The Archaeology and Heritage Blog

Apologies for my absence

2010-11-11T15:30:00.000-08:00

I just wanted to apologize for my absence from the Archaeology and Heritage blog in the last few months. As some of you know, I underwent major surgery this year, but unfortunately this has led to some significant complications, and may take some time to resolve (including at least one other surgery). I hope that I will be able to return to work soon and thank you once again for your patience. With very best wishes.

Time out for surgery

2010-07-19T11:47:00.000-07:00

Just a note to let you know that I will need to take some time out to recover from an impending surgery, but I will endeavor to write new blog posts as soon as possible. Thank you for your patience.

Public Archaeology: Butser Experimental Ancient Farm, southern England

2010-07-01T19:08:00.000-07:00

“There is a trend toward teachers understanding the different ways of learning… Written materials are not the only way”.

~ Maureen Page, Director of Butser’s School Education Program

Introduction

In several earlier posts, I talked about the benefits of public education in archaeology (For more information, see here and here). Experimental archaeology is one of the more recently developed directions in archaeological research, although archaeologists are now becoming aware that one of the most effective ways to engage the public and to understand the past is to try to reconstruct it as accurately as possible. Educators are also realizing that not all students learn the same way via written materials and that hands on experience-based activities raise both interest and cognitive learning. An example of this would include the innovative and long-term research project at Butser Ancient Farm, Hampshire, in southern England. Butser Experimental Farm provides unique opportunities for the public and students to take part in organized experimental archaeology activities. The site is a working replica of an Iron Age farm settlement with earthworks, ancient structures, crops and livestock, in order that the agricultural and domestic economy of the late prehistoric period in Britain can be studied. Visitors are encouraged to participate in any of the practical sessions, such as prehistoric agriculture (grinding corn), animal husbandry (feeding livestock), and manufacturing (pottery making, metal and charcoal production and spinning). Peter Reynolds, former director of Butser, expressed that essentially experience is probably the best teacher of all. Some time ago, I personally attended one of their residential archaeology courses and I doubt that I would have learned as much from solely a didactic presentation (See insert box below for further details). Butser continues to provide a wide variety of quality courses, demonstrations and events for the public (of all ages) and is worth a mention here.

A short background to Butser

The late Dr. Peter Reynolds (1939-2001) established the long-term research project for Butser Ancient Farm in 1972, with the initial support of sponsors such as the Council for British Archaeology (CBA). The project was set up specifically as a program for research and education, and the goal was to construct a practical working version of an ancient farm in order to study the domestic and working structures, manufacturing activities, crops, and domestic animals of the Late Iron Age and early Roman periods (c.400BC to 400AD in Britain). The project was devised from evidence excavated from archaeological sites and the results from Butser experiments were to be compared with archaeological remains in order to test ideas put forward by archaeologists. Butser is not an archaeological site or a museum, but an open-air research laboratory for archaeology, where the Romano-Celtic World is being investigated by full-scale experimentation using the techniques and materials available at that time (but also by applying modern technologies such as magnetic susceptibility, mass spectrometry and computers to enhance archaeological practice). Continual experimentation with the changing seasons, as well as corrections in archaeological theory, means that the farm is in a dynamic state of change, as opposed to merely representing a static reconstructed prehistoric settlement.

Based on archaeological remains from sites such as Little Woodbury in Wiltshire, Moel y Gerddi in Wales, and Sparsholt in Winchester, Butser has been able to reconstruct several types of building, such as Iron Age round houses and a Roman villa with a working hypocaust (under-floor heating). Although reconstruction is often an imperfect product of our time and archaeological truths are debatable, Butser nevertheless endeavors to perfect the work they present in order to make them as historically accurate and as relevant as possible. For instance, Maureen Page, Director of Butser’s School Education Program, says that there are no other sites in the whole of the UK that use original building materials to the same extent as those used for the Roman villa at Butser Farm. Similarly, prehistoric types of crops and livestock or their nearest equivalents have been brought to Butser.

Although the Ancient Farm has now been in operation for 38 years, it hasn’t always occupied the same site. Its initial location was on Butser Hill in Hampshire (from where it takes its name) and a second site was opened in 1976 at Hillhampton Down in order to better accommodate the visiting public. In 1991 the whole project finally moved to its present location on Bascomb Copse at Chalton, Hampshire. Butser Ancient Farm is now operated independently by Butser Education CIC, and since moving to its present location, economic support is solely obtained through its educational programs. Despite the recent economic downturn, Butser is able to continue its original mission of carrying out quality experimental research and educational activities. Indeed, Butser is witnessing a continual increase in visitor numbers, particularly secondary school students this year. The site has also managed to rebuild four Iron Age round houses in the enclosure and also has plans for a fifth, as well as a new visitor center by September.

What programs do they offer?

Butser offers a variety of fascinating and unique hands on experienced-based educational activities for school groups, educators, undergraduates, graduate students, archaeological societies, special interest groups and the general public. The vast numbers of visitors that Butser receives every year attests to the quality of programs they consistently provide. More than 14,000 school children are welcomed to the site each academic year, in addition to scores of others who participate in workshops or special events. For primary school children up to age 11 (Key stages 1 and 2), sessions meet many aspects of the national curriculum by assisting with general education issues. Children can explore technologies from the ancient world of the Iron Age Celts and the Romans, enabling them to make connections with different societies. Such awareness can help diminish stereotypical beliefs about people who existed in the past and influence children’s consideration of other people and their heritage. The farm’s educational component can also assist with numerous parts of the school curriculum for secondary children up to the age of 16 (Key stages 3 and 4). For instance, the pre-Roman periods are not readily included within England’s national curriculum, but the core subject of history can cover prehistoric life, the Iron Age Celts, Romans and early civilizations. Children are encouraged to use complex thinking skills by contributing to discussions about their experimental research.

“We encourage children not only to use their imaginations but also, as far as possible, to use their five senses to experience what it might have been like living in those far off times. The Schools Educational Programme is directed to meet several of

the specific requirements of the National Curriculum…” ~ Butser Education CIC

All visits begin with a preparatory talk in one of the distinctive Iron Age round houses or in the Roman villa, before students become actively engaged in any hands-on activities. Unlike traditional teaching methods, students aren’t simply the passive receivers of information, but are able to actively learn through their own experiences at Butser (learning through doing). The site intentionally omits offering classroom materials to students or teachers, so as not to be distracting in any way. The one-day sessions are selected in collaboration with school teachers and can be tailored to meet particular requirements. Although England’s curriculum contains core subjects with key concepts and processes, the programs of study are not rigid, and offer broad parameters for content. Teachers are therefore given more autonomy to develop creative learning methods in schools. There exists a collaborative effort between Butser’s educational program and schools in order to develop suitable curriculum methods. Teachers are encouraged to devise their own follow up lesson plans from their visit to the farm. Likewise, although Butser has its own research agenda and is not specifically driven by educational requirements, it nevertheless continues to respond to the changing needs of education. Although the teaching of heritage stewardship is not a major component of Butser’s agenda, it is nevertheless briefly mentioned in their courses.

