while the chapters and sections that describe the model itself are useful to any urban interpretive planner.

Regardless of where it is located, an urban interpretive plan of this scale is no small task, and these chapters will help to ensure that a community achieves a successful interpretation that makes the best use of all of its resources, archaeological and otherwise, that are present in its historic urban areas.

The following chapter illustrates the previous attempts at developing a heritage tourism program in Pensacola and the development of the existing interpretive organizations. The precise reasons these previous plans were not successful are far too complicated to cover in depth, and the focus here will be on the specific shortcomings relevant to the subject of this thesis. Also, the evolution of Pensacola’s heritage organizations is incredibly complex, so rather than a detailed history, this section describes how these organizations (past and present) developed, how they relate to one another, and highlights a few that would prove especially useful to a heritage tourism program.

Chapter 3 is the heart of this thesis and draws upon multiple sources to present a model for how to begin developing an interpretive plan for an urban area. This chapter begins by describing the two theoretical sources most heavily relied upon in the model starting with

Freeman Tilden’s (2007) Six Principles of Interpretation which are, in many ways, the foundation for all interpretive theory. This is followed by Sam H. Ham’s (2013) TORE

(Thematic, Organized, Relevant, and Enjoyable) model which further describes the criteria needed to ensure a successful interpretation. Once the theory is presented, some time is spent detailing the necessity of involving stakeholders (anyone with an interest in what is interpreted and how) in the process as they are crucial to the success of a heritage tourism program in a city.

Next, this chapter applies the interpretive theories of Tilden and Ham to develop the two phases of the model itself. The process starts with the Planning Phase which involves the groundwork necessary before designing the actual interpretation can begin and focuses on developing the all-important themes for the program. Once planners have a firm understanding of precisely what is being interpreted, it is time to move into the Design Phase and figure out where these themes will be interpreted and what the best methods are. In this section, the benefits

and drawbacks of a number of interpretive strategies, such as reconstructions or living history, are considered alongside a few concepts useful for developing an interpretation in general.

Though Tilden and Ham are the most prominent influences, the model presented in this chapter makes use of a number of other sources that provide insights into aspects of heritage tourism and interpretation. Tourism and Archaeology: Sustainable Meeting Grounds by Walker and Carr (2013) relates very well to this topic in general, and a chapter by Hughes et al. (2013), which overturns some of our assumptions about what visitors to heritage sites expect, is particularly useful here. This article somewhat counters the concern expressed in The

Reconstructed Past: Reconstructions in the Public Interpretation of Archaeology and History by

Jameson (2004) that reconstructions deceive the audience due to their inability to be perfectly accurate. However, the articles contained in Jameson’s book supplies a wealth of examples which illustrate the other pros and cons of reconstructions.

Although they are much more focused on interpreting active sites, the articles in both

Presenting the Archaeology to the Public: Digging for Truths by Jameson (1997) and Public

Archaeology by Merriman (2004) generally provide some insight into the value of interpreting archaeological subjects to a public audience and incorporating stakeholders in the entire process.

A book which supplied a yet deeper understanding into how we can effectively work with stakeholders is Public Benefits of Archaeology by Little (2002) in which several of the chapters provided some particularly valuable insights for this thesis (Praetzellis 2002; Slick 2002; Thomas

2002). Finally, Archaeology, Heritage, and Civic Engagement: Working toward the Public Good by Little and Shackel (2014) highlights the powerful emotions that are often connected to heritage sites and how to responsibly navigate the politics which result.

Chapter 4 presents tools for planners by describing some of the interpretive resources available in Pensacola. First, a very brief overview of Pensacola’s history provides the reader with a basic understanding and appreciation of time periods related to the city’s complex past. In a similar vein, the next section examines the archaeological resources available and delivers a general understanding of the investigations that have been conducted and the intense complexity of archaeology in downtown Pensacola. Wrapping up this chapter, further details about involving stakeholders and creating good themes are presented, as both are critical parts of an effective interpretation.

Chapter 5 provides an example which demonstrates how the model is used to develop a potential topic for an interpretive plan in downtown Pensacola. This example comes with a couple of caveats which prevent it from being a true recommendation as consulting stakeholders was impractical and developing more than one topic was beyond the scope of this thesis. The result effectively establishes the steps for the model described in Chapter 3 and considers some local concerns and neighboring interpretive resources in its design, but it stops short of a full interpretive plan without including these omissions more fully.

Conclusion

The previous unsuccessful attempts at developing a heritage tourism program for

Pensacola are destined to repeat themselves without a carefully organized interpretive plan. The following chapters present the model and the most basic level of information required for an effective interpretive plan, but not the plan itself. It will then be up to interpretive planners to apply these procedures to create an interpretive plan which best matches the needs of their city.

The next chapter begins this process with a discussion of the aforementioned attempts at interpreting Pensacola and of the city’s heritage organizations.

CHAPTER 2

INTERPRETATION IN PENSACOLA

The idea of heritage tourism is not a new one to Pensacola and has been a reoccurring topic in the city for over 50 years. However, despite the city’s wealth of historic resources, and several attempts to develop a heritage tourism industry, nothing which could be called a comprehensive heritage tourism program currently exists. This chapter discusses some of the strengths and failings (from an interpretive perspective) of these previous attempts. It also provides an overview of the complicated history of the city’s heritage organizations and highlights a few that will be particularly valuable to a heritage tourism program’s development.

Previous Heritage Tourism Plans

Not actually located in downtown Pensacola, but still the city’s first attempt at developing a heritage tourism destination, the Spanish Village was built on Santa Rosa Island in

1959 in celebration of the 400th anniversary of the first attempt at settling the area in 1559.

Though other heritage tourism programs existed in the country at this time, Pensacola was very much at the forefront of a national trend; this early attempt represents some impressive vision on the part of the city to see the potential of such an industry (Thomin 2014:4–6). The Spanish

Village itself was modeled on a drawing of the settlement which existed on the island in 1743; however, the accuracy of this source is somewhat suspect (Harris and Eschbach 2006:223). This program included a number of exhibits and Spanish artisans demonstrating 18th-century crafts.

The intent was that the village would serve as a “center for cultural and artistic endeavors after the celebration,” but this goal was not achieved, partly due to a lack of support from the local populace, and the Village was finally shut down in 1966 (Kaner and Wilson 2012:19).

The mid-19th century interpretation of the Spanish Village represents a tendency of the time to “whitewash” history and to reinforce perceptions of the superiority of European culture.

The early Spanish settlement was in fact a small, very diverse military outpost which suffered from disease and natural disasters (Holmes 2012). Historical and archaeological research on the actual site of the 18th-century village conducted in recent decades has substantially broadened our understanding of this location (Bense 1985b, 2002; Hunter 2001; Harris 2003a, 2003b, 2004;

Gordon 2006; Harris and Eschbach 2006; Eschbach 2008; Holmes 2012). Informed by this research, our understanding of the settlement today contrasts sharply with the all-white, prosperous colony the Spanish Village program presented to its visitors (Holmes 2012; Thomin

2014:2–3).

A comfortable, and very fictional, nostalgic past is a common pitfall, even among interpretive programs today (Thomas 2002:134–135; Blockley 2004:185–186). However, interpreters now understand that this approach deceives our audience, alienates poorly represented minority groups, and is, frankly, self-defeating. Essentially, nostalgic or whitewashed programs are theme parks, entertaining without providing any real substance.

The next attempt at developing a heritage tourism program for the area occurred in 1967 and focused on downtown Pensacola. Again representing the perspectives of the time (and a direct response to the Urban Renewal movement), the proposed program focused on the restoration of existing 19th-century buildings and the reconstruction of colonial structures. The real problem with this plan, and the plans that followed, was an emphasis on what needed to be done, rather than on what the program developers wanted to say. Had this plan been implemented, it almost certainly would have been disjointed, unfocused, and, ultimately, only moderately effective (Historical Advisory Committee 1967).

The positive result of this plan, however, was the creation of the Historic Pensacola

Preservation Board (HPPB), a unifying organization for the various heritage groups that existed at the time. Previously, these groups were in competition with each other, and having a designated leader allowed the community to pool their personnel and financial resources.

Another benefit this first attempt had was that many of the interpretive resources available today are a direct result of the efforts of the heritage organizations during this period (Brosnaham

2010:50–52,100–141).

In more recent years, two other attempts were made to develop an interpretive plan in downtown Pensacola. The first of these, released in 2004, was really more of an urban development plan which respected the existing heritage resources, rather than an attempt to develop a program to attract heritage tourists. As a result, the focus for this proposal was heavily on traffic, businesses, and residences, all of which are certainly important, but the interpretation itself (what there is of it) was merely an afterthought (Urban Design Associates 2004).

This lack of focus on the heritage resources is well demonstrated by the “interpretation” of the final British fort which includes the structure’s dry moat (Figure 2) and the proposed changes to St. Michael’s Cemetery which replaces the remnants of a pair of 18th-century roads with walkways for visitors (Figure 3) (Urban Design Associates 2004). The sentiment for these proposals has potential, but the execution illustrates a lack of understanding of the interpretive tools available. A heritage tourism program needs the interpretation of the city’s past to be a much higher priority if it is to be successful.

The most recent attempt to develop a heritage tourism program was prompted by the anticipation of money flowing into the region as compensation to communities along the Gulf of

Mexico impacted by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010. The movement calling for the use

FIGURE 2. The proposed 2004 plan for interpreting downtown Pensacola (Urban Design Associates 2004:22).

FIGURE 3. The proposed 2004 plan for St. Michael’s Cemetery (Urban Design Associates 2004:18).

of this money for heritage tourism development was coordinated by the University of West

Florida (UWF) and drew heavily upon the 2004 plan. However, both university and community proponents were primarily focused upon the economic benefits of heritage tourism, and once again, this proposal generally did not have the emphasis on historic and archaeological preservation required for an effective interpretive plan. All momentum was eventually lost with the resignation of the coordinator, and the subject of developing downtown Pensacola for heritage tourism is, at the time of this writing, once again stalled.

These programs all have varying degrees of usefulness today. The Spanish Village is actually old enough and significant enough to the living memory of local people that it is a potential interpretive resource in itself, and currently some discussions are taking place along this line. The 1967 interpretive plan puts the necessary focus on the historic and archaeological resources but is so dated as to be of a very limited use for a program today. The final two plans are even more limited in their usefulness from an interpretive perspective, but they do provide a good overview of what such a plan would require to be economically successful.

Heritage Organizations

Efforts to interpret downtown Pensacola began with the Pensacola Historical Society placing historical markers and landmarks around the city in 1937 (Brosnaham 2010:50). This is not completely unheard of for the time period, though historic interpretation at this point rarely went beyond a plaque featuring important historic figures or events. Currently, visitors at heritage sites expect considerably more than this.

The majority of Pensacola’s historic preservation movement began in the 1960s, starting with the formation of the Pensacola Historic Preservation Society and the Pensacola Heritage

Foundation (Brosnaham 2010:28–32). Both of these organizations were primarily concerned

with preserving the historic buildings themselves, and interpretation was not a part of the conversation until 1966 when the Pensacola Historical Advisory Committee was formed. This committee was inspired by the St. Augustine Restoration and Preservation Commission and was responsible for monitoring the “development and promotion of historic landmarks” (Brosnaham

2010:47).

The Historical Advisory Committee was the first to raise the topic of heritage tourism in

Pensacola, and it argued (correctly) that Pensacola has more than enough historic resources to build a heritage tourism industry. A number of communities that had taken advantage of their historic resources were cited as examples (such as St. Augustine), though they were primarily used to build a case for the economic benefits, rather than as models for interpreting these resources (Brosnaham 2010:52–54). Six months after its formation, the Historical Advisory

Committee orchestrated the creation of a master plan for designating a historic district, gaining funding from the city, and hiring an executive director to oversee the project. The plan was received enthusiastically by the public, and the project was awarded part of the funding requested (Brosnaham 2010:56–57).

In 1967, the Pensacola Historical Restoration and Preservation Commission, renamed the

HPPB when it became a state agency in 1969, was formed (Brosnaham 2010:70). This organization was necessary for the city to receive funding from the state, but it also was created because the city needed a single designated leader for the heritage tourism movement

(Brosnaham 2010:51–52,55). Once again, the St. Augustine model was referred to, possibly contributing to the Pensacola Historical Restoration and Preservation Commission hiring St.

Augustine’s executive director as their own (Brosnaham 2010:66–67). However, by 1970 public opinion was already turning against the project due to doubts about the money being spent,

questions of mismanagement, conflicts of interest, and a lack of leadership (Brosnaham

2010:75–82).

Over the years the HPPB moved or preserved a number of properties (Figure 4), and in

1987 realized that a program was needed to make everything work together; their solution was the creation of the Historic Pensacola Village. A secondary goal of this particular movement was to provide inspiration to the community which led to the acquisition of several more properties and the development of the Colonial Archaeological Trail by the University of West Florida

Archaeology Institute (Brosnaham 2010:115–119). Though the HPPB did not create a heritage tourism program to the degree originally hoped for, it did successfully preserve a number of historic buildings, providing valuable interpretive resources for a future program. In an effort to ensure the continued protection of these structures, the HPPB linked itself to UWF and was renamed the West Florida Historic Preservation, Inc. in 2001 (Brosnaham 2010:91). In 2014, the

West Florida Historic Preservation, Inc. was relabeled once again as the University of West

Florida Historic Trust (UWFHT). Due to their resources and experience, UWFHT is one of the three organizations crucial to include in the development of a heritage tourism program.

Another organization that a planner should include in the development process is the

Florida Public Archaeology Network (FPAN) which, like UWFHT, is also closely tied to UWF.

FPAN was founded in 2004 to provide the state with a network of public archaeology centers with the goal of educating Florida residents about the importance of archaeology; to assist local governments in efforts to protect, preserve, and develop heritage resources; and to support the

Florida Division of Historical Resources with its responsibilities relating to archaeological sites.

The main office for FPAN is located in downtown Pensacola and offers an abundance of

FIGURE 4. The properties managed by UWFHT today (University of West Florida Historic Trust 2015).

experience in interpreting archaeological resources to the public (Florida Public Archaeology

Network 2014).

Finally, beyond its association with both UWFHT and FPAN, UWF itself is a vital organization to include in the planning process. UWF has been a leader in heritage preservation since 1980, including several decades of archaeological investigations, community engagement, and public outreach in Pensacola. The Departments of Anthropology and History as well as the

Archaeology Institute contain a wealth of professionals with detailed knowledge of the archaeological investigations conducted and the history of the area.

Conclusion

The city of Pensacola has seen several attempts to develop a heritage tourism industry and this has led to the creation of some excellent interpretive programs. As the following chapters detail, developing an effective comprehensive interpretive plan for all of Pensacola is an incredibly difficult task. Having an understanding of what has been tried in the past, as well as what organizations are available for consultation, will prove very useful to an emerging heritage tourism program.

CHAPTER 3

FROM TILDEN TO TORE: A MODEL FOR DEVELOPING AN INTERPRETIVE

PROGRAM FOR URBAN ENVIRONMENTS

When preparing a heritage tourism program, planners can easily get caught up in the business aspects of the project (such as deciding where shops, restaurants, and hotels will be located) and forget why heritage tourists visit heritage sites. Of course, the ultimate goal of any tourism program is to benefit the community economically, and these things are necessary to make Pensacola a heritage tourism destination (Slick 2002:221). However, taking care not to overlook the interpretation (and preservation) of the historic and archaeological resources is of vital importance as these are the components that make a heritage destination. After all, visitors can find shops and restaurants anywhere; if Pensacola wants to stand out from other tourism venues it should focus on its unique past, something that exists nowhere else (Slick 2002:221–

222).

The popularity of heritage tourism locations has resulted in plenty of examples to draw from when developing a program; unfortunately, each of these destinations will also be in competition with Pensacola. The success of a new program relies upon the city’s ability to stand out and, this is not done through the shops and hotels alone. Pensacola has an advantage over many of these other destinations in that it has a unique, long, and complex history, but these advantages can easily become an Achilles heel without careful planning.

Consider poor lecturers or presenters you may have experienced; why were they boring or confusing? There are a number of reasons they could have been ineffective. Perhaps they had boring slides, a monotone voice, they did not explain complicated ideas thoroughly, or maybe they just never told you why you should care about what they were saying. A heritage tourism

destination and a presentation operate at different scales, but they are, in their mechanics, the same. If, for example, the signage is drab, unclear, or irrelevant to the audience, then most visitors will not participate and the program will founder.

Simply deciding to discuss a particular topic without the necessary thought and planning will result in a sterile interpretation that few people will visit and even fewer will remember. An effective interpretation is one that provokes thought in the audience within a particular “zone of tolerance” which describes how much variation in thought is acceptable to the interpreter (more flexibility is generally advisable) (Ham 2013:149–171). A single interpretation with the goal of provoking thought as criteria for success is already challenging; developing an effective interpretive program (a collection of individual interpretations) is an even more uncertain prospect. A good program requires careful thought about how all of the pieces work together

(especially in an area with history as complicated as downtown Pensacola), consideration of what is being communicated, and what, ultimately, makes a visitor want to participate (Ham

2013:69–78,149–172).

This chapter first lays out some of the underlying principles of interpretation, the model used throughout this thesis, followed by a discussion of why involving stakeholders in the process is important. Next, I present a two-part model which illustrates the initial Planning Phase and some important considerations to take into account during the Design Phase. The purpose of this chapter is to discuss these fundamental ideas and why they matter; I discuss how this model might apply to an interpretive program in Chapter 5.

Though the goal of this thesis is to lay the groundwork for an interpretive plan for downtown Pensacola’s heritage resources, this information has much broader applications. Aside from some specifics relating to Pensacola’s past, all of the information in this chapter can easily

apply to another community, and despite the broad-scale perspective applied here, it can also pertain to smaller-scale programs such as a heritage trail or museum exhibit. This is not to say that this template is the final word in interpretive planning, but a systematic model that integrates sound interpretive practices with the area’s unique heritage and a community’s specific needs is necessary to ensure the best use of the resources available.

The Basic Principles

Before discussing the model, some of the theory this research relies upon is important to define. In many respects, all modern heritage interpretation takes its roots from Freeman Tilden’s

(2007) work Interpreting our Heritage (first published in 1957) and his six principles of interpretation. These principles are as follows:

1. Any interpretation that does not somehow relate what is being displayed or described to

something within the personality or experience of the visitor will be sterile.

2. Information, as such, is not interpretation. Interpretation is revelation based upon

information. But they are entirely different things. However, all interpretation includes

information.

3. Interpretation is an art, which combines many arts, whether the materials presented are

scientific, historical, or architectural. Any art is in some degree teachable.

4. The chief aim of interpretation is not instruction but provocation.

5. Interpretation should aim to present a whole rather than a part and must address itself to

the whole [person] rather than any phase.

6. Interpretation addressed to children (say, up to the age of twelve) should not be a dilution

of the presentation to adults but should follow a fundamentally different approach. To be

at its best it will require a separate program.

This list is the core of the theoretical framework for this thesis, and any interpretive program should take care not to conflict with these principles to ensure its effectiveness.

However, despite careful reading, the fifth principle appears to be a conglomeration of principles one and four so I shall not reference the fifth principle specifically. To avoid confusion the sixth principle is still referred to as number six, rather than renumber the list.

Instead of considering each of these principles in detail at this point, which Tilden has already done exceptionally well, this thesis expands upon each as they apply to the model presented later in this chapter. This approach will help to demonstrate how integral to the entire process these principles are and will show that their inclusion is not simply lip service.

The TORE Model

Tilden clearly defined the goal of interpretation as provoking thought in the audience

(Principle 4) and provides some associated guidelines. However, a more systematic approach described by Ham (2013) takes steps towards ensuring we accomplish this goal, and this thesis relies heavily upon Ham’s TORE model of interpretive communication as well. This model tells us that to achieve a thought-provoking interpretation it must be (T)hematic, well (O)rganized,

(R)elevant to the audience, and (E)njoyable (Ham 2013:14–17).

While this model applies to every kind of interpretive communication, concerns particular to heritage interpretation do not necessarily apply to other fields. Also, Ham’s model is designed for smaller-scale interpretations, rather than for a program for a whole city, and while

still an incredibly valuable tool, it is lacking in a few specifics required for this purpose. This section discusses each element in brief and, as with Tilden’s principles, details are covered as they become relevant.

Ham’s model was originally proposed in 1983 as the EROT1 model, which he has recently reorganized into the TORE model because he feels the themes should be more front and center (which I agree) (Ham 1983, 2013:14–17). The “T” naturally stands for thematic and the rest of the interpretation rides fully upon executing this concept effectively. The theme is far more than a simple topic, and it provides a number of benefits to the development, execution, and effectiveness of an interpretation (Ham 2013:20–26).

These themes are the only part that is sequentially important; the ORE of the model comes more as a package and, to some degree, results from a well-constructed theme. With a noncaptive audience, making an interpretation as well-organized and easy to follow as possible is critical. Similarly, a relevant (Tilden’s first principle) and enjoyable (but not necessarily fun) interpretation are both essential to ensure that the visitor can, and is willing to, continue participating. Any interpretation that ensures each of these parts are implemented properly will succeed in provoking thought in the audience (Ham 2013:19–52).

Stakeholders

Before describing the model this thesis uses, asserting the importance of including stakeholders in a project’s creation is vital. For this thesis, I shall define “stakeholders” as any group (cultural, economic, etc.) who might have an interest in what the program presents and how it is presented. Properly involving the stakeholders for a heritage tourism project comprises a great deal more than asking a few individuals for input and getting the approval of the people

1 The parts to this acronym are the same as the TORE model, simply in reverse order. 24

and businesses directly affected. For several reasons, we must consider who the stakeholders are and begin including them very early in the development process.

One of the primary reasons to include all stakeholders is that community support is critical to both the short and long-term success of a heritage tourism program. Not only is the stakeholders’ good will necessary for getting such a venture off the ground (especially if funding comes from the local government), but remember that these are the people who will be employed by the project (Slick 2002:224). Imagine the difficulty of enacting a program which meets resistance throughout its creation and faces a resentful community once it is completed. There is a very real benefit to having a community that is happy with the results, and involving stakeholders in the planning process can provide a sense of ownership with the program that goes a long way towards gaining their support.

Another reason stakeholders should be involved is for the potential benefit to the city as a community. Interpreters have observed that collaborative interpretations can strengthen a community, address racial tension, and empower groups that feel powerless to take part (Little and Shackel 2014). This does not mean that all perspectives of these stakeholder groups must be included unaltered, especially if they are incorrect or potentially harmful to community cohesion

(i.e., racist) (Little and Shackel 2014:40–45). For further discussion on coping with community myths, please see “Myths” in the “Design Phase” section below.

