Living
Historical Farms
Handbook

John T. Schlebecker and Gale E. Peterson

SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY • NUMBER 16

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION PRESS
CITY OF WASHINGTON
1972

SERIAL PUBLICATIONS OF THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

The emphasis upon publications as a means of diffusing knowledge was expressed by the first Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution. In his formal plan for the Institution, Joseph Henry articulated a program that included the following statement: “It is proposed to publish a series of reports, giving an account of the new discoveries in science, and of the changes made from year to year in all branches of knowledge.” This keynote of basic research has been adhered to over the years in the issuance of thousands of titles in serial publications under the Smithsonian imprint, commencing with Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge in 1848 and continuing with the following active series:

Smithsonian Annals of Flight
Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology
Smithsonian Contributions to Astrophysics
Smithsonian Contributions to Botany
Smithsonian Contributions to the Earth Sciences
Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology
Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology
Smithsonian Studies in History and Technology

In these series, the Institution publishes original articles and monographs dealing with the research and collections of its several museums and offices and of professional colleagues at other institutions of learning. These papers report newly acquired facts, synoptic interpretations of data, or original theory in specialized fields. These publications are distributed by mailing lists to libraries, laboratories, and other interested institutions and specialists throughout the world. Individual copies may be obtained from the Smithsonian Institution Press as long as stocks are available.

S. DILLON RIPLEY

Secretary

Smithsonian Institution

Official publication date is handstamped in a limited number of initial copies and is recorded in the Institution’s annual report, Smithsonian Year.

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON   1972

Living Historical Farms Handbook

INTRODUCTION

On living historical farms men farm as they once did during some specific time in the past. The farms have tools and equipment like those once used, and they raise the same types of livestock and plants used during the specified era. The operations are carried on in the presence of visitors.

The interest in such farms has resulted in the forming of the Association for Living Historical Farms and Agricultural Museums to which individuals and institutions may belong. Many of those engaged in the creating of living historical farms are starting fresh, with neither personal nor institutional experience to guide them. This handbook is intended to provide them with information gained by the experiences of others. The information here contained may be useful in helping them get started or in keeping going.

Some of those interested in living historical farms have had considerable experience in museum work and for them much of the information in this handbook is elementary. Indeed, it is from their experiences that the handbook has been composed. Even these museologists, however, from time to time like to know the location of others engaged in efforts like their own. The lists of persons and of enterprises provided herein will facilitate direct contact and exchange of information.

Popular interest in living historical farms has generated a large quantity of inquiries which have been nearly impossible to handle in the regular course of business. This handbook may answer most of the commonly asked questions.

CHRONOLOGY OF THE LIVING HISTORICAL FARMS MOVEMENT

1919 | Agricultural History Society founded on February 14.
1924 | Agricultural History Society incorporated on June 6.
1943 | Farmers’ Museum, Cooperstown, New York, founded.
1945 | “Living Agricultural Museums,” by Herbert Kellar, published in Agricultural History, in July.
1952 | Freeman Farm, Old Sturbridge Village, Massachusetts, dedicated on June 28.
1965 | “Living Historical Farms: A Proposal for Action,” by Marion Clawson, published in Agricultural History in April.
1966 | Resources for the Future made grant to the Smithsonian Institution to study the Living Historical Farms Proposal, October 31.
1967 | Living History Farms, Iowa, incorporated on August 8.
1968 | Living Historical Farms: A Walk into the Past, published in September.
| Department of Historical Agriculture formed at Old Sturbridge Village.
1969 | House of Representatives Bill 13909 presented by Congressman Wright Patman, September 19.
| Senate Bill 3124 presented by Senators Miller and Hughes, November 6.
1970 | Grain Harvest Festival opened at Living History Farms, Iowa, July 31.
| Association of Living Historical Farms and Agricultural Museums founded at Old Sturbridge Village on September 17 and formally organized on November 20.
| First issue of Living Historical Farms Bulletin published on December 1.

STARTING A LIVING HISTORICAL FARM

Successful living historical farm projects do not begin in some singularly different way from unsuccessful efforts. Were that the case, providing a blueprint for success would be fairly uncomplicated. The task is more difficult than that because there is no way to simply categorize the greatly diverse organizations that are developing living historical farms. As noted elsewhere in this handbook, local and state historical societies, the National Park Service, county and state parks systems, restoration developments, foundations, and other groups are developing various interpretations of what constitutes a living historical farm.

Yet, after visiting several historical farms and corresponding with the developers of many others, we have noted certain patterns that are worth recommending. Given the difficulty of accommodating a single essay to diverse groups and situations, the approach here is to begin with the most unorganized and unstructured situation and proceed through several early phases. For the most part, the considerations discussed in the first section of this chapter can be made before any money is raised. However, it may be desirable to visit other historical restorations and it may be necessary to spend money to hold onto a possible site even before completing studies of the early phases. Early demands for small amounts of money are discussed in the second section of the chapter. An organization which preexists a living historical farm project may want to alter some of the early steps. Indeed, every project will require accommodating these general suggestions to each specific, and thus unique, situation.

Formulating the Project: Some Preliminary Considerations

The Originators

Several projects have begun with a few people being interested in some type of living historical farm or restoration project. They have been, variously, members of a local historical society, prominent citizens seeking to develop a high-caliber tourist attraction, and heirs of a name, prestige, and, though less often, of money from a former prominent citizen. In short, they are generally historically conscious and interested people who nearly always lack any formal training in historical research or restoration. A living historical farm is not necessarily the first concern of such people. More often they seek to restore a particularly significant building in the community or want to preserve the site of some locally famous person’s residence.

Such persons often lack perspective and are unable to distinguish that which is historically significant from the unique, grand, or merely unusual in their locality. These people are invaluable preservers and collectors of local history artifacts and documents that professionals need. They can, indeed, do fine work so long as they remain on guard against myopic provinciality and consult with professionals and others outside their community.

Type of Project

Probably the first matter the originators of a project should consider is just what kind of project they desire to develop. The originators must formulate a fairly specific notion of what their living historical farm project is to be. In making these determinations, the group should attempt to focus on a project that can have as broad a base in the community as possible but still be of sufficient importance so that people outside the community (tourists) will be interested in visiting it. Since the project will never become self-supporting, the anticipated expenses beyond income will have to be at an acceptable level. To expect otherwise may mean disappointment, and perhaps failure.

In determining the type of living historical farm project that would be best for their community, the organizers shall consider several factors.

Would the farm stand alone or should a museum be part of the development?

Would additional restoration work or reconstruction efforts, such as a village, be included in the project? A larger facility may logically draw more visitors. More visitors will make the site’s costs increase, but they also will leave more money in the community as a whole.

Is there already a restoration project in the community to which a farm could be added ?

Are there other tourist attractions nearby? If so, a farm alone might be enough to attract people. who are already coming to a popular vacation or camping spot. Major cities, of course, provide visitors and generate tourists in themselves. In quite isolated places, however, it may take more than just a farm with its uneven level of activity to pull people from very far. At noted elsewhere, costs increase with the visitation, but some costs are largely fixed, and more people are generally desirable.

Would a restoration or a reconstruction be better? The Pioneer Arizona Foundation adopted the fairly common view that it is “better to preserve than to repair; better to repair than restore; better to restore than reconstruct.” Local conditions may indicate that a reconstruction is best in a specific situation, however.

The project that begins with only a museum or a farm may well evolve and grow. Should a restored village with crafts and costumes be hoped for somewhere in the future? The organizing group must take that into consideration as it approaches other decisions about site location and time period for the farm.

Selecting the Time Period

Because it dictates so many other things, selection of the time period will probably be the biggest single decision the organizing group will make. It will largely define the appropriate kind of agriculture to be shown; the kinds and numbers of buildings to be located and restored or reconstructed; and the types of antiques and furnishings to be acquired and stored away for later use.

To a great degree the time period determines the type of farming operation. Thus, the size of the site, costs of operation, and attractiveness to tourists are all affected. The time setting could also indicate unusual interpretation problems, such as slavery or bonanza wheat farming, that should perhaps be avoided. In selecting the time period, the originators should carefully think about the significance of agriculture to the community’s past, and, conversely, the community’s contribution to the development of agriculture.

One matter that must be observed is that each community began with the pioneer farmstead, and some people will suggest recapturing that time period. Such developments very often are of considerable interest to local people, but generally not to tourists. There are several such developments around the country, and they tend to be much alike. When associated with the life of a famous person, however, the routine becomes unique. For example, the reconstruction of Tom Lincoln’s pioneer farmstead in southern Indiana where Abraham grew up has an inherent interest that most pioneer log cabin farms do not. It might be possible to satisfy the legitimate interest of local citizens by having the pioneer farm as part of, yet separate from, the site of a more advanced and commercial farming operation. The pioneer farmstead does not require a particularly extensive outlay of capital, nor does it require many employees for its operation and interpretation. Several examples are now in varying degrees of existence, so already much research has been done and experience accumulated. For the most part, problems of interpretation have been dealt with by others. To find the subtle uniqueness of a “typical” cabin in a specified community, however, would still require some work. Thus, while it is not necessary to dismiss the development of a pioneer farmstead, it probably should not be the main focus of a living historical site.

After having evaluated the earliest (pioneer) farmstead, the organizing group should consider other time periods. The development of commercial agriculture across the nation and across time is a principal focus of those interested in a network of nonrepetitive living historical farms. With as broad a perspective as possible in mind, the organizing group should consider the phases through which local agriculture has moved in order to determine how to create an inherently interesting, yet broadly important, story.

A “Memorial” or a “Typical” Farm?

Related to the consideration of the broad versus the narrow perspective is the frequently occurring desire to memorialize some locally important citizen by re-creating his specific farm. Certainly, almost all restoration efforts illustrate the home, furnishings, and life-style of a specific, usually prominent person of the community. This may be more acceptable in the house-museum realm than it is in the living historical farm area. Apparently, to many people a house where someone important once lived or a building where something important occurred has an intrinsic historicity. Often, the logic proceeds that the land such a person farmed and his methods of farming also may be worth restoring or, more precisely, “re-creating.” This, however, is debatable. In moving from memorializing someone by preserving his home to creating a living history pageant-play, the outlay of money and effort is greatly increased. Its legitimacy must be examined accordingly, and the pros and cons weighed. Some of these considerations might involve the following questions.

Does the period when the person was alive coincide with what is otherwise felt to be the best time period to be recaptured by a significant living historical farm ? If not, is it really desirable to sacrifice what is otherwise considered most valid for the memory of this person?

How important was the person? Was he known only in the community, or was he known throughout the state, or nation? Who remembers him? Is it really historically valid to so memorialize this person or family, or has provincial myopia clouded historical perspective?

Was agriculture important to the life of this person, or was it really quite incidental to his life and accomplishments? Obviously, re-creating someone’s farm is questionable if he himself was associated in name only with the operation.

How typical was this person’s farm? In terms of what the group considers to be historically important about local agriculture, did the owner’s operation of his farm fit that broader scheme? Practically any specific farmer would be atypical to some degree, but how much could be told about agriculture generally while telling the specific story of this man? Is the sacrifice to the general story worth the cost? It is always possible to create fictional histories to go with a house or farm so that the visitor is told a specific story.

Do adequate records exist to authenticate the specific story of this man or family? These would include written records of what he owned; what he bought and sold over the years; when he had the barns built; when he added a wing to the house, and so on. The historical evidence should also indicate why he did certain things at particular times. Further, there must be some archeological evidence to indicate certain sites, such as where a second barn was located after the first had burned or was abandoned to the hogs.

In short, if both an authentic, historically valid project and the re-creation of some person’s personal history are the goals, the organizing group must evaluate early the extent to which it will be necessary to improvise with the “truth” in the process.

Frequently, the impetus for a project comes from the heirs of a prominent family. If their money and their support make the difference between developing a living historical farm attraction or not having one at all, then it may be necessary to make the best of the situation. But no one should be misled. The pedagogical advantages of telling the typical story versus the monetary easements that come with memorializing someone’s grandfather must be weighed with care.

Committing the project to the re-creation of a home and farm belonging to a previous day’s leading citizen may not tell anyone, even in the same community, much about how average people (the “forgotten Americans” of that day?) really lived and farmed. The visitor from a distance will frequently sense this, so the heirs might well be forewarned that the insensitive tourist is likely to comment: “I wonder how the old coot made all his money?” Worse yet, in some cases, someone from the community might tell.

Autonomy versus Affiliation

By now the organizing committee will have considered and decided several important issues about the project. Pretty clear evidence should have emerged and decisions reached about the type of living historical farm desired. Fairly complete reports concerning these matters should be prepared in this “study phase” to record why the decisions about the type of development and its time setting were felt preferable to the alternatives.

To proceed further will require some funds. Perhaps members of the organizing committee can finance personal trips to restoration projects that seem relevant to the type of project the originators have in mind. Should a certain piece of property seem ideal, one of these persons might take steps to keep if from being lost from future use. Otherwise, these preliminary considerations can be made without expending funds.

To actually get the project under way, some money must be available. At this point, then, the originators may want to evaluate the desirability of creating a new organization to develop the living historical farm or of working through some existing body; in short, to make a delineation between autonomy and affiliation. The organizers might list and evaluate the possible groups with which it could affiliate. This list might include a local or state historical society, municipal or other governmental officials, a parks system, and other such groups. A local or state historical society might make the proposed farm a society project. There may be advantages in having the project made a community one in some official way, and thus become tax supported. If such sponsoring groups are unacceptable, an alternative would be to form a new organization at the appropriate time. A decision to go it alone does not really close the matter. The issue will repeatedly assert itself, and the advantages and disadvantages must be weighed anew.

All of the noted alternatives have merit but the appropriate move almost certainly will depend on local conditions, which are impossible to predict. The Pioneer Arizona Foundation and Living History Farms in Iowa have elected to develop projects and raise funds in their own names. They thus retain their identity and need not compromise plans and goals through absorption into a larger body. They have chosen their own sites and have raised their own money—which is not dispersed to other programs by some parent organization.

Other groups have, to some degree at least, merged with preexisting organizations. A new project in Cleveland, Mississippi, is associated, to some extent, with the local Chamber of Commerce, thus making its private-municipal status vague. However, it has seemingly moved along faster this way than it may have otherwise, and apparently without sacrificing much autonomy. Similarly, the project of Westville Handicrafts in Lumpkin, Georgia, has been a part, to some degree, of the Stewart County Historical Commission; however, it has its own nonprofit education corporation and so far has been a community-wide effort. Perhaps in smaller communities there is more opportunity for living historical farm projects to develop with rather vague relationships to other public and private organizations.

Abandoning to a large organization a living historical farm project when it is only in the formative or “idea” stage may put off any development for several years. The development may be accomplished, but only after that organization—a park system or historical society, for example—has the budgetary resources to “afford” the luxury of a major restoration project. Unless the director of such an organization has himself been one of the originators of a project, no examples have been found where the society or park system moved very fast to develop a living historical farm, even where the organization received the land “gratis.” If the project seems important, the originators should try to hang onto it themselves. They care the most about it, and they will be more successful in initial funding efforts than would a larger body.

The principal exception is in relatively rural areas where the originators can make their idea the prime project of the organization with which it is considering affiliation. The advantages of using an established and, presumably, well-respected organization are considerable. Two current living historical farm projects have evolved out of the restoration efforts of such organizations. For both the Spartanburg County (South Carolina) Historical Society and the Tipton-Haynes Historical Society (Johnson City, Tennessee) such an agricultural interpretation of restored farmsteads has been a logical, even necessary, progression. There has been no need for a separate organization, and the projects have not been diluted by being a small part of a large organization’s program.

If a project can acceptably become the principal activity of a preexisting group, then that may be the best solution. But if it were to become just one activity in a large, yet tightly budgeted organization the drawbacks likely would be too great. Those who feel that the living historical farm project is important would be unhappy turning over the decision-making functions to a body for whom it would become just another demand on its budget. Fortunately, given the local situation and the origin of the project, the appropriate organizational status generally becomes self-evident.

Incorporation

If there is no organization with which to affiliate acceptably, the organizing group should seek to become a private, nonprofit educational corporation. This tax and legal status is not difficult to qualify for, and generally it is a necessary prerequisite for accepting contributions of money or antiques. It will be necessary to draw up a list of officers and a board of directors to serve the new corporation. Depending on how broadly based the group of originators is already, it is often thought a good idea to get well-known people to serve, and thus lend their endorsements to the new organization.

The Press

The announcement of the new corporation may be the first formal news item to the press and to other interested organizations. The plans for a living historical farm and the names of those who are serving on the project’s board of directors should be of considerable interest to the local community and, very possibly, to the larger newspapers in the state. There is no need for major promotional or endorsement coverage at this phase of the project, but the existence of the project in a formal way should thus be noted.

As the project develops, good press coverage will be invaluable. Later on it can assist with the fund raising and can generate visitors. Access to the media is important and should be planned for well ahead. A publisher or a senior editor might make a fine choice for the corporation’s board of directors.

Initial Funds

Before getting started, some funds are needed. Probably $10,000 would cover the intermediate expenses that are encountered before serious fund raising begins. The new tax-exempt/tax-deductible organization should secure these first funds and get the project under way.

