Abstract
Over the last 25 years there has been a growing momentum for incorporating community outreach into archaeology and heritage studies in Canada and the USA. Innovative programs brought archaeological research to the public through: tours of sites, museum exhibits, traveling exhibits, public lectures, newspaper, magazine articles, and even archaeology programs for television (Jameson 1997; Herscher and McManamon 2000). Initially, these programs were based on what the archaeologist wanted to present to the public not the topics of interest to the public or professionals in allied fields (Jameson and Baugher 2007a: 4). Fortunately, archaeologists are now partnering with nonarchaeologists in order to develop more meaningful public programming in heritage studies (for example, Derry and Malloy 2003; Merriman 2004; Jameson and Baugher 2007b). This interdisciplinary outreach enables archaeologists to work cooperatively with historic preservationists, museum curators, and educators. This cooperative work enhanced both the quality of the public programs and the underlining interdisciplinary research. Even the term “public archaeology,” which used to be synonymous with Cultural Resource Management (CRM), now implies outreach work with and for the public.
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
Introduction
Over the last 25 years there has been a growing momentum for incorporating community outreach into archaeology and heritage studies in Canada and the USA. Innovative programs brought archaeological research to the public through: tours of sites, museum exhibits, traveling exhibits, public lectures, newspaper, magazine articles, and even archaeology programs for television (Jameson 1997; Herscher and McManamon 2000). Initially, these programs were based on what the archaeologist wanted to present to the public not the topics of interest to the public or professionals in allied fields (Jameson and Baugher 2007a: 4). Fortunately, archaeologists are now partnering with nonarchaeologists in order to develop more meaningful public programming in heritage studies (for example, Derry and Malloy 2003; Merriman 2004; Jameson and Baugher 2007b). This interdisciplinary outreach enables archaeologists to work cooperatively with historic preservationists, museum curators, and educators. This cooperative work enhanced both the quality of the public programs and the underlining interdisciplinary research. Even the term “public archaeology,” which used to be synonymous with Cultural Resource Management (CRM), now implies outreach work with and for the public.
To encourage public education, professional organizations such as the Canadian Archaeological Association, the Society for American Archaeology, and the Society for Historical Archaeology have public archaeology committees and have public archaeology columns in their professional newsletters and/or on their web sites. The Society for American Archaeology’s Ethics in American Archaeology (Lynott and Wylie 2000) stresses the need for public education. The Society for Historical Archaeology produced a book, Unlocking the Past (De Cunzo and Jameson 2005), presenting an overview of North American archaeology for the public. There has also been a transformation in books on state and city archaeology, whereas in the past the books were highly technical, full of jargon, and written solely for archaeologists, a growing number of archaeologists are writing for the educated public as the target audience. Some examples are urban archaeology books on: New York City archaeology (Cantwell and Wall 2001); archaeology in Montreal (Desjardins and Duguay 1992); and urban archaeology in Philadelphia (Yamin 2008). Some archaeologists in both countries have gone a step farther and are involved in partnering with the public—working on interdisciplinary outreach programs with community members as partners in designing and implementing these heritage programs (Derry and Malloy 2003; Jameson and Baugher 2007b). Government agencies, such as national parks, are viewing community members as stakeholders in the preservation and public interpretation of heritage sites (Jameson 1999). These public education efforts are often undertaken by archaeologists in government agencies, museums, and cultural resource management firms.
One important area often overlooked in international discussions of community collaboration and public education is the role of the teaching in these interdisciplinary community partnerships. If we are to encourage the next generation of scholars in the value civic engagement and interdisciplinary partnerships in heritage preservation then we need to provide examples and opportunities for students. This chapter discusses three innovative teaching approaches to heritage studies (1) service learning classes for college-age students; (2) archaeological summer camps and school programs for high school, middle school, and elementary students; and (3) noncredit adult education programs in archaeological field and laboratory work. All of these programs are interdisciplinary and promote preservation ethics and heritage studies. All involve partnerships with professionals in other disciplines and they all promote community participation.
Service Learning for University Students
Service learning is a North American higher education reform movement that combines community service with academic courses. In service learning courses, students provide research, physical labor, educational and recreational leadership, and/or other activities that meet needs defined by the community in cooperation with a faculty member and the work is within the context of a course, not as an internship or an independent study course. “Students participate in organized service that meets community needs, and reflect on the service to gain further understanding of course content, a broader appreciation of the discipline, and an enhanced sense of civic responsibility” (Lounsbury and Routt 2000: 27). Students benefit from partnering with community members in research and practice because it provides new insights and perspectives to a project and the project becomes interdisciplinary. In addition, working with community members, students may be exposed to people from different ethnic, cultural, religious, or socio-economic backgrounds.
Service learning has an educational pedagogy and had its roots in social activism in America in the 1960s. The Peace Corps and VISTA are community service programs that were inspired by President John F. Kennedy and supported by the federal government (Sigmon 1999: 252). American students were also motivated toward community action and civic engagement by the civil rights movement of the 1960s (Liu 1999: xii). In the 1970s, American colleges and universities provided opportunities for students to gain “real world” experiences through paid internship programs (Lounsbury and Routt 2000: 28). By the 1980s a shift had taken place when President Ronald Reagan cut federal funding for paid anti-poverty program internships; community service then moved to a model where the work was connected to academic courses (Lounsbury and Routt 2000: 28). In 1985, the presidents of Brown, Georgetown, and Stanford universities in an effort to institutionalize service learning on campuses, established the Campus Compact to support service learning (Stanton et al. 1999: 167). As a result, some college and university presidents provided financial support to cover the costs of transporting students from the campus to the community and/or for supplies and equipment (Crews 2002: 23–25). The National Community Service Act of 1993, signed by President William Jefferson Clinton, provided an additional impetuous for service learning.