Due to a potential to damage rather than improve relationships, the program must also remain as politically neutral as possible. Presenting an interpretation with a political agenda can ruin the credibility of the program with both the visitor and the community, and can deteriorate relationships with and between stakeholder groups involved if the program is seen as taking sides on an issue. The focus should not be on what is right; rather, it should be on presenting various

perspectives and then demonstrating why these points of view exist without ascribing to one in particular. In this way stakeholder groups and visitors have the opportunity to understand these perspectives, even if they do not agree with them.

Aside from the benefits to the community, the inclusion of multiple perspectives in an interpretation results in a more engaging and robust interpretation overall. As Little and Shackel

(2014:110) state, “No story is complete with just one perspective.” However, the more perspectives that are included in a single interpretation, the more likely that interpretation is to confuse visitors. So, while multiple points of view are excellent, if practical reasons limit the space, time, or funding available, designing the interpretation carefully or limiting the number of viewpoints included is important.

Incorporating multiple perspectives also has the potential to improve the effectiveness of the interpretation itself. If the measure of a successful interpretation is whether or not it provoked thought (Tilden’s fourth principle), then there are few better ways to accomplish this than by presenting the audience with a point of view that they had previously not considered. For example, visitors from areas other than the South have reactions to the “War of Northern

Aggression” perspective varying from incredulous to dismissive. However, if an interpretation were to explain that this point of view exists because of the long, bitter history surrounding the

Civil War and the subsequent aggressive intrusion on the Southern way of life, then visitors will leave understanding that this outlook is more than simple petulance on the part of Southerners.

Now, every time the visitor hears about the war, or the assertion that it was only about states’ rights, there is a chance that they will remember what they learned from the interpretation.

Including stakeholders, and doing so correctly, in the development of a heritage tourism program has a tangible impact on the effectiveness of the interpretation and the community as a

whole. Specifically, how to properly involve the stakeholders and integrate these varying perspectives and conflicting goals must be considered on a case-by-case basis. However, the time to begin reaching out to these groups is immediately after the global theme is selected (see

Planning Phase below). Stakeholder involvement must continue throughout the process. For the best results program developers should not decide what to interpret and then try to incorporate the stakeholder’s concerns into an existing plan; having an understanding of what matters to these groups before planners begin developing a program is critical.

The Model

The model presented here draws heavily upon the TORE approach introduced by Ham

(2013), but with some additions due to the focus on heritage tourism and the scale of the interpretation involved. In Ham’s model, the theme is the first step of a single procedure; however, due to the logistics of program development, I have split the theme from the ORE into what I will call the Planning Phase. This phase operates on the broad scale and, like theme creation, lays the necessary foundations for developing a program.

Once the Planning Phase is complete, development then moves into what I shall refer to as the Design Phase. This is where the ORE is applied and other specifics are decided such as the exact locations for signage, what they will look like, and what they will present. The fine details of this phase are beyond the scope of this thesis, though general observations are made involving relevant subjects such as how to find a balance between an entertaining interpretation and a fastidiously accurate one as well as the pros and cons of some common methods of interpretation. The Design Phase will benefit most from the inclusion of interpretive professionals; while Tilden’s assertion in his third principle that anyone can learn the art of

interpretation is correct, it remains true that a project benefits from experience (Tilden

2007:35,53–58).

While the Design Phase is likely to be the largest time investment, neither phase is effective on its own. Without the organization provided by the Planning Phase, the interpretation will result in an incomprehensible mess. Likewise, without proper design, the interpretations will be visually unappealing, uninteresting, or use inappropriate interpretive techniques to the detriment of the program. The following sections lay out the groundwork for these phases.

The Planning Phase

The Planning Phase involves the creation of the preliminary work for the rest of the program. Without these first steps to help organize the interpretation a program will be unstable, disjointed, or ineffective (Ham 2013:20–26). This phase has two primary components: the topics and the themes. Each component must be well defined before proceeding to the Design Phase.

Topics are relatively simple to work with and are exactly what they sound like: the subject under discussion. When asking people what they want an interpretation to cover, most answers given are in topic form. Subjects like “the wharf” and “the Civil War” are topics, and while necessary for the development of the themes, they do not make a good interpretation on their own (Ham 2013:20).

Though the measure of success for an interpretation is whether or not it provoked thought, the ultimate goal for an interpreter is education, which is not the same as instruction

(Ham 2013:11–14; Hughes et al. 2013:65–68). Instruction is what we often see in the classroom; it is built around a topic alone (i.e., Spanish missions) and its goal is to have the audience retain as many facts as possible. Education, on the other hand, focuses more on ensuring the audience understands the concepts involved (i.e., the effect Spanish missions had on Native American

groups), rather than on the details surrounding those concepts. Unlike a classroom, a heritage tourism program rarely has a captive audience and should take care to remember the amount of energy visitors are willing to expend is finite (Ham 2013:11–14). This iterates why the Planning

Phase cannot stop with the topics since that will invariably result in instruction, which is actually not interpretation (Tilden’s second principle), and is tedious to all but the most enthusiastic history buffs (Ham 2013:20–21).

Provoking thought in the audience is critical to achieving the goal of education. After all, what better way to make certain the idea you want to communicate (the theme), and at least some of its supporting information, are remembered than to have the visitor actively think about it

(rather than receive it passively) (Tilden 2007:35,57–59; Ham 2013:60–65; Hughes et al.

2013:86)? To this end, Tilden challenges interpreters to present their audience with a “disturbing idea,” though this sounds a little dramatic and has implications that he probably did not intend

(Tilden 2007:128). The “disorienting dilemma” suggested by Hughes et al. (2013:86) better describes what a good interpretation needs. The visitor does not have to feel uncomfortable with the topic matter; indeed, while sometimes a valuable approach, this should be done only with extreme caution. However, “disorienting” implies that the interpretation has disrupted the visitor’s understanding of a particular topic and provided them an opportunity to understand a new perspective. What better way to provoke thought?

A theme is a “single whole idea” that answers the question “So what?” and defines what the interpreter wants the visitor to walk away thinking about (Ham 2013:20–21,23–25). Creating a good theme with a disorienting dilemma is more difficult than listing topics, but defining the theme both makes the Design Phase easier and goes a long way towards ensuring the interpretation is more than tedious instruction or insubstantial fun (Tilden 2007:35,59–67; Ham

2013; Hughes et al. 2013). The TORE model supports this observation by intentionally placing the theme as the first step of the process (Ham 2013:16–17). Furthermore, we may be tempted to start on content creation before a theme is finished, but creating a theme first saves a lot of headaches since a good theme tells us what information to include and, more importantly, when we are done (Ham 2013:25–26). This is especially important since communicating a theme as efficiently as possible is critical to areas as crowded with potential topics as we often see in cities.

For example, any interpretation of downtown Pensacola will almost certainly include topics relating to the forts, but “the forts” is a very large topic (and structure) and the downtown area could easily be filled with bits of information on this topic alone. To create a theme from this topic we need to ask ourselves what we want the visitor to be thinking about as they walk away from the interpretation. If we want them to understand that life in Pensacola revolved around these structures we might create a theme that states, “Though these forts never saw battle, they were critical for the residents’ fight for survival,” or, perhaps, “Lacking enough help from their governments, weather and disease were the true enemies of the colony.”

A nearly infinite number of themes could be developed from a topic like this. Themes that use the topic to discuss a much larger concept, such as, “Old buildings, like these forts, are more organic in nature and were constantly changing, expanding, and under repair throughout their life,” still must discuss the topic to some degree (William Lees 2013, pers. comm.). While all of these themes need more work before they are ready to use, we can see that including only the information necessary to make the point enables a much more focused and organized interpretation (Ham 2013:20–25).

We have established that a theme is much more than a topic, but a couple additional pitfalls must be avoided. First, a theme is not a command; it is the sharing of an idea

(“Archaeological sites are precious resources”) and does not make demands of the audience

(“We must protect archaeological sites”). Second, a theme is not a question; it is the answer to the question (“Why are archaeological sites important?” versus, “Archaeological sites are important because they can tell us about people that historic documents cannot”). Interpreters tend to think in questions as they are a valuable means for engaging audiences and are excellent ways of developing a theme, but questions are not the theme itself (Ham 2013:140–143).

For a program as large as this, a single theme is not sufficient for the study area.

However, at this point a planner will not know precisely how many themes are needed, how much time or space is available for presenting them, and how they will interact with each other.

On the other hand, the program cannot proceed into the Design Phase until it has themes to develop an interpretation around. The best solution is to create far more themes than will ever fit within the study area with the understanding that many will be discarded or adjusted to meet the needs of the program.

A problem with using multiple themes is that too many independent themes in an area as compact and complicated as Pensacola will result in confusion. A variant upon the nested- package format is useful here as it adopts a single global theme to provide a common thread the rest of the themes can tie into (Ham 2013:197). When discussing this method of organizing themes, Ham recommends limiting the number of themes under a global theme to four as this is the maximum number of complex ideas a visitor can reliably process at one time (Ham 2013:28–

31,197).

While this is generally good advice, the four theme restriction really only applies to smaller-scale interpretations that will be experienced in less than a day (such as a presentation or an exhibit), and this rule is far too limiting for a study area like downtown Pensacola. Instead, a heritage program this size will easily produce more themes than a visitor can experience in a single day, so individual themes should be designed through spatial orientation so that visitors will tend to experience four or fewer themes per day. If they decide they want to experience more than four then they can. The section on sequential versus nonsequential interpretations below further explores this option.

The role of the global theme is primarily organizational, and it exists to tie the rest of the themes together in a more cohesive whole. This both makes the program easier to organize and improves the relevance of the individual interpretations (Ham 2013:31–42). The latter effect is a result of making connections to past and personal experiences which are excellent ways to make an interpretation more relevant to the audience. Finding ways to connect what would otherwise be isolated interpretations in the minds of the visitors (such as with a global theme) goes a long way towards creating a successful program.

When designing an interpretation, directly stating a theme to an audience is not always necessary, though doing so tends to ensure that thoughts provoked by the interpretation are much closer to the theme (Ham 2013:190–192). While not guaranteed, visitors have an opportunity to understand a theme even if they do not conceptualize it. In our program, we have the option to forego stating the global theme directly, and it still fulfills its primary purpose of organizing the rest of the themes. However, without articulating it, we cannot be certain that the audience will be aware of the global theme if we decide this is important.

The rest of the themes operate as they would in any other interpretation so long as they tie into the global theme somehow. Generally speaking, these should be stated somewhere in the interpretation built around them as these are the ideas we want visitors to take away. The nested- package strategy can also be used in these themes as well by creating another layer of themes I will refer to as subthemes. However, treat this approach with caution as too many layers of themes make proper organization increasingly difficult and may result in a confusing program, reducing both the chance that visitors will participate long enough to grasp the theme as well as overall satisfaction.

Last, but certainly not least, including stakeholders after a global theme is selected but before the topics and themes are discussed is critical. Though having a global theme already prepared removes some of the authority stakeholders should have over a program, approaching a group of people and asking them what they want an interpretive program to include will typically result in numerous unrealistic ideas and upset individuals and groups whose ideas are not included (Della Scott-Ireton 2014, pers. comm.). Instead, presenting the global theme is a reasonable compromise as this provides some direction but is still fairly open-ended for input from the stakeholders.

By the end of the Planning Phase the committee has selected a global theme which serves as a reference point for the rest of the program. The plan also includes a list of themes derived from topics provided by various stakeholders which will help to guide the development of effective and well-organized interpretations. Once all of these pieces are assembled, the program can move on to the Design Phase which gets into the details of how exactly the themes are interpreted.

The Design Phase

As stated earlier, the full implementation of this phase is well beyond the scope of this thesis. Rather than focus on how exactly to design a sign, for example, the emphasis here is on providing general, but useful, concepts and techniques and on detailing a few challenges that will arise. Specifically, this section focuses on the ORE (organized, relevant, enjoyable) portion of the TORE model; a program that executes these elements well is likely to be successful (Ham

2013). When Tilden (2007:34–35) wrote his six principles he was working more on the level of an individual interpretation, so all of his principles (or at least the five used in this thesis) are represented in this phase.

The ORE of TORE

At this point we have a set of themes, including a global theme, so we have a general idea of what we want to talk about. The remaining parts of the model are less about a specific procedure and more about checks to ensure that an interpretation is effective. Generally speaking, this is based upon a concept introduced in the Planning Phase section involving captive versus noncaptive audiences. In this situation, our audience is most definitely noncaptive as they are participating, or not, entirely of their own free will (as opposed to students “captive” in a classroom). So how do we hold the attention of, and provoke thought in, our audience? The concept is actually quite simple; the potential reward for following the interpretation must outweigh the effort that is asked of the audience (Ham 2013:26–27).

A well-organized interpretation makes following the presented information easier, thus reducing the effort required for the audience to participate. Too much unrelated information is difficult to follow, and an interpretation can lose an audience in a matter of seconds if they are overwhelmed with ideas that do not appear to connect to each other (Ham 2013:26). This is

where the four theme rule also comes into play as studies have shown that people can only reliably process four big ideas at a time. Any theme beyond four increases the effort it takes to follow an interpretation and, as a result, risks losing an audience (Ham 2013:28–30).

As Tilden’s first principle also states, any interpretation that can make the information it presents to the visitor relevant also improves its chance of success (Tilden 2007; Ham 2013).

Ham (2013:31–35) defines a relevant interpretation as one that is both meaningful (provides context to the visitor) and personal (provides something in which they take a personal interest).

Giving a visitor context for the information being presented is excellent practice, and all interpretations should make clear why the information is important. As was discussed earlier, both questions of organization and relevance are the motivation for using a global theme in the interpretation.

Making an interpretation personal, however, can be more challenging. How do you, after all, make a world completely alien to a person’s experiences personally relevant given the expected diversity of the audience itself? One way to bridge this gap is to include universal concepts such as birth, death, shelter, or joy. This is a relatively simple and straightforward method as anybody can relate to a universal concept (Ham 2013:34–39).

Another method, called self-referencing, puts the audience into the interpretation by asking them to think about their lives or to imagine themselves in a particular situation. This is a great way to make the audience feel connected to a topic to which they may not have an obvious connection (Ham 2013:39–41; Hughes et al. 2013:82). The last method is called “labeling” and requires us to make some assumptions about our audience, such as “people from the South want to hear about the Civil War” or “reenactors want to hear about the battle.” Even if a label like

“people from the South” excludes people from other parts of the world it still encourages them to think of the interpretation in context to themselves (Ham 2013:41–42).

Finally, a good interpretation must be enjoyable. This does not mean that interpreters are restricted only to “fun” topics (more on this in the section below) since interpretations can cover some topics that are not fun but are still enjoyable experiences. People, after all, enjoy the blues, an entire genre of music built around difficult times and the darker side of human nature; interpretations can successfully focus on similar topics. A number of different techniques can make an interpretation more enjoyable, from using active verbs and employing similes, to anthropomorphizing an object (these methods also improve the relevance of the interpretation)

(Ham 2013:46–48; Hughes et al. 2013:82). What works or is appropriate will vary depending upon the medium and the audience, but we must be aware of this aspect of our model to ensure success (Ham 2013:42–48).

TORE and Accuracy

Many professionals and enthusiasts of archaeology and history (and any discipline really) have difficulty understanding that every minute detail of a favorite subject is not, in itself, interesting. This shortcoming usually results in instruction instead of interpretation. A good interpretation is one that remembers the ultimate goal, education through provoking thought, and accomplishes this through the theme supported by the rest of the TORE model.2 However, the concept of reducing the amount of information in an interpretation is potentially difficult (or alarming) enough that it warrants further discussion.

Hughes et al. (2013) discuss the relationship between education and entertainment and how these can be applied to heritage programs. The words “entertainment” and “enjoyable” in

2 Ham (2013:16) describes ORE (lacking a theme) as “infotainment” which, while enjoyable, is vapid and fails to provoke thought in the audience. 36

this scenario are interchangeable and relate to the ability of the interpretation to both hold an audience’s attention and enable the audience to remember the experience fondly. They do not strictly mean “fun” (Ham 2013:43).

One of the more fascinating concepts presented by Hughes et al. (2013) involves the value of perceived authenticity in relation to visitor satisfaction. In short, they reference a number of studies which have suggested that visitors are more interested in feeling like they have had an authentic experience than they are with the actual accuracy of the interpretation

(discussed in the section below). Assuming the theme is the primary motivator for the interpretation, this understanding of visitor motivation allows for an improved experience.

Deemphasizing the details has interesting implications for interpretation in Pensacola.

Since much of the city’s history is not visible and is built on top of previous periods, a perfectly accurate and comprehensible interpretation is nearly impossible. Yet, how much accuracy is necessary? The short answer is: Only as much as is needed to ensure the interpretation provokes thought along the desired lines.

While we are inclined to recoil from inaccuracies, we need to look past a preoccupation with details and ask if the level of accuracy supports the theme or disrupts it. This does not mean that Pensacola should have simulated pirate raids; as Slick (2002:223) states, “…entertainment does not need to mean fiction.” Hughes et al. (2013:89–90) agree with this point and add that it is important to avoid entertainment at the expense of the theme, but an interpretation should be prepared to let go of details when necessary. Essentially, we should not change the information to fit the theme as we do not want to teach a concept based upon false facts, but rather be willing to remove or adjust circumferential information to allow the interpretation to communicate the theme.

To help illustrate, a friend once told me about an exhibit he visited discussing an excavation of a well. Part of this exhibit included a three-ring binder listing the huge number of shoes found in the well, ending with a cow carcass. His question to me was, “Why the hell are archaeologists so interested in shoes that the presence of a cow carcass was an afterthought?” I would like to note that, even though he had no investment in the topic other than his time, he was quite aggravated with what he saw as a poorly designed exhibit. Imagine how damaging a negative reaction could be when the visitor has any sort of emotional investment in the interpretation.

My friend was quite right that the interpretation was not well designed, though not necessarily for the reason he thought. The fastidious approach to including details resulted in an exhibit that was not interpreting its theme (if it had one) to the audience; it was instructing them with lists of recovered objects, and as we have seen, this is generally ineffective with a noncaptive audience. In fact, with his description of the exhibit, I am surprised that he stuck with it as long as he did; few have the patience for an interpretation where the effort versus reward is as unbalanced as this one was (Ham 2013:8–14,26).

Where exactly did the exhibit designer go wrong though? The designer’s focus on the data made the importance of the shoes both incomprehensible and boring. The presence of the cow carcass is an entertaining fact that visitors apparently find interesting; however, if it detracts from the theme then some accuracy should be sacrificed and this fact excluded. For example, if the theme related to the protests of workers in a shoe factory, and the carcass was deposited much later, then this fact does not belong in the interpretation. However, if the exhibit’s theme involved the strange things people throw down wells then the cow carcass supports this subject nicely.

Remember, while exclusively authentic-feeling interpretations may be fondly recalled, that memory will be vapid compared to a memory of an interpretation that encouraged the visitor to think in new ways (Tilden’s fourth principle). This is critical not only for us as interpreters but for tourism from a business perspective as well. Have you ever seen someone so excited by something they experienced or learned that they were positively bursting to share it? A heritage tourism program that can inspire that level of enthusiasm will stand out from the rest.

Perceived Authenticity

Perceived authenticity suggests more than just the idea that our meticulous attention to detail can hurt an interpretation; an authentic-feeling experience implies a sense of immersion that goes beyond simply including the typically necessary signage. An excellent way to achieve this effect is by the inclusion of multiple senses (taste, touch, sight, sound, smell) in the interpretation (Blockley 2004:183; Noble 2004:284; Hughes et al. 2013:81). However, using every sense is not always appropriate depending upon the topic under discussion (the red light district comes to mind as a rather dramatic illustration) or because a fastidiously accurate presentation can mislead or distract the visitor. For example, streets in the past were often filthy and foul smelling to modern senses but may have been hardly noticeable to people from that period; an accurate presentation of the smells may divert the audience’s attention from the theme

(Burcaw 1983:162).3

A few methods commonly used in the interpretation of heritage sites make use of multiple senses, such as reconstructions or living history reenactors and other interactive exhibits, though these, too, need careful consideration before being implemented. Each of these methods has their costs, both financial and otherwise, and may not be appropriate in every

3 Though in this context the author cited was cautioning against deceiving the audience with a “sanitized” past. 39

situation or program. Both living history and reconstructions are discussed in their respective sections below.

Sequential versus Nonsequential Interpretations

We must take care to note the distinction between sequential and nonsequential interpretations as they are very disparate interpretive circumstances. Sequential interpretations are situations where the interpreter controls the order and pacing of the information presented to the visitor (i.e., presentations or tours). This allows the interpreter to offer more complicated ideas without substantially increasing the effort required to follow along. While a heritage tourism program for Pensacola can make use of some sequential interpretations, this requires personnel to be on hand to lead the audience (Ham 2013:173–206). As a result, most interpretation in Pensacola will be nonsequential.

Nonsequential interpretation applies to a situation where the interpreter cannot control the order and pacing of the information that a visitor receives (i.e., a museum exhibit or heritage trail). From an interpretive point of view, creating a thought-provoking and thematic interpretation is much more challenging in this situation and requires a few different techniques from those used for sequential interpretations to ensure its effectiveness (Ham 2013:205–218).

Though you can certainly guide people in the proper order of signs for an exhibit, this will not stop part of your audience from breezing past some or all of them. Once again, to improve the chances of provoking the thoughts we are hoping for, we need to ensure that the effort required by the interpretation does not outweigh the potential reward of participation (Ham

2013:1–14). Any number of resources provide details for how to use fonts, text size, text quantity, images, colors, and general organization, to make following the interpretation as easy as possible for a visitor. The specifics in this case are beyond this thesis, though I recommend

Interpretation by Design: Graphic Design Basics for Heritage Interpreters by Caputo et al.

(2008) and Wayside Exhibits: Connecting People and Places third edition by Gross et al. (2006) as excellent guides on the subject.

However, the most visually pleasing sign will still only receive a glance from a significant portion of our audience. Instead of writing off this segment of the audience as a lost cause, the challenge then becomes how to develop an effective interpretation that provokes thought even in these individuals (Ham 2013:206–209). In his book, Ham (2013:211–214) suggests a technique that uses the combination of a thematic title (as opposed to a topical title) and an image to provoke the desired thoughts at a glance (Figure 5). This technique, when

FIGURE 5. An example of a topical title (left) and a thematic title (right) (Melvan Tibbetts Collection [1862- 1864], modified by Tristan Harrenstein, 2015).

properly implemented, improves the chance that the visitor will spend more time with the interpretation, as they already understand the theme and the reward for doing so. Even if they do not spend more time, the goal of provoking thought can be achieved in this way.

