ARCHAEOLOGICAL

FIELD SCHOOLS
 For
Mom and Dad
ARCHAEOLOGICAL
FIELD SCHOOLS
A Guide for Teaching in the Field

Jane Eva Baxter

First published 2009 by Left Coast Press, Inc.

Published 2016 by Routledge

2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

Copyright © 2009 Taylor & Francis

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or

utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now
known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in
any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing
from the publishers.

Notice:
Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and
are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.

Library of Congress Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

Baxter, Jane Eva, 1971-

Archaeological field schools : a guide for teaching in the field / Jane Eva Baxter.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-59874-007-3 (pbk. : alk. paper)
1. Archaeology—United States—Fieldwork--Handbooks, manuals, etc.
2 Archaeology—Study and teaching—United States—Handbooks, manuals, etc.
3. Non-formal education—United States—Handbooks, manuals, etc.
4. Vocational education—United States—Handbooks, manuals, etc. I. Title.
CC76.B39 2008
930.1—dc22
2008049783

ISBN 978-1-59874-007-3 paperback

 Contents

Acknowledgments 9

Chapter 1: The Archaeological Institution of Field Schools 11

The Development of an Institution 12
How We Talk about Field Schools Today 16
About This Book 18

PART 1: FIELD SCHOOL TEACHING: PEDAGOGY 23

AND PRACTICE

Chapter 2: Contemporary Climates: Teaching Archaeology 25

and Field School Training
Cultural Resource Management Training 26
Working with the Public 33
The RPA and Field School Certification 37
Teaching as an Ethical Issue 39
Field Schools as Learning Communities 40
Lines of Convergence 42
Points of Contention 43
Chapter 3: Pedagogical Concerns and Field School 47
Development
Developing Teaching Goals 48
Translating Teaching Goals into Student Learning 51
Outcomes
The Idea of Experiential Learning 54
Experiential Learning and Learning Communities 60
Assessing Learning in the Field 61
Chapter 4: Structuring Experiential Learning 65
in the Field
Abstract Conceptualization 66
Active Experimentation 70
 Concrete Experience 74
Reflective Observation 75

PART 2: FIELD SCHOOL LOGISTICS 79

Chapter 5: Legal and Administrative Issues 81

Universities and Off-Site Programs 82
Site Agreements and Permissions 83
Health, Safety, and Liability 87
Liability Waivers 90
FERPA 91
Insurance 93
University Police or Public Safety Offices 94
Contracts and Providers 94
Connect on Your Campus 96
Chapter 6: Personnel Issues 97
Defining Your Role as a Project Director 97
and an Instructor
Staff and Organizational Structure 101
Graduate Student Supervisors 102
Professional Project Staff 105
Codirector or Go It Alone? 106
Health and Safety 109
Identifying Hazards at Your Site 109
Collecting Personal Information 111
Mitigating Risks for Students 112
Standards of Dress and Personal Appearance 114
Field Etique e and Interpersonal Issues 115
Se ing Standards of Behavior 115
Student-Generated Standards of Behavior 118
Working Together in the Field 119
Standards and Protocols for Public Interaction 121
Chapter 7: Logistical Concerns 125
Before the Program Starts 126
Finding a Site 126
Ge ing Equipment Together 133
Recruiting Students 139
Logistics in the Field 144
Transportation 144
 Food and Lodging 145
Field Facilities 148
Special Cases 149
International Field Schools 149
Commuter Field Schools 153
Chapter 8: Balancing Teaching, Research, and 155
Disciplinary Standards
Pressure Points 156
Maintaining Disciplinary Standards of 156
Conduct
Field Schools as Annual “Money Makers” 157
Field Schools as the Only Research Outlets 158
Structural Suggestions for Those Seeking Balance 159
Working with Graduate Students and 163
Undergraduates
Working with Graduate Students 163
Working with Undergraduate Students 165

Appendices
Appendix 1: RPA Guidelines and Standards for 167
Archaeological Field Schools
Appendix 2: Sample Safety Handout 173
Appendix 3: A Summary of the Family Education 177
Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)
Appendix 4: Sample Archaeological Field School 179
Participant Information Form
Appendix 5: Sample Handout of What Students 181
Should and Should Not Bring to a
Field School on a Daily Basis
Appendix 6: Sample Guideline Sheet for Students 183
and the Media

References 185
Index 191
About the Author 192
This page intentionally left blank
 Acknowledgments