Service learning courses are offered in diverse departments, such as sociology, government, planning, and landscape architecture. For many years service learning was not a part of archaeology courses but the last decade of the twentieth century and the first decade of the twenty-first century established a momentum for combining the two (Baugher 2007a; Nassaney 2004; Nassaney and Levine 2009). There has been a growing need in the profession for archaeologists to be trained in community service, public outreach, and ethics. With the passage of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) of 1990, archaeologists in the USA are required to address reburial and repatriation issues raised by federally recognized tribal governments (Mihesuah 2000). Native Americans were finally legally recognized as stakeholders in the protection and preservation of their sacred sites (Baugher 2005; Price 1991; Vecsey 1991). The highly publicized excavation of the African Burial Ground in New York City highlighted the involvement of the African American community in decisions regarding the preservation, protection, and public presentation of this heritage site (Harrington 1993; La Roche and Blakey 1997). In addition, throughout the world indigenous communities have been raising the question of “whose culture is it?” (Messenger 1989; Venables 1984). Most archaeologists now realize that “they are not the only stakeholders with an interest in the material remains of the past” (Nassaney 2009: 5). Because of the numerous changes in the way archaeology is conducted, the Society for American Archaeology in their book, Teaching Archaeology in the Twenty-first Century (Bender and Smith 2000) challenged archaeologists to rethink their approach to the teaching of archaeology and suggested the need to reform curriculum. Archaeologists have provided theoretical and pragmatic discussions on the merits of interdisciplinary community-based outreach (Jameson 1997; Little 2002; Merriman 2004; Shackel and Chambers 2004). Some archaeologists have stressed the value in working with descendant communities, especially Native Americans (Swidler et al. 1997; Watkins 2000, 2003), while other archaeologists stressed the importance of ethical practices (Zimmerman et al. 2003). In addition, there are a growing number of case studies on the method, theory, and application of interdisciplinary community outreach heritage programs (Derry and Malloy 2003; Jameson and Baugher 2007b).
Community service learning courses in archaeology address ethics, heritage studies, outreach, and community partnerships. Michael Nassaney (2009: 29) notes that service learning courses in archaeology are “sensitive to the needs of the public and descendant communities, places students in real-world settings, charges them with making decisions under proper supervision, delivers practical results, teaches our students to be critical thinkers and show compassion for the human condition, while encouraging them to link theory with practice.” Students in service learning courses still learn traditional archaeological methods and theories but they also learn something more because service learning provides an effective educational means to promote the values of pubic archaeology and civic engagement to the next generation.
Because of the involvement of numerous disciplines in the field of service learning there has evolved diverse pedagogies and theories, therefore archaeologists thus can choose from a wide range of approaches (Bringle et al. 1999; Stanton et al. 1999; Crews 2002; Jacoby et al. 2003; Macfarlane 2007). Fortunately, there is no one “right” methodology. In the USA, archaeologists have employed the diverse range of approaches to service learning courses. The following is a brief summary of some of the pedagogical, ideological, and pragmatic approaches to service learning.
Service learning can be the focus of an entire course or a component of a course (Crews 2002: 14–16). The advantage of a stand-alone course is that you will have students who are committed and excited about community outreach. But the downside is that service learning may become marginalized and the course enrollment may be limited to only the small group of students already committed to civic engagement. I have been involved in teaching archaeological service learning courses at Cornell University since 1992 and I created a model for integrating service learning as components to courses (Baugher 2007a). With different options of credited work all course work involves an equal investment of student time. By embedding service learning as an optional component of a course, all students can be exposed to the ideas that are generated; the community benefits from all the work, but all students do not have to be actively engaged in working directly with community members.
Incorporating service learning into a field school is one method used by archaeologists. Michael Nassaney (2009: 17) and his students at Western Michigan University hosted open house days at their excavation at Fort St. Joseph and “the students were really made aware of the importance of their work for the present when two thousands visitors stopped by for an open house.” I have incorporated service learning as a component in my field schools (Baugher 2007a, b, 2009). In my 10-year project called Rediscovering Enfield Falls, my Cornell students and I have been excavating and analyzing a buried nineteenth century hamlet in Robert H. Treman State in Central New York State. We host two open house weekends every year and the students especially enjoy meeting members of the descendant community (Fig. 7.1). In 2007, Alice Baker, then 98 years old, spent time with the students discussing the artifacts from the 1880s that they had unearthed from the hotel run by her family. Meeting the descendants of the hamlet made the past suddenly come alive when the students realized that their work was more than academic research—it was part of a community’s heritage.
Some large multi-year fieldwork-based community projects also have service learning components link to other classes. For example, in my museum class (Fig. 7.2), students worked with community members in the design of two permanent archaeology exhibits associated with our excavations of the hamlet of Enfield Falls (Baugher 2009: 50–51). In addition, my students and I created four traveling exhibit cases for programs in local schools and senior citizen centers. Michael Nassaney and his students produced two archaeology documentary videos for the public, and designed exhibits for local museums and libraries on their excavations at the Fort St. Joseph in Michigan (Nassaney 2009: 20).
Franklin and Marshall students enrolled in Mary Ann Levine’s Introduction to Archaeology class can choose a service learning option (among other options) where the students work with public school teachers and students to bring urban archaeology programs into Lancaster, Pennsylvania schools (Levine and Delle 2009). The project is an outgrowth of the joint Franklin and Marshall and Kutztown State University excavations of the mid-nineteenth century houses of Thaddeus Stevens (Senator and an outspoken abolitionist) and Lydia Hamilton Smith (an African American landowner and landlord of multiple properties) in Lancaster (Levine et al. 2005).
Some faculty members choose to have service learning as a component of a course but as a required component for all students, not as an option. Scott McLaughlin (2009: 63) had his University of Vermont class work with staff from the Lake Champlain Maritime Museum and local teachers to produce ten-page first person historical narratives for fourth-grade students. The narrative used archaeological and historical data and oral histories. In another class, McLaughlin (2009: 63–64) and his students worked with the Jericho Center Cemetery Association to develop a walking tour brochure and create a database of the cemetery. These examples of mandated requirements are projects that benefit the community but do not have intensive one on one work with community members, as in optional service learning projects with students providing archaeology programs in public schools or conducting oral histories with community members. However, two community members took McLaughlin’s course so students got to work with community members as fellow classmates.
Another debate is whether the service learning experience should be mandated for all majors or if it should be optional. Turning service learning into a mandated requirement could reduce student enthusiasm for community outreach and in fact, less than 10% of all American colleges mandate service learning as a requirement for graduation (Crews 2002: 32). We should encourage students to value public outreach and civic engagement, but forcing students to work with the public when they do not want to could result in resentful students undermining a project, and community members angry and frustrated by student attitudes.
