sec3ecz
a
c
|

° !
1 Op — -—- — +
m4

R ‘
°
8 oft —-_--— --4
P
°
n
*

wt -- —--4
°
*

ol —- - SH —- —

A Bo c bp &€ F oO HW 1
Type of Workshop
GE Exceticn
Type of workshop: whual Univeral
SSS Good tegisirath isplays jarbage Can Archaeology
it B: Inroductory Slide Lecture rowel I

nee C: Sirwulating Prehistoric Pottery 1: Cultural History Mystery
CH Pow D: Dating Methods Local Archacology/Laws

Figure 4. Teacher Evaluations of workshops.

seck out additional information before using them. The
content and organization of the workshop are dynamic, and
we are continually trying to respond to comments and
suggestions from the participants,

We initially charged $5 to cover the cost of the packet of
materials we distribute at the workshop, but we have been
able to raise our tuition fees to $20 without any complaints of
gouging. That income and the money from book sales
typically cover our costs, which are averaging $300 to $400
per workshop. All labor is volunteered, and we have
managed to use rent-free facilities, overcome liability
insurance issues, and subsidize much of our cost for sending
out announcements and registration forms through “our
members’ institutions. The enterprise clearly has the
potential of being virtually self-sustaining--as long as the
volunteer efforts and cooperation hold out.

Future Challenges

During our first year of workshops, about 100 teachers
Participated. At that rate, it will take us only 200 years to
indoctrinate every teacher in Arizonal Although that is a
short time by archeological chronologies, it is a daunting
challenge in real time, even if many teachers who attend our
workshop in turn introduce several of their colleagues to
archeology. But we are not working alone in Arizona.
Spin-off workshops by other organizations are being
developed, and numerous public outreach programs are being
pursued throughout the state (Rogge 1988).

We know other groups in other states are out there working
towards goals similar to those we are pursuing. We suspect
that some national coordination of these grass-root efforts
might be useful, and there are several candidate organizations
or institutions that might provide national leadership. We call
particular attention to the Smithsonian's program of teacher
support and its publication of Anthro Notes, which seems to
us to be a very viable mechanism for building a strong
national network. Whoever takes on the job will need
funding as well as continuing volunteer efforts. We would
point to Project WILD as a successful model to emulate
(WREEC 1988). The result of a three-year cooperative effort
by state education and wildlife agencies and other environ-
mental organizations throughout the West, Project WILD
distributes an impressive set of supplemental curriculum
materials that focus on the importance of natural resources,
We believe that our cultural resources warrant as much effort,

Despite all the challenges of educating the general public
about archeology, we remain optimistic that people's inherent
interest in archeology is on our side and that the heightening
environmental awareness of the general public will continue
lo spread to cultural resources. From the perspective of
archeologists in A.D. 2050, the educational efforts we initiate
in our public school systems today are likely to be seen as a
crucial factor in determining the condition of our cultural
resources in the next century.

Note
Committee members who contributed substantially to the
development of the workshop materials include teachers Donna
Benge, Jeanne Miller and Jean Cross (retired); Arizona State Museum
staff members Charles Adams, Rich Lange and Shurban; teaching
consultant Barbara Gronemann; and Federal archeologist. Penny
Rucks.

References Cited

Archaeological Institute of America
1989 Archaeology. January/February.

Bruner, Jerome

1963 ‘The Process of Education. Vintage Books, New York.

Carroll, Rives Fowlkes

1987 Schoolyard Archaeology. Social Studies 78: 69-75.



MISSOURI

Culture Vulture--An Exploration into Culture and North American Prehistoric Peoples by Sheila
Morrow and Eleanor Casebolt, 1984. For grades 6-8. Contact: Kansas Clty Parks & Recrea-
tion, Line Creek Museum, Kansas City, Missourl 64151.

SOUTH DAKOTA

Young People's Guide to South Dakota Archaeology, Ancient Peoples and Places of South
Dakota; and South Dakota Archaeology Educational Series, 1982. For grades K-12. Contact:
Department of Anthropology, University of South Dakota, Vermillion, South Dakota 57069.

