27 Years of Education

I just realized the other day that I am old.

Ok, I am still young in the profession and new at many things, but I have been around for a while.  Someone asked me how many years I had been studying.  I had to count them up.  When I did I realized that this is my 24^th year of formal education.  If one were to add the three years for the PhD program here at UCL that I hope are in my future, it will amount to 27 years of education!

27 years!  I was 27 years old when I first met my future wife!  27 years is older than most of my classmates here at UCL!  When I finish with my PhD from here, I will be 41 years old.  Simple math informs, then that only 14 years of my life (at that point) will have been spent not studying something as a student!  But when one factors in that I have been a teacher for 4 of those 14 years, I will have only spent 10 years of my life in non-academic related activity.

For those who find it hard to believe, let me just run through my educational experience:

1 year in Kindergarten (in Valley City, North Dakota)

8 years in American Elementary School (all over the USA – 7 different schools in 8 years)

4 years in American High School (all at Ozark Adventist Academy)

½ year at a Technical School (where I dabbled in a career as an electrician)

2 years at Southern Adventist University (then Southern College) as a Physical Education major

½ year at Oklahoma State University (in Oklahoma City – all A’s)

3 ½ years at Adventist University of the Philippines (finishing two BA’s - Religion and Theology – as suma cum laude in both)

3 ½ years at Andrews University (taking a Masters of Divinity with emphasis in Archaeology – all A’s)

1 year at University College London (taking my Masters in Egyptian Archaeology)

3 years at University College London (earning a PhD in Egyptian Archaeology – still to come)

Now if I did the math right - that is 27 years.

It is always nice to look back at one’s own history and see how God has led you and where He is taking you.  Now I don’t recommend that anyone follow my footsteps (as they wander all over) but I do recommend that you remain in your own.  Each of us are special.  Each of us has a purpose to fulfill in life.  Each of us has something to contribute to society.  For me, I can see that I have been given the gift of education.  I am a good teacher, I love research, I love to communicate, and I love discovery and helping others discover.

Maybe this love of acquiring new knowledge has led me to the love archaeology.  Certainly I do love finding something that has been “lost” to the memory of the world and revealing it so others can benefit.

27 years…it has been worth every moment.

Managing Museums – Marketing Research

I have been shocked by the secular frankness of certain professors and guest lecturers here at UCL.  Being an optimist who believes that people are generally honest and well-intentioned, I have enjoyed this openness, as I have throughout my educational background (check future blog for more on this).  Thus, I was happily stunned by the definition given by our guest lecturer late last week.  He defined “Market Research” as being “about influencing people’s habits to make them do something repeatedly”.  I am familiar with this concept, just not the bluntness of it.  This post contains some of the ideas he presented to help people visit, support, and fund museums.

How do you get someone to come to your museum, much less give their money to it, when the general public views museums as fundamentally “educational”?  I love education, but I am not an ostrich.  I realize that most people don’t view it as something “fun” to do on a night out.  Further, museums are seen as being part of the “establishment” or as being “worthy” similar to the way they would see a church.  Again, people don’t consider church as something to do when you want to let your “hair down”.  This makes marketing museums difficult.

Personally, I love education and I love church (I think the general public has false notions of both) but perception is more valuable to this study than realism because that is what drives people.  An example was given to us in class that I think can also be done here.  What is the first thing that pops into your head when you hear the word, “Mars”?  I had a picture immediately.  The lecturer then asked us to raise our hands when our picture was mentioned.  He first said, “god of war” and no hands went up.  Then he said, “planet” and most hands went up.  Finally he said, “chocolate bar” and the rest of us raised our hands.  The question is why?  And the answer is Marketing.  We are conditioned to think of certain things based on our exposure to them.  All of the answers were correct.  But if you want people to visit your museum, you must get people to think about museums in a different way then they currently perceive them as.

A few general observations at this point might be useful.  Museums are a product that has to be experienced.  A person must physically travel to it to experience it.  It must be experienced in a particular environment.  And thus, location is very important.

The most important thing is to realize that museums are “Asset-led”, meaning, that they cannot change their product, just how it is presented.  Thus, it is important to know what people you are targeting want.  You can’t change the assets, but you can change the message and presentation to fit this “want”.  You can go about this in one of two ways.  You can do research to discover what people want or you can condition the public to want what you have.

Either way you will play up your strengths and down play your weaknesses.  You will stress what makes you different from other museums or even other forms of recreation.  You will “sell” the public on why they should take time out of their day to come visit you.  You must convince them why it is in their best interest to do this and even why it is vital that they come.  This is fundamentally about attitude in presentation and information put out.  You must discover or create a need (most likely one the public doesn’t even know they have) and then fill that need.

Managing Archaeological Sites – Authenticity

What makes something authentic?  Authenticity in regard to archaeology and archaeological sites is generally thought of as something that has been maintained in its historical and physical context.  But what happens when an ancient site has a “living” tradition?  This post will stretch the meaning of what is truly authentic.

The Venice Charter has been used as a guide to define what can and cannot be done at an archaeological site in order to maintain its “authenticity”.  For example, nearly all reconstruction work at a site is to be entirely avoided.  Conservation of remains is to be done in a way that maintains the original.  Anastylosis (the reassembling of existing but dismembered parts) is permitted with the aid of as little as possible new material to be used to keep the original in place.

However, this idea of what is “authentic” is limited to the visual.  Sites that conduct Anastylosis with a bit of Reconstruction are required (under the Venice Charter) to make a clear visual distinction between the “authentic” and the “inauthentic”.  However, work at the Parthenon in Greece is putting a wrench into this nearly accepted practice.  Apparently, because of their desire to make the Parthenon as “authentic” as possible for the millions of visitors, they are working the stone to look as similar as possible to the ancient but are not (for visual reasons) making any distinction between the old stone and the new.  They claim that the visitors are to be treated to an “authentic experience”.