There is a danger in planning a service learning project that is simply one semester in duration and then have the archaeologist move on to another community and another site. Michael Nassaney (2004: 96) believes that limited community engagement can result in designing a project as a charitable service rather than as collaboration or faculty “merely using the community as a laboratory rather than working with the community on a mutually beneficial project.” Even in a collaborative one semester project, the students, faculty member, and community members may realize at the end of the semester what they could and perhaps should have done but there is no time to implement change since the semester has ended (Baugher 2007a: 189). With a multi-year project there is time to develop a deeper understanding of the community and its history, time for the academic–community partnership to re-evaluate the original research questions, add new questions, revise the goals and the anticipated end products, and in the end accomplish a more detailed, mutually satisfying, community-based project.
With a close partnership both community members and the university teams can gain a greater understanding of each other. For example, for many decades there has been a tense relationship between Native Americans and archaeologists (Mihesuah 2000; Thomas 2000). Slowly there have been efforts to build bridges (Swidler et al. 1997; Watkins 2003). Community-based projects and service learning courses are one of the ways to create greater communication. For example, in my 4-year project in the Inlet Valley in Central New York State my students and I worked closely with Native Americans and urban planners to preserve and protect an eighteenth century Tutelo Indian village (Baugher and Frantz 1998). The Cornell students were aware that their archaeological work involved them in a major archaeological ethical debate—the debate over the preservation of Native American burial grounds. In addition to classroom lectures and reading assigned material on this subject, the students got to discuss these reburial and repatriation issues with Native Americans on the dig. “Because Native American students were working side by side with non-Native Americans, the protection and preservation of burial grounds became a very real issue, not an abstract scientific topic. Students who initially supported the scientific excavation of cemeteries came to support Native Americans right to protect their ancestors’ remains” (Baugher 2007a: 196).
This joint endeavor continued beyond the field school phase of the project with the goal of bringing the story of the Tutelo Indians and the destruction of their village during the American Revolutionary War to light (Baugher 2007b). The goal of the Tutelo Indians was to have some type of commemorative site to remind people of their heritage and that the Tutelos still existed. Landscape architecture students become involved in the project to design a commemorative park. In the end archaeologists, landscape architects, planners, Tutelo and Cayuga Indians, land owners, and community members worked together to create Tutelo Park, which opened to the public in 2006 (Baugher 2007b).
Archaeologist Rick Knecht, who is the director of the Museum of the Aleutians, enlisted the aid of Bryn Mawr Professor Richard Davis and his students from Pennsylvania in a joint community outreach project on the island of Unalaska part of the Alaskan islands in the Bering Sea (Knecht 2003). Native Aleuts were actively involved in both the field and the lab working along with college students to survey, excavation, and protect pre-contact Aleut sites. Native Aleuts, students, and other community members also worked together on exhibits for the local museum. The joint endeavor was a win-win project for the community and the archaeologists.
Service learning projects have all resulted in tangible end products for local communities. However, in the early days of service learning, some faculty believed that research was not linked to teaching and community service (Bringle et al. 1999: 5). Because the academic rewards of tenure and promotion are based primarily on research and publications and not on innovative teaching and community-service some faculty were reluctant to become involved in service learning (Nyden 2003: 214; Zlotkowski 1999: 110–111). Brian Fagan (2000: 100) has noted, “archaeologists live within a hierarchical value system that considers research, excavation, new discoveries, and publication the pinnacle of achievement.” However, studies indicate that research, teaching, and outreach can and should be integrated (Zlotkowski 1999: 109–111; Nyden 2003: 213–222; Baugher 2007a: 198–199). One of the ways to integrate research into service learning is to involve the community in the research project from the very beginning.
Participatory action research (PAR) is often viewed as being at the heart of service learning. Participatory action research is known by other names such as “action research” (Greenwood and Levin 2007) or in archaeology as “engaged archaeology,” “community-based archaeology,” or “value-committed archaeology” (Nassaney 2009: 5). Because the community is involved in a project, the cooperative effort breaks down the barriers between the subject population and the researchers (Nyden 2003: 215). In participatory action research (PAR), community members and academics bring ideas and perspectives to the table and the goals and focus of research are decided cooperatively (Whyte 1991).
Participatory action research and creating a research partnership with nonarchaeologists may in fact be the biggest barrier to archaeologists becoming involved in service learning. After all, the discipline of archaeology has evolved so that it is essentially a hierarchical system with the director of the project deciding the research agenda with the clear separation between archaeologists and the people they are studying (Baugher 2009: 41; Nassaney 2009: 21–22). However, archaeologists do not totally discard their own research questions when community members become involved in a project. When archaeologists become involved in a community dialogue, they find that community members may suggest research questions that were not the initial priority of the archaeologist but turn out to be important avenues of research. Community members can become involved in their own community history, assist in the research, and may come forward with information from family collections that provide unique additions to the research (Baugher 2000: 11). Service learning projects have generated research valued by the archaeologists and the community. Some service learning projects have generated senior theses and masters theses (Baugher 2007a: 198–199).
There are diverse ways to undertake service learning from a one-semester project with a simple community outreach component to a multi-year participatory action research partnership. Within service learning there are also numerous service learning pedagogies and theories that are acceptable. Therefore, archaeologists are able to select an appropriate approach for their site, their students, their community partners, and themselves (Baugher 2009: 54).
Archeological Summer Field Programs for School-Aged Children
Not all archaeological training programs are focused on college-aged students. Archaeologists in the USA and Canada have brought the concepts of preservation and archaeological heritage studies to younger students. By partnering with educators, archaeologists have created innovative programs for high school and elementary school-aged children. North American archaeologists have created training programs that educate and inspire youth, involve community partnerships, develop an appreciation for cultural diversity, and perhaps create the next generation of preservationists.
In the 1970s, Stuart Struever, then a professor at Northwestern University in Chicago, was an early pioneer in archaeological training for high school and middle school children. Struever’s programs at Center for American Archeology in Kampsville, Illinois were connected to Northwestern University, which has a long tradition of encouraging students to learn outside the classroom and to become involved in community outreach work. Koster Site in southern Illinois was a large multi-component site with 13 horizons from 7500 B.C. to A.D. 1200 and served as both a research site and training ground for archaeology students from middle school to graduate students (Struever and Holton 1979: 207–221). Struever’s highly structured summer programs provided student training in the various components of field and lab work. During their training students were able to experience the diverse components of laboratory work in ethnobotany, faunal analysis, palynology, lithics, and ceramics (Struever and Holton 1979: 81–136). Part of the success of the training was with an interdisciplinary team of professionals including educators who helped design programs that were age appropriate. This program was innovative for the 1970s because it not only brought the scientific rigor of what Louis Binford called the “new archaeology” to the Koster excavation, but Struever demonstrated that younger students could be trained in interdisciplinary, scientific archaeology. Even though Struever is retired his educational programs live on. The Center for American Archeology is an independent nonprofit educational and research institution, no longer affiliated with Northwestern University, and the center continues to offer innovative summer archaeological training programs for youth (http://www.caa-archeology.org).
