Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Sun, 7 Sep 1997 11:40:19 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Christian raises a point in her posts that I think bears some attention,
although I think that I disagree with her basic premise.
I think that all student experiences are "real" - at least to the
student. This includes library research, even if on a "tried and true"
topic. The materials in the library are not contrived, but represent
some subset of the published literature. The student approaches the
material initially in a naive and tentative way, but becomes more
skilled with practice and feedback - the same should happen in a field
school. There is lots of useful, real data in the published literature
- that's why it was published!
I don't think the student's experience is less "real" on a constructed
site than on a real site, but we do risk having the student take the
experience less seriously, especially if a non-major or a participant in
a shorter-term experience than the 6-8 week field school. Archaeology
is not a game and we should take care that we not give anyone the
impression that it is. We suffer professionally enough from the
public's perception that archaeology is a vocation, not a true
profession.
As with the need for a solid research design and follow through in
analysis and reporting mentioned by Bill Lipe and others with respect to
the excavation of real sites, this is more a call for caution rather
than a denunciation of excavation of constructed sites.
Anyway, I have enjoyed the discussion of this issue and the frank and
well-mannered exchanges the topic has generated.
Thanks,
John
John P. McCarthy, SOPA\
Sr. Research Fellow, Institute for Minnesota Archaeology
Vice President, Sr. Archaeologist/Historian, IMA Consulting, Inc.
Minneapolis
|
|
|