Visiting other Sites

Before all the matters raised in the first part of this section have reached final conclusion, participants of the organizing group should visit other historical sites. The amount of the traveling will vary, depending greatly on the extent and diversity of the planned development. In a 1967 report the Pioneer Arizona Foundation noted that “the experience of over 400 conservation and historic areas in eight countries personally visited by our staff and volunteers has been the basis of P.A.F. planning.” Most groups will not be able, or need, to travel that much. This handbook should help groups select sites from which they can learn the most.

The originators themselves often absorb the costs of travel. An institutional affiliation, such as a college, often contributes toward such expense, and sometimes a state legislature may provide money for a project that will represent the history of the entire state.

In planning visits to other sites, it usually is helpful to write ahead so that representatives of the site can help with questions. However, it is sometimes desirable to visit quietly and see things just as other visitors do. That way, reactions are not based on information and interpretive assistance from the resident staff that other people do not receive.

It usually takes but little time to visit most historical sites, which generally are geared to tourists who have only a few hours before driving farther down the road. Of course, the large restorations are exceptions, but usually a half day at a site will suffice.

People react differently to projects, so there may not be absolutes in regard to what is well done or badly done. Some historic places are better than others because they are more carefully planned and are more accurate. But different people like different things. Most visitors apparently prefer to see an 1840 village or farmstead composed, as much as possible, of 1840-ish buildings and antiques. Logically, however, there is no reason the visitor cannot be brought to visit an 1840 site with quite new buildings that simulate the structures that existed in 1840. A restoration or a reconstruction can be presented well or badly, but the visitor may have preferences which transcend the quality of a given presentation. The organizing group will have to decide whether to restore or to reconstruct, and that decision may become self-evident by visiting both types of sites.

The visiting of pioneer farmsteads—those which memorialize famous people and others which tell more general stories—may help in making some of the preliminary decisions. Thus, when visiting various sites, those who are spearheading the plans for a project will have to react both as a tourist and also as a planner. Some of the things such persons should note include the following.

How is the parking of cars handled so as not to intrude into the historic areas ?

How do the visitors get from the parking lot into the site, and how are their tickets collected ?

What is the quality and effectiveness of the “visitor preparation,” if any ? There may be a small museum, dioramas, a slide show, movie, talk, or nothing at all. The adaptability and the quality of the presentation should be kept in mind.

Is it best for the visitor to see things in some particular order to get the most from the presentation? If so, has the site been set out in such manner that it is easy for the visitor to do this, or must he check the handout-brochure to keep on the trail? Which techniques help, which confuse?

Are self-guided or “stay-with-the-group” tours best? If the latter, is the collective pace comfortable or is the visitor manipulated in the manner used by the operators of many pavilions at world’s fairs? The critical visitor should also watch for bottlenecks or where people get backed up, and he should consider how such situations might be avoided.

A visitor planning a project should look rather critically at the site for things that might escape the casual tourist. Anachronisms are unfortunate, though sometimes unavoidable. Electric lines, smokestacks, water towers, and railroad spur lines commonly conflict with the “atmosphere” of projects. Other anachronisms are supervisory problems rather than structural ones—for example, costumed guides wearing glasses with plastic frames.

The visiting planner in search of ideas should observe the variety of ways in which service and safety facilities are handled. Fire hydrants frequently are necessary, but they should be hidden. They sometimes are located under unobtrusive covers or even in privies that are provided for atmosphere and not for use. Heating and air conditioning equipment frequently is skillfully camouflaged, as are supplementary electric lights. In learning about the hows and whys of these things, a special guide frequently helps.

Evaluation of the guides and hostesses will be a part of the critical visitor’s attention. Spiels sometimes may come as well from recordings, and at less cost, than from guides, though recordings do not answer questions.

Before leaving, the visiting planner should check the gift shop. Shops tend to blur in the mind as collections of junk, but very nice gift shops are operated at some restorations. Names of manufacturers and suppliers often are obtainable to a visitor having legitimate reasons for knowing them. Similarly, sources for some of the historic building materials might be obtained.

Traveling to a variety of sites clearly can be a very useful part in the planning of a project. A budget of $10,000 for travel would allow the planner to visit some of the more famous open air museums in Scandinavia and Great Britain. A very restricted list of such places to visit abroad might include Skansen, Stockholm, Sweden; Museum of English Rural Life, Reading, England; Ulster Folk Museum, Belfast, Northern Ireland; Welsh Folk Museum, Cardiff, Wales; and Frilandsmuseet, Lyngby, Denmark.

Selecting the Site

In attempting a chronology for the developing of a living historical farm project, nothing could be more arbitrarily placed than the matter of site selection. In many projects the location is obvious, especially if the project is tied to an historic person or is to be a part of a larger restoration already in existence. Yet in other projects, determining and obtaining the proper location becomes a major task. Certainly by the time the “preliminary considerations” have received attention and other projects have been visited, the organizing group should begin evaluating possible sites. Generally, however, the sooner a good site can be agreed upon and options taken on the property, the better. As a cardinal and perhaps very obvious rule the project should be developed on the best possible site, not simply where someone will donate the land. The National Audubon Society has developed a list of criteria it considers in evaluating property for development as outdoor education and nature centers. If carefully adapted, parts of it might apply to living historical farms.¹

The National Audubon Society assigns points from “unsuitable (0)” to “superior (5)” for such categories as accessibility, location of land, size of the area, terrain, size of community, community need, soil, geology, wildlife resources, water resources, and ground cover, with each category weighted equally. The average indicates the desirability of the site. While some categories do not fit very well, the considerations for a living historical farm are surprisingly similar. Consideration might be given to weighting the categories unequally, say by multiplying “location of land” by 1.8 and its “geology” by 0.5. Yet, this may be unnecessary as there is an inherent redundancy in the list that tends to allow the more important considerations to be considered in the rating of several categories.

Regardless of its precise form, such a checklist should be helpful. Then, when alternative sites are weighed against each other, the best site should emerge with a “mathematical verification.” The Audubon Society sets ratings as follows: unsuitable, 0; poor, 1; fair, 2; good, 3; excellent, 4; and superior, 5.

Accessibility.  This is a very important consideration where high visitation is desired or expected. Being close to cities, major highways (with convenient interchanges), and proximity to other tourist attractions or other camping and vacation facilities would increase the rating for accessibility.

Location of the land.  Land in the middle of a row of hotdog stands or near a busy highway, unscreened from sight, is a serious disadvantage. The land should be located where zoning regulations can be brought to bear to protect the project from its neighbors. Many of the best projects now under development are located in large parks where the agency developing the site can control not only the access but the environmental surrounding.

Size of area.  Generally, the larger the area the better. This reinforces the “location of the land” criterion. Having space and opportunity to expand the development is a considerable plus.

Terrain.  Eighty acres of flat, treeless land poses many more problems than twenty acres of hilly land with bushes and trees. Foliage screens parking lots; so do hills. Where multiple interpretations are planned, each historical time period must be isolated from the others. Where this is impossible, an alternative is the “evolutionary approach” used at Upper Canada Village with its farm. There, the first crude “settler’s cabin” is inhabited by livestock; the hired man lives in the 1820 house, and the farmer and his family live in the I860 dwelling. The agriculture in such situations must be interpreted at the most recent of the time period represented. Even where the entire development is of the same time period it may be desirable to have the farm isolated from the restored village. After considerable search, Pioneer Arizona Foundation found desert land that allowed such isolation.

Size of community and community need.  In general, populous areas can better afford restoration projects. If local tax monies help with the operating budget, a broad population base is an advantage. Even if this is not being considered, cities will generate many paying visitors to the site. Located in Nassau County, New York, Old Bethpage will never have a problem of too few visitors; and it could easily have the reverse problem of too many. Another aspect of community size is the number of school children -who may benefit from a living historical farm. School systems can be a good supporter of educational programs and even provide some funding for them. At the very least, children stimulate the development of appropriate educational materials and programs, which every living historical farm should try to do.

The remaining factors are somewhat less important, but certainly warrant some consideration.

Soil.  This cannot be regarded as unimportant for a farm. However, in most cases fertilizers can hold quite infertile land productive enough for an old farm.

Geology.  This factor is probably of little importance in most situations. If there is something very interesting about a given site’s geology, it might be interpreted separately from the farm. This would provide a supplementary tourist attraction at the same site.

Wildlife resources.  This consideration is less significant for a farm than for a nature center. However, living historical farms and children’s farms often are secondary factors where an outdoor or nature educational center is the primary focus. For such projects it may be very important to consider the wildlife resources.

Water resources.  Water for the use of visitors may demand an amount greater than a simple country well can provide. A good stream may be necessary if a grist mill or saw mill is being planned for the project.

Ground cover.  Sometimes the ground cover can compensate and supplement the “terrain” consideration. Groves and bushes help keep visitors where they belong less obtrusively than fences and more artificial barriers. As the property is to be held static, erosion problems should be considered both on the farm and where the parking lots will be constructed. Conservation must be a consideration, hybrid as these developments are between parks, museums, and demonstration farms.

In summary, groups should make sure the land fits the project; not needlessly alter the project to fit the land. Once the site is located, ways will have to be found to pay for it or to hold options on it. Perhaps one or more of the “originators” will be able to provide some money for this purpose. Perhaps the major fund drive will have to be conducted to get money for the land, and in this case it may be difficult to hold onto the property long enough.

A Director for the Project

Before fund raising and much antique collecting take place, there should be an interim director for the project. Very often one of the “originators” does this job on his own without salary from the project. Probably some of the expense associated with the position, if not the salary itself, will have to be met by the organization. Along with travel costs, these expenses will be among the preliminary funds the organization will have to secure. Where a living historical farm project is the one concern of a large organization, certain people will have to be made responsible for the development.

Because of the diverse responsibilities of the interim director, a variety of backgrounds can qualify a person for the job. In some cases, it may be necessary to hire additional employees at the same time the director is hired; in other cases, such hiring may be unnecessary for quite a while. Such additional employees should compliment the director by providing backgrounds of experience for which the director himself is least prepared. In general, a secretary and one assistant can form a skeleton crew to assist the director at this time.

The interim director’s capacity to conduct public relations work may well be more important than his historical or museum training, He will present the project to business people, civic leaders, philanthropists, and museum-related professionals in seeking endorsements and funds. He will have to prepare, or at least supervise, the preparation of material for the public and the press. If the director lacks experience he should visit many restorations personally to learn firsthand about such projects.

Other types of work that the director may or may not be qualified to handle include museum planning, historical research, and the acquisition of antiques. There is need for continually refining the focus of the project. Someone must determine what items are needed for the first phase of the farm development and what things will be required in the more distant future. While the director is working to obtain money and antiques, the assistant, if qualified, can arrange not only for their storage but their repair. Some determinations might also be made about what buildings should be constructed or moved into the site and restored.

As has been indicated, the size of the crew needed at this point will vary, depending on the resources of time and talent available from the organizing committee. Projects get valuable help from professional people interested in the project, and some of these may be on the corporation’s board of directors. A certified public accountant can perform bookkeeping functions that would otherwise require the director’s time. Lawyers and tax consultants may facilitate grants and gifts to the organization. A newspaper man, active or retired, may get publicity in papers which would require much work and time by a director who lacks appropriate contacts. Board members may address some of the civic organizations, freeing the director from carrying the entire burden. Volunteer committees can produce decisions and informative research reports about the proposed educational programs of the development, determine what antiques are needed, and locate buildings to move onto the site. Thus, if the organizing group is broadly based, it can reduce the staff needs and thus minimize preliminary expenses.

Office and Storage Facilities

If a site has not been acquired, the director should make arrangements for acquiring a place which can serve as the office. Having a place to store and restore antiques may be even more important.

Project Presentation

One of the director’s first jobs is to put together a folder with information about the proposed site. Once the information has been brought together, there may be some expenses for artwork and printing for this project presentation. Where the project is the program of a parent organization, this presentation may become a budget estimate and justification in the form of a master plan.

While there is great latitude in the nature of the prospectus to be prepared, certain types of information are generally found. The preparing of two such project proposals—one as an expansion program of an existing restoration and the other as the purpose of a new organization—may clarify the nature and purpose of these compilations.

When Old Sturbridge Village sought funds to expand the Pliny Freeman farm it commented on the values an expanded farm program would have. These included the introducing of young people and adults to a rural way of life, creating a point of contact with the project’s history for all visitors, and preserving species of plants and animals. The corporation’s report listed the buildings that would compose the farmstead, named the activities that would be demonstrated (including a month-by-month schedule of what a visitor would be able to observe through the course of a year), and estimated the budgetary demands both for the farm’s expansion and for its annual operation. Old Sturbridge, of course, had a resident professional staff to draw up the plans.

At the outset of its fund drive, Iowa History Farms explained its purpose as being “to give an exciting, authentic, and vivid picture of farming and farm life in the Cornbelt from the time the land was settled 150 years ago up to the present with a peek into the future.² The report proceeded to explain a little about what each farm would depict and what activities and crafts the “County Seat Town” would contain. Again, suggestions of seasonal activities indicated what the year-round program could encompass. This prospectus did not contain estimates of the cost of the entire project.

With these examples in mind, information about the following items might be included in a report.

Drawing on the conclusions resulting from the “preliminary considerations” and the reports prepared by volunteer committees, the nature of the completed project should be explained with a fair amount of detail. This might well include listing activities which would occur daily and those which would occur seasonally.

As the presentation probably will be used outside the community when seeking funds and endorsements, the benefits accruing from the site each month is a valid point; it is primarily of interest to the local people. Historical validity and significance and the promise of quality may well mean more to those on the outside. This wider audience should be kept in mind.

Sketches of the projected site layout are helpful. A commercial artist’s efforts to provide this can also be the source for brochures and letterheads. Other visual materials might be collected for use when making presentations to groups and organizations. For instance, the organizing group might pool the slides which resulted from visiting various sites. These can be put together to illustrate the kinds of buildings, activities, and crafts that are to become a part of the completed project. In the future, the Association for Living Historical Farms and Agricultural Museums might be able to provide such a slide series.

A list of the “originators” and the officers of the corporation should be included. As some of the names presumably will be well known in the community, this may provide a preliminary list of endorsements.

Some of the material from the presentation might go to the press at this time. This will acquaint a broader public with the nature of the projected development. As meetings with organizations are carried out, and as people come to look over the site and evaluate the project, more news events are created and more publicity is generated.

Endorsements

The director should take one further step before launching the major fund drive. He should gain endorsements for his project in writing and for attribution wherever possible. As just stated, the process of getting the endorsements, having meetings, having people visit the site, and so on will all generate publicity about the project.

In the community where a project is planned, some of the “originators” might provide endorsements. Certainly if there is a college or a museum from which the project anticipates help and talent, that potential role can be set forth in an endorsement of the project. This would, at the same time, explain part of the program to be carried on at the site. In addition, business and civic groups could provide endorsements to help show community support.

Individuals and organizations at the state level can give endorsements and other assistance. The state’s historical society and museum personnel can comment on the project’s significance. Offers to assist with the research and the location of artifacts are helpful. The state’s agricultural organizations, both public and private, can give meaningful endorsements and, perhaps, funds. The economic development people and tourism bureau might help publicize the project and provide useful contacts with other groups and agencies in the state. Given the current interest in the environment, state parks people and others such as ecology organizations who are concerned with maintaining open spaces can generally be counted upon to approve of living historical farm developments.

After securing such endorsements, the director can look to the larger institutions and organizations. Representatives of the United States Departments of Agriculture, the National Park Service, and the Smithsonian Institution have visited proposed sites and written letters of endorsement for use by the director. The National Trust for Historic Preservation and Colonial Williamsburg may also provide help and encouragement. Expenses for visits by the personnel from the various organizations generally have to be met by the local group. If the site is to include (or to be primarily) an outdoor and nature educational facility, the National Audubon Society might evaluate the plans, perhaps at its own expense. Support by Congressmen and Senators is generally good to have and occasionally turns into material benefits. One Senator was responsible for an interstate highway interchange being built at the edge of a development.

Endorsements from national and governmental bodies should generally come after endorsements have been secured from local and state groups. The local endorsements thus become part of the justification for the later ones. After incorporating the endorsements into the presentation materials, the director can begin to seek the major financial support that will be needed for the project.

Financing

Great diversity appears among directors of living historical farms and restoration projects about how to raise money and the sources from which to seek assistance. As with most other matters, financing is so largely dependent on local situations that most generalizations are of limited use.

In cases where the farm or restoration project comes under the sponsorship of a public agency, such as a park or historical society, there may remain a need for “outside” contributions. In those cases, a “Friends of” type of organization may be formed and incorporated. Such an agency can accept contributions of objects and funds to furnish the buildings in the development. To that degree, the fund raising information here may have relevance even for public-supported projects.

Professional Fund Raisers

Professional fund raisers help communities build hospitals, churches, and cultural facilities. Their usefulness in finding funds for living historical farms and other restoration efforts is a matter of some dispute. Earl Wallace, the president of Shakertown’s board of trustees, has been successful in funding that project. However, he found that professional fund raisers were not helpful.