Writing a book about teaching is not something everyone feels they are
able to undertake in the course of their career. There are many pressures
to write other types of works, and books about teaching o en are not
considered to be of the same merit as other genres of scholarly prose.
I am very grateful to have a supportive publisher and academic insti-
tution that both value and encourage writing about teaching. I want to
thank the many colleagues with whom I have had very engaged and
profitable discussions about teaching both in the field and in the class-
room. I particularly want to thank Robert Rotenberg for all he has done
to encourage me to become a be er teacher and to support a career that
seeks a balance between research and teaching.
My desire to write this book stemmed from the many different experi-
ences I have had teaching archaeology in the field. My first experiences
in field school teaching took place at the University of Nevada at Reno
and Wayne State University. These opportunities as a graduate stu-
dent allowed me to collect data for my dissertation research and to
develop my skills as an instructor. They also provided ample evidence
that teaching in the field means more than basic instruction in archaeo-
logical methods and inspired me to explore ways I could develop
fruitful pedagogical techniques to maximize the educational benefits
of field school for my students.
I continue to develop new pedagogical strategies for field schools
in the two projects I direct at DePaul University. The first of these is
a biannual field school at the Historic Pullman Community on the
South Side of Chicago. I am grateful to the many organizations and
individuals in the community who support this project in countless
ways. The second project is an annual study abroad field program
in The Bahamas, which I codirect with Dr. John Burton. I appreciate
the many partnerships we have forged with individuals, government
agencies, and private organizations that are so willing to share their

9
10 Acknowledgments

knowledge and resources with our students. I have also appreciated

the chance to develop teaching strategies alongside John, who is a car-
ing and dedicated instructor. The many students who I have taught in
my field schools have also taught me about teaching in immeasurable
ways and have continually reminded me about the joys of fieldwork
that brought me to archaeology so many years ago. I owe them a debt
of gratitude for continually renewing my interest in my chosen pro-
fession. It is also imperative to thank the many friends and colleagues
who so willingly shared advice, anecdotes, and opinions about their
field school teaching experiences. Their collective voice can be heard
throughout this work, and without their generosity this book would
not have the depth and breadth of insight it contains in its current
version.
Finally, as always, I want to thank my friends and family for their
continuing support of all my endeavors. And, as people seem to enjoy
seeing their names in print, I would like to indulge them by saying
thank you to those who have supported me at different times and in
many ways during the preparation of this manuscript: John and Sheila
Jalutkewicz, Jay and Ginny Jalutkewicz, Be y Stephenson, Dustin
Rigsby, Melissa Hall, Megan Perry, John Norder and Heather Howard,
Amanda Sprochi, Carole McGranahan, John Burton and Aaron Hunt,
Andy and Linda Bullen, Kris Thomsen, Caryn Berg, Maddy Rodri-
guez, Ken and Cindy Carl, Ginger Hofman, Terry Taylor, and Mike
Marshall. A very special thanks to Mitch Allen too.
 The Archaeological
Institution of Field Schools 1
The archaeological field school is arguably one of the few experiences
that unites archaeologists in today’s diverse climate of professional
practice. Field schools are considered essential not only for training
in field methods, but also for socializing students into the disciplin-
ary culture of archaeology. They are considered a vital prerequisite
for any graduate school application and for employment in cultural
resource management. Indeed, many people consider participation in
a field school as a disciplinary “rite of passage.” Emile Haury (1989:1)
summed up the need for archaeological field schools in this way:
Classroom training, no ma er how erudite and theoretical, falls short
of producing the “complete” archaeologist. To understand how the
remains le by prehistoric people were deposited and treated by nature
or other agencies, to understand what those remains tell us about their
relationships to the environment in which they lived and how they
interacted with one another, it is necessary to personally observe and
participate in the unearthing of evidence.

Field schools touch many more students than those who ultimately
pursue archaeology as a vocation. The availability of summer course
credits, the ability to spend time outdoors, and the allure of partici-
pating in legitimate scientific research all motivate college students
who otherwise have no career-related interests in archaeology to take
part in field schools. The types of hands-on experiences afforded by a
field school can also be critical for students deciding whether or not
archaeology is a career they wish to pursue. As Perry (2006:26) notes,
“Archaeological field schools, then, weed out the disillusioned and at

11
12 Chapter 1

the same time train those interested through their intensive involve-
ment in an archaeological research project.”
The lucrative nature of archaeological field schools has made
them popular at colleges and universities of all sizes. Estimates for
the number of field schools being offered in any year have ranged
from “over 100 in 1987” (Haury 1989:xi) to 70 “formal” field schools
in the summer of 2005 (Perry 2006). Such a demand for field schools is
also reflected in the academic job market, where in a five-year period
approximately 90% of job advertisements seeking a North American
archaeologist mentioned the ability to develop a local field school as a
desirable or necessary quality for a job candidate (Anthropology News
2000–2005).
Field schools provide an opportunity for faculty research, particu-
larly for faculty at institutions that are focused primarily on teaching.
Graduate students also use field school teaching as a way to obtain
data for their theses and dissertations (Baxter and Van Wormer 2001).
This aspect of field schools has o en been critiqued as using students
as “warm bodies” (Pyburn 2003:214) to obtain data for faculty research,
but more o en than not instructors combine research and teaching in
ways that enhance both aspects of a field school.
Clearly, field schools are an integral part of our discipline at many
practical levels. Field schools are also central to our discipline’s iden-
tity. It is not uncommon to hear seasoned archaeologists comparing
field school experiences as a way of expressing their a achment to
their chosen profession (Adler 2001; Perry 2004). As a place to experi-
ence fieldwork for the first time and learn how to be an archaeologist
both technically and socially, field schools play an important role in
“becoming” an archaeologist. The ability to be “in the field” is o en
the lure that brings people into the discipline, and it is the continued
ability to work in the field that motivates many of us to become profes-
sionals. Field schools, in this regard, have become a symbolic gateway
into the discipline.

