There are a couple of issues surrounding  the excavation of real sites as
an educational tool.  First, excavating real sites can only be justified in
the context of addressing one or more research questions,  with a plan,
funding, and organization in place to ensure that the results of the
excavation are written up and the report disseminated in some fashion.  If
the project is not organized or funded so as to produce a decent report,
one of the things the students will have been taught is that archaeology is
not a serious pursuit, and that it is OK to destroy portions of the
archaeological record without making a systematic effort to contribute to
the sum total of human knowledge about the past.  In my opinion,
archaeology has a serious problem with certain field schools and other
student and public-oriented programs that justify themselves on the grounds
of teaching archaeological methods or creating enthusiasm for studying the
past, but which are not organized or funded in a way to allow the
archaeologists involved to follow through on their responsibility to learn
something from the work and to disseminate what has been learned.  There
are of course also many field schools and public-involvement-in-archaeology
projects that fully meet these responsibilities.  The ethical codes of SAA
and SOPA are pretty explicit about the responsibilities and obligations
that come with consumptive use of the archaeological record, and education
alone is not a sufficient justification.
 
Second, real questions can be raised about what kind of teaching methods
need to be used so that students--especially very young students--come out
of the experience with a genuine respect for the archaeological record and
an understanding of the tradeoffs between research and conservation.   As I
recall, Megg Heath of the Anasazi Heritage Center in Dolores, Colorado,
organized a symposium at the SAA meetings a few years ago that discussed
the pro's and con's of involving elementary and middle school students in
archaeology.  As I recall, the use of real versus mock digs was also
discussed along with other issues.
 
Going back to the main thread, the people at the Crow Canyon Archaeological
Center in Cortez, Colorado have had a lot of experience in using
constructed sites as part of their archaeological education program.  The
mock sites work extremely well with the younger students.  Crow Canyon also
does a research participation program where older students and adults work
on real field projects alongside trained archaeologists.  I think the
dividing line between the two kinds of program is about 7th grade.  If
middle school students do work on actual sites, however, this is a
relatively small part of their educational program, and some groups may do
mock digs instead of or in addition to working on real sites.  High school
students and adults spend more of their time in the field and lab than do
younger students, but also do field trips, site condition monitoring, and
other educational activities.  So the program does involve research
participation, but in the context of a broader based experiential education
program devoted to archaeology and Native American culture history.
Additional information about Crow Canyon can be found on the web at
<http://www.crowcanyon.org/default.htm>
 
Bill Lipe
 
=============
 
 
>Tim,
>
>I agree whole-heartedly.  Please visit the following URL for an example what
>what reality teaches, and the enthusiasum, not to mention the creativity such
>facilitates.
>
>http://www.vetc.vsc.edu/ws/archeology/arch.htm
>
>Douglas