TEXAS

The Indian Years, Living with the Texas Past Series, No. 1, 1983. Contact: Texas Historical
Commission, Office of the State Archaeologist, P.O. Box 12276, Austin, Texas 78711.

VERMONT

A Teacher's Guide to 12,000 Years of Vermont's Past compiled by Lauren Kelley Parren, 1987,
and Teachers Resource List by Giovanna Peebles, 1985. Contact: State Archaeologist,
Division for Historic Preservation, 58 E State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602.

VIRGINIA
Archaeology/Waliney by Michael Harrison, 1984. Historical archeology for grades 7-12, teacher's
guide. Contact: Fairfax County Park Authority, 3701 Pender Drive, Fairfax, Virginia 22030.

OTHERS

Anthro Notes, a National Museum of Natural History Newsletter for Teachers, published three
times a year, free-of-charge. Contact: P. Ann Kaupp, Public information Office, Department
of Anthropology, Stop 112, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20560.

Teaching Anthropology Newsletter is published twice a year to promote precollege teaching of
anthropology, free-of-charge. Contact: Department of Anthropology, Saint Mary's University,
Halifax, Nova Scotla, Canada B3H 3C3.

LEAP (Listing of Education in Archeology Projects), a clearinghouse established by the Ar-
cheological Assistance Division to provide information about Federal and non-Federal public
awareness products, i.e., posters, brochures, publications, news releases, videos, television
segments, exhibits and displays, and volunteer programs. Information about Federal and
non-Federal curriculum materials is welcomed. Contact: George Smith, Archeological Assis-
tance Division, National Park Service, P.O. Box 37127, Washington, DC 37127-7127.

Heritage Education Quarterly, a national publication for teachers, planners, preservationists,
educators, museums, and civic groups. Provides project information in heritage education
programs for children and adults, case studies, and lesson plans. Contact: The Preservation
Library and Resource Center, 498 Smith Main Street, Madison, Georgia 30650.

Crow Canyon Archaeological Center has teachers’ workshops, a high school field school, elemen-
tary and junior high student programs, and adult seminars. Contact: Crow Canyon Ar-
chaeological Center, 23390 County Road K, Cortez, Colorado 81321.

Toronto's Archaeological Resource Centre annually introduces some 12,000 precollege students
to archeology. Contact: Karolyn E. Smardz, Manager, c/o Danforth Technical School, Room
A4, 840 Greenwood Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M4J 4B7.



ARCHAEOLOGY
Stratigraphy
Sciences/Social Studies

BACKGROUND:

OBJECTIVES:

TIME:

MATERIALS:

VOCABULARY:

GARBAGE CAN ARCHAEOLOGY

Prehistoric peoples did not have garbage cans in which to throw _ their
garbage, nor did they have garbage pick-up each week. They threw their garbage in
heaps, or into holes such as pits or houses, or just on the ground surface. Historic people
also left trash, just as we do in the modern world. Some archaeologists study historic and
modern trash to learn more about how to interpret prehistoric trash and to compare what
people say they use and throw out to what they actually use and discard (sometimes.
called garbology, in fun).

The term stratigraphy (struh-TEEG-ruh-fee) refers to the interpretation of the layers of
Past cultural deposits. Those artifacts found on top are usually the youngest (most
recent), those on the bottom are the oldest. The garbage dump is one of the areas in a
site where the archaeologist uses stratigraphy. If the layers are disturbed and mixed up
as a result of vandalism, the interpretation is not possible. The layers used for interpreta-
tion are determined by the natural soil layers or may be arbitrarily defined by the ar-
chaeologist. By examining and analyzing the layers or dumping episodes and the artifacts
in them, archaeologists can learn how past peoples lived and what their activities were.

1. The students will demonstrate that they know
the principle of stratigraphy by relating that the
material at the bottom of the basket was thrown in
first.

2. The students will interpret materials found in
several wastebaskets and categorize the materi-
als according to room origin.

1 hour

Two or more wastebaskets from the school (or *
optionally from home) filled with trash. The
teacher should select wastebaskets from rooms
that will show clearcut, interpretable differences.
Wastebaskets from a classroom or two could be
contrasted with ones from the cafeteria, gym-
nasium, library, and offices.

