I agree with Eric 100%. We have been struggling with the best way to
interpret our archaeology findings during the past two years, preparing for
the bicentennial of Ohio's statehood in 2003. We have an appropriation to
develop an interpretive exhibit or, really, for reconstruction of one of the
outbuildings we found. The more I have thought about it, the more I want to
propose that we spend the money on additional excavations and for our big
2003 celebration we interpret archaeology by doing archaeology. There are
some who feel that this is a waist because we will not have an ongoing
exhibit, but the more I have been visiting site exhibits the more I come to
think that archaeology exhibits are flat and dont provide the visitor with a
real understanding of the field or of the findings. The visitor sees a few
relics and you get a lot of that "I found bottles just like this in my
garden" syndrome. I like for visitors to see the process of meticulous
documentation and accurate recordation of the objects. During our last
summer of field work the contract archaeologist was required to pursue
volunteer helpers. We had a couple of people who came by the site as
visitors and returned to volunteer doing archeology everyday for a couple of
months. I would rather have this kind of in depth participation, education,
and understanding developed within a few public visitors than a bunch of
water proof signs telling visitors that we cant tell exactly what the
building was used for, but we found buttons, marbles, and pig bones.
Neal Hitch
> -----Original Message-----
> From: eric deetz [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Friday, January 21, 2000 2:34 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: was: clandestine digging
>
> Kevin, Phil, and all,
> With that
> said, I will defend the publics desire to witness archaeology. A visitors
> experienced at an ongoing excavation offers them something that no museum
> or text book can, and that is to be part of the discovery.
> Eric Deetz
> Jamestown
> Rediscovery
> Jamestown,
> Virginia
|