The Development of an Institution

Field schools are such a part of the contemporary landscape of archae-

ology that the origins of field training for students are not o en exam-
ined. On the most basic level, a field school can be defined as students
receiving academic credit for participating in an archaeological project.
 The Archaeological Institution of Field Schools 13

As Gifford and Morris (1985) noted in their history of field schools in

the American Southwest, it is virtually impossible to identify the first
instance of academic credit being granted for fieldwork. It is possible,
however, to gain some insight into how ideas about and standards for
field schools have evolved using a few available published sources.
The history of students and fieldwork in the American Southwest
(Gifford and Morris 1985) and specifically at the Point of Pines Field
School (Haury 1989) are rare investigations into the origins of the
field school. Additional insights about how student training became
formalized in the discipline come from the institutional histories of
the Archaeological Institute of America (AIA) and the related School
of American Research (SAR), now known as the School for Advanced
Research.
The development of archaeological field schools can be linked to
the founding of the AIA in 1879. The establishment of the AIA was
intimately entwined with the goal of placing America on an inter-
national archaeological stage where competition for excavation
access to Old World sites abounded (Allen 2002). The establish-
ment of the American School in Athens was an outgrowth of that
competition, particularly with the French and Germans, and later
schools were established in Rome and Palestine. Large-scale excav-
ations associated with the American Schools and other AIA projects
became natural venues for field training. Initially, the dearth of full-
time employment in archaeology in America meant that any student
training was of limited scale and not considered preparatory for a
career in archaeology. Allen (2002:3) states, however, that a focus
toward field training emerged “within the changing intellectual
atmosphere of the la er half of the nineteenth century, [when] the
humanistic goal of cultured erudition gave way to professionalized
scientific training.”
The AIA was technically an organization for all types of archae-
ology, but their research programs and financial investments were
clearly directed toward the archaeology of classical civilizations (Allen
2002). At the time the AIA was developing as an organization in the
classical world, a variety of cultural forces were bringing people into
what was to become the American Southwest. Archaeological inter-
est in this region was also developing, and a variety of museums and
universities from the eastern United States were conducting archaeo-
logical projects where students were participants (Gifford and Morris
1985). These early expeditions were organized in such a way that
14 Chapter 1

students comprised most of the digging crews but received no system-

atic instruction (Haury 1989:xi).
By the early twentieth century, the American branch of the AIA,
under the direction of Alice Cunningham Fletcher, had established the
School of American Research with three aims: “To train students in the
profession of archaeology, to engage in anthropological research on
the American continent, and to preserve and study the unique cultural
heritage of the Southwest” (School for Advanced Research 2007). The
SAR was part of a growing local archaeological community in Utah,
Arizona, and New Mexico that began offering student training while
exploring local archaeological resources. Field schools where students
received credit for working in the field were developed during this
period, particularly at the University of Arizona.
The earliest Southwestern field schools are characterized by Gifford
and Morris (1985:395) as emphasizing exploration and collection, with
students obtaining their education simply by “being there.” This pas-
sive “osmosis” model of training was replaced by field schools that
focused on specific research questions where students actively contrib-
uted toward the research goals of either an institution or a professor.
These models still did not prioritize instruction, but did create a more
rigorous framework for fieldwork even in the absence of formal stu-
dent training. While similar accounts of field schools in other parts of
the United States have not been recorded and published systematical-
ly, the development of field schools in the Southwest is likely to have
been representative of the changing a itudes about archaeology and
training that existed throughout the country.
More specific insights about early field schools may be gleaned
from Haury’s (1989) summation of an account of early field schools in
the Southwest by D. D. Brand et al. in the University of New Mexico
Bulletin of 1937. This source detailed the living arrangements, meal
schedules, digging, lab work, and formal lectures by visiting faculty
that comprised field training at the time. More intimate details of
fieldwork were also recounted in the Bulletin, leading Haury to
identify two early models of field school “teaching.” The first model is
described by Haury as “itinerant,” where students accompanied faculty
on travels across the countryside searching for previously unknown
sites and se lements. These itinerant field schools were not at all like
contemporary survey projects designed to systematically investigate a
region, but instead entailed striking out into less-traveled parts of the
landscape, identifying prominent archaeological sites and excavating
 The Archaeological Institution of Field Schools 15