Stratigraphy -- The vertical relationships of
deposits in an archaeological site. These
deposits may be natural or cultural. Cultural
material found in stratified deposits can be dated
in relation to one another on the basis of their
location in a stratified column.

Provenience -- Where an artifact or feature is
found.


Catalina, Lynn S.
1983. Digging into Hometown History. Cobblestone Magazine. June 4:10-13.

Cawelti, Gordon and Janice Adkisson
1985 ASCD Study Reveals Elementary School Time Allocations for Subject Areas: Other Trends Noted. ASCD
Curriculum Update 85. April. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria,
Virginia.
Clark, Barbara
1986 Optimizing Learning: The Integrative Education Model in the Classroom. Merrill, Columbus, Ohio.

Cotter, John L.
1979 Archaeologists of the Future: High Schools Discover Archaeology. Archaeology. January/February; 29-35,

Dyer, James.
1983 Teaching Archaeology in Schools. Shire, United Kingdom,

Holm, Karen Ann and Patricia J. Higgins (editors)
1985 Archeology and Education: A Successful Combination for PreCollegiate Students. Anthropology Curriculum
Project, University of Georgia, Athens.

Kehoe, Alice B.
1988 _In Fourtcen Hundred and Ninety-Two, Columbus Sailed. . .: The Primacy of the National Myth in American

Schools. In The Excluded Past-Archaeology in Education, edited by Peter Stone. Unwin Hyman Lid.,
London, in press.

Dig 2. Interaction, Lakeside, California.

Macaulay David.
1979 Motel of the Mysteries, Houghton Mifflin, Boston.

Onderdonk, Richard
1986 Piaget and Archaeology. Archaeology. November/December: 80.

Passe, J. and M. Passe
1985 Archaeology: A Unit to Promote Thinking Skills. Social Studies 76:238-239,

Rice, Marion J.
1986 Curriculum Artifacts: The Remains of Three Anthropology Projects. Practicing Anthropology 8(3-4): 6, 19.

Rogge, A.E. and Pati Bell
1988 Teaching Teachers to Teach with Archaeology. In Fighting Indiana Jones in Arizona, edited by A. E. Rogge,
pp. 69-74. American Society for Conservation Archaeology, 1988 Proceedings. Agency for Conservation
Archaeology, Easter New Mexico University, Portales.

Rogge, A.B. (editor)
1988 Fighting Indiana Jones in Arizona. American Society for Conservation Archaeology, 1988 Proceedings.
Agency for Conservation Archaeology, Eastern New Mexico University, Portales.

Selig, Ruth Osterweis and Patricia J. Higgins (guest editors)
1986 Practicing Anthropology in Precollege Education. Practicing Anthropology 8(3-4).

Watts, Lou Ellen
1985 They Dig Archaeology. Science and Children. September 23: 5-9.

Western Regional Environmental Education Council
1988 An Introduction to Project WILD. Project WILD, P. O. Box 18060, Boulder, Colorado.

Wonder, J. and P. Donovan
1984 Whole Brain Thinking. Mortow, New York.

Technical Briefs are designed and produced by the Departmental Consulting Archeologist and the Archeological Assistance
Division of the National Park Service. The serles’ editors are Francis P. McManamon and Richard C, Waldbauer. The
graphic designer ts Juliette G. Tahar. The editor for Technical Brief No. 4 Is Veletta Canouts. Submit comments, toplcs for
future briefs, and requests for coples to: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Archeological Assistance
Diviston, P.O. Box 37127, Washington, DC 20013-7127.



ADDITIONAL READINGS AND CURRICULUM MATERIALS

This sampler contains a selection of readings, curriculum materials, and other educational
Programs that have been brought to our attention. Interested readers should contact their local
cultural organizations such as museums, heritage centers, and archeological societies for further
assistance.

ALBERTA, CANADA
First Albertans Project, 1987. For grades K-12. Contact: Archaeological Survey of Alberta,
Historical Resources Division, Alberta Culture, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2P8.