In contrast, William G. Murray, director of Iowa History Farms, used a professional fund raiser and was pleased with the results. In his case, the professional was already working in central Iowa raising money for a cultural center at Iowa State University, and he worked for Iowa History Farms only one day a week. It should be remembered that professionals charge for their services, however.

Foundations

National foundations and companies generally lack interest in local projects. While the nationwide significance of a local project may seem conclusive to its backers, it is rarely persuasive to a foundation. Unless there are contacts in unusually high places, the large national foundation probably will not yield anything.

It may be fruitful to solicit former residents of the community or state who have made their fortunes. Nostalgia for “back home” has been a particularly productive catalyst in securing money. Of course, just because a very wealthy family never left the community should not disqualify it from generous giving. Those with family foundations through which they can channel gifts are apparently the best prospects. A few people with large fortunes generally can endow a project and constitute a preferred and reliable form of assistance. Earl Wallace feels that 80 percent of a project’s funds for development and for operating losses usually comes from ten or fewer donors.

Businesses and Organizations

Some projects succeed in getting funds from businesses and organizations. As of 1969, Iowa History Farms had 95 pledges for $359,000, an average of less than $4,000 per pledge. Many contributors were agrsibusiness organizations, such as seed corn, feed, and meat packing companies and the Iowa Farm Bureau. Other major contributors were electric and gas power companies, insurance companies, banks, and a newspaper.

Similarly, the California Wine Institute and the Lodi Grape Association have indicated support for the Micke Grove tokay grape farm in San Joaquin County, California.

The Pioneer Arizona Foundation (PAF) has developed a particularly successful fund raising approach. While this is a restored village development, the idea might have a wider application if carefully adapted. The foundation’s technique has been to sign sponsors to contracts running about seven years from the date of the building’s opening to the public, with the contributor holding a renewal option. The sponsor provides money for PAF to construct and furnish a building, to hire people, and to interpret the restoration through the life of the contract. The sponsor gets his name printed across the front of the reconstructed or restored building but he relinquishes all rights to affect the content of the displays and the interpretation, which remain in PAF’s hands. Thus, a Phoenix manufacturer agreed to sponsor a building for PAF’s tinsmith, a lumber company sponsored the lumber yard and carpenter’s shop, and so on. Businesses were not the only organizations that agreed to these contracts; for example, a foundation sponsored a church and a woman’s club sponsored a school in memory of one of its charter members.

The PAF contracts provide for contributions to meet the costs of constructing the building; an annual amount to provide a particular level of interpretation (a tape recorder being cheaper than a hostess or guide); a proportionate share for the developmental costs of landscaping, parking lots, streets, and utility installations; and an annual assessment for a proportionate share of PAF’s overhead once in operation. One sample contract committed the sponsor to contributing more than $140,000, which included $15,000 for curating and cataloging an existing collection plus obtaining needed items for the exhibit.

Perhaps the greatest significance of this approach is the psychological one. Many thousands of dollars have to be raised for each project, and it may be difficult for sponsors to see where their contributions go. If it is possible to label a contributor’s gift, even somewhat arbitrarily, that donor might well contribute more. Brochures given to the tourists might then indicate that a particular sponsor provided the funds for such items as building and interpreting a barn or clearing and farming a small field behind the house.

The Federal Government

The federal government is a logical place to seek help with financing. Unfortunately, not many programs have proven relevant to living historical farms. Some of those which have been used in the past, such as the Neighborhood Youth Corps, have disappeared with the reduction of funds and programs originally included in the 1964 Economic Opportunity Act. Moreover, surviving programs which seem appropriate frequently have lacked funds in recent years to assist projects. Each group should begin by consulting the Catalog of Federal Assistance Programs produced by the Office of Economic Opportunity.

A few of the programs from which projects might gain assistance include the following.

Economic Development Act loans and grants (P.L. 89–136; 79 STAT 552). The Economic Development Administration, in the Department of Commerce, handles loans for designated historical redevelopment areas.

Farmers Home Administration loans for recreation enterprises, administered by the Department of Agriculture. A recreational aspect of the project must exist, but need not be the major part of the project.

Soil Conservation Districts have occasionally provided land for development as nature and outdoor educational centers. Living historical farms occasionally can qualify as such projects.

Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, administered by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, has provided funds for in-service training programs for teachers and students. Such funds may facilitate the development of good educational programs at living historical farms.

Pioneer Arizona Foundation’s resourcefulness in fund raising has extended beyond developing sponsor contracts. It secured the assistance of men and equipment from the U. S. Seabees for 120 man-hours for dynamiting and so on and from the 9th Engineering Battalion of the U. S. Marine Corps Reserve for work on the Organized Youth Camping area; and from the Arizona National Guard for 180 man-hours and two semitrucks with lowboys to move historic buildings.

State and Local Funding

In addition to adequate land and control of access, county and state parks systems have an advantage over privately funded restoration projects because of their relatively constant budgets derived from taxes. The problem of continually raising money from private sources proves discouraging to many people. Unless a project is generously endowed or has a dependable group of backers, it will be necessary to plead for money every year to make up the operating deficit.

Large gifts and fund drives can help in developing and expanding, but interest from an endowment fund or a dependable tax source for year-to-year operating expenses is almost a necessity. It might be possible for living historical farms to tap this resource in more situations than they have so far. In Nebraska, for example, a county can vote a mill levy on itself to help maintain a public museum. The authority for the control of land, operations, and facilities are vested in a local museum board. The county board of supervisors appoints the five members of this board. Obviously, a 2-mill levy in a county with a very significant tax base can provide a considerable amount of funds. The Stuhr Museum at Grand Island, Nebraska, estimates $186,000 annually from this source.

Small Donors

Innumerable devices exist to involve contributions of $10 or less. The Tipton-Haynes Historical Society raised money by getting contributions of $1 per split rail for a fence. It gave a pass to the site in return. Many places give season passes in return for gifts in the $25 or less range. Sometimes the device can get quite expensive. Westville Community has sold “grants” to property at the rate of $10 per square foot. Buying two squares makes one a “citizen,” 50 a “major,” and 1,000 a “small colonel of small militia.” Usually, however, the purpose of these plans is to involve more people in the community, not to raise large amounts of money.

Historical Research

Research for living historical farms demands an attention to detail seldom encountered in other kinds of historical work. If a general historian cannot find all of the details on some aspect of past life he can often write around the subject or possibly even ignore it. The historian for a farm, however, must somehow or other find out such details as the kinds of fences, plants, animals, and equipment the original farmer had used. At the very least, the historian must come up with a reasonable guess based on the best available evidence. The publications listed below are examples of the results of research on historical sites.

BEARSS, EDWIN C. Lincoln Boyhood Home: As a Living Historical Farm. Washington: National Park Service, 1967. 181 pages.

------. The Burroughs Plantation as a Living Historical Farm. Washington: National Park Service, 1969. 147 pages.

HATCH, CHARLES E., JR. Chapters in the History of Popes Creek Plantation. Washington: National Park Service, 1968. 250 pages.

PETERSON, GALE E. “Living Historical Farms: A Feasibility Study,” The Smithsonian journal of History, 2 (summer, 1967) :72–76.

More general, but useful at the start of a project, are the following:

LANDAHL, WILLIAM L. Perpetuation of Historical Heritage: For Park and Recreation Departments. Wheeling, West Virginia: American Institute of Park Executives, 1965. 40 pages. Deals primarily with the restoration, reconstruction, preservation, and stablization of buildings. Contains much useful advice, particularly on methods and where to find materials. Has a short but useful bibliography.

RATH, FREDERICK L., JR. (editor), and MERRILYN ROGERS (compiler). NYSHA Selective Guide to Historic Preservation. Cooperstown: New York State Historical Association, 1966. 133 pages. Mostly a topical bibliography on every aspect of the material and artistic remains of Americans. A very good primer for originators of a project.

Every farm presents its historian with particular problems, but these may often be approached through some old routes. Some generally useful bibliographies include the following:

HANDLIN, OSCAR, AND OTHERS. Harvard Guide to American History. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Belknap Press, 1963. 689 pages. Contains advice as well as rather extensive bibliographies, but it may well be most useful for the information it gives on travelers’ accounts and on local histories. The scanty index offers little help, but patient study may turn up many items which might otherwise escape detection.

KAPLAN, LOUIS, AND OTHERS. A Bibliography of American Autobiographies. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1962. 372 pages. Lists many autobiographies of farmers. Annotated and well indexed.

SCHLEBECKER, JOHN T. Bibliography of Books and Pamphlets on the History of Agriculture in the United States, 1607–1967. Santa Barbara, California: Clio Press, 1969. ‘183 pages. The listed publications often lead to source materials. A good starting place for agricultural research.

Newspapers and magazines often contain very useful material, including illustrations. Other than local journals should be examined, for often details on a particular locality are printed in journals of regional or even national circulation. Sometimes the old copies of local papers no longer are available in the locality but have been saved elsewhere. So, even in local research, general bibliographic aids may be needed. For listings of periodicals of all sorts the following may be valuable:

Ayer’s Directory of Newspapers and Periodicals. Philadelphia: N. W. Ayer & Son, 1880 to the present. An annual which began in 1880 as Ayer’s Newspaper Annual and changed in 1910 to Ayer’s American Newspaper Annual and Directory. Well indexed, and with entries arranged by states and towns. All manner of information is given about the various periodicals except where copies can be found now.

Biological and Agricultural Index. New York: H. W. Wilson, 1916 to the present. An annual listing that began as the Agricultural Index in 1916. Present title since 1964. Contains articles on history. The chronological range considerably exceeds the indicated 1916 limit. Very useful for finding scholarly and scientific articles on agriculture, including history.

Union List of Serials in Libraries of the United States and Canada, New York: H. W. Wilson, 1965, 3d ed. 4 vols. An alphabetical listing of periodicals that indicates the libraries that have copies and whether the libraries will lend. Some information on the periodical often is included. An invaluable research tool.

Both primary and secondary materials can be found in a variety of books, but the following ones are particularly useful:

BIDWELL, PERCY W., AND JOHN I. FALCONER. History of Agriculture in the Northern United States, 1620–1860. Washington: Carnegie Institution of Washington, 1925. 512 pages. Contains illustrations, bibliography, footnotes, index.

BRIGHAM, CLARENCE S. History and Bibliography of American Newspapers, 1690–1820. Worcester, Massachusetts: American Antiquarian Society, 1947, 2 vols.

DANHOF, CLARENCE S. Changes in Agriculture: The Northern United States, 1820–1870. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1969. Includes a bibliography.

GLASSIE, HENRY. Pattern in the Material Folk Culture of the Eastern United States. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1968. Includes a bibliography.

GRAY, LEWIS C. History of Agriculture in the Southern United States to 1860. Washington: The Carnegie Institution of Washington, 1933, 2 vols. The bibliography is in volume 2, along with the index.

HAMER, PHILIP M., editor. A Guide to the Archives and Manuscripts of the United States. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1964.

SHANNON, FRED A. The Farmer’s Last Frontier, Agriculture, 1860–1897. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1945 I2d edition, 1961]. 434 pages. Includes bibliography.

STUNTZ, STEPHEN C. List of the Agricultural Periodicals of the United States and Canada Published during the Century July 1810–1910. U.S. Department of Agriculture Miscellaneous Publication 398. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1941.

Printed reports of the United States Census, 1790 to the present, may be consulted. Especially valuable are the reports for the years after 1850. Then too, historians can profitably use the census schedules, those pieces of paper on which the enumerators recorded the replies to the census questions, which includes names and addresses among other things. These, available in the states, tell a great deal about specific farmers.

The annual reports of the Commissioner of Patents (which preceded the Department of Agriculture yearbooks) from about 1837 to 1856 contain facts and opinions on farming in the various regions of the United States. Although not indexed well, the reports tell a great deal because they came from farmers living in the areas reported on.

In county courthouses and state depositories historians can find records of various kinds, particularly inventories of estates, wills, and will books. These manuscript sources can give much information, and sometimes they have been fairly well indexed for minor political subdivisions. Account books kept by farmers (and by merchants dealing with farmers) can tell a great deal, and can be found almost anywhere. The Library of Congress, Manuscript Division, has a great many of these account books, but mostly for the eastern United States.

Almanacs contain much information. They can be found almost anywhere, but the American Antiquarian Society at Worcester, Massachusetts, and the Library of Congress have the best collections. A useful guide to such publications is Almanacks of the United States, compiled by Milton Drake (New York: Scarecrow Press, 1962, 2 vols.).

For pictures of machines, animals, and plants, every locality has its own resources, but some general and readily available sources include the following:

American Prints in the Library of Congress: A Catalogue of the Collection, compiled by Karen F. Beall and others. Baltimore: Published for the Library of Congress by the Johns Hopkins Press, 1970. 568 pages. With illustrations and bibliography.

Annotated List of Photographs in the Division of Agriculture and Forest Products, compiled by Pauline B. Christian. Smithsonian Institution Information Leaflet 519. Washington: 1968. 126 pages.

ARDREY, ROBERT L. American Agricultural Implements. Published by the author, 1894. 236 pages. Has good illustrations but no index.

BAILEY, LIBERTY HYDE. Cyclopedia of American Agriculture. New York: Macmillan, 1907, 4 vols.

BUTTERWORTH, BENJAMIN. The Growth of Industrial Art. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1892. 199 pages. Illustrated.

FARNHAM, ALEXANDER. Tool Collectors Handbook of Prices Paid at Auction for Early American Tools. Published by the author (P.O. Box 205, RD 2, Stockton, New Jersey 08559), 1970. 39 pages. “With 500 Tool Prices Listed and 200 Tools Illustrated.”

HUNT, ROBERT, AND F. W. RUDLER. Ure’s Dictionary of Arts, Manufactures, and Mines. London: Longmans, Green, 1878, 2 vols.

KNIGHT, EDWARD H. Knights American Mechanical Dictionary. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1884, 2 vols.

The above references just scratch the surface, of course, but they probably will lead to almost all of the relevant material. Books not directly related to agriculture abound, and presumably can be found by those interested. The intention here has been to indicate the sources particularly valuable in farm research.

Staff and Equipment

A living historical farm resembles a theatrical production as much as it resembles anything. The people who do the historical farming appear on stage from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. and perform real tasks while explaining their activities. In the background, and unseen by the public, another staff of artisans and farmers keeps the equipment in repair and does what must be done of nonhistorical nature. Unavoidably, the staff on the fully operating farm has to be larger than the force normally used on a real farm.

The experiences of those involved in such farms indicate that the farm must be small enough to be operated by a nonresident staff. People cannot be expected to work and live continually in the past. All experience to date indicates that the workers expect to enjoy present amenities such as television, running water, modern plumbing, and a host of other conveniences that cannot be provided on an accurate living historical farm. Consequently, the farmers live off the farm and come to work like other workers.

These farm employees cannot by law or by custom pass simply as farmers. They work for a museum. That is, they will not work unusually long hours, and the law often will not allow them to work more than eight hours a day for five days. Most likely, the ratio of workers on a real farm to workers on a historical farm would be about 1:3. What one farmer could do on a true farm will require about three workers on a museum farm. The ratio results mostly from the theatrical aspect of the work and the implied supportive services—costumes, props, etc.

The number of staff members required on a historical farm increases as the number of visitors increases. Such a farm needs some employees to protect implements, plants, and animals from visitors and others to conduct visitors around the site. The work tends to be seasonal, however, and generally sufficient workers can be found for the period of heaviest visitation.

All experience so far has confirmed that modern workers can master and perform the difficult and unpleasant tasks typical of earlier farming. They may start awkwardly, but they can learn the old jobs, such as milking by hand, provided they receive sufficient incentive. The workers often come under state and federal minimum wage laws. The federal labor laws always apply if any part of the funds for the farm are derived from the federal government. State regulations vary, but they all tend to apply minimum wage and maximum hour limits. The cheap labor option generally does not exist for living historical farms, even though it may seem possible in prospect.

At some stage in its development, a living historical farm must have the service of an historian. In addition, legal counsel may be required from time to time, and so also the assistance of a veterinarian. The advice of agronomists and other agricultural experts may be needed sometimes. Most of these experts cannot be retained permanently, and some need not be. Still, they must all be available, and mechanics and other craftsmen must be kept on a regular basis.

Once the farm management knows what the farm needs in the way of implements, tools, machines, animals and plants, such items have to be located. The Association for Living Historical Farms and Agricultural Museums will help members find the needed items, but it cannot, of course, guarantee success. The National Park Service now acts as a repository of information on the location of such items. Inquiries for items should be addressed to Ernst Christensen, National Capital Park Service, 1100 Ohio Drive, S. W., Washington, D. C. 20024. The effectiveness of the system depends on the cooperation of the members, who supply the information.