those of interest. The second model of early field schools involved the
creation of a permanent or semipermanent base camp from which one
or more ruins in a region could be studied in depth for several seasons.
It is the la er model that became the basis of the archaeological field
school.
Gradually, field projects that emphasized students accompany-
ing faculty on research trips shi ed to a balance of research and
teaching. Students began paying institutions for credit, and colleges
and universities began funding field schools as formal venues for
archaeological training (Gifford and Morris 1985). As Smith notes
(1984:395, quoted in Gifford and Morris 1985:395), “The element of
instruction, study, and training for the student” thus became the
“paramount purpose of the field school.” In this context, the profes-
sor eventually ceased to be the sole principal investigator, and stu-
dents began taking on analytical and writing tasks as part of theses
and dissertations.
The timing of the growth in field schools as a tool for student
training parallels the growth of academic institutions generally in the
postwar years of the mid-twentieth century. As academic departments
and institutions grew, there became more employment opportunities
for professional archaeologists in academia, thereby increasing the
demand for student training opportunities (Allen 2002; McGimsey
and Davis 2000). The growth of field schools also became an issue of
concern and scrutiny in the profession during this time.
When Turnbaugh (1976) published his article calling for an “alterna-
tive” to field schools, his suggestions were clearly motivated by widely
recognized problems in the conduct of some field school programs.
His criticisms of the field school as a model for student training were
threefold. First, he noted that field schools were being taught primar-
ily as a way for institutions and professors to make money rather than
prioritizing student learning. Second, he asserted that many professors
were using field schools only as a venue for student training with no
regard for the stewardship of the archaeological record. Particularly,
Turnbaugh noted a tendency of some archaeologists who specialized
in European archaeology to use prehistoric sites in America as “prac-
tice” sites for their students before going to Europe, where they would
work on a “real” archaeological project. Finally, Turnbaugh suggested
that students were a poor choice for excavators at many of the sites
where they were working. He noted that students were highly vari-
able in competence and interest and that entrusting the archaeological
16 Chapter 1

record to them was not always appropriate. These types of concerns

have informed the revision of field school standards over the past sev-
eral decades as archaeological ethics have shaped disciplinary under-
standings of professional practice (chapter 2).

How We Talk about Field Schools Today

Archaeologists who teach in the field recognize the challenges inher-

ent in developing projects that meet a variety of disciplinary “stand-
ards” both tacit and explicit. Despite the centrality of field schools in
archaeology and the time and effort put into field schools by individ-
uals and institutions, very li le direct a ention is given to field schools
in the literature, particularly in terms of field schools as educational
experiences. Perry notes that the most common type of discussion
about field schools is casual conversation among colleagues. “Beyond
anecdotes and stories swapped at professional meetings,” she asks,
“what purposes do archaeological field schools actually serve?” (Perry
2004:237).
Questioning the nature and purpose of field schools is not within
mainstream archaeological discourse. Field schools do appear
in certain types of literature and have been the concern of some
professional organizations. Anne Pyburn (2003) has wri en on
archaeological ethics and field schools in a volume organized by the
Society for American Archaeology Commi ee on Ethics. Pyburn takes
a stand for considering students as a constituency in our dissemination
of archaeological knowledge while also advocating the need for a
balance between student training and the protection of archaeological
resources (Pyburn 2003; see also chapter 2 this volume). The Register
of Professional Archaeologists (RPA) has established extensive field
school guidelines and criteria for certification (appendix 1; see also
h p://www.rpanet.org) that address these same concerns.
An interesting trend in the recent literature on field schools has been
how field schools relate to the “consumer culture” atmosphere that
is prevalent in higher education today (Perry 2006; Pyburn 2003). For
example, Perry (2006) estimates the cost of field school participation to
be as high as $6000, with many of the associated expenditures being
beyond what loans or other financial aid cover for tuition. Add to this
the four- to six-week time commitment and the loss of the summer
wages many students require to pay for their education, and there is
 The Archaeological Institution of Field Schools 17