ARIZONA

Archaeology Is More Than a Dig by Jodi Simmons, Larry Tanner, Sharon Urban, and Lou Ellen
Watts, 1985. Teachers’ Manual and Workbook for grades 3-6 and adaptable for all grades, cost
$25.00. Contact: Carol Ellick, Camp Cooper, Tucson Unified School District, P.0. Box
40400, Tucson, Arizona 85717-0400.

Teachers’ Packet of classroom activities and information about Arizona archaeology, cost $6.00.
Contact: Shurban, Arizona Archaeological Council, Archaeology for the Schools Com-
mittee, Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721.

from teachers:

Exploring Archaeology--10 Week Science Unit, grade 5, 20 pp. and Protection of Archaeological
Sites, activities for K-8, 40 pp. Contact: Patti Bell, 8845 Pine Valley Drive, Tucson, Arizona
85710.

Introduction to Archaeology, unit for gifted upper elementary students. Contact: Jeanne Miller,
1334 W Temple, Chandler, Arizona 85224.

GEORGIA

Frontiers in the Soil: The Archaeology of Georgia by Dickens, Roy S., Jr. and James L. McKinley,
1979. Cost $10.00 plus postage. Contact: Frontiers Publishing Company, P.O. Box 3474,

La Grange, Georgla 30241.

KENTUCKY

The Prehistory of Man in Kentucky by Kathryn Fraser, 1986. Studying the Prehistory of Man in
Kentucky (teachers resource volume and activities volume), 1983 and Environmental Approaches
to Prehistory/Archaeology, by Jim Carpenter and Kathryn Fraser, 1980. Cost $5.00 per volume.
Contact: Center for Environmental Education, Murray State University, Murray, Kentucky
42071.

LOUISIANA

Classroom Archaeology by Nancy W. Hawkins, 1984. Educator's Manual for all grades K-12,
free. Contact: Division of Archaeology, Department of Culture, Recreation and Tourism,
State of Loulsiana, P.0. Box 44247, Baton Rouge, Loulsiana 70804.

MAINE

Discovering Maine's Prehistory Through Archaeology: An Interdisciplinary Curriculum Unit for
Grades 5-8 by Diane R. Kopec, 1987. Contact: Maine Historic Preservation Commission,
55 Capitol Street, State House Station 65, Augusta, Maine 04333.



ARCHEOLOGICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Technical Brief No. 4, May 1989

ARCHEOLOGY IN THE CLASSROOM:
A Case Study from Arizona

By A.E. Rogge and Patti Bell
Arizona Archaeological Council, Archaeology for the Schools Committee

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

There is a growing awareness that public outreach programs
are necessary for the continued preservation of archeological
resources. The Federal archeological community, through
the Interagency Working Group on Public Awareness of
Federal Archeology, has identified several goals for a
comprehensive public outreach effort. This Technical Brief,
which situates archeology in the public schools, and
Technical Brief No. 2, which describes the "Take Pride in
America" award winning Arizona Archaeology Week, are two
examples of how we can further these goals.

The Archeological Assistance Division supports a
clearinghouse, Listing of Education in Archeology Projects
(LEAP), which serves as a guide for national, regional, and
local public education projects and programs. The exchange
of information about the research and developmental
activities that lie behind these achievements cannot be
conducted through a clearinghouse, however. Rogge and
Bell recount the efforts of Arizona's Archaeological Council's
schools committee to place archeological concepts and values
within the context of the classroom. Their experiences, like
those of countless others across the country, exemplify "what
it takes" to produce the products listed in the LEAP
clearinghouse.

Technical Brief No. 4 was originally one of a series of papers
presented in the symposium entitled, "Fighting Indiana Jones
in Arizona," appearing on the program of the 53rd Annual
Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology. The
papers in this symposium, all of which highlighted various
approaches used to educate the public about the science of
archeology, are published in the ASCA 1988 Proceedings.
The Archeological Assistance Division is publishing an
expanded version of the original paper by Rogge and Bell
because of the timeliness of their information. Recent
amendments to the Archaeological Resources Protection Act
of 1979 call on Federal land managers to increase "public
awareness of the significance of the archaeological resources
located on public lands and Indian lands and the need to
protect such resources" (emphasis added).

