The Old Rhode Island Farm: History, Memory, and Interpretation at Bristol's Coggeshall Farm Museum

While larger living history museums have been frequently studied by scholars, smaller museums, like Coggeshall Farm Museum in Bristol, Rhode Island receive far less attention. Utilizing historical and institutional records, historical monographs, and literature from the fields of museum studies and anthropology, this study examines authenticity in the museum setting using Coggeshall Farm Museum as a case study, suggesting that despite the museum’s search for historical accuracy, the institution remains inauthentic to recorded history. It argues that the history and interpretation of Coggeshall Farm Museum was intimately intertwined and influenced by the historical perceptions, biases, and dynamics of the museum’s leadership. The study identifies two important periods in the museum’s history, the first from 1967-1984 and the second from 1984-2003. These periods were instrumental in shaping the museum’s identity, yet they also suggest that the ability of the institution to thrive and to prosper depended upon a clearly defined mission, vision, and strong finances. The significant challenges faced by the institution clearly impacted the organization's ability to serve the public and to survive.


INTRODUCTION
preferences of individuals and outside trends that were influential in shaping the museum in its first thirty years.
Despite attempts to present an accurate depiction of history to the public, as a living historical site, Coggeshall Farm Museum is a contemporary construction of the past. It is therefore a better reflection of the culture in which it was created than the historic past it hopes to recreate. Historical records illustrate that the museum's historic interpretation often disregarded or at least ignored the historical record to promote topics of particular interest to museum staff, the general public, and other concerned parties. This study examines authenticity in the museum setting using Coggeshall Farm Museum as a case study, but it also argues that the history and interpretation of Coggeshall Farm Museum was intimately intertwined and influenced by the historical perceptions, biases, and dynamics of the museum's leadership. The ability of the institution to thrive and to prosper depended upon a clearly defined mission, vision, and strong finances. The significant challenges faced by the institution clearly impacted the organization's ability to serve the public and to survive.
In the United States museums are recognized for being trustworthy sources for historical information. It is therefore crucial that scholars examine museums narratives and institutional histories to determine how inherent biases might be presented to the public. 4  within the living history museum setting. In their article, the authors established a compound definition, which first defines authenticity as "isomorphism between a living-history activity or event, and the piece of the past it is meant to recreate," or "perfect simulation." 8 Therefore, in the living history setting, reproducing the past with minute accuracy is one way of being authentic. Handler and Saxton defined authenticity in the museum, secondly, as a means of finding one's authentic self. The authors found that living history practitioners draw on the storied lives of the past, hoping to "regain an authentic world, and to realize themselves in the process, through the simulation of historical world." 9 Though Handler and Saxton saw the authenticity issue in the museum as a postmodern phenomenon, they acknowledged that living historians "do not see living history as a genuine aspect of present-day culture." 10 In a later article, "After Authenticity at an American Heritage Site, " Handler and fellow anthropologist Eric Gable explained why living history museums are so concerned with upholding a level of authenticity, particularly in regards to historical accuracy. According to Gable and Handler, When constructivist paradigms flourish, as they currently do at sites such as Colonial Williamsburg, they do so not in the service of a critique of the status quo but in defense (to borrow from Durkheim 11 ) of what come to be perceived as socially "necessary illusions." While we draw our examples from research we carried out at Colonial Williamsburg from 1990 to 1993, the arguments are applicable to heritage sites in general and ultimately to the way constructivist paradigms are deflected or domesticated in the American vernacular in the "post-authentic" age. 12 8 Richard Handler and William Saxton, "Dyssimulation: Reflexivity, Narrative, and the Quest for Authenticity in 'Living History, '" Cultural Anthropology 3, no. 3 (1988): 242, doi:10.1525/can.1988.3.3.02a00020. 9 Ibid., 243. 10 Ibid., 243, 257. 11 Émile Durkheim was a French sociologist. 12  The authors argued that more often than not, museums attempted to promote an air of authenticity in order to appear more credible to the public, though most historians working in these environments accepted that history could not be presented objectively. 13 Curators and consultants Susie Wilkening and Erica Donnis, claimed that "authenticity is perhaps the most critical attribute of a history museum." 14 Wilkening and Donnis queried visitors about the importance of authenticity in the museum and published the findings in their 2008 article, "Authenticity? It Means Everything." They found that that authenticity held a number of different meanings for individuals.
Fifty-eight percent of respondents associated authenticity with the historical accuracy of a site, meaning that the museum based its interpretation and built environment off of documented historic research and material culture. 15 Despite this large number, the authors noted that "only a small percentage" concluded that modern anachronisms detracted from a site's authenticity. 16 Definitions of authenticity varied by age, with older adults placing more value on authenticity than younger adults, like mothers with children, who were more concerned with providing an engaging family experience than with the accuracy of every detail. 17 Authenticity in the museum is indeed complicated, and while museums hope to exude an authentic appearance, Wilkening and Donnis cautioned museums from claiming to be authentic, stating that [t]he public expects history-based museums to be authentic--it is inherent--but if you proclaim your authenticity, it immediately sends up a faux flag. It conveys the idea that, 13 Ibid., 576. 14 Susie Wilkening and Erica Donnis, "Authenticity? It Means Everything," HISTORY NEWS 63, no. 4 (Autumn 2008): 18. 15 Ibid., 19. 16 Ibid., 20. 17 Ibid.,[20][21] because you have to say it, perhaps there is a reason and you are not as authentic as they thought, casting doubt on your authenticity ." 18 Although many visitors may appreciate museums that attempt to be historically authentic, these attempts are often in opposition to the authenticity of staff or other visitors who feel alienated or excluded. While individual museums create their own policies to construct a veil of authenticity, as a whole, the living historical community struggles to negotiate how it can present an authentic experience while also satisfying staff and visitors. In a somewhat heated discussion via the Association for Living Historical Farms and Agricultural Museums (ALHFAM) e-mail listserv in June 2018, museum professionals from varying institutions discussed policies regarding gender non-conforming individuals at their sites. Many professionals acknowledged that it should be up to the individual to choose to dress in costume according to the gender with which they identify, but others found this to be a modern issue best left out of the workplace. These individuals feared that if clothing did not match the biological sex of an interpreter, it could lead to visitor confusion regarding historic gender roles. 19 Similarly, living history museums continue to have a tenuous relationship with

race. As anthropologists Richard Handler and Eric Gable explained in The New
History in an Old Museum: Creating the Past at Colonial Williamsburg, this was particularly true at Colonial Williamsburg, where they performed extensive fieldwork.
