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