Dear Everyone:
 
I am not trying to be difficult, but would it be possible for those replying
to individuals on the list to reply to their address rather than the entire
list?  I am receiving what appear to be a great many personal messages from
one subscriber to another on my computer . . . Thanks - I hope this doesn't
appear petty, but I am sure those members who are affected by this don't want
their messages read by all and sundry, either.
 
REAL SITES VS. NOT SO REAL SITES
 
Now about real sites vs. simulated excavations, what a fascinating
discussion!  Lots of good arguments both ways, but as a public archaeologist
who has come down firmly on the side of having students as young as age 10
participate in real digs, and who has for the past 15 years operated
large-scale research excavations where this is the case, I submit the
following:
 
1)  digging mock sites teaches children and interested adults that they are
not important enough to work alongside professional archaeologists on real
sites.
 
Whose heritage is it anyway?  And who is paying the bill, one way or another,
for most archaeological work that takes place?  I think (and have good
evidence upon which to base my conclusions) that there is a certain
proportion of the public which will react very negatively to being told they
aren't important, skilled, etc. enough to participate in the discovery and
conservation of their own heritage resources.  This impacts people very
negatively - they might just decide that if archaeologists won't let them dig
on real sites, they can just go off and do it on their own . . . with
predictable results!
 
2)  Simulated excavations, no matter how well constructed, demonstrate to
excavators that archaeologists are looking for "things".  Again, with
predictable results - unless one is thoroughly versed in educational
psychology, teaching methods, age-appropriate lesson planning, etc.  this
really can do what public archaeology was accused of doing in the early days
of the subdiscipline's development - create pothunters.  It doesn't have to,
but the potential is there.
 
3)  It takes just about the same amount of time and effort to construct,
maintain and excavate a good simulated dig site as it does to do a real one!
 Yes, there is no report to write.  But is that a factor you want the public
to know about your simulated dig - that you're doing a fake site because it's
too much trouble to do analysis and reporting of real archaeological data?
 
4)  You really need to understand what students/the public are learning from
what you think you are teaching before one does educational archaeology on
any type of site.  It can be a bit like "playing telephone" - what kids learn
is not necessarily what you were trying to get across.  So, whether or not
one is using a real or simulated site, the issue is the quality of the
educational program that is being implemented, what it is intended to teach,
and an assessment of whether it actually does so.
 
That said, not all sites or dig situations are suitable for public and/or
educational programming.  One has to be judicious, and one needs to have a
very clear, well organized and highly structured program in place to allow
for hands-on participation by untrained people of any age.
 
So I believe that "sandbox archaeology" can teach important skills and
concepts, and I have used it myself where a site situation did not warrant
public participation,
 so please don't think I am completely closed-minded about this.
 
But the dig at Red Wing, Minnesota, which John McCarthy has being talking
about on this list and in which I am also involved, and the long-term Toronto
program at the Archaeological Resource Centre in Toronto (now, unfortunately,
defunct), as well as lots of other examples including Kampsville and Crow
Canyon,  demonstrate that good, research-based archaeology can and has been
done in a fully-public context.  This way the resources, skills and passion
that we all apply to both archaeology and archaeology education are being
devoted to not only the quest for more information about our human past, but
also to the teaching of archaeological concepts and methods to the public at
the same time.
 
It's the most effective use of limited resources that I can think of, doing
public archaeology on real archaeological sites.  Nothing beats the
educational impact of touching something "really old" and being the first one
to do so in 100, 1000 or 10,000 years!
 
I'll stop now.  But if anyone is interested in more data about the
psychological etc. reasons for doing real vs simulated archaeology in
hands-on programming, there are a couple of publications with chapters that
deal with this:
 
Protecting the Past, ed. George Smith and John Ehrenhard, CRC Press
 
The Excluded Past: Archaeology and Education, ed. Peter Stone and Robert
MacKenzie, One World Archaeological Series, Routledge Press (older editions
are Unwin Hyman).
 
Wishing everyone a lovely fall,
Karolyn Smardz
 
ps I have administered or helped administer programs for more than 110,000
schoolchildren and members of the public so far in my career.  Out of that
number of participants, only a very few (maybe a half-dozen) have tried to
take artifacts home with them.  Not too bad odds!