Throughout the 1990s, the institution went to great lengths to revise its narrative to include stories of enslaved Africans, who were previously excluded from the museum's account of history. Although Colonial Williamsburg remained preoccupied 18 Ibid., 22. 19 Katie Lange et al. to ALHFAM Mailing List, "[ALHFAM] Gender Identity and Period Clothing," July 16, -June 22, 2018 with the accuracy of the material culture of the site, it also attempted to truthfully depict the lives of the black slaves who made up roughly half of Williamsburg's population. 20 However, Handler and Gable found that white interpreters often neglected to discuss miscegenation with audiences, mostly due to their discomfort with the topic. These interpreters often explained away their discomfort by citing a lack of historical documentation on the subject. 21 Through defining authenticity as narrative backed by the written historical record, the interpreters severely limited the museum's knowledge of and interpretation of the past, as historically disadvantaged groups like enslaved Africans were unable to physically document their history in the same way as privileged white Virginians. Furthermore, potential black employees may feel there is no place in the museum for them, unless they wish to portray an enslaved individual. Black visitors may likewise feel out of place at a museum that traditionally glorified the country's white model citizens.
Beyond studies on authenticity, scholars have looked at living history from a multitude of other perspectives. Historian Michael G. Kammen 23 Magelssen. in which history is actively constructed in the museum setting. In  framework for examining a living history museum. In her study, conducted in the 1990s, Abing analyzed the institution as a cultural artifact. Abing astutely noted, …not only does the outdoor history museum teach about the history of a certain period it strives to represent; it can teach about the society that created and honed it. In this way, the museum can be considered as an archaeological treasure-a cultural artifact. 27 Her work illustrates the ways in which individuals, wider movements, and outside trends like social history, shaped Old Sturbridge Village as an institution. Abing's study does not uncover such inherently problematic narratives as those constructed by Instrumental to the formulation of the museum's identity, these periods demonstrate how a museum can change based on the impulses of board, staff, and outside forces.
During these two periods, which exist with some overlap, major events and decisions shaped the construction of the museum's historical narrative. Sisson's vision soon outgrew that of the society, as members believed the farm was draining funds from more important historical projects. In the early 1970s, Coggeshall Farm Museum, Inc. became an independent 501(c)3 nonprofit organization. It came into its own during the heyday of living history, though it was always a step behind larger institutions like Old Sturbridge Village, a more established living history museum in Massachusetts.
By 1984, Coggeshall Farm Museum's initial vision, mission, and presentation were no longer relevant in the eyes of many of its board and staff members. In the following years, the museum sought to alter its identity in a major way, seeking external assistance in order to determine the best path forward. The second period (1984)(1985)(1986)(1987)(1988)(1989)(1990)(1991)(1992)(1993)(1994)(1995)(1996)(1997)(1998)(1999)(2000)(2001)(2002)(2003), examined in Chapter 5, was one of considerable change, led by staff and board members who were influenced by outside organizations, including professional interest groups, other living history sites, and outside consultants. These organizations often stressed the need for an authentically represented past and the importance of the "new" social history. The museum brought in a number of "experts," including outside museum evaluator Edward L. Hawes through a grant funded assessment program. It was Hawes who remarked during his assessment of the institution in 1989, that, "Coggeshall is a living history center, put together with enthusiasm and love, but not enough sense of real direction, purpose and identity." 28 Throughout the next decade, Coggeshall Farm Museum grew into its new identity, while staff explored new modes of living historical interpretation steeped in notions of historical authenticity.
Continuity in the form of staff and board leadership allowed for the implementation and crystallization of this new identity into the early 2000s. Despite additional changes as the twenty-first century progressed, including continued efforts to professionalize, the decisions made during these two earlier periods laid the groundwork for the museum as it existed throughout the tenure of later board and staff.
Today, Coggeshall Farm Museum's mission highlights important changes made in 1985 and beyond, namely the choice to focus on the 1790s. As of 2018, the museum's mission is to preserve this 1790s Rhode Island salt-marsh farm. We serve the local community and beyond as a living museum and vital educational resource through demonstration of daily farm activity and honest interpretation that reflects its historical, multicultural influence Society. It is hoped the project will benefit the museum by providing an overarching narrative of its own institutional history. Also, the project serves a pragmatic purpose.
Many living history museums, including Coggeshall Farm Museum, struggle to show a profit. With visitation dwindling, museums are at an impasse: do they continue to hold on to strict notions of authenticity, or attempt to change in order to stay relevant with new audiences? It is important that the museum understands that the chosen interpretive angle reflects both the zeitgeist of an earlier time as well as the preferences of individuals who possessed power over the direction of the museum.
The final chapter of this thesis touches on Coggeshall Farm in more recent years, under new leadership. Coggeshall Farm Museum continues to hold onto the identity established in the period discussed in Chapter 5, despite flaws in accuracy and relevancy. In concluding, I argue that rather than remaining a static institution, 30 The Narragansett Bay divides Rhode Island unofficially into the West Bay and East Bay regions. The East Bay consists of Bristol in addition other cities and towns such as Barrington, Little Compton, Middletown, Newport, Portsmouth, Tiverton, and Warren. of visitors, despite fears that these changes may impact the authentic nature of the site.