a significant commitment of student resources that become allocated

to field school participation. The issue of how field schools benefit
students in light of these costs is one widely recognized among student
participants and is a relevant concern for instructors as well.
This trend points to the importance of considering students as one of
many constituencies in archaeological research and of prioritizing stu-
dent needs and concerns in the development of field schools. A logical
outgrowth of prioritizing students is an explicit concern for the design
and instruction of field schools. Archaeological discussions of teach-
ing have increased in recent years, fueled by a growing recognition of
and interest in the role of public education in archaeology (Bender and
Smith 2000; Burke and Smith 2006; Smardz and Smith 2000; Stone 1994,
1995). Field school teaching unfortunately has not been an integral part
of most of these discussions. For example, field schools are not men-
tioned in the SAA publication Teaching Archaeology in the Twenty-First
Century (Bender and Smith 2000), which was designed to address cur-
ricular revisions and educational standards in archaeology.
Jennifer Perry (2004, 2006) has begun a significant dialogue on field
schools as educational experiences that require considerations of peda-
gogy and design, but a simple glance at the bibliographies of her publi-
cations show that these conversations are in their nascent stages. There
are other venues where these conversations are starting, such as the
recent Amerind Seminar on Indigenous Archaeology (Silliman 2006)
that involved partners in collaborative field schools.
The limited bibliography on teaching field schools, and on field
schools in general, reflects a disconnect between the recognized
importance of field schools as a venue for technical training and discip-
linary socialization, and the amount of time archaeologists spend
discussing exactly how that training and socialization can best be
achieved. A review of the history of field schools does not suggest that
field schools were created to be teaching venues per se. The evolution
of field schools instead seems be er characterized as the formalization
of informal field experiences for students that developed under the
direction of individual instructors and within the cultures of particular
institutions.
This informal development, paired with an absence of engaged dia-
logue about field schools, suggests that it is time to take a critical look
at an archaeological institution. The lack of discussions on learning
goals and best practices for field schools is a noteworthy lacuna in a
discipline so reliant on field schools for training and so interested in
18 Chapter 1

education in general. Field schools have not been considered in dis-

cussions of curricular reform and educational goals as archaeology
moves forward into the twenty-first century. Graduate students and
new faculty who are developing their first field schools have no way
of tapping into the wealth of experiences in field school teaching that
archaeologists collectively hold. Instead, they must think back to their
own field school experience as a model and decide what to keep and
what to throw away.
This book is an a empt to add to the conversations people are
having about field schools, with an explicit focus on providing a
resource for those who are engaged in field school teaching. It is hoped
that it will bring conversations about field schools as an integral part
of archaeological training to the forefront, while providing a valuable
resource for those engaged in teaching archaeology in the field.

About This Book

This book is designed first and foremost as a guide and resource for
archaeologists who teach in the field. The book is most directly geared
to serve as a resource for new professors and graduate students who are
teaching field schools for the first time or are in the position of having
to develop a field school program. Graduate students are o en placed
in supervisory roles in extant field school programs or develop field
schools to fund dissertation work while gaining experience desired on
the job market (Baxter and Van Wormer 2001). New faculty are o en
asked to develop a local field school program upon arrival at a new
institution, regardless of their area of expertise. This book is designed
to be a companion for those developing their own field school projects
or programs—it is even small enough to tuck away and take with you
in the field!
This book is also designed to assist people who want to refine field
learning experiences for students of all types. It does not expressly dis-
cuss the many other types of field programs designed for educational
purposes, such as archaeology camps, public field schools, opportun-
ities designed for K–12 teachers or for elementary and high school stu-
dents; however, the information contained in this book is relevant for
those teaching in the field in such circumstances.
Finally, this book is designed for those who have been teaching field
schools for some time, but who wish to rethink or redesign aspects
 The Archaeological Institution of Field Schools 19

of their course. Perhaps, for members of this audience, this book will
simply affirm years of tried-and-true practice. Perhaps, for others,
it will allow teaching to be taken to a different level, concerned not
merely with the day-to-day operations of the field school, but with the
overall structure and goals of the courses. Either way, it is hoped that
this book will provide a useful way of thinking about field schools as a
pedagogical as well as an archaeological endeavor.
The first part of this book is devoted to teaching practice and relates
to all types of field-based learning in archaeology. Field schools are
by their very nature experiential and require students to learn by
doing. Field schools are a specific form of teaching and learning in
archaeological contexts, but experiential learning is by no means
unique. The chapters in part 1 of the book link archaeological field
schools to broader dialogues in pedagogy and education in order to
seek ways to make field schools more effective learning environments
for students.
The first chapter in this section, chapter 2, summarizes much of the
literature that has been wri en about archaeology and education gen-
erally and about field schools specifically. There are several key issues
in student training that have emerged in contemporary dialogues about
archaeology and education. Most of these issues are centered on the
relatively stagnant educational programs used to train archaeologists
and the many dynamic changes that have taken place in the discip-
line over the last three decades. Other issues around field school train-
ing specifically have been addressed in ethical codes of conduct and
point to conflicting ideas of how field schools should be taught. The
exposure to the types of conversations that archaeologists are having
around education, training, and field schools is a useful starting place
for instructors who want to design field schools around learning goals
that are significant in our discipline today.
Chapter 3 turns away from archaeological literature to educational
writings relevant for field school teaching. Questions of how to set
appropriate learning goals, how to structure experiential learning,
and how to create learning communities are all central to this chapter.
Engaging with this educational literature provides a useful means for
instructors to create or revise field school courses in light of what those
explicitly concerned with designing educational experiences recognize
as the best practices.
Chapter 4 is more practical and combines the previous two chapters.
It is centered on the question of how to take ideas about best learning
20 Chapter 1