With the success of the training programs at the Koster site, other archaeologists experimented with archaeological training for younger students. These early programs often focused on involving students in half-day or full-day programs. Some offered 1-week summer field programs. Students participated in excavations, which could involve work on a mock dig, excavation through backfill, or excavation through the twentieth century levels of a site. By the twenty-first century, many of the 1-day youth training programs shifted emphasis away from fieldwork and now include laboratory and library work, experiential work such as flint knapping and making pottery, classroom lecture/discussions, and visiting sites. Fieldwork opportunities are often limited to highly supervised excavations, usually as 1-week summer programs. In all the successful programs archaeologists partnered with educators to insure that the program was age appropriate and that the archaeological material fit into the education curriculum.
While archaeology rarely appears in state or provincial educational requirements, archaeologist have partnered with educators to bring archaeology into the classroom. Scott McLaughlin (2009: 69) notes that archaeology “can be used as a tool to extend the primary and secondary grade school student’s critical thinking power and knowledge about the past.” Films such as, The Turtle Stone: The Legacy of Abbott Farm with an accompanying teacher’s guide, present local heritage and archaeology to elementary school students (NJ Dept. of Transportation 1996). Short paperback books written specifically for high school students bring archaeological discoveries to a younger audience (Bartlett et al. 1986). The Archaeology Educational Handbook: Sharing the Past with Kids (Smardz and Smith 2000) provides diverse examples for teachers who want to integrate archaeology into their curriculum. In North American public schools the focus in science education is on inquiry-based instruction and archaeology lends itself to that type of inquiry format (Moe 2004: 177). But an equally important education connection is between archaeology and the social studies curriculum. Interdisciplinary partnerships, the link between archaeologists and educators, are the key to successful programs. The following discussion provides some examples of successful archaeology programs for young students and some weaknesses of terminated programs.
In 1983, archaeologist Gaynell Stone and the Suffolk County Archeological Association (SCAA) in Long Island, New York, established a program to introduce elementary school students to the rich archaeological heritage of New York (Stone 2007). The SCAA programs have been designed with a lot of input from local teachers and from an advisory board of public school principals and superintendents, and as a result the SCAA’s programs fit into the criteria for New York State Curriculum for fourth-grade students and meet 90% of New York State’s learning standards (Stone 2007: 285). Because the program meets all of these educational standards it has not suffered during economic recessions when school districts have had to decrease their school trips and the program continues to serve about 10,000 students per year (Stone, personal communication, 2009). Their fall programs on Native American life are run at Hoyt Farm Park with its “please touch” museum exhibits and the spring programs on Colonial Life programs are run at nearby Blydenburgh County Park with its historic structures including the Blydenburgh house (Stone 2007: 286–292). The SCAA program’s success has been because of its interdisciplinary approach of combining history, archaeology, art, natural resources, and material culture into enjoyable diverse hands-on lessons during an all-day program. Only 30 min of the day is devoted to actual fieldwork. Time is involved in training students in fieldwork with an opportunity to participate in an excavation and to carefully measure and record any artifacts that they find (Stone 2007: 285). Students and teachers are brought to the park by school buses. The SCAA also provides educational kits so that the teachers can introduce the students to the topics and do follow-up lessons after the site visit. In addition to the daylong programs, the SCAA also offers weeklong summer archaeological field programs involving field, laboratory, and library research (Stone 2007: 293). While only a few of these students will go on to careers in archaeology, the SCAA programs are creating an interest in history, archaeology, and community heritage.
From 1985 to 1994, the Archaeological Resource Center (A.R.C.) of Toronto, which was funded by the Toronto Board of Education, introduced 12,000 students a year to Canadian archaeology (Smardz 1997: 105–106). Every year the seven staff members ran a 6-month excavation of a site in Toronto with half day and day-long programs for elementary school children with two 6-week summer archaeological field schools for high school students (Smardz 1991: 140–141). Each year a different site was chosen in order to involve different Toronto communities in the excavation. The staff also provided classroom programs to promote an interest and pride in heritage among Toronto’s large immigrant population (Smardz 1997: 109–111). It was an ambitious program. However, the excavations required additional staff time for excavation of sensitive areas of a site, curation of the artifacts, and writing of professional site reports (work that must be done by professional archaeologists) and it was time that took staff away from working with students (Doroszenko 2009, personal communication). The necessary time spent on professional reports could have been viewed by educational administrators as not connected with the teaching services they are funding. During economic downturns nonessential educational programs are cut from education budgets, such as art, music, and archaeology. In 1994, the Board of Education could no longer fund the program and the Archaeological Resource Center closed down (Doroszenko 2007: 266). Karolyn Smardz Frost, Director of the Toronto Program, later recognized that there is an economic danger in having an archaeological public education program solely dependent on education department funding (Smardz Frost 2004: 62).
Other innovative programs have survived by not being dependent on one source of funding, undertaking serious cost–benefit analyses, and deciding what type of meaningful programs they can afford to deliver. If they deliver expensive programs, then they find additional funding sources beyond just the registration fees for the courses. The Ontario Heritage Trust, a provincial agency, has taken a fiscally sound approach to providing archaeologically educational programs for youth. They provide programs for school children throughout Ontario but on a much smaller scale than Toronto’s Archaeological Resource Center. Since 1990, archaeological excavations throughout the province (run by Ontario Heritage Trust) have been opened to school tours and starting in 2002 they have run a 2-week summer archaeological camp (Doroszenko 2007: 272–274). The excavations are all on Trust properties that contain historic houses (Fig. 7.3). The house museums are open to the public so it is easy to integrate lessons on historic preservation and heritage. The summer camp program provides field and lab work combined with lessons on local history, architecture, and material culture (Doroszenko 2007: 274–276). The Trust programs for children have lessons that are age appropriate in terms of concepts, time appropriate in terms of the children’s attention span. They try to “give the children an understanding of ‘context’ and how important that concept is to archaeology” (Doroszenko 2007: 277). But also the archaeologists remember that archaeology is enjoyable and that a program for children can be fun as well as educational. The Trust experimented with half-day and full-day school programs at archaeological sites, similar to the Toronto program, but found that while they reached a wide audience they were the most expensive programs to deliver (Doroszenko 2007: 274). In evaluating the success of the day programs versus the week-long summer camps, the Trust found that “the summer camp programs are more cost recoverable and provide children with exposure over a longer period of time to the philosophy of conservation and preservation that is inherent in our mandate as a heritage organization” (Doroszenko 2007: 274). The summer programs involve primarily seasonal staff archaeologists with one permanent Trust archaeologist supervising the programs (Doroszenko 2009, personal communication). The Trust has tried to provide opportunities for poorer children to participate in the programs by finding grants or corporate sponsors to help fund some of the costs of running the summer camp (Doroszenko 2009, personal communication). The end result is a program that reaches students from diverse socio-economic backgrounds.