Research indicates that as an institution, Coggeshall is not an authentic representation of the site's documented history. However, it is impossible for any living history museum to be a truly authentic simulation of the past. Taken as a whole, this study argues that Coggeshall Farm Museum reflects the broader movements in the museum field and field of history in general, in addition to the attitudes and choices of various individuals who held interest in the institution. Major changes throughout the years reflect the whims of individuals and wider themes in the museum field. While transformation in the late-twentieth century was crucial to creating the museum as it exists today, Coggeshall Farm Museum's leadership may find that it must look to change once again to retain relevancy in the twenty-first century.  Ibid. in 1880, stands out as one of the earliest compendiums of Bristol history. A Bristol native, Munro was interested in Bristol not solely from an academic standpoint, but also from an intimately personal one. In his preface, Munro revealed his bias, as he noted that he "lovingly and reverently" wrote his monumental work of history, much like Livy documented the history of Rome. 41 Munro's work aimed to elevate Bristol to be worthy of standing among the history of great locales of importance like Rome and argues that Bristol's history is integral to the wider development of the state of Rhode Island and the United States as a nation. 42 His method therefore relied on ignoring mundane local history and instead ensured that, "local names and details [were] subordinate to the part the town has taken in the development of the state and nation" while making "extended mention only of those whose reputation has passed beyond its boundaries and has become a part of the history of the state." 43

REASSEMBLING THE COGGESHALL FARM MUSEUM TIMELINE
In order to understand the context of Coggeshall Farm Museum's institutional and interpretive history, it is important to first consider the recorded history of the land itself. The historical record serves as a base from which a museum can craft interpretation. A museum's level of authenticity is often judged from this perspective, as noted by Handler and Gable. It is often inferred that the museum represents the past as described in written and material sources. Diverging from the known past and presenting it as historic truth can impact the public perception of that museum's credibility. Using a combination of primary sources and select secondary sources, Coggeshall's place in wider Bristol history will be contextualized here before assembling a timeline that delineates the site's known history. (see Appendix 2: Coggeshall Farm Museum Historic Timeline) The history of the land and its past ownership is complicated, as the property ownership transferred multiple times and changed in size and boundaries throughout its history. Throughout the eighteenth century, overseas trade expanded. Bristol engaged in the triangular slave trade, bolstered by the local production of rum from molasses. 66 Slavery became especially profitable after Rhode Island officially annexed Bristol as well as Warren, Tiverton, Little Compton, and Cumberland from Massachusetts in January 1746-7. 67 During the Revolutionary War, Bristol suffered economically, though less so than Newport. It emerged as a prominent seaport in the postwar period.  71 Warren and Kennedy, 19-33. known history. According to the Grand Articles of 1680, Poppasquash Neck was to hold a farm, mill, and ferry. The Grand Articles stated that a farm was to be laid ...out for the four first purchasers, and that each person shall pay a preportionable part according to his share in building upon, clearing, fencing & stocking staid Farm as those that run the major part of the purchase shall agree upon. Also that there shall be a Mill or Mille build and accommodations laid thereunto, and to set up a Ferry on the said Neck and lay out a farm there unto, and build an house thereupon and that the four first purchasers with such others as shall have deeds granted unto them as aforesaid, shall pay as shall arise or become made on the said Poppasquash  74 Warren and Kennedy, 23. 75 The homes that occupy Poppasquash Neck continue to attract Bristol's wealthiest residents. The residents on Poppasquash Road maintain a guarded entry gate to guarantee control over their prized real estate. 76 Warren and Kennedy, 23-31.

Nathaniel Byfield: 1680-1723
The first major owner of the Poppasquash Neck property containing Coggeshall to Viall, a "Yeoman," for "Eleven Thousand and Five Hundred Pounds of Current money of New England." 86 The land and boundaries were described in detailed as being the Nortward Part or end of the farm or Neck called Pappasquash Neck whereon the said Co ll Byfield now liveth: And is butted and bounded as followeth Northwesterly on Land belonging to Co ll Nathaniel Paine Westwardly on the Bay or Salt water Eastwardly on the Country Road extending along said Roade. Southwardly to a stake in the ground and from said stake west six Degrees and an half North Seventeen Rods and four foot being about five foot to the Southward of the well and from the end of [indecipherable] whereon the windmill now stands and from there bounded Southward and Eastwardly round by Bristol harbour or Saltwater and so to Extend Southwardly on the whole Breadth of said Neck to an East and West Line across the said Neck there being a Stone patche into the ground on the East side of said Neck bounded Southwardy on said Line and Stone with an other Stone pitched into ye ground in said Line on the west side of said Neck or howsoever otherwise bounded or reputed to be bounded Together… 87 The December deed was followed by another deed dated January 6, 1723/4. In discussing Nathaniel Byfield, Munro noted the nearby "remains of a tomb wherein lie buried those of his family who died during his residence in Bristol." 90 It is unclear whether he was referring to the Byfield stone marker currently located on Coggeshall Farm Museum's property. This may be the tomb mentioned in a deed 86 Book 15, Page 154, (NBCRD). 87   Shearjashub Bourn, not to be confused with his father of the same name, was the brother of the more renowned Benjamin Bourn. 109 Munro cites the younger Shearjashub Bourn's commercial firm, Bourn and Wardell, as one of the foremost shipping companies of the time. 110 "Spoliation Claims" in The Bristol Phoenix, dated February 21, 1885 include just three of many vessels owned by Bourn, specifically the: 106 Warren, 2. 107 Kevin Jordan served as a member of Coggeshall Farm Museum's executive board in the late 1970s while working at Roger Williams College as a professor of historic preservation. 108 Kevin E. Jordan, Roger Williams College, Architectural Report for Coggeshall Farm House: Artifact and Historical Document, undated, (CFM). 109 Munro, 104-105. 110 Ibid., 368. Bourn and Wardell's partnership went beyond their shipping interests. In 1792 the team opened a rum distillery. According to Munro, "for nearly thirty-five years, two hundred gallons of rum were made each day. A ready market for its product was found on the coast of Africa." 112     In what was likely a rousing presentation recorded in writing for publication in the minutes of the society's September 1968 monthly meeting, Sisson began by reminding the society of its purpose to preserve and conserve cultural heritage and natural resources. He conceded that history did not begin with the Mayflower nor end 170 Ibid., 205. 171 Ibid.,214. with the Potato Famine, and he acknowledged that history would be made by "groups who came to America from Ireland, Italy, Portugal and other countries and areas including Africa…" 172 Sisson described Bristol as a "blessed" town, yet one that was unfortunately succumbing to the travails of the modern era. Of his chief concerns, the arrival of "thousands of additional citizens" seemed to be most pressing as he considered the world to be "expanding at the seams as more and more people arrive and more and more stay longer." 173 187 Ibid. animals and crops." 188 After acquiring the lease, the society planned to restore the dwelling house and build or move small farm structures to the site. It further explained that the farm will depict a small farm typical of 1750-1850, as the founders believed that they were generally small, operated by one or two men, and self sufficient to a great extent.  193 Ibid. 194 Ibid. 195 Ibid.