Reconstructions

When faced with the task of interpreting a structure that has no, or few, physical remains we are often inclined to create something visible and reconstructed buildings appear to be the natural solution. After all, reconstructions provide an opportunity for an interpretation to improve the sense of authenticity by allowing a visitor to touch the structure, see it in three dimensions, and, with some creativity and caution, sound and smell can be utilized as well. We must remember Tilden’s principles, as reconstructions do not automatically equate success since simply showing visitors the building is not interpretation (Brown and Chappell 2004:60).

However, their popularity is undeniable, and some of our best-known sites make liberal use of reconstructions resulting in plenty of excellent examples, such as Colonial Williamsburg, to draw from (Killebrew 2004).

With good reason, Colonial Williamsburg is often used as a model for other developing programs (Bograd and Singleton 1997:194; Blockley 2004:181; Mackintosh 2004:68). It was innovative in many ways as its designers utilized historical archaeology to inform its reconstructions, and did so before that particular branch of archaeology and heritage tourism were disciplines ( Jameson 2004:4; Lees 2014:151). Since its creation, Colonial Williamsburg has easily become one of the most well-known interpretive programs in the United States, and many bourgeoning programs strive to emulate its success (Bograd and Singleton 1997:194).

Many interpreters today have an issue with the accuracy of reconstructions as even the most well-documented building will require some guesswork and compromises to meet today’s

standards (Jameson 2004:2–3). Nevertheless, as is established above, perfect accuracy is far less critical than communicating the theme and providing a sense of perceived authenticity, though information from the historic and archaeological records should still be applied to the reconstructions as much as possible (Noble 2004:285).

The importance of the archaeological record in this case cannot be understated as this is a large factor in Colonial Williamsburg’s success and, more critically, because reconstructing a structure often irreparably damages the archaeological remains. If a reconstruction destroys the remains of the building it means to interpret then the information embedded therein is lost forever. Despite the importance of investigating archaeological remains before construction begins, we need to remember that the interpretation must remain a priority over the fastidious application of the information gained by excavation (Brown and Chappell 2004:60).

However, reconstructions are not appropriate in all situations; for one thing, they are often prohibitively expensive to build and to maintain and, for another, they can severely restrict the topics being interpreted (Distretti and Kuttruff 2004:173; Fry 2004:212; Jameson 2004:1;

Killebrew 2004:140–141; Wheaton 2004:231; White 2004). If post-bellum Pensacola was selected for reconstruction on a scale similar to Colonial Williamsburg this would not only result in the destruction of historic buildings relevant to other periods but it would also make discussing Pensacola at any other point in time difficult, if not impossible. We should also be aware that a reconstruction will have an impact on the viewshed of the area and consider how it might positively or negatively affect other nearby resources.

This is not to say that reconstructions have no place in Pensacola, simply that they require careful planning and a little creativity. For example, to cope with the interpretation of an archaeological site located under a modern plaza, Baugher and Wall (1997:114–124) represented

the foundations of a historic building with colored tiles and a below-ground exhibit showcasing the archaeological remains of the building visible through Plexiglas. These alternative methods were not without their own challenges, but still demonstrate how a creative interpretation can overcome particular obstacles.

Living History

Similar to reconstructions, some interpreters view living history as the epitome of interpretation. Like reconstructions, living history can be very effective, but only in particular situations, with careful planning, and with considerable extra expense (Roth 1998). Despite their drawbacks, both living history and reconstructions attempt to simulate some aspect of the past to make it more concrete for the visitor and have the potential to draw the audience into the subject and make it more real, and thus relevant.

There are two primary types of living history: first-person and third-person (Roth

1998:11). The latter type is the simplest and most commonly used, and usually it involves an interpreter in period appropriate clothing describing what they are doing (Roth 1998:11–13). The interpreter must be reasonably knowledgeable about their subject and time period, but this requires little to no extra training beyond what any other tour guide or on-site interpreter receives.

First-person interpretations, on the other hand, are another matter as this approach requires the interpreter to take on the persona of an individual in the past in some way (Roth

1998:13). The ultimate goal of such an interpretation is, similar to reconstructions, to make the people in the past feel more real to the visitor. First person living history has the potential to dramatically improve the relevance of an interpretive program.

Unfortunately, creating a successful first-person interpretation is difficult as, if executed poorly, it can decrease relevance and make the visitors uncomfortable. This means that the interpreter must have a working knowledge of a variety of subjects, possess the ability to interact with the audience in a largely impromptu setting, and still be able to convey the theme.4

However, like a poor performance taking the viewer out of a movie, a poorly executed first- person performance can sour the audience towards the program. This approach requires a high degree of professionalism and training on the part of the interpreter and results in a more expensive program to implement and maintain (Roth 1998:24–25).

Another concern with first-person interpretations is that it can feel like it deceives the audience. The performance feels real; therefore visitors are inclined to accept what is presented as fact, where in actuality the interpreter must fill in the gaps in what is known so they can present a complete character. This, once again, touches on questions of perceived authenticity versus a meticulous concern with details and, like before, our priority should be to communicate the theme effectively.

Living history, and first-person interpretations in particular, are high-risk high-reward strategies. Done properly, they can provide an experience (and theme) that the visitor will never forget; alternatively, without proper planning it risks being exceptionally forgettable or causing discomfort in the audience. Anything that jolts the visitor out of a first-person performance, such as encountering a car, skyscraper, or interpreter on their cell phone, reduces its effectiveness.

This method should only be used with caution in a situation like Pensacola’s.

4 Remember, an interpretation without a theme is merely infotainment. 45

Technology

Technology has great potential for presenting the past in creative ways, and any interpretive program today is almost certain to include it to some degree. Despite the enthusiasm about how a new innovation can improve the way we interpret, how we interpret, and who we can reach, devices are not the best option in all situations or applications. Once again, Freeman

Tilden (2007:133–137) offers some valuable observations on the subject:

1. No device of any kind we consider here is, other things being equal, as desirable as

interpretation by direct contact with [a] person.

2. A good [use of a] device is better than no contact at all.

3. A good result by [a] device is better than a poor performance by an individual.

4. A poor interpretation by mechanical means is worse than a poor performance by an

individual.

5. A poor interpretation by mechanical means is not necessarily better than none at all; it

may be worse than none at all, for you may add the same insult to injury as when one

imposes upon another person a time wasting telephone call.

6. No institution should install any mechanical device until it knows that such devices can

be adequately, continually, and quickly serviced. No matter how good they may be when

working properly, they are a source of shame and chagrin, as well as an imposition on the

public, when they are allowed to be more than briefly inoperative.

Though Tilden made these remarks more than 50 years ago, every observation is perfectly relevant to the use of technology in interpretation today. A good personal interaction is still preferable to any interpretation through technological means. However, having an employee

always on hand is impractical for most programs and, when necessary, technology can be a good alternative.

Tilden’s sixth observation really applies to every aspect of an interpretive program, not just the technology. Somebody must be responsible for maintaining the signs, exhibits, etc. As

Baugher and Wall (1997:121–122) observed, any exhibit which is not easy to maintain and is allowed to fall into disrepair is, at the very best, impotent. This can easily disgruntle the individual and color their view of the rest of the program.

Tilden was naturally thinking of the automation available to interpreters in his day. With so many other options today, here is one additional observation:

7. The use of any technology which potentially excludes an audience of a particular

economic class, ethnicity, or age group (i.e., smartphones) should not be relied upon to

provide an interpretation which cannot be experienced in some other way (McDavid

2004:178).

This is a problem many museums have already had to cope with. The use of QR (Quick

Response) codes are an excellent example of this dilemma (Michael Thomin 2013, pers. comm.).

QR codes provide museums with a cheap and easy way to expand their exhibits by linking to additional content when scanned with a mobile device. However, museums must limit the QR code content to supplementary information only. If their exhibit relies too heavily upon these codes then anyone without a mobile device capable of scanning them is excluded. Any interpretive program using technology which risks this must either limit its use to supplementary information or find a different means of providing the necessary technology (i.e., loaning out devices).

Peripheral Sites

Historically, as today, no human settlement existed completely in isolation. Even when it was a remote colony, Pensacola relied upon French Mobile for supplies and disaster relief

(Leonard 1974:11,17,20–21; Coker 1999:11). In a similar vein, very few locations have the potential to be a heritage tourism destination on their own and most work in partnership with nearby sites. Downtown Pensacola has enough history that it could be a destination on its own, but incorporating sites outside of the study area can still only strengthen the program (Slick

2002:221; Pinter 2013).

Santa Rosa Island and the Naval Air Station Pensacola are two prominent locations that should be integrated into a program as they are close, all centered around Pensacola Bay, and experienced a lot of activity that is directly relevant to the city throughout its history (Coker

1999). However, historic sites and programs in other nearby communities are also important to include as much as possible (such as the Arcadia Mill Archaeological Site in Milton, Florida, and the Alger-Sullivan Historic Society Museum in Century, Florida). Not only is increased publicity a boon to often overlooked locations, but additional attractions make Pensacola’s program more robust as well since these programs have their own unique heritage resources that can help attract a broader audience (Slick 2002:221).

Myths

One problem historians and archaeologists often run into is when their interpretations contradict local myths and legends (Yamin 1997; Thomas 2002). The source of the problem is that researchers are focused on the facts of a situation, but the community has an emotional investment in the myths, which are part of their identity as a group (Little and Shackel 2014:40–

41). Researchers often do not realize that, while not factual, there is a kind of cultural “truth” in

the myths, and a failure to acknowledge this can turn something that should be a celebration of a community’s past into something that unifies the community against them.

Respecting the community’s myths is important, but this does not mean the facts should be ignored or changed to match the myth. A healthy rapport with the community goes a long way towards coping with this apparent conflict as people will tend to understand that no disrespect is intended and will be more inclined to have a discussion about it. Even if this is not the case, the best approach for an interpreter is to acknowledge the myth, not necessarily that it is accurate, but that it is important.

Acknowledging the myth might happen in the stakeholder meetings or in the interpretation itself, but similar to considering various perspectives, some myths are possibly too harmful to include in a program. For example, if tensions between locals and northern visitors had been perpetuated by a fictional story of Union soldiers burning Pensacola, the interpreter is not obligated to include this. However, just because a myth is unpleasant does not necessarily mean it should be excluded; it could still be useful for a discussion on how community myths have propagated this tension, what truth may lie in the myth, or why it exists at all. Done carefully, this can acknowledge the resentful feelings and improve the relationship between two groups.

Dealing with myths in an interpretation can be very complicated due to the emotions often involved, and they must be addressed as the situation demands. Researchers who failed to acknowledge the power of these stories have encountered a great deal of resistance to their work.

If they had involved stakeholders early in the process they would, at the very least, not have been surprised by the controversy and could have made an effort to work with the community rather than be perceived as an invader (Lipe 2002; Poktylo and Bass 2002; McDavid 2004).

Preservation

The final subject that needs to be addressed is the preservation of the historical and archaeological resources. Since these are the foundations that a heritage tourism program is built upon, implementing ordinances designed to prevent the loss of these resources is in the city’s best interest. Preserving historic buildings is critical, and Pensacola has had organizations actively pursuing this agenda since the 1960s, but archaeological resources are often overlooked and at risk (Brosnaham 2010:28). Pensacola’s Seville Square, for example, has remains of the colonial forts practically at its surface, and every time work is conducted on a new walkway or sprinkler system archaeological resources are damaged forever (Elizabeth Benchley 2012, pers. comm.).

The information gained from archaeological excavation is not only valuable for designing a heritage tourism program; it is an excellent attraction on its own and can be used to inform new, and make updates to existing, interpretations (Potter 1997; Scott 1997; White 2004;

Praetzellis and Praetzellis 2011). This has the effect of showing that not only are we constantly adjusting our understanding of the past, but also gives visitors a very real reason to return to see what has changed from time to time.

Currently, four historic districts are within Pensacola, two of which are partially covered within the study area. In both the Pensacola Historic District and the Palafox Historic Business

District, developers need the approval of the Architectural Review Board before buildings are built, removed, or renovated (University of West Florida Historic Trust and Pensacola

Architectural Review Board [2015]).5 These protections are important because a change to one

5 At the time of writing this thesis, this document was unpublished, but near completion, and it will be publicly available in the fall of 2015. 50

building affects the entire district, and once a structure is removed it is lost forever along with any associated interpretive opportunities.

Archaeological sites, unfortunately, only have the barest of protections. The only legal defense for these resources in the city is an ordinance (Ordinance Number 31-94, § 1, 9-8-94) which provides an optional tax exemption for landowners who take measures to avoid damaging or to enable excavation of the resources before construction and a city council policy which requires archaeological investigation of projects on city-owned property and rights of way

(Estabrook et al. 2007; Pensacola City Council 2011). As no law requires private landowners to protect sites, they are in immediate danger.

Conclusion

This chapter has laid out the primary theoretical sources used in this study and how these pertain to the development of a comprehensive interpretive program that employs Pensacola’s archaeological and historical resources effectively. Tilden’s six principles of interpretation have been a staple for interpreters for decades as they lay out some of the fundamental concepts for developing effective interpretations. Much more recently, Ham’s TORE model makes some excellent additions and enables a more systematic development of successful interpretations.

Both of these sources in particular are the foundation for a significant portion of this model for a city-wide heritage tourism program.

While often overlooked, or underestimated, the inclusion of stakeholders in the development of a program of this scale is as critical as obtaining the necessary funding since stakeholder engagement and successful fundraising are frequently closely related. The good will of the community is valuable to any program, though even more so to one of this size, as losing this cooperation will, and has in the past, resulted in a halt in development (Brosnaham 2010:75–

82). These reasons aside, including local stakeholders in the decision-making process can result in excellent contributions to, and support for, a program.

The Planning Phase involves theme creation and is an important first step that begins with the selection of a global theme, early (but not the final) consultation with stakeholders, and the development of the themes themselves. Themes are the key concept that make an interpretation more than instruction or simply fun; they provide direction for the interpreters themselves. The role of the global theme is to provide a beacon for the rest of the themes to rally around. In this way disparate themes, through time period or topic, are at least tangentially connected to one another, aiding significantly in the organization and relevance of the program as a whole.

Next, with the themes defined we come to the Design Phase which contains the ORE of the TORE model. An organized, relevant, and enjoyable interpretation built from a theme improves the probability that the visitor will participate long enough to provoke thought and ensures they walk away with positive memories of the program. Related to these concepts is the idea that due to an audience’s desire for the perception of authenticity, rather than a fastidious degree of accuracy, we must be prepared to exclude some information when it does not support the theme or hinders the organization, relevance, or enjoyableness of an interpretation.

Reconstructions and living history are two common interpretive strategies that have their benefits and drawbacks. These methods have the potential to draw an audience in and make an interpretation more relevant and enjoyable, but are also prohibitively expensive, can potentially confuse or frustrate visitors, and negatively impact other nearby interpretive resources. Both are often viewed as the ideal method for reaching audiences but must be used with caution in

Pensacola.

Finally, this thesis is restricted to a very narrowly defined downtown Pensacola area as the attention here is on the model employed rather than developing the program itself. However, we must remember that northwest Florida, and Pensacola Bay especially, has a number of existing interpreted cultural sites and museums available for a heritage tourism program to tap into. Also, part of what makes downtown Pensacola such a rich source for heritage tourism is the activity which has resulted in frequent development. This development is part of the city’s tradition and there is no sense curtailing it altogether, but unrestrained it will destroy what archaeological and historical resources remain.

While this study is only a beginning, it provides planners with a framework for an interpretive program that at least has a chance of success. The next chapter further explores the resources available for interpreters, both Pensacola specifically and in general. This is followed up in Chapter 5 with an example that applies these methods and resources to the historic forts in downtown Pensacola.

CHAPTER 4

RESOURCES FOR PENSACOLA AND

INTERPRETIVE PLANNERS

With over 450 years of history, not to mention its rather elusive prehistory, Pensacola has a long and intensely complex past. Furthermore, the archaeological research that has been conducted downtown is extensive and much of it is underway or unreported. A detailed inventory of all of Pensacola’s interpretive resources is a monumental task and well beyond the scope of this thesis. However, making the best possible use of these assets is difficult if project planners or others who may use this thesis do not know they exist. The goal of this chapter is to provide an overview of what Pensacola has available, rather than an exhaustive account of those resources.

Anyone who seeks to develop a solid interpretive plan for downtown Pensacola will find consulting the available resources necessary, and in many cases, this will involve consulting the historian and archaeologist stakeholders who are the gateway to this wealth of information and insight. For a better understanding of the colonial period within this study area, two resources which are especially valuable are Archaeology of Colonial Pensacola by Bense (1999) and The

Colonial People of Pensacola: History and Archaeology of the Community Associated with

Spanish San Miguel de Panzacola (1754-1763) and British Pensacola (1763-1781) by Benchley et al. (2007). Both of these sources provide a fantastic overview of both the colonial history and the archaeology of downtown Pensacola and should be a starting point for any research into the subject. For the history of later periods, Pensacola During the Civil War: A Thorn in the Side of the Confederacy by Pearce (2008) provides a thorough historical overview of the years which revolve around the Civil War and The Emergence of a City in the Modern South: Pensacola

1900-1945 by McGovern (1976) details the development of Pensacola during the first half of the

20th century.

The archaeological research beyond these sources is not always easily available, and a researcher will need to access a number of formal reports to receive a more complete understanding of the archaeological resources in downtown Pensacola. As archaeological record keeping prior to the 1980s were typically spotty The Pensacola Archaeological Survey and

Summary of Archaeological Information in Pensacola to 1988: Technical Report by Bense

(1989a; 1989b) is invaluable for demystifying this particularly confusing period. However, this resource is still no substitute for the actual reports and theses which provide as much historical and archaeological detail as a researcher could possibly want in any time period (Bense 1982,

1986, 1987, 1985a, 1985b, 1995; Griffith 1988; Joy 1988, 1989a, 1989b; Joy and Lloyd 1988;

Stringfield 1996; Lloyd 2000; Flynt 2004; Williams 2004; Bratten and Cook 2005; Whitaker

2005; Benchley 2007; Greene 2009; James 2011; Kennedy 2010; Williams 2010; Bucchino

2014; Rodgers 2014).

This chapter will begin with a brief outline of the historical resources, followed by the archaeological resources. These sections will provide information useful to both those with relatively little knowledge of Pensacola’s past and those who are experts in a particular subject or time period, but are relatively inexperienced with others. The sources referenced in these sections are valuable tools for further investigation on their respective subjects.

Next is an overview of various categories of stakeholder groups with a discussion of some challenges and assets they may bring to the table. Finally, I conclude with some details relating to the development of good themes. Like the rest of the chapter, listing all potential

themes is impractical, so the goal here is to provide the interpreter with the tools to create their own.

Historical Resources

While many people are very knowledgeable of Pensacola’s past, there is so much history that that few have a comprehensive mastery of the different historical eras and topics. Without, at least, a very basic understanding of these time periods and subjects, fully appreciating the interpretive opportunities they provide is difficult. Consequently, developing an interpretive plan for Pensacola, at the very least, requires a general grasp of the whole history. This section provides the reader with an overview of the city’s past.

Prehistory

The interpretation presented here focuses on the city itself and therefore the historic period is the primary subject. However, remember that not only does the area have several thousand years of prehistory but various Native American groups were present throughout the historic periods as well (Dystart 1999). As a result, including some interpretation of prehistoric groups in the program may be worthwhile.

The Colonial Period

The Tristán de Luna Expedition (1559-1561)

In 1559, Tristán de Luna led a colonization expedition of 1,500 individuals to the bay that he named Santa María Filipina (Leonard 1974:6; Coker 1999:6). Unfortunately, five weeks after landing a hurricane destroyed most of their ships and the supplies still on board. The survivors abandoned the settlement in 1561, and Pensacola Bay would not see new settlers for over 100 years (Leonard 1974:10; Coker 1999:6,8).

Presidio Santa María de Galve (1698-1723)

The next attempt at settling the area is the beginning of what is commonly referred to as the First Spanish Period. In 1698, concern over French activity in the Gulf of Mexico resulted in the Spanish settling a new location, named Presidio Santa María de Galve, at the current U.S.

Naval Air Station Pensacola (Leonard 1974:29; Coker 1999:7–9). The colony faced a number of difficulties such as attacks by English-allied Indians, poor crops, fires, and disease, all compounded by a garrison made up of convicts (Coker 1999:11). During the War of the

Quadruple Alliance the settlement was captured twice by the French, who destroyed the surviving buildings when returning it to the Spanish in 1722 (Coker 1999:14–15).

Presidio Isla de Santa Rosa (1723-1756)

After regaining control of the Bay, the Spanish decided to move the settlement out to the barrier island of Santa Rosa for better protection from attacks by land (Leonard 1974:39; Coker

1999:15). However, due to frequent storm damage and a lack of funding for building maintenance, preparations began for a move to the mainland in anticipation of approval from the

Spanish government (Coker 1999:17). Several years after a devastating hurricane, the residents finally received permission to move to the mainland, though many of them had already done so, and Presidio San Miguel de Panzacola was founded at the location of current downtown

Pensacola (Leonard 1974:39; Coker 1999:17–18).

Presidio San Miguel de Panzacola (1756-1763)

Plans for defenses on the mainland went through several iterations making it difficult to summarize. Initial defenses consisted of a blockhouse named San Miguel which was soon converted to a fort with a stockade using the same name (Coker 1999:19). In 1760, the garrison

burned the houses ringing the stockade in anticipation of an attack by British-allied Tallapoosa and Creek, though none came (Bense 1989a:36; Coker 1999:20). Instead of an attack, the colony was hit by a hurricane which destroyed a large portion of the stockade and removed the roofs from the houses, forcing the residents to winter without adequate shelter (Coker 1999:20).

The British Occupation (1763-1783)

The British acquired Pensacola through the treaty ending the Seven Years’ War. They arrived at Pensacola on 6 August 1763, and were very unimpressed with the poor condition of the palisade and barracks, which lacked fireplaces and windows. Only the Governor’s house was in reasonable condition (Rea 1974:57–58; Coker 1999:23–24). Despite the overt disdain in the initial report for the Spaniards ability to maintain the settlement, the British found that remaining buildings decayed rapidly in the damp heat of Pensacola, a problem compounded by minimal funding from their government (Coker 1999:24). During this period surveyor Elias Durnford developed Fort George and two redoubts on high ground overlooking the town further inland, the street grid that still exists in downtown Pensacola today, other buildings like the Governor’s house, and the Star Fort and then the Fort of Pensacola which successively replaced Fort San

Miguel (Coker 1999:26; Dystart 1999:161; Benchley et al. 2007).6 Control of the settlement once again returned to the Spanish in 1781 after a siege ending in the catastrophic destruction of a powder magazine in one of Fort George’s redoubts (Rea 1974:79; Coker 1999:36).