Perhaps the most publicized archaeological program for children is the Center for Archaeology in the Baltimore County Public Schools in Maryland. Baltimore has the 22nd largest public school system in the USA and it has been funding the Center for Archaeology since 1987 (Jeppson and Brauer 2007: 231–232). The program has received numerous grants and awards for its innovative work in connecting archaeology to the social studies curriculum including the Society for American Archaeology’s award for Excellence in Public Education in 2001 (Jeppson and Brauer 2007: 233). Their program annually introduces 7,000 third-grade students to archaeology (Jeppson and Brauer 2003: 83). The Center provides learning aids for the classroom teachers, classroom activities, and opportunities to visit a real archaeological site owned by Baltimore County Parks Department. From 1985 to 1995, the Center ran an archaeological, preservation, and museum-focused program for high school and middle school students. The students under careful supervision excavated a nineteenth century tenant house, cleaned and catalogued the artifacts, undertook library research on the site, designed museum exhibits on the site, and also photographed and videotaped their work (Jeppson and Brauer 2003: 88). Using all the information gathered from the archaeology program, students in industrial arts courses re-pointed the foundation stones and reconstructed the building, which serves as the Peter Goff Tenant House Museum for the Center (Jeppson and Brauer 2003: 88–89). This program integrated teachers from art, communication, industrial arts, and social studies and exposed students from a variety of programs to archaeology, preservation, and local history. The program taught concepts of stewardship and demonstrated the roles the students could play in protecting and interpreting community history.
There are many other excellent archaeological training programs for children in both Canada and the USA, such as the Cataraqui Archaeological Research Foundation in Kingston, Ontario (Bazely 2009); Lost Towns Project in Anne Arundel County, Maryland (Noel Hume 2005); and the Community Archaeology Program for Kids run by the Public Archaeology Facility at Binghamton University in Binghamton, New York (Versaggi 2007). These experiential archaeology programs nurture an interest in archaeology and community history in both students and teachers. In both Parks Canada and the National Park Service in the USA archaeologists have partnered with teachers to introduce elementary school students to archaeology and heritage studies (Jameson 2004, 2007; Hansen and Fowler 2007). Karolyn Smardz Frost (2004) undertook a survey of North American public archaeology programs with archaeological training for children and found that these programs occur in both public and private agencies, in both nonprofit and for-profit organizations, and in diverse institutions from museums to cultural resource management firms.
Adult Education
Finally, teaching is not just oriented to youth or university students. Innovative educational (noncourse credit) programs for adults involve adults in field and lab work and promote preservation and heritage studies. However, some archaeologists still seem to have a residual fear that adults armed with a better understanding of archaeology will become looters. However, none of the programs providing adult training in archaeology have found that their former students have turned into pothunters. On the contrary, they have found the opposite to be true—former students become grass roots preservationists (Cressey et al. 2003; Versaggi 2007). Stuart Struever in addition to his programs for youth also had archaeology summer programs for adults in both field and laboratory work. The Center for American Archaeology still offers noncredit adult archaeology programs (http://www.caa-archeology.org). In 1983, Struever also helped establish a similar program in the American Southwest called Crow Canyon Archaeological Center in Southern Colorado, near Mesa Verde National Park (Heath 1997: 67). The adults are trained in both field and lab work and the attraction of the program is that the adults can become meaningfully involved in research. Even though the Center is located in a rural area four miles from the small town of Cortez, Colorado, the Center has had no problem in attracting students and there is a 40% return rate (Heath 1997: 67). Just as the Koster site was a multi-year and interdisciplinary research project, Crow Canyon also undertakes long-term research projects on ancestral Pueblo sites. The adults get to work alongside professional archaeologists on sites that have generated doctoral dissertations and master’s theses and the adults involved in continuing education want to contribute to this research (Heath 1997: 70).
The City Archaeology Program in Alexandria, Virginia also trains adults and encourages them to become part of a long-term urban archaeology project. Alexandria was one of the first cities in the USA to establish a city archaeology program and in 1977 Pamela Cressey was hired as its first city archaeologist (Cressey and Anderson 2006: 17, 19). Cressey established a program to train adults in field and lab methods and incorporated the trained public in her urban excavations. “Four City archaeologists and one educator work with 100–200 volunteers each year to conduct research, plan, and preserve resources, operate a museum, provide educational programs, curate the collections, and promote the historic character of the city” (Cressey and Vinton 2007: 395). The volunteers at Alexandria are local residents who are concerned about preserving and protecting their heritage. The Alexandria Archaeology Program not only trains adults in archaeology but also learns from these community members. The community members are from many different professional, economic, and ethnic backgrounds and this interdisciplinary community team work in partnership with the archaeologists on excavations, exhibits, and the preservation of Alexandria’s heritage (Cressey et al. 2003).
In 1996, the Public Archaeology Facility (PAF), a research center at Binghamton University (State University of New York) established the Community Archaeology Program (CAP) as a “partnership with the public in the research, interpretation, and preservation of the cultural heritage in our local communities” (Versaggi 2007: 203–204). The program started out as a CAP program for kids with summer programs similar to the 1-week archaeological summer camps discussed in the previous section. The program expanded to include a CAP for adults. The 4-day CAP training program for adults is connected to the university field school and the participants included local teachers as well as interested community members. The program “provides a way for constituents to become stakeholders, and for stakeholders to experience the hands-on process of archaeology in their communities” (Versaggi 2007: 211). Some of the graduates of the CAP program return to volunteer on other PAF projects. The archaeologists have found that some CAP participants have become active preservationists who have lobbied to protect and preserve local sites (Versaggi 2007: 212). The CAP program is creating new “stewards of the past.” The interaction of archaeologists and the public in the CAP program “creates an informed public, and transforms general constituents into stakeholders armed with information that allows them to evaluate what is significant to them and their communities” (Versaggi 2007: 213).