Coggeshall Farm Museum) The Tomashes had not received a copy of their lease agreement outlining the details of their residency and work at Coggeshall Farm
Museum. The tenant farmers also expressed concern that the board had not made an effort to see the progression of work on the farm. 196 Sisson had had enough with the society's approach to the farm venture, believing the society had a "complete neutral stand-off detached attitude" regarding the farm, "there being no financial contribution and no help at all" on the project. 197 The minutes repeatedly mention that improvements to the farm were not the responsibility of the Bristol Historical Society. 198 If the society refused to be more involved, then Sisson suggested that it might be worthwhile for an independent group to take over the project. Admittedly, he felt that the society would lose a valuable asset as "the Farm has more attraction to tourists than the jail," though he felt that "the Society cannot go along with an adopted-child attitude towards the Farm.  The few modifications did nothing to preserve the house's structural integrity. As late as 1975, contractor Anthony Nunes reported to the board that the house was in "very bad repair" suggesting that they properly restore the house's structural issues "rather than spend money on superficial renovations." 207 The final straw came after the Farm Committee hired new farm tenants to replace the Tomashes. At the June 1973 board meeting, society board member Helene Tessler expressed concern over her exclusion from the hiring process. Tessler stated that Mr.
Wideman of the Farm Committee "was not agreeable, and objected to any more people becoming involved in the Farm Committee." 208 Col. Briggs, who initially 204 Ibid. proposed the living history museum project made a motion to divest the Bristol Historical and Preservation Society of the farm. 209 At the society's regular meeting just five days later, the membership voted on the divestment. Prior to the vote, Tessler outlined "several of the difficulties encountered by the society in its relationship with the Farm Committee." 210 Sisson responded to Tessler's accusations that the lack of communication between the Society and the Farm Committee was unintentional and probably due to 'free-wheeling' personalities on the [Farm] Committee; they do not function well as a subservient committee.
[He] expressed the hope that if a parting was to be effected, that it be a happy one, with no ill feeling on either side. 211 The discord within the board was too extensive to overcome. In 1973, Coggeshall which surprisingly included Bristol Historical and Preservation Society member Helene Tessler. Sisson described each member's strengths in great detail: In Harold Demopulos we have one of the original movers in the formation of the Farm, a man who has given the project many hours of his talented legal and organizational ability. In Jim Macdonald we have the Farm's most generous contributor and supporter. In Peter Church a good practical supporter. In Letitia Carter and Jim Munger the guiding, day to day innovators, directors and managers, whose inspiration and drive are known to all in Helen[sic] Tessler the organization ability with the deep commitment to historical preservation together with a showmanship flair that has and will prove extremely beneficial to Coggeshall; in Dot Rupp the quiet dedication and thoroughness that will keep the Farm and its records exact and intact; in Sybil Chaset Lessebaum we have the experience of decades of successful civic, floral and social work with many valuable contacts. 213 The Commission requesting funds. Carter expressed her hope that the museum would complete a number of goals before the 1976 Bicentennial, one of which being a colonial orchard. In discussing the purposes of the project, Carter wrote that they planned "[t]o present to the public an authentically restored settlement of the period…" which implied that the Committee was thinking much larger than the farmstead at the time. 216 This seemed to be confirmed by a request in July 1974 for the "loan of three houses" from Steve Tyson. 217 No other historic houses were ever erected on the property during the museum's history.

The board began preparations earlier in the year for its first annual Harvest
Fair. 218 Plans from a July 17, 1974 Fair meeting summarize the featured activities, which included a Saturday night, sit-down community supper, a contra dance, and 4-H exhibits. 219 In addition to the Harvest Fair, the board planned to hold a Blessing of the Animals event at the Farm. 220 Sisson explained the reasoning behind the Blessing in as separate set of notes from the meeting, describing a similar event in recent years that attracted almost 125 animals. Beyond events alone, Sisson and the other members were concerned with investigating the feasibility of carriage and hay rides through Colt State Park. 221 The museum planned for educational events as well, including, in January of the following year, a course on weaving and loom building. 222 While the museum planned its first major festival, among other events and activities, and built up infrastructure, it struggled internally. The museum relied on boarded livestock as a valuable source of income. However, a number of animals were damaging farm property and their owners neglected to pay their accounts. 223 It was also difficult for the museum to find reliable tenants to live and work on the farm.
Several left for reasons that included a lack of hospitable living and working environment. 224 In her resignation letter dated to January 9, 1975, Martha Bishop reported that, "since we have been here, we have had many more displeasurable [sic] experiences than pleasurable and this is mainly why we are leaving." 225 Furthermore, the farm struggled financially. In September 1974, the secretary, noted that, "while bills keep coming in, there is no money in the treasury to pay them, a cause fro [sic] great concern." 226 By November 1974, the museum had $2,671.48 in assets, yet faced an $8,000 barn improvement project, which it delayed due to cost. 227 Amidst increasing struggles, board member Letitia Carter proposed an internal structural change designed to professionalize the museum. 228 On January 9, 1975, Carter refined her idea further and proposed that the board restructure into three independent committees in order to streamline research and operation of the farm museum. Carter wanted to establish a historical research and restoration committee, a farm operation and research committee, and a public contact and education committee.