practices in educational literature and implement them in field school

contexts. Particularly, this chapter is focused on designing field schools
as experiential learning projects that balance different strategies in
order to maximize student learning from hands-on experiences. There
are suggestions for possible exercises, texts, and other useful tips.
The second part of this book offers the type of practical advice for
running a field school that people o en have to figure out on their
own on a trial-and-error basis. The issues addressed in this section are
the types of behind-the-scenes organizational ma ers that are usually
peripheral to students’ experiences in the field, if not invisible to them
entirely. When new faculty go to instruct their own field school for
the first time, they are o en not prepared to replicate these nonteach-
ing aspects of the course from their own field school experiences as
students. The sources used to compile this section are an amalgam of
my own experiences with additional insights gained from deliberate
conversations with colleagues who have taught a wide array of field
schools. While no book can anticipate the institutionally specific issues
and contexts for a particular instructor, there are basic issues that tran-
scend these specifics. The chapters in part 2 address these types of
issues in the broadest practical terms.
The first chapter in this section, chapter 5, addresses the legal and
administrative concerns that are necessary considerations for all field
school experiences in contemporary litigious climates. Issues of liabil-
ity, insurance, contracts, and suppliers all come into play when teaching
off-campus. Learning to negotiate with lawyers and other university
and public officials is not generally a part of student training, and this
chapter provides guidelines that help anticipate the types of legal and
administrative issues that arise in a field school course and how to best
negotiate them.
Chapter 6 deals with the array of personnel-related concerns that
can arise. These types of issues include staffing and se ing standards
of behavior, but also concerns of health and safety and appropriate
dress. Diverse issues such as these all need careful consideration before
bringing students into the field, and this chapter offers some sugges-
tions on how to plan ahead to avoid problems once in the field.
Chapter 7 deals with logistics. These are the basic things needed to
make a project run. How do you find a site to excavate? How do you
decide where and how to house, feed, and transport students? What
if you are teaching overseas? This chapter outlines basic logistical
 The Archaeological Institution of Field Schools 21

