May 6: Interpreting Archaeology at Monticello

By Chris Lin and Kyle Koch

May 5, 2026

Paper presented at the Middle Atlantic Archaeological Conference in Gettysburg, VA, March 11-15.

Public engagement has long been a priority of archaeologists at Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello since the formation of the Archaeology Department in 1979. Each excavation has been an opportunity to engage with guests both on the mountaintop and across the wider plantation. The Department’s recent mitigation project on Monticello’s East Lawn is no exception, continuing a legacy of public historic interpretation and education at the site (Figure 1). This year-long endeavor brought a large field crew presence to the Mountaintop for the first time since 2019, providing a great opportunity for hundreds of guests to interact with archaeologists every day. As the focus of the Archaeology Department is sometimes set towards the working plantation off the Mountaintop, it was important for us to use this year to investigate how we might quantify the impact archaeology has on historic interpretation specifically at Monticello as seen through program attendance and visitor satisfaction survey results.

This paper aims to compare survey results from three of the Archaeology Department’s public programs from 2023 to 2025. It aims to assess how to use the public perception of and interest in archaeology to improve education about our discipline and interpretation of historic narratives at Monticello in 2026 and beyond. We hope to answer the following questions:

1. How can we quantify the impact of our archaeological interpretation throughout the last three years of public programs?
2. How does archaeology exist in the popular imagination and where/how do we see this being employed?
3. How can archaeology be used as a way for the public to proactively engage with the past at Monticello?

During peak visitation between March and November of 2025, Monticello archaeologists interacted with over 17,000 guests both through informal conversations at the site and structured public programs. The first was an Archaeology in Action (AIA) program, a 20-minute discussion focused on the Mountaintop Accessibility East Lawn excavations ahead of the construction of an ADA compliant pathway (see Figure 2). It highlighted research goals for the project, discussed progress and preliminary findings about the construction of the Mountaintop's ornamental landscape, and educated guests on the archaeological research process.

Our second program, the Mountaintop Archaeology Walking Tour (MAWT), was a 45-minute tour that painted a broader picture of change over time of the Mountaintop’s ornamental landscape as discovered through the archaeological record (see Figure 3). It provided guests a more in-depth discussion of research themes and results including understanding Jefferson’s plantation in two distinct agricultural and architectural phases, choices in architecture and landscape design as reflections of cultural influences and affiliations, as well as discussing how archaeology enhances and is enhanced by the other research occurring at Monticello. Content evolved over the course of 2025 as our understanding of the site improved – particularly around the exposure of a Jefferson-era privy vent tunnel which illustrated Jefferson’s experimental nature, architectural interests, conspicuous consumption, but also his reliance on enslaved workers to build his mansion and ornamental landscape.

The third program was the most recent version of the “Plantation Archaeology Walking Tour (PAWT), a one hour, one mile walk on a historic roadway off the mountaintop (see Figure 4). Though early iterations of the PAWT existed as early as 2000, the 2023 and 2024 route stopped at several archaeological sites and ended at Site 30, an archaeological site of both Indigenous and later enslaved occupation. Similar to the MAWT, this in-depth tour discussed current research topics but focused on how shovel test pit survey, dendrochronology, and the excavation of sub-floor pits at quarter sites allowed archaeologists to understand the plantation in two distinct agricultural phases.

Background

These archaeology public programs are themselves a result of a long history of public interpretation and public facing archaeology at Monticello. Though open to the public after its purchase by the Thomas Jefferson Foundation in 1923, the first training programs implemented for tour guides did not begin until 1951. Dr. Bill Kelso’s archaeological work from 1979-1993 ranged across the Mountaintop; however his work in the 1980s centered on the exploring and interpreting the lives of enslaved people, allowing guests to interact with those narratives. It wasn’t until key paradigmatic changes in the 1990’s, however, that public programming at the plantation would be shaped into much how it appears today. In 1993 Lucia “Cinder” Stanton and Dr. Dianne Swann-Wright founded the Getting Word Oral History Project followed one year later by the formation of the International Center for Jefferson Studies thus centralizing the research divisions of the Foundation (Figure 5).