The Second Spanish Period (1783-1821)

The British government formally ceded Florida to the Spanish in 1783 which began the

Second Spanish Period (Coker 1999:38). The residents of Pensacola during this time were notable for being unusually diverse and included French, African, Caribbean, British, Mexican,

6 See the following chapter for more details on these three forts. 58

Irish, Scottish, and German in addition to the Spanish (Bense 1999:183; Benchley et al.

2007:10). Most residents found employment through supporting the military stationed there

(Coker 1999:39–41).

During the War of 1812 the British made use of an early Fort San Carlos de Barrancas

(near the location of today’s Fort Barrancas) as a staging ground for a campaign against the

United States, though it still belonged to the Spanish (Coker 1999:45). However, General

Andrew Jackson led an attack in the fall of 1814 which resulted in the British blowing up the fort before withdrawing (Coker 1999:45). Jackson took Pensacola after a brief battle in 1818 in response to Spain supplying a Native American group called the Red Sticks with arms. He returned once again in July 1821 to formally accept the transfer of West Florida to the U.S.

(Coker 1999:45–46).

The American Period

Antebellum (1821-1861)

Florida became a U.S. territory in 1821 through the Treaty of 1819, the Adams-Onís

Treaty, which brought a number of changes to the area. Almost immediately, the government decided that a navy yard was needed to the west of the city which resulted in the beginnings of the timber industry for the region (Dibble 1974:8-12; Coker 1999:45-46). Also, the local brick industry was given a dramatic boost by the construction of three forts (Barrancas, Pickens, and

McRee) (Dibble 1974:31–37). Florida became a state in 1845, and in the years prior to the Civil

War construction began on a railroad line connecting Pensacola to interior cities in Florida and

Alabama, though this remained incomplete until after the war (Bowden 1991: 8–14).

Civil War (1861-1865)

Florida was the third state to secede from the Union, and the whole country watched as

Pensacola became one of the potential starting points for the Civil War due to a refusal of the

Union garrison in Fort Pickens to surrender (Pearce 2008:8,48–67). After a couple bombardments and a skirmish the Confederate Army withdrew from Pensacola to reinforce

Confederate armies operating in the west (Pearce 2008:114–159). The Union then occupied

Pensacola until March 1863, when it also abandoned the city for the more defensible terrain around Fort Barrancas (Pearce 2008:160–188). Although largely abandoned, Pensacola remained under Union control for the remainder of the Civil War (Pearce 2008).

Postbellum (1865-1900)

The period after the Civil War saw the rise of the region’s two primary industries, lumber and fishing (Bense 1985a:179). In 1870 the railroad running north of the city was finally completed which also provided more jobs and customers for the port and industries (Bense

1985a:180). By the end of this period, the city of Pensacola had largely recovered from the war and was moving towards a prosperity which would last into the next century (Kennedy

2010:108)

A “Modern City” (1900-1945)

The turn of the century for Pensacola saw a rise in the progressive movement and the peak and then decline of traditional industries in the 1910s which resulted in a heavier reliance upon the Naval Air Station Pensacola for economic opportunities (McGovern 1976:13–32).

Though the city struggled to regain its economic traction, ironically, the lack of large industries partially insulated Pensacola from the worst effects of the Great Depression when it hit in 1929.

In the late 1930s the city came to rely heavily on the Naval Air Station Pensacola economically

(McGovern 1976:115,136). With the entrance of the U.S. in World War II, Pensacola saw significant growth with the rapid expansion of the Navy, and other military infrastructure, and was well on its way to becoming the city we see today (McGovern 1976:154).

1945-?

Although my review of history stops here, the potential for interpretation does not end with any particular date. Connecting more recent events, which some of our intended audience may have experienced first-hand, to the events of the more distant past is an excellent way to improve the relevance of an interpretation. Anything from the Civil Rights movement to the Blue

Angels are topics worth considering so long as they fit into the global theme selected to guide the interpretation of downtown Pensacola’s heritage.

Archaeological Resources

When talking about archaeological resources, the public generally thinks of the physical remains of structures or events buried under ground. However, all physical objects tied to the past, whether simply foundations in the ground or existing buildings still in use today, are archaeologically relevant. This section considers all of these physical resources which are available to an interpretive program, though the emphasis here is on the hidden archaeological resources as these have been typically overlooked by those considering heritage interpretation in

Pensacola.

As was stated in previous chapters, interpreting downtown Pensacola is challenging due to the degree of development that has occurred. Though there are few to no standing structures

from the earliest periods, substantial archaeological evidence exists for every time period in the study area after the Spanish moved their settlement to Presidio San Miguel de Panzacola in 1756.

Generally speaking, excavations prior to the early to mid-1980s were conducted by various avocational organizations or private citizens. These earliest projects were almost never conducted by formally trained archaeologists with proper institutional support. As a result, few useful records of investigations from this time period are available to us today if they ever existed. Eventually, UWF became involved in downtown archaeology, and the quality of records and reporting improved as their formal program in archaeology developed (Bense 1989b).

In this section, I provide an overview of the archaeological resources that are available to an interpretive program located within the portion of my study area most directly related to this thesis. This limitation is due to the incredible complexity of the archaeological resources in the city; for all of the archaeological investigations in the whole downtown Pensacola study area see

Figure 6 and Table 1. This section focuses on the area between Plaza Ferdinand VII and Seville

Square on the east and west and between East Government Street to the north and East

Zarragossa Street or East Main Street to the south (Figure 7). Though this area gives a good understanding of the complexity of the archaeology, Palafox Street, Tarragona Street, and the downtown Pensacola bay waterfront will also be included as key features of the city. All of the investigations discussed in this section have appeared in some form of formal report. It is important for the reader to remember that, as of this writing, a number of excavations have either never received a formal report or the report is currently in progress. Some of these sites have potentially valuable interpretive resources, such as the Governor’s Garden excavation in 2012 which uncovered remnants of First Spanish and British gardens (April Holmes 2015, pers. comm.). This reiterates the importance of involving the heritage organizations highlighted in

FIGURE 6. The archaeological sites of downtown Pensacola, FL (University of West Florida Archaeology Institute 2015, Pensacola, modified by Tristan Harrenstein, 2015). TABLE 1. THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES OF DOWNTOWN PENSACOLA Date(s) of Site # Site Name Date(s) of Excavation Site # Site Name Excavation 8ES0034 Panton Leslie Company 1964, 2000 8ES1310 Blockhouse 1968 8ES0036 Pensacola Historic District 1970 8ES1311 British Hospital 1970 1968, 1970, 1970, 8ES1312 British Barracks 1970 8ES0049 Old Christ Church 1989, 1997, 1998 8ES1340 Colonial Jail 1986 8ES0114 E. Zarragossa St. Site 1972, 1976, 2010 8ES1341 City Annex Alleyway 1986 8ES0115 Lee House Parking Lot 1975 8ES1374 Valetto Lot 1988 8ES0116 South Seville Square 1970, 1972, 1982 8ES1375 Palafox Place 1988 8ES0117 517 E. Zaragoza St. 1972, 1975 8ES1376 Carriage Shed 1970 8ES0118 Duplex 1975 8ES1377 Guardhouse 1968 1972, 1984, 1999- 8ES1378 Main and Reus 1990 8ES0119 Barkley House Yard 2001, 2008, 2009 8ES1461 Parish Schoolhouse 1989 8ES0120 Barracks Street Cut 1975 8ES1509 Zarragossa & Jefferson 1990, 1994 8ES0124 Tivoli House 1968, 1972, 1973 8ES1515 120 South Tarragona Street 1990 8ES0965 Quina House 1968 8ES1912 Zarragossa St. Project 1992 8ES0981 Plaza Ferdinand VII 1988, 2000, 2001 Gonzales and Company 8ES1959 1993 Old City Hall/ Grist Mill Commandencia St./ 1987, 1988, 1993, 8ES1962 B. R. Pitt Mill 1997 8ES1150B Commanding Officer's 2005, 2006 8ES2240 Pensacola Cultural Center 1994 Compound 8ES2249 Florida Blanca St. 1992 8ES1260 Plaza One 1984 8ES2368 510 E. Government St. 1996 8ES1262 Main Street Lot 1985 8ES2838 318 E. Intendencia 1995 8ES1263 316 S. Baylen St. 1985, 1986 8ES2951 Tarragona St. 1999 8ES1274 William-Priller 1985 8ES2952 Barkley House Parcel 2007-2009 8ES1285 New City Hall 1984 8ES2953 Pete Baucum Lot 1999 8ES1302 Vacant Lot 116 1986 8ES3443 Colonial Kitchen 2009 8ES1309 Colonial Well 1972, 1989 8ES3561 Main Street 1 2011

FIGURE 7. The study area for the archaeological discussion (Land Bound Information System 2013).

Chapter 2, as they may very well be the only source available regarding some valuable interpretive resources.

Seville Square

Seville Square and its counterpart to the west, Plaza Ferdinand VII, share a similar origin.

When the British occupied Pensacola and constructed the Star Fort, they cleared an area all around the fort that extended to the bay (Figure 1). Both areas were established as plazas during the Second Spanish period in 1813, served as parks during the American period, and continue as parks to this day (Bense 1999:39-42; Benchley 2007:66). Plaza Ferdinand VII, Seville Square, and, to some degree, Fountain Park are relics of this open space and have become incorporated into the formal town plan as parks in the intervening years.

Three excavations have been conducted in Seville Square looking for components of the two British forts. Two projects in 1968 occurred in the southwest corner of the Square, one looking for the bastion to the Fort of Pensacola and the other the British guardhouse from the same fort. No records or report exist of the former project, and the results are unfortunately unknown. Records do exist, however, for the latter excavation, and from them we know that brick foundations belonging to the guardhouse as well as overlapping post molds belonging to the Star Fort were discovered. The third project, conducted in 1970, was looking for the British period carriage shed from the Fort of Pensacola. Again, records are spotty and some features were found, though none belonged to the carriage shed (Bense 1989b:85–86,167–170).

Fountain Park

Directly across East Zarragossa Street to the south of Seville Square, Fountain Park has also experienced three separate excavations. Two occurred in the early 1970s; one was looking

for the British hospital and the other was related to the construction of Bayfront Parkway. The third excavation, conducted in 1982, involved monitoring for a new parking lot, which occupies a portion of the park today. Although imperfect records exist for the excavations conducted in the 1970s, the work in Fountain Park provides much better documentation than those in Seville

Square and revealed a colonial midden with ceramic sherds, a post hole, and a wooden “sill” which may have been part of one of the British forts. They also uncovered a late 19th to early

20th-century midden and several trash pits, septic and water systems, brick piers, and garden fences (Bense 1989b:19–21).

In addition to these periods, this park contains more contemporary remains as it held private structures until the mid-20th century (Bense 1989a:22). This area also has significance as the possible location of the “Indian Town” shown on early maps which contained Native

American residents during the First Spanish Period (Elizabeth D. Benchley 2014, pers. comm.).7

Unfortunately, due to a restricted scope for the 1982 excavation or incomplete records for the excavations in the 1970s, there is currently no information on these two periods (Bense

1989b:19–21).

Historic Pensacola Village

The Historic Pensacola Village area, bounded by South Tarragona Street, Church Street,

South Adams Street, and East Main Street, has seen the most archaeological activity in downtown Pensacola. This area is entirely managed by UWFHT and features iconic buildings of

Pensacola’s past such as Old Christ Church and the reconstructed Tivoli House. The Village area is the closest thing to a heritage tourism destination the city has managed, and yet, though it is a

7 It is also important to note that, though outside of the study area, the excavation investigating the Lee House across South Alcaniz Street found “Indian pottery” which suggests the village may have extended or been located to the west of Fountain Park (Bense 1989b:17–18). 67

popular destination for locals and school groups, it is nowhere near the scale so often imagined for Pensacola’s heritage tourism attractions.

The investigations at Old Christ Church, located southwest of the corner of Church Street and South Adams Street, demonstrate the complexity and density of the archaeological remains in Pensacola. The church was built to service a Protestant congregation in 1832 and functioned as a place of worship for various groups until the city began to manage it in 1936 after the congregation had relocated. The building saw service as a city library until 1956, and it became a museum operated by the Pensacola Historical Society in 1960 (Johnson and Parks 1988:3).

Today, the church is managed by UWFHT and has been renovated to serve as a feature in tours and is rented out for weddings or other private functions.

The relatively small area immediately to the west of the building has experienced five separate excavations from 1968 to 1986 which uncovered the British governor’s house along with a number of refuse pits and other features from a variety of time periods (Bense 1989b:9–

12; Joy 1989a). Two excavations were conducted which focused on Old Christ Church itself.

One occurred in 1988 as a result of renovation of the church and specifically was looking for the remains of three Episcopalian priests who were confirmed during excavations to be buried under the building (Joy 1989b). Stories exist that suggest Union soldiers living in the church disturbed the remains of the three priests. During excavations one of the burials was found to have been vandalized although it remains uncertain when this happened or who was responsible (Joy

1989b:52).

In 1998 the final excavation at this site was conducted in conjunction with a restoration effort of the church. This project focused upon the deposits under the building, though a block was opened up to the west of the church as well. As Old Christ Church was built early in the

American period, this excavation proved to be a valuable opportunity to investigate the colonial periods with minimal impact from later activity. Excavations uncovered a wealth of information particularly from the Second Spanish and British colonial periods involving food preparation, social activities, and British structures. The excavation conducted outside the church also found a trash pit associated with the church as well as some indication of the structure’s occupation by

Union soldiers during the Civil War (Williams 2004).

The rest of the Historic Pensacola Village has experienced a significant degree of activity as well. West of Old Christ Church is the colonial well, excavated in 1972 and 1989, which contained deposits from both the British and Second Spanish periods. Although records from this excavation are limited, there exists some excellent details about the well’s construction (Joy

1989a:47,36–38; Stringfield 1996:100-125). Today, the well is managed and interpreted by

UWFHT.

To the west of the well is a warehouse built by the Pensacola Ice Company in 1884. The only excavation that occurred near this structure was in 1970 and crossed South Tarragona Street looking for the British barracks; however, due to a lack of documents or reports little is known of this excavation beyond the possibility that they uncovered the foundations for the barracks

(Bense 1989b:89–91). This location also held the West Florida Academy in 1830 (Johnson and

Parks 1988:10). Today, the warehouse serves as the Museum of Industry and is managed by

UWFHT as a part of the Historic Pensacola Village.

The east half of the block south of Church Street had one excavation in 1972 right next to

South Adams Street looking for the British hospital. This project was actually an extension of the excavation in Fountain Park pursuing the same structure and, as in Fountain Park, some colonial and early American remains, a number of Victorian brick piers, and a refuse pit were discovered,

but no conclusive evidence of the hospital was found (Bense 1989b:87–88). Currently, this property contains a few private businesses and South Adams Street itself no longer directly connects to East Main Street.

Moving west along East Zarragossa Street is the Moreno Cottage which served as a wedding gift for a daughter of the wealthy Moreno family in 1879. This building is a good representation of a shotgun style house and currently serves as a private business (Johnson and

Parks 1988:4). This lot was excavated in 1965 as a salvage project prior to the construction of some new commercial buildings, and like other excavations from this period, information is limited as to what exactly was recovered. It is known that brick piers and a refuse pit, attributed to the colonial period, as well as some undescribed American features were found (Bense

1989b:13–14).

Continuing westward is the Tivoli High House, reconstructed ca. 1976, which currently serves as the gift shop and a gathering point for tours of the Historic Village. The original structure was built in 1805 and demolished in 1937. In combination with the Tivoli Dance Hall, this structure served as a social center for the city until 1840 after which the Moreno family converted it into a boarding house. The building is also known to have housed Union soldiers during the Civil War (Johnson and Parks 1988:8; Stringfield 1996:107-115).

The area containing the Tivoli High House saw three excavations between 1968 and

1973, two of which investigated the house, the separate kitchen, and the ballroom structures. The goals for the third excavation are unknown, beyond its relationship to the Bicentennial reconstruction. Again, records are lacking in details for these excavations, but some late colonial features were observed including the foundations for the Tivoli House itself, which was built during this period. Based on what records do exist, we do not know if evidence of the kitchen or

dance hall was found, though a privy was observed that may have been associated with a later period (Bense 1989b:32–34).

Abutting South Tarragona Street is a 19th-century warehouse which now contains the

Museum of Commerce depicting a Palafox streetscape ca. 1900 (Johnson and Parks 1988:9).

This area of the Historic Pensacola Village has only seen an archaeological trench running north from under East Main Street along the now-removed portion of South Barracks Street as compliance for street construction in 1988. However, due to limitations in the scope of the project little was learned (Bense 1989b:29–30).

The block to the north of the Village, bounded by South Tarragona Street, East

Government Street, South Adams Street, and Church Street, has had little investigation to date; however, some excavation was conducted in 1989 in the east half of the block looking for the military kitchen as a part of the Colonial Archaeological Trail. The focus of this project was on colonial features, of which it found plenty, including the kitchen and a portion of the Fort San

Miguel bastion. Archaeologists unsurprisingly also observed a number of more recent features such as posts for a fence and refuse pits (Joy 1989a).

T. T. Wentworth Complex

An area framed by East Zarragossa Street, South Jefferson Street, East Government

Street, and South Tarragona Street is what I shall call the T. T. Wentworth Complex. This designation is purely for convenience, as it is not commonly referred to this way, but most of the area is managed by UWFHT and the T. T. Wentworth, Jr. Florida State Museum is the dominant structure. This area is bisected east to west by Church Street and, like the Historic Pensacola

Village, also has several historic buildings, archaeological investigations, and actively interpreted resources.

The T. T. Wentworth, Jr., Florida State Museum itself sits with the corner of South

Jefferson Street and East Zarragossa Street to its southwest. This structure was built in 1908 to serve as a city hall and eventually held part of the collection of Mr. T. T. Wentworth. This building is one of the most easily recognized in downtown Pensacola, and the Spanish- influenced architectural style represents the city’s close ties to its Spanish heritage (Johnson and

Parks 1988:11).

To the east of the museum is a grassy area with an open excavation interpreting the work conducted on the Commanding Officer’s Compound in 1987, 1988, 1993, 2005, and 2006

(Bense 1999; Benchley et al. 2007). This area also demonstrates quite well the complicated layers of valuable interpretive resources in downtown Pensacola. The earlier investigations in

1987 and 1988 were much smaller excavations and found signs of colonial and American activity (Joy 1988; Joy 1989a). The 1993, 2005, and 2006 excavations were much more comprehensive and revealed a significant amount of detail about the foundations, wells, and other features associated with the colonial Commanding Officer’s Compound. As is typical for cities, these projects also found a confusing mix of brick piers and trenches from various periods, including the foundations of a 19th-century Masonic lodge and a lime house from the same time period (Bense 1999; Benchley 2007:25).

Under the existing parking lot to the east of the Commanding Officer’s Compound is the site of the M. F. Gonzales and Company Grist Mill which was operational in the late 19th century. This site was investigated in 1992, though the survey provided no details due to the presence of the parking lot (Phillips 1993:26). There is a great deal of potential for valuable interpretive resources at this location as parking lots tend to protect archaeological sites below the construction zone.

Across Church Street to the north are several historic structures with a relatively modern building on the west side and a parking lot on the east end. Two of the historic buildings are managed by UWFHT; one is the J. Earle Bowden Building which is the headquarters for this organization, and the structure to the west houses the public archives for UWFHT on the second floor and the Voices of Pensacola Multicultural Center on the first. This area saw an emergency excavation resulting from unknown construction by the city in 1986. This investigation was located in an alleyway which passed into East Government Street and noted some early Spanish features, late Spanish refuse pits, and the brick paved street from the early 1900s (McGovern

1976:42; Bense 1989b:135–136).

Plaza Ferdinand VII

Plaza Ferdinand VII is located west of the T. T. Wentworth Complex and is the sister park to Seville Square as they both share a similar origin during the colonial period, though they have diverged in their uses since. While Seville Square is a social venue for the community,

Plaza Ferdinand VII functions as more of a town square with a number of nearby government buildings and proximity to the commercial hub that is Palafox Street. Today, Plaza Ferdinand

VII holds a monument to Andrew Jackson as the place where he represented the U.S. government during the transfer of West Florida from the Spanish government in 1821 and another monument to William Dudley Chipley for his role in connecting Pensacola via railroad to the rest of the country in the 1880s (McGovern 1976:148; Johnson and Parks 1988:12).

During the First Spanish Period the area that is the park today held private residences which were removed when the British government built the Star Fort in 1767 (Benchley et al.

2007:70). This park has been an open reserved area since the fort was allowed to decay away during the Second Spanish Period (Whitaker 2005:74–75). Luckily, in 1870, Plaza Ferdinand VII

received two feet of fill which has served as a protective cap for these early periods which, as a result, are unusually well preserved (Benchley et al. 2007:66). For much of its history, the park remained little more than an open space until ca. 1900 when the Progressive movement in

Pensacola resulted in the park being developed to resemble more closely what we see today

(McGovern 1976:2).

Four separate archaeological investigations have taken place in this park. The first occurred ca. 1970 in the north-central area, and unfortunately, nothing is known about this excavation’s goals or what was uncovered. The next investigation was conducted in 1988 as mitigation for renovations of Palafox Street and was confined to the western edge of the park running parallel to the street. This project found evidence of prehistoric habitation, early colonial features (including refuse pits and post holes), Second Spanish refuse pits, and American deposits that were disturbed by previous sidewalk construction (Joy and Lloyd 1988; Bense

1989b:165–166).

The third investigation occurred on the east side of the park and uncovered the Officer of the Day building which sat at the west gate of the Fort of Pensacola. In addition to foundations of the building, refuse pits and post holes associated with the British colonial period were also found. The Officer of the Day building is currently interpreted as a part of the Colonial

Archaeological Trail (Bense 1999:161).

The most recent project in Plaza Ferdinand VII occurred in 2000 and 2001 and is the most thorough investigation of the park thus far. This project targeted the civilian population in

Pensacola during the colonial periods and focused on the northern quarter of the park. These excavations uncovered the remains of a wealthy household and its outbuildings, a few homes

which were less affluent, a portion of the Star Fort stockade, and a large number of features from the First Spanish and British colonial periods (Whitaker 2005; Benchley et al. 2007).

Palafox Street

Palafox Street8 has functioned as a commercial and social hub for Pensacola throughout its history, and still serves this purpose today. The existing buildings along the street tend to reflect commercial structures from the 19th and 20th centuries (Johnson and Parks 1988:13). The street itself was paved with brick pavers in the 1890s, though before that it was paved with creosoted wood blocks on a concrete base. The street also had animal-drawn streetcars running on a track down its center in the early 1800s; the streetcars became steam powered in 1906 (Joy and Lloyd 1988:19,119).