Visitors and Interpretation

Visitors to a historical farm have to be protected, guided, informed, and regulated. Various methods have been worked out for performing these tasks and all have been successful at one place or another. Depending on the type and number of visitors, some methods work better than others, but they all cost money. According to a recent survey, the costs apparently vary little between one system and another in the long run:

Comparisons of number of visits with operating expenditure indicate a relatively constant cost ratio of about $1 per visit, until the expenses reach $250,000. In the $1 million and over range, the 1:1 ratio was again present. Thus, the $1 per visitor cost ratio remained relatively constant in the majority of expenditure categories.³

None of the surveyed operations ran farms open to the public. Exhibition farming surely costs more than operating a museum. At the very least, living historical farms would fall within the one dollar per visitor range. Less will inevitably mean more, as losses will exceed the cost of adequate protection.

Protecting the Property

Some living historical farms have failed, and the failures usually resulted from heavy losses sustained by way of visitor theft. If the farm cannot afford guards and fences to protect equipment, everything soon will disappear. A passion for collecting souvenirs seems to be universal among men. Fences, sometimes two of them, and guards in some guise must be present, and the larger the number of visitors the greater the need for protection. Losses by theft or vandalism can quite literally destroy a living historical farm.

Usually one fence, historically accurate, will keep visitors away from implements, crops, and livestock. Fences must be maintained and repaired because visitors will attempt to destroy them. Sometimes a second fence, less easily attacked, can be used, but such a fence is hurtful to the air of authenticity. Costumed guards can prevent serious damage to the fence and can also keep a watch over implements and other items. Farms having large numbers of visitors find guards more effective than fences alone.

In part, the method of moving and regulating visitors influences the choice of other protection measures. Visitors moving at random have more opportunity to steal than visitors conducted in groups, and those carried in vehicles have the least opportunity. People can be conveyed on carts, flatbed trailers, busses, and other vehicles. They may alight to have a scene explained, or may have it explained as they ride by. Many successful enterprises print a map with instructions and allow visitors to conduct their own tours. Workers on the farm might explain their activities but this reduces their farming efficiency.

Tours conducted in groups are less disruptive to farming operations. Conducted groups also cause less destruction, and the leader relieves the farmer of explaining as he works. On the other hand, very large numbers of visitors require a large staff of leaders. Many visitors prefer self-conducted tours so that they may linger at what interests them and pass up what does not. Experience indicates that the best method of conducting visitors depends on how closely supervision is needed. Strong fences and enough guards make the self-conducted tour the most rewarding for all concerned.

Protecting the Visitors

Farms can be dangerous. Visitors to any farm, historical or other, must be protected from the animals, and the animals must be protected from the visitors. Animal diseases must be controlled, especially if they threaten human health; likewise, livestock should be protected from human diseases, and the animals should be replaced when infected. This can become expensive. It also poses some technical problems in controlling a disease—such as brucellosis—which farmers did not control in the period the farm represents.

Farms inevitably contain various kinds of tools and machines, and almost all of them can hurt people. Visitors must be kept away from all such devices. Signs help, but common experience has proved that they do not solve the problem. Visitors simply must not be allowed to get at tools and machines.

Explaining the Exhibits

An extensive literature on the explanation of exhibits has been developed. Labels or printed signs can convey much information, but for outdoor enterprises, such as farms, they should be heavy, legible, and out of reach. If not out of reach, they tend to disappear or carry unwanted graffiti. Visitors transported in some kind of vehicle can receive information through taped and recorded messages. Such announcements perhaps lack human warmth, but they also minimize difficulties that arise from regional speech patterns. No inoffensive way of expanding this observation comes to mind.

The natural shifts of activities with the changing seasons complicates the business of interpretation. Through much of our history, a large amount of the processing of farm products took place right on the farm. Farmers husked and shelled corn by hand, threshed and winnowed their wheat, churned butter, pressed cheese, slaughtered hogs, and smoked their own ham and bacon. And the farmers did much more besides, including pressing apples and making cider. Farmers took care of these jobs as promptly as they could. Wheat farmers, for example, finished the threshing as soon as they could get to it. Much work, such as corn husking, was done cooperatively, but the museum farmer obviously has no museum neighbors to assist or to be assisted. A husking bee, if undertaken, would become a simple stage presentation. The question arises whether accuracy would allow the continuous staging of an event that occurred only once each year. In addition to the problem of accuracy, the problem of expense also arises.

Should threshing, husking, and such be extended unrealistically across time? Probably not, if for no other reason than the expense. A motion picture showing the seasonal events will illustrate the farm year, and at less trouble and expense than repeated stagings. In terms of accuracy, events should occur in their season as nature requires. Slide films with a recorded sound tract cost less, apparently, and can substitute for motion pictures, although not as satisfactorily. Experience of some farms suggest that motion pictures make the best vehicle for depicting the total round of activity on the period farm.

CAPITAL AND OVERHEAD

The Expenses of Development and Operation

The costs of constructing and operating restoration facilities vary widely. The experiences at some historical sites, however, suggest the nature and relative proportions of expenses that a project should anticipate.

Beyond the acquisition of the land, labor is the principal expense in developing and operating a restoration project. However, the initial expenses tend to fall into three categories: public access and service facilities; restoration and reconstruction; and designing and constructing interpretative facilities and materials.⁴

California’s Department of Parks and Recreation has made detailed estimates of the costs it anticipates in developing the Hackett Ranch in Yolo County. These estimates provide a good place to start, for the project is of about average size. The state received at no cost some buildings and 20 acres of land and purchased an adjoining 80 acres for development of farming areas and for staff facilities. This parks department also divided the developmental cost into two phases. The first phase presumably would be complete before the facility was opened. The second phase would be completed as quickly as funds allowed, but possibly after the public opening. Roughly 60 percent of the total development costs appear in the first phase of the development.

Public Access and Service Facilities

Parks people constantly encounter certain types of expenses associated with a public facility; thus, they should be capable of estimating these factors with some precision. In the case of the Hackett Ranch, the California Parks Department has estimated that it could apportion $100,000 during the first phase of development among the following categories in roughly the indicated percentages:

An additional $60,000 during the second phase would allow construction of maintenance and storage buildings and a modern residence for a staff member to live at the site. When combined, the estimates for both phases of providing public access and service facilities account for about 45 percent of the estimated $350,000 for the developmental costs of the entire project above land and antique furnishing.

Aside from the cost of acquiring antiques and other furnishings (which could become expensive), this rather low figure helps make a valid point. Interpretative facilities and materials are not generally major costs for a living historical farm. When Old Sturbridge Village proposed the expansion of the Pliny Freeman farm it estimated the costs at better than $70,000. Building fences and a wagon bridge, clearing land and providing filling and top soil were among the major costs. The reproducing of equipment and farm tools claimed only $10,000 of the estimates and additional livestock but $1,750. At Old Sturbridge the visitor facilities already existed, so no additional visitor center had to be provided.

A related aspect is that the costs of individual items of machinery and tools appear expensive in themselves. When considered as a portion of the developmental costs, however, they become rather small percentagewise. It might cost from $150 to $200 to reproduce an old plow. That is a lot for a simple, crude tool but a small amount when it is considered that thousands of dollars are being spent on the restoration project. In addition, farmers “made do” with many other simple implements, some of which they made themselves in slack season and usually repaired as needed. Cooperstown’s farmers thus do much of this work as well. In planning for the Carter’s Grove plantation, Williamsburg officials pointed out they have their own craftsmen and equipment with which to make the necessary 18th century tools and equipment. Again, the costs will not be particularly large, and whatever their size they will be very difficult to estimate.

Beyond such costs which historical farm projects frequently by-pass or cannot meaningfully estimate, the quality of the interpretive program remains an enormous variable. The interpretation of a building can be left to the printed brochure carried by the tourist, can come from a tape recording in the building, or can be provided by hostesses and guides in costume. On living historical farms, nearly all the interpretation necessarily is provided by men and women in costume and doing farm or household work. Such labor becomes an expense on the annual budget, not a developmental cost.

The construction of an interpretative-education building, however, is a potential developmental cost. In the National Audubon Society’s 1964 plans for the Plains Conservation Center near Denver, Colorado, a multipurpose structure costing $225,000 was suggested.⁵ This building would serve as a visitor’s focal point, with classrooms for school groups, exhibits, a small book store, and a library. In addition, it would serve as the administrative headquarters for the staff. A workshop could also be housed there. The suggested plans for the Center allowed for building the structure in stages.

Labor and Administrative Expenses

Labor makes up the major expense of all museums, restoration projects, and living historical farms. This is true even though many efforts are made to get low-cost labor. It is a common practice to use seasonal laborers, either the retired social security recipient or the college student. In most cases, minimum wages become maximum for these employees. Of course, the peak tourist season and demand on labor occurs in the summer when college students seek jobs and the elderly return from sunny climates. Beyond cheap labor, volunteer and service groups assist many projects and thus reduce the overhead.

The Hackett Ranch’s estimates for staff needs appear as about 50 percent of first year’s operation costs because of initial equipment and livestock acquisition expenses. Personnel expenses account for roughly 70 percent of the second year’s budget, however.

Restoration and Reconstruction Costs

The example of the Hackett Ranch is less helpful in estimating reconstruction and restoration costs. The California Parks Department estimates $15,000 for archeology and preliminary planning, $47,000 to restore the ranch house and $32,000 to reconstruct the barn in the first phase. Additional development would provide a well-house, windmill, blacksmith shop, bunkhouse, kitchen, a wagon and tool shed, and a pumphouse costing altogether another $57,500.

Any such set of figures requires many qualifiers. Regional differences in labor costs greatly affect these estimates. Inflation has made these 1969 figures too low already. In addition, many living historical farms result as an expansion of a restoration project already in existence or as developments within parks. In such cases, some of the laborers are already on the budget and some tools and equipment are already available for use.

Perhaps a more useful way to get at reconstruction and restoration costs is that which Minor Wine Thomas, the vice president of the Farmers Museum at Cooperstown, provides. His “rule of thumb” estimate is that it costs 3 to 5 times as much to move in and restore an old building as it does to build a new one. The financial officer at Old Sturbridge Village endorsed these estimates, recalling how some years ago it cost $20,000 to move in a small frame law office and $70,000 for a small, one-room brick bank building.

However, the costs of moving buildings is not particularly expensive for some projects. Westville Historic Handicrafts has had splendid cooperation in Lumpkin, Georgia, and has moved houses at a small fraction of the costs experienced by Old Bethpage Village on Long Island, New York. Closing a road to move a house, for example, is quite a different proposition in the different localities.

Designing and Constructing Interpretive facilities and Materials

Planning on help from local groups, the California Parks officials made rather low estimates for display materials and facilities. For the first phase they planned a wagon trail in addition to some materials, and for the second phase a kitchen garden and an additional visitor orientation program. They pegged these costs at less than 10 percent of the developmental costs.

The Audubon Society’s estimate for the Plains Conservation Center staff and labor costs run about 80 percent of the annual operating costs after development. This includes the director’s and the naturalist’s salaries as well as secretarial and staff salaries. This estimate may be a little low, for the developmental plans included residences for the caretaker and the naturalist, which would thus increase their real salaries.

Writing in a research report for the Accokeek Foundation in 1958, Wilbur H. Hunter, Jr., Director of the Peale Museum, observed that recent surveys had indicated that the general operating expense of a museum came to 40–60 percent of the salary budget.⁶ Salaries thus compose 60 to 70 percent of most museum budgets. However, a more recent study by the American Association of Museums known as the Belmont Report states that “Salaries absorb between 70 and 80 percent of the operating budget in major museums.”⁷

Old Sturbridge Village offers further insight and confirmation of this figure of 80 percent. In its budgeting for the Freeman Farm, the percentage appears to run well over this amount. It apportions money for such staff expenses as administrative, research and supervision; agricultural demonstration and maintenance; and craft demonstrators. These categories account for roughly 95 percent of the costs of operating the farm. However, the budget does not apportion percentages of the many tourist facilities, parking lots, and utility expenses which would be a portion of most living historical farms’ budgets. This is probably fair enough, because Old Sturbridge Village already had these facilities and the labor costs represent just about the only additional costs to its budget.

Old Sturbridge Village officials suggest another way of estimating labor expenses. They believe that doubling the pay-per-hours figure for each employee would yield a figure that will cover the Village’s expenses of costuming and providing tools for that employee as well as various other overhead costs. For example, if a person is hired to work for about the minimum wage, say $1.65 per hour, the real cost of that employee would be $3.30 per hour. Roughly one-third of that extra cost is arrived at by adding (1) 15 percent on top of salaries to cover payroll taxes, insurance, and so on and (2) another 15 percent on top of the direct expenses of operating a facility to cover administrative, research, and supervisory expenses. For example, in a preliminary estimate of the annual operating budget for the expanded farm, Old Sturbridge Village estimated salaries of $9,360 but labor expenses of $10,800. Then, estimates of the farm expenses totaling $5,400 were added. To the resulting $16,200 budget, 15 percent or $2,430 was added to cover administrative, research, and supervisory expenses. Thus, in the case of the proposed farm budget, 71 percent of the total $18,630 went for labor and personnel expenses. Although later plans made these figures obsolete, the approach devised by such an experienced and well-run operation as Old Sturbridge Village bears some careful examination. Seemingly, adding 30 percent to the salaries of the nonadministrative, research, and supervisory personnel plus 15 percent of the nonsalary expenses of the whole budget will altogether yield the salary expense. This holds true provided that the administrative, research, and supervisory personnel claim but 15 percent of the operating budget.

The labor needs of a living historical farm are without doubt going to be the major expenses of the budget. Minor Wine Thomas of Farmers’ Museum suggests figuring how many people would normally have done a job on a farm or in a household and multiply that figure by three to estimate the labor needs in the historical area. The estimates of the Hackett Ranch are generally in line with this. During the summer its budget provides for having eight persons on salary, with all eight at the site on weekends but only three or four on duty each weekday. The winter schedule provides for only three employees, with two on duty during weekdays and everyone there on Sundays. Volunteers are used daily as available. Besides juggling days off, attempts are made to have functional duties covered each day. Such duties include those of administration; supervision; public contact, including fee collection; maintenance; and operations, including handling farm equipment and animals.

Research is another form of labor and administrative expense. The Belmont Report defines a museum as “an institution which performs all, or most of the following functions: collecting, preserving, exhibiting and interpreting the natural and cultural objects of our environment.”⁸ To make sure objects are authentic and to interpret diem well requires research. Living historical farms must budget for this expense category.

Another expense is that of developing publications and brochures. Small museums, nature centers, and children’s farms often send newsletters to school classes about what can be seen at the site each month. Of course, producing brochures for tourists and materials for school classes are virtually mandatory. Some staff time must go for developing materials usable by local papers and radio or television announcements of current happenings.

Several other categories of expenses that claim smaller portions of the budget must be allowed for. These include costumes, farm-oriented expenses, and general operating expenses.

Costumes.  Costumes usually are rather expensive, but not always. In many cases it takes considerable research to determine what an average person wore at specific times and places in the past. Williamsburg estimated in 1966 that it spent $600 to $800 per person per year to costume people. Of course, some of the hostesses wear quite elaborate costumes.

Farm-Oriented Expenses.  In addition to personnel, farm expenses would include acquiring and replacing livestock, veterinary services, and animal-related equipment such as horse furniture. For the crops, there would be the expenses of the seed, grains, fertilizers, and such wagons, equipment, and tools as are necessary to farm the land.

General Operating Expenses.  These encompass such normal expenses as office supplies and printing, telephone, utilities (fuel, electricity, water), janitorial supplies, pest control, motor vehicle operations, recurring maintenance and repair, staff travel and expenses, insurance, and depreciation.

Living historical farms may have high insurance premiums if they follow the practice of the Farmers’ Museum in Cooperstown, which allows animals to roam among the tourists. Inevitably, a visitor will get stepped on or bitten; thus, it is necessary to protect the facility against possible law suits.

About 5 percent of the expenses at some restoration projects, such as at Old Sturbridge Village and Plimoth Plantation, is attributed to depreciation.

INCOME

It may be expected that each visitor is going to cost roughly $1.00. As this statistic holds up remarkably well through museums of various sizes and types, the problem is to discover how to recover that amount from the visitor.⁹ This can be accomplished to some degree by self-generated income, but a portion will necessarily come from outside sources. All living history museums require outside sources of income, such as memberships, endowment funds, or tax monies. Projects simply cannot generate enough income to meet all their expenses. Indeed, if a project accidentally showed a profit, losing the benefits of being a nonprofit corporation for tax purposes would surely sink it into the red anyway. A few projects do come quite close to meeting their own expenses. To meet its needs Old Sturbridge Village requires gifts amounting to roughly 3 percent of its annual expenses. Plimoth Plantation collects about 5 percent of its income from such sources.

Self-generated income can take the form of admissions, gift shop sales, concessions, and outside businesses operated by the project. Admissions provide less income than one might assume. The Belmont Report notes that of 2,021 museums surveyed only 495 received admission income and only 179 or about one-third of these received as much as half of their operating income from admissions.¹⁰

For most private facilities, however, admission fees are a major source of income. The amounts charged the public vary quite widely. House museums frequently charge between 75¢ and $1.00. Larger projects of course charge more. Shakertown charges adults $2.00, students and military $1.00, and school children and teachers 50¢. The Henry Ford museum fee is $2.00 for adults, as is the Greenfield Village fee. Plimoth Plantation charges adults $1.00 for the plantation and 75¢ to see Mayflower II, while those under 14 are charged 50¢ for each place. This results in about 70¢ of income per visit for the combined facilities. Thus, 64 percent of Plimoth Plantation’s income is from admission fees.