Despite the subject of archaeology no longer being taught in schools at GCSE level (only at A Level and beyond), Maureen Page was pleased to say that experimental archaeology has now become mainstream within many college archaeology courses in the UK. In fact, Butser offers a variety of experiences for sixth form students and students from colleges and universities. The site also has workshops for the general public (of all ages), which entail hands-on experience in ancient crafts and archaeological methods with qualified instructors. Although such workshops cover similar themes to those that I attended during the 1990s (See insert box for further information), financial constraints mean that five-day residential courses are no longer offered. One or two-day courses are however available, but accommodations are now recommended off-campus. Special events are also available, and can sometimes include food and celebrations with story telling or singing, or perhaps even the chance to try your hand at using ancient weapons. Those who sign up for Butser can also enjoy the unique and evocative setting amongst or within reconstructed Iron Age round houses and a Roman Villa, as well as a variety of crops and animals similar to those found in the Iron Age (such as Emmer, Spelt and primitive sheep called Soay).

Charcoal Clamp at Butser Ancient Farm (c. 1994)

This pyramid fire was covered with straw and then soil in order to keep air out, thus preventing combustion of the wood inside. The fire burned slowly for about 36 hours, so that the timber would reduce into carbon to produce charcoal.

My early experience at Butser Ancient Farm

Some time ago, I attended a workshop called “Fire, Clay and Metal”, which was mainly aimed at examining the role of fire in prehistory and the Roman period and the development of metallurgy. Topics included the agricultural use of fire, pottery production and kiln construction and firing, as well as practical work in the production and alloying of metals from base ores using bowl and shaft furnaces.

Despite attending this workshop a very long time ago, it left a positive and everlasting impression, to such an extent that some of the supplementary early technology courses I later attended with my first degree seemed somewhat inferior by comparison. I was fortunate to be able to spend my then five-day residential course working in a relatively small group that was directed by the wonderful Dr. Peter Reynolds. At the start of each day we received appropriate instruction for the topic at hand before embarking onto our lively experiments. The course was so comprehensive that we not only refined our clay in order to make pottery, but we also constructed a charcoal clamp and Iron Age pottery kiln before firing our own handiwork!

Despite Pete’s unwelcome departure, I am pleased to hear that Butser Ancient Farm’s educational component is still thriving and continues to offer many stimulating and quality experienced-based activities to people of all ages and aptitudes.

Conclusions

Although the real past will always elude us and we will never know EXACTLY what it was like to live in the Late Iron Age and early Roman periods of Britain, for almost 40 years Butser Ancient farm has been effective in offering a fascinating insight into ancient times. The research conducted within such a distinctive and stimulating environment offers a unique teaching tool that can also address many curricula concerns (such as science, history, art, literacy and numeracy). Butser’s innovative educational programs connect with the public through exciting hands-on learning opportunities, and have introduced thousands of people to experimental archaeology. Butser has also significantly improved our understanding of the Celtic and early Roman periods of southwestern England, as well as many other aspects of the remote past.

The hands-on experimental approach at Butser is offered at all levels (pre-college, college and for the adult public) and is suitable for all ages and abilities. Indeed, there is something for everyone at Butser Ancient Farm, no matter the level of interest possessed in the field of archaeology or education. Although pre-college school has ended for this academic year, it’s never too early to plan for next year so that you don’t miss out next time. Also, there still time to sign up for many workshops and special events in 2010 (some sessions may be booked in advance). In July, there is a practical archaeology weekend school, which provides an introduction to archaeological excavation and recording methods. There is also a workshop to observe the common herbs grown in the Roman home, or a lecture and presentation on Roman cooking where attendees may participate in the preparation of a Roman feast in the villa kitchen. Courses are also available on metal production, pottery making, coracle construction, or cave painting, and much, much more. Special events activities include a weekend to observe skilled flint knappers from the Lithic Studies group, an open weekend where Butser will be cooking various foods for visitors to taste, or Samhain Celebrations (Festival of the Dead), involving story telling and a live band in the ‘Great Round House’. For more details, please click on the Butser links located at the end of this blog post.

Sources/Links

Jameson, J. H., Jr. (ed.) 1997. Presenting Archaeology to the Public: Digging for Truths. Altamira Press.
Portions of this book may be found in Google Books here

EXARC International Organisation of Archaeological Open Air Museums and Experimental Archaeology

Reynolds, Peter, J. 1999. Butser Ancient Farm, Hampshire, UK. In: P.G. Stone and P. G. Planel (eds.) 1999. The Constructed Past: Experimental archaeology, education and the public. Routledge: One World Archaeology Series.
Portions of this article may be found in Google Books here

Reynolds, Peter J. 1999: The Nature of Experiment in Archaeology

Sansom, E. 1996. Peopling the Past: Current Practices in Archaeological Site Interpretation. In: P. McManus (ed.) 1996. Archaeological Displays and the Public: museology and interpretation. Institute of Archaeology. University College London, 118-137.

Stone, P. and Mackenzie, R. (eds.) 1994. The Excluded Past: Archaeology in Education. Unwin Hyman: London.
Portions of this book may be found in Google Books here

Stone, P. G. and Molyneaux, B. L. (eds.) 1994. The Presented Past: heritage, museums, and education. Routledge: One World Archaeology Series.
Portions of this book may be found in Google Books here

Stone, P. G. and Planel, P. G. (eds.) 1999. The Constructed past. Experimental archaeology, education and the public. Routledge: One World Archaeology Series.
Portions of this article may be found in Google Books here

Wallace, M. 1990. The value of special events as interpretive tools. Heritage Interpretation: 44.

Butser Ancient Farm Links:

Main Website: www.butserancientfarm.co.uk
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=20504248963
Twitter: http://twitter.com/butserfarm

A Glossary of Selected Archaeological Terms (a work in progress)

2010-06-05T16:39:00.000-07:00

Like any other profession, archaeology uses specific industry language that can be difficult to understand. Archaeologists use many technical terms and unique jargon in their work to describe particular periods, techniques and artifacts. Although I initially attempted to explain these terms at the end of some blog posts, I thought it might be more useful to add an archaeology Glossary to this weblog for better ease of reference. The subject of archaeology should be made accessible to everyone and, in my last couple of posts, I emphasized the importance of stimulating public interest in order to promote awareness for our cultural resources and heritage preservation. For more information, see my previous articles here and here. As an advocate for archaeology education, I feel it is my duty to help the uninitiated reader have a basic understanding of the concepts and terms that are frequently used within the archaeological profession. The purpose of this Glossary therefore is to help the user better understand archaeological terminology, no matter the level of interest possessed. Whether you are a professional in the heritage sector, an educator, a student, an avocational archaeologist, or someone who has just embarked on the subject, you should be able to comprehend this information.

Using the Glossary

(a) Each term defined in this Glossary is shown alphabetically in bold font.

(b) Terms may be single words or longer phrases and may include domain-specific jargon or abbreviations.

(c) Within the text of definitions, supplementary terms defined elsewhere in the Glossary are shown in italics for ease of cross-referencing.

(d) Within the text of each new blog post, the terms available for access in this Glossary will be shown in bold font.

(e) Glossary entries are provided primarily in US English although UK English is also included where appropriate.

Scope of Glossary

Please note that this Glossary does not provide a comprehensive list, as the terminology specific to the discipline of archaeology is seemingly infinite. Further, this Glossary is a work in progress and entries may increase as new blog postings are added. It is also not intended as a study guide for students, although a mastering of this “archaeological vocabulary” may enhance some courses taken in archaeology. The Glossary’s main purpose is to provide a quick and easy reference to the meanings of popular terminology used in the field of archaeology. For further information about the terms defined, it is recommended that the reader consult external sources such as those listed in the Bibliography below.

Documents and publications of relevant sources used for the formation of this Glossary are included in the Bibliography. This Glossary is a work in progress and any errors found are my own (I do not have an editor for this weblog). Readers are invited to submit new terms, suggest changes or request the addition of abbreviations. You may comment in the box below or send an email to: DianeARees@Gmail.com

I hope you will find this Glossary useful!