The January/February 1989 issue of Archaeology magazine is
filled with predictions of what archeology will be like in the
middle of the next century. Although some of the con-
tributors are very optimistic about archeological perspectives

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

becoming more valued as we cope with global cultural and
environmental issues, other authors paint a very dismal
picture for the future of archeological resources. For the past
couple of decades, American archeologists have recognized
the alarming rate of site destruction and responded to it by
seeking regulatory protection and imposition of legal
penalties against vandals and looters,

Arizona archeologists have been in the forefront of much of
this “cops and robbers" approach to protecting archeological
resources, but they have also come to realize the benefits of a
more positive longer range tactic. Taking steps to educate the
general public about the values of archeological resources and
to instill a sense of why it is important to protect them may do
more to conserve our cultural resources than threats of fines
or jail sentences.

In 1985, the Arizona Archaeological Council (AAC)
organized an Archaeology for the Schools Committee with
the goal of enhancing appreciation of archeological resources
among the state's younger citizens. Our committee realizes
that the precollege teaching of anthropology and archeology
is not a particularly new endeavor, and we have leamed of
many efforts to spread the message about the values of
archeology into elementary and secondary schools. For
example, we are aware of programs in several states including
Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Missouri, South
Dakota, Texas, Vermont, and Virginia, as well as efforts
north of the border in Toronto, Canada, and in the provinces
of Alberta and Nova Scotia. We are also aware of growing
interest in other western states such as Colorado, Wyoming
and Montana. Our goal in this technical brief is not to review
those programs but to focus on our experiences over the last
few years as a case study of the challenges we have faced, the
successes we have achieved, as well as the not so successful
approaches we have tried.

In this brief, we

+ describe the goals and motivations of the AAC's schools
committee,

* summarize what we have learned about the "ethnogra-
phy” of the Arizona school system, and

+ highlight a strategy to get teachers to not teach archeology
as much as to teach with archeology.



ACTIVITY:

Collect wastebaskets from the several Predetermined locations. Gather the students and
carefully go through the wastebasket from your classroom. Discuss the meaning of the
trash and ask the students questions such as:

1. What items do you think were placed in the wastebasket first and which last?

2. By using only the trash, what can be learned about the activities that have taken place
in this room?

Now divide the students into groups and have each group sort through a different waste-
basket using the stratigraphy principles. (One idea to show that the top layer is the
newest and the bottom the oldest would be to take the groups outside and draw the
wastebasket on the sidewalk with chalk. Also draw with chalk to divide the wastebasket
into three layers. The children are to put the top third of the garbage in the top layer, the
second in the middle, and the last third in the bottom layer.) Next, the artifacts can be
categorized. Then have the students decide the original location (provenience) of each
wastebasket. Remember, don't tell the students where the wastebaskets originated!

WORKSHEET: The worksheet should contain the following questions:
1. Define stratigraphy and tell how it is used by archaeologists.
2. Why does trash reflect what activities took place in the room where it was located?
3. What can't you interpret using just the trash from the wastebaskets?

ANSWERS: 1. See the vocabulary section of the lesson plan for this answer.

2. Because the material in the wastebasket comes only from activities that took place in
the room in which it was located. These activities are unique and differ from those in any
other room. People discard material associated with activities they perform in the room.

3. You can't interpret anything in the culture in a reliable way outside of the activities that
took place in the room from which the wastebasket originated. We can't know what took
place in other rooms in the school, or in buildings, offices, or homes outside of the school,
All of these wastebaskets would need to be looked at to begin to understand the culture
that produced them.

Mustration in: The Upper Plma of San Cayetano Del Tumacacori by Charles C. Di Peso. Amerind Foundation No. 7, 1956:270.
(Courtesy of Amerind Foundation, Inc., Dragoon, Arizona)

pueson plan prepared by: E. Charles Adams, Arizona State Museum and Barbera Gronemann, Southwest Learning Sources.
Arlzona Archaeological Council, Archaeology for the Schools Committee, c/o Shurban, Arizona State Museum, University of
Arizona, Tuscon, Arizona 85721.