The premier eighteenth century restored community in Canada is the Fortress of Louisbourg on Cape Breton Island in Nova Scotia. In the 1960s and 1970s, Parks Canada undertook a massive restoration project employing numerous archaeologists, historians, architects, and designers in the restoration (Fry 2004). By the 1990s, archaeological outreach to the public was primarily in the form of exhibits but when a CRM-like excavation was in progress interpretative panels were placed on the barriers separating the public from the on-going excavations (Fry 2007). In the twenty-first century, the archaeological work at Louisbourg has shifted to more active partnering with the public. Every summer Parks Canada runs weeklong field programs for adults (Fortress of Louisbourg 2009). The experiential program combines training in field methods with sessions in material culture and history. The interdisciplinary approach provides the adults with a greater understanding of both archaeology and life in the French colonies in the eighteenth century.
More archaeological adult education training programs appear each year as archaeologists realize that an informed public will be the best partners for the preservation of heritage sites. Some state and provincial archaeological societies are engaging and training avocational archaeologists to work in partnership with professional archaeologists in both excavation projects and preservation efforts. Some nonprofit private organizations in both Canada and the USA provide field and lab training for adults and some of the adults end up providing much need volunteer labor on community excavations. Some examples of these collaborative projects are: the Jamestown Rediscovery Project in Virginia (APVA 1997; Kelso 2006); the Kingston Archaeology Program run by the Cataraqui Archaeological Research Foundation in Kingston, Ontario (Basely 2009) and programs run by the nonprofit organization Artefactuel in Quebec City, Quebec (Gaudreau et al. 2009). In the adult training programs, archaeologists have found that by involving community members in their own heritage that you help create grass roots preservationists.
Conclusions
For many decades archaeology was an inward looking profession, that is, archaeologists presented their work to their colleagues in conference papers and publications. Archaeological sites were closed to the public. But a dramatic shift has taken place in North American archaeology with some archaeologists engaged in community outreach programs. The goal of this chapter has been to discuss the diverse ways North American archaeologists have been providing archaeological training to a broad audience from children to senior citizens. The directors of the North American projects have been busy experimenting with teaching innovations over the years. This chapter has highlighted just a fraction of the innovative programs. Karolyn Smardz Frost (2004: 59) notes her informal Internet request for information on public education programs resulted in 122 e-mails describing North American programs that provide archaeological education to children and/or adults. Many more programs probably exist but are known only on locally.
Archaeologists involved in these programs realize that community members are stakeholders in protecting the past. Education is an effective way to reach these current and future stakeholders, even if some of them are only 9 years old. Working with children enables archaeologists to bring the excitement of discovery, the love of history, and the pride in heritage to a broad audience. While only a very small percent of the children will choose archaeology as a career path, many may grow up with an interest in archaeology, history, historical museums, and restoration centers. The adults involved in the experiential education also enjoy the joys of discovery whether in the field or the lab and some of the adult students become active in preserving their own community’s cultural resources. Service learning trains students in method and theory but also promotes the values of pubic archaeology, civic engagement, and ethics. Service learning also challenges academic archaeologists to move beyond a hierarchical and elitist model of research to one incorporating interdisciplinary research and community-based research.
These diverse educational programs demonstrate what can be accomplished when archaeologists are willing think outside the box and experiment with new approaches to archaeological education. The archaeologists involved in these programs have been willing to learn from community members and their colleagues in other fields, such as, history, education, and museum studies. All of these innovative programs provide excellent examples of what we are capable of accomplishing.
References
APVA. (1997). Jamestown Rediscovery. A film produced by APVA for the History Channel.
Bartlett, M. H., Kolaz, T. M., & Gregory, D. A. (1986). Archaeology in the city: A Hohokam village in Phoenix, Arizona. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.
Baugher, S. (2000). Service-learning and community history: Archaeological excavation, historical documentation, and oral history. In T. A. O’Connor & L. J. Vargas-Mendez (Eds.), Working paper series on service-learning (Vol. 3, pp. 7–12). Ithaca, NY: Public Service Center, Cornell University.
Baugher, S. (2005). Sacredness, sensitivity, and significance: The controversy over Native American sacred sites. In C. Mathers, T. Darvill, & B. Little (Eds.), Heritage of value, archaeology of renown: Reshaping archaeological assessment and significance (pp. 248–275). Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida.
Baugher, S. (2007a). Service-learning: Partnering with the public as a component of archaeology courses. In J. H. Jameson Jr. & S. Baugher (Eds.), Past meets present: Archaeologists partnering with museum curators, teachers, and community groups (pp. 187–202). New York: Springer.
Baugher, S. (2007b). New York Odyssey: Forging partnerships in American archaeological outreach. Northeast Anthropologist, 73, 43–60.
Baugher, S. (2009). Benefits of and barriers to archaeological service learning: Examples from New York. In M. Nassaney & M. A. Levine (Eds.), Archaeological practice and community service learning (pp. 36–58). Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Press.
Baugher, S., & Frantz, G. (1998). A service-learning model in archaeology: A partnership between university archaeologists, municipal planners, and Native Americans. In R. M. Bounous (Ed.), Working paper series on service-learning (Vol. 1, pp. 19–28). Ithaca, NY: Public Service Center, Cornell University.
Bazely, S. M. (2009). Bringing archaeology to the public: A Kingston perspective. Paper presented at the Council for Northeast Historical Archaeology Meetings in Quebec City, QC.
Bender, S. J., & Smith, G. S. (Eds.). (2000). Teaching archaeology in the twentieth-first century. Washington, DC: Society for Historical Archaeology.
Bringle, R. G., Games, R., & Malloy, R. E. (Eds.). (1999). Colleges and universities as citizens. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Cantwell, A., & Wall, D. (2001). Unearthing Gotham: The archaeology of New York City. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Cressey, P. J., & Anderson, M. J. (2006). Alexandria, Virginia. New York: Oxford University Press.
