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