Each committee was to be chaired by an interested board member. 223 Ibid., September 16, 1974, (CFM). The November 7, 1974 board meeting minutes indicate that that month, the board moved to raise fees for boarded horses to $35 from an unspecified amount. 224 Rupp, Coggeshall Farm Board Meeting, May 1975, (CFM). Throughout 1974 and 1975, the board and various tenants discussed the possibility of insulating the second story of the Farmhouse to create more hospitable climate conditions for the tenants, who were forced to live upstairs when the museum was open to the public. In May of 1975 it was suggested that the Farmhouse might be restored as a museum, not as a dwelling house for the tenants, with "some other arrangement" put in place for the resident farmer. Construction on a resident farmhouse was not completed until 1993. 225 Martha Bishop, Resignation Letter, January 9, 1975, (CFM). 226  specified that "[i]t is understood that any additional construction that we will require will be designed to increase authenticity and will only be done with your approval ." 232 In addition to removing the barbwire and chicken wire fencing, a bulletin board, and storm windows, the Tappers insisted that " of the idea, it was later the source of great contention, which is indicative of the farmmuseum dichotomy. 247 While a $1,000 salary for the director was initially suggested, Helene Tessler later "expressed the opinion that $1,000 dollars was not enough to pay for a director. She thought that the salary should be closer to $4,000.00." 248 Coggeshall Farm Museum leadership made further attempts to professionalize through stressing the institution's function as a museum. On August 4, 1976, Dorothy Rupp created a report entitled "Goals for Coggeshall Farm Museum. " Rupp motioned to build an annex onto the historic farmhouse. Though the board lacked a way to pay for a new building project, Rupp's vision resonated with her peers, as well as with future board and staff members. Unless the museum created a workspace and living quarters for the staff, the farmhouse could not operate as a fully functional museum.
Rupp's characterization of the museum and board's role was also highly telling. She again questioned the institution's function as a farm versus museum, and she pointed to the importance of its educational potential: Several recent events have caused me to think that as a board We should review the aims of Coggeshall Farm Museum Inc. As the name clearly states, We are a museum. Yet it often seems that some of us loose[sic] sight of this fact. The only time We really function as a museum is during the two brief months in the summer when We are open to the public. This is a very vital time for Coggeshall Farm, not only because of the needed revenue collected; but because only then can We perform our role of a living, active museum. 249 According to Rupp, one of the pitfalls was a lack of "personal effort and energy" on the part of board members who leave it to the director to "carry such an awesome College provided some information as to how the museum envisioned itself going forward. The collaborative project hoped to bolster research at the museum and introduce increased interpretation. The proposal identified the prevalence of farms during the American Revolutionary period and the resurgence of contemporary interest in historical farmsteads in the 1970s. It cautions that "a reader or visitor senses the significance of these farming descriptions only if they are interpreted well ." 262 According to the project proposal, the museum needed to, "display authentic clothing, animals, crops and methods used during the 1750-1800 period," in addition to "field and barn activities that depict this period." 263 The student collaborators argued that accuracy was paramount to the success of the museum, a first for the institution. In their words, "[t]he problem is achieving historical accuracy. When people are told that they are looking at a typical 1750 farm, the farms should be as much like an[sic] 1750 farm as possible." 264 This was the first time that the museum responded to with the "new" social history, which stemmed from academia in the 1960s and 1970s and later became a prominent force in living history museum interpretation.
Commonly blanketed as the history of everyday life and ordinary people, the study of social history emphasized subjects previously ignored in academia and in the museum. Women, African Americans, the poor, and workers became the focus of historic research, which became more inclusive, diverse, and asked new research leadership identified three sources of revenue: businesses and large gifts, foundations and grants, and small gifts. 282 Although the museum continued to boast a profit from its annual Harvest Fair, earning a $5,590 net profit in 1978, the board needed to look to other sources for funding as well. 283 The board members put forth great effort into planning the May 1979 Finance Drive, based on the document which details the board's approach to getting money from each of the three sources. By June their fundraising efforts stagnated. The July meeting minutes reported that the June finance meeting was "very disappointing" as only one board overseer had donated. 284 Overall, the drive was not entirely successful.