The focus of archeological work, now some twenty years into its existence as a formal research department for the Foundation, changed during this decade as well. Following Dr. Fraser Neiman’s arrival in 1995, the Department initiated its Plantation Survey (Figure 6). This endeavor identifies archaeological sites in what were once agricultural fields and continues to teach us how the lives of enslaved people were affected by Jefferson's changing plantation management strategies.

This shift saw a bloom in public facing programs with early iterations of the Slavery at Monticello tour (Figure 7) and Gardens and Grounds tour that are now part of regular Mountaintop programing, as well as an early version of the PAWT in 2000 (Figure 8). Crucially, collection of public opinion data on interpretive programming at Monticello can also be traced back to this turn of the century. Archaeology’s own collection of such data did not begin until a few decades later. Additional changes took shape in the 2020’s. At this time Monticello began participating in the Annual Survey for Museum-Goers conducted by Wilkening Consulting and the American Alliance of Museums.

Between 2023-2024, the Foundation’s tour guides from the Education and Visitor Programs Department partnered with Archaeology to jointly give the PAWT and begin to collect public opinion data through surveys. In 2025, archaeologists exclusively led the AIA and MAWT; however, results from our 2025 archaeology public programming are modeled after their survey design and will provide the main body of data for the following analysis with comparison to our survey results from 2023 and 2024.

Data Collection Methods and Limitations

For the 2025 season of archaeology’s public programs, an online survey was offered to guests via QR code at the end of both the AIA and MAWT between October 3rd and November 14th. These optional surveys asked 12 questions aimed at gathering feedback on program content and provided guests an opportunity to make additional comments or questions. Similar surveys were distributed in 2023 and 2024 for the PAWT with one key difference. 2023’s survey reflected an internal preparation to run each walking tour in 2024 as a paid program. As a result, value-based questions asking guests whether they would pay for similar programming (2023) and if their tour was worth the price (2024) were included. Because 2025’s programming was included with admission to the Mountaintop, and in accordance with our own goals for the survey, value is ascribed through guests' interaction and satisfaction rather than monetarily.

Questions consistent amongst all three surveys assessed participants’ expectations, program experience, and guide performance, as well as how guests learned about the program. Answers were recorded in a variety of formats including multiple choice/select all that apply questions, scaled choices (between 1 to 5 and 1 to 10) and open-ended responses. Survey response rates were used to examine dominant trends within the survey population. On the other hand, free response questions were observed separately to corroborate recorded metrics. The data from each year’s survey was synthesized in an annual report to summarize survey results, make stand-alone observations, and reflect on how our findings might improve the following year’s programming. 

Some limitations to the collection and comparison of our data should be noted. Foremost is that none of the surveys from 2023 to 2025 were distributed during the entire duration of the offered programming thus limiting our sample size beyond the inevitable constraint of self-selection in program attendance and survey participation. Additionally, from year to year the surveys were issued for different lengths of time with varying question and response structures, and changes in the goals of each survey making cross-comparison less streamlined. Lastly, as we have chosen to focus on survey data specifically, other sources of public interaction that could be used to examine the effects of our interpretation fall out of these studies' parameters. Specifically, the daily and informal interactions between members of the field crew and the public, our social media, and the repertoire of our department’s other public programs were invaluable for examining guest expectations and drawing broader, anecdotal insights. These, however, were not considered for the purposes of this paper.

Analysis

2025’s AIA survey was offered to 469 guests, 46 of whom participated. Ultimately, five MAWT guests took the survey.  Because the sample size is so small but the response rate and data are like the AIA results, any further analysis specifically refers to the AIA survey, which received a 9.8% response rate (Table 1). While within the two 2024 response rates of 12% and 8%, it was lower than both the 2023 response rates of 12.5% and 13.7%. The higher PAWT response rate might be due to guests selecting to pay for that experience and have more time exclusively with archaeologists while the guests finishing the AIA or MAWT were either hurrying to make their scheduled house tour or any of the other offered programs on the mountaintop.

