Just when I thought that this thread was dead...
Karolyn Smardz wrote:
> Simulated excavations, no matter how well constructed, demonstrate to
excavators that archaeologists are looking for "things" ...this
really can do what public archaeology was accused of doing in the early
days
of the subdiscipline's development - create pothunters.
Have to take issue with this one.
As I wrote in the post that started this thread, the whole purpose of my
pseudo site is to teach principles of stratigraphic excavation and
interpretation. Sure, I throw a few artifacts in there for fun -- but that
isn't the focus of the project and students know it. While the "dig" is
going on I give lectures on archaeological site formation processes,
investigation strategies, and stratigraphic analysis a la Edward Harris. As
I know what the structure of the site is like, I can tailor my
presentations so that the students are actually experiencing the situations
that I am describing. In half a semester I can expose students to more
stratigraphic complexity than many archaeologists in my part of the world
experience in a career. Seems to me that this is a good begining in the
training of an historical archaeologist.
> 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?
Absolutely, enthusiastically, yes!
Anyone who has been around the block (archaeologically, speaking that is)
knows (1) the great effort it takes to write up a real site and (2) that
field classes are *notorious* for having fun in the sun and then never
getting around to the report. Perhaps my approach means that I'm nothing
but a lazy bum who is willing to sacrifice a real educational experience so
that I can spend the summer on the beach rather than writing archaeological
reports (oh boy!). In my mind it just makes me a pragmatist who won't
sacrifice the archaeological record for the sake of a student project. And
I'd be happy for the public to know that.
>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.
You bet; and I applaud their great contributions. But these are field
*schools* not field *classes*. I have four hours per week for one semester
each year in which to introduce students to what archaeologists do. Crow
Canyon is a bit out of my league.
>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!
This got me thinking that there's another side to archaeological excavation
that students can begin to get on pseudo sites: the aesthetic of peeling
off one layer to reveal another. It's a zen thing really and it doesn't
matter that much if the sites is old or not, or if you're finding artifacts
or not. Doing stratigraphic excavation properly is a form of performance
art that you do for yourself. Watching a skilled digger feel out the edge
of a layer using nothing more that a subtle change in soil texture is a
thrill to me. Perhaps I should get out of the house more...
Happy trails,
Adrian Praetzellis
Sonoma State University
Rohnert Park, California
USA
|