Another problem with the Venice Charter is the case of the UNESCO request by the Japanese Temples to make them “World Heritage Sites”.  This request was, at first, rejected, since it has been the practice of the Temples to replace every bit of the Temple within a 25-year period (paper, for example, just won’t last very long) and thus they are not of “authentic material”.  However, the ancient ways of producing the replaced parts (from timber to paint) are still practiced as they always have been.  The argument returned to UNESCO that if anything, the Japanese temple is more “authentic” than the ruins in the Middle East in that a visitor to the Japanese Temples are walking into an experience precisely as it would have looked and felt a thousand years ago, whereas visitors to the ruins of ancient civilizations have to rely on their imaginations (for certainly those monuments don’t look anything like they used to look).

This has caused the whole heritage movement to rethink the meaning of “authentic”.  Is something “authentic” simply  ecause it is “original”?  Or can something be “authentic” if it is has a “living tradition” or if it is being rebuilt using “authentic” methods for an “authentic experience”?

In Egypt, the Antiquity department is employing ancient methods of hewing stone to help make some much needed repairs at Saqqara (and I presume other places as well).  I talked to and watched the Egyptian workmen (who, thankfully are following the cultural dress norms of Islam rather than “authentic” ancient Egyptian customs).  These highly skilled craftsmen are able to produce work that is very similar to their ancient ancestors, which enhances the visitor’s experience. 

I am someone who believes in reconstruction, as long as the reconstruction is done using “authentic” methods and attempts to faithfully represent in a reasonable way, the ancient.  I would like to see the original materials be set aside in a museum setting (when they are no longer safe to use) or mounted in a way that they can remain visual and safe at the site itself and in their “authentic” setting.

Archaeology and Education – Use and Misuse of Textbooks

H. G. Wells famously said, “Men and women tried to recall the narrow history teaching of their brief schooldays and found an uninspiring and partially forgotten list of national kings or presidents.”  Can you relate to that?  Was history “uninspiring” when you were in school?  Did your eyes cross by the endless dates and lists?  How much can you remember now that those days are behind you?  Most likely, what you know (or remember that you know) has been learned on your own since school and (if your education was anything like mine) what you were taught has mostly been forgotten.  This post will look at the traditional way that history has been taught and propose a better use for textbook education.

Textbook teaching is still largely the style used in the United States educational system, although it has been nearly abandoned here in the United Kingdom (according to my professor).  This is particularly true for history.  The main problem with textbook education of history is that the periods under study are presented in a way that conveys to the student the idea that what they are reading is “fact”.  The student never sees the evidence upon which these “facts” were based, has no idea what was filtered out, is not informed of the bias of the authors, and never is given the opportunity to weigh the evidence for themselves – which is, in fact, the main purpose for learning history and a crucial life-skill.

A textbook from 1819, presents a much different view of history than one written in 2010, yet both are educating around the same events (with an entire spectrum of views are found in the years in between).  This just confirms that bias is written into the formation of textbooks since history (presumably) has not changed, just the presentation of it.  In 1819, it was felt that the “bad” parts of history (ie rape, violence, or anything else that might “offend” or didn’t paint the home country in the best light) should not be recorded as history and were left out.  These sorts of judgments have always been made (even if there has been a movement away from this extreme).  Who is the audience?  What is the political goal of the governing body of the textbook?  What events are “important” and “need” to be included?  These are all questions that are asked when textbooks are written.

What makes matters worse is that information is “dumbed-down” and over-generalized leaving the student with a nugget that is actually false.  In an 1886-example, the following statement appears, “When the Romans quitted Britain, the poor helpless inhabitants were left without leaders, or magistrates, like so many wild animals, without reason and without laws.”  There are many problems with this statement, among which is the simple fact that the Romans didn’t leave all at once so the picture that is painted (one of Roman superiority and the blessings they bestowed by their presence on the “poor helpless inhabitants” of Britain) is entirely founded upon a falsehood (and this says nothing about the condescending tone of the statement).

In 1964, a textbook for Reading appeared with entirely made-up stories all based in history but with (then) modern ideals.  A cave-family finds a little girl being told to clean the smell off of an animal skin with a sharp stone and then to beat the skin with a stick in order to make herself “a pretty skirt”.  The problem is that none of this is true.  Sharp stones do not clean smell from animal skins and beating the skin with a stick does absolutely nothing.  And none of this addresses the reason a “cave-girl” would want a “pretty skirt” anyway.  Unfortunately, this sort of treatment of historical periods is common.

Another horrific commonality in textbooks are the ridiculous end of chapter assignments.  One such assignment from a 1954-textbook asks students to, “Write down in a sentence the names of three barbarian peoples who attacked the Roman Empire,” and “Make drawings to show two things the barbarians destroyed in the Empire.”  Both of these assignments are totally useless.  What is the point of education?  Is it to just learn so-called “facts” which may or may not actually be true?  The pupils are not being asked to question the evidence or have any critical thinking whatsoever.  The last assignment might be good in an art class but what does it have to do with history?  And as for naming three “barbarian” peoples, what difference does that make?  What possible life-skill does this assignment address?

History should not be about “facts” but about “opinions about evidence”.  The good news is that there is an effort to re-write history textbooks using archaeology to present facts that students are then asked to evaluate.

When looking for a textbook for your history class, see if the illustrations show at one time both a photo of the actual archaeological (historic) site and a reconstructed illustration/painting of what that site “might” have looked like at one point during its use.  Buildings should be deconstructed using cut-aways and top plans.  They should show how things work and ask the students to evaluate this.  Students should see letters, documents, etc and be asked to solve a mystery.  They should read “first-hand accounts that have been found in the archaeological record.  Questions in assignments should ask students to empathize with life at such and such a period.  But above all they should seek to get the child to think and ask questions even at the earliest of ages with the realization that history is a more fluid thought rather than a concrete one.

Public Lectures – Spies, Cave Bears, and Nature

Over the last week I have had the chance to attend three very interesting and diverse lectures.  Last Thursday I attended a lecture entitled, “Archaeologists as Spies,” yesterday I attended a lecture called, “Cave Bears and Neanderthals,” and today I heard the chief editor of Nature reveal why he rejects or accepts manuscripts in a lecture called, “What I think about, when I think about manuscripts.” This post will give a summary of those lectures.