In October of 1979, the board still sought $7,000 of the $10,000 needed for a new barn, and the institution attempted to cut costs by using Roger Williams College students for labor. 285 Although barn construction finally began in February of 1982, the museum continued to struggle financially. As noted in a newsletter to museum members, the barn was to be completed "hopefully, funding permitting" in the following year. 286 That August, it was apparent that the museum was in financial trouble, despite ongoing building projects as Museum Director Ross Fullam noted that he was "holding off paying bills to use money for the Fair. purpose is, what our main concern is." 310 A discussion followed in which members attempted to provide some semblance of a definition. Answers were broad, and 309 Abing, 228-252. included for example "a living history farm" and "a place for kids to learn how people lived and farmed in 1750-1800." 311 The board questioned the museum's current interpretive time frame, which was defined by the date of the Coggeshall dwelling house. Members noted that the target period was too wide, yet it was feared that a shorter time frame was too limiting in terms of what they now began to call "pure authenticity." 312 As the institution lacked the staff and funds to run the farm without modern conveniences, they noted that "the actual running of the farm under 18 th century methods was too time consuming and took away from the time that could be spent demonstrating the methods used." 313 Although the board tabled discussion on the museum's purpose for a later date, a number of immediate goals were set, including the repair and maintenance of the physical site, and an increase in board membership and general membership. Focusing on long-range planning was a significant step for the museum. The board understood that solidifying the museum's mission and vision were crucial to the financial wellbeing of the museum, as they astutely noted that "to present our program to possible donors, it needs to be spelled out and well defined." 314 From an educational and interpretive standpoint, the board planned to increase accessibility of historical information to board and staff, promote a monthly event, and expand the educational program throughout the year by bringing it directly to schools. 315 In November of 1985, the board applied for a grant to produce a slide show for elementary school 311 Ibid. 312 Ibid. 313 Ibid. 314 Ibid. 315 Ibid. children and supplementary handouts for local schools. 316 By May 5, 1986, the museum's cooling house had been restored, and the board, with the help of George Sisson, sought funds for the restoration of the farmhouse roof. 317 After receiving a grant from the Rhode Island Foundation, the museum produced the slideshow, which was completed in 1987. 318 The museum also amended its animal policy after 4-H members approached the board, asking to bring in Highland cattle. The previous policy determined that all farm livestock must be authentic to the farm's target historic period. Mirroring the board's earlier thoughts on "pure authenticity," the new policy stated that Coggeshall Farm tries, whenever possible, to utilize historically authentic working methods, architecture, livestock, and plants at Coggeshall Farm. However, it is sometimes necessary to substitute more modern working methods, architecture, livestock, and plants because of the Farm's limited staff size and because of limited finances. 319 Little more than a year later, the board convened again to discuss their goal of "using authentic livestock." 320 While the members continued to plan for long and short term infrastructure projects, it was clear that more time was necessary for long-range planning. Based on the data from the 1985-1986 annual treasurer's report, funds remained low, with the museum's checking and savings balances closing at $1,320.25 and $1,659.39 respectively. 321 Earlier leaders acknowledged that historical accuracy and budget shortfalls tended to exist in opposition, however, a major shift was in motion by the end of the 1980s, when the museum board realized the institution was in need of a new direction. The museum dedicated itself to historical authenticity, under the purview of Board President Laura Kiely and then Resident Director Eric Johnson. In her 1987 annual report, Kiely stated that she "felt the Farm was on the upswing" and was going forth Johnson was more concerned about the museum's identity. In a final plea at the 1989 annual membership meeting, Johnson "called for common agenda-a stated purpose that is commonly shared and clearly understood by all involved." 339 Johnson argued that the museum was in need of "serious planning and developing" and asked for "realistic workloads developed through coordination and planning." 340 Johnson claimed that the museum needed an "identity-a mission ." 341 He went on to say that, Already the Museum has saved a 'corner of the over-developed area's rural past.' In looking to the future…the museum's focus should be on education with "modern" farm operations supporting this effort. Museum Assessment Program assessor Edward L. Hawes's scathing 1989 review of the museum is somewhat surprising. Hawes wrote that: Coggeshall Farm Museum is at a crossroads. It can halt and remain an amateur living history center, interpreting the "colonial period' in general terms with its confusing collection of buildings: one historic, one a period construction, and the others nonhistoric. Coggeshall could move forward to become a living history center of distinction following standards of the living history and broader museum movements. Going down this road a ways with modest improvements in its facilities, it can preserve and interpret aspects of late 18 th century farm and household life, and its larger context. 344 Hawes suggested in his review that the museum adopt the interpretive narrative of a "coastal Rhode Island tenant farm" of the 1790s, a subject not presented at any other museum. 345 When Hawes visited in 1989 he called attention to the museum's lack of historical accuracy and its overburdened staff., Hawes suggested bluntly that the museum focus on the 1790s, bringing in the "larger social and environmental context" while directly distinguishing between the museums historically accurate and inaccurate buildings using signage. 346 Hawes offered advice on how to refine the museum's interpretive direction, particularly its generalized narrative of colonial life, but his critique extended to superfluous programing like the museum's annual blessing of the animals, which he saw as a historical inaccuracy. 347 Hawes suggested that the board strategically plan to restore the farmhouse to date to the 1790s. He advised that the board move the resident farmers to a new residence.
He also suggested relocating buildings that did not fit an authentic 1790s farmstead.
Although the Coggeshalls did not live at the farm during the 1790s, Hawes felt that interpreting the nineteenth century was too drastic a departure for the museum. 344 Hawes, Coggeshall Farm Museum, Inc. Museum Assessment Report, Executive Summary, December 1989, (CFM). 345 Ibid. 346 Ibid. 347 Ibid.
Focusing on the 1790s, Hawes pushed for a narrative that was more local in scope, though he believed that these changes could transform the museum into one of regional or even national importance. Hawes stated that the tenant farm narrative might allow the museum to "develop an appeal to wider audiences who will see Coggeshall as more than just another 'colonial' site for the prosperous who want to have their roots and lifestyle justified." 348 His views were a total reversal of those Wolfender's exit, the board planned to meet with the next farm manager in advance 348 Ibid. 349 Ibid. 350 Henry Wolfender, Resignation Letter, September 1, 1990, (CFM).
"thus avoiding problems." 351 The board hired a Farm Manager, Walter Katkevitch, and his wife Donna Katkevitch as acting director. 352 Under the Katkevitches, the staff focused on increasing its heritage breed livestock, while proceeding on the renovation of the Coggeshall dwelling house, as suggested by Hawes. Work also began on the construction of a separate house for the farm manager. 353 Walter Katkevitch hoped to continue the work outlined by Hawes and Johnson. In a written report to the board, Walter Katkevitch discussed his efforts to present the Farm as an accurate re-creation of a 1790's coastal farm. He spoke of his research into marsh haying and boat reproduction. Pursuing knowledge, through research, is the most important task of the staff because the activities of the Museum should reflect that knowledge. It is also vital to create an atmosphere which supports the research efforts of a dedicated staff. Finally, the Museum should adopt a world-class attitude to become a world-class institution. 354 He likewise maintained relationships with other living history museums and organizations, attending an interpreter's conference at Farmer's Museum in Cooperstown 355 In his October 1992 farm museum manager's report, Walter Katkevitch noted that Coggeshall Farm Museum was invited to participate in Old Sturbridge Village's Agricultural Fair, he saw this as "evidence that we are recognized as part of the living history community. " 356 In addition to a Farm Manager and Director, the museum had two part-time staff members, Luis Mendes and Dave Ellis. Yet, the museum continued to face uncertainties due in large measure to the volatile economy and a lack of understanding between the board and staff. Communication remained a problem. In November, staff also became more interested in growing more historic vegetables like "Portuguese White and red onions which could have been grown in 1790." 363 As the 1990s progressed, staff began building their own historic reproduction tools, including a flax break, which allowed them to demonstrate flax processing to the public. 364 While Hawes had helped to solidify the museum's identity, ongoing conflict on the board, coupled with financial difficulties led the museum to seek further outside assistance. As part of a Rhode Island Foundation Grant, the museum received funding to hire a management consultant for the museum along with $12,500 for a director's salary. The consultant planned to "define the [director's] position, develop a management plan, and advise on fundraising." 365 By June, the board hired consultant Simone Joyaux of Public Works Associates for the position. 366 Joyaux's board survey indicated that staff and board members were unclear about their job descriptions.