Gift shops very often are another important source of operating income. Because they vary so greatly in quality, the amount they bring from tourists also varies widely. Plimoth Plantation has a fine shop, which gets about 35¢ per visitor. Thus, with admissions added to this, Plimoth Plantation collects better than $1.00 per visitor. However, costs run to about $1.10 per visitor, so these sources combine to account for about 95 percent of the annual income.

One of the better tactics of gift shops is to sell items that are associated with or even produced by the project. The Robert E. Lee birthplace, Stratford Hall, sells hams, smoke cured at the site, and meal in two-pound bags, ground in the grist mill there. Upper Canada Village sells cheese, quilts, and some woolen goods, all made in the historic village. Shakertown emphasizes Kentucky-made items and Shaker-like lanterns, latches, and furniture. Thus far, visitors there have spent practically $1.00 per paid admission in the gift shop alone. William L. Landahl notes that some authorities suggest that sales revenue should equal admissions revenue, although this rarely occurs, and earning better than one-half as much in this manner should not be too difficult.¹¹

Another way to measure the return from selling items produced within a historic village is that which Williamsburg suggests. In 1966 officials estimated that about 80 percent of the $700,000 expended in operating craft shops was recouped through selling the items produced. These shops are operated by Williamsburg Restoration, Incorporated, a profit-making business. It sells mementoes and operates a motor lodge, cafeterias, an inn, and other “modern” businesses associated with the restoration. The corporation, in turn, is the wholly owned subsidiary of Colonial Williamsburg, Incorporated, the nonprofit corporation. Old Sturbridge Village has followed a similar corporate arrangement in the operation of its gift shop, restaurant, and motel.

Whatever the success of the various income-producing activities that are available, and regardless of the size of the endowment or tax-derived contribution to the budget, living historical farms are primarily educative tools. Showing a profit may not spell success; rather, it may indicate inadequate research and educational programs. That, however, is turning things upside down. The primary concern of most projects is to develop as good an educational program as possible on the amount of funds obtainable.

STATE DIRECTORY OF HISTORIC FARMS AND MUSEUMS

ALABAMA

No major private projects. The Department of Archives and History in Montgomery works with restoration projects, some of which may include agricultural aspects.

ARIZONA

Pioneer Arizona Foundation, Phoenix. Private nonprofit corporation. A remarkable project. Has restored and reconstructed a late 19th-century Arizona town several miles north of Phoenix. The foundation has succeeded magnificently in attracting contributions from businesses as well as from individuals. Various historically oriented associations have helped the foundation’s staff with research and in selecting buildings to be included at the site. According to present plans, a living historical farm will follow.

University of Arizona, Tucson. Several members of the university faculty and the Arizona State Museum staff are interested in the proposed Snaketown National Monument of the National Park Service. If developed, the site could include some of the agricultural activities of the Pima Indians.

Arizona State Parks, Phoenix, has preliminary plans for historic preservation and restoration in some of the state parks.

ARKANSAS

Arkansas Historical Commission, Little Rock, assists in the development of both state-owned and privately owned properties, some of which are related to agriculture.

Plantation Museum, Inc., Scott. A private, nonprofit corporation that has a collection of old tools and wooden implements. A large cotton plantation surrounds the unincorporated town of Scott.

CALIFORNIA

Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. This state agency’s principal agriculturally oriented restoration project is the C Nelson Hackett Ranch in Yolo County. Local groups are cooperating in planning the development and interpretation of an 1860–1900 ranch with diversified crops and agriculture.

East Bay Regional Park District, Oakland. This regional park system has considered living historical farm interpretations in some of its parklands, with at least one project being keyed to Spanish agricultural development. It presently operates a children’s farm.

Kern County Museum, Bakersfield. This county-operated museum displays a large collection of buildings and implements.

Western Trails Museum, Knott’s Berry Farm, Buena Park. Privately owned. A popular tourist attraction.

Micke Grove Park and Museum, Stockton. County-owned. The San Joaquin County Historical Society is helping in the development and operation of the site, which is on valuable tokay grape land bequeathed to the county by its owner. A portion of the property may become a living historical farm.

COLORADO

Plains Conservation Center, Denver. Private nonprofit corporation. The Audubon Society helped develop a master plan in 1964 for a historical-ecological center. Plans included a sod house and a semi-arid, 19th-century farmstead. Present status is undetermined.

CONNECTICUT

Silent Meadow Farm, Lakeville, in Salisbury Township. Private land is available for a local living historical farm project.

The Sloane-Stanley Museum, Kent. Private nonprofit corporation. A collection of early American implements is housed on the site of an old iron works.

University of Connecticut, Storrs. Public. The university conducts a museum-related graduate program, at the master’s degree level, in association with Old Sturbridge Village.

DELAWARE

The Hagley Museum, Greenville-Wilmington. Private nonprofit corporation. Primarily an industrial museum, the site includes first Du Pont family residence. Development of the agricultural aspects of the family-company operations has begun.

FLORIDA

Tallahassee Junior Museum, Tallahassee. Private nonprofit corporation. An outdoor education center with children’s farm.

Suwannee State Park, Live Oak, and O’Leno State Park, High Springs. Either of these state parks is considered a fine place for a living historical “cracker” farm interpretation. The state has no current plans to budget for such a farm.

GEORGIA

Westville Historic Handicrafts, Inc., Lumpkin. Private nonprofit corporation. An outstanding achievement accomplished largely by the citizens of a small community in the red clay hills of west-central Georgia. The Stewart County Historical Commission began by restoring a town eyesore, the Bedingfield Inn. A Georgia crossroads community of about 1850 is now under construction near Lumpkin and eventually it will include a living historical farm. A Columbus architect and personnel of the Columbus Museum of Arts and Crafts have assisted, but the project now under construction is primarily the accomplishment of the people of Lumpkin. The project’s name honors the late Colonel John W. West whose collection of tools, machines, farm implements, vehicles, and household items will be used throughout the village.

Georgia Agrirama, Tifton. An agricultural museum now under study and development. The project has received some financial support from the state legislature.

ILLINOIS

Bishop Hill Heritage Association, Bishop Hill. Private nonprofit corporation. The Division of Parks and Memorials of the Illinois Department of Conservation has restored the Old Colony Church in the Swedish community of Bishop Hill, and this may lead to a private restoration project. If that should happen, the agricultural significance of the community would also receive attention.

The Johnson 1910 Farm, Geneseo. Private, incorporated. A typical farmstead with farmhouse, some animals, and a collection of old vehicles, equipment, and tools. Open daily through warm weather months, it conducts special activities on weekends. Future plans include historical farming of the land.

Lincoln’s New Salem Village. The Illinois Department of Conservation is developing this site, which will become a living pioneer village. Living historical farming is also planned.

INDIANA

Lincoln Boyhood National Memorial, Lincoln City. National Park Service. This reconstruction of the Tom Lincoln pioneer farmstead leads the way in the National Park Service’s development of living historical farms. (See below for a more complete description of the site.)

Conner Prairie Pioneer Settlement and Museum, Noblesville. Operated by Earlham College, Richmond, which is in the process of re-creating a pioneer farmstead and has plans to farm 15 to 25 acres of the land in the near future.

IOWA

Historic Governor Larrabee Home, Inc., Clermont. Private nonprofit corporation. An attractive Victorian house-museum overlooking a small town on Iowa’s Turkey River. The several acres near the house may be operated in the late-19th-century manner that the governor was familiar with. Brown Swiss dairy cows will be featured.

Living History Farms, Inc., Des Moines. Private nonprofit corporation. This is one of the most ambitious projects initiated in the last several years. It will depict three different time periods of Iowa agriculture—a pioneer farmstead of the 1840s, a steam-powered 1900 farm, and a futuristic farm of “10-years-from-now.” The completed project will include a post-Civil War village, a small railroad to convey visitors from the parking lots to the restorations areas, and a museum. The first public events were held in 1970: a harvesting festival in July and a corn-picking festival at the end of October.

KANSAS

Agricultural Hall of Fame and National Center, Bonner Springs. Private nonprofit corporation. The development of a living historical farm is planned. At present the project features a large agricultural collection that is particularly good in cream separators and wheat harvesting machinery.

KENTUCKY

Shakertown at Pleasant Hill, Harrodsburg. Private nonprofit corporation. Several buildings of this Shaker community are restored and open to the public. Crafts are demonstrated and hostesses are in costume. Shakertown is one of the larger open air museums in the country and is still being expanded. Hopefully, some of the Shakers’ agricultural practices soon will be interpreted at this site.

Land-Between-the-Lakes, Golden Pond. Tennessee Valley Authority. Between Kentucky and Barkley Lakes in western Kentucky, the TVA has been developing a large recreational facility. As part of the educational interpretation, which already includes considerable outdoor education facilities, the TVA hopes to soon develop pre-and post-power farms to demonstrate what electricity has meant to the farmer.

MAINE

Maine State Museum Commission, Augusta. This new state agency has a small but growing collection and an interest in living history developments.

MARYLAND

Carroll County Farm Museum, Westminster. This county-operated farm museum has a pre-Civil War house and barn situated on 140 acres. Agricultural implements are displayed and crafts are demonstrated. Special “Farm Craft” and “Harvest” days are held in season.

National Colonial Farm of the Accokeek Foundation, Accokeek. Private nonprofit corporation. Located on the Potomac River across from Mount Vernon, the Accokeek Foundation is developing a 1750 farm. In recent years geneticists have conducted research on Indian corn. Open primarily by appointment now, in a couple years it should be ready to accept visitors to a typical 18th-century Maryland farm.

Alice Ferguson Foundation, Accokeek. Private nonprofit corporation. Not far from the Accokeek Foundation land, the Alice Ferguson Foundation operates an outdoor education center for use by organized school groups from the area. Under consideration are plans to include a period farm.

Oxon Hill Children’s Farm, Oxon Hill. National Park Service. The establishing of this children’s farm represented the first move by the National Park Service into living-agricultural interpretation. The usual barnyard animals and a small collection of machinery are available for school children to see and to get close to in a reasonably rural setting.

MASSACHUSETTS

Old Sturbridge Village, Sturbridge. Private nonprofit corporation. With the Pliny Freeman farm now in operation, one of America’s finest and largest village restorations now operates one of the finest and most active farming operations. (For further discussion of this living historical farm see below.)

Plimoth Plantation, Plymouth. Private nonprofit corporation. Some agricultural aspects of the Pilgrim’s life in a village of 350 years ago are shown. Plans are being made to attempt more demonstrating in the future.

Hadley Farm Museum, Westford. Private nonprofit corporation. This museum, featuring a collection of farm implements, is open during the summer months; otherwise by appointment.

Drumlin Farm, South Lincoln. Massachusetts Audubon Society. This is one of the earliest children’s farms.

MICHIGAN

Henry Ford Museum and Greenfield Village, Dearborn. Private nonprofit corporation. Various agricultural implements and tools in the museum and throughout the village make this one of the better collections. Work is now going on to better index the collection so that others can know more about it.

Trinity Historical Museum, Mount Clements. Private. A general store at the turn of the century is the focus of this living museum. A “Heritage Farm” is under development along the lines of other children’s farms.

Kalamazoo Nature Center, Kalamazoo. Private nonprofit corporation. One of the Audubon Society’s more recently established children’s farms.

MINNESOTA

Gibbs Farm Museum, St. Paul. Private. This museum includes a house, barn, and schoolhouse. The agricultural collection features a well-equipped blacksmith’s shop and hand-hewn wooden tools. A living historical truck-gardening farm is planned. The museum is open various hours, depending on the season.

Pioneer Log Farm, Alexandria. Private. A pioneer farmstead, largely preserved but not restored.

Oliver Hudson Kelley Farm, Elk River. Owned by the Minnesota Historical Society, which plans to develop the site into a living historical farm. At present there is a farmhouse, open as a museum, and several farm buildings.

MISSISSIPPI

Mississippi Farm Implement Museum, Cleveland. Private. Working through the Cleveland Chamber of Commerce, a private group has proceeded rapidly in formulating specific plans for a major living historical farm development in the Mississippi delta.

Mississippi Ante-Bellum Plantation, Biloxi. Private nonprofit corporation. The organization plans to develop a living historical farm appropriate to its name.

MISSOURI

Missouri Town 1855, Blue Springs. Jackson County Parks Department. This “town” promises to be a particularly fine restoration. Several buildings have been completed, and there is ample parkland in all directions for the planned living historical farm. A relatively small staff and work force are solving problems with skill and originality.

MONTANA

Museum of the Rockies, Bozeman. Montana State University. Agriculture is a major theme of this museum.

Grand-Kohrs Ranch, Deer Lodge. National Park Service. The property was only recently acquired as a national historic site, and its formal development has not yet been publicized; however, a large collection of ranch implements that came with the site constitute a rich reservoir of artifacts.

Montana Historical Society, Helena. Private nonprofit corporation. The society’s museum has a frontier Montana theme with both cattleman’s and homesteader’s sections.

NEBRASKA

Homestead National Monument, Beatrice. National Park Service. The location of one of the first farms entered under the Homestead Act. The site includes a homesteader’s cabin, some later buildings, tall prairie grass, and a small agricultural collection.

Stuhr Museum of the Prairie Pioneer, Grand Island. Private nonprofit corporation. A living historical farm is planned for this museum-restoration outdoor education center complex. Projected plans include a Pawnee village with neighboring maize field, a reconstructed prairie, sod houses, a village center with grist mill, and a later farm.

NEW HAMPSHIRE

New Hampshire Farm Museum, Inc., Hampton Falls. Private nonprofit corporation. Incorporated in July 1970, this organization already has begun to collect equipment, artifacts, and materials relating to New Hampshire’s rural life. It plans to have a living outdoor museum.

Robert Frost Homestead, Derry. New Hampshire Department of Resources and Economic Development, Division of Parks. Hopefully, the orchard, hay fields, kitchen garden, and farmyard will be restored to the 1902–1910 period, during which the Frost family lived here.

NEW JERSEY

College of Agriculture Museum, Rutgers University, New Brunswick. This museum has a small collection of farm and household items. It is open to visitors by appointment.

Monmouth County Park System, Lincroft. This parks system is developing an 1890 farm.

NEW MEXICO

The Pueblo of Zuni, Zuni. Bureau of Indian Affairs. The traditional agricultural practices of the Zuni may be developed at Ojo Caliente in the Zuni Reservation.

NEW YORK

The Farmers’ Museum, Cooperstown. Operated by the New York State Historical Association, a private nonprofit corporation. A pioneer among farm museums, this is one of the best. A fine display is backed by an impressive collection. (See below for a more detailed description.)

New York University at Oneonta. Since 1964, this state university, in conjunction with Cooperstown, has conducted history museum training courses leading to the master of arts degree.

Old Bethpage Village, East Meadow, Long Island. Operated by the Nassau County Historical Museum. In the process of saving significant buildings from demolition made necessary by urban growth, the county has created a restored village. An operating farm of the 1840–1850 period will be included. “Friends of Old Bethpage,” a private educational corporation, has helped furnish the buildings.

Fort William Henry Restoration and Museum, Lake George. Private, incorporated. The organization also operates a small Iroquois village adjoining the fort.

Old Museum Village of Smith’s Clove, Monroe. Private nonprofit corporation. Several crafts, such as candlemaking and weaving, are interesting aspects of this outdoor museum.

Cayuga Museum of History and Art, Auburn. Private nonprofit corporation. Operates the Owasca Stockaded Indian Village, a reconstruction based on results of excavation in that area of New York. Crops and crafts are represented.

NORTH CAROLINA

Department of Archives and History, Division of Historic Sites and Museums, Raleigh. This state agency operates several small restorations around the state, several of which could include an increased agricultural interpretation. The museum has an agricultural collection.

Old Salem, Inc., Winston-Salem. Private nonprofit corporation. This large outdoor museum restoration includes an agricultural museum building.

OHIO

Aullwood Children’s Farm, Dayton. Private nonprofit corporation. The farm is maintained by the National Audubon Society.

Ohio State Historical Society, Columbus. This state agency has agriculturally related restoration-preservation projects under way.

OKLAHOMA

Museum of the Great Plains, Lawton. Private nonprofit corporation. Operated by the Great Plains Historical Association. The museum display shows how the settlers on the plains adapted their tools and weapons to a new environment. A particularly good job in a not very large museum.

OREGON

Territorial Farm in Howell Territorial Park, Sauvie Island. State and county. Operated by the Oregon Historical Society in cooperation with Multnamah County. An 1856 house has been restored and the 100-acre farm is being developed.

PENNSYLVANIA

Farm Museum of Landis Valley, Lancaster. Operated by the Pennsylvania History and Museum Commission. This museum possesses one of the largest collections of agricultural tools and implements, which are displayed in several buildings. Period farms are being developed to represent the pioneer period and the early and late 19th century.

Hopwell Village, Elverson. National Park Service. This restored iron works sits in an agricultural setting with some agriculturally oriented interpretation.