Cressey, P. J., Reeder, R., & Bryson, J. (2003). Held in trust: Community archaeology in Alexandria, Virginia. In L. Derry & M. Malloy (Eds.), Archaeologist and local communities: Partners in exploring the past (pp. 1–17). Washington, DC: Society for American Archaeology.
Cressey, P. J., & Vinton, N. (2007). Smart planning and innovative public outreach: The quintessential mix for the future of archaeology. In J. H. Jameson Jr. & S. Baugher (Eds.), Past meets present: Archaeologists partnering with museum curators, teachers, and community groups (pp. 393–410). New York: Springer.
Crews, R. J. (2002). Higher education service-learning sourcebook. Westport, CT: Oryx.
De Cunzo, L. A., & Jameson, J. H., Jr. (Eds.). (2005). Unlocking the past: Celebrating historical archaeology in North America. Gainesville, FL: The Society for Historical Archaeology and the University of Florida Press.
Derry, L., & Malloy, M. (Eds.). (2003). Archaeologist and local communities: Partners in exploring the past. Washington, DC: Society for American Archaeology.
Desjardins, P., & Duguay G. (1992). Pointe-a-Calliere: From Ville-Marie to Montreal (K. Roth, Trans.). Sillery, QC: Septentrion.
Doroszenko, D. (2007). Adventures in archaeology at the Ontario Heritage Trust. In J. H. Jameson Jr. & S. Baugher (Eds.), Past meets present: Archaeologists partnering with museum curators, teachers, and community groups (pp. 265–279). New York: Springer.
Fagan, B. (2000). The Arrogant archaeologist. In M. J. Lynott & A. Wylie (Eds.), Ethics in American archaeology (2nd revised ed., pp. 100–101). Washington, DC: Society for American Archaeology.
Fortress of Louisbourg. (2009). Archaeology at Louisbourg. Accessed December 13, 2009, from http://fortressoflouisbourg.ca/ArchaeologyE/SiteInformation.html.
Fry, B. (2004). Designing the past at Fortress Louisbourg. In J. H. Jameson Jr. (Ed.), Reconstructing the past (pp. 201–214). Walnut Grove, CA: AltaMira.
Fry, B. (2007). Reaching out to the bureaucracy and beyond: Archaeology at Louisbourg and Parks Canada. In J. H. Jameson Jr. & S. Baugher (Eds.), Past meets present: Archaeologists partnering with museum curators, teachers, and community groups (pp. 19–33). New York: Springer.
Gaudreau, N., Arpin, C., Eid, P., & Gilbert, L. (2009). Digging with the public at La Grande-Ferme. Paper presented at the Council for Northeast Historical Archaeology conference in Quebec City, QC.
Greenwood, D. J., & Levin, M. (2007). Introduction to action research: Social research for social change (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hansen, D., & Fowler, J. (2007). Protect and present – Parks Canada and public archaeology in Atlantic Canada. In J. H. Jameson Jr. & S. Baugher (Eds.), Past meets present: Archaeologists partnering with museum curators, teachers, and community groups (pp. 321–338). New York: Springer.
Harrington, S. P. M. (1993). Bones and bureaucrats: New York’s great cemetery imbroglio. Archaeology, 16(2), 28–38.
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 (pp. 65–72). Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira.
Herscher, E., & McManamon, F. P. (2000). Public education and outreach: The obligation to educate. In M. J. Lynott & A. Wylie (Eds.), Ethics in American archaeology (2nd revised ed., pp. 49–51). Washington, DC: Society for American Archaeology.
Jacoby, B., & Associates (Eds.). (2003). Building partnerships for service-learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Jameson, J. H., Jr. (Ed.). (1997). Presenting archaeology to the public: Digging for truths. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.
Jameson, J. H., Jr. (Ed.). (1999). Archaeology and the national park idea: Challenges for management and interpretation. The George Wright Forum, 16(4), 28–37.
Jameson, J. H., Jr. (2004). Public archaeology in the United States. In N. Merriman (Ed.), Public archaeology (pp. 21–58). London: Routledge.
Jameson, J. H., Jr. (2007). Making connections through archaeology: Partnering with communities and teachers in the National Park Service. In J. H. Jameson Jr. & S. Baugher (Eds.), Past meets present: Archaeologists partnering with museum curators, teachers, and community groups (pp. 339–365). New York: Springer.
Jameson, J. H., Jr., & Baugher, S. (2007a). Public interpretation, outreach, and partnering: An introduction. In J. H. Jameson Jr. & S. Baugher (Eds.), Past meets present: Archaeologists partnering with museum curators, teachers, and community groups (pp. 3–18). New York: Springer.
Jameson, J. H., Jr., & Baugher, S. (Eds.). (2007b). Past meets present: Archaeologists partnering with museum curators, teachers, and community groups. New York: Springer.
Jeppson, P. L., & Brauer, G. (2003). Hey, did you hear about the teacher who took the class out to dig a site? Some common misconceptions about archaeology in schools. In L. Derry & M. Malloy (Eds.), Archaeologist and local communities: Partners in exploring the past (pp. 77–96). Washington, DC: Society for American Archaeology.
Jeppson, P. L., & Brauer, G. (2007). Archaeology for education needs: An archaeologist and an educator discuss archaeology in the Baltimore County public schools. In J. H. Jameson Jr. & S. Baugher (Eds.), Past meets present: Archaeologists partnering with museum curators, teachers, and community groups (pp. 231–248). New York: Springer.
Kelso, W. A. (2006). Jamestown: The buried truth. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press.
Knecht, R. (2003). Tapping into a sense of wonder: Community archaeology and museum building in the Aleutian Islands. In L. Derry & M. Malloy (Eds.), Archaeologist and local communities: Partners in exploring the past (pp. 97–109). Washington, DC: Society for American Archaeology.
La Roche, C. J., & Blakey, M. L. (1997). Seizing intellectual power: The dialogue at the New York African Burial Ground. Historical Archaeology, 31(3), 84–106.
Levine, M. A., Britt, K., & Delle, J. A. (2005). Heritage tourism and community outreach: Public archaeology at the Thaddeus Stevens and the Lydia Hamilton Smith Site in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 11(5), 399–414.
Levine, M. A., & Delle, J. A. (2009). Archaeology and community service at the Thaddeus Stevens and the Lydia Hamilton Smith Site, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. In M. Nassaney & M. A. Levine (Eds.), Archaeological practice and community service learning (pp. 83–109). Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Press.
