Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Thu, 4 Sep 1997 11:42:39 -0400 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Pat Reynolds and Matthew Johnson raise some interesting points that draw
out differences between the training of historical archaeologists in
Britain v. the Colonies.
Pat wrote:
>I envy the US... as a country so rich that those students aren't digging
on other,
underfunded sites.... I was trained on a real Roman site, now under a
housing estate.
We're a bit low on Roman sites in California (but I'm still looking!).
It may be because we're located in a fairly rural area, but in my
experience it's difficult to schedule a field class so that it coincides
with the availability of a threatened site. Generally the developer allows
only a narrow window of opportunity and this doesn't usually occur when
it's convenient for me.
>Or would they rather (or is it better) that [students] should dig on a
site which is real, where their work will be of some value and/or where
they will experience the 'real' ?
The advantage of the phoney-baloney site is that one can be *sure* that the
students will experience real features and real layer interfaces. My first
excavation experience was at Mucking (southern England) in 1969 where I
spent 6 weeks wheelbarrowing gravel around. Good social life... but I
didn't learn much about archaeology. Of course, the Joneses and their dog
weren't running a field methods school; they were merely trying stay in
front of the advancing quarry face. And this is true of most rescue digs --
they don't provide good situations in which to learn digging/recording
methods.
In California, it is particularly important to give students this
opportunity since physically stratified sites are not that plentiful here.
The dearth of this type of site created generations of far western
archaeologists who are expert in manipulating artifacts but who never had
the opportunity to develop much in the way of stratigraphic excavation
skills. Unfortunately this has lead to the frequent application of what
Mortimer Wheeler described as the "old outworn method of unit/levels" on
heavily stratified sites with predictable results (a mess). And speaking of
old Rick...
Matthew Johnson wrote:
>In Archaeology from the Earth Mortimer Wheeler describes how, at the end
of the working day, he would get his students to cut a section through the
spoil tip, clean it up and interpret it.
If that's all you've got, go for it!
Out here, physically stratified historic-period sites are too precious to
let neophytes diddle with. Me, I envy the Brits and their students who can
get at one of these sites whenever they want. I would guess that this is
true for colleagues in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and similar
places -- I suppose this is how we colonists pay for our good weather.
Regards from Paradise,
Adrian Praetzellis
|
|
|