The lecture entitled, “Archaeologists as Spies,” looked specifically at British archaeologists before, during, and after World War I.  The lecture focused on various individuals including the famous T.E. Lawrence (“of Arabia”) but mostly on people I had not heard of.  The British School at Athens had as much as 15% of their postgraduate British students asked at one time or other to spy for the British Royal Navy.  Most of those students came from Oxford and Cambridge.  They were asked to supply basic information that archaeologists could readily get such as: revealing possible landing zones in Anatolia, locations of military bases, and water supplies.  One of the most active was a certain David Horgarth.  It was also revealed that Woolley and other archaeologists had their survey equipment (which happened to be the best, top-of-the-line, in the world) supplied by the British Royal Navy for their work at Carchemish because with it they could “keep an eye on” the construction of a nearby railway.  Harry Pirie-Gordon (who supplied all of the maps for T.E. Lawrence of crusader castles) was commissioned to blow up a Turkish train and at one point set up a military blockade at the Long Island of Smyrna.  In the process, a Navy ship was sunk and he would have been court-marshaled except that he had taken some Turkish stamps and converted them into “British” stamps by typing GRI on them in honor of King George.  He had sent some to the King just in case something went wrong with the mission.  Sure enough, when he was arrested for “overstepping his bounds” the King stepped in and he was set free without charge.  (He later made more stamps from the HMS Exmouth for Mt Athos – and one must wonder what they were meant to bail him out of – these were never used, as far as can be told.)

There were many more stories in that lecture and had time permitted we would have been treated to some during World War II.  It does make you wonder what was going on among archaeologists from other nations during the same time.

Mary Stiner gave her second lecture of the fall yesterday.  This time she was looking at the concept that Neanderthals had direct physical contact with Cave Bears.  It appeared that by the end of the lecture she was proposing that this contact was actually limited.  I didn’t agree with her based on her own presentation. 

Cave Bears and Neanderthals both inhabited the same region and appeared to be migrating from Northern Syria/Eastern Turkey region into Europe and north Asia during the same time period.  She called Neanderthals “bear-like” because when one compares Neanderthals to modern man the Neanderthals are considerably stronger in a similar way that the Cave Bears were considerably stronger than the modern bears.  Since both used caves for shelter, she felt that they were “bear-like”.  (One has to wonder why the bears couldn’t be “Neanderthal-like” but that is another blog.)  Cave Bears were very large; growing to over 10 feet in height and were much more robust than the Kodiak Brown bears of Alaska.  They were very intelligent, resourceful, good parents, had heavy heads and strong shoulders, hibernated, were able to recycle their own urea during hibernation and use it as protein, didn’t lose bone density during hibernation, had short strong claws (suitable when young to climbing trees), and ate plant food with very strong jaws (yes, they were vegetarian, but later learned to eat meat when necessary).

It is clear that there was some contact between Neanderthals and Cave Bears from cave art, the remains of Cave Bear bones that show that Neanderthals ate them, and the unique flute made out of a bear bone (although she claims that it probably wasn’t a flute but just the marks of a bear bite – even though later in her presentation she showed what bones look like when bear teeth penetrate and the marks are considerably different – she doesn’t like that Neanderthals were cleaver enough to make a flute out of a bear bone).

The rest of the lecture was a case study on Yarimburgaz cave in which there is evidence of both Neanderthal and Cave Bear presence.  Skipping the details (which were very interesting) she concluded that since there is little sedimentation in a cave over long periods and since modern bears are known to radically rearrange their nest prior to hibernation each year, and since there is no evidence of fire in the cave that most probably the Cave Bears and Neanderthals didn’t have contact with each other here even though stone tools from the Neanderthals were found mixed with Cave Bear bones (as well as herbivore bones and other carnivore bones) on the same stratigraphic level.

I disagree with her conclusion.  The parts of the herbivores that were found in the cave (antlers, head, and legs) are precisely the parts that humanoids brought back to other caves (as in her previous lecture about the Lower Paleolithic period in Israel).  She said that in this case she felt that they were brought here by wolves.  (The cut marks on the bones that are made from human knives when cutting the meat away must have happened at a different site and the wolves just scavenged them – was basically the theory.  And naturally she didn’t connect the activity of “humanoids” in the Paleolithic with these Neanderthals as the two groups are supposed to be separated by many thousands of years – just another example of the concept of “evolutionary time” getting in the way of the obvious.)

Then tonight I attended a lecture by Dr. Henry Gee, the chief editor of Nature.  He was a funny fellow but his talk was very revealing in regards to getting a manuscript published.  He said that he receives over 200 manuscripts each week of which about 10 are kept for publication.  That is only 5%.  Obviously he has to make quick decisions (which, he admits, are not always right in hindsight).  80% of all manuscripts are rejected immediately.  He (and other editors) read the cover letter (which he said was like a handshake), the first paragraph, the bibliography, and examine the figures.  By that he knows if he wants to pursue it.  The remaining 20% are sent to “referees” (scientists who can evaluate various aspects of the scientific study to determine if it is viable and responsibly conducted).  Sometimes manuscripts are returned for reworking but often they are just rejected.

So what catches the eye of the editor?  He said that he wants to read something that catches his attention; something that is exciting and makes you want to read more; something that will “change the way I look at the world,” he said.  (And this all in the first paragraph!)  As for the cover letter – he said to “relax”.  “Remember,” he said, “you have been researching for 2-3 years and are very familiar with your study, but this is the first I have ever heard of it or you.”  He told us that the cover letter should introduce you and your research in a “short and sweet” way.  You should suggest referees and also those who you don’t want to referee (if you have anyone in mind that you know is antagonistic about your study).

These were all informative lectures by very knowledgeable, responsible professionals.  I enjoyed each for its own reason and I look forward to more in the next few days.

Cultural Heritage – Culture of Collecting

Do you collect something?  I have a grandmother who collects “Owls”, a mother who collects “Mice”, and an “adopted” mother who collects “Frogs”.  Now none of those dear women would like to have live versions of those beasts running around their house, but they do like figurines, pictures, and other nick-nacks that are in the shape of the creatures they love or find dear.  Why is it that we, as humans, feel the need to “collect”?  Is this urge natural or is it inherited?