Bibliography

Sections of this Glossary were assembled with the help of a number of sources. Valued references include:

Lord, J. W. 1993. The Nature and Subsequent Uses of Flint. Volume 1: The Basics of Lithic Technology. John W. Lord.

Renfrew, C and Bahn, P. 2004 (4th edn.) Archaeology: Theories, Methods and Practice. Thames & Hudson

Rice, P. C. 1998. Doing Archaeology: A Hands-On Laboratory Manual. Mayfield Publishing Company.

Zimmerman, Larry J. and Molyneaux, B. L. 1996. Native North America. University of Oklahoma Press.

Public Archaeology: Crow Canyon Archaeological Center in the Mesa Verde region of southwestern Colorado

2010-05-07T15:35:00.000-07:00

“Crow Canyon’s educational programs engage learners of all ages in an inclusive and dynamic study of the human past” ~ M. Elaine Davis and Marjorie R. Connolly

Introduction

In my previous post, I discussed the many reasons why archaeology education ought to be applied to the lay public, particularly to students who are still enrolled in pre-college education. Not only has it proved to be an effective tool for combating the rising problem of damage to archaeological remains, but it can also diminish stereotypical beliefs about people who existed in the past, and extinguish misconceptions about what the responsibilities of an archaeologist are. Additionally, it is an excellent way for students to experience the thrill of discovery, while also addressing many educational concerns in the classroom. (For more details, see my earlier post here).

Indeed, this past decade has experienced many uses of public interpretation and outreach models and an increase in the collaborative effort between professional practitioners in public interpretation and educational institutions (such as schools, museums, historians and other cultural resource specialists). Experts now understand that community-based partnerships enable better strategies to be devised for translating archaeological information to the public, and thus a more effective means for preserving our cultural heritage for the long-term. For instance, Mesa Verde National Park and Crown Canyon Archaeological Center have formed an effective educational partnership (See here for details). Located in extreme southwestern Colorado, Crow Canyon has been forthcoming in providing innovative public outreach efforts, and offer opportunities for the public to take part in organized and supervised archaeological investigation. The Center was formed in 1983 as an independent 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization and is dedicated to archaeological research and education. Crow Canyon’s research focuses on the ancestral Pueblo Indians (also called Anasazi) who inhabited the Mesa Verde region of southwestern Colorado more than 700 years ago. The high quality research at the center enables other associated professionals to communicate ethical responsibilities (such as the need to preserve and protect archaeological remains) to both the academic community and the general public. In fact, the center provides reputable programs specifically designed for the public (of all ages) and is worth a mention here.

Why was Crow Canyon established?

The very beginnings of Crow Canyon’s supplemental experiential education programs extend back to the 1960s, when Edward Berger, a Denver High School history teacher, realized the need to break free from the restrictions imposed by the traditional education system. In the 1970s, he and his wife, Joanne, established an experiential school that provided outdoor education activities, including some archaeology programs. At that time, Stuart Struever, professor of Anthropology at Northwestern University, had founded the Center for American Archaeology (CAA) in Illinois, and in 1983 he became actively involved in the establishment of Crow Canyon as a campus for the CAA, particularly due to the fact that its surrounding area was so rich in archaeological remains. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center was thus set up with two equally important objectives in mind: To act as a long-term regional-scale research organization, and to concentrate on expanding and improving archaeology’s educational access to the American lay public. Due to the difficulties normally encountered in obtaining funding for archaeological ventures, and the fact that priorities are often given to projects thought more relevant (such as medical research), Crow Canyon made the decision two years later to obtain funding as a specialized, independent, nonprofit organization. So, they turned to the American populace for support. In this way, they have been able to engage both hands-on participants and strong financial assistance from individuals and organizations within the private sector. Such economic support is provided through program tuition, donations and grants from organizations including the National Park Service (NPS), the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), the National Geographic Society and the National Science Foundation. Despite the recent economic downturn, Crow Canyon remains positive about its future and is intensifying energies to increase revenue and to look for appropriate cost-savings. Over the years, the stimulation of Crow Canyon’s Center on the local economy (through archaeological tourism) has been as important as it is on education. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center has introduced thousands of people to anthropology/archaeology and Native American studies.

Crow Canyon’s mission is to: “… advance knowledge of the human experience through archaeological research, education programs, and collaboration with American Indians.”

What programs do they offer?

Crow Canyon offers a variety of fascinating and informative activities for school groups, educators, teens, adults and families, which include participation in actual archaeology research, instruction from distinguished scholars and teachers, exploration of the landscape and travel adventures. The Center has produced a high standard of thorough research and scholarship, and offers various award-winning experienced-based educational programs, which enable the general public (of all ages) to be actively engaged in scientific research (both archaeological excavation and lab work), with professional archaeologists and trained educators. Education rather than interpretation is highlighted, so that students aren’t merely passive receivers of facts, but are able to learn effectively through their own experiences. All programs are guided by a respect for, and are created in collaboration with Native American scholars and advisors to make sure that their viewpoints are also included.

“The beauty of Crow Canyon is that it is not tied to traditional institutional roles. It can continue redefining itself without the strictures that museums, universities, governmental agencies, and private contract firms – the usual organizations within which archaeology is practiced today – have placed on them, either by mandate or by their long history. The center has the freedom to define for itself what roles it will perform in the life of contemporary America.” ~ Stuart Struever

The Center’s campus-based education programs are intended for both students and their teachers, with experiential learning programs for school groups (grades 4-12) and summer camps for teens (middle and high school). School group programs range from 1-5 days in length and teen summer camps entail 1-3 week programs. Although most students will get to experience real archaeological research, simulated archaeological sites have been developed for elementary students. Professional development opportunities for K-12 educators include NEH stipends for two one-week workshops and a three-week placement as a summer institute participant. These offer teachers a chance to enhance their own education concerns and goals.

The Center has also published “Windows into the Past: Crow Canyon Archaeological Center’s Guide for Teachers”, which includes information on heritage education, archaeological research processes, approaches to teaching the past, ethic issues, core teaching modules involving a variety of lesson plans, and a correlation between the teaching modules presented in the guide and the National Standards for history, social studies, science, and geography. Although it is not a complete curriculum for pre-college archaeology, it does present thought-provoking, experience-based lessons for teaching the foundations of the archaeological process. The lessons offered in this guide form the central part of the Center’s award-winning education program. Although the guide may be used to teach about archaeological methods and the ancestral Pueblo culture, educators are advised to modify activities for their local area.

Archaeology research and lab programs provide adults with the opportunity to work alongside professional archaeologists during excavation and to help analyze artifacts recovered from the field. “Family Archaeology Week” is a program that focuses on exciting, hands-on activities for the whole family. Programs also introduce participants to southwestern archaeology and culture of the Anasazi through “Inquiries into the Past”. Day tours are also available for individuals or families, which include visits to impressive archaeological venues such as Mesa Verde National Park and the Anasazi Heritage Center.

The Center also has an extensive educational travel program, which includes trips throughout the greater Southwest and to international venues. They provide extra opportunities to learn about both ancient and contemporary native cultures. This year’s trips include “Chaco Canyon & the Keresan Pueblo World” of northwestern New Mexico, “The Archaeology and History of Syria”, and “The Maya Past and Present of Chiapas, Mexico”. Heritage professionals with carefully planned schedules guide these trips.