We presented the workshop again in November 1987 to about
50 teachers at the Arizona State Museum in Tucson, in April
1988 to 18 teachers at the Prescott Junior High School, and in
November 1988 to another dozen teachers in conjunction with
a community resource fair cosponsored by the Smithsonian
Institution and the Tucson Association of Museums. For each
of these workshops, we arranged for in-service credit with
several school districts, which is a crucial factor in gener-
aling interest among teachers because it influences their
salary adjustments.

Our workshops begin with checking in registrants and
encouraging them to look at a display where we offer books
for sale while they munch on the breakfast refreshments we
provide. (Local book wholesalers are willing to work with
us, and teachers seem to appreciate the opportunity to buy
relevant materials on the spot.) The presentation begins with
a fast-paced, 50-minute slide lecture introducing archeology
as a subdiscipline of anthropology and presenting a brief
overview of the prehistory of the Southwest. (We are
currently videotaping these lectures to facilitate their use in
other contexts.) For the next four or five hours, teachers
participate in half-hour to hour-long, hands-on sessions where
specific archeological concepts and activities are presented.
The following list of activities is a mixture of adaptations of
previously developed activ and ones our committee

prepared:'

1. Dating Methods--a review of relative and chronometric
dating of archeological remains,

2. Simulating Prehistoric Pottery--ceramic manufacturing
and variability,

oy

. Garbage Can Archaeology--stratigraphy and artifact
interpretation (Figure 2),

4, Cultural History Mystery--artifacts reflect changing
adaptations and lifestyles,

5. Cultural Universals--concept of culture and com-
monalities among all cultures, and

6. Trowel It--a dig-in-a-box activity (Figure 3).

During the lunch break, we commonly try to arrange a tour of
the inner sanctums of our hosting museum or a nearby
facility. At the end of the aflemoon, we have a wrap-up
session that includes a slide program about the laws that
protect archeological resources and sometimes a discussion of
local archeological resources. We ask the teachers to fill out
evaluations to finish the day. To get the 15 to 16 hours of
contact time that is usually required for one full in-service
credit, we arrange to have the teachers work on an archeology
site, in a lab, or on a survey during the following day or a
subsequent weekend.

The reactions to our presentations have been quite encourag-
ing. Participants have consistently given us predominantly
good to excellent ratings on almost all aspects of the

Figure 2. Teachers learn concepts of provenience and
stratigraphy by doing Garbage Can Archaeology. (Photo
by A. E. Rogge)

workshop (Figure 4). We interpret this response as an "A"
grade and are quite proud of what we have been able to
accomplish with only a few volunteers. We hope these
ratings mean these teachers are using the materials in their
classrooms. The most popular modules are the ones that
involve the most hands-on activity such as Trowel It and
Cultural History Mystery. Technical modules, such as the
one on various dating methods, have been less enthusiasti-
cally received but still get a grade of good or better from
three-fourths of the participants.

We believe that much of our success in developing the
workshop format and materials is due to the direct involve-
ment of not only archeologists who have substantial
experience in working with students but actual classroom
teachers who understand our audience. We have cast our
materials into a lesson plan format familiar to teachers, with
the full realization that most of them will not have the time to

Figure 3. The Trowel It activity illustrates for teachers the
concepts of archeological context and techniques of
excavation and teaches the participants how to formulate
interpretive hypotheses. (Photo by Patti Bell)



Arizona's 15 counties are divided into about 220 school
districts. There are about 910 schools in these districts--an
average of just over 4 per district, There are about 580,000
registered clementary and secondary students, and we
estimate that there are approximately 20,000 teachers in the
state's school system. This then is the size of the challenge
we face in designing a system to introduce archeology into
Arizona's precollege school system.

One of our committee's first major projects was to prepare an
eight-page, teachers’ packet, which we distributed in
conjunction with a statewide celebration of Archaeology
Week in 1986. The packet included several archeological
activities that could be adapted for various grade levels, a
brief summary of Arizona prehistory, and a list of recom-
mended readings and places to visit. Although we managed
to scrape together several hundred dollars for reproduction
and postage to send a copy to virtually every school in the
state, only about a dozen teachers responded to the question-
naire we had attached. We leamed that media specialists and
librarians in every school probably receive several mass
mailings a week, and we suspect most of our cherished
packets probably never emerged from the bottom of the stack
to be hung on bulletin boards or to be routed to the teachers
themselves, Without some personal contact, even our bright
multihued packets were probably read by few teachers.