Amish Farm and House, Lancaster. Private. An interesting and busy place designed to acquaint the visitor with some traditional Amish methods and beliefs. The barnyard activities seem more realistic than most children’s farms which attempt much the same thing.

Quiet Valley Farm Museum, Stroudsburg. Private, incorporated. A Pennsylvania Dutch farmstead operated in a traditional manner for 200 years. Farm implements and animals are displayed in the main barn, equipment sheds, and the farm yard.

Honey Hollow Watershed Association, New Hope. Private nonprofit corporation. This recently designated National Historic Landmark plans an outdoor education center and a colonial farm with demonstrations of conservation practices.

RHODE ISLAND

Dame Farm, Providence. Private nonprofit corporation. A project of ecology action for Rhode Island. Having moved quickly to save a farm from urban sprawl, the organization plans a living historical farm in connection with an outdoor education center.

SOUTH CAROLINA

Walnut Grove Plantation, Roebuck. Private nonprofit corporation. A project of the Spartanburg County Historical Society, Walnut Grove is a restored 1765 manor house with related farm buildings. With the buildings restored and furnished, the need to increase the agricultural interpretation has become more important. This project is a good example of what local historical societies can accomplish.

Sea Pines Plantation, Hilton Head Island. Private, incorporated, Restored, the “Six Oaks” farm site is proposed to add another feature to this vacation and residential development.

TENNESSEE

Tipton-Haynes Historical Association, Johnson City. Private nonprofit corporation. An important site in the history of the lost state of Franklin” is the focus of a restoration project. A living historical farm keyed to the late 18th century and early 19th century is under development.

TEXAS

The Ranch Headquarters, Lubbock. A project of the Texas Tech University Museum. Adjoining the museum are 12 acres for possible use as a site for a living historical ranch.

Winedale Inn Properties, Round Top. A project of the University of Texas System. Located in Texas’ “German Belt,” this restoration extends now to several buildings. It is open to the public but caters to seminar groups. A living historical farm may be included on the 131 acres of this development.

UTAH

Museum of Man and His Daily Bread, Logan. This new museum, operated in association with Utah State University, has a considerable collection. It plans a living historical farm on recently acquired property.

Utah Pioneer Village, Salt Lake City. This project is associated with the National Society, Sons of Utah Pioneers, a private nonprofit corporation.

VERMONT

Shelburne Museum, Shelburne. Private, incorporated. This museum consists of a large number of restored buildings. There are several fine collections.

Plymouth Notch, Plymouth. State Board of Historic Sites. The Board has acquired most of the buildings in Plymouth, where it now operates a farmers’ museum. It plans to portray an 1880 farm similar to the type that Calvin Coolidge would have known as a boy. The Board works closely with the Calvin Coolidge Memorial Foundation, Inc., a private organization.

Kent Tavern Museum, Calais. Private nonprofit corporation. Operated by the Vermont Historical Society. This 19th-century inn houses a miscellaneous museum collection. A possible site for a living historical farm. Camel’s Hump Park, Moretown. Private. A rural museum that would demonstrate northern New England hill country living of the rather recent past has been proposed as a part of a large park. The status of this Camel’s Hump Area Rural Museum (CHARM) is undetermined.

VIRGINIA

George Washington Birthplace, Fredericksburg. National Park Service. One of the earliest Park Service efforts at historical restoration. The interpretation at the site is being broadened to include more 18th-century agriculture.

Mount Vernon. Private, nonprofit corporation. Mount Vernon is certainly one of the most visited house museums in the country. Various buildings associated with an 18th-century plantation are interpreted, and agriculture is a part of the story.

Colonial Williamsburg, Inc., Williamsburg. Private nonprofit corporation. It would be difficult to overemphasize the impact of this development and its personnel on the craft and art of creating and operating historical restorations elsewhere. A current project holds great promise for living historical farms, since part of Carter’s Grove may become a “working plantation” once again.

Berkeley Plantation, Charles City. Private nonprofit corporation. A preservation of one of Virginia’s oldest- plantations.

Stratford Hall, Stratford. Private nonprofit corporation. The restored family home of General Robert E. Lee with surrounding grounds. A beautiful place.

Booker T. Washington National Memorial, Hardy, and Appomatox Court House, Appomatox. Both are National Park Service sites where greater attention may be given to agricultural interpretations.

WEST VIRGINIA

Salem College, Salem. The college is developing a program called “The Heritage Arts.” One of the crafts being taught is leading to the reconstruction on campus of a typical early mountaineer settlement or village. Agriculture and related crafts are a part of the program.

WISCONSIN

Stonefield Historic Site, Cassville. Operated by the Wisconsin Historical Society. The Society here houses the McCormick collection of machinery and has built a Iate-19th-century town.

Little Norway, Blue Mounds. Private. A Norse pioneer homestead with cabins dating from 1856.

CANADA

Upper Canada Village, Morrisburg, Ontario. Public. Perhaps the finest outdoor museum in North America. In addition to a restored village which includes a water-powered saw mill and woolens factory, there is a historical farming operation and a collection of agricultural tools and machinery. (See below for a more complete discussion.)

Fort Edmonton Park Farms, Edmonton, Alberta. Public. Four farms are being developed to represent agriculture around the fur post of 1846; the prerailroad era, 1885; the postrailroad era, 1905; and the predepression years 1920–1930.

Western Development Museum, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. Public. An agricultural museum with implements used in developing the prairie regions. A branch at Yorkton has a collection of farm tractors, harvesters, and other farm implements.

Lincoln Boyhood National Memorial

“Lincoln Boyhood” represents the most advanced agricultural demonstration in the National Park Service’s living history program. Located at Lincoln City in southern Indiana on the edge of a state park and campground, the site includes a fine visitor reception center, several reconstructed buildings, and a small pioneering farm operation. Part of the interpretation-administration building was constructed several years ago through private contributions. More recently the National Park Service expanded the facility to include additional museum displays and a small theater.

A visitor can “walk back into history” quite effectively here. The interpretation is keyed to how the Tom Lincoln family, as more or less typical Indiana pioneers, probably lived in the years 18271830. The site includes a cabin, small smokehouse, toolshed, corncrib, barn, and chicken house. With a fairly large garden and a growing orchard nearby, the well-interpreted cabin area comes off quite successfully.

A 10-acre patch downhill from the cabin serves as the farm. As the visitor approaches the cabin, the field, with its tobacco, cotton, flax, and corn, establishes the proper mood. Thus far, officials have carried out a low-key interpretation of the farming operation that may be inadequate for some visitors. However, this informality allows remarkable flexibility. For example, when the staff is not too pressed it sometimes allows visitors to walk behind a plow and thus experience “participatory history.” Such opportunities for the visitor help make this living historical farm a successful operation.

Upper Canada Village

The construction of the St. Lawrence Seaway has resulted in the building of Upper Canada Village, which contains many buildings the Seaway would otherwise have destroyed. With more than 40 structures in the village, this large restoration depicts Upper Canada through 1867, the year of confederation.

Two separate farms are depicted on one edge of the village. The first is a pioneer farmstead dating about 1780. Two crude log structures, interpreted but uninhabited, show how the new settler would have lived. Adjoining these two buildings is a field “just under cultivation.” It is populated with burned-off tree stumps and a newly sown grain crop—all looking weedy, rough, and primitive. Upper Canada Village hauled in and “planted” the tree stumps, put rubber tires around the the stumps, and started small fires. The resulting soot-blackened stumps look authentic, and they can be replaced as they rot away.

The second farm shows how a farmstead looked after almost 100 years of settlement. An 1800 house is a chicken coop; a hired man occupies the 1820–1830 house, and the farmer and his family live in Victorian era comfort in the newest (about 1850) structure. In addition to the appropriate farm buildings and animals, a rather large machinery collection is displayed in the barn.

As most tourists must travel a considerable distance to visit Upper Canada Village, officials have decided they must display farming methods each day, insofar as it is possible. Thus, a few minutes of grain threshing occurs each afternoon at an announced time, rather than just once or twice over the course of several days.

Old Sturbridge Village

In the late 1960s, Old Sturbridge Village concentrated its expansion efforts toward developing the Pliny Freeman farm. Thus, in recent years that farm has changed from a largely static farmstead into possibly the most complete living historical farm now in operation. Some of the planning that has gone into this effort is treated elsewhere in this handbook

Even before the expansion occurred, however, officials at Old Sturbridge Village realized that tourists regarded the farm as one of the village’s most popular attractions. Now, people can see much more activity in and around the farm buildings. There are a large number of animals, including oxen, milking cows, hogs, sheep, and barnyard fowl; and split rail fencing outlines the several acres under cultivation downhill from the farmstead.

The process of developing the farm stimulated considerable research into many aspects of southern Massachusetts farming methods in use around 1840. Everyone knew that there had to be a garden next to the house. What no one knew, and what was very difficult to find out, was what crops usually were planted in that garden. The amount of research that eventually determined the answers to such questions suggest again the type of work that is so valuable in creating living historical farms.

The Farmers’ Museum at Cooperstown

The Farmers’ Museum at Cooperstown, New York, has pioneered in many of the museum-related efforts that are a part of living historical farms. Its professional staff has inaugurated new programs and has worked to upgrade the professionalism in the entire museum field, but especially with agricultural and folk-history interpretations.

The museum reflects the staff’s discipline and intelligence in the carefully selected artifacts on display. After learning that, like it or not, the museum required a two-hour visit by the average tourist, the staff streamlined the displays of farm equipment by putting about 80 percent of it in storage. By displaying much of the rest in terms of what a farmer would use in the course of a year, the staff has created a museum that is educational for even the casual tourist.

In addition, the New York State Historical Association has moved in and restored a crossroads community to the appearance it had about 1840. The Lippitt homestead is the focus of the living historical farm display. As early as 1952 The Farmers’ Museum demonstrated 19th-century farming techniques by using old tools on small patches of crops. More farming has been done over the years since that time, and there are plans for an earlier period farmstead elsewhere on the site.

¹ A Survey and Plan for the Plains Conservation in Arapahoe County, Colorado, prepared by Nature Center Division, National Audubon Society, New York [1964].

² A Preliminary Outline for Iowa’s Living History Farms, prepared [in 1964] by William G. Murray, Des Moines, Iowa. (Unpublished; manuscript copy in files of Division of Agriculture and Mining, National Museum of Natural History.)

³ Lola E. Rogers, Museums and Related Institutions: A Basic Program Survey. Office of Education, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969). Page 56.

⁴ C. Nelson Hackett Ranch Feasibility Study. California Department of Parks and Recreation, 1964 (revised, 1969).

⁵ A Survey and Plan for the Plains Conservation Center in Arapahoe County, California.

⁶ A Research Report on the Proposed Agricultural Historical Museum at Bryan Point on the Potomac River, Accokeek, Maryland. Prepared for the Accokeek Foundation, Inc., by Wilbur H. Hunter, Jr., 1958. Pages 40-41.

⁷ America’s Museums: The Belmont Report. American Association of Museums, 1969. Page 26. (Hereinafter referred to as Belmont Report.)

⁸ Belmont Report, page 26.

⁹ Rogers, Museums and Related Institutions, p. 56.

¹⁰ Belmont Report, page 26.

¹¹ William L. Landahl, Perpetuation of Historical Heritage, for Park and Recreation Departments. (Wheeling, West Virginia: American Institute of Park Executives, 1965.) Page 35.

DIRECTORY OF PERSONS INTERESTED IN LIVING HISTORICAL FARMS

Mr. and Mrs. Raymond C. Abbe
Villa Vista Abbe-Gail
1408 Enfield Street
Enfield, Connecticut 06030

Gordon Abbott, Jr., Director
Trustees of Reservations
224 Adams Street
Milton, Massachusetts 02186

William K. Ackroyd, President
New Hampshire Farm Museum, Inc.
Sanborn Road
Hampton Falls, New Hampshire 03844

William K. Alderfer, Director
Historical Society of Michigan
309 Civic Center
Lansing, Michigan 48933

William T. Alderson, Jr., Director
American Association for State and Local History
1315 Eighth Avenue, South
Nashville, Tennessee 37203

Clyde A. Arbuckle, Secretary
Historical Landmarks Commission, City of San Jose
988 Franquette Avenue
San Jose, California 95125

Dale Archibald, Chief Curator
The Museum
Oregon Historical Society
1230 S. W. Park Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97205

Harold Avery, Assistant to the President
Cottey College
Nevada, Missouri 64772

Richard C. Bailey, Director
Kern County Museum
3801 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, California 93301

Mrs. W. D. Bain, Jr., President
Walnut Grove Plantation
194 Westminster Drive
Spartanburg, South Carolina 29303

Robert G. Baker, Chief Curator
Arizona State Museum
University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona 85721

Rollin H. Baker, Director
The Museum
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan 48823

Mrs. Chauncy Baldwin
403 Prospect
Elkhart, Indiana 46514

Mrs. Lesley Frost Ballatine
129 E. 10th Street
New York, New York 10003

William B. Ballard
Department of Horticulture
Clemson University
Clemson, South Carolina 29631

Albert W. Banton, Jr.,Superintendent
Lincoln Boyhood National Memorial
Lincoln City, Indiana 47552

John J. Baratte, Director
B. Carroll Reece Museum
East Tennessee State University
Johnson City, Tennessee 37601

Frank Barnes

Regional Chief of Interpretation and Visitor Services
National Park Service, Northeast Region
143 S. Third Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19405

Dr. H. Lewis Batts, Executive Director
Kalamazoo Nature Center, Inc.
7000 N. Westnedge Avenue
Kalamazoo, Michigan 49001

Edwin C. Bearss, Historian
National Park Service
Washington Planning and Service Center
1730 N. Lynn Street
Arlington, Virginia 22209

Mrs. Clara Beatty, Director
Nevada Historical Society
Reno, Nevada 89101

D. John Beck, Chief, Outdoor Recreation Planning
116 Mitchell Street, S. W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Isaac K. Beckes, President
Vincennes University
Vincennes, Indiana 47591

W. H. Bennett, Director
Extension Service
Utah State University
Logan, Utah 84321

Val R. Berryman, Curator of Historical Artifacts
The Museum
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan 48823

James E. Betts, President
Early American Society
1001 Bevridge Road
Richmond, Virginia 23226

George W. Bible
Mountain Cove Farm
R. R. #1
Kensington, Georgia 30727

E. H. Blackstone
Greenwood Chamber of Commerce
Greenwood, Mississippi 38930

Ben H. Bolen, Commissioner
Division of Parks
501 Southern States Building
7th and Main Streets
Richmond, Virginia 23219

Mrs. Edith F. Bondi, Director
Timma Foundation, Inc.
6226 Rockwell Street
Oakland, California 94618

Miss Margaret J. Bouslough, Education Sales Coordinator
National Trust for Historic Preservation
748 Jackson Place, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20006

David R. Bowen
Office of the Governor
State of Mississippi
Jackson, Mississippi 39201

Robert Braunberg, Curator
Montgomery County Historical Society, Inc.
103 W. Montgomery Avenue Rockville, Maryland 20850

R. F. Bretall, Secretary
Anderson Chamber of Commerce
2970 E. Center Street
Anderson, California 96007

Arthur Bright
Bright’s Nursery
5246 S. Plainsburg Road
LeGrand, Californa 95333

John D. Briscoe
Silent Meadow Farm
Lakeville, Connecticut 06039

Miss Ann Brock
Mississippi Research and Development Center
P. O. Drawer 2470
Jackson, Mississippi 39205

Miss Joan Brookes-Smith
Kentucky Historical Society
Old State House
Box H
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601

T. A. Brown
National Museum of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Richard S. Brownlee, Director and Secretary
State Historical Society of Missouri
Columbia, Missouri 54201

James Buchanan
Spartanburg County Historical Association
Spartanburg, South Carolina 29302

Frank T: Buckley
Commissioner of Agriculture
State of New Hampshire
Concord, New Hampshire 03301

H. E. Burchfield, President
Banner County Historical Society
Route #2
Bayard, Nebraska 69334

Bob Cain
County Park and Recreation
Monmouth County Parks System
Newman Springs Road
Box 326
Lincroft, New Jersey 07738

John Calef
National Park Service
Resources Planning
450 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, California 94102

Dayton W. Canady, Director
South Dakota State Historical Society
Pierre, South Dakota 57501

Edward D. Carpenter, Curator
Stonefield Historic Site
Cassfield, Wisconsin 53806

Director
Carroll County Farm Museum
Westminster, Maryland 21157

Pierce A. Chamberlin, Curator for Museums
Arizona Pioneers’ Historical Society
949 E. Second Street
Tucson, Arizona 85719

Miss Margaret Chapman, Executive Secretary
Florida Historical Society
University of Florida Library
Tampa, Florida 33620

Dr. Daryl Chase
Museum of Man and His Daily Bread
Utah State University
Logan, Utah 84321

George M. Chinn, Director
Kentucky Historical Society
Box H
Old State House
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601

Ernst Christensen
Room 353, NCR Building
1100 Ohio Drive, S. W.
Washington, D. C. 20024