One of the problems that Cultural Heritage seeks to address is the culture of collecting.  We stuff museums and homes with items that we fancy, we visit sites and bring home souvenirs, we save relics from our past and the past of our children, we take photos of everything we see and every place we go, and the question is, why?  It used to be that “a man of education” showed “he” was “educated” by having a library and a cabinet for his curios.  It was felt that man was led to civilization through the sciences.  Fredrick Nietche said that interpretation is a function of whatever power of truth prevails at a given time.  Now whether or not he was right, the fact is that there is a growing movement (a new “power of truth” if you will) to rethink how heritage sites, museums, and archaeology are presented.

Those charged with preserving heritage have often felt that the people who visit monuments generally have very little memory of what the site is all about.  They suspect that this is because we, as a people, believe that the monuments do the remembering for us.  Because of this belief there is a concerted effort to re-educate the public with the new approaches of site management and archaeological education.

That aside, is there anything wrong with collecting itself?  Is it dangerous?  Is it therapeutic?  Could it really be about identity and memory-work?  There are three modes of collecting that were presented in class (see which one your collecting fits into). 

Souvenir collecting is when people feel the need to reproduce a larger event through the acquisition of a small object or photo/video.  Psychologically this is tied the idea of “relic” where the object is the “prize”.  By obtaining this souvenir, the collector now has the power to carry the past into the future.  When recalling the event, the collector can present the souvenir to authenticate the story.

Systematic collecting is what museums do.  It is when one particular item is collected because it is of a certain “type”.  These are usually presented in a way for the “public” (whatever that might mean in any given circumstance) to view these items and thus requires a display and audience.  Often these are presented as a visual narrative and to represent an ideology.

Fetishistic collecting is often done without reason.  It reflects the personality of the collector and is possessive and worshipful.  This type of collecting was described in class as an intellectual engagement with “silent” objects.  Sigmund Freud had on his desk various “gods” of ancient civilizations that he called his “colleagues of choice”.  This is a more emotional type of collecting than the others and I would not recommend typing “fetishistic collecting” into an internet search engine!

So is collecting dangerous or therapeutic?  I guess it all depends on why you collect what you collect and what you expect to get from it.  Whatever you decide, history has shown that you should NOT throw out your baseball card collection (or let your Mum do it for you)!

Theory – Culture

Archaeologists dig to understand how people in the past lived, to discover unknown history, and to clarify known history.  Part of this process is the recovery of objects, which helps the archaeologist to determine and define the culture of the ancients.  But, therein lies the problem.  Can objects really be expected to be able to define a people?

Culture is usually defined as the repeatable beliefs and practices of a group of people.  Thus, culture is restricted to space and time (but time must be long enough to be repeated).  The question is if the objects that are produced by a culture can be indicative of that culture.  In other words, does a bowl tell us anything about the beliefs and practices of the people who make it.  In at least some way, however small, it does.  And thus, objects are often referred to as “material culture”. 

In reality, there is little else the archaeologist can study to get at culture.  However, obviously the complete culture of a people can never be fully realized by the study of material culture simply because people cannot be defined by the objects they make and use.  Sure, from these objects we can infer many things but to believe anything else is probably over simplification and generalization.

What makes it even worse is if the object was acquired by an antiquarian and not by an archaeologist.  An object without context (meaning without space or time) is almost useless to achieve a knowledge of a people.  This is why the enemy of the archaeologist is the antiquarian (treasure hunter, tomb raider, random person with a metal detector, local antiquity dealer, etc).  Without knowing where an object came from there is no way to learn about the people who made and used it.  Without knowing when an object was made and used, it is floating in the void of history and is only good for its aesthetic value.

Thanks to Indiana Jones (who I think if really cool) and Lara Croft Tomb Raider (who I also like) the general public often mistakes antiquarians with archaeologists.  The romantic notion of solving dangerous temple puzzles and avoiding booby-traps, is far from what usually happens.  Archaeology is much more like Crime Scene Investigation with the crime being the passing of time and sometimes something more exciting like the invasion of a foreign army.

The puzzle of culture is actually got at through comparative studies.  An archaeologist digs at a given site in a region.  The objects that are found are then classified into types.  These types, as a group from this site, form an assemblage.  The  ssemblage of this site combined with assemblages from other sites, joined together, help the archaeologist to define the culture of a region.

Because this has been the system of study there is a lot of criticism of the classification of type.  Type is basically a tool that looks at the changes in the physical features of an object over time.  This in and of itself is fine.  What is a bit  ontroversial is the link this has to culture.

It is controversial because archaeologists now know that there are many reasons why this change might take place that would have nothing to do with the development of culture.  Objects change form (and thus type) through migration (people moving from one place to another), diffusion (people adopting nearby ideas), invasion (people forcing a new culture upon another), revolution (people inventing a new culture), among other ways.

Perhaps the answer is that the study of objects should only loosely be used to get at the culture of a people and instead, maybe objects should just be studied as what they are – useful items and no longer be used to define a people.

Laptops Allowed, None Used

Having come from Andrews University where nearly half of the students in any given class use laptops to “take notes” I have been shocked at what is happening here at UCL!  Teachers allow laptops in class, but no one is using them!

One of the biggest controversies in my former school, Andrews University Seminary, is regarding how classes should physically be conducted in regard to the use of laptops during class.  As a tool, laptops are a handy way to take and record notes.  Most people today, can type faster than they can write.  People like me also have the added benefit of being able to read the notes afterwards when they are typed on a computer (my handwriting is horrendous and spelling similarly bad)! 

So why do teachers at Andrews not want students to use laptops?

If laptops were used just for taking notes there wouldn’t be a problem.  However, in the world we live in, wireless internet is a must.  But students have abused this availability and taken to playing games, surfing the web, and watching movies (and all of this in class while the teacher is lecturing), which serves as a distraction to other students and a waste of time and education for themselves!  There is the further problem of having a small wall (the computer screen) between the student and the teacher.  And some instructors say that it is also harder to carry on a dialogue with the students while some are typing.

I, personally, like to take notes on paper as I can draw diagrams quickly and edit on the fly so I never really planned on using a computer in class (and only did during the last semester or two while still at Andrews – just to try it out; I ended up taking notes on the computer and on paper at the same time, which defeated the purpose).  But while I didn’t want to, I did recognize that some needed to and so I had no problem with students using their computers in the right way.