Evidently, there was also "[f]riction and anxiety…between board members and some board members and staff." 367 In her role as advisor, she revised job descriptions and aided in the creation of various committees, including those focused on research and program development. 368 At the February 5, 1992 board meeting, members reviewed a drafted statement of purpose, with Joyaux's assistance. By this point, Coggeshall Farm Museum's period of interpretation had narrowed considerably, and as such, its "programs, exhibits, and farm work demonstrate the life on a late 18 th century salt marsh farm and its community." 369 The document suggested that the board hesitated to set the 1790s as the target date. Throughout the statement of purpose, a black space stood in for the "9" in 1790. 370 The document stressed the importance of the 1790s as an era of change, and one crucial to understanding "our heritage" though the author does not identify the target audience.
The statement of purpose also solidified Coggeshall's commitment to historical authenticity through interpretive techniques, research and documentation, and programming. 371 Following the statement of purpose was supporting information which explained why Coggeshall narrowed its interpretive scope. According to the document, "The 1790's was an exciting decade in our history. While the lifestyles, economic and personal values were essentially late colonial, the new republic was on the threshold of profound sociological, economic and technological changes while it was in the middle of organizing and adjusting its government and translating a vision of its self [sic] into a new self identity." 372 It further explained that narrowing down to a single decade was for practical reasons. Following the lead of Old Sturbridge Village, a "recognized world class museum, which is a leader and resource in the area of living history museums," Coggeshall narrowed its period of interpretation to perform more focused historical research and accurate interpretation. 373 New programs included "All Manner of Good Work," a two day event that featured demonstrations by historic tradespersons in book bindery, stone masonry, and rope 369 Coggeshall Farm Museum Drafted Policies, January 1992, (CFM). 370 Ibid. 371 Ibid. 372 Ibid. 373 Ibid. making, among other trades and crafts. 374 Included in Coggeshall Farm Museum's new guidelines were animal and agriculture policies which stressed that breeds and plant types should be similar to those raised on farms in the 1790s whenever possible. 375 The board, led by President Stephen DeLeo, and the museum staff, headed by Executive Director Donna Katkevitch and Farm Museum Manager Walter Katkevitch were dedicated to transforming Coggeshall Farm into a museum comparable to larger well-known living history institutions. In 1993, they implemented new programming that featured eighteenth-century activities, and accepted an important donation of historic tools from collector Tim Bornstein. Walter Katkevitch remarked at the annual member's meeting, that Coggeshall Farm was now "'a serious, professional, important living history museum' which could become 'a small but significant jewel in the American cultural treasure." 376 The staff and board continued to juggle transformative changes with budgetary issues. Walter Katkevitch reported that staff were not provided with enough hours to complete work. 377 Treasurer Susan Hibbitt noted that it was impossible for the museum to be financially independent on programming alone.
Most significantly, the museum no longer received a grant which had funded the director's salary. Without proper fundraising, the museum was likely to be in a "precarious position" by September 1994. 378 After a mediocre return for the museum's annual harvest fair, Hibbitt reported in December on the abysmal state of the museum's finances. While she commended the staff for their efforts to generate revenue and minimize expenses, she chastised the board for shirking its responsibility to fundraise. 379 Despite these financial setbacks, the board completed the construction of the new farmer's residence, freeing up the historic farmhouse for further interpretive programming and restoration. 380 The museum saw some financial successes in 1995 due to a bolstered school tour and summer camp program, coupled with increased fundraising efforts by board members who focused their efforts on soliciting Poppasquash neighbors and increasing grant writing. 381 At the 1996 annual meeting, Donna Katkevitch presented her plans for the museum's future, addressing the need to move forward with a deciveness[sic] and responsibility to insure our future growth as a Museum-to operate effectively, to increase financial resources and renew our efforts as ambassadors for the museum and to play a more aggressive role in fundraising. We all believe in preserving the past for the future, lets increase the number of those that share our beliefs in preservation and education and continue in our aggressive pursuit of excellence in all areas of Museum management, operation, and presentation. 382 Unfortunately, this period of growth was followed by warnings from the treasurer, as the board again neglected their fundraising responsibilities. In April 1996, both Treasurer Hibbett and Director Donna Katkevitch reported that museum finances were strained. Inclement weather decreased the number of visitors and with that revenue.
Katkevitch warned that these programs were not meant to raise funds but instead to "support the mission of the museum." 383 To supplement the budget, the museum sought funding for both operating costs and large scale improvement projects. They were successfully awarded a $37,000 379 Ibid., November 30, 1994, (CFM).  388 Although a competent farm manager, Katkevitch's inadequacies as a bookkeeper among other traits led to his removal from the position of manager and director within two years. 389 By early 2003, the Katkevitches had been replaced by a new executive director, Bob Sherman, and farm manager and former employee David Ellis. 390 With the exit of the Katkevitches, the museum lost much needed stability and continuity in its staffing. Work continued among the board to push the museum forward, however. By May 2003, the institution created a draft of Coggeshall Farm Museum's Action Plan. The Action Plan underscored the importance of the Coggeshall Farm Museum farmhouse, the institution's educational and interpretive commitment, and fundraising obligations. The plan mentioned the need for a visitor's center and parking area-a goal which never materialized. However, the initial plan laid the foundation for the museum's future interpretive programming, pushing for a "strong interpretive plan for the Museum's day to day activities" as well as informative workshops. 391 As the museum progressed, daily programming and the proposed "House Dinner" lecture series became a mainstay of the Coggeshall Farm Museum interpretive portfolio. 392 Though no longer called "House Dinners," the museum continues to offer hearth cooking workshops. During these educational workshops, visitors work with costumed interpreters to prepare and enjoy a meal using heirloom ingredients and historic recipes. Arguably, this type of programming represents the perfect union of farm and museum.