Those who sign up for the Crow Canyon can also enjoy the gorgeous landscapes of the Four Corners region (where the states of Colorado, Utah, Arizona and New Mexico meet), which is said to have one of the heaviest concentrations of well-preserved archaeological remains in the world. Campus-based participants get to stay in the shared Navajo-style “Hogan” cabins, or in dormitory-style rooms. All meals are made available on campus.

Conclusion

For more than a quarter of a century, Crow Canyon Archaeological Center has been effective in presenting the impartial past beyond what is traditionally taught in textbooks. The internationally recognized archaeological research conducted by the Center has significantly improved our understanding of the pre-Hispanic human experience in the rugged Mesa Verde region of southwestern Colorado. Its innovative outreach efforts connect with the public through classroom instruction, hands-on learning opportunities and stimulating travel programs. All of these courses were developed in order to widen understanding of ancient cultures and to teach the importance of preserving our fragile and nonrenewable cultural heritage. Further, the Center’s dedication to collaboration with Native Americans ensures that the programs respect and incorporate the ethnic perspectives of the America’s first inhabitants. Despite the Center’s remote location in the Four Corners region of America, their work to protect and present the depth of our past reaches across the globe.

There is something for everyone at Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, no matter the level of interest possessed in the field of archaeology or education. Although some programs have already been filled for this year, there is still time to sign up for many others… And it’s never too early to plan for the next season or to add your name to a waiting list (there is a provision to do so), so that you don’t miss out next time. This month is “Colorado’s Archaeology and Historic Preservation Month”, so you can celebrate by signing up for an archaeology day tour at Crow Canyon (For more information and prices, please click on the Crow Canyon links located at the end of this blog post).

Sources/Links

Davis, M. E. and Connolly, M. R. (eds.) 2000. Windows into the Past: Crow Canyon Archaeological Center’s Guide for Teachers. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.

Heath, M. A. 1997. Successfully Integrating the Public into Research: Crow Canyon Archaeological Center. In: J. H. Jameson, Jr. (ed.) Presenting Archaeology to the Public: Digging for Truths. Altamira Press, 65-72

Rogge, A. E. and Bell. P. 1989. Archeology in the classroom: A case study from Arizona. Technical Brief No. 4, National Park Service. Archeology Assistance Division, Washington, D.C.

Streuver, S. 2000. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center: Why an independent, nonprofit center makes sense. In: K. Smardz and S. J. Smith (eds.) 2000. The Archaeology Education Handbook: Sharing the Past with Kids. Altamira Press, 301-314

Crow Canyon Archaeological Center:

Main Website: http://www.crowcanyon.org/

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Crow-Canyon-Archaeological-Center/90860387465

Twitter: http://twitter.com/crow_canyon

Why Teach Archaeology at Precollegiate Level?

2010-04-12T15:16:00.000-07:00

A generation which ignores its history has no past and no future ~ Robert Heinlein

A number of years ago I was involved in assessing the effectiveness of the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Heritage Education Program, Project Archaeology: Intrigue of the Past, at the precollegiate level in Colorado. (The program had also been used in the states of Oregon, Utah and New Mexico). Although my sample size was small due to the lack of valid responses received from educators in Colorado, my evaluation data (cautiously) confirmed that the program was basically effective at the precollegiate level. I recently followed up with this program and I’m happy to say that it is doing very well. The Project Archaeology Program (PA) is now in partnership with Montana State University (MSU) and has become a national phenomenon. Amendments to the materials are continually being made in order to enhance its effectiveness, and the first of three new sets, PA: Investigating Shelter has recently been published and is now available. Further information can be obtained here.

This exciting follow up has spurred me on to write a post about the importance of teaching archaeology in the classroom.

A short introduction

The benefits of public education in archaeology have been known for some time. However, in both the United States and Great Britain, the subject of archaeology is still not included within pre-college education as a separate subject (aside from post-16 A Levels in England and Wales). In today’s world, teachers not only have the task of teaching curriculum subjects, but they are also challenged by countless other issues, such as keeping up with the constant progression in computer technology, coping with children with special needs (e.g., ADHD, dyslexia or autism), dealing with school bullying, and making sure that their students meet the requirements of national and local curriculum standards. It is no surprise, therefore, that teachers are reluctant to add an entirely new field of study into their already overburdened classroom agendas, especially one that is viewed to be somewhat esoteric. Additionally, financial constraints usually mean that archaeology programs rarely receive major budget allocations or grants, and those already in existence are usually the first to be terminated when considerable cut backs are made. Nevertheless, recognition of the need for more, and better public education about archaeology is emerging throughout both the US and the UK, as it is acknowledged that an improved public understanding of archaeology will result in the appreciation of archaeological sites and data, and thus less destruction of the archaeological heritage by the uninformed, such as pothunters, curio-seekers, and vandals. Precollegiate students and teachers form a segment of the general public that have become a key audience for archaeologists to instill their subject matter into formal classroom curricula. Not only does virtually every future adult initially experience early life as a student, but the resulting inquisitiveness from children can often have an influential effect on the attitudes of adults, such as parents, and grandparents. Researchers therefore believe that this is the most effective means for the transmission of heritage education standards and ethics to the general public.

What is archaeology?

Before discussing the importance of archaeology education in pre-college classrooms, it may be helpful to define what the term “archaeology” means. Many people have described archaeology in numerous different ways over time. Some discrepancies are probably the result of the way in which the past was previously studied and how it has continually changed to develop into a more scientific endeavor, whilst also becoming more concerned with human behaviors. Others, however, view it according to their own personal experiences, either as professional archaeologists, indigenous communities, or as interested members of the general public. In order to maintain public interest in the subject, therefore, it is crucial that professional archaeologists empathize and cooperate with other people’s views. For the purpose of this post, I have endeavored to provide a very basic outline of archaeology, so that a fundamental understanding of the subject can be grasped:

Archaeology involves the scientific study of past human cultures through the material objects (artifacts) that were left behind, and the physical remains of the natural environment in which they were connected (faunal and floral remains, soils, and so on). The term culture defines the shared customs and behaviors that exist, including language, belief systems and technologies. Archaeological remains provide clues about when a site was occupied and the way people were living (for instance, about social organization and cultural change). Although written records may sometimes help, in some cases (particularly in the US) no such records exist. Archaeology can thus be used to study the prehistoric past, prior to when written evidence begins, as well as during the historic part of history to support written documents. Archaeology is thus a multicultural discipline, which encourages respect for past and present human populations, and is a means of conserving our shared human heritage by providing individuals with viewpoints about their own links with the past.

Why is it important to teach archaeology in schools?

Education in archaeology can serve several purposes:

1) First, it can be used to fight the increasing problem of damage to archaeological remains, as a result of vandalism, looting, unscientific digging, insensitive development, destruction from natural forces, or simple neglect, by promoting a sense of responsibility and stewardship of the cultural heritage. Archaeology involves the study of the nonrenewable and fragile remains of past cultures, and it is a useful way to encourage awareness about the need to protect archaeological sites. It is being ever more recognized that archaeological sites are being destroyed at an alarming rate. Although legislation and regulation (for example, the National Historic Preservation Act in the U.S. and the Department of the Environment’s planning system currently under major reform in the U.K.) exist in order to deter some pothunters, experts believe that preventative measures such as education in archaeology would be more successful at protecting our heritage than threats of fines or jail sentences. Problems occur when people do not understand that their own explorations can permanently damage archaeological sites. They do not appreciate that artifacts, which are removed from their original depositional context, lose much of what they can tell us about the past. Further, many people are inclined to collect the most eye-catching artifacts (for example, arrowheads or decorated ceramics) without realizing that the loss of the artifact, much less an entire class of artifacts from a site or even region, can seriously impede what can be learned about an archaeological site as a whole. Indeed, many of the uninitiated are under the impression that archaeologists take finds home in order to expand their personal collections! This brings us to the second reason.