After that disappointment, we made some overtures to the
state Department of Education and the state Social Studies
Council to determine whether some "top down" support might
help our cause. We hoped that the mandated Arizona history
taught to all fourth graders might be strengthened in the area
of prehistory. Although we hed some polite expressions of
interest and support and some acknowledgement of archeol-
ogy in new social studies curriculum guidelines, the reality is
that archeology must compete among a variety of social
studies, none of which fare well in the move back to basics.
High priority supplemental programs, such as drug prevention
and sex education, stress the already full agenda, and
peripheral subjects, such as archeology, are assigned a very
marginal priority (Figure 1). Thus, we have come to the
conclusion that the current issues and priorities facing public
education will not lead to archeology becoming mandated
curriculum any time soon.

Where Can Archaeology Fit?
heath,
fine arts math ang
drug provertons
‘social
sciences
oppor
Programs:
reading and language arts
50%

Figure 1. Typical Elementary Curriculum (see Cawelti and
Adkisson 1985).

Teaching Archeotogy versus Teaching with Archeology

Because we are convinced that archeology will not soon be
mandated in the curriculum, we are currently promoting
archeology as supplemental curriculum that can be imple-
mented without overloading teachers who feel stressed by the
materials they are already expected to cover. Supplemental
activities can range from a 45-minute exercise that presents a
realistic perspective of prehistoric Indians (in conjunction
with Columbus Day or Thanksgiving) to a several weck unit
involving a mock dig. Or it could simply include arithmetic
story problems about the average number of sherds per
broken pot or an art project modeling a prehistoric pit house
or pueblo.

In addition to promoting archeological awareness as an
adjunct to teaching the required curriculum, we are trying to
convince teachers of the values of archeology as integrative
curriculum. One of the chief strengths of archeology is that it
is a motivating, fun, hands-on, experiential way of integrating
artificially compartmentalized subjects, including life
sciences, earth sciences, physical sciences, math, computer
science, social studies, language skills, art, music, and drama.
More and more teachers are recognizing that multiscnsual
experiences greatly improve on the 10 percent retention rate
for facts that have been doled out in textbook fashion (see
Bruner 1963, Clark 1986, Wonder and Donovan 1984),

In fact, one Tucson teacher is convinced that an archeology
unit, which included gridding and plotting artifacts, has
improved her students’ scores on the standard Iowa test of
basic skills in the area of visual skills including reading
charts, maps, and coordinates. Those are the kinds of
testimonials that will win us other converts.

A California high school teacher (Onderdonk 1986) cogently
argues that the spin-off values of archeology include
cognitive maturation in the areas of personal involvement,
teflective thinking, realistic exposure to scientific methods,
and social interaction.

Many other teachers who have experimented with archeology
in their classrooms have been enthusiastic about the benefits
(Carroll 1987, Catalina 1983, Cotter 1979, Dyer 1983, Passe
and Passe 1985, Watts 1985).

‘The Workshop as a Delivery Too!

In April 1986, our committee developed a display and
prepared a workshop for the Rocky Mountain Regional Social
Studies Conference. Although the Tesponse was not
overwhelming, the experience whetted our appetites. The
workshop promised to be an effective tool for spreading our
message, and we developed a weekend workshop. Drawing
heavily on personal contacts to generate our first roster of
Participating tcachers, we made a pilot presentation to about
35 teachers who were hosted by the Mesa Southwest Museum
during the spring 1987 celebration of Arizona Archaeology
Week.



The Schools Committee

The AAC is a statewide organization of more than 150
people, most of whom work in some aspect of public
archeology. It is similar to organizations formed in many
other states in the 1970s in response to issues of profes-
sionalism in the arena of regulatory archeology and develop-
ment of the subdiscipline that has come to be known as
cultural resource management.