With the museum's identity established, board and staff increasingly focused on creating a more authentic experience onsite as the 2000s progressed. Anthropologists . Hearkening back to Handler and Saxton's definitions of authenticity in the living history museum, David Ellis is a prime example of a living historian who explored the past in order to define his authentic self. He joined the farm after spending a number of years with the Old Order Amish. It seems that the museum allowed Ellis to fulfill the simpler lifestyle he desired. Though no longer employed at the museum, Ellis continues to correspond through letters, wears historic clothing, and rejects some modern technology like cellular phones. 395 Unknown Author (possibly Justin Squizzero), Costume Guidelines, Unknown Date, (CFM). (insoles, for example) these must be reviewed by the DHI, and used with discretion. " 396 In recent years, board and staff have accommodated some more anachronistic details, as they increasingly loosen guidelines on authenticity on a smaller scale, without largely impacting credibility. Changes include allowing staff and volunteers to wear sturdier modern clothing and accessories at their discretion, including footwear and glasses and increasing signage throughout the site. Throughout 2016-2018, Coggeshall Farm Museum staff was encouraged to wear sturdier, modern footwear during inclement weather, especially in winter, even when dressed in historic costume.
The museum also updated and implemented new interpretive and interactive displays, including a children's dress-up area in the historic farmhouse. The farmhouse, which remains a focal point for the museum, can now serve visitors looking for the more traditional living history experience, or those who are looking for an activity inspired, but not bound by, authenticity as commonly defined in the museum field.

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION
The dream of authenticity is a present-day myth. We cannot recreate, reconstruct, or recapture the past. We can only tell stories about the past in present day language, based on our present-day concerns and the knowledge (built, to be sure, out of documents and evidence) we construct today. 397 Despite their quest for authenticity, a living history environment can never truly be authentic, as it will always be based on and filtered through the mentalities of contemporary actors. While the history presented at the site in 2018 focuses on 1790s salt marsh tenant farmers, this was not always the case. The museum initially presented an antiquarian influenced, generic pastoral history. As evident in this paper, board and staff at Coggeshall Farm Museum made a number of choices that altered the history articulated at the site, eventually focusing on the 1790s. Based on the recorded history of the site, however, the 1790s were arguably a period of minor importance with regards to Bristol history and the history of the site. Narrowing the period of interpretation certainly allowed for the incorporation of social history, forcing staff to focus on the intricacies of everyday life in the 1790s, but this method of interpretation also meant that the museum has neglected to record and present other histories of the property that are just as significant.
The 1790s were rather inconsequential in many ways. While the house was Furthermore, the fact that the Coggeshall family did not reside in the farmhouse until a number of decades later has damaged the museum's credibility, as it is commonly assumed that the Coggeshalls owned or lived in the house during the 398 Although the museum attempts to connect the 1790s and wider Bristol history to the triangular trade, the narrative is disjointed from the narrative of the anonymous tenant farmer residents. depicted time period. While the museum's founders acknowledged the importance of Chandler H. Coggeshall, they neglected to include his narrative in museum interpretation. Today, the museum continues to ignore a very important part of the site's history: the turn of the twentieth century. Not only is there evidence that Authenticity may be important, but as explained in Chapter 1, it is a complicated term, holding many different definitions within anthropology and even within the field of living history. Although living historians are commonly interested in upholding historical authenticity, visitors may attend museums to experience authenticity in other ways. As noted in Wilkening and Donnis's article, when pressed to describe inauthenticity in the museum, only a fraction of visitors decried the existence of anachronisms. Living history museums may be unique, in that they primarily exist to simulate the past, but they cannot rely wholly on historical authenticity as a driving force. At Coggeshall Farm Museum, a large majority of the museum's visitors are children from schools and camps, and children who visit with their families. It is no wonder that of all the programs, the school tour program which was discussed in Chapter 3, continues to be a driving force within the museum.
Perhaps it is up to Coggeshall Farm Museum, and living history museums in general, to look not only to the past, but also to the present and future for guidance. A preoccupation with authenticity still guides many museum decisions. Many non-living history museums are changing, incorporating new technologies and modes of entertainment into their educational models. The blurred line of education and entertainment has led to the creation of the buzzword, edutainment. While some continue to decry the influx of culture into popular media, and amusement into education, institutions are looking outside the museum for guidance on creating successful programming. The social history model that inspired the turn to authenticity may no longer be relevant to today's visiting public. While some might fret over such a compromise, living history is essentially a series of compromises. Museums negotiate which stories to tell and which audiences to appease. Coggeshall Farm Museum can attempt to be authentic in its presentation of history, with regards to historical accuracy, but it should also acknowledge its role as an interpreter of history.
Museums teach future generations about the past, often citing the now popular philosophy originated by George Santayana, that "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." While Coggeshall Farm Museum stresses learning from the past in its interpretation, as an institution, it has neglected to learn from past mistakes. As the museum works through its authenticity issue, future board and staff must look to the past for further guidance. Change is necessary. Coggeshall, as an institution attracted a number of influential board members and employees throughout its history as an institution, yet tension and conflict among these groups prevented forward growth. In particular, the lack of fundraising commitment from the board and the instability of staff led to shortfalls during both periods of institutional history. As the museum faces an uncertain future, it is quite possible that board and staff will need to reinvent Coggeshall Farm Museum once again. Perhaps it is time for Coggeshall Farm Museum to revisit its past and consider that historically, transformation was always at the core of the museum.