2) Teaching archaeology in schools can extinguish many of the myths about what archaeology entails. Although increased awareness from popular movies, such as the “Indiana Jones” series or “Lara Croft Tomb Raider” has brought archaeology to the attention of both the American and British Public, such exotic depictions stray significantly from reality. The word, “archaeology”, to most of the lay public evokes many stereotypical images about handsome and rugged adventurers, seeking buried treasure in dangerous terrain and ancient ruins, as well as a variety of tug-of-war skirmishes thrown in just for good measure. Too often misrepresentations by the media contribute to such misconceptions by focusing on the most sensational aspects of the profession, such as spectacular ruins and unusual artifacts that capture the imagination. More ordinary finds such as fragments of clay pipe or pottery sherds are rarely reported. In the real archaeological profession, spectacular discoveries are uncommon, and work usually involves a combination of demanding physical labor and meticulous research. (In fact, I recall one incident long ago where strangely our team did come across something very shiny amongst some Pre-Roman British Iron Age deposits in the south of England. We were extremely excited at such an oddity and continued to carefully trowel, only to find that a dismantled Austin Morris A30 car had contaminated the stratigraphy! Such a scenario is in fact more realistic than finding buried treasure.)

Moreover, a popular belief is that archaeologists spend all of their time excavating. More than a few have assumed that my days as an archaeologist would involve solely digging around in the dirt (or exhuming some mysterious tomb in Egypt, or even worse, digging up dinosaurs). Essentially, archaeologists spend a fairly small amount of time excavating, compared to that spent analyzing and interpreting sites and finds, and preparing technical reports. In fact, the whole archaeological process starts well before any dirt is even removed from the topsoil, depending on what research questions there are. Experts say that it is indeed this misrepresented idea of archaeology that interferes with efforts to establish archaeology into the precollegiate curriculum, as it is erroneously presumed to be far too complicated or expensive. Such a notion that archaeology is just a bit of fun and teachers should get students involved in digging up some sort of feature on their school grounds can also unwittingly produce a generation of pothunters. It is therefore crucial to include the public in a wide range of resource types in order to produce future generations who have a better understanding of the great need for the protection of the archaeological heritage from the menace of unskilled excavations.

3) It is further recognized that teaching prehistory can lessen stereotypical views about people who lived in the past, influencing students’ consideration of other people and their heritage. Many children believe that women contributed little to the modern world, and that non-whites have no history. Such attitudes relating to racial or gender-role identity are harmful, as they dehumanize people by disregarding the distinctiveness and value of their cultures. For instance, in the US, the subject of history generally begins with the arrival of Christopher Columbus on San Salvador in 1492, excluding the larger part of human occupation in the Americas. Focusing solely on the written past not only ignores Native American cultures, but also overlooks other Americans who were deprived of formal education up until the beginning of the last century. Everyone’s past is important and should be impartially included in pre-college classrooms. Archaeology education enables a way of examining the life ways of indigenous peoples before and after European contact in the US. In my opinion, teaching the past using the single method of the written record, but excluding the archaeological evidence, is akin to teaching reading and writing with the use of only consonants and the exclusion of vowels! To acquire a better comprehension of the whole subject, it is important to use all tools available.

4) Archaeology is a superb way to gain student’s interest, while also addressing many educational concerns in the classroom. Archaeology presents real evidence and artifacts concerning actual people from the past, stimulating enthusiasm and generating feelings of intrigue, adventure and discovery. As well as making formal education more exciting, it is known that archaeology encourages complex thinking and team building skills, and it is broad-based in nature, enabling it to be effectively taught across traditional school subjects. Teachers find archaeology useful for enhancing a range of subjects for students of many ages and abilities, including geography, history, science, social studies, art, mathematics, citizenship and language arts. Students also find archaeology lessons intellectually engaging. Research has also shown that students who learn about the past through archaeology and its multidisciplinary hands-on activity-based nature (with teacher guidance), as opposed to the alternative traditional and passive textbook-based approach, tend to advance more cognitively, are likely to retain more information, and find such studies more rewarding classroom experiences.

Conclusion

Archaeology in precollegiate education is a very worthwhile technique, which corresponds well with curriculum needs and state requirements making it more acceptable to professional educators. Students are generally interested in learning about the subject, and in their excitement are often keen to tell others about it, thus encouraging a broad spectrum of the public to respect our heritage resources. It seems therefore that the multidisciplinary subject of archaeology can increasingly make a large impact on precollegiate education. The creation of programs to spread positive messages about the value of our nonrenewable cultural resources should be considered a fundamental component of most public schools, in order to secure the future of our past. Although the subject of archaeology is not yet taught as a separate subject in its own right at precollegiate level in the US and UK, the good news is that there is an increasing number of organizations (both government agencies and individual archaeologists) who have made the effort to increase the availability of appropriate curricula resources for archaeology education. It is not in the scope of this post to list them all here, but I have provided a few links below for further information.

Bibliography

Jameson, J. H., Jr. (ed.) 1997. Presenting Archaeology to the Public: Digging for Truths. Altamira Press.

Metcalf, F. 1992. Knife River: early village life on the Plains. A “teaching with historic places” supplement. Social Education 56(5): 312 ff.

Rogge, A. E. and Bell. P. 1989. Archeology in the classroom: A case study from Arizona. Technical Brief No. 4, National Park Service. Archaeology Assistance Division, Washington, D.C.

Stone, P and Mackenzie, R (eds.) 1994. The Excluded Past: Archaeology in Education. Unwin Hyman: London.

Stone, P. G. and Molyneaux, B. L. (eds.) 1994. The Presented Past: Heritage, Museums and Education, Routledge, London and New York.

Smardz, K. and Smith, K. 2000. The Archaeology Education Handbook: Sharing the Past with Kids. AltaMira Press.

Further Information/Links

American Anthropological Association Anthropology Education Committee

Council of British Archaeology (CBA)
Portable Antiquities Scheme's education website

Project Archaeology (PA)

SAA Links to archaeology lesson plans and activities

Some Refitting Studies At Boxgrove, West Sussex, England

2010-03-11T10:12:00.000-08:00

In my last post, I discussed the topic of refitting ancient stone tools and how such studies can provide us with important information about past human activities (see previous post). In this article, I would like to take the subject one step further and to show how refitting has been applied to the middle Pleistocene site of Boxgrove, and how it has helped improve our understanding of early human organization in the production of stone tools. Although a number of refitting studies have been carried out at Boxgrove, I will focus on a project that I previously completed relating to a specific part of the site, called Unit 4C, Area Q/2D (thanks to the cooperation and support of Mark Roberts, Norah M. Moloney, Michael J. Shott, Chris Bergman, Francis Wenban-Smith, Nick Ashton, Darren Lankstead and Matthew Pope).

A short introduction to Boxgrove

The Acheulean site of Boxgrove is located in a stone quarry in West Sussex, England. It has been dated to around 500,000 years ago, and has been under ongoing investigation by the Institute of Archaeology Field Unit (University College London) since the early 1980s (under the direction and of Mark Roberts and Matthew Pope). The main archaeological or soil horizon (within what is referred to as Unit 4 or the Slindon Silt Member) contains large numbers of flint artifacts, and is associated with being occupied by Acheulean flint knappers. The lithics for my refitting study came from this unit in Area quarry 2 (See diagram below).