The investigations relating to the Palafox Street Improvement Project in 1988 overlap with some excavations of Plaza Ferdinand VII, though both the east and west sides of the street were investigated. This project found First and Second Spanish deposits as well as the remains of the brick and wood block streets (Joy and Lloyd 1988:119). More recent time periods were almost certainly present also, but were not mentioned in the report.

Tarragona Street

Tarragona Street may not look like a significant road to the casual observer today, but it was an important access point for the regional industries to the port via the railroad. The road’s significance is evidenced by an existing railroad line, a curved green space marking the route of an extinct line running from South Tarragona Street onto East Main Street, and a couple of old warehouses and a mill site mentioned previously. It is also interesting to note that Tarragona

8 The city currently refers to the stretch south of East Main Street and north of East Garden Street as Palafox Street, while the area in between is called Palafox Place. This thesis shall refer to the street exclusively as Palafox Street to avoid confusion. 75

Street bisects all three colonial forts almost perfectly, though it did not exist in those periods, which is possibly a coincidence relating to the British grid system.

Besides the previously mentioned trench excavated in 1970 next to the Museum of

Industry (Bense 1989b:89), Tarragona Street has seen one other excavation which was conducted in conjunction with a renovation of the sewer and road in 1999. This investigation was located between East Garden Street and East Main Street and was looking for signs of the British redoubt. However, due to constant construction activity throughout Tarragona Street’s past, this structure was not positively confirmed. The excavations did find possible signs of First Spanish occupation, British and Second Spanish refuse pits, an early sand road and ditch, brick pavers and other road materials, trolley and railroad tracks, and both historic and modern utilities (Lloyd

2000). The archaeology of Tarragona Street clearly reflects a very active history and represents the importance of Pensacola’s port, railroad, and industries very well.

The Waterfront

The downtown Pensacola waterfront has changed significantly throughout the city’s history as the activity of the port and prosperity of the city waxed and waned. The modern-day

Main Street generally marks the colonial shoreline, and the current waterfront is a result of filling activities conducted by the city since 1836 intended to extend the shoreline into the bay

(Kennedy 2010:234). By the late 19th century, this area included a number of warehouses, mills, and wharves servicing a variety of industries (Bratten and Cook 2005:34–36). It is important to note that Pensacola has a number of archaeological resources in the bay (Kennedy 2010), but I will limit this section to terrestrial sites only.

Excavations on the waterfront have been relatively sparse as the majority of archaeological investigations in downtown Pensacola were focused on the colonial periods and

the modern waterfront did not exist until the 19th century (Kennedy 2010:234). One survey occurred on East Cedar Street as it runs between Palafox Street and South Jefferson Street and uncovered only 20th-century materials from filling episodes (Joy and Lloyd 1988:73). The only other investigation on the land south of East Main Street was conducted ca. 1993 examining the

W. B. Wright & Company Sawmill, at the current location of the L&N Marine Terminal, located southeast of the corner of East Main Street and South Barracks Street. However, this project included no excavation and found no surface features (Phillips 1993:26).

Although this section presents only a small portion of downtown Pensacola’s physical resources, the complexity and variety of resources available to an interpreter are representative of the entire downtown area and other areas in the city. The area between Plaza Ferdinand VII and

Seville Square also presents a degree of archaeological activity that most of the city has not experienced. Planners should remember that these valuable interpretive resources are present throughout the city, even if archaeologists have not yet had an opportunity to investigate.

Stakeholders

Like the history and archaeology, stakeholders are both a valuable resource and a potential complication. Each group will have their own ideas on what is important, and they will sometimes have conflicting perspectives of the same events. Reconciling these perspectives, while ideal, is not always possible. Do not be afraid of including both perspectives; done properly this can lead to a very thought-provoking interpretation.

Like a more recent structure obscuring the colonial past, stakeholders may be viewed as obstacles in the way of completing a project since groups, or individuals belonging to these groups, may delay the process and refuse to let go of what may seem like a small matter. We should take care to not simply dismiss these issues and to put some effort into understanding why

these individuals feel this is important. This does not mean that their perspective has to be included, or included to the degree they want, but doing so may very well make the program stronger and, as was established earlier, fostering as much good will as possible from the community is beneficial.

We must remember that, though these groups are separated into categories, few individuals belong to a single stakeholder group. A situation where an individual is a business owner with Greek heritage and also is a member of the Pensacola Archaeological Society is entirely possible. While potentially a complication, this fact is actually a significant advantage as building a rapport with one individual positively affects interactions with multiple stakeholder groups.

Heritage Tourists

Many current resources on the subject of stakeholders emphasize the need to involve local populations as, historically, the tourism industry tended to cater to wealthy tourists to the detriment of the local community (Thomas 2002:138–141; Castañeda and Matthews 2013:48–

49). However, we must remember that, while local communities should be included, ultimately the success of a heritage tourism program relies upon its ability to attract tourists. Including tourists in the development of a program in the same way as other stakeholders is impractical, though there are organizations (such as the tourism bureau) that may be able to help with this.

Even so, as this program is ultimately for heritage tourists, a few general facts about this demographic are helpful to consider when designing an interpretation.

One thing to be aware of is that tourists visiting heritage sites today are rarely particularly knowledgeable in the topic being interpreted and are looking for a general experience rather than specific information (Knudson et al. 2003:322; Hughes et al. 2013:68–69). This is crucial to

understand when developing an interpretive program as many visitors will come to the location with only a rudimentary understanding of the history involved. Program designers need to compensate for this by organizing the information in such a way that anybody can easily follow the discussion and yet providing a range of topics that allows a visitor to pursue a subject in more detail if they wish to.

Also, be aware that heritage tourists come from wildly diverse backgrounds and careful consideration of the exact target audience is needed as different audiences will have varying expectations (Hughes et al. 2013:68). Tilden’s sixth principle describes the importance of not talking down to children; simply diluting an adult interpretation for children is not effective

(Tilden 2007:76–85). This is also true, though to a lesser extent than with children, with any adult audience. Whether the target audience is retirees, young families, or visitors from different regions in the country or world, we should remember to consider all of these, decide on the target audience(s), understand their expectations and needs, and design an interpretation for them.

Part of understanding the tourist as a stakeholder is understanding their motivations for visiting heritage sites. Multiple studies have found that people who visit heritage sites and museums are looking primarily for an entertaining experience with an opportunity to learn as a secondary goal (Slick 2002:223; Blockley 2004:185; Hughes et al. 2013:58–70). The desire for an enjoyable experience is critical to remember because any participation in a program is entirely voluntary, and if a visitors’ needs are not being fulfilled they will stop participating (Ham

2013:11–14; Hughes et al. 2013:67). These two motivations are not at all mutually exclusive as education can be enjoyable but it must be interpretation, not instruction.

Cultural/Ethnic

Cultural and ethnic groups are potentially some of the trickiest stakeholder groups to work with, but also some of the most rewarding. What better way to present a disorienting dilemma to an audience than to provide them the opportunity to understand an event from a different cultural perspective? However, we must take care to present conflicting perspectives in a way that does not confuse or frustrate the visitor, but if interpreted carefully, this is very possible (Potter and Chabot 1997).

The past is a touchy subject for many Americans, and this is especially true when the subject of race or ethnicity is involved and a stakeholder group has typically had little to no authority over their own history or a dominant group feels that their identity is under attack

(Thomas 2002:134–138; Little and Shackel 2014:40–45). This does not mean that we should avoid these groups or that we must act upon every piece of input from them, but we need to be aware that (depending on the relevant history) the organization, culture, and individual reactions, may vary from grateful for the opportunity to be included to resentful or hostile for past wrongs.

These reactions demonstrate that involving these stakeholders, and ensuring they have an opportunity to influence how their past is portrayed, are critical.

There is no easy answer for how to work with cultural stakeholder groups, as a variety of potential reactions is possible with infinite reasons for them. The only piece of advice to give at this time is to remember that if a particular request or grievance seems irrational or petty then probe further. Often there is a very real basis behind this response which can be addressed in a reasonable manner to general satisfaction.

Table 2 provides a list of some of the stakeholder groups that might have an interest in participating in the development of an interpretive program in Pensacola. Particular

organizations are not listed here as heritage groups are likely to change. Be aware that all of these groups have their own internal politics, and taking care to not get embroiled in schisms or rivalries is important. On a related note, no matter how carefully the subject is researched, reaching every group on the first try is unlikely as, in many cases, there is simply no way to know a group exists before they make themselves known to you. In situations like this, no matter how far along development is, getting their input and contact information for the future is critical. This cannot be allowed to set back the program, but gaining some valuable insight from these groups is always a possibility (Della Scott-Ireton, 2014 pers. comm.).

TABLE 2 SOME POTENTIAL STAKEHOLDERS FOR A HERITAGE TOURISM PROGRAM IN PENSACOLA, FL Cultural Economic Native American Restaurants African American Hotels Spanish Shops British French Professionals/Enthusiasts Japanese Pensacola Archaeological Society Greek University of West Florida Historic Trust Scottish University of West Florida Archaeology Irish Institute Jewish University of West Florida Department Caribbean of Anthropology and Archaeology Canadian University of West Florida Department Scandinavian of History American (Northern States) Florida Public Archaeology Network American (Southern States)

Economic

Others may have interests or concerns about the project for economic reasons. Downtown business owners (and beyond to some degree) may both be interested and concerned about the impact a heritage tourism program could have on their livelihoods. The interest comes from the desire for customers, but the concern relates to potential negative impacts such a program could 81

have on their business. If the entire downtown is made off limits to vehicles, for example, some business owners will legitimately be concerned about how this will impact them.

Professional/Enthusiast

Pensacola has the benefit of a large number of individuals who are experts in various aspects of its past. As Chapter 2 demonstrated, whether they are professionally trained or simply enthusiastic about history and archaeology, this stakeholder group is a tremendous resource for a developing an interpretive program. These are individuals who have devoted a great deal of time and effort to the study and interpretation of the past, and similar to other stakeholder groups, they bring excellent perspectives to the discussion along with some potential complications.

Many in this group have an ample knowledge of the past, though they all tend to specialize in specific subjects, and some even specialize in how to present the past to a public audience. However, just like other stakeholder groups, we should remember that these individuals will have their own agendas, and they may want to see the topics they are passionate about emphasized, potentially to the detriment of other topics or the program as a whole. While these professionals and enthusiasts are also stakeholders in the program, and are too good a resource to be excluded, they must not be allowed to dominate the interpretation any more than other stakeholders.

Government

A number of government organizations will need to be included, though exactly which depends on the specifics of the plan. The local tourism bureau is a natural choice as they have a plethora of information available that can contribute to the development of a program. Another government organization that will need to be included is Pensacola’s Architectural Review

Board as their approval is required for changes to buildings and sign installation in the city’s historic districts. From contact information for cultural and ethnic stakeholder groups to tourism data, the inclusion of these offices is an easy choice. Obtaining the blessing of the city council and mayor are also critical, but we should remember to discuss details with other offices (such as the Department of Transportation or Parks and Recreation) when the plan falls into their jurisdiction.

Residents

This final stakeholder group exists to highlight the need to give everybody an opportunity to be heard, even if they do not fall into one of the previous groups. Having the support of the community as a whole is a benefit to the program, and this includes understanding their vision of what such a project will entail. How much more tourism are they comfortable with? Will this

“ruin” a favorite social scene? Basically, how will this affect their quality of life (Slick

2002:221)? The best method for starting a discussion about this program is by holding a series of meetings that are open to the community for the purpose of both educating people about the project and hearing their thoughts and concerns. These meetings are also an excellent opportunity to unearth stakeholder groups that may have been missed (Della Scott-Ireton, 2014 pers. comm.).

Like the rest of this chapter, this section is more of a starting point for understanding what stakeholder groups exist in Pensacola and what they may want to see in an interpretation, rather than a comprehensive treatise on the subject. Various groups have different interests, some stakeholders are concerned with how such a program will affect them while others have a stronger investment in what is said and how. We must remember that while we are talking to individuals associated with the Perdido Bay Tribal Cultural Center, for example, the individuals

who make up this organization are also residents, possibly business owners, and may even identify with more than one cultural group. However, we cannot please everyone to the degree we might desire, but putting effort into truly understanding what others want and what they are concerned about, and then working to find compromises (while maintaining an effective interpretive program) goes a long way towards fostering the good will of the community.

Themes

While each step in the TORE model is vital to an effective interpretive program, none are as critical as the themes themselves. If there is no theme then the interpretation is doomed to throwing facts around and hoping they stick or, figuratively, shooting off fireworks which are fun but lack any real substance. We might be tempted to try and create an interpretation with just a topic as this feels faster and it is easier to think in topics than themes, but ultimately this makes our job more difficult and our results less effective (Ham 2013:20–26).

Topics themselves are easy enough to list as most of us tend to think in topic form; however, creating an effective theme from a topic is considerably more challenging. For example, “Palafox Street” or “the Civil War” are both topics whereas “Palafox Street has been a cultural and commercial hub for the city for 300 years,” or, as alluded to earlier, “A different name for the Civil War suggests that the South’s experience of the war was different than elsewhere,” are themes. Though these themes need a little work to make them more memorable, both give an interpreter direction for the project, are complete sentences, have a purpose, and, as

Ham (2013:23) so succinctly puts it, answer the question “So what?” These themes are merely two possibilities; both topics could develop into any number of themes (Ham 2013:20–26,112–

119).

So, what makes a good theme? While both examples help the interpreter build the interpretation, they are not yet phrases that are likely to stick in someone’s mind. One of the best ways to improve a theme is to look for ways to make it more relevant to the audience. Similar to the discussion in the previous chapter on how to improve the relevance of an interpretation, a theme can be made more relevant by the inclusion of universal concepts or by self-referencing.

Another method involves the use of an appropriate metaphor to make less-tangible concepts something the audience can imagine experiencing with their senses (Ham 2013:125–126).9

Relating to the earlier discussion of working with noncaptive audiences, the other way to improve a theme is to reduce the effort needed to understand it. Including an analogy is one method that makes a concept easier to process and remember (i.e., archaeology is like a puzzle).

Also, keep the theme short. If the sentence is long then it can be broken into a pair of sentences, but generally speaking, a shorter, single sentence is easier to remember and understand so long as it communicates a complete idea (Ham 2013:127–128).

Though this is a general rule for all interpretation, avoid jargon. This rule can be broken somewhat in the body of the interpretation, if there is time to define a term, but the theme is the one idea we want the audience to understand and take away with them. The easier we make that, the more likely we are to succeed (Ham 2013:127–130). In a similar vein to the language used, avoid the passive voice, as this generally makes a sentence more difficult to understand. Finally, tend towards verbs that people can imagine experiencing with their senses (such as “ran” instead of “hurried”) as these will also make the theme easier to understand and remember (Ham

2013:135–138).

9 For example, “Our ancestors are in these artifacts,” is not meant to be taken literally, but can communicate the idea that artifacts are used to learn about people in the past. 85

While all of these methods are valuable to improve a theme, none of them are always necessary for every theme. Also, these strategies are not what define a good theme, only tools to make one stronger. Though I would be surprised to see a successful theme that does not incorporate at least some of these techniques, really a good theme is simply one that provokes thought in the audience.

Conclusion

This chapter has provided the reader with the tools necessary to begin developing various aspects of an interpretive program in downtown Pensacola. The first two sections delivered an introduction to the historical and archaeological resources available to an interpreter and, while they only scratch the surface, are valuable to someone wishing to broaden their understanding of exactly how much Pensacola has to offer. The next section, rather than listing every possible stakeholder with an interest in such a program, focused upon how to identify groups, the different categories individuals might fall under, and some concerns they may have. Finally, this chapter described the foundation of a good interpretation (the themes) and how to create themes that ensure a successful and enjoyable interpretation (Ham 2013:135–138).

Due to the sheer size of these subjects they are discussed in very general terms in this chapter. A significant amount of work lies ahead for an interpretive planner to ensure these aspects are resources, rather than merely complications. In the next chapter I provide a more concrete example of how some of these components interact using downtown Pensacola as example.

CHAPTER 5

FITTING THE PIECES TOGETHER: THE INTERPRETIVE MODEL APPLIED

TO THE FORTS OF DOWNTOWN PENSACOLA

This thesis has laid out the basic concepts of interpretation, described the interpretive model used here, expanded on some of the resources available to an interpreter in Pensacola, and shown how to develop other resources for inclusion in a heritage tourism program. This chapter provides a concrete example of how all of these individual pieces work together to form a cohesive interpretive plan by going through the development process piece by piece.

The first step involves the selection of a global theme to work with. Next, we would normally go to the stakeholders for input but, for the reasons described below, this is not practical in this example. Instead, I will select a topic to work with and provide the additional information required to develop an interpretation. Then I develop some promising themes for interpretation and highlight some of the resources and methods available for interpreting these themes in my study area. Finally, all of these parts are brought together into a single plan.

Global Theme

Carefully selecting a global theme is an absolute must since a hastily selected theme runs the risk of creating problems down the road. Once chosen, the next step is normally to involve the stakeholders at which point the program is fairly committed. Changing the global theme after consulting with the stakeholders risks confusing and frustrating them, potentially ruining some of the carefully cultivated goodwill of the community.

To choose a global theme we need to first select a topic to base it on. While “the history of downtown Pensacola” is a topic, it is not one that provides much guidance for developing a series of interpretations. As shown in the previous chapter, Pensacola has an overabundance of

interpretive resources, and a useful global theme will help guide the rest of the program while restricting the inclusion of potential topics only a little or none at all.

One possible topic for a global theme involves how different cultures used the landscape.

This is especially promising because it guides the focus of the themes while allowing them to involve nearly any topic from any other time period and could even differentiate between the antebellum, Victorian, and progressive American cultures as well as various ethnicities. This might result in a global theme along the lines of: We can see how different cultures lived and saw the world in the ways they used the landscape. This is merely an example as many different themes can be developed from a topic with any number of variations in wording.

Another topic that provides a useful mixture of freedom and guidance relates to the visible past in a modern city. A promising theme we could develop from this topic is: Like fingerprints in the clay, marks left by the past are in the city you see today. This might seem to favor more recent history, but this is not the case as the colonial history had just as much of an impact on the modern city as more recent periods. Though, continuing with the analogy, most of the finger prints in a pot are ones you cannot see; this allows an interpreter to use what is currently visible to talk about parts of the past that are not.

The final topic presented here, though by no means the last of the possibilities, relates to the city’s reliance upon various military organizations throughout its history. A theme we might develop from this topic: Throughout its past, the city and its people have been influenced by a constant military presence. Pensacola has always relied upon the military of whatever country controlled Florida at the time for protection and as an economic base to varying degrees throughout its history. This theme also has a lot of potential as it allows the interpretations to cover the downtown forts; some less pleasant, though titillating, subjects like the red light

district; and even how the rise of various industries provided the city some measure of economic independence for a time. This theme also allows for the city to easily connect to two of the region’s most impressive ancillary sites: Fort Pickens and the Naval Air Station Pensacola.

Though these global themes have some limits to what topics they can easily cover, each at least guides the development of themes for the rest of the program. While discussing the industries in Pensacola is still possible with the last global theme, it must always be approached through a discussion of the military. For example, we could use the construction of Forts

Pickens, McRee, and Barrancas to discuss the expansion of the brick industry and the period of economic independence that eventually resulted. If these global themes are too broad for the scope of the intended program, then simply select a narrower topic or restrict the language in the global theme more.

Because a heritage tourism program has so many options, planners must carefully consider multiple global themes before presenting one to the stakeholders. Also note that if a prospective global theme is not selected this does not mean that it has no further use; each of these global themes could very readily be a theme within the program itself. For example, if the global theme involves the visible history in a modern city, the resulting interpretations will at least touch on how different cultures used the landscape and the role of the military in shaping the city.

For the purpose of this example, I shall use the second theme, “Like fingerprints in the clay, marks left by the past are in the city you see today.” This provides some excellent opportunities to work with one of Pensacola’s most difficult interpretive hurdles, the large degree of development within the study area. Though each of these themes can have the same effect, this one is more directly useful for demonstrating how to work with “invasive” features.

The Stakeholders

The preceding chapters established the necessity of involving stakeholders in an interpretive plan. Unfortunately, interviewing stakeholders is well beyond the scope of this thesis and risks generating misunderstandings as people expect their input to be acted upon when, in the case of this thesis, it will not be. When a complete interpretive plan is designed for

Pensacola, as opposed to the narrower scope applied here, involving the stakeholders is absolutely necessary.

Hypothetical stakeholder input may provide an opportunity to demonstrate how to balance conflicting interests, but this cannot reflect real life in a useful way when input comes from a single individual (the author) and risks misrepresenting or alienating a group that may be called on at a later date. As a result, this chapter proceeds as if I were the only stakeholder involved and focuses more on implementing the TORE model and other methods presented in the previous chapters rather than on juggling the varied hypothetical needs of stakeholders. This means these themes are created with a single perspective and the example provided here will not fully fit the needs of a future program.

The Topic

Similar to the stakeholder section, an actual program would involve many different subjects, but to keep the example manageable I limit the focus to a single topic: the three forts that dominated Pensacola’s downtown until the Second Spanish Period. This topic is useful because it includes most of the concepts discussed in the previous chapters. Also, an interpretive plan for downtown Pensacola that does not include the forts in some form is hard to imagine.

Ideally, all of the topics chosen for interpretation in a program would be developed together. We would, for example, consider the themes and information from topics such as the

waterfront, Native American residents, and the Civil War at the same time as the forts and look for opportunities for them to reference each other, to work together, or, at least, to stay out of each other’s way. Though other topics are not developed here, their possible inclusion in a full program will be accounted for to a degree.

The First Fort-Fort San Miguel (The Spanish)

Fort San Miguel was completed by the Spanish (Figure 9) by 1760 and was the smallest of the three forts in downtown Pensacola (Benchley et al. 2007:30). Maps show that it was roughly rectangular in shape with two bastions, one diamond shaped on the northeast corner, and another irregular one on the southwest. The reason for the irregular bastion is unknown, although this shape could reflect the intended design or, possibly, is a result of decay or storm damage.

Only a couple of particularly noteworthy events occurred in this period. First, in June

1760, a threat of attack by British-allied Tallapoosa resulted in the burning of all buildings within

FIGURE 8. A digitized map of the 1763 Spanish Fort San Miguel (Benchley et al. 2007:41). 91

a certain radius of the fort’s walls (Bense 1989a:36). Second, in August of that same year a hurricane hit the settlement that damaged the fort and blew the roofs off most of the buildings.

Due to the season when this storm occurred, the colonists could not replace the cypress bark shingles, and so the community had to spend the winter without roofs (Coker 1999:20; Benchley et al. 2007:30).

