Enhancing Public Archaeology Through Community Service Learning

Abstract

Public archaeologists are turning to community service learning (CSL) as a model for resolving the perceived learning crisis in the field, and to redress the limitations of archaeological pedagogy and practice. Examples drawn from various projects in the United States show how the CSL approach encourages students who practise archaeology to become civically engaged, capable of confronting real-world problems, and empowered to see themselves as catalysts for change. Service-learning practitioners emphasize research problems that emanate from the community, the learning experiences of students who are committed to civic engagement, and the opportunity for the community to collaborate fully in the teaching and the research. The reform in archaeological pedagogy and practice through CSL will keep the discipline of archaeology cognizant of its anthropological roots and allow it to contribute theoretically, methodologically, and substantively to the social sciences while serving to expand the current scope of service learning.

Training and Practice for Modern Day Archaeologists

“…For many years service learning was not a part of archaeology courses but the last decade of the twentieth century and the fi rst decade of the twenty-fi rst 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.…”

Community Organizing in Public Archaeology: Coalitions for the Preservation of a Hidden History in Florida

“…Archaeology is burgeoning with examples of excavations in the sunshine (Milanich, 1991), public outreach, efforts with descendant communities (McDavid, 2002;Mullins, 2003), community service learning endeavors (Nassaney and Levine, 2009), and participatory action research (McGhee, 2000); some are exploring the roles of archaeology in heritage (e.g., Rowan and Baram, 2004) and commemoration (e.g., Shackel, 2003) and of archaeologists as members of communities (e.g., Gibb, 1997;Moser et al, 2002;www.archaeologyincommunity.com). These have provided fruitful discussions for public archaeology, with one of the key issues being relationships between archaeologists and communities.…”

Public Involvement in the Fort St. Joseph Archaeological Project

“…All of the partners benefit from these relationships, which are perhaps most clearly visible through the lens of service learning (see Nassaney, 2009). In response to local interest in our annual archaeological field school, we initiated a public education program in 2002 to teach the public the art, craft, and science of archaeology.…”

“…Archaeology is experiencing a fundamental transformation in the way it is being practiced, theorized, and taught (e.g., Little and Shackel, 2007;Nassaney, 2004;Nassaney and Levine, 2009;Smith and Wobst 2005). As a consequence of NAGPRA and a host of high profile projects that have engaged the public (e.g., the African Burial Ground in New York, Ludlow Massacre site in Colorado, New Philadelphia in Illinois, Looking for Angola in Florida), archaeologists are reaching out to potential stakeholders including residents of the neighborhoods in which they work and inviting them to be a part of the discovery and interpretive process.…”

“…For anthropologists whose work involves the study of communities engaged in struggle or people whose histories have been erased, there is a self-acknowledged responsibility to work with stakeholders as partners, collaborators, and even co-activists to confront and redress social injustice (Hyatt and LyonCallo, 2003:134). In so doing, archaeology can begin to realize its emancipatory potential by examining the ways in which students, faculty, and their supporting institutions can effect, empower, and learn from community-based organizations and their constituents (Nassaney, 2009;Saitta, 2007).…”