Since its formation in 1985, the AAC's Archaeology for the
Schools Committee has tended to number between 10 and 20
members; activities typically involve 5 to 10 members at any
given time. Committee. members include professional
archeologists from the federal, state, and private sectors,
avocational archeologists, museum staff, and teachers. Many
of the committee members are not the types of people who
would typically join the AAC, but they were specifically
recruited to broaden the perspective and expertise of the
committee, The committee's activities reflect the strengths of
enthusiastic volunteers, as well as the weaknesses of
part-time, unpaid service.

The motivations of the committee members are diverse.
Some members are professional educators, some are
interested in public schools because they are parents, but all
committee members share a common concem with giving the
public a more accurate image of what archeology is all about.
How many archeologists still have to explain to the
uninitiated that, as practicing archeologists, they do not have
houses full of really nice artifacts? And how many have to
explain to their neighbors that they do not study rocks or
dinosaurs? Do even the parents of most archeologists really
understand the profession of their children? We find that the
general public, including most teachers, knows a lot about the
"Indiana Jones" approach to archeology, but very little about
what it means to say that archeology is an anthropological
study of past societies.

Our members also believe that the message of archeology is
simply too good to reserve for college students. The
perspectives of prehistory ought to be taught to a much
broader audience.

The committee's other motivation is, of course, to fight the
increasing problem of vandalism and loss of sites due to
development. Legislation and regulations may deter some
pot-hunters, but education may be the only real hope as
Arizona's population continues to explode. The protection
that has been afforded to the archeological resources of the
Southwest in the past has largely resulted from benign
neglect. As the Sunbelt population increases, the future
survival of our archeological sites will depend more and more
on the public proactively valuing these resources. To make
the public aware of the values will take education.

When the s
three speci

hools committee first organized, it enunciated
goals:

1. to inventory and evaluate existing public school programs
and opportunities to learn about or experience archeology,

2. to formulate recommendations for enhancing student and
public exposure to archeology, and

3. to offer advice or participate in developing programs and
materials for students and teachers.

We have come to realize these goals were ambitious, but we
are making progress in several directions.

Ethnography of the School System

We have Icamed several things in the past three years. First,
we have come to realize that there are really quite a few
teaching materials about archeology and anthropology. (See
Holm and Higgins {1985 and Selig and Higgins [1986] for
recent overviews of efforts to expand precollege teaching of
anthropology and archeology.) We have created a partially
computerized inventory of more than 200 books and
pamphlets, plus almost as many audiovisual materials, but
most of these materials remain unevaluated, Although we
have recognized some gems (for example, Dig 2 |Lipewky
1982}, and Motel of the Mysteries [Macaulay 1979]), we have
made little progress toward any systematic review because of
the effort this requires. (See Higgins [in Holm and Higgins
1985] for an annotated bibliography of almost 50) articles,) It
does seem that the available materials are not widely used and
the use they do receive largely reflects individual interests
and initiatives of a limited number of teachers.

The lack of materials does not seem to be a primary reason
for the limited teaching of anthropology and archeology at
precollege levels, nor do we believe the reason to be the
complexity or excessive erudition of the concepts involved.
A more probable explanation is the fact that concepts such as
ethnocentrism and cultural relativism conflict with typical
nationalistic perspectives and other core societal values that
schools are charged with transmitting from one generation to
another (see Kehoe 1988). Earlier efforts to develop
curriculum materials, such as Man: A Course of Study,
encountered severe resistance because of such conflicts (Rice
1986). Archeology, in the eyes of most teachers, is also
tinged with a certain disquieting otherworldness, but it is
quite possible to convey a sense of the value of prehistoric
perspectives as an adjunct to the generally accepted values of
history without focusing on controversial red-flags such as
creationism versus evolution.

A second thing we have leamed is that Arizona school
districts operate quite autonomously. They reflect the
long-standing tradition of the local American school board,
which grew out of the feisty carly New England town
governments. The state superintendent and board of
education certify teachers, monitor pupil attendance, regulate
some financial support, develop in-service programs, and
issue curriculum guides. However, it is the local districts that
guard local traditions
to their students

and monitor what values are conveyed
It is the local districts that make the basic
day-to-day decisions about how schools are run. And, we all
know from our own experience, it is the individual teacher in
the classroom who is the crucial factor in determining exactly
what is taught and how.