The First Fort-Fort San Miguel (The British)

The British occupied this same fort in August 1763 as a result of a treaty where the

Spanish traded La Florida for both Havana and Manila. British descriptions when they arrived were contemptuous of the condition of the colony structures; the fort walls themselves were so decayed that people could simply step through them. In addition, the barracks were so dilapidated that the British soldiers were forced to live in huts or tents. The only structure apparently in good condition was the Governor’s house (Coker 1999:23).

The walls themselves underwent a number of changes (Figure 10), including the construction of the northwest bastion, the southwest bastion became diamond shaped, and a second stockade wall and a dry moat were also added (Benchley et al. 2007:40). Disease was a major problem for the British, and eventually the commanding officer decided the epidemic was a result of the marsh that surrounded the town (both for the general unpleasantness and because soldiers were getting their water from these marshes) compounded by the limited airflow inside the fort due to its design (Coker 1999:29). The solution to the former problem was to drain the marsh and build a well for fresh water inside the fort; for the latter problem, a completely new stockade was required (Coker 1999:29).

FIGURE 9. A digitized map of the British modifications to Fort San Miguel (Benchley et al. 2007:42).

The Second Fort-The Star Fort

The British built the second fort (Figure 11) in 1767, consisting of a much larger stockade in a star design with no wall facing the bay. The size and design was supposed to allow breezes to flow inside the fort and provide garden plots for the soldiers to raise vegetables (Coker

1999:29). However, the size also effectively divided the community of Pensacola in two and forced those near Fort San Miguel to exchange their property for another lot to make room for the expansion (Benchley et al. 2007:43–46,70). This event also marks the point where private structures were cleared from the areas that would become the downtown parks (Bense 1999:39-

42; Benchley 2007:66). The plans for the reconstructions also included barracks, though these were not built at this time (Coker 1999:43–46). The fact that, though the stockade was oriented to the British city grid, the buildings inside the fort retained the same orientation of the Fort San

FIGURE 10. A digitized map of the British Star Fort (Benchley et al. 2007:44).

Miguel stockade and continued to do so until well after the last fort was gone is also worth noting.

The Third Fort-The Fort of Pensacola

The third fort (Figure 12) was constructed in 1775 and consisted of five sides, four landward and one bayside, surrounded by a dry moat with four bastions on each of the landward faces. The bastions each had a two-story blockhouse in line with the wall and earthworks jutting out from the wall to shelter cannons firing on attackers (Bense 1989a:37).

The closest this fort came to combat was during the battle between the British and

Spanish militaries further inland at Fort George when it provided a safe haven for British families. The British lost the engagement, and as a result of the battle, the Spanish formally regained control of Pensacola on 10 May 1781. Interestingly, the Spanish made many of the same observations of British slovenliness concerning the upkeep of the fort and supporting buildings that the British had made of the Spanish in 1763 (Coker 1999:36–38). Apparently, both governments had difficulty maintaining the wooden forts in Florida’s environment. Ultimately, the Spanish government let the stockade decay, ending the series of forts in downtown Pensacola

(Benchley et al. 2007:46).

Archaeology of the Forts

The archaeological investigations involving the forts have already been discussed in

Chapter 4 in some detail. The primary locations for confirmed evidence of the colonial forts are in Plaza Ferdinand VII, Seville Square, and behind the T. T. Wentworth Museum (Bense 1999;

Benchley et al. 2007). We should remember that more archaeological evidence almost certainly remains under existing buildings, green spaces, parking lots, or streets.

FIGURE 11. A digitized map of the 1778 Fort of Pensacola (Kennedy 2010:54).

However, like I also mentioned in Chapter 4, there are several sites which are, as of yet, unreported that will prove valuable to an interpretation of the forts. The previously mentioned

Governor’s Garden excavation involves features contained within the forts and clues into the daily lives of the residents (April Holmes 2015, pers. comm.). Another excavation in 2013 occurred under the Beacon Building within the T. T. Wentworth Complex which investigated the interior of the northwest bastion of Fort San Miguel and found first Spanish period deposits

(April Holmes 2015, pers. comm.; Elizabeth Benchley 2015, pers. comm.).

Despite all of the previous excavations in the area, a 2007 and 2008 project near the

Tivoli House within the Historic Pensacola Village also revealed the dry moat and outer British palisade of Fort San Miguel (Elizabeth Benchley 2015, pers. comm.). Finally, monitoring of a

Government Street sewer project uncovered a kitchen and the northwest blockhouse of the Fort of Pensacola along East Government Street as well as the double stockade wall and moat of Fort

San Miguel along Church Street (Lloyd 2002). Though these sources are not necessary to include for this example, they should certainly be considered for an interpretive plan, and the only way to even know of these projects is to consult with the historian and archaeological stakeholders.

Themes

The forts, as both a topic and the structures themselves, are large enough that selecting a few narrower topics to develop into themes is worthwhile. As no input from stakeholders was sought, these topics are simply selected because I think they will result in enjoyable interpretations. This is important to be aware of because the specific implementation of these strategies in this example is unlikely to fully meet the needs of actual stakeholders.

Also, I have created three themes here and will reuse the rejected global theme involving the military presence throughout Pensacola’s history as this fits the topic well. All of these

themes might find a use in the interpretation, or we may find room for only one. Just because a theme was developed does not mean it must be used in the program, and at this point, having more themes than we are likely to need is useful. Not every theme has equal potential with the resources available, and we should be prepared to not use a theme rather than have an overcrowded, confusing, or underwhelming program.

One topic I like in particular as an archaeologist addresses one of the major inconsistencies in most interpretations representing a specific structure. Namely, buildings are often presented as static and unchanging until they mysteriously disappear into the ground or are turned into the museum you see today. This topic has the potential to influence how the visitor sees all other representations of historic buildings and provides an opportunity to discuss elements of the historic or archaeological process (i.e., how we know what we know about the past). This discussion does not have to happen with the forts, or stop with them for that matter, but the forts in particular are a good venue as they were so often in need of repair and, in one case, we know the structure was altered. A theme we might develop from this topic is: Just like our bodies, these forts and other historic buildings experience many changes throughout their lives. This is almost an extension of the global theme itself, and another way to interpret this theme would be to guide a visitor through a historic building and point out the clues to its past.

The next theme allows us to discuss the civilian residents in a very military-oriented society and how their lives revolved around the forts: These forts were the heart of the colony; residents relied upon them for protection, governance, and their bread and butter. To connect to the global theme we can include observations in the content like the role the forts played in creating the downtown parks or how the primary road and rail line to the port bisects the forts precisely.

This theme also provides some opportunity to include Native American residents as a part of the community, rather than as a completely separate group. To that end, an interpretation using this theme will look for ways to include the Native American presence during the colonial period. This does not preclude an interpretation in another part of the program which focuses more directly upon the Native Americans in Pensacola.

The last potential theme we will consider here is: Life as an average soldier in these forts varied from dangerous and miserable to simply uncomfortable. This one lets us show the poor health conditions, provides an opportunity to discuss the barracks and military buildings other than the stockade, and is a good segue to talk about the reasons for constructing the Star Fort and

Fort of Pensacola. Connecting this interpretation to the global theme is much the same as with the previous theme. Also, demonstrating the way life revolved around these structures and how we can still see subtle signs of this in the city today also improves the relevance of the program as a whole. Furthermore, considering the number of active and retired military personnel (and their families) that live near or visit Pensacola for various reasons, this theme has the particular advantage of being relevant to such individuals.

As we have established, the forts can inspire any number of themes, though there is a limit to how many can fit into Pensacola’s program without inhibiting other topics. Four themes for the forts may be excessive, so keep in mind while proceeding that eliminating one or two of the themes discussed above may be necessary. This transition marks the move from the preliminary work in the Planning Phase to the Design Phase.

Design Phase

Generally speaking, when deciding where topics should be physically located each major interpretive topic needs an area reserved for it. This does not mean that each interpretation is

constrained by rigid boundaries and that they cannot share at least a little territory so long as care is taken to avoid confusing the visitor. If handled carefully, this overlap can be useful for linking two disparate themes in the mind of the visitor and can show that these areas, subjects, and time periods did not exist completely in isolation as is often portrayed.

Figure 13 shows each of these forts overlaid on the current city grid and Figure 14 shows them as they appear in open spaces around modern downtown Pensacola. As we can see, the original Fort San Miguel is mostly constrained by East Government Street to the north and

East Main Street to the south. To the east and west the fort’s palisade does not come close to the present South Jefferson Street or South Adams Street. On the other hand, both the Star Fort and the Fort of Pensacola are significantly larger and cross into Plaza Ferdinand VII to the west and

Seville Square to the east and halfway to East Intendencia Street to the north of East Government

Street. Though interconnecting all three forts in the interpretation is important, the smaller size of

Fort San Miguel may mean that it requires different treatment.

To reiterate, we have two primary complications when interpreting the three downtown forts. First, these are very large structures which are no longer visible. Conveying the size of these forts is crucial because people naturally find extremes interesting and therefore relevant; if we can communicate how big these structures were then we have taken the first steps toward showing the audience why the interpretation is worth their time (Ham 2013:131–133). Second, very nearly every piece of these structures is covered by an area under active use and/or another interpretive resource which limits the physical resources available for this topic.

Though not an absolute necessity, these complications suggests that an interpretation would do well to look for a way to represent the forts in a more tangible manner than just maps and images. The first reaction of many is to think that a reconstruction will solve this problem.

100

FIGURE 12. The downtown Pensacola forts on the city grid in relation to each other (University of West Florida Archaeology Institute no date).

FIGURE 13. Fort San Miguel (blue), Star Fort (green), and the Fort of Pensacola (yellow) as each appears in open spaces around downtown Pensacola (Land Bound Information System 2013, modified by Tristan Harrenstein, 2015).

This is an approach which, as established earlier, introduces a number of complications that are usually underestimated, such as impeding other interpretive resources and the expense of both construction and maintenance. Reconstructions are not without some potential though; their use simply needs careful consideration of the costs involved.

For example, both the Star Fort and Fort of Pensacola palisades cross into Plaza

Ferdinand VII and Seville Square. One option is to turn Plaza Ferdinand VII into an interpretive park as this location emphasizes the importance of the forts, has a cap of soil protecting the archaeology for periods before about 1870 (Benchley et al. 2007:66), and the park itself is rather dated by today’s standards as the layout discourages visitors from leaving the path (Benchley et al. 2007:66). This results in a much more controlling design than we see in parks today.

On the other hand, this park is already a National Historic Landmark as the location where General Andrew Jackson, representing the U.S., formally received control of Florida from the Spanish in 1821, making it a prime location to discuss Jackson’s exploits and the events that led to Florida becoming a territory of the U.S. (Brosnaham 2010:41). Also, though the layout is dated, the park is largely unchanged from its design in the early 20th century (Figure 15). This means that it presents an excellent opportunity, perhaps the best remaining in the city, to discuss the progressive movement in Pensacola and the effect it had on the city we see today.10

Furthermore, the name Plaza Ferdinand VII itself represents the ties the city still has to its

Spanish heritage. These three potential topics alone (not to mention the numerous ones not mentioned) suggest the park is too crowded to include everything so perhaps the forts should be interpreted elsewhere.

10 An example theme: Once we see the ideals of the Progressive Movement in Plaza Ferdinand VII’s design we can see their reflections in the rest of the city. 103

FIGURE 14. Plaza Ferdinand VII looking southeast toward the current T. T. Wentworth Museum (State Archives of Florida, Florida Memory 1920).

The next area to consider is Seville Square and Fountain Park. Seville Square, while certainly not historically irrelevant, does not contain the same level of activity that Plaza

Ferdinand VII experienced. Both Seville Square and Fountain Park present a much more modern and open design than Plaza Ferdinand VII and, being farther removed from Palafox Street and government buildings, do not exhibit the “town square” qualities that Plaza Ferdinand VII does.

However, these parks are not without their complications either as Fountain Park held private structures until the mid-20th century and both parks are currently used for festivals and other social events (Bense 1989a:22).

This does not prevent us from using these parks to interpret the British forts; simply that careful thought is required to strike a balance between the park’s current use and the interpretation. Lacking any visible remains, a reconstruction would still be a valuable interpretive

104

aid but we must tread carefully. Do we simply rebuild the stockade for one or both of the forts through Seville Square and Fountain Park? This idea may be simplistic, but it provides an opportunity to discuss a number of complications a reconstruction would face in a situation like this.

One consideration is the impact a pair of wooden walls running north to south would have on the current use of the park. Will the walls impede or prevent festivals? They would certainly get in the way and disrupt a pleasant, open space.

Related to the loss of an open space are concerns about the viewshed. A skyscraper in the middle of Colonial Williamsburg would make communicating what that town was like more difficult. A reconstructed stockade is not nearly so dramatic; however, it does amount to a great big wall running through what was once a welcoming park, not to mention it would intrude upon other topics like Old Christ Church which is just across South Adams Street to the west. This does not mean that impacts on the viewshed is an automatic “no” to a reconstruction, but always reflect upon what is being sacrificed before committing to a particular strategy.

Finally, consider that both the Spanish and the British governments had difficulty in maintaining these structures even though their very lives depended on it. Today we have techniques that could extend the life of the stockade that the colonials did not have access to, but the construction and the maintenance costs must be reconciled ahead of time rather than building the reconstruction or outdoor exhibit and then hoping for the best. A reconstruction which has been designed to decay and provide a visual interpretation of the difficulty of maintaining the structure could find its use in this situation as well, though to achieve this properly, and safely, would almost certainly require an even greater expense than a basic reconstruction.

105

Working around these limitations is the challenge, but a lot of options are available. A large, intrusive reconstruction is a problem for several reasons, but we still need something tangible to present to the audience. A pair of colored walkways marking each palisade, for example, could be a, or part of a, solution. This, at least, allows the visitor to see the footprint of the stockades in relation to where they currently stand and does not noticeably disrupt the social uses of the park.

Colored walkways show where the fort was but do not fully portray the size and significance on their own or illustrate the idea that these were real structures and not simply lines on a map. Accompanying signage will help abate this shortcoming and will also have a fairly low impact on the openness of the park. However, too many signs can disrupt traffic as well and can impact the viewshed in a way similar to a wall. Also, signs in this park may be more prone to damage due to exuberant festival-goers and equipment being set up and taken down, so we must take care to minimize the impact of signage during festivals and plan for higher maintenance costs.

Another option is to include a below-ground exhibit of either the original or a reconstruction of the post molds discovered by archaeologists. A similar method was attempted in Pensacola with the Colonial Archaeological Trail, particularly with the Officer-of-the-Day building located in Plaza Ferdinand VII and the Commanding Officer’s Compound behind the T.

T. Wentworth Museum. These were a good idea and the motives were sound, but the exhibits have not fared well due to confusion over who is responsible for maintaining these locations.

Part of the problem, too, is that they are open to the air which means they are vulnerable to weather damage, vandalism, the ever-invasive vegetation in the region, and, as they are outdoor pits, they constantly collect blowing garbage.

106

A good alternative to the usual open-air exhibit to consider is a below-ground reconstruction with a see-through covering as was used on 85th and Broad Street in New York

City (Baugher and Wall 1997). Though this method prevents damage from direct exposure to weather and blowing garbage, it was not without its drawbacks as well. For one, there was concern over the risk of pedestrians slipping on the glass when wet. The solution in this case was to put a fence around the display which, unless another solution can be found, will be necessary to do in Pensacola.

The next problem with the covered exhibit in New York was that the glass tended to fog over on the inside. Due to Florida’s heat and humidity, this issue will have to be addressed if this method is used in Pensacola. Exactly how this is accomplished will require some expert input and perhaps some experimentation, but some form of ventilation, powered or unpowered, will probably be necessary. All of these considerations are moot if the exhibit is difficult to maintain and it falls into disrepair, as occurred in the New York case.

Despite the extra considerations, having a more tangible (even if they cannot touch it themselves) example for a visitor helps to drive home the point that this is not a purely abstract subject and this structure was real. No matter the theme, getting across this idea improves the relevance of the interpretation to the visitor and the chance they will participate, find the interpretation enjoyable, and understand the theme.

Another option to consider is to turn a portion of the bastion from the Fort of Pensacola into a replacement for the current gazebo/stage located in Seville Square. According to overlays, this bastion is almost perfectly bisected by East Zarragossa Street which will require consultation with the appropriate office of city government to discuss the possibility of closing that section of the street (though failing this, offsetting the reconstruction may be possible). Consultation about

107

a hypothetical project is not feasible, and I will proceed by judging this method solely for interpretive purposes. However, awareness that the methods employed in an interpretation can introduce new stakeholders is important.

A gazebo representing the bastion potentially provides an upgraded stage for social events and joins two parks that are effectively treated as the same already, all while increasing the useable space for festivals and enabling a more substantial demonstration of a fort, its size, construction methods, etc. Closing the street would discourage drivers from traveling on the rest of East Zarragossa Street which could be a problem, but it also makes the stretch of street from

South Tarragona Street to the parks (the stretch that involves the existing Historic Pensacola

Village) more pedestrian-friendly with fewer vehicles.

Finally, though no evidence currently exists, archaeologists may very well find colonial civilian structures in Seville Square or Fountain Park like they did in Plaza Ferdinand VII. If this is the case, their inclusion is likely too good an opportunity to pass up. However, planning to interpret a structure when we have no idea if it existed is difficult, so this thesis will continue as though there were none.

The 19th and 20th-century civilian structures in Fountain Park might conflict with an interpretation of the forts, and the cost of interpreting the colonial period over other centuries will have to be considered carefully. Remembering that technology has the potential to allow for creative solutions for conflict in the interpretation is important. For example, Fountain Park potentially holds the Indian Village from the First Spanish Period, civilian and military structures from the colonial periods, and 19th and 20th-century buildings (Bense 1989b:19–21; Elizabeth

D. Benchley 2014, pers. comm.). Perhaps a combination of LED lights in the ground to mark these structures and sufficiently ruggedized touch-screen signs could enable the presentation of

108

all these periods through a single theme, or a series of themes. Multiple themes in such a small, compact area would require either the ability for the visitor to choose the content or a set of themes rotating daily or every other day.

That covers two of the forts, but not necessarily Fort San Miguel. This fort has several locations that provide an opportunity for interpreting the stockade and all have about the same potential for interpretation. This includes the southern wall as it passes through a parking lot and green space, the northern wall that passes through another parking lot (both cross South

Tarragona Street), and a portion of the west wall behind the T. T. Wentworth Museum. Both the

Spanish and British versions of Fort San Miguel pass through these areas providing an opportunity to discuss both cultures and each of our themes. The southeast corner of the fort passes through the Historic Village and has the benefit of a gate; however, if interpreted it threatens to disrupt the existing program and historic buildings in the same location.

All of these areas provide a good alternative to Seville Square. The park has the benefit of longer stretches of two forts and the more substantial bastion. However, only the British occupation is represented in the forts there, so considering an additional area for interpretation may be worthwhile. These areas overlap in content enough that fully interpreting both is probably unnecessary and Seville Square is a slightly stronger option. On the other hand, Fort

San Miguel offers some unique opportunities that are hard to pass up, we have more themes than will fit in Seville Square, and incorporating some nearby military structures will diversify the content enough to make interpreting an additional area worthwhile.

One of the first places we might look is the Spanish Governor’s house near the southeast corner of Fort San Miguel as it is a source of entertaining drama, governance of the community, and eventually barracks for the soldiers (Coker 1999:31). Unfortunately, this building is very

109

awkwardly situated as the overlay predicts that it has two structures on top of it and it passes well into East Zarragossa Street. This does not mean that interpreting the Governor’s house at or close to its original location is impossible, but other options should be considered.

The Commanding Officer’s Compound is certainly promising as it was also a building that provided governance for the community, is located near the western wall, and has an existing interpretation with an area reserved for it (Elizabeth Benchley 2012, pers. comm.). This could fit with the civilian theme nicely; however, there is a stronger option for interpreting Fort

San Miguel using a different theme and three significant interpretations of the forts is probably excessive for the area. Something as logistically straightforward as this is difficult to resist though, so it might work as a fallback option if the following location ends up being implausible.

If not used for the forts, this area will not go to waste as excavations also found other, more recent, structures in the same location (Benchley 2007:25).

Possibly the best choice for our themes is the barracks at the corner of South Tarragona

Street and Church Street and a couple of the huts that the soldiers had to live to the north which are located just south of the northern wall of Fort San Miguel. Looking at the overlay in Figure

16 we can see that the barracks actually cross into the streets a little so any reconstruction or an outline may have to be offset somewhat. However, unlike the Governor’s house, this area is currently a parking lot which is far less problematic than an existing building, and reclaiming a paved space for interpretation has some aesthetic appeal as well.

The larger of the two parking lots is managed by UWFHT and the smaller is privately owned. Once offset, the barracks lie mostly in the larger parking lot but does pass into the private lot. The acquisition of the private lot is potentially a complication, but not an insurmountable

110

one. If this lot cannot be used for the interpretation then perhaps some marker can be included to show the footprint of the structure without making it unusable as a parking space.

FIGURE 15. The barracks and soldier huts (red) and a segment of the Fort San Miguel wall (blue) projected onto the modem city (Land Bound Information System 2013, modified by Tristan Harrenstein, 2015).

From an interpretive point of view, this would be the primary location to talk about the soldier’s experience in Pensacola and the changing nature of historic buildings due to the constantly decrepit nature of the barracks. Also, if evidence can be found of Native American women working for or living with the soldiers, as was found at Santa María de Galve, both civilian life and Native Americans can be included (Coker 1999:64-65). This location could easily stand on its own and complement the interpretation in the parks nicely.

How to interpret these structures depends somewhat on what archaeologists find and other logistics. In this case, a full-scale reconstruction holds some appeal and is less problematic 111

than with the stockade, but still is probably not practical for the barracks, and is definitely not necessary. This is a much more active part of town due to the presence of South Tarragona

Street, and a reconstruction of the barracks is far more likely to conflict with a nearby interpretation and to look out of place. Furthermore, the general intent behind a reconstructed building is to allow visitors to go inside and experience it. For this to be possible the barracks would have to be in good condition which is something of a misrepresentation and conflicts with the themes. Frankly, a reconstruction of just the foundations might be a more accurate and appropriate portrayal of the barracks.

So perhaps the interpretation for the barracks should stick to some low walls, foundations, or other markings to show a visitor where the building was, rather than try to recreate the building itself. The huts, however, have considerably more potential for some reconstruction. They are much smaller, were actually lived in, provide some opportunity to show what life was like for the soldiers, and perhaps, by extension, the civilians. A hut or two would add some appeal to the interpretation, make up for the lack of the barracks, and complement our themes extremely well.

Reconstructed huts would also provide an opportunity for some living history interpretation as standing structures makes this easier to accomplish. Interpreters could take on the roles of either soldiers (British or Spanish) or, possibly, Native American women if evidence can be found that they interacted with the soldiers. A first- or a third-person interpretation is very possible in this situation though the presence of a busy street and modern buildings might make the first-person interpretation more challenging.

