Our first 'Research Skills' seminar was a field-trip to Flag Fen. I am entirely unsure which 'Research Skills' I obtained by the end of the day, but I would love to write a few paragraphs about crowd-sourcing in Archaeology.
Ever since studying Flag Fen in Arch Theory last year I have been a little annoyed with it - so getting the opportunity to actually visit the site to balance my prejudice was great. Some background info:
Essentially, Flag Fen is your typical Field. As an archaeologist you stare at all the interesting elevations and use your imagination. As general public, you observe how nice it is that the sun is shining, for once, and you notice the field is inhabited by sheep. Or if you are me, both - because this is about as far removed from interesting Near Eastern stuff as it gets.
Field + Field with a bridge over it.
Although Flag Fen includes, among other things, a very interesting, barely visible, Roman road, the main emphasis of the site is The Bronze Age. (A rather unspecific term to use, if you ask me.) A lot of wood has been found, which allows dendrochronology dating between the 14th and the 10th centuries BCE. With a lot of wood, I mean about 1km of it - this site is massive. It tells us a lot about the way people in this period lived and fished - and there is of course some debate about their religion as well. If you are interested - google it. I wil leave it at this because I am technically meant to be writing an essay on Babylonian Mathemathics and I do not reckon the details of Flag Fen are going to feature in it.
So why is Flag Fen such a thing around here? It is a Field with Bronze Age Stuff. Why is it about as well-known among English Archaeologists as Tell Brak to Assyriologists? It is because of three things in my opinion. 1. The size and importance of the site as described. But 2. Experimental Museology (as I am going to call it) and 3. Crowd-sourced Archaeology.
When we arrived at Flag Fen we received a very informative and entertaining talk from Dr Francis Pryor. He is an archaeologist with a Beard. He has been on Time Team. It was great. He was especially excited to tell us about the engineering of the buildings on the site. The team worked very hard to preserve the archaeological record, not ruining it with massive museums and visitor centres. One of their buildings partially floats on the site. They have an artificial lake. These are really ground-breaking advancements in archaeology.
However - I am a little curious why Flag Fen, of all sites, received such a massive amount of funding to create floating buildings? Why was it necessary especially there? Why Flag Fen and not other sites? How will other sites ever be able to afford to build such buildings too? I do not have the answers. I can guess at a few of course: Flag Fen is mainly a wet site (as opposed to a dry site), and Flag Fen is located in a wealthy European country. I did not get a chance to ask Dr Pryor these questions, but I do not mean to be overly critical and I am definitely open to explanations!
So on to my final point of discussion: crowd-sourcing. I love the concept. It gives small projects a chance to live. For instance, indie companies in the gaming industry. Or archaeological sites.
"The not-for-profit Digventures team raised £27,000 from members of the public who then joined in an expert-led dig to excavate parts of the site."
However - how much of our 'soul' should we be willing to sell?
Not a great site-museum...
Obviously first and foremost crowd-funding is a precious source of income for archaeological excavations. The major added benefit is that is involves the crowd too! Archaeology is always a little difficult to 'sell' to the public; not many people care, most people do not understand, and cancer research can be argued to be fundamentally more important to invest in. However, we are still human. Most of us have an inexplicable interest in our past. Or alternatively, in Treasure. For anyone who has this spark of an interest, being able to invest in a site and learn more about it is a great way to get involved. Crowd-funding draws the crowd in. This is such an important part of being an archaeologist - to educate people about the past.
Yet - should we really draw people in with the promise of Treasure? I did the same this summer - I told my students we would find Viking Treasure on Gotland. Two things: 1. This is certainly not true for all archaeology; for instance, at Flag Fen the chances of finding a Viking silver hoard are pretty slim. 2. Even when it is true, such as for Gotland, archaeology is not about Treasure. Finding a surviving post in a post-hole, that was our most important find; not the silver earring. I will not advertise anything with 'Treasure' again, simply out of principal. It is a magic word. It draws people in. But it is a false concept.
We cannot go around quoting Indiana Jones in a serious fashion. Yes I use the theme-song as my ringtone, but Indiana Jones is destructive! I know this is Popular Culture, and that it is what appeals to people - but I also wish it would change! Prometheus (2012): apparently archaeologists can also simultaneously be astronauts and fight alien creatures. (By the way, if that was a career option, I would be on it!) Can Popular Culture please start to introduce some accuracy? Just mention the astro-archaeolonaunts (?) have a double PhD in archaeological engineering (or something), instead of making it seem like archaeology is a really cool adventurous hobby.
So crowd-sourcing. Yes I love it - but the way Flag Fen goes about it is false as well. I understand why they do it. But it has to be done differently. If we want to educate people about the past, we cannot advertise excavations by giving people the wrong idea. We need to explain why surviving posts, like the ones they have at Flag Fen, are Treasure. How amazing it is to touch 2000 year old wood. What we can learn from that! Yes it looks boring and mostly smells terrible. But that is Treasure.
How do you choose between funding for your project and having your project being taken seriously?
Don't quote Indiana Jones?! Ye Gads, what are they teaching you kids these days!?!
ReplyDeleteHere's a quote for you, by way of setting the record straight:
…we are somewhat alike Dr Jones….
Trough blood-shot eyes Indy stared at Belloq. “No need to gety nasty.”
“Consider this,” Belloq said. “Archaeology has always been our religion, our fait. We have both strayed somewhat from the so-called true path, admittedly. We are both given to the occasional…dubious transaction. Our methods are not so different as you pretend. I am if you like a shadowy reflection of yourself. What would it take to make you the same as me, Proffessor? A slight cutting edge? A sharpening of the killer instinct, yes?”
Indy said nothing. Belloqs words came to him muffled by a fog. He was talking nonsense, pure nonsense, which sounded grand and true because it was delivered in a French accent that might be described as quaint or charming. What Indy heard wasv the hissing of some hidden snake.
“You doubt me, Jones? Consider: What brings you here? The lust for the Ark, am I correct? The old dream of Antiquity. The historic relic, the quest – why, it might be a virus in your blood. You dream of things past.” Belloq was smilling, swinging a watch on a chain. He said ”Look at this watch. Cheap. Nothing. Take it out into the desert and bury it for a thousand years and it becomes priceless. Men will kill for it. Men like you and me, Jones. The Ark, I admit, is different. It is a little removed from the profit motive, of course. We understand this, you and i. But the greed is still in the heart, my friend. The vice we have in common.”
The Frenchman stopped smiling. There was a glassy look in his eyes, a distance, a privacy. He might have been conducting a conversation with himself.
Raiders of the Lost Ark. Lucas Film 1981, p 103.
Yours, DigVentures. (And we'll be in touch soon!)