Overall, reception to the AIA and MAWT programs was overwhelmingly positive. When asked to rate their experience of the AIA program out of ten, ten being “very positive”, their scores averaged to a rating of 9.5/10. This rating was shared when asked about their likelihood of recommending the program to future guests, and even higher when asked to assess the “value” of the program. 2023 and 2024 saw similar score bands. Interest in the Mountaintop programs is clear, and we can see that interest and value in our work is consistent from year to year regardless of where we are excavating. More interesting perhaps is what motivates that interest and what expectations come attached to it (Figure 11).

When asked why guests attended either program, they were given a list of options and instructed to select all that applied (Table 2). The two most popular reasons people attended the AIA were to understand the role of archaeology on the Mountaintop and to learn why archaeologists were excavating on the East Lawn. Additionally, two-thirds of survey participants were interested in learning about how archaeology plays a role in understanding Thomas Jefferson. This was juxtaposed by less than half of participants choosing the AIA to learn about the enslaved community and Indigenous Ancestral Monacan. While the data suggests a preference, results from 2023 and 2024 can provide more insight.

The surveys from 2023 and 2024 framed this question differently and asked guests to select from multiple single choices what they expected to hear during the program (Table 3). The vast majority of respondents expected a “A balanced narrative that demonstrates archaeology's ability to help us better understand the past, including stories about Jefferson, the free and enslaved people who lived at Monticello, and the Ancestral Monacan” as reported by over three quarters of respondents across all survey periods. This might suggest that the archaeological process itself is the avenue of interest and the stories that we tell through our research come second. These historical narratives are still widely expected to be shared, and in fact, guests during the past three years of programming came away wanting to hear more about the communities we study even in cases where they were not initially motivated to.

However, gauging the guests' interests by reviewing what topics they heard about during their program requires us to consider where excavation was taking place. In 2023 and 2024 most guests stepped away wanting to hear more about the Ancestral Monacan and enslaved communities, both of whom occupied the site that the PAWT highlighted (see Figure 4). During our programming during 2025, all of which took place immediately outside the Monticello mansion, survey respondents showed much interest in wanting to hear more about Thomas Jefferson’s landscape design and agricultural practices (see Figures 2-3). Thus, the locality and differences in focus of each program can be reasonably assumed to account for differences in what guests wanted to hear more about.

These findings were supported by preliminary data compiled by colleagues analyzing visitor evaluations. For example, the data show that while interest in the lives of the enslaved community at Monticello has remained constant throughout the last 16 years, what really changed were the talking points influenced by media commentary in which guests approached those topics. Partisanship in the media has little to no effect on the actual interests of visitors at Monticello. Implications from this study can hopefully be extrapolated to archaeology.

Based on the data from all three years of surveys, we can surmise that the presence of archaeology creates an entry point for visitors to begin engaging with history and developing guests’ interests in stories told through archaeological interpretation. This may be corroborated further when we consider how, in 2025, over half of respondents attended the AIA upon suggestion by a Monticello staff member. We can imagine most visitors arrived at Monticello unaware of the AIA program but seeing excavations piqued interest allowing for opportunities of further engagement.

At the end of the survey, respondents could share what artifacts, stories, and objects they found most compelling. Consistently, guests resonated with a wide variety of topics with emphasis on seeing artifacts and how they support interpretation, personal stories, and observing archaeological work taking place (Figures 13-14).

Interest in archaeological methodologies remained present; however, artifacts related to the ancestral Monacan and stories of the enslaved laborers via the construction of the privy vent tunnel were reported to be very impactful.

Discussion and Future Goals

The Department's ability to collect, respond, and act on this data is largely aided by the presence of a large full-time staff which has increased our flexibility when conducting these public programs in addition to our customary research and mitigation projects. The arrival of the 250th anniversary has also motivated several Monticello-wide initiatives, particularly around concepts of civic dialogue and “showing your work”. In pursuit of and alignment with those themes, Monticello’s Marketing team has actively highlighted aspects of Archaeology’s research. In other words, the ability to study and act on public programing to this extent is largely circumstantial, luckily for us. Ideally, a universally applicable method to conduct public interpretation across all archaeological sites would be the goal. We also recognize that reliable access to resources when planning future projects is not a guarantee. 