When I first noticed that laptops were not being used at UCL I thought that maybe, since the buildings are all old and there are not many plug-ins, that students just couldn’t use laptops.  I brought the subject up before class just yesterday and discovered that fellow students were shocked that anyone would want to use a laptop at all!  I found out that (at least in the schools where these students studied) very few students ever use laptops here.  Everyone (that I talked to about it) felt that it was actually easier to take notes on paper!

UCL is ranked this year #4 in one of the lead tables.  That is 4^th best university in the world.  And yet here, in this institution that bills itself as a “Global University” for its diversity and reputation for being a cutting edge research school, for students to not want to use laptops was stunning!  It certainly speaks on a few levels to the difference in expectation that students have between the US and the UK.

But I wonder…do students use laptops at your school?

Archaeological Photography – Photographing a Site

A photo shown to us in last week’s class stuck with me through the week and made me think, “How was that taken?”  It was a photo of an excavation square from directly above the square.  Now anyone who knows anything about excavation will immediately understand my perplexity.  Squares are generally anywhere from 4 meters (as this one is) to 6 meters.  It is physically impossible to float above a square and take a photograph from directly above  (short of renting a hot-air balloon or a helicopter).  What we do at Jalul is to use secure step-ladders to get relative top angles of the squares taken from different sides of the square.  But how was that one taken?

There is really no way for an ordinary person to get that pure of an angle – yet here was a photograph taken (not from a high-altitude plane or a satellite but) from a 70’s era, 35mm, black and white film camera that one has to wind and manually focus!  Furthermore, our professor informed us that it was taken from about 3 meters above the surface of the floor of the square.

So how did they do it?  I had to ask.

I arrived at class about 15 minutes early and was rewarded with the answer to my quarry.  It was done with delayed action camera atop a frame.  It involved four people (one on each side of the square).  Two secured the base of the frame on opposite sides of the square from each other, while the other two (standing on perpendicular sides to these frame-holders) held a rope each, attached to the top of the frame.  The frame was “A”-shaped made from round tubing with a crossbar to make it somewhat steady.  A gimbal was mounted at the peak of the “A” along with both ropes.  The camera was fastened to the gimbal so that it would always point straight down (due to gravity).

They managed to work this simple machine by having the photographer be one of the rope-holders.  In this case, he wound the film, set the timer on the camera (in which they had 10 seconds to hoist it into place and hold it steady), and called out for the opposite rope-holder to pull mightily, raising the “A” (along with the gimbal and camera) into the air.  A knot, tied in the photographer’s rope told him when to stop the ascent of the “A”-frame.  They held it steady and the camera snapped the photo.

My professor told me that a 24mm, wide-angle lens, was all that was needed.  Furthermore, today the whole process would be much easier.  We have digital cameras that auto-focus.  Also, we can snap the pictures remotely.  We can zoom in or out with the use of a laptop and actually see what we are photographing.  And today there are “arms” (similar to the legs on a tri-pod) that can extend to 25 feet that we can hold up to achieve the same results reducing the number of people involved to just 2.

He further told a story about a well that they wanted to “see” down into.  They suspected a cistern lay at the bottom but were unwilling to descend without first knowing the structural soundness of the walls of the well.  What they did was to first lower a plumb-line so they knew the depth.  Then they took a rope and tied knots in it every ½ meter down to the depth.  Then they fixed a camera to the end of the rope so that it would face downward and focused it to ½ meter distance (thus the walls would be in focus at ½ meter depth from camera lens and everything beyond and closer would be gradually out of focus).  Then with the delay action of the camera (timer) they would wind the film, set the timer, and carefully, but quickly lower the camera to the desired depth, wait for the shutter to snap and then hall it back up to set it for the next shot.  They would repeat this gradually letting the camera take photos further and further down the well shaft.

Naturally, the photos were not all facing the same direction (as there is no way to keep a camera from spinning a bit at the end of a rope), but what they ended up with were photos of the sides of the well all the way down.  What they were shocked to discover was that there were hand/foot holds carved into the sides of the well going all the way to the bottom.  At the bottom, there was a cistern.  Apparently, during times of great distress or danger, they were able to climb down the well to this cistern and wait.  With food that they brought along, they had plenty of water and could last for some time down there (until it was safe to return to regular life back on the surface).  All of this done with a little ingenuity and a delayed camera timer.

It is these types of stories that I am happy to hear.  There are many applications to these two methods of filming.  I would be happy to hear of some of the methods you have heard about or done yourself to get at a solution to a problem.  The more we share these methods, the better we get as photographers and the better our archaeological photography (and other types of photography) gets.

Egyptian Objects – Cleopatra’s Needle

Have you ever been walking along the Thames River in London just north of the London Eye and looked over at the west bank and seen an Egyptian Obelisk standing among the trees and wondered what it is, why it is there, and how it got there?  Our class spent some time looking at this as a way to reflect on the thinking of the world of archaeology, and Egyptology in particular, at the time “Cleopatra’s Needle” was brought to England and set up on the riverbank of the Thames in London and how it affects the world it is in today.

The fact that “Cleopatra’s Needle” was not a needle nor was has it anything to do with Cleopatra apparently didn’t matter to the authorities or public in the early 1800’s.  England was actually politically engaged with Mohammad Ali (not the boxer but the Albanian who was the Khedive of Egypt ruling at that time).  Ali knew that England (as well as, France) feared him and used the obelisk of the 3^rd Thutmose as a political gift to be a “needle in the eye” to the British.  (And, by-the-way, the word “needle” in Arabic was not the word for a small sewing needle but the word for the very large knitting needle.  Ali knew what he was saying and what he was doing when he sent it to England.)  However, it wasn’t transported to England until 1877 because the British government wouldn’t sponsor its trip (most likely due to the political intentions of the gift, as well as the great expense in doing so).

When it finally began its voyage, there was a disaster.  The ship that was carrying it, while in the Bay of Biscay, experienced a storm.  Sailors lost their lives when their rescue boat capsized.  The obelisk was abandoned and the ship was presumed to have sunk.  However, it drifted instead and was picked up by the Spanish.  When the English found out about it, the asked for it back.  That led to another big hassle.  Eventually it did arrive in England where the question arose of how to transport it.  A half-year later, it was finally settled upon to just erected it on the Victorian Embankment, where it stands today.  During World War II a bomb landed close to it and shrapnel gouged out sections of the stone near its base.  When I first saw it (in 2004) I was horrified at its dingy condition.  It was most recently cleaned in 2005, and today appears to be in relatively good condition.

