# KAAF Cultural Heritage Learning Collection
## Pilot workshop: Copper, Communities & Claims
Version 1.0 • 8 October 2026 • Keith Ayo Adefumi Foundation

Prepared from Keith Ayo Adefumi’s supplied reading collection and poster series, with research and editorial assistance. Status: facilitator-ready proposal; no delivery, enrollment, partner endorsement, or outcomes are claimed. A host, facilitator, date, access arrangements, and delivery budget must be agreed before scheduling.

**Audience:** ages 14+ and adults. **Length:** 90 minutes. **Capacity:** 12–24 learners, groups of 3–4. **Settings:** school, library, community learning space. **Prerequisite:** none. **Fee:** host to determine; the collection’s online resources are freely accessible.

### Learning objectives
By the end, learners will (1) identify Indigenous authorship of Great Lakes copper working and Mississippian mound building using named sources; (2) distinguish an observation, interpretation, alternative theory, and fictional representation; (3) write a claim supported by two sources and identify missing evidence.

### Preparation and access
The facilitator should review the three sources below, download the worksheet, print one per learner, and display the Wonderful Power and Mounds, Museums & Historical Claims posters. Use institutional pages as source readings; book summaries do not replace reading a book. Provide large-print copies, image descriptions, an offline packet, seated participation, and oral or written response options. All displays are interpretive AI-generated illustrations, not artifact photographs or verified historical likenesses. Invite relevant Indigenous cultural expertise when available; do not claim community endorsement without agreement. No sacred objects, ceremony, excavation, or artifact handling is required.

### Source packet
A. Wayne State University Press, *Wonderful Power* by Susan R. Martin (1999), publisher description: https://wsupress.wayne.edu/9780814328439/
B. University of Michigan Press, *Prehistoric Copper Mining in Michigan* by John R. Halsey (2018), publisher description: https://press.umich.edu/Books/P/Prehistoric-Copper-Mining-in-Michigan
C. National Park Service, Cahokia Mounds State Historic Site: World Heritage Site: https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/cahokia-mounds-state-historic-site-world-heritage-site.htm
Extension: University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Hopewell site history: https://hopewell.unl.edu/history.html

### Facilitator running order
| Minutes | Activity | Facilitation and output |
|---|---|---|
| 0–10 | Welcome and baseline | Ask: What makes a historical claim testable? Does a picture prove an event happened? What information makes a source traceable? Learners respond independently. Explain that curiosity and uncertainty belong together. |
| 10–25 | Context mini-lesson | Locate Lake Superior and Cahokia on a contemporary map. Use sources A–C to introduce Indigenous mining, settlement, and exchange. Distinguish Lake Superior mining from later Hopewell and Mississippian uses of copper; do not imply one uniform culture or time period. |
| 25–45 | Three claim cards | Groups classify the claims below and identify which sources can support each. Name one missing piece of evidence. |
| 45–60 | Poster and provenance lab | Compare an interpretive poster with source C. Label maker, source, date, genre, observation, inference, and uncertainty. Explain why an image alone cannot verify an ancient voyage. |
| 60–80 | Evidence brief | Each learner completes the worksheet, using two sources and a confidence statement. Allow an oral response recorded by the facilitator on paper. |
| 80–90 | Exit check and reflection | Repeat the baseline questions. Ask what changed and what needs further research. Collect anonymous work only with participant/host agreement; do not collect names, religious affiliation, or other sensitive information for evaluation. |

### Claim cards and facilitator key
1. **“Native Americans in the Lake Superior basin mined and exchanged copper.”** Supported by source A’s publisher description. This summary does not independently establish the exact date, size, or route of every exchange network. Ask for excavation records or analytical studies for a more specific claim.
2. **“Modern nineteenth-century miners sometimes followed ancient diggings and damaged archaeological remains.”** Supported by source B’s publisher description. Ask which report or site supports a precise example.
3. **“An Egyptian voyage or global Bronze Age copper market is proven by this poster.”** Not supported by the poster or sources A–C. The poster is an interpretation. Establishing a voyage would require independently authenticated, securely dated, contextual archaeological evidence. Do not turn lack of support in this packet into a claim to have reviewed all possible evidence.
Extension: “1893 and 1904 were the first public displays of Lake Superior copper.” Do not repeat as verified: nineteenth-century museum collecting predates 1893, and the specific 1904 exhibit requires an inventory. Source the exact exhibition before writing its label.

### Learner worksheet
Claim in one sentence: ____________________
Source 1 — author/institution, title, date, URL/page: ____________________
What it directly supports: ____________________
Source 2 — author/institution, title, date, URL/page: ____________________
What it directly supports: ____________________
What is observation? What is interpretation? ____________________
Who produced the source, and whose perspective might be missing? ____________________
Confidence (supported / plausible but unconfirmed / unsupported in this packet), and why: ____________________
Evidence that would change the conclusion: ____________________
Revised claim, limited to the evidence: ____________________

### Assessment rubric
Score each dimension 0 = absent, 1 = partial, 2 = clear: (a) traceable sources, (b) accurate use of evidence, (c) distinction between observation and interpretation, (d) respectful cultural attribution, (e) explicit uncertainty. Total 0–10. Proposed competency threshold: 7/10 with no zero for source traceability or cultural attribution. This is a workshop assessment, not a formal credential.

### Pilot evaluation plan
Proposed targets, not achieved results: 12–24 participants; at least 80% submit an evidence brief; at least 70% meet the rubric threshold; at least 70% accurately identify an illustration as distinct from historical evidence on the exit check. Record actual attendance, number of briefs, rubric distribution, baseline/exit response totals, accessibility adaptations, and learner feedback. Report numerator and denominator and acknowledge missing responses. Do not infer long-term outcomes from a single workshop. Record source corrections and facilitator improvements before the next delivery.

### Illustrative delivery budget
| Item | Estimate |
|---|---:|
| Facilitator preparation and delivery, 4 hours × $50 | $200 |
| Co-facilitator, 2 hours × $40 | $80 |
| Printing and supplies | $40 |
| Access support / local travel reserve | $80 |
| Total planning estimate | $400 |
These are planning assumptions, not vendor quotes or a funding commitment. Venue, library access, projector, and internet are assumed in kind. A paid cultural adviser, interpretation, or transport service would require a revised budget. No fundraising or organizational status is implied by this estimate.

### Partner invitation
KAAF offers a curated learning collection and a proposed 90-minute media-literacy and cultural-heritage pilot for ages 14+ and adults. Schools, libraries, and community hosts can contribute a room, facilitator liaison, accessibility planning, and recruitment. Funders can consider support for delivery, source review, and access. Contact the foundation through its existing Contact page to discuss a concrete date and scope. No partner names or endorsements are asserted.

### Source and visual policy
The catalog checks bibliographic identity and linked records, with selected institutional pages and descriptions reviewed. It does not certify the truth of every claim in every book. Historical ethnographies require attention to colonial recording and translation; alternative theories and fiction have explicit labels. Living religious traditions are approached through religious literacy without requiring belief or practice. Posters retain their artistic nature; captions and accessible text are authoritative for this collection’s editorial framing. External works retain their rights; the packet links to them rather than reproducing books or book covers.