Little, B. J. (Ed.). (2002). Public benefits of archaeology. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida.
Liu, G. (1999). Foreword. In T. K. Stanton, D. E. Giles Jr., & N. I. Cruz (Eds.), Service-learning: A movement’s pioneer’s reflect on its origins, practice, and future (pp. xi–xiv). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lounsbury, M., & Routt, D. (2000). Negotiating course boundaries: Service-learning as critical engagement. In T. A. O’Connor & L. J. Vargas-Mendez (Eds.), Working paper series on service-learning (Vol. 3, pp. 27–33). Ithaca, NY: Public Service Center, Cornell University.
Lynott, M. J., & Wylie, A. (Eds.). (2000). Ethics in American archaeology (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Society for American Archaeology.
Macfarlane, B. (2007). The academic citizen: The virtue of service in university life. London: Routledge.
McLaughlin, S. A. (2009). Developing an archaeology service-learning course. In M. Nassaney & M. A. Levine (Eds.), Archaeological practice and community service learning (pp. 59–79). Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Press.
Merriman, N. (Ed.). (2004). Public archaeology. New York: Routledge.
Messenger, P. M. (Ed.). (1989). The ethics of collecting cultural property: Whose culture? whose property? Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press.
Mihesuah, D. A. (Ed.). (2000). Repatriation reader: Who owns American Indian remains? Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Moe, J. M. (2004). Project archaeology: Putting the intrigue of the past into public education. In B. J. Little (Ed.), Public benefits of archaeology (pp. 176–186). Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida.
Nassaney, M. S. (2004). Implementing community service learning through archaeological practice. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 10(3), 89–99.
Nassaney, M. S. (2009). The reform of archaeological pedagogy and practice through community service learning. In M. S. Nassaney & M. A. Levine (Eds.), Archaeological practice and community service learning (pp. 3–35). Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Press.
Nassaney, M. S., & Levine, M. A. (Eds.). (2009). Archaeology and community service learning. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida.
New Jersey Department of Transportation. (1996). The turtle stone: The legacy of Abbott Farm. Video and teacher’s study guide distributed by NJN Video, Trenton, NJ.
Noel Hume, I. (2005). In search of lost towns: A Maryland Adventure. Something from the cellar: More of this and that. Selected essays from the Colonial Williamsburg Journal by Ivor Noel Hume (pp. 41–44). Williamsburg, VA: Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
Nyden, P. (2003). Partnerships for collaborative action research. In B. Jacoby (Ed.), Building partnerships for service-learning (pp. 213–233). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Price, H. M., III. (1991). Disputing the dead: U.S. law on aboriginal remains and grave goods. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press.
Shackel, P. A., & Chambers, E. (Eds.). (2004). Places in mind: Archaeology as applied anthropology. New York: Routledge.
Sigmon, R. L. (1999). Appendix B: An organizational journey to service-learning. In T. K. Stanton, D. E. Giles Jr., N. I. Cruz, T. K. Stanton, D. E. Giles Jr., & N. I. Cruz (Eds.), Service-learning: A movement’s pioneers reflect on its origins, practice, and future (pp. 249–258). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Smardz, K. E. (1991). Teaching people to touch the past: Archaeology in the Toronto School System. In G. S. Smith & J. E. Ehrenhard (Eds.), Protecting the past (pp. 135–142). Boca Raton, FL: CRC.
Smardz, K. E. (1997). The past through tomorrow: Interpreting Toronto’s heritage to a multicultural public. In J. H. Jameson Jr. (Ed.), Presenting archaeology to the public: Digging for truths (pp. 101–113). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.
Smardz Frost, K. E. (2004). Archaeology and public education in North America: View from the beginning of the millennium. In N. Merriman (Ed.), Public archaeology (pp. 59–84). London: Routledge.
Smardz, K. E., & Smith, S. J. (Eds.). (2000). The archaeology education handbook: Sharing the past with kids. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
Stanton, T. K., Giles, D. E., Jr., & Cruz, N. I. (1999). Service-learning: A movement’s pioneers reflect on its origins, practice, and future. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Stone, G. (2007). Excavating the past: 20 years of archaeology with Long Island, NY students. In J. H. Jameson Jr. & S. Baugher (Eds.), Past meets present: Archaeologists partnering with museum curators, teachers, and community groups (pp. 281–298). New York: Springer.
Struever, S., & Holton, F. A. (1979). Koster: Americans in search of their prehistoric past. New York: New American Library.
Swidler, N., Dongoske, K. E., Anyon, R., & Downer, A. S. (1997). Native Americans and archaeologists: Stepping stones to common ground. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.
Thomas, D. H. (2000). Skull wars: Kennewick man, archaeology, and the battle for Native American identity. New York: Basic.
Vecsey, C. (Ed.). (1991). Handbook of American Indian religious freedom. New York: Crossroad.
Venables, R. W. (1984). Co-opting culture. Parabola, 9(2), 67–71.
Versaggi, N. (2007). Partners in preservation: The Binghamton University Community Archaeology Program. In J. H. Jameson Jr. & S. Baugher (Eds.), Past meets present: Archaeologists partnering with museum curators, teachers, and community groups (pp. 203–216). New York: Springer.
Watkins, J. (2000). Indigenous archaeology: American Indian values and scientific practice. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.
Watkins, J. (2003). Archaeological ethics and American Indians. In L. J. Zimmerman, K. D. Vitelli, & J. Hollowell-Zimmer (Eds.), Ethical issues in archaeology (pp. 129–141). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.
Whyte, W. F. (Ed.). (1991). Participatory action research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Yamin, R. (2008). Digging in the city of brotherly love: Stories from Philadelphia archaeology. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Zimmerman, L. J., Vitelli, K. D., & Hollowell-Zimmer, J. (Eds.). (2003). Ethical issues in archaeology. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.
Zlotkowski, E. (1999). Pedagogy and engagement. In R. C. Bringle, R. Games, & E. A. Malloy (Eds.), Colleges and universities as citizens (pp. 96–120). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Baugher, S. (2013). Confirming Relevance: How American and Canadian Archaeologists Are Training Youth and Adults in Archaeology, Heritage Studies, and Community Partnerships. In: Jameson, J., Eogan, J. (eds) Training and Practice for Modern Day Archaeologists. One World Archaeology, vol 1. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5529-5_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5529-5_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-5528-8
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-5529-5
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)