The lithics studied from Area Q2/D comprised almost entirely of more than 700 flakes. Over a hundred refits were obtained by systematically conjoining the flakes, much like a 3-D jigsaw puzzle.

The depositional integrity of the area

To determine whether the artifact concentrations related to early human activities, as opposed to simply disturbances via natural agents (such as burrowing animals, plant roots or water flow), the distribution of refitted flakes were recorded in detail. Lithic finds were counted and plotted on graphs, and then distances were measured between refitted flake pieces. Most of the refits were found to be in close proximity to one another, and when results (such as the distribution of artifact size and the total number of refits obtained) were compared to other site studies, it was established that the artifacts had suffered relatively little movement and could generally be associated with past human behavior.

Organization within the site

In order to learn more about the early cognitive abilities of the flint knappers in this area, flake-reduction sequences and the nature of manufacturing technology were observed. Flakes were first set apart according to whether they had been produced by soft (i.e., both soft organic and soft stone materials) or hard (i.e., hard stone) hammer percussion. Interestingly, it was determined that over half of the flakes had been produced by soft hammer percussion, and that most of the debitage came mainly from stage 2 of the reduction sequence (trimming and shaping). Such findings can have many implications for hominid behavior. The use of both soft and hard hammer percussion modes would imply that they undoubtedly possessed divergent levels of skill. Also, if bones or antlers were utilized, these would not have been as commonly available as stone for convenient use, and it may therefore imply that these early humans carried out some form of mental planning. It must be noted, however, that there are some limitations to distinguishing between different types of percussor, and soft cortical flint nodules may well have produced the same characteristics as antler or bone. Nevertheless, the fact that many antler and bone soft hammers have been found frequently at Boxgrove would suggest that such an assumption would not be implausible.

Spatial distribution of lithics across the landscape

The characteristics of assemblage composition were compared with another adjacent unit area (Q/2A) to find out if there were any connections between the two. Such an examination can provide clues about behavioral patterns such as planning and mobility in transport distances, and this is particularly important for the Palaeolithic period. Studies of the debitage from Area Q/2A came from stage 3 of production (final modification of the tool), whereas Area Q/2D has been used particularly for stage 2 of the reduction sequence (trimming and shaping). It would seem that stage 1 (acquisition and roughing out of the nodules) had been performed elsewhere. This implies that flint knappers exploited certain areas for particular stages of production, and then the unfinished tools were transported to other areas for the next stage of the reduction process. This again tells us that a certain level of forethought had been involved in the planning of the tool from the conception to completion.

Summary

Despite its limitations (when it comes to understanding site formation processes, recognizing discrete stages of the reduction process and distinguishing between hard and soft hammer percussion modes), refitting analysis of lithic artifacts from Area Q2/D has demonstrated that it can provide many useful insights relating to the cognitive abilities of the earliest colonizers of Northern Europe around half a million years ago (as previously attested by work in other areas at Boxgrove).

Source

Rees, Diane A. 2000. The Refitting of Lithics from Unit 4C, Area Q2/D Excavations at Boxgrove, West Sussex, England. Lithic Technology, vol. 25. no 2

Archaeology Glossary

ACHEULEAN (or ACHEULIAN): A Palaeolithic industry of biface or handaxe manufacture (after St Acheul, France), found across Africa and much of West Asia and Europe.

ACQUISITION: Procurement of the raw material

DÉBITAGE or DEBRIS: Waste material created during stone tool production.

FLAKE: A piece of stone material removed from a core or another flake by striking.

KNAPPER: Someone who works stone to create a tool by applying force to its surface, either by percussion or by pressure.

LITHICS: Artifacts made of stone.

NODULE or CORE: A rounded to irregular relatively hard mass of mineral, used as the basic lump source material for a stone tool.

PALAEOLITHIC (or PALEOLITHIC): Meaning the ‘Old Stone Age’ (between approximately 2.5 million and 20,000 years ago). It pertains to the prehistoric period from the time crude tool manufacturing activities began until the appearance of fully modern human hunting and gathering societies. This era demonstrates an evolution in human brain-size, together with a refinement in stone tool technology.

PLEISTOCENE: An interval of geological time that is part of the Quaternary period. The epoch contains evidence of humans and their development, and ended around 10,000 years ago.

REDUCTION PROCESS/SEQUENCE or “CHAÎNE OPÉRATOIRE”: The cumulative and irreversible removal of fragments from a core during the creation of a stone tool.

REFITTING: Involves at least partial reconstruction of pieces of stone so that they almost resemble their original form.

SOIL HORIZON: A distinctive layer in the land area that differs from both the overlying or underlying layers (e.g., by color and texture), that has been caused by the differing environmental conditions occurring over a period of time.

Further Information/Links

Boxgrove Dispatches Blog: Current news from the Middle Pleistocene Research Project at Boxgrove, UK.

Roberts, M. B. and Parfitt, S. A. 1999. Boxgrove: A Middle Pleistocene hominid site at Eartham Quarry, Boxgrove, West Sussex

Putting the Pieces Together: Refitting ancient stone tools

2010-02-10T09:21:00.000-08:00

A SHORT HISTORY OF REFITTING

“Refitting” (sometimes also known as “conjoining”) can be traced back to F. C. J. Spurrel’s work at the Palaeolithic site of Crayford, England, in 1880. However, the technique’s potential has now become more widely known, thanks mostly to the relatively recent work at several later Stone Age sites, such as Pincevent and Meer in Europe, Kapthuring and East Turkana in Africa, and the Negev Desert in Israel.

WHAT IS REFITTING?

The creation of chipped stone tools involves a reduction sequence, which is characterized by the cumulative removal of raw material. When flaking stone, each stage involves the reduction of the original mass and the creation of tool fragments or manufacturing debris. This process of stone reduction is always irreversible, as each removal is permanent. Although it may be possible to make some adjustments along the way, unlike other materials such as metal or clay, it is not possible to start again with the original mass. The knapper, therefore, needs to plan his approach carefully, so that the best results are obtained during the reduction process. The basic stages of the reduction sequence include: procurement of the raw material and preliminary roughing out, trimming and shaping, and then final modification of the tool. Another (European) term for this sequence is called chaîne opératoire, although the name also includes the stage that occurs after completion of the finished tool (i.e., the maintenance/modification of the tool through use and final discard of the artifact). Lithic materials preserve well on archaeological sites due to their inorganic nature, enabling evidence from every stage of the reduction process.

Refitting includes at least partial reconstruction of the pieces of stone so that they almost resemble their original form. Flakes that have been struck from a core can be reassembled, by rejoining or fitting pieces together, much like a 3-D jigsaw puzzle. Although the process can be very tedious and time-consuming, it has the potential to tell us many things about past activities.

WHAT CAN IT TELL US?

Traditionally, refitting has been used to help reconstruct artifacts for illustrative or display purposes, or in order to obtain a better appreciation of the artifact’s original appearance. Refitting studies are now, however, being used to glean a greater understanding of archaeological record. By employing refitting studies, archaeologists are able to make inferences about:

* The depositional integrity of the area

It is possible to establish that the artifact concentrations were not merely the result of natural disturbances, but surviving evidence relating to human activity. For example, tight spatial clustering of refitted material would imply that there was little disturbance of the area.