Dr. Marion Clawson
Land Use and Management Program
Resources for the Future, Inc.
1755 Massachusetts Ave., N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20036

Donn Coddington, Supervisor, Historic Sites
Minnesota Historical Society
Fort Snelling Branch, Bldg. 25
St. Paul, Minnesota 55111

James L. Cogar, President
Shakertown at Pleasant Hill
Route 4
Harrodsburg, Kentucky 40330

Frank Coleman
Spartanburg County Historical Association
Spartanburg, South Carolina 29302

Mrs. Elizabeth Cooke, Regent
The Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association of the Union
Morristown, New Jersey 07960

Ernest W. Cooler, Executive Director
Pickens County Planning and Development Commission
P. O. Box 37
Pickens, South Carolina 29671

Everett L. Cooley, Director
Utah State Historical Society
603 E. South Temple
Salt Lake City, Utah 84102

James D. Cornett, Superintendent
Zuni Indian Agency
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Zuni, New Mexico 87327

T. L. Coulthard
British Columbia Farm Machinery Museum Association
University of British Columbia
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Peter H. Cousins, Curator of Agricultural Collections
Henry Ford Museum and Greenfield Village
Dearborn, Michigan 48120

Janson L. Cox
History and Historic Interpretation
Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism
Box 1358
Columbia, South Carolina 29202

Mrs. Thomas M. Craig
Spartanburg County Historical Association
Spartanburg, South Carolina 29302

Mrs. Amy Bull Crist
Restoration Committee of the Hill-Hold-Bull Jackson House
Montgomery, New York 12549

Robert S. Crites
Farmers Home Administration
U. S. Department of Agriculture
Washington, D. C. 20250

Richard Cropp, Curator
Museum of Pioneer Life
Mitchell, South Dakota 57301

Hon. John Culver
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D. C. 20515

Ben Cummings, President
School of the Outdoors
Branchville, New Jersey 07826

Elbridge Currie, Curator of Agriculture
Mactaquac Historical Program
Frederickton, New Brunswick, Canada

Robert L. Damm, Director
Maine State Museum Commission
State House
Augusta, Maine 04330

S. Lothrop Davenport, Director
Worcester County Horticulture Society
30 Elm Street
Worcester, Massachusetts 01608

Hon. John W. Davis
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D. C. 20515

Miss Susan M. Davis
Plimoth Plantation
Plymouth, Massachusetts 02360

Dr. Peter R. Day
Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station
123 Huntington Street
New Haven, Connecticut 06504

Charles Debusk, Director
Dickson Mounds Museum
Lewistown, Illinois 61542

Mrs. Alice DeLong
Camels Hump Area Rural Museum
Moretown, Vermont 05660

Robert W. Doherty, Superintendent of Buildings and Grounds
Sleepy Hollow Restorations
Tarrytown, New York 10591

James J. Donald
Center for Innovation in Education
University College at Brockport
Brockport, New York 14220

Robert L. Dortch
Plantation Museum, Inc.
P. O. Box 38
Scott, Arkansas 72142

Jack C. Dozier
520 Wells Fargo Bank Building
Stockton, California 95202

L. J. Drake, County Administrator
Courthouse Room 707
222 E. Weber Avenue
Stockton, California 95202

Leslie C. Drew, Director
Museum of the Rockies
Montana State University
Bozeman, Montana 59715

Mrs. Emily Driscoll
Custis-Lee Mansion
1400 Wilson Boulevard
Arlington, Virginia 22209

Irving T. Duke, Resident Superintendent
Robert E. Lee Memorial Foundation
Stratford Hall
Stratford, Virginia 22558

Dean Lowell Eklund
Division of Continuing Education
Oakland University
Rochester, Michigan 48063

Mrs. Lloyd H. Ellis
238 Forest Boulevard
Hastings, Nebraska 68901

Richard Ellis
Fish and Game Department
Box 515 A
Bozeman, Montana 59715

Spencer P. Ellis, Director Department of Forests and Parks
State Office Building
Annapolis, Maryland 21404

Vincent Ellis, Superintendent
Kennesaw Mountain Battlefield National Park
Box 1167
Marietta, Georgia 30061

Sterling D. Emerson
Shelburne Museum, Inc.
Shelburne, Vermont 05482

Wayne H. England, Academic Dean
Salem College
Salem, West Virginia 26426

Doris J. Enright, Acting Administrator
Agricultural Hall of Fame and National Center
Box 295
Bonner Springs, Kansas 66012

Miss Monica Ann Evans
Kalamazoo Nature Center, Inc.
7000 North Westnedge Avenue
Kalamazoo, Michigan 49001

A. P. Fatheree, Director
Division of Vocational and Technical Education
Department of Education
P. O. Box 771
Jackson, Mississippi 39205

John L. Ferguson, Executive Secretary
Arkansas Historical Commission
Old State House
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201

J. C. Finlay, Director
Historical Development and Archives
City of Edmonton
Edmonton 15, Alberta, Canada

Dr. Joseph L. Fisher, President
Resources for the Future, Inc.
1755 Massachusetts Avenue, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20036

William F. Fitzgerald, Director of Library
Kentucky Historical Society
Box H
Old State House
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601

Robert Flacke, Director
Fort William Henry Restoration and Museum
Canada Street
Lake George, New York 12845

Miss Margaret A. Flint, Assistant State Historian
Illinois State Historical Library
Centennial Building
Springfield, Illinois 62706

George E. Fogg
Bureau of State Parks
Department of Forests and Waters
P. O. Box 1467
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120

Henry Follett, Secretary
Historic Governor Larrabee Home, Inc.
Clermont, Iowa 52135

Dr. Bernard L. Fontana,Ethnologist
Arizona State Museum
University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona 85721

John S. Forrest, Executive Director
Western Forestry Center
920 S. W. Sixth Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97204

Robert E. Foster
Mississippi State Park System
1102 Woolfolk Building
Jackson, Mississippi 39201

Dr. Joseph B. Frantz
Texas State Historical Association
P. O. Box 8059
University Station
Austin, Texas 78712

Charles E. Fraser, President
Sea Pines Plantation Company
Hilton Head Island, South Carolina 29928

David B. Freeman, Director
Plimoth Plantation
P. O. Box 1620
Plymouth, Massachusetts 02360

John C. Freeman
American Life Foundation and Study Institute
Yorker Yankee Village
Irelandville Road
Watkins Glen, New York 14891

Clifton French
Hennepin County Park Reserve District
Route #1, Box 32
Maple Plain, Minnesota 55359

Richard K. Frevert, Director
Agricultural Experiment Station
University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona 85721

George E. Frick
Economic Research Service
U. S. Department of Agriculture
University of New Hampshire
Durham, New Hampshire 03824

Russell W. Fridley, Director
Minnesota Historical Society
Cedar Street and Central Avenue
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101

Joseph R. Froehlich, Director
Drumlin Farm
South Lincoln, Massachusetts 01773

Robert Garvey
National Trust for Historic Preservation
748 Jackson Place, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20006

Mark Gasden, Director of Parks
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
John H. Reagan State Office Building
Austin, Texas 78701

Gordon V. Gay, Acting Superintendent
Booker T. Washington National Memorial
Route #1, Box 195
Hardy, Virginia 24101

Jonathan Gell
Hartwick College
Oneonta, New York 13820

Lamar Gibson, Director
State Parks and Recreation Commission
P.O. Drawer 1111
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70821

Daniel H. Giffen, Director
New Hampshire Historical Society
30 Park Street
Concord, New Hampshire 03301

Mrs. Charles Gignilliat
Spartanburg County Historical Association
Spartanburg, South Carolina 29302

Vernon C. Gilbert, Jr., Chief, Office of Environmental Interpretation
U. S. Department of Interior
National Park Service
Washington, D. C. 20240

Sam Gilluly, Director
Montana Historical Society
225 N. Roberts
Helena, Montana 59601

F. A. Gould, Superintendent
Appomattox Court House
National Historical Park
Appomattox, Virginia 24522

Mrs. JoAnn Graham, Executive Director
Pioneer Arizona Foundation
111 W. Monroe
Phoenix, Arizona 85003

Albert B. Gray, President
Columbia Historical Society
Columbia, Connecticut 06237

Hon. Edith Green
U. S. House of Representatives
Washington, D. C. 20515

Mrs. Arthur M. Greenwood
Time Stone Farm
Marlborough, Massachusetts 01752

Westervelt Griffen, Assistant Dean
College of Agriculture and Environmental Science
Rutgers University
New Brunswick, New Jersey 08903

Dirk Gringhuis, Curator of Exhibits
The Museum
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan 48823

Mrs. Helen Grissett, Director
Tallahassee Junior Museum
Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Per E. Guldbeck, Research Associate
New York State Historical Association
The Farmers’ Museum Cooperstown, New York 13326

Philip Gurney, Development Manager
Joslyn Art Museum
2218 Dodge Street
Omaha, Nebraska 68102

J. Lee Gyldenvand
The American Lutheran Church
422 S. Fifth Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415

Joseph Habeger, Director
Prairie Village Historical Society
Madison, South Dakota 57042

Henry Hagge, Manager
Ogallala Chamber of Commerce
Ogallala, Nebraska 69153

D. Mathew Hall
The Windham Foundation, Inc.
Grafton, Vermont 05146

John W. Harbour, Jr., Executive Director
Sleepy Hollow Restorations
Tarrytown, New York 10591

T. R. Harlow, Director
Connecticut Historical Society
1 Elizabeth Street
Hartford, Connecticut 061G5

Miss Carroll Hart, Director
Department of Archives and History
Atlanta, Georgia 30334

George B. Hartzog, Director
National Park Service
Department of the Interior
Washington, D. C. 20240

Wylie J. Harvey, Landscape Architect
State Parks and Recreation Commission
P. O. Drawer 1111
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70821

Rev. Allen M. Hastings
738 E. Cherry
Cushing, Oklahoma 74023

Eric Hatch, Chairman
Connecticut Historical Commission
75 Elm Street
Hartford, Connecticut 06115

Dr. Emil Haury
Department of Anthropology
University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona 85721

Edward L. Hawes
History Department
Lake Forest College
Lake Forest, Illinois 60045

Richard Helwig, President Defiance County Historical Society
527 Nicholas Street
Defiance, Ohio 43512

Paul C. Henderson, Park Historian
Wyoming State Parks Commission
Shoshoni, Wyoming 82649

John S. Hewins, Governmental Relations Coordinator
Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission
8787 Georgia Avenue
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910

Bob Hickman, Executive Director
Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism
Box 1358
Columbia, South Carolina 29202

F. Hal Higgins
33 Meadowview Road
Orinda, California 94563

Elbert Hilliard
Department of Archives and History
P. O. Box 571
Jackson, Mississippi 39205

Raymond H. Hillman, Curator of History
Pioneer Museum and Haggin Galleries
1201 N. Pershing
Stockton, California 95203

Dr. Brooke Hindle
University College of Arts and Science
New York University
University Heights
New York, New York 10453

Asher Hobson
Little Norway
Blue Mounds, Wisconsin 53517

Roger Hoeh
Political Science Department
University of New Hampshire
Durham, New Hampshire 03824

Harold G. Hoffman
New Jersey Historic Sites Council
397 Millburn Avenue
Millburn, New Jersey 07041

Lee Hoffman
Ivy Hill Forest
Cockeysville, Maryland 21030

Gen. Robert Hogaboom
St. Mary’s City Commission
St. Mary’s City, Maryland 20686

William Hollomon
George Washington Birthplace National Monument
Box 679
Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401

Miss Harriet Holt
National Trust for Historic Preservation
748 Jackson Place, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20006

Carroll J. Hopf
Farm Museum of Landis Valley
2451 Kissel Hill Road
Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17601

S. Reynolds Hopkins, Director
The Amish Farm and House
R. D. #4, Box 87
Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17602

Mrs. W. Cabell Hopkins
6106 Waterford Road
Columbus, Georgia 31904

Prof. Patrick Horsbrugh
Department of Architecture
University of Notre Dame
Notre Dame, Indiana 46556

James G. Horsfall, Director
Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station
123 Huntington Street
New Haven, Connecticut 06504

Mrs. Walter Hoskins
School House Lane
Morristown, New Jersey 07960

D. R. Hough, Curator, Buildings and Machinery
Upper Canada Village
P. O. Box 550
Morrisburg, Ontario, Canada

Mrs. C. P. House, Jr.
Mississippi Farm Implement Museum Committee
Chamber of Commerce
Cleveland, Mississippi 38732

Joseph R. Hovance, Director, Educational Services
Morris County Park Commission
Court House
Morristown, New Jersey 07960

Milo B. Howard, Jr.
Department of Archives and History
Montgomery, Alabama 36104

Robert M. Howes, Director
Land Between the Lakes
Tennessee Valley Authority
Box 27
Golden Pond, Kentucky 42231

Senator Harold Hughes
U. S. Senate
Washington, D. C. 20515

Ivor N. Hume, Director
Department of Archeology
Colonial Williamsburg
Williamsburg Virginia 23185

Carlisle Humelsine, President
Colonial Williamsburg
Williamsburg, Virginia 23185

James L. Hupp
Department of Archives and History
State Capitol
Charleston, West Virginia 25305

Donald A. Hutslar, Associate Curator
Ohio Historical Society
Columbus, Ohio 43210

Thomas T. Irvin
Department of Agriculture
Agriculture Building
Capitol Square
Atlanta, Georgia 30334

Edward D. Ives, Professor of Folklore
Department of Anthropology
University of Maine
Orono, Maine 04473

Renwick Jackson, President
St. Mary’s College
St. Mary’s City, Maryland 20686

Joseph Jaeger, Jr., Director of Parks
Missouri State Park Board
1204 Jefferson Building
Jefferson City, Missouri 65101

Malcolm Jamieson
Berkeley Plantation
Charles City, Virginia 23030

John Melville Jennings, Director
Virginia Historical Society
P. O. Box 7311
Richmond, Virginia 23221

Mrs. Mary Gregory Jewett
Georgia Historical Commission
116 Mitchell Street, S. W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Dr. John C. Johnson, President
Plains Conservation Center
1495 S. Clayton Street
Denver, Colorado 80210

Mrs. Medora Johnson, Museum Director
San Joaquin County Historical Society
Route 4, Box 161
Lodi, California 95240

Ralph E. Johnston, Curator
Museum and Heritage Center
South Dakota State University
Brookings, South Dakota 57006

Dr. H. G. Jones, Director
Department of Archives and History
P. O. Box 1881
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602

Dr. Louis C. Jones, Director
New York State Historical Association
Cooperstown, New York 13326

Robert L. Jones
Cooperative Extension Service
County Office Building
Westminster, Maryland 21157

Mrs. Joye E. Jordan
Division of Historic Sites and Museums
Department of Archives and History
Box 1881
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602

Donald D. Juchartz, County Extension Director
Cooperative Extensions Service of Michigan State University
5455 Wayne Road
Wayne, Michigan 48184

William K. Kay, Historian
National Park Service
P. O. Box 10008
Federal Building
Richmond, Virginia 23240

James A. Keillor
Hillcrest Farm
Wading River, New York 11792

Darwin Kelsey
Research Department
Old Sturbridge Village
Sturbridge, Massachusetts 01566

Richard Kenah, Chairman, Farm Committee
Alice Ferguson Foundation, Inc.
Route #1, Box 618
Accokeek, Maryland 20607

Mrs. Muriel Kenoyer, Curator
Matthew Farm Museum
Fairground
Union, Maine 04862

Donald W Kent, Jr.
48 Main Street
Byfield, Massachusetts 01922

Charles A. Kerr
Jackson County Park Department
Lake Jacomo
Route 2, Box 408
Blue Springs, Missouri 64015

Frank P King. Resident Director
Coastal Plain Experiment Station
University of Georgia College of Agriculture
Tifton, Georgia 31794

Dr. Gary King
Kellogg Foundation
Battle Creek, Michigan 49017

Eugene Kingman, Director, Exhibits and Program Texas Tech University Museum
Lubbock, Texas 79409

Ronald J. Kley, Research Associate
State Museum Commission
State House
Augusta, Maine 04330

Steven Knudsen
Film Production Unit
Alice Norton House
Iowa State University
Ames, Iowa 50010

Miss Kari Koester
Office of Environmental Interpretation
National Park Service
Washington, D. C. 20240

Delmer M. Kolb
Museum of New Mexico
P. O. Box 2087
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501

Prof. Wabun C. Krueger
College of Agriculture Museum
Rutgers University
New Brunswick, New Jersey 08903

Lloyd S. Kurtz
Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Company
2414 Kellogg
Ames, Iowa 50012

Byrle Kynerd, Director
State Historical Museum
Department of Archives and History
P. O. Box 571
Jackson, Mississippi 39205

William L. Landahl, Director of Parks
Jackson County Parks Department
Lake Jacomo
Route 2, Box 408
Blue Springs, Missouri 64015

Ralph C. Lasbury, Jr.
Old Ferry Farm
East Windsor, Connecticut 06028

Steve S. Lawrence, Executive Secretary
Tennessee Historical Commission
State Library and Archives Building
Nashville, Tennessee 37219