As these are nonsequential interpretations, we cannot know for sure which location a visitor will experience first, or even if they will go to both. Each area must have a complete

112

interpretation without relying on the other, which limits their complexity. Placing the two interpretations located closer together will help to abate this problem; however, spacing them out helps to ensure the audience is not overwhelmed with too many themes. A living history interpretation would provide an opportunity to create some sequential interpretation in what is predominantly a nonsequential scenario. This is appealing because it provides more control over the order and rate that participants receive information and, as a result, allows us to broach more complicated ideas than is possible with static panels that must each be effective individually.

Interpreting the barracks also provides an opportunity to create some overlapping interpretation with another theme. If the Spanish or British influence on the city is a topic discussed elsewhere (possibly through Plaza Ferdinand VII or the city street grid and names) the fact the barracks do not line up perfectly with the city grid laid out by the British is something that visitors will notice. This is because Fort San Miguel and its supporting buildings were constructed before the British created the grid that downtown Pensacola’s streets adhere to today.

Figures 11 and 12 show that even after the fort was replaced (and when no fort stood at all during the Second Spanish Period) these buildings maintain their slightly skewed orientation to the rest of the city.

Finally, one last interpretive strategy should be considered. The two locations presented so far provide ample opportunity to discuss our themes, but they do not fully communicate how much of the city overlaps with these structures. One way to express this idea and to compliment the rest of the interpretation about the forts is to extend the colored lines marking the stockades to street crossings and parking lots throughout the rest of the city. Also, as all of the Fort of

Pensacola bastions are at least partially present in the city streets in a fairly uniform way, they

113

can be represented with brick pavers to stress or compliment the global theme as they demonstrate how the British occupation impacted the city we see today.

This idea sounds good in a vacuum; the real test will be to see how, or if, these markers can work with the rest of the program. I have already established that the layout of Plaza

Ferdinand VII should only be changed very little, if at all, and a pair of colored lines running through the park would certainly have an impact. Similar conflicts may very well appear in other areas of the city. If the colored lines disrupt other interpretations too much, maybe colored stakes marking the corners of the stockade will be sufficient and less intrusive. Perhaps the two larger

British forts cover too much ground and this tactic is only worth implementing for Fort San

Miguel. Unlimited variations can be developed with some creative thinking.

If the stockades are marked as they cross streets and parking lots, some signage should accompany them. In this case, however, the signs could be part of the interpretation, or they could simply tell the visitor what the lines mean and direct them towards the locations that interpret the forts. This is a general rule for all of the interpretations downtown; they should suggest similar topics to the audience so they can pursue whatever catches their interest and, in this way, connect disparate themes and subjects. Also, do not forget sites outside of the study area; if someone is interested in forts then these interpretations should direct the visitor towards

Forts Pickens, Barrancas, San Carlos de Austria, and George. Likewise an interpretation discussing the lumber or textile industries should steer the visitor towards the Arcadia Mill

Archaeological Site or the Alger-Sullivan Heritage Society Museum.

Implementing this particular plan will require a great deal of archaeological excavation beforehand which takes time and money. Take care to avoid viewing the archaeology as an obstruction as excavating before construction is important for a couple of reasons. First, it is only

114

possible to know that some interpretive resources even exist through archaeology. After all, without the excavations in Plaza Ferdinand VII, conclusions from the historical documents alone stated that the Star Fort was merely planned and never built (Benchley et al. 2007:40–46). Also, the physical remains can provide valuable information that historic documents cannot (such as certain details relating to the daily life of a soldier) and archaeological research will help to flesh out what we know about a subject and enrich the interpretation.

Secondly, the process of archaeology itself has potential for interpretation.

Archaeologists have frequently been surprised when the work they are doing generates an overwhelming amount of interest from visitors. This goes beyond what the archaeologists are doing and finding, as visitors are often as interested in what archaeologists are learning and how

(Copeland 2004:132–133). Using active archaeology as public programming has a long history, including such projects as the investigations at the Battle of Little Bighorn in the 1980s and a program built partially around interpreting archaeological sites in Annapolis, MD (Potter 1994,

1997:35–44; Potter and Chabot 1997:46–48; Scott 1997), and even to interpreted investigations in downtown Pensacola itself. This means that the archaeology conducted as a prelude to implementing an interpretive plan should be treated as a temporary interpretation constructed every bit as carefully as the more permanent exhibits.

Putting It All Together

So far, I have presented a variety of possible methods for interpreting the downtown

Pensacola forts. This section assembles these pieces into a “final” interpretation, remembering that this example lacks both input from stakeholders and interaction or conflict with other topics that are ideally being developed at the same time. Putting aside these exclusions, here is my recommendation for an interpretation of Pensacola’s colonial forts using the selected themes.

115

A number of locations could house an interpretation of the colonial forts, but I have chosen Seville Square, Fountain Park, and the corner of South Tarragona Street and Church

Street due to the logistics of interpreting at these locations and for the variety of available resources and subjects. When deciding which location will interpret which theme, splitting the themes evenly between these places is a possibility; however, this is problematic for nonsequential interpretations.

In this example, the barracks are clearly the best place to interpret the soldiers, while the stockade interpretation has plenty of opportunity to discuss the civilians. Though the theme about the organic nature of buildings could fit with either of these interpretations, it is best applied to an existing historic structure and referenced in the interpretation involving the forts when appropriate. Also note that visitors will be more likely to follow up one interpretation about the fort with the other. Separating these two interpretations spatially, and continuing with this strategy for the rest of the program, will reduce the risk of overloading the audience with more than the recommended four themes in a day. We can also help to reduce the effort of processing multiple concepts by referencing themes discussed elsewhere when possible.

Seville Square and Fountain Park combined will be one of the primary locations for interpreting the forts. This interpretation will not include a reconstruction of the stockades, dry moats, or bastion as these would interfere with community activities and other nearby resources.

Instead, concrete sidewalks will follow the route of the stockades through the park and will include inlaid brick pavers to mark the approximate width of the wall. The precise color of these pavers is not critical, though they should be easily distinguished from one another and from pavers elsewhere in the city. For this example, we will say Fort San Miguel will be marked with blue, the Star Fort with green, and the Fort of Pensacola will use yellow pavers.

116

The stockades for both the Star Fort and the Fort of Pensacola as they run through Seville

Square and Fountain Park will be marked with their respective colors. However, the bastion for the Fort of Pensacola provides an opportunity to represent more than just the stockade, improve the parks as a social venue, and make the Historic Village area more pedestrian friendly. The possibility of accomplishing this all at the same time is too good to pass up and to take advantage of this opportunity, the section of East Zarragossa Street that separates Seville Square and

Fountain Park will be closed and the parks merged into one.

The location of the blockhouse for the bastion will double nicely as an interpretation of the blockhouse structure and a gazebo/stage for community use. In this case a reconstruction in the strictest sense is not practical as the blockhouse was two stories high which would interfere with the viewshed of other venues and of Old Christ Church in particular. Instead, the gazebo should be designed in such a way that a description of a British blockhouse is easier to imagine. I recommend a raised, single-story gazebo that mimics the footprint of the structure with the ability to extend the platform for performances. I believe that this will be a sufficient aid in communicating the idea of a blockhouse. If, once the interpretation is developed beyond this thesis, a simple gazebo is not sufficient; there are many possibilities for this structure that do not involve a full reconstruction. Perhaps removable walls and/or a second story that is a skeleton of the blockhouse can better help communicate what this structure was like.

The footprint for the rest of the bastion will be represented by a brick plaza which uses colored pavers to distinguish between the earthworks, the area for the cannons, and the wall.

Marking the plaza with the same colors as the stockade is tempting, but that will be misleading for visitors who associate the pavers with a wall where there was none. Instead, this plaza will use standard red brick pavers of different shades to mark the features. This is a little more subtle

117

than the pavers used for the stockades, but as the bastion does not overlap with streets or sidewalks, bricks can be added elsewhere in the city and they will not risk confusing visitors if colors are similar.

This plaza shows the visitor the size and location of the bastion on a two-dimensional scale but does not fully communicate the use of the earthworks as a barrier. In this situation, we cannot reconstruct the earthworks for the same reasons that we cannot rebuild the stockade, but like the blockhouse, we have the opportunity to enhance the parks as a social venue and the interpretation at the same time. Though the earthworks were constructed of soil and were significant in height, the most important thing to remember is that they were intended to serve as a barrier. Finding a way to communicate this allows us to enhance the visitor’s experience by making it easier to imagine the bastion and improving the effort versus reward ratio.

The best way to simulate a barrier in this case is to compliment the pavers marking the earthworks with a few rows of benches facing the gazebo. A solid row of benches is not necessary and will impede traffic too much, so regular breaks in the lines of benches are needed.

In this way, the plaza is enhanced as a performance area with seating for the audience, and as people will usually walk around benches rather than step over them, a barrier is easier to imagine.

If the plan for a gazebo and benches is impractical for any reason the plaza itself still allows for a similar use, though in this scenario making the interpretation relevant for visitors is more challenging. Perhaps markers in the plaza are all that is possible, picnic tables could be used instead of the benches, or we could represent the bastion and earthworks with a play area for children. A number of alternative methods can be considered, all of which depend upon the specific needs of the program.

118

By coincidence, in the northwest corner of Seville Square, the existing walkway runs close to the stockade for the Star Fort which comes to a point at a paved square in the center of the park just to the south of the existing gazebo. This square is a prime location for interpretation and potentially for a below-ground reconstruction of the stockade footings. This has appeal for a couple reasons. First, a covered, below-ground interpretation in Pensacola’s climates will require some ventilation and the gazebo has electricity to power fans if necessary. Second, in the park, the Star Fort is more difficult to interpret since only a possible storehouse and a stockade wall were in that location.

The interpretation in Seville Square represents the fortifications and visitors will expect a discussion about the defenses. This will be a part of the information provided, but this is also an excellent opportunity to subvert expectations, and provoke thought, by building the interpretation around the theme: These forts were the heart of the colony; residents relied upon them for protection, governance, and their bread and butter. This is not the usual approach with interpretations involving forts so remembering the theme when developing the signage is important.

Furthermore, the features of the forts present in these parks provide ample opportunity to discuss the citizens of colonial Pensacola. The bastion and blockhouse are excellent for highlighting how residents looked to the forts for protection, and using the gateway from the Fort of Pensacola, we can discuss how the Star Fort and the Fort of Pensacola resulted in a town that was spatially divided for a time.11 Also, a below-ground reconstruction of the stockade remains found by archaeologists, either in the plaza in the middle of Seville Square or the northwest

11 The Star Fort also has a gate nearby but it is located in the road. This could potentially be moved into the park for interpretive purposes but is not necessary in this example. 119

corner of the Fort of Pensacola, is an opportunity to discuss how colonists looked to the military for support while living in a harsh environment.

Outside Seville Square, the colored pavers will continue to mark the stockade of each fort, placed anywhere the stockade walls cross a public space or parking lot (excluding Plaza

Ferdinand VII). Helpfully, all three of the remaining blockhouses are located in the streets, which should be stressed to provide a more direct connection to the global theme. They will be represented in the same color as the rest of the Fort of Pensacola.

For each section of stockade presented, or as many as possible, a small sign or plaque will accompany it telling the viewer what the lines represent, an image showing the forts, where the visitor is currently standing, and where they can go to learn more. These signs and lines will have no interpretation of their own; they exist to direct visitors to the themes discussed elsewhere, to better communicate the large size of these structures, and to remind people of interpretations already experienced. All three forts are well represented with this method, and though adding walkways for Fort San Miguel at places like behind the T. T. Wentworth Museum may be tempting, we will stick to the pavers to reserve these spaces for other subjects.

The majority of interpretation for Fort San Miguel will take place at the corner of South

Tarragona Street and Church Street with the barracks and soldiers’ huts. Several maps (Figures

9, 10, 11) show these structures, and while this area requires archaeological investigation to represent them more fairly, I shall follow the 1767 map of the Star Fort as the irregular layout of the huts is probably more realistic. Also, both maps show the barracks crossing into the street; as a result the barracks and related buildings will be shifted so they are fully out of the street but have the same orientation.

120

The barracks themselves will be represented by brick piers if archaeological investigations demonstrate that they were in fact used; otherwise wooden posts marking the corners will be sufficient. To the north of the barracks were two rows of huts reportedly occupied by soldiers during both the First Spanish and British occupations; four of these structures directly north of the barracks will be reconstructed fully. The structure in Figure 16 labeled number one will have an intentionally dilapidated roof referencing the hurricane damage the community suffered in 1760 (Coker 1999:20). Structures two through four will be fully reconstructed and furnished in a manner that may represent the standing of the soldiers stationed in Pensacola.

Unless archaeological investigation suggests otherwise, structure number two will represent the

Spanish soldiers and structures three and four will represent British occupants. We will not plan to interpret structure five at this time, though it has potential to be added if necessary.

The Fort San Miguel wall to the north of the barracks will not receive a full theme of its own, but this is one place where the benefit of a reconstruction of the stockades outweighs the drawbacks. In this case, the British double stockade is useful for catching the visitor’s attention, it provides an interesting dissonance where it abuts the more recent building to the west, and helps to separate the living history interpretation from East Government Street to the north.

Though it has no theme of its own, the stockade will help to connect the interpretation of the living quarters to the forts in the minds of visitors and will direct them to other relevant themes such as the interpretations in Seville Square or wherever the “organic nature of buildings” theme is located.

The theme for the barracks and huts themselves is: Life as a soldier in these forts varied from dangerous and miserable to simply uncomfortable. The barracks will reference the difficulty of maintaining structures, which also is presented in Seville Square, and will describe

121

how this particular building was unlivable for most of its existence. This is also an opportunity to discuss how hot the barracks got and the planned, and eventually built, new barracks’ attempt to address this issue during the British occupation (Coker 1999:29). A critical point to make somewhere in the barracks interpretation is that the building is not in line with the street grid and why this is the case.

Despite its intentionally dilapidated appearance, I chose structure one as the interpretation involving the harsh conditions soldiers experienced to act as a barrier between the road and structure two which will house a living history interpreter to discuss life as a Spanish soldier.

Structure three serves a similar purpose to structure four, which will have a living history interpreter talking about life as a British soldier. Structures four and three were selected over structure five (which is not included in the interpretation) because the proximity to the Fort San

Miguel wall helps to connect this interpretation to the forts.

Alternatively, one of the living history interpreters could represent a Native American woman. The records suggest that some of these women married soldiers, which also potentially makes the interpretation more controversial, though at least one woman was hired as a personal servant (Benchley et al. 2007:23–24). If handled carefully, this is an excellent opportunity to discuss the Native American presence during the colonial period, or at least how the local Native

Americans related to the soldiers.

Archaeologically, this plan will require a good deal of excavation before these two areas are interpreted, both because additional information from archaeologists is needed and because construction will impact the physical remains. The solution is to make these excavations an attraction on their own, like the very successful interpretation UWF conducted during excavations of the Governor’s Garden in Historic Pensacola Village during the summer of 2012

122

(April Holmes 2015, pers. comm.). Ideally, these projects should have dedicated guides for visitors, so the archaeologists can hope to complete the excavation, and a marketing professional to help advertise and promote the project (Potter 1997:35–44).

If any part of this example cannot wait for the excavations to finish, the lines marking fort walls are the least invasive option. Though some excavation to improve the accuracy of the projected fort walls would be ideal, perfect accuracy is not strictly necessary, and if the lines are a couple feet off the interpretation is not harmed in any way. If concern over accuracy is too strong, or the pavers are going to require mitigation before installation, painted lines instead of pavers can portray the walls nearly as well, though they will not last as long or look as aesthetically appealing.

Conclusion

In this chapter I demonstrated some of the variety of global themes available to Pensacola and why, unlike the rest of the program, once stakeholders are involved themes become difficult to change or alter. Stakeholder input should be sought and included in an interpretive plan, but as explained, this was not possible for this thesis. Likewise, multiple topics would ideally be developed together but only a single topic was used to limit the scope of the example.

Prospective themes were developed to address a variety of messages, and finally, everything was applied to the first stages of an interpretive plan for the forts.

Using these methods we made significant changes to Seville Square and Fountain Park while enhancing their use for social events. Next, we interpreted the barracks and reconstructed some of the huts the soldiers were forced to live in instead. The parks are the primary location for talking about the civilians in Pensacola and the barracks will discuss the lives of the soldiers, though both are free to touch on the other topic to better connect the two themes. Likewise, both

123

locations can reference the organic nature of buildings, though this topic is primarily covered at a different venue. Finally, colored lines throughout the city marking the stockade and bastions serve to direct people to, or remind them of, the interpretations involving the forts.

The above example is not a recommendation for exactly how to talk about the forts, just one possibility. A different set of themes might make the Commanding Officer’s Compound a much more attractive option; stakeholders, expense, or other logistics might prevent the use of

Seville Square, and providing a definitive recommendation for how to interpret the forts is impossible without taking all the other topics and themes into account. However, this example of an interpretive plan for the forts still demonstrates how the concepts and resources discussed in previous chapters interact with one another.

124

CHAPTER 6

CONCLUSION

Generating an interpretive program for a city is no simple task. All urban environments will have to cope with a degree of development, resources which overlap or conflict with each other, and a variety of stakeholders with an interest in what is interpreted and how. Even though the focus for this thesis has been on Pensacola itself, the model and principles presented here apply to anyone wishing to develop an interpretation for an urban environment, even if some of the details do not.

Despite all of Pensacola’s apparent advantages, with a rich history and an eager population, nothing that could be called a comprehensive heritage tourism program currently exists within the city. There are a variety of reasons for this, and not all of them are directly related to the interpretation. However, there has been a tendency to focus upon the business aspects of heritage tourism and forget that, while these details are important for a successful program, the interpretation is what draws heritage tourists.

This thesis began by demonstrating Pensacola’s long-term desire for heritage tourism and detailing some shortcomings in previous attempts. These plans tended either to focus on how to present a topic, rather than on what to say, or to stress the development of hotels and shops over the interpretation of the heritage resources that could make the city stand out as a destination. I also provided an overview of the complicated history of Pensacola’s heritage organizations and highlighted a few existing organizations that a planner should be certain to include in the process.

The model presented here relies heavily upon interpretive theory as presented by

Freeman Tilden’s (2007) six principles of interpretation and Sam Ham’s (2013) TORE model.

125

Ham defines a successful interpretation as one which provokes thought in the audience along the desired lines, and the TORE model highlights the need for an interpretation to be thematic, well- organized, relevant to the audience, and enjoyable. While this model applies to all interpretations, it is not a perfect fit with a program of this size and complexity and one which must include stakeholders.

Adapting the TORE model to a large-scale urban interpretation requires splitting it into two phases. The Planning Phase must be the first step as it revolves around theme12 development, an important step which provides focus and direction for the rest of the process.

The first stage in this phase is the selection of a global theme for the program which will be used as a common thread to connect subjects which appear unrelated on the surface. This is a truly critical component to improving the organization and the relevance of the themes in the Design

Phase.

Once the global theme is selected, it is time to begin working with the stakeholders.13 The goal is to learn what their expectations are for a heritage tourism program and what topics are most important to them. These meetings are where an interpreter is likely to learn of the local myths that must be handled with care and respect. Remember, just because a myth is not accurate, does not mean it is unimportant. Viewing the stakeholders as barriers to the process is easy to do, but we will see much better results if we treat them as a vital resource instead.

The last step in the Planning Phase is to take the topics from the stakeholder meetings and develop themes from them. At this point, we will create more themes than we could possibly use as this provides the most flexibility when figuring out how these topics will interact. Throughout

12 The idea we want our audience to walk away thinking about (Ham 2013:20). 13 Anyone with an interest in what is interpreted and how. 126

both this step and the following Design Phase, we should take care that these themes can connect to the global theme.

With a global theme selected, a body of themes to draw from, and continued meetings with stakeholder groups, the Design Phase can commence. As we now know what we will want to say, the focus in this phase is more on where and how the themes will be interpreted. This is where we see the ORE of the TORE model applied, and unlike with the Planning Phase, this portion of the model is used throughout the development of an interpretive program, rather than in a sequence.

The ORE is crucial to the success of a program as each affects the effort-versus-reward ratio (Ham 2013:26). A well-organized interpretation is easier to follow, reducing the effort required of the audience; an enjoyable program makes the experience more rewarding; and a relevant interpretation does a little of both. The more we can reduce the effort we are asking of the audience and improve the perceived reward the more likely they are to participate. If this ratio becomes too unbalanced the other direction, the program will begin to lose its audience, who will never have an opportunity to understand the theme, resulting in an unsuccessful interpretation.

In part, an enjoyable interpretation means one which provides the audience with a sense of perceived authenticity (Hughes et al. 2013). Both are primary motivations for site visitation and it behooves us to ensure a visitor’s needs are met. As a result, the perfect accuracy that is so often strived for at an interpretive site is not strictly necessary and can reduce the effectiveness of the interpretation itself. So long as facts do not have to be invented to support the theme, these principles provide some flexibility when interpreting a complex urban area.

127

Reconstructions are a valuable resource when an area has few existing structures for interpretation. They can be an excellent method for making a program more relevant and enjoyable through perceived authenticity. However, this technique should not be applied without careful thought beforehand as it is an expensive option and may negatively impact other interpretive resources.

In a similar vein, living history programs have an even greater potential to make an interpretation more relevant and enjoyable but also have even greater potential drawbacks. Like with reconstructions, living history is expensive as it requires trained personnel (highly trained for first-person interpretations) to be available and, though it has little impact on neighboring interpretive resources, modern intrusions may shatter the illusion. On the other hand, it does present a rare opportunity to provide the audience with a sequential interpretation. This enables a program to include more complex ideas than a nonsequential interpretation, where the information on each panel must be comprehensible on its own (Ham 2013:173–206).

The use of technology in any program is unavoidable, and it provides some wonderful opportunities for creative interpretation. However, it is important to remember that, in general, personal interaction with an interpreter is preferable and that a maintenance plan is crucial as a broken interpretation is worse than nothing at all. Also, with the prevalence of personal devices like smartphones or tablets, it is absolutely vital that the specific use of technology does not exclude visitors by age, economic class, or education level from participating.

Currently, Pensacola has some protection for historic buildings and minimal security for its archaeological sites. If the city wants to have any of these resources left for interpretation, they must receive the necessary protection as soon as possible. This goes beyond the downtown

128

area, and an effort should be made to protect and support peripheral sites as well since this can result in a mutually beneficial relationship.