* Organization within the site

Flake-reduction sequences and the nature of manufacturing technology within different parts of a site unit can be distinguished. For instance, large flakes with completely cortical dorsal surfaces would indicate that the very beginning of the reduction process was carried out in that area. Insights about early cognitive abilities may also be obtained from the use of manufacturing technology, such as hard-hammer (stone) or soft-hammer percussion (entailing the use of antler, bone or wood).

* Spatial distribution of lithics across the landscape

Archaeologists can compare the different characteristics in assemblage composition between two different unit areas in order to find out whether there are any associations. This may provide clues relating to behavioral patterns, such as forethought and mobility in transport distances, which is particularly important for the Palaeolithic period. For instance, two separate areas may have been used for particular stages of tool production.

WHAT DOES THE REFITTING PROCESS ENTAIL?

Although refitting has been used on a variety of materials (pottery, bone, shell, glass, metal and wood) and can involve various methodologies, for the purpose of this post I will discuss the approach I have used for stone tools.

First and foremost, it is important to ensure that all pieces to be refit are labeled accordingly, so that they can be properly returned to the correct storage container at the end of the project. It is advantageous to have a sufficient work area, so that the whole collection can be laid out and viewed at the same time, and for the whole duration of the refitting process. If this is not possible, trays may be used to compare batches based on a certain criterion. In order to protect the artifacts from breakage, a protective foam sheet may be laid on top of the surface area.

Once taken out of their bags, the lithics, can be sorted into groups, based on attributes such as cortex variations, color, inclusions, technological stages, or into whole pieces and broken pieces. For example, broken pieces can be split into proximal ends (those with bottoms missing), mesial parts (those broken at both ends) and distal ends (those broken at the top). The size of the break may also be taken into consideration for the order in which they are sorted. Some minimum size limit of flakes may be established for large collections or for those where there are project time constraints. It is advisable to correlate the pieces with a contour map and site grid, in order to view the lithic densities and to understand the significance of where the pieces come from. For example, it may be beneficial to separate flakes into specific groups based on the densities in their distribution.

The lithics are refitted in a systematic way. Comparison of the pieces can be quite a laborious process, as some trial and error is involved at the beginning. However, with time it is possible to recognize various characteristics (such as color, size, texture or shape) from pieces that may have come from the same core. However, it is also important to note that in some cases, features can differ dramatically between pieces within the same block (e.g., if some of the flakes had been thermally altered through heating). Once the refitting for one batch has been completed, the next group may be done in the same manner, after which time the refitter may also compare the two groups for further possible refits. All conjoinable pieces should be recorded as found and glued together using a reversible adhesive (i.e., one that may be easily removed).

Conjoining is a very lengthy process, and it is difficult to find every potential refit. It is therefore necessary to decide how much refitting is sufficient for the goals of the analysis. Once all refitting has been accomplished, it is important to look at the lithic markings to see where they came from. Index cards can be used in order to record refit numbers and sketches may be made to document the position of lithics (i.e., whether joins are above or below other pieces). It can also be helpful to input the data onto a spreadsheet (each flake would be recorded as a separate entry and include such details as size, distance and reduction stage). Locations of the refits can then be plotted on a scaled graph in order to infer meaning from the patterns constructed.

SUMMARY

Although we don’t yet know the full potential of refitting, and many scholars are aware of the fact that it does have some limitations (for example, the recognition of discrete stages in the reduction process is not as straightforward as one would assume, and site formation processes are not entirely understood), refitting can nevertheless provide a fundamentally useful tool when viewed in the context of other pertinent information (such as microwear analysis). With careful and methodological application, refitting studies can provide us with crucial information relating to many aspects of archaeology.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

* Ciezla, E. 1990. On Refitting of Stone Artefacts. In The Big Puzzle: International Symposium on Refitting Stone Artefacts, edited by E. Cziesla, S. Eickhoff, N. Arts and D. Winter, pp. 9-44. Studies in Modern Archaeology, Volume 1, Holos Verlag, Bonn.

* Collins, M. B. 1975. Lithic Technology as a Means of Processual Inference. In Lithic Technology: Making and Using Stone Tools, edited by E. Swanson, p. 15-34. Mouton, The Hague.

* Gowlett, J. A. J. 1992. Ascent to Civilization: the Archaeology of Early Humans. McGraw-Hill, New York.

* Rees, Diane A. 2000. The Refitting of Lithics from Unit 4C, Area Q2/D Excavations at Boxgrove, West Sussex, England. Lithic Technology, vol. 25. no 2

* Shott, M. J. 1996. Stage Versus Continuum in the Debris Assemblage from Production of a Flutted Biface. Lithic Technology 21:6-22

ARCHAEOLOGY GLOSSARY

CORE: The basic lump source material for a stone tool.

Cortical surface or Cortex: A tough, dull-white powdery and porous coating found on the outer surface of newly exposed flint nodules. This may also include smooth weathered surfaces.

Debris or débitage: Waste material created during stone tool production.

Flake: A piece of stone material removed from a core or another flake by striking.

Knapper: Someone who works stone to create a tool by applying force to its surface, either by percussion or by pressure.

Lithics: Artifacts made of stone.

Microwear or usewear analysis: the study of the working edge of an artifact for signs of use. Patterns of wear, damage or residues may be observed via a high-powered microscope.

Palaeolithic or Paleolithic: Meaning the ‘Old Stone Age’ (between approximately 2.5 million and 20,000 years ago). It pertains to the prehistoric period from the time crude tool manufacturing activities began until the appearance of fully modern human hunting and gathering societies. This era demonstrates an evolution in human brain-size, together with a refinement in stone tool technology.
REDUCTION PROCESS/SEQUENCE or “chaîne opératoire”: The cumulative and irreversible removal of fragments from a core during the creation of a stone tool.

FURTHER INFORMATION
Lithic Technology
The Lithic Studies Society

Reconsidering short-term museum loans

2010-01-27T16:34:00.000-08:00

Most collectors of historic, ethnographic or artistic artifacts would not be expected to know about the procedures involved when a museum accepts an object on a short-term loan basis. It is thus hoped that this brief post will offer a few suggestions that may be helpful, especially when short-term loaned items are chosen for use within permanent displays.

What is a short-term museum loan?

A loan is the temporary relocation of an object(s) from a private individual or institution to a museum, in which there is no change of ownership or title. Loans may be used for displays, research, publication or educational purposes, in order to promote better understanding. In the case of a “short-term” loan, this states that the loan is accepted into a museum for a specific period of time, which can be varied depending on the institution’s policies as well as the discretion of the director or curator. For the purpose of this post, however, the word is taken to refer to loans that have a length of less than five years.

The registration process

In order to properly manage collections, museums need to keep specific records of all loaned objects within its care. Documentation is essential to maintain the identity, cultural value, and care of an object. The museum is required to account for all artifacts and to ensure that details of location and security are recorded accordingly. For legal purposes, the object is also often photographed and monitored for its condition. Additionally, it is necessary for all loans to be tied in with a loan agreement, which describes the items on loan and loan duration. This document must be signed in duplicate, by authorized parties of both the museum and the lender. It used to be acceptable for museums to receive “indefinite” or “permanent loans”, making it possible for the loan registration process to be completed at just one time. However, current practices discourage this standard, as it is too easy to lose contact with the owner (it is generally the lender’s responsibility to notify the museum of change of address or ownership during the loan period. In such cases, the museum needs to prepare a new loan agreement to reflect these changes.) Loans are now subject to preset terms, meaning that they have to be renewed on a continual basis, involving replication of the registration process. The lender therefore becomes repeatedly burdened with filling out paperwork, in order to continue renewing his loan. When dealing with a substantial number of separate short-term loans, administration costs for a non-profit organization, such as a museum, may prove to be both time-consuming and financially steep.