Ernest E. Leavitt, Jr.
Arizona State Museum
University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona 85721

Miss Abbie LeCrone
Cave Springs, Arkansas 72718

Charles E. Lee, Director
South Carolina Department of Archives and History
P. O. Box 11188 Capitol Station
Columbia, South Carolina 29211

Dr. Deane Lee
Department of Agricultural and Food Economics
Draper Hall
University of Massachusetts
Amherst, Massachusetts 01002

Dr. Nelson LeRay
Department of Resource Economics
Morrill Hall
University of New Hampshire
Durham, New Hampshire 03824

Frank Lessiter
1414 Buckthorn Drive
Prospect Heights, Illinois 60070

Edward Lettermann, Curator
Gibbs Farm Museum
2097 W. Larpenteur Avenue
St. Paul, Minnesota 55113

Stanley Levingston, President
First National Bank
Cleveland, Mississippi 38732

Robert E. Lewis, Governor, Pueblo of Zuni
Division of Resources
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Zuni, New Mexico 87327

Prof. W. K. Long
Owasco-Iroquois Research Center
Cayuga Museum of History and Art
203 Genessee Street
Auburn, New York 13021

Robert M. Lunny, Director
New Jersey Historical Society
230 Broadway
Newark, New Jersey 07104

Clinton Macauley
Hampton Arms, Apt. D-17
Hightstown, New Jersey 08520

Dr. William D. McCain, President
University of Southern Mississippi
Hattiesburg, Mississippi 39402

Dennis McCarthy
Arizona State Parks
1688 W. Adams
Phoenix, Arizona 85007

Glen E. McCaskey
Institute of Environmental and Leisure Studies
Sea Pines Plantation
Hilton Head Island, South Carolina 29928

Robert C. McConnell
Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission
8787 Georgia Avenue
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910

Allister F. MacDougal
Box 142
Westford, Massachusetts 01886

Senator George McGovern
Senate Office Building
Washington, D. C. 20510

Kermit McKeever, Chief
Division of Parks and Recreation
Department of Natural Resources
Charleston, West Virginia 25305

William Y. McLean
215 N. Central Avenue
Tifton, Georgia 31794

Dr. R. A. McLemore
Department of Archives and History
P. O. Box 571
Jackson, Mississippi 39205

Joseph B. Mahan, Jr., Director
Department of Education and Research
Columbus Museum of Arts and Crafts, Inc.
1251 Wynnton Road
Columbus, Georgia 31906

Dan Malkovich
Department of Conservation
102 State Office Building
Springfield, Illinois 62706

James E. Mallow
Department of Forests and Parks
State Office Building
Annapolis, Maryland 21404

Harold R. Manakee, Director
Maryland Historical Society
201 W. Monument Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21201

Cyril L. Marshall, Curator of Technology and Crafts
Plimoth Plantation
Plymouth, Massachusetts 02360

W. E. Marshall, Executive Director
State Historical Society of Colorado
Colorado State Museum
Denver, Colorado 80203

James G. Martin, Jr.
Texas State Historical Association
P. O. Box 8059
University Station
Austin, Texas 78712

Ray H. Mattison
State Historical Society
Liberty Memorial Building
Bismarck, North Dakota 58501

Mrs. Wendy Mazer
Friends of Quiet Valley Association
R. D. #3, Box 254
East Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania 18301

Miss Barbara A. Melzer, Assistant Site Director
Fort de Chartres
Prairie du Rocher, Illinois 62277

Louise McA. Merritt
Department of Historic Properties
National Trust for Historic Preservation
748 Jackson Place, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20006

John H. Michael, Supervisor, Interpretive Services
Department of Parks and Recreation
P. O. Box 2390
Sacramento, California 95811

Robin L. Michel, Curator of Technology
Mactaquac Historical Program
Frederickton, New Brunswick, Canada

James N. Miles, Executive Director
Great Plains Historical Association
P. O. Box 1122
Lawton, Oklahoma 73501

Senator Jack Miller
U. S. Senate
Washington, D. C. 20510

N. E. Miller, Director
Board of Parks
101 W. Gaines Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Neal E. Miller, Director
Archives and History Department
State Office Building
Cheyenne, Wyoming 82001

Nyle Miller, Secretary
Kansas State Historical Society
10th and Jackson Streets
Topeka, Kansas 66612

Clifford P. Monahon, Director
Rhode Island Historical Society
52 Power Street
Providence, Rhode Island 02906

Harold Van Morgan, Chief, Program Planning Staff
Land Between the Lakes
Box 27
Golden Pond, Kentucky 42231

William Morris, Director
State of Connecticut Historical Society
75 Elm Street
Hartford, Connecticut 06115

Charles T. Morrissey, Director
Vermont Historical Society
Montpelier, Vermont 05602

William Penn Mott, Director
Department of Parks and Recreation
P. O. Box 2390
Sacramento, California 95811

Mrs. L. M. Moye
R. F. D.
Lumpkin, Georgia 31815

Dr. William G. Murray
Department of Economics
Iowa State University
Ames, Iowa 50010

Helmuth J. Naumer, Executive Director
Fort Worth Museum of Science and History
1501 Montgomery Street
Fort Worth, Texas 76107

Edward W. Neal
1353 13th St.
Columbus, Georgia 31901

Christian Nelson, Chief, Interpretive Department
East Bay Regional Park District
11500 Skyline Boulevard
Oakland, California 94619

Ron Nelson
Pine County Historical Society
Finlayson, Minnesota 55735

Ronald Nelson
Old Colony Church
Bishop Hill, Illinois 61419

Mrs. James H. Newton
Ipswich Historical Society
Ipswich, Massachusetts 01938

John E. Norton
American-Scandinavian Foundation
Augsburg College
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55404

Mr. and Mrs. Gary Oiler
Quiet Valley Farm Museum
R. D. #2
Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania 18360

Y. A. Paloheimo
Old Cienega Village Museum
614 Acequia Madre
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87051

Hon. Wright Patman
Rayburn Building
U. S. House of Representatives
Washington, D. C. 20510

W. J. Patterson, Superintendent of Historic Sites
Upper Canada Village
P. O. Box 550
Morrisburg, Ontario, Canada

Harry Patton
Alice Ferguson Foundation Route #1
Accokeek, Maryland 20607

Dave L. Pearce, Commissioner of Agriculture
Capitol Building
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804

Carmen Perino
Board of Supervisors
Courthouse
222 E. Weber Avenue
Stockton, California 95202

Dr. William J. Petersen State
Historical Society of Iowa
Centennial Building
Iowa City, Iowa 52242

William B. Pinney, Director
Board of Historic Sites
Montpelier, Vermont 05602

Pioneer American Society, Inc.
626 S. Washington Street
Falls Church, Virginia 22046

Herb Plambeck, Assistant to the Secretary
Office of the Secretary
U. S. Department of Agriculture
Washington, D. C. 20250

David Poinsett
Historic Sites Council
Department of Conservation and Economic Development
John Fitch Plaza
Trenton, New Jersey 08625

L. S. Pope, Associate Dean
College of Agriculture
Texas A & M University
College Station, Texas 77843

Daniel R. Porter, Director
The Ohio Historical Society
Columbus, Ohio 43210

Jack E. Porter
Historic Preservation Program
Arkansas Historical Commission
Old State House
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201

Charles E. Pound
Department of Parks, Recreation, and Conservation
County Office Building
White Plains, New York 10601

Thompson Pound, Executive Director
Tombigbee River Valley Water Management District
City-County Building
Tupelo, Mississippi 38801

Joseph Prendergast, Executive Director
National Trust for Historic Preservation
748 Jackson Place, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20006

Nelson O. Price
Heritage Plantation of Sandwich
Grove Street, Box 566
Sandwich, Massachusetts 02563

Mrs. Granville T. Prior
South Carolina History Society
Fireproof Building
Charleston, South Carolina 29401

John H. Randolph, Assistant Professor of Art
Salem College
Salem, West Virginia 26426

Dr. Wayne D. Rasmussen
History Branch
U. S. Department of Agriculture
500 12th Street, S. W.
Washington, D. C. 20024

Mrs. Clay Rayner
Mississippi Farm Implement Museum
Cleveland, Mississippi 38732

Mrs. Blanche K. Reigle, Chief Curator
Farm Museum of Landis Valley
2451 Kissel Hill Road
Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17601

William N. Richards, Director of Museums
Pennsylvania History and Museum Commission
Box 1026
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108

Mrs. C. R. Richardson, Jr.
West Implement Company, Inc.
P. O. Box 880
Cleveland, Mississippi 38732

J. C. W. Riddle, Superintendent
Hopewell Village
R. F. D. #1
Elverson, Pennsylvania 19520

Dr. Edward M. Riley, Director of Research Colonial Williamsburg
Williamsburg, Virginia 23185

Miss Elizabeth Ring, Vice President
Maine Historical Society
Portland, Maine 04101

Dr. Barnes Riznik, Vice President
Old Sturbridge Village
Sturbridge, Massachusetts 01566

Francis W. Robinson
The Detroit Institute of Arts
5200 Woodward Avenue
Detroit, Michigan 48202

Mrs. Irwin V. Robinson
Cultural Heritage Center
P. O. Box 1303
Dodge City, Kansas 67801

Jerry L. Rogers, Director
The Ranch Headquarters
Box 4069
Lubbock, Texas 79409

John F. Rohn, Jr., Superintendent
Homestead National Monument
Route #1
Beatrice, Nebraska 68310

Robert J. Romani
Box 2020
Davis, California 95616

Jim B. Ross, Commissioner of Agriculture
State of Mississippi
Jackson, Mississippi 39201

Robert Ruskin
Alice Ferguson Foundation, Inc.
Route #1, Box 618
Accokeek, Maryland 20607

R. A. Sampson, Director
Conner Prairie Pioneer Settlement and Museum
Noblesville, Indiana 46060

Dr. Frederic O. Sargent
Department of Agricultural Economics
University of Vermont
Burlington, Vermont 05401

Jerry Savitis
County Parks and Recreation
Monmouth County Park System
Newman Springs Road, Box
326 Lincroft, New Jersey 07738

John A. C. Schulte
Department of Conservation
102 State Office Building
400 S. Spring Street
Springfield, Illinois 62706

Dr. Paul B. Sears
Department of Biology
Osborn Memorial Laboratories
Yale University
New Haven, Connecticut 06520

Dr. T. L. Senn
Department of Horticulture
Clemson University
Clemson, South Carolina 29631

Harry E. Serfass, County Agricultural Agent
Rutgers Cooperative Extension Service
Court House
Belvidere, New Jersey 07823

James B. Shaeffer, Director
Stuhr Museum of the Prairie Pioneer
Box 636
Grand Island, Nebraska 68801

John F. Shanklin, Assistant Director
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
U. S. Department of the Interior
Washington, D. C. 20240

George H. Shirk, President
Oklahoma Historical Society
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105

Dr. Alfred L. Shoemaker
Lenhartsville, Pennsylvania 19534

Dr. James R. Short
Division of Interpretation
Colonial Williamsburg
Williamsburg, Virginia 23185

Dr. W. Ralph Singleton
1841 University Circle
Charlottesville, Virginia 22903

William B. Singer
Westville Historic Handicrafts, Inc.
Lumpkin, Georgia 31815

R. S. Sivesind, Director, Historic Sites
State Historical Society
816 State Street
Madison, Wisconsin 53706

Daniel Smiley
Lake Mohonk Mountain House
Mohonk Lake
New Platz, New York 12561

George M. Smith
Belle Grove
National Trust for Historic Preservation
Middletown, Virginia 22645

James M. Smith, Director
State Historical Society of Wisconsin
816 State Street
Madison, Wisconsin 53706

Hon. Neal Smith
Rayburn Building
U. S. House of Representatives
Washington, D. C. 20510

Norman W. Smith
History Department
Rhode Island College
Providence, Rhode Island 02908

Edward J. Smits, Director
Nassau County Historical Museum
Muttontown Road
Syosset, L. I., New York 11791

Lowell Solterman
Outdoor Laboratories
Southern Illinois University
Carbondale, Illinois 62901

Horace A. Sorensen
Pioneer Village Museum
2998 Connor Street
Salt Lake City, Utah 84109

Mrs. Faith Stahl
Tipton-Haynes Historical Association
Route #8
Johnson City, Tennessee 37601

Geoffrey N. Stein, Associate Curator, History
Office of State History
Albany, New York 12224

Prof. A. Ray Stephens
North Texas State University
Denton, Texas 76203

Dr. S. K. Stevens, Executive Director
Pennsylvania History and Museum Commission
Box 1026
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108

Milo V. Stewart, Associate in Education
New York State Historical Association
Cooperstown, New York 13326

Robert W. Straus
Accokeek Foundation, Inc.
525 School Street, S. E.
Washington, D. C. 20024

Douglass Strickland, Chief
Bureau of Land Acquisition and Development
Division of Recreation and Parks
Larson Building
Tallahassee, Florida 32304

Quentin C. Sulzle
Land Operations Office
Zuni Indian Agency
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Zuni, New Mexico 87327

John F. Sutherland
Institute of Local History
Manchester Community College
Manchester, Connecticut 06040

Marvin Sutherland
Virginia Department of Conservation and Economic Development
State Office Building
Richmond, Virginia 23219

Hans Syz
11 Clapboard Hill Road
Green Farms, Connecticut 06436

Jarold D. Talbot, Director
Old Museum Village of Smith’s Clove
Route 17
Monroe, New York 10950

Floyd D. Taylor, Superintendent
Custis-Lee Mansion
1400 Wilson Boulevard
Arlington, Virginia 22209

Lonn Taylor
Winedale Inn Properties
Round Top, Texas 78954

James C. Thomas, Assistant to the Director
Shakertown at Pleasant Hill
Route #4
Harrodsburg, Kentucky 40330

Minor Wine Thomas, Jr., Assistant Director
New York State Historical Association
Cooperstown, New York 13326

Mrs. Sally Thompson, Executive Secretary
Calvin Coolidge Memorial Foundation
P. O. Box 462
Woodstock, Vermont 05091

John Tiff, Park Historian
Lincoln Boyhood National Memorial
Lincoln City, Indiana 47552

Russell B. Tobey, Director of Parks
State House Annex
Concord, New Hampshire 03301

Bernard T. Trinity
Trinity Historical Museum
47460 Sugarbush Road
Mount Clemens, Michigan 48043

Richard Trudeau, General Manager
East Bay Regional Park District
11500 Skyline Boulevard
Oakland, California 94619

James J. Truncer, Director
County Parks and Recreation
Monmouth County Parks System
Newman Springs Road, Box 326
Lincroft, New Jersey 07738

Thomas Vaughan, Director
Oregon Historical Society
1230 S. W. Park Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97205

Wallace Vegors, Assistant Director
Arizona State Parks
1688 West Adams
Phoenix, Arizona 85007

Prof. James Verde
Ecology Action for Rhode Island
281 Thayer Street
Providence, Rhode Island 02906

J. Leonard Volz, Director, Southeast Region
National Park Service
P. O. Box 10008
Richmond, Virginia 23240

William J. Wagner
500 Hubbell Building
Des Moines, Iowa 50309

James R. Walker, Park Manager
George Washington Birthplace National Monument
Virginia 22575

Alexander J. Wall, President
Old Sturbridge Village
Sturbridge, Massachusetts 01566

Charles C. Wall, Resident Director
Mount Vernon, Virginia 22121

Earl D. Wallace
Shakertown Board of Trustees
1211 Richmond Road
Lexington, Kentucky 40502

Clyde R. Walter
The Johnson 1910 Farm
Geneseo, Illinois 61254

David D. Warden
Danville, Vermont 05828

Henry T. Ware
Mississippi Antebellum Foundation
111 Jefferson Davis Avenue
Biloxi, Mississippi 39530

G. B. Wareham, Executive Director
Alice Ferguson Foundation
Route #1, Box 618
Accokeek, Maryland 20607

P. Alston Waring
Honey Hollow Watershed Association
R. D. #1
New Hope, Pennsylvania 18938

Mrs. Edgar Way burn
30 Seaview Terrace
San Francisco, California 94121

Silas B. Weeks
New Hampshire Cooperative Extension Service
University of New Hampshire
Durham, New Hampshire 03824

Merle W. Wells, Historian and Archivist
Idaho Historical Society
610 N. Julia Davis Drive
Boise, Idaho 83706

Dr. James W. Whitaker
Department of History
Iowa State University
Ames, Iowa 50010

Norman B. Wilkinson, Director of Research
The Hagley Museum
Greenville, Delaware 19807

Joseph E. Williams
Department of Education and Research
Columbus Museum of Arts and Crafts
1251 Wynnton Road Columbus, Georgia 31906

Dr. R. Coke Wood, Executive Secretary
Conference of California Historical Societies
University of the Pacific
Stockton, California 95204

Wesley R. Woodgerd, Chief
Recreation and Parks Division
Department of Fish and Game
Sam W. Mitchell Building
Helena, Montana 59601

Gilbert Woods
Mississippi Farm Implement Museum
Cleveland, Mississippi 38732

Hon. Wendell Wyatt
U. S. House of Representatives
Washington, D. C. 20515