The obelisk itself, was originally erected by the 3^rd Thutmose at Heliopolis (the ancient Egyptians called the city, “Iunu”, and it was the cult center of Ra just north of Memphis in the Delta region of the Lower Kingdom).  It is made of red granite and its pair is in New York (also called, “Cleopatra’s Needle”).  Later, the 2^nd Rameses added his own inscription in the lower regions.  At its current location, two bronze sphinx were placed on either side of it to guard it.  However, the sphinx were installed backward so instead of guarding it they appear to be reading it.

We were asked to visit the site on the Embankment and ask people who passed by what the object was to see if anyone knew about it.  Some did, but others didn’t even realize it was there.  Of those who did know what it was, most “knew” that the English had stolen it and thought it should return to Egypt.  No one appeared to have any idea what the inscription said or who the obelisk was actually originally erected by or where.  In other words, its location does nothing for the populace and is simply a curiosity to some and something to ignore by most.

When it was brought over from Egypt in the late 1800’s, there was a huge debate regarding whether an artifact was worth a life.  Since sailors actually died in its transport many felt that it would have been better to just leave it where it was.  Today, many feel (according to national poles) that these ancient objects should return to their countries of origin.

While I don’t necessarily agree that this particular object should return to Egypt, I do feel that its current location is worthless and useless.  I believe it should be better managed and protected and should be put in a location that can properly educate people about it.  I also feel that the name is ridiculous and that it should be called what it is, “The Obelisk of Thutmose.”

Secrets of the British Museum

There are over 110,000 Egyptian objects in the British Museum and less than 5% of those are on display.  Last Thursday, the MA Supervisor for Egyptian Archaeology at UCL, Dr. Richard Bussman, arranged for all MA Egyptian Archaeology students to get a private tour of the Egyptian “stores” of these objects in various places behind the scenes (and even in the basement) of the British Museum.  This post will describe that tour.

Our tour was given by the curator and assistant keeper of Egyptian artifacts, Richard Parkinson.  We had to put our coats and bags in a locked closet before we could go on the tour (I imagine this was to prevent people from “accidentally” going home with one or more smaller items that somehow might find their way into the pockets of said garments).  Then we started off with a brief tour of the Egyptian library.

We were told over and over how the British Museum is for public access and anyone could for any reason see any item in the British Museum with an appointment.  In fact, there have been only a few times that people were denied.  One of those was a lady who said she was “Nefertiti” and could prove it because she had a birthmark between her breasts.  She disrobed to prove it and naturally was arrested and not allowed to see any artifact.

After the Library, we went to the “Organic Store”.  NOTE: this was not a place to shop for healthfood but rather the storage area for organic material – yes, that includes mummies, lots and lots of mummies!  I was completely astounded at the amount of large wooden coffins, stacked up on rolling metal shelves at depth and height like that of a wholesale home improvement store back in America.  Also in this room are rows of very tall cabinets with locked drawers holding all sorts of organic tidbits.  The room is carefully conditioned so the environment is as suitable as possible for the preservation of these materials and the lights are rarely on (except when necessary).  Every precaution is taken to ensure that these materials last as long as possible.

Following that we were taken through the maze of halls and stairways and workrooms to the “Papyrus Store”.  When we arrived at the store I was surprised at its “oldness”.  Unlike the modern Organic Store, this store room had a feeling of age.  It is a very narrow long hall-like room with tall wooden narrow shelves floor-to-ceiling with framed papyrus standing vertical 5-10 in a shelf along the left wall and horizontal shelves along the right for framed papyrus that is too delicate to stand vertical.  We were shown notable papyrus and informed on the various methods used throughout time to mount them and preserve them.

In the hall outside of the store was a very large section of the Rhind Mathematical Papyrus.  It is covered with a canvas to keep it from the light.  We were shown how bleached and faded a section is that was on display compared to the rest.  The result is astounding and terrible!  Another papyrus that was in the store had a large section of the yellow paint almost completely faded to nothing compared with another section simply because of the light that it had been exposed to while on display!  It reminded us how much damage light can do over time.

We had a brief stop-over in the room with rare books and records.  It was a much smaller room but just looking at the old books and reports was cool!  We were reminded (as we were throughout the tour) how incompetent Wallace Budge was.  In this room we were told how he purposely recorded false information to manipulate the system.  By the end of the tour I felt vindicated for my feelings of his work.  I have not trusted Budge or any of his books for some time now – after seeing and hearing what he did in these sorts of instances and the sloppiness and downright misleading work that was a trademark of his, I have even more reason to continue with that opinion.

Our last stop was in the basement where the “Stone Store” is located.  We walked in to a very “basement” looking long hall with a screen for a wall opposite us, which is where the majority of the stone items are housed.  The hall was lined on the right with a great many large stone statues set up as soldier-guardians of the place.  It was, in itself, quite an impressive sight!  We walked through a doorway beyond the screen to where the majority of stone items were located.  The areas between foundation pillars are walled-off from each other by the shelving that holds a myriad of stone objects.  But whether the artifacts are on a shelf or on the floor (due to size) everything is on, at least, a wooden platform to avoid any damage water might have on them from leaking (this is England after all).

The whole experience was awe-inspiring and left me with an appreciation for the work done to preserve these ancient materials and the effort to be as accurate and accessible as possible.  Everything is delicate, everything is precious (as nothing can ever be replaced).  I could spend a thousand lifetimes examining all of this and be very happy.

Managing Museums - Mission

Amazingly, only 13 years ago, the British Museum adopted a Mission Statement for the first time.  Before that, if anyone asked, “Why do you exist?” the standard answer apparently was, “Because we have for over 200 years.”  This is not that the British Museum didn’t have a sense of mission, but just that it was never written down.

Many organizations are or have been run like this.  Without a reason for existence there can be no coordinated thought as to how to properly manage the resources of the museum.  In a place as large as the British Museum this can lead to many difficulties.