In Chapter 4, this thesis provides the reader with a basic understanding of the history of

Pensacola and stresses the interpretive value of all time periods. Next, a similar approach is applied to the archaeological resources, stressing how complicated downtown Pensacola’s archaeology is and highlighting some specific resources that may be of particular interest to interpreters. Both of these sections are intended only as an introduction to these topics and a great deal of further research and consultation with the relevant professionals is essential.

Next is further elaboration on cooperating with stakeholders and some of the broad categories that planners need to consider. This includes some groups which will be present in any city (such as those with an economic or professional interest in the program) as well as a sampling of the staggering number of cultural groups which may, or may not, be present in other cities to the same degree. Though communication with these groups begins in the Planning

Phase, it is important that consultation continues throughout the project.

The next section elaborates on the creation of the all-important themes for an interpretive program. As an effective interpretation is one which causes our audience to think about the theme, making these themes as easy to understand and as memorable as possible is in our best interest. A number of techniques can be used to improve a theme and, though not all are needed in every case, a good theme will always include a few.

Finally, Chapter 5 employs the hypothesized model to illustrate how it might be used to develop an interpretive program in downtown Pensacola. This example is limited as it was impractical to consult stakeholders and only a single topic is developed, but it still demonstrates the application of most of the concepts discussed. The result is a pair of interpretations for the

129

three forts of downtown Pensacola which work around conflicts from modern features, includes nearby heritage resources, and considers current uses of the interpreted areas.

The city of Pensacola, Florida, has the history and the desire for a successful heritage tourism program. However, it currently lacks a well-organized interpretive plan which overcomes the complexities of interpreting in an urban setting. A complete plan relies upon too many factors which become dated with time, and there is little point to preparing one before the city is ready to act upon it. Instead, this thesis has presented a model which will enable the development of a successful interpretive plan; a crucial part of any heritage tourism program that wishes to present itself as a unique and authentic experience.

130

REFERENCES

Baugher, Sherene, and Diana diZerega Wall 1997 Ancient and Modern United: Archaeological Exhibits in Urban Plazas. In Presenting Archaeology to the Public: Digging for Truths, John H. Jameson Jr., editor, pp. 114–129. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.

Benchley, Elizabeth D. 2007 Archaeology of Old Pensacola: 2005 Investigations at the Commanding Officer’s Compound (8ES1150). Report of Investigations, No. 156. University of West Florida Archaeology Institute, University of West Florida, Pensacola.

Benchley, Elizabeth D., R. Wayne Childers, John James Clune, Cindy L. Bercot, David B. Dodson, April Whitaker, and E. Ashley Flynt 2007 The Colonial People of Pensacola: History and Archaeology of the Community Associated with Spanish San Miguel de Panzacola (1754-1763) and British Pensacola (1763- 1781). Report of Investigations, No. 107. Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.

Bense, Judith A. 1982 Archaeological Investigations at the South Seville Parking Lot Project. Historic Pensacola Preservation Board, Pensacola. 1986 Archaeological Survey and Description of City-Owned Property, Pensacola, Florida. Report of Investigations, No. 13. Office of Cultural and Archaeological Research, University of West Florida, Pensacola. 1987 Pensacola Archaeological Survey, 1986 Season. Report of Investigations, No. 10. Office of Cultural and Archaeological Research, University of West Florida, Pensacola. 1989a The Pensacola Archaeological Survey and Summary of Archaeological Information in Pensacola to 1988: Technical Report, Vol. 1. Pensacola Archaeological Society Publication. Pensacola Archaeological Society, Pensacola, FL.

1989b The Pensacola Archaeological Survey and Summary of Archaeological Information in Pensacola to 1988: Technical Report, Vol. 2. Pensacola Archaeological Society Publication. Pensacola Archaeological Society, Pensacola, FL.

1995 The Colonial Archaeological Record in Pensacola, Florida: A First Synthesis of UWF Archaeological Investigations Conducted between 1983 and 1994. Report of Investigations, No. 74. University of West Florida Archaeology Institute, University of West Florida, Pensacola. 1999 Archaeology of Late Colonial Pensacola. In Archaeology of Colonial Pensacola, Judith A. Bense, editor, pp. 121–205. Ripley P. Bullen Series. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 131

2002 Field Report 2002 Archaeological Field Excavation Presidio Isla de Santa Rosa (8ES22). Report of Investigations, No. 105. University of West Florida Archaeology Institute, University of West Florida, Pensacola.

Bense, Judith A. (editor) 1985a Hawkshaw: Prehistory and History in an Urban Neighborhood in Pensacola, Florida. Report of Investigations, No. 007. Office of Cultural and Archaeological Research, University of West Florida, Pensacola.

1985b Reconnaissance Survey of Archaeological Sites on Santa Rosa Island, Northwest Florida. Report of Investigations, No. 008. University of West Florida Archaeology Institute, University of West Florida, Pensacola.

Blockley, Marion 2004 The Ironbridge Gorge: Preservation, Reconstruction, and Presentation of Industrial Heritage. In The Reconstructed Past: Reconstructions in the Public Interpretation of Archaeology and History, John H. Jameson Jr., editor, pp. 167–197. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.

Bograd, Mark D., and Theresa A. Singleton 1997 The Interpretation of Slavery: Mount Vernon, Monticello, and Colonial Williamsburg. In Presenting Archaeology to the Public: Digging for Truths, John H. Jameson Jr., editor, pp. 193– 204. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.

Bowden, Jesse Earle 1991 Canal Dreams and Railroad Reality. In Iron Horse in the Pinelands-Building West Florida’s Railroad: 1881-1883, Virginia Parks, editor, pp. 4–16. Pensacola Historical Society, Pensacola, FL.

Bratten, John R., and Gregory D. Cook 2005 Pensacola Waterfront Survey. Report of Investigations, No. 135. University of West Florida Archaeology Institute, University of West Florida, Pensacola.

Brosnaham, Richard Thomas 2010 From Red-Light District to the National Register: An Overview of Historic Preservation in Pensacola, Florida. Master's Thesis, Department of History, University of West Florida, Pensacola.

Brown, Marley R., III, and Edward A. Chappell 2004 Archaeological Authenticity and Reconstruction at Colonial Williamsburg. In The

132

Reconstructed Past: Reconstructions in the Public Interpretation of Archaeology and History, John H. Jameson Jr., editor, pp. 47–63. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.

Bucchino, Nicole Rae 2014 Talking Smack: The Archaeology and History of Pensacola’s Red Snapper Fishing Industry. Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of West Florida, Pensacola.

Burcaw, George Ellis 1983 Introduction to Museum Work, 2nd edition. American Association for State and Local History, Nashville, TN.

Caputo, Paul, Shea Lewis, and Lisa Brochu 2008 Interpretation By Design: Graphic Design Basics for Heritage Interpreters. InterpPress, Fort Collins, CO.

Castañeda, Quetzil E., and Jennifer P. Matthews 2013 Archaeology Meccas of Tourism: Exploration, Protection, and Exploitation. In Tourism and Archaeology: Sustainable Meeting Grounds, Cameron Walker and Neil Carr, editors, pp. 37–64. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, CA.

Coker, William S. 1999 Pensacola, 1686-1821. In Archaeology of Colonial Pensacola, Judith A. Bense, editor, pp. 5–60. Ripley P. Bullen Series. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Copeland, Tim 2004 Presenting Archaeology to the Public: Constructing Insights On-Site. In Public Archaeology, Nick Merriman, editor, pp. 132–144. Routledge, New York, NY.

Dibble, Ernest F. 1974 Antebellum Pensacola and the Military Presence, Vol. 3. Mayes Printing, Pensacola, FL.

Distretti, Joe, and Carl Kuttruff 2004 Reconstruction, Interpretation, and Education at Fort Loudon. In The Reconstructed Past: Reconstructions in the Public Interpretation of Archaeology and History, John H. Jameson Jr., editor, pp. 167–176. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.

Dystart, Jane E. 1999 Indians in Colonial Pensacola. In Archaeology of Colonial Pensacola, Judith A. Bense, editor, pp. 61–89. Ripley P. Bullen Series. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 133

Eschbach, Krysta Lynne 2008 An Examination of Eighteenth Century Spanish Colonial Socio-Economics as seen at Presidio Isla de Santa Rosa. Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of West Florida, Pensacola.

Estabrook, Richard, Amy Mitchell Cook, Della Scott-Ireton, and William B. Lees 2007 Local Government Preservation Program Directory. University of West Florida, Pensacola . Accessed 3 February 2015.

Florida Public Archaeology Network 2014 About Us, Overview . Accessed 3 February 2015.

Flynt, Elizabeth Ashley 2004 A Study of Households Occupied in British and Second Spanish Pensacola, 1763-1821. Master’s Thesis, Department of History, University of West Florida, Pensacola.

Fry, Bruce W. 2004 Designing the Past at Fortress Louisburg. In The Reconstructed Past: Reconstructions in the Public Interpretation of Archaeology and History, John H. Jameson Jr., editor, pp. 199–214. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.

Gordon, Marissa Condosta 2006 Spatial organization of Presidio Isla de Santa Rosa (1722-1752). Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of West Florida, Pensacola.

Greene, James Nottingham 2009 Architectural Variations in Pensacola’s Three Presidios. Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of West Florida, Pensacola.

Griffith, Wendall Lamar 1988 Royal Spanish Presidio of San Miguel de Panzacola, 1753-1763. Master’s Thesis, Department of History, University of West Florida, Pensacola.

Gross, Michael, Ron Zimmerman, and Jim Buchholz 2006 Signs, Trails, and Wayside Exhibits: Connecting People and Places, 3rd edition. UW-SP Foundation Press, Inc., Stevens Point, WI. 134

Ham, Sam H. 1983 Cognitive Psychology and Interpretation: Synthesis and Application. Journal of Interpretation 1(8):11–27.

2013 Interpretation-Making a Difference on Purpose. Fulcrum Publishing, Golden, CO.

Harris, Norma J. 2003a Annual Report 2002 Archaeological Field Excavation Presidio Isla de Santa Rosa (8ES22). Report of Investigations, No. 119. University of West Florida Archaeology Institute, University of West Florida, Pensacola.

2003b Field Report 2003 Archaeological Field Excavation Presidio Isla de Santa Rosa (8ES22). Report of Investigations, No. 114. University of West Florida Archaeology Institute, University of West Florida, Pensacola.

2004 Field Report 2004 Archaeological Field Excavation Presidio Isla de Santa Rosa (8ES22). Report of Investigations, No. 128. University of West Florida Archaeology Institute, University of West Florida, Pensacola.

Harris, Norma J. and Krista L. Eschbach 2006 Presidio Isla de Santa Rosa Archaeological Investigations 2002-2004. Report of Investigations, No. 133. University of West Florida Archaeology Institute, University of West Florida, Pensacola.

Historical Advisory Committee 1967 Recommendation to the Council of the City of Pensacola for a Comprehensive Historical Development Plan. Council of the City of Pensacola, Pensacola, FL.

Holmes, April 2012 Demographic Patterns at Presidios Santa María de Galve and Isla de Santa Rosa (1698- 1752): An Analysis of Historic Documents and Personal Adornment Artifacts. Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of West Florida, Pensacola.

Hughes, Karen, Barbara Little, and Roy Ballantyne 2013 Integrating Education and Entertainment in Archaeological Tourism: Complementary Concepts or Opposite Ends of the Spectrum? In Tourism and Archaeology: Sustainable Meeting Grounds, Cameron Walker and Neil Carr, editors, pp. 65–90. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, CA.

135

Hunter, James William 2001 A Broken Lifeline of Commerce, Trade and Defense on the Colonial Frontier: Historical Archaeology of the Santa Rosa Island Wreck, an Early Eighteenth-Century Spanish Shipwreck in Pensacola Bay, Florida. Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of West Florida, Pensacola.

James, Larry Bernie 2011 Hidden Vestiges: An Approach to Recognizing an 18th Century Historic Landscape in an Urban Environment. Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of West Florida, Pensacola.

Jameson, John H., Jr. 2004 Introduction: Archaeology and Reconstructions. In The Reconstructed Past: Reconstructions in the Public Interpretation of Archaeology and History, John H. Jameson Jr., editor, pp. 1–18. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.

Jameson, John H., Jr. (editor) 1997 Presenting Archaeology to the Public: Digging for Truths. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.

2004 The Reconstructed Past: Reconstructions in the Public Interpretation of Archaeology and History. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.

Johnson, Sandra L., and Virginia Parks 1988 Pensacola: The Old and the New: A Guide to Pensacola and Surrounding Areas. Pensacola Historical Society, Pensacola, FL.

Joy, Deborah 1988 Archaeological Investigations Behind the Old City Hall in Pensacola, Florida. Report of Investigations, No. 014. Office of Cultural and Archaeological Research, University of West Florida, Pensacola.

1989a The Colonial Archaeological Trail in Pensacola, Florida: Phase I. Report of Investigations, No. 027. Institute of West Florida Archaeology, University of West Florida, Pensacola.

1989b Excavations Under Old Christ Church in Pensacola, Florida. Report of Investigations, No. 025. Institute of West Florida Archaeology, University of West Florida, Pensacola.

Joy, Deborah, and Janet R. Lloyd 1988 Archaeological Investigations for Phases Two and Three of the Palafox Place Project.

136

Report of Investigations, No. 012. Office of Cultural and Archaeological Research, University of West Florida, Pensacola.

Kaner, Frank, and Jacquelyn Wilson 2012 Quadricentennial Spanish Village. Pensacola History Illustrated: A Journal of Pensacola & West Florida 2(1):19–20.

Kennedy, Kendra Ann 2010 Between the Bayous: The Maritime Cultural Landscape of the Downtown Pensacola Waterfront. Master's Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of West Florida, Pensacola.

Killebrew, Ann E. 2004 Reflections on a Reconstruction of the Ancient Qasrin Synagogue and Village. In The Reconstructed Past: Reconstructions in the Public Interpretation of Archaeology and History, John H. Jameson Jr., editor, pp. 127–146. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.

Knudson, Douglas M., Ted T. Cable, and Larry Beck 2003 Interpretation of Cultural and Natural Resources, 2nd edition. Venture Publishing, State College, PA.

Land Bound Information System 2013 Aerial of Pensacola, FL. Land Bound Information System, Pensacola, FL.

Lees, William B. 2014 Missouri Basin Projects and the Emergence of Historical Archaeology on the Great Plains. In Dam Projects and the Growth of American Archaeology: The River Basin Survey and the Interagency Archaeological Salvage Program, Kimball M. Banks and Jon S. Czapliki, editors, pp. 151–166. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, CA.

Leonard, Irving A. 1974 Pensacola’s First Spanish Period (1698-1763): Inception, Founding, and Troubled Existence. In Colonial Pensacola, Vol. 1, James R. McGovern, editor, pp. 7–48. The Pensacola Series Commemorating the American Revolution Bicentennial. Department of History, University of West Florida; the Escambia County Board of Public Instruction; Pensacola Action ’76; and the Pensacola News-Journal Series Coordinator, Pensacola, FL.

137

Lipe, William D. 2002 Public Benefits of Archaeological Research. In Public Benefits of Archaeology, Barbara J. Little, editor, pp. 20–28. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Little, Barbara J. (editor) 2002 Public Benefits of Archaeology. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Little, Barbara J., and Paul A. Shackel 2014 Archaeology as a Tool of Civic Engagement: Working toward the Public Good. AltaMira Press, Lanham, MD.

Lloyd, Janet R. 2000 Archaeological Monitoring of the Tarragona-Romana-Manresa Streets Renovation Project Pensacola, FL. Report of Investigations, No. 088. University of West Florida Archaeology Institute, University of West Florida, Pensacola.

2002 Archaeological Monitoring of the Government Street Sewer Replacement Project Pensacola, Florida. University of West Florida Archaeology Institute, University of West Florida, Pensacola.

Mackintosh, Barry 2004 National Park Service Reconstruction: Policy and Practice. In The Reconstructed Past: Reconstructions in the Public Interpretation of Archaeology and History, John H. Jameson Jr., editor, pp. 65–74. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.

McDavid, Carol 2004 Towards a More Democratic Archaeology?: The Internet and Public Archaeological Practice. In Public Archaeology, Nick Merriman, editor, pp. 159–187. Routledge, New York, NY.

McGovern, James R. 1976 The Emergence of a City in the Modern South: Pensacola 1900-1945. E. O. Painter Printing Co., DeLeon Springs, FL.

Merriman, Nick (editor) 2004 Public Archaeology. Routledge, New York, NY.

Noble, Vergil E. 2004 The Value of Reconstructions: An Archaeological Perspective. In The Reconstructed

138

Past: Reconstructions in the Public Interpretation of Archaeology and History, John H. Jameson Jr., editor, pp. 273–286. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.

Pearce, George F. 2008 Pensacola During the Civil War: A Thorn in the Side of the Confederacy. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Pensacola City Council 2011 City of Pensacola: Policies of the City Council . Accessed 10 January 2015.

Phillips, John C. 1993 Mill Site Reconnaissance in Northwest Florida. Report of Investigations, No. 053. University of West Florida Archaeology Institute, University of West Florida, Pensacola.

Pinter, Teresa L. 2013 Casa Malpais: Development of an Archaeological Park. In Tourism and Archaeology: Sustainable Meeting Grounds, Cameron Walker and Neil Carr, editors, pp. 143–154. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, CA.

Poktylo, David, and Gregory Bass 2002 Interpreting Cultural Resources: Hatzic Site. In Public Benefits of Archaeology, Barbara J. Little, editor, pp. 156–165. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Potter, Parker B., Jr. 1994 Public Archaeology in Annapolis: A Critical Approach to History in Maryland’s Ancient City. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

1997 The Archaeological Site as an Interpretive Environment. In Presenting Archaeology to the Public: Digging for Truths, John H. Jameson Jr., editor, pp. 35–53. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.

Potter, Parker B., Jr., and Nancy Jo Chabot 1997 Locating Truths on Archaeological Sites. In Presenting Archaeology to the Public: Digging for Truths, John H. Jameson Jr., editor, pp. 45–53. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.

139

Praetzellis, Adrian 2002 Neat Stuff and Good Stories: Interpreting Historical Archaeology in Two Local Communities. In Public Benefits of Archaeology, Barbara J. Little, editor, pp. 156–165. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Praetzellis, Mary, and Adrian Praetzellis 2011 Cultural Resource Management Archaeology and Heritage Values. Historical Archaeology 45(1):86–100.

Rea, Robert R. 1974 Pensacola Under the British (1763-1781). In Colonial Pensacola, Vol. 1, James R. McGovern, editor, pp. 57–82. The Pensacola Series Commemorating the American Revolution Bicentennial. Department of History, University of West Florida; the Escambia County Board of Public Instruction; Pensacola Action ’76; and the Pensacola News-Journal Series Coordinator, Pensacola, FL.

Rodgers, Jackie 2014 Virtue Lost: Utilizing Previously Excavated Collections to Study the Red Light District of Pensacola, FL. Master's Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of West Florida, Pensacola.

Roth, Stacy F. 1998 Past into Present: Effective Techniques for First-Person Historical Interpretation. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.

Scott, Douglas D. 1997 Interpreting Archaeology at Little Bighorn. In Presenting Archaeology to the Public: Digging for Truths, John H. Jameson Jr., editor, pp. 234–242. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.

Slick, Katherine 2002 Archaeology and the Tourism Train. In Public Benefits of Archaeology, Barbara J. Little, editor, pp. 146–156. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

State Archives of Florida, Florida Memory 1920 Street Scene of the Plaza Ferdinand-Pensacola, Florida, Photograph. State Archives of Florida, Florida Memory . Accessed 3 February 2015.

140

Stringfield, Margo S. 1996 Wells in Colonial Pensacola, Florida. Master's Thesis, Department of History, University of West Florida, Pensacola.

Thomas, David Hurst 2002 Roadside Ruins: Does America Still Need Archaeology Museums? In Public Benefits of Archaeology, Barbara J. Little, editor, pp. 130–145. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Thomin, Michael 2014 When a Conquistador Met a Tourist in Bermuda Shorts at the Beach: Spanish Village and the Florida Quadricentennial. Pensacola, FL.

Tibbetts, Melvan [1862-1864] Melvan Tibbetts, Photograph. Tibbetts, Melvan, Letters, 1862-1864, Box 1, Folder 2. University of West Florida Archives and West Florida History Center, University of West Florida, Pensacola.

Tilden, Freeman 2007 Interpreting Our Heritage. R. Bruce Craig, editor. 4th edition. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.

University of West Florida Archaeology Institute 2015 Outline of Downtown Pensacola Roads and Creeks. University of West Florida, Pensacola. n.d. Projection of Colonial Maps Depicting Downtown Pensacola's Forts. University of West Florida Archaeology Institute, Pensacola. n.d. Overlay of the 1778 Elias Durnford Map on Modern Pensacola. University of West Florida Archaeology Institute, Pensacola.

University of West Florida Historic Trust [2015] UWF Historic Trust Building Inventory. University of West Florida Historic Trust, Pensacola.

University of West Florida Historic Trust, and Pensacola Architectural Review Board 2015 Preservation District Guidelines and Regulations. University of West Florida Historic Trust and the Pensacola Architectural Review Board, Pensacola.

141

Urban Design Associates 2004 Pensacola Historic District Master Plan. University of West Florida; Institute of Human and Machine Cognition; Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Pensacola; West Florida Historic Preservation, Inc., Pensacola.

Walker, Cameron, and Neil Carr (editors) 2013 Tourism and Archaeology: Sustainable Meeting Grounds. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, CA.

Wheaton, Rodd L. 2004 Lessons Learned at Bent’s Old Fort and Fort Union Trading Post. In The Reconstructed Past: Reconstructions in the Public Interpretation of Archaeology and History, John H. Jameson Jr., editor, pp. 215–232. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.

Whitaker, April Leigh 2005 History and Archaeology at Plaza Ferdinand: An Analysis of Spanish and British Colonial Lifeways. Master's Thesis, Department of History, University of West Florida, Pensacola.

White, Esther C. 2002 Archaeology and Tourism at Mount Vernon. In Public Benefits of Archaeology, Barbara J. Little, editor, pp. 146–156. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

2004 Reconstruction Dilemmas at George Washington’s Blacksmith Shop. In The Reconstructed Past: Reconstructions in the Public Interpretation of Archaeology and History, John H. Jameson Jr., editor, pp. 77–90. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.

Williams, Carrie Austill 2004 Land Use at the Site of Old Christ Church Pensacola, Florida. Master's Thesis, Department of History, University of West Florida, Pensacola.

Williams, Siska Marie 2010 Tracing the Trade: A Proposed Archaeological Model for Panton, Leslie, and Company Trade Site Types in Second Spanish Florida. Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of West Florida, Pensacola.

Yamin, Rebecca 1997 Museum in the Making: The Morven Project. In Presenting Archaeology to the Public: Digging for Truths, John H. Jameson Jr., editor, pp. 205–221. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.

142