concerns that must be addressed in se ing up a field program and

offers suggestions to effectively negotiate these pragmatic issues.
The final chapter, chapter 8, deals with the balance between research
and teaching that has to exist in the field school. Institutional pres-
sures to keep running lucrative field schools each summer make for
challenges in other essential elements of field projects. How do differ-
ent people negotiate the balance between research and teaching? This
chapter offers some suggestions.
Taken together these diverse chapters provide information relat-
ing to all aspects of field school teaching, from the pragmatic to the
pedagogical. Each individual instructor meets with unique challenges
posed by their own institution, by the particulars of their field school
site and community, and by the types of students taking part in their
projects. These particulars are balanced against the standards and eth-
ical codes of conduct of a discipline concerned with training and educa-
tion. The issues and strategies presented in this book can help to serve
as a bridge between these two “masters” and offer useful insights for
both new and seasoned instructors.
References
Adler, Michael 2001 Certifying Your Archaeology Field School. SAA Archaeological Record
1(2):15–16.
Allen, Mitch 2006 Charlie Brown in the Classroom: Comics and Other Incendiary Devices for
Teaching Archaeology. SAA Archaeological Record 5(5):9–12.
Allen, Susan H. 2002 The Archaeology of the AIA: An Introduction. In Excavating Our Past:
Perspectives on the History of the Archaeological Institute of America, edited by S. Allen , pp.
1–28. Archaeological Institute of America Colloquia and Conference Papers no. 5.
Archaeological Institute of America, Boston.
Anderson, David G. 2000 Archaeologists as Anthropologists: The Question of Training. In
Teaching Archaeology in the Twenty-First Century, edited by S. Bender and G. Smith , pp.
141–146. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, DC.
Angelo, T. A. , and K. P. Cross 1993 Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for
College Teachers. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Anthropology News 2000–2005 Job Placement Advertisements. American Anthropological
Association.
Association for Experiential Education 2007–2009 What Is Experiential Education? Electronic
document, http://www.aee.org/about/whatIsEE.
Astin, Alexander. W. , Trudy W. Banta , K. Patricia Cross , Elaine El-Khawas , Peter T. Ewell
, Pat Hutchings , Theodore J. Marchese , Kay M. McClenney , Marcia Mentkowski , Margaret
A. Miller , E. Thomas Moran , and Barbara D. Wright 1998 AAHE’s Principles of Good
Practice for Assessing Student Learning. In Effective Grading: A Tool for Learning and
Assessment, by B. Walvoord and V. J. Anderson , pp. 189–191. Jossey-Bass, San
Francisco.
Barab, S. A. , and K. E. Hay 2001 Doing Science at the Elbows of Experts: Issues Related to
the Science Apprenticeship Camp. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 38(1): 70–102.
Barber, Russell 1994 Doing Historical Archaeology: Exercises Using Documentary, Oral, and
Material Evidence. Prentice Hall, New York.
Baxter, Jane Eva , and Heather Van Wormer 2001 Transitioning from Student to Instructor:
Graduate Students and Field School Teaching. Paper presented at the Society for Historical
Archaeology 2001 Conference, Long Beach, CA.
Bender, Susan , and G. Smith 2000 Teaching Archaeology in the Twenty-First Century.
Society for American Archaeology, Washington, DC.
Berggren, Asa , and Ian Hodder 2003 Social Practice, Method, and Some Problems of Field
Archaeology. American Antiquity 68(3):421–434.
Blanton, Dennis B. 2000 Cultural Resource Management at the College of William and Mary.
In Teaching Archaeology in the Twenty-First Century, edited by S. Bender and G. Smith , pp.
99–104. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, DC.
Brethower, D. 1977 Research in Learning Behavior: Some Implications for College Teaching.
In Teaching in Higher Education, edited by S. Scholl and S. Inglis , pp. 23–37. Ohio Board of
Regents, Columbus, OH.
Brickhouse, N. W. 2001 Embodying Science: A Feminist Perspective on Learning. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching 38(3):282–295.
Burke, Heather , and Claire Smith 2006 Archaeology to Delight and Instruct: Active Learning
in the University Classroom. Left Coast Press, Inc., Walnut Creek, CA.
Cotter, J. L. , D. H. Day , J. I. Klein , and J. S. Pollak 1977 Comment on Turnbaugh.
American Antiquity 42(4):637–638.
Cross, K. Patricia 1986 Taking Teaching Seriously. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of
the American Association for Higher Education, Washington, DC.
Dewey, John 1997 Experience and Education. Free Press, New York.
Fink, L. Dee 2003 Creating Significant Learning Experiences: An Integrated Approach to
Designing College Classes. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Franklin, Maria 1997 “Power to the People”: Sociopolitics and the Archaeology of Black
Americans. Historical Archaeology 31(3):36–50.
Garman, James 2001 A Final Forewarning: Practical Steps to Providing Archaeologists with
Safe Working Environments. In Dangerous Places: Health, Safety, and Archaeology, edited
by D. Poirier and K. Feder , pp. 221–234. Bergin and Garvey, Westport, CT.
Gifford, Carol , and Elizabeth Morris 1985 Digging for Credit: Early Archaeological Field
Schools in the American Southwest. American Antiquity 50(2):395–411.
Gonzalez, Jason , and Eden Welker 1998 Field Schools: The First Experience. SAA Bulletin
16(2):10–11.
Goodwin, Craufurd 1994 Professional Vision. American Anthropologist 96(3):606–633.
Goodwin, Craufurd , and Michael Nacht 1988 Abroad and Beyond: Patterns in American
Overseas Education. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Hardesty, Donald L. 2003 Safety and the Ethics of Archaeological Fieldwork. In Ethical
Issues in Archaeology, edited by L. Zimmerman , K. D. Vitelli , and J. Hollowell-Zimmer , pp.
201–212. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.
Haury, Emil W. 1989 Point of Pines, Arizona: A History of the University of Arizona
Archaeological Field School. Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona no. 50.
University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Kerber, Jordan 2006 Cross-Cultural Collaboration: Native Peoples and Archaeology in the