A mission statement should be based upon the categories of the acronym PESTLE.  The first factor to consider is the Political element.  This is especially true in a country like England where there are no private museums but all museums belong to the National Heritage Trust.  This is also true of the museum I used to work at, the Siegfried H. Horn Archaeological Museum, which was tied to Andrews University.  Since much of what happens in any organization goes on behind the scenes, a proper understanding of why those who have ultimate control over the existence of the museum value it is important.

The Economic factor to a museum’s mission is almost self-explanatory.  Money is tight and a manager needs to understand what the museum is there for so that the funds available can be used in the best possible way.  (We will look more at fund raising in an upcoming blog.)  There are two types of funding that a manager must consider: Revenue and Capital.  Revenue funding includes all that is necessary to keep a museum running.  Capital funding is what is necessary for projects.  Both need to be planned for and both need to be transparent so that those working for you understand what is available and what is not.  It also helps you to factor in the hours that the museum is open to the public each week, which will also play a part in the economic considerations of the mission statement.

A museum also has a reason to exist for Social reasons.  Visitor, employee, and visiting researcher all interact in some way or other.  The needs of each have to be understood when the mission of the museum is considered.

Technology plays an ever-growing part in the role museums play in making information about the past available to the world.  Does the museum plan on making its research, artifacts, etc available to the public and if so (which it almost certainly must) how?  Are people only able to get at this information in a physical way or is an electronic method more suitable?  (More on this in a future blog.)

Depending on the country, the Legal factor will change.  An archaeological museum will have to factor in not only the legal challenges in their own country but also those in the countries from which the objects that they hold and from which they excavate come.

And finally, there is the Environment to consider.  This may not seem as important, but actually, there are a number of advantages (many of which come from factors already mentioned) that a museum has to “going green”.

Certainly there is much more to be said about each of these, but in order for a museum to be well managed, it must know why it exists and this is expressed in a mission statement.  In upcoming blogs we might make it back to some of these issues and look a little closer at them.

Managing Museums – Vision

The difficulty in museum management is that people resist change.  The problem is that change is necessary.  As the  world changes around us, so must our way of communicating to them change.  So how do you get people to do something that is different?  The answer is simply to cast a vision.

 

If this sounds familiar to you, then you have had some sort of class or real-life experience that involved leadership.  I have heard lectures (during my days as a Masters of Divinity student) regarding church membership growth, methods in mobilizing the laity, etc that said the same thing.  I am sure this concept spills over into all sorts of disciplines.  It is one of those truisms that reflects the way we, in the current modern world, look at getting people to do what we think needs to be done but might be entirely different then what they are used to doing.

 

A recent survey showed that when people consider museums and the work that is done in them they rank these in the following order: Display work, Collection work, Conservation work, and Research work.  The reality is that the list is actually backward to what really happens in museums.  Museums do more work in Research than any of the other three categories.  Conservation is the next largest work load.  This is followed by collections.  The least amount of work that is done in a normal museum is that on displays, simply because displays are not altered often.  (This was less true at the Horn Archaeological Museum while I was there because we were trying to get the museum up and running so much of the work I did – after research, which still was the largest work load – was to create and rotate displays.)  The British Museum (by way of example) has a 20-year shelf-life for its displays (meaning, they change a display after 20 years).

 

For the manager of a museum (where research and conservation are by far the two largest types of work being done) it is important to use the helicopter method – stay in one place, trust others to do their work, and pop in from time to time to see how things are going.  Being a manager does not mean that one should be looking over the shoulder of their workers all of the time directing their every move.  Quality control is important, but the work of a manager is to provide the tools that those under you need to accomplish the tasks you have assigned them to do – and then let them do it.

 

A manager, rather, must worry about items that their workers never have to consider.  These include: museum attendance, budget, public relations, political maneuvering, and fund raising (among others).  It is the manager’s job to ensure the museum stays up and running and that it runs smoothly.  A whopping 60-80% of the budget in a museum goes to staffing.  To get funds to create new displays (or to renovate old ones), to conserve artifacts, and to educate the public takes a person with creativity and people skills.

 

However, whether the job is to supervise employees, to raise funds, or to educate the public the ability to cast a vision is important.  A vision (the direction you see the museum heading) is based on an understanding of the mission (the reason that museums exist).  The mission of the museum is in turn based on the values that those entrusted with the museum’s existence hold.  As manager, it is important to understand those values and how they influence the mission statement to show where you see the future of the museum heading and how you can get from where we currently are to that place.

 

Once this vision is cast, everyone from the supporters and visitors to the employees and administration will understand their role in getting the museum to that place and the work will be better coordinated and result in higher quality outcomes.

Female Dominance

A triumph for equal rights, overcompensation, or something else altogether?

UCL has always been known as a leader in the world for leveling the playing field for races, religions, and gender.  UCL was the first university to allow women equal standing with the men in England.  Certainly I have heard championed by the administration here, the effort they put to consciously allow everyone the equal right to study.  And I have been pleasantly surprised at the result.

I am attending seven classes this semester (while only being assessed for 3).  And in each of these classes (all run by the Institute of Archaeology) there is a clear female student dominance in attendance.

In the Archaeological Photography class there are 3 men and 9 women.

In the Theory of World Archeology class there are 4 men and 13 women.

In the Cultural Heritage Class there are 5 men and 37 women.

In the Archaeology and Education class there are 3 men and 23 women.

In the Managing Archaeological Sites class there are 13 men and 30 women.

In the Managing Museums class there are 5 men and 50 women.

In the Egyptian Objects class there are 4 men and 10 women.

These numbers are more or less accurate over the two weeks we have had class already.  I am not sure where all the guys are.

Certainly this can be held up as a triumph for equal rights!  (And it has been to some degree.)  Some men might argue that there has been an overcompensation as men are clearly in the minority in (at least) these classes.  After all, the Institute or Archaeology is the one who reviews the applications and makes the decision as to who is allowed to come to UCL to study and who isn’t.

I am of a different mind.