Quantifying the impact of archaeology is a somewhat vague goal since archaeology can be accessed through a variety of lenses by visitors. Through our surveys we can draw the conclusion that guests are very satisfied with the content of our programing. Overall, people who came into the programs with little knowledge of archaeology on the Mountaintop gained a greater appreciation for all topics and greater interest in learning how archaeology can inform our knowledge of the past in a myriad of ways.

While many guests that visit Monticello may have misconceptions about what archaeologists really do, their eagerness to engage with us is indicative of how the public values archaeology. Both the reception of archaeology programs from 2023-2025 and our own anecdotal experiences have illustrated that having visitors see active research being conducted goes a long way to encourage people to reevaluate how they engage with the past. This does not happen every time, and it is likely that some guests will value archaeology because of its “cool factor.” However, being visible allows for other guides to directly reference archaeological work on the Mountaintop and can over time build trust in the institutions we represent to research information thoroughly. Effectively sharing the details of how archaeology enhances our understanding of this historic site is a constant challenge to manage. The data, however, are more optimistic. Even if the public does not value archaeology for the same reasons we do, our discipline as an avenue through which people may tangibly engage with shared histories cannot go understated. Visitors are still able to appreciate and respect the careful, methodical hypothesis testing that our programs attempt to impart on them.

Archaeology is very well situated to take a more proactive role in public history. Findings from the American Alliance of Museums as well as preliminary research conducted by our interpretation colleagues at Monticello have found that partisanship reflected in US news media does not necessarily translate to more partisan guests (Dilenschneider 2025; see Figure 15). While our Pulse Survey did not ask for political affiliation, we can reasonably assume that the affiliations of our respondents reflect that of Monticello’s larger visiting population. Archaeologists have specific, intentional ways we engage with the past, but these tours have allowed us to see how guests engage with the past. These programs are still a very valuable experience for guests even if they won’t ever engage with histories like we do. In many ways, the positive response we received on our tours is corroborated with the preliminary findings of the Thomas Jefferson Foundation and the findings from American Alliance of Museums (see Figure 16). Locations like Monticello hold a high degree of the public trust (Wilkening 2026), and the Department of Archaeology plans to build on that for our 2026 season in continuing to offer the AIA and interact with guests at the ropes.

Conclusion

This paper provided a unique opportunity to take an in-depth look at the Department of Archaeology’s public programming from 2023 to 2025. Positive responses to the PAWT, MAWT, and AIA were reassuring, but most valuable were the insights into how museum goers use and can use archaeology to engage with the past. Stories surrounding people and artifacts have always been known to resonate with guests; however, viewing that data reflected by the last three years of surveys has also emphasized how valuable the physical location of archaeology is. While an ideal world might involve every member of the public thinking about archaeological methodology in the exact way we do as professionals and scientists, this research presents a more complicated yet optimistic answer to how various people engage with history. Realizing that guests approach archaeology programs with an expectation that critical analysis is applied to historical figures and narratives has given the Department more confidence when planning for future public programing.

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to Monticello Archaeology Leadership(Fraser Neiman, Beth Bollwerk,  Crystal O'Connor, Corey Sattes, and Derek Wheeler); Lab Analysts (Chris Devine, Iris Puryear, and Miranda Leclerc); Field Crew (Mia Armstrong, Luke Arcement, Ellie Alvey, Alyssa Baker, Jack McFadden, Lizzie Prow, and Josie Schreiber); Our colleagues in interpretation and education (Brandon Dillard and Justin Bates); and all of you!

References

Dilenschneider, Colleen. 2025. “Democrats vs. Republicans: Do They Feel Differently about Museums? (Data).” American Alliance of Museums, 1 Oct. 2025, www.aam-us.org/2025/10/01/democrats-vs-republicans-museum-data/.

Wilkening, Susie. 2026 “Trust and Responsibility to Community, Part 5: Tracking Trust in Museums - Wilkening Consulting.” WilkeningConsulting, 10 Mar. 2026, wilkeningconsulting.com/trust-and-responsibility-to-community-part-5/.