Northeastern United States. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
King, T. F. , P. P. Hickman , and G. Berg 1977 Anthropology in Historic Preservation: Caring
for Culture’s Clutter. Academic Press, New York.
Kohls, Robert 2001 Survival Kit for Overseas Living: For Americans Planning to Work and
Live Abroad. Nichols Brealey Publishing, Boston, MA.
Kolb, David 1984 Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and
Development. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Lipe, William 2000 Archaeological Education and Renewing American Archaeology. In
Teaching Archaeology in the Twenty-First Century, edited by S. Bender and G. Smith , pp.
17–20. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, DC.
Lynott, M. , and A. Wylie 2000 Ethics and American Archaeology: Challenges for the 1990s.
2nd ed. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, DC.
Marbach-Ad, G. , and P. G. Sokolove 2000 Can Undergraduate Biology Students Learn to
Ask Higher Level Questions? Journal of Research in Science Teaching 37(8):854–870.
McGimsey, Charles R. 1972 Public Archaeology. Seminar Press, New York.
McGimsey, Charles R. , and Hester Davis 2000 The Old Order Changeth, or, Now that
Archaeology is in the Deep End of the Pool, Let’s Not Just Tread Water. In Teaching
Archaeology in the Twenty-First Century, edited by S. Bender and G. Smith , pp. 5–8. Society
for American Archaeology, Washington, DC.
McLeish, J. 1968 The Lecture Method. Cambridge Institute of Education, Cambridge,
England.
Merriman, Nick , and Tim Shadla-Hall (editors) 2004 Public Archaeology. Routledge, New
York.
Miller, James J. 2000 The Government Sector: Reforming the Archaeology Curriculum to
Respond to New Contexts of Employment. In Teaching Archaeology in the Twenty-First
Century, edited by S. Bender and G. Smith , pp. 69–72. Society for American Archaeology,
Washington, DC.
National Society for Experiential Education n.d. Standards and Practice. Electronic
document, http://www.nsee.org/about_us.htm.
Nieto, S. 1999 The Light in Their Eyes: Creating Multicultural Learning Communities.
Teachers College Press, New York.
O’Gorman, Jodie A. 2006 Saints’ Rest. Michigan History, November/December.
Patterson, C. H. 1973 Humanistic Education. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Perry, Jennifer E. 2004 Authentic Learning in Field Schools: Preparing Future Members of
the Archaeological Community. World Archaeology 36(2):236–260.
Perry, Jennifer E. 2006 From Students to Professionals: Archaeological Field Schools. SAA
Archaeological Record 6(1):25–29.
Poirier, David , and Kenneth Feder 2001 Dangerous Places: Health, Safety, and
Archaeology. Bergin and Garvey, Westport, CT.
Pyburn, K. Anne 2003 What Are We Really Teaching in Archaeological Field Schools? In
Ethical Issues in Archaeology, edited by L. Zimmerman , K. D. Vitelli , and J. Hollowell-
Zimmer , pp. 213–224. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.
Rice, Patricia 1998 Doing Archaeology: A Hands-On Laboratory Manual. Diane Publishing
Company, New York.
Rogers, Carl 1969 Freedom to Learn. Merrill Press, Columbus, OH.
Rotenberg, Robert 2005 The Art and Craft of College Teaching: A Guide for New Professors
and Graduate Students. Left Coast Press, Inc., Walnut Creek, CA.
Schiffer, M. B. , and G. J. Gumerman (editors) 1977 Conservation Archaeology: A Guide for
Cultural Resource Management Studies. Academic Press, New York.
School for Advanced Research 2007 History. Electronic document,
http://www.sarweb.org/home/history.htm.
Schuldenrein, Joseph , and Jeffrey H. Altschul 2000 Archaeological Education and Private
Sector Employment. In Teaching Archaeology in the Twenty-First Century, edited by S.
Bender and G. Smith , pp. 59–64. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, DC.
Silliman, Stephen 2006 Collaborating on Collaboration: Results of the 2005 Amerind Seminar
on Indigenous Archaeology. SAA Archaeological Record 6(2):38–39.
Smardz, Karolyn , and Shelley Smith 2000 The Archaeology Education Handbook: Sharing
the Past with Kids. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.
Smith, R. Michael 2002 Archaeology: Basic Field Methods. Kendall Hunt Publishing,
Dubuque, IA.
Smith, Watson 1984 One Man’s Archaeology. Manuscript on file, Arizona State Museum,
Tucson.
Society for American Archaeology 2005 Society for American Archaeology Bylaws. Electronic
document, http://www.saa.org/Aboutsaa/bylaws.html.
Society for American Archaeology n.d. Principles of Archaeological Ethics. Electronic
document, http://www.saa.org/aboutSAA/committees/ethics/principles.html.
Stone, Peter (editor) 1994 The Presented Past: Heritage, Museums, and Education.
Routledge, London.
Stone, Peter (editor) 1995 The Excluded Past: Archaeology in Education. Routledge, London.
Swidler, Nina (editor) 1997 Native Americans and Archaeologists: Stepping Stones to
Common Ground. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.
Turnbaugh, William A. 1976 An On-Campus Alternative to the Archaeological Field School.
American Antiquity 41(2):208–211.
Valett, R. E. 1977 Humanistic Education. Mosby Press, St. Louis, MO.
Wellner, Alison Stein 2005 Working Together. American Archaeologist 9(1):33–38.
White, Nancy Marie 2000 Teaching Public Archaeology at the University of South Florida. In
Teaching Archaeology in the Twenty-First Century, edited by S. Bender and G. Smith , pp.
111–116. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, DC.
White, Nancy Brent Weisman , Robert Tykot , E. Christian Wells , Karla Davis-Salazar , John
Arthur , and Kathryn Weedman 2004 Academic Archaeology is Public Archaeology. SAA
Archaeological Record 4(2):26–29.
Whitley, Thomas 2004 CRM Training and Academic Archaeology: A Personal Perspective.
SAA Archaeological Record 4(2):20–25.
Wolley Vawser, Anne 2004 Teaching Archaeology and Cultural Resource Management. SAA
Archaeological Record 4(2):18–19.
Wurdinger, Scott 2005 Using Experiential Learning in the Classroom: Practical Ideas for All
Educators. Scarecrow Educational, Lanham, MD.
Zeder, Melinda 1997 The American Archaeologist: A Profile. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek,
CA.
Zimmerman, Larry 1995 Regaining Our Nerve: Ethics, Values, and the Transformation of
Archaeology. In Ethics and American Archaeology: Challenges for the 1990s, edited by M. J.
Lynott and A. Wylie , pp. 64–67. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, DC.