Returning loan items

One of the most frustrating situations that may occur with short-term loans is when they are unavoidably recalled without adequate notice to the museum. This may lead to unsightly gaps within the permanent exhibit area, which need to be filled promptly. Not only must the museum acquire suitable objects for replacement at such short notice, which can prove both tricky and costly, but also the entire registration process for the alternative exhibit item has to be completed before placing it on display. The museum’s limited resources are thus better spent on items either already owned by the museum, or on obtaining its own objects to complete its collection.

Problems may also occur when the loan period comes to an end. For example, should the museum no longer want the object, the lender is often responsible for its collection within a suitable time period. However, failure to retrieve the item may sometimes result in the museum charging the lender storage fees, due to storage space restrictions. In some cases, the museum is unable to contact the lender, and after a certain amount of time, materials are often deemed an unrestricted gift to the museum. The item may subsequently be sold, auctioned or donated to another appropriate institution at the museum’s discretion. Even when the museum is able to locate the lender, more paperwork needs to be completed. The lender needs to confirm that the item received is in satisfactory condition. Even this may not be the conclusion of the process. This, actually, leads us to another crucial issue that needs to be dealt with when a museum receives loaned items.

Protecting loan items

Whilst on loan, artifacts are potentially at greater risk of damage. Though museums use the same standards of professional care, safekeeping and preventative measures for loaned items as they would for their permanent collections, many things can still go awry. Objects can undergo spoilage or loss from perils such as fire, theft, accidental damage or vandalism. Usually it is the museum’s responsibility for insuring the loaned items. However, insurance coverage can be very costly, and many museums have great difficulty in paying the premiums for their own collections, let alone for any additional loaned items. It is imperative for museums to be able to recuperate after a loss to their own property, but perhaps it wouldn’t be such a bad idea for additional luxuries such as loaned artifacts to be covered under the lender’s existing insurance policy. If travel of the item is not already permitted under his individual policy, many insurance companies offer extended coverage in the form of a simple cover note for a fairly inexpensive nominal fee.

Summary

The purpose of this post is certainly not to discourage short-term loans. On the contrary, museums are very appreciative to all those who decide to lend their objects, and thank them for their collaboration and kindness in this matter. However, due to the extensive amount of time and effort involved with the registration process, as well as various associated problems encountered along the way, it may be more beneficial for such loans to be restricted to specific short-term projects or exhibitions, as opposed to integrating them within permanent displays. Permanent exhibits need stability and it would be more helpful to use objects from either the museum’s own collection (e.g., objects by gift, purchase or transfer) or to make use of long-term loans for this particular role.

Source:

Rees, Diane A. 2003. Some considerations concerning short-term museum loans, when used for permanent or long-term exhibits. The Canvasback, Spring 2003, 101-102

Further information:

American Association of Museums

Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA)

Littleton Denver and Rio Grande Railroad Depot, Colorado

2010-01-20T13:03:00.000-08:00

In August and September of 2000, I carried out an archaeological and historical buildings survey of the Denver and Rio Grande Railroad Depot in Littleton, Colorado. Although this was some time ago, the depot is one of the few remaining examples of the 19^th century style of small, stone depots and has some historical significance. It is therefore worth a brief mention here:

Background

The Denver and Rio Grande Railroad Depot is located in downtown Littleton, Colorado, 5800 South Prince Street, Littleton, Colorado. However, the structure had previously been moved to a new location on two separate occasions: once from its original site in 1984, in order to protect it from pubic works; and again in 1999 to its present location to service as a component of the light rail stop, linking Littleton with Denver. Amazingly, the building was moved intact by its foundations, with the use of a hydraulic lift to place it on a trailer. It was subsequently driven to the new location and then set down using the same technology.

Historical setting

Only a small agricultural community existed at the time the first railroad (the Denver and Rio Grande or D & RG) reached Littleton in 1871. “Littleton” was named after Richard S. Little who worked as an engineer on the irrigation system of the area, before settling there in 1860. Although the name had been in use for several years, it did not become official until the town was platted in 1872. The D & RG officially opened for service on January 1872, and in the following year the railroad company built a wooden-framed depot. Two years later, this was superseded by the stone depot, which exists today.

The D & RG line was built by William Jackson Palmer, in order to connect Denver to Colorado Springs (he planned a north-south railroad linking Denver and El Paso, Texas, and continuing to Mexico City). Littleton was merely en route. By 1887 the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe finished its line through Littleton, and in 1889 the D & RG began regular commuter service between Littleton and Denver. The D & RG became the most extensive railroad system in the state of Colorado, contributing significantly to its growth and development.

The building’s significance

The style of the D & RG depot is typical of the railroad style of building produced in the Victorian period. The structure is single-level and measures around 41 by 24 feet (12.5 by 7.5 metres). Although the depot has moved location twice and has undergone various modifications over the years, it nevertheless maintains sufficient integrity in its design, materials, workmanship and use. It is locally significant for its connection with the development of transportation networks, settlement and economy in Colorado during the nineteenth century. The building is the only depot historically associated with the D & RG in Littleton and was an element of the first line from Denver to Colorado Springs in 1871. It is representative of the nineteenth century small-town design of depots in Colorado owing to its simple, rectangular rhyolite structure, and side-gable roof with widely overhanging eaves and decorative braces.

The depot today

The excellent condition of the structure has enabled the depot to be used in association with its original function, as a (light) rail depot in Littleton, with the additional use as a coffee shop (called “Romancing the Bean”). It is practical from an economic viewpoint, being busy with people who enjoy the charming building immensely. The owners of the coffee shop have even furnished the pleasant waiting area with historic photographs.

Bibliography

* HABS/HAER Historic American Buildings Survey. 1982. National Park Service, Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 20243.

* Historic Structures Report: Denver & Rio Grande Railroad Depot. 1983. Community Services Collaborative, Boulder CO 80302.

* Littleton Community Network (LCN). 1997. Littleton History.

*Littleton Historical Museum Archives.

*MCQuarrie, R. J. and Bucholtz, C. W. 1990. Littleton, Colorado: Settlement to Centennial. Littleton: Littleton Historical Museum and Friends of the Library and Museum.

*Simmons, R. L. and Simmons, I. H. Littleton Historic Buildings Survey. 1997. Colorado Historical Society.

Further Information

The full 2000 RCHME report has been deposited with the Littleton Historical Museum (http://www.littletongov.org/museum/)

Romancing the Bean - http://www.romancingthebeanlittleton.com/

Welcome to my blog!

2010-01-16T12:58:00.001-08:00

Technorati Claim Token: SKJB7CA7D566

Hello and welcome to my blog, which examines multi-disciplinary archaeological and cultural heritage topics by observing past human cultures via the artifacts, monuments and landscapes they created. This site is currently under construction, but in due course will provide information relating to archaeological and historical investigations, ancient world sites and museums, preventative conservation and ethical issues relating to the protection of our heritage and the antiquities trade. Themes will include periods from the origins of the human species up until the last century. Over the years, I have obtained numerous photographs from both my workplace(s) as well as casual visits to countless museums. Rather than merely keeping them on CDs in a storage cupboard, it would be more beneficial to add them to this blogsite for all to enjoy. Whether you are a heritage professional or someone with a keen interest in the past, please stay tuned for updates. Thank you for your patience.