I look at these numbers and marvel.  To be honest, I overheard the observation in one of my classes and that is when I started counting – before that I didn’t even notice.  I was shocked at the result (as listed above)!  But I don’t think UCL or the Institute of Archaeology (in this case) is in any way at fault.  I believe that all applications are examined equally and the very best students are selected.  This year, in these classes (and the Institute offers at the MA level approximately 93 classes so admittedly my 7 classes is a very small sample of this), there just happens to be more qualified female applicants interested in these topics then male applicants.  I don’t see a conspiracy or any sort of inequality to those of my gender.

In fact, my heart is warmed by these numbers.  Over the past few centuries (during which archaeology has grown into a recognized field of science) men have dominated.  To see this many women interested in archaeology and capable of performing the tasks at hand is a testament to the inclusiveness of the discipline.  I have worked with and under women in archaeology over the past four years and see no difference between them and the men I worked under and with.  If any difference does occur it is that the women are more exact and exacting.  In short, they do better work (again, a very small sampling – taken only from my experience).

If this result says anything about men vs women, in my mind, it is that men should work harder to achieve better results – the women are kicking our tails!

Managing Archaeological Sites – Values

Much of being a Site manager is dialogue between various interested parties.  The ability to understand what each party values is crucial to being a successful manager of the site, which includes the archaeology that is done there and the conservation when the digging is completed.

In fact, we were told that it is important to examine the desired “outcomes” of an excavation and prepare for them before any digging starts.  These “outcomes” include pre-excavation, excavation, and post-excavation.   In matters  related to conservation (normally considered a “post-excavation” task) we were counseled that the best time to preserve a site is just after you finish excavating (or sometimes, even while the site is being excavated).  Even a few weeks is too long to leave ancient material exposed to the elements and the local inhabitants of the region (be those people, animals, or vegetation – each posing a unique danger).  Thus, it is important to prepare for this before any spade strikes the dirt.

But this preservation/conservation has to be conducted in the best manner possible that satisfies those who have a stake in the site.  As much as we all hate politics, it is a very present reality when owners, managers, and legislators all have a say in what happens at the site.  In fact, their opinion will probably trump your expert opinion at the end of the day.  Learning and being able to satisfy each party’s value of the site is crucial to accomplishing your archaeological goals.

Why people value a site varies from person to person and from interest group to interest group.  Some might consider the archaeological/historical aspect of the site to be the most valuable.  Indeed most archaeologists fit into this category.  However, others might find an associated value the strongest reason they value the site.  This is especially true when a current religion associates value to a site through “sense of place”.  This associated value is sometimes the hardest to detect but also the deepest rooted so that a site manager cannot ignore it. 

One example given in class was an Islamic site (I won’t name which) that has archaeological value and is currently being used by pilgrims as a place to pray.  Part of the ancient plaster is falling down on the Islamic pilgrims while they pray.  What the local Imam cares about is that his pilgrims are safe.  He doesn’t care about the archaeology or even the authenticity of the site.  It could be bulldozed for all he cares.  He values the sense of the place.  Telling him that the historic personages that are supposed to be buried there are probably, in reality, buried at another location would be the worst thing one could say since that is precisely why he values the site.  The associated value is what makes the site important to him and to the pilgrims that visit the site each year.  Thus, he does not care what is done to the ancient architecture, just as long as it stops dropping on the pilgrims and disrupting their prayers.  In cases like this, identifying and understanding why each party values the site is crucial to resolving the problem in a satisfactory manner both archaeologically and religiously.

Sometimes values are not harmonious.  The job of the Site Manager is to find the most satisfactory way of accomplishing his goals while not upsetting the values of others.  At Tall Jalul, for example, the local people value a certain section of that site as a cemetery.  We, as archaeologists, need to dig exactly where the cemetery is located.  But, for the time being, we cannot.  We must put aside our value, in this case, for that of the local people, until a satisfactory solution is discovered.

Another way to look at value is in how the site is presented to visitors.  Projecting value is done by establishing a site’s significance through scale, age, or comparison.  Since value depends on opinion and is less objective, it is important to consider what would be valuable to those who might visit the site for various reasons and project these. 

Difficulties that arise can usually be resolved and the archaeological goals accomplished in time once the various values are identified and understood.

Archaeology and Education – A Better Way

Think back to when you were a student and your class took a field trip to a heritage site (be it an ancient site, a monument, a village reenactment, etc).  What did your teacher do with you once you arrived at the site?

Most likely they did one of two things: hand you off to some “expert” who then told you not about the place but about its history and then gave a list of people that you should know or your teacher used the historic site as a backdrop to have a lecture about the place.  Both of these could much more easily have been done back in the classroom itself and probably should have been before visiting the site or at least, shortly after visiting it.

This class is all about what educators should do when they educate students about archaeology and heritage sites.

What we want teachers to do at historical heritage sites is to use the historical evidence (ie the building, city, landscape, etc) to teach the students and to help them learn how to see this evidence for themselves.  If visiting a Roman Bath house, for example, explain to the students how a bath house was used, pointing out the various places certain things were done, and then read them an account of a Roman soldier who actually used a bath house (since we have such a record).  In their mind’s eye the student can then picture themselves as that soldier experiencing something that we just don’t do in today’s world.  Or visit an Islamic structure to show students how a square building can have a round top (dome) with the use of arches.  Pointing this sort of thing out gets students thinking about how things were built and they will begin to notice similar things in that and other buildings.

In the classroom, it is important for teachers to use Archaeology more than History when teaching about the past.  Unfortunately, there is no class called, “Archaeology” in the curriculums.  (Why certain classes are in the curriculum and why others are not, ie geology, is an interesting subject in and of itself.)

History textbooks present the past in a biased absolute way that gives the impression to the reader that what is being taught is solidly accurate when the reality is that history is always presented from a certain point of view and rarely, if ever, is there enough information for the historian to be absolutely sure that their point of view is correct (saying nothing about if it is the “best” one or even “right”).  Archaeology, on the other hand, is fluid.  Archaeologists are constantly finding more information that alters our perception of the past.  Archaeology allows students to realize that we do know a lot about the past, but that knowledge is still growing and flexible.  It allows students to realize that history is not black and white, but exciting and mysterious with an infinite amount of possible angles to look at any one event.  Archaeology puts the evidence for the past at the fingertips of the student and allows them to learn to be more critical in their approach and dealings with the past.

Archaeology has a lot to offer to the educator.  However, like most things, the full potential is yet to be realized.