Archaeological Open-Air Centers

Looking at the scattered publications of experiments executed around the world, some of them are done in laboratory circumstances at universities. Most of them are done under field circumstances at archaeological open-air centers. These centers have a position

Figure 4 The location of the beam-end fender in front of a through-beam on the outer side of the hull. Drawing by Morten 00thche, Maritime Newsletter from Roskilde, Denmark, no. 7, December 1996, p. 15.

Figure 5 The beam-end fenders can be seen clearly on this town seal from Elbing c. 1350. From Maritime Newsletter from Roskilde, Denmark, no. 7, December 1996, p. 15.

Between science on the one hand (as most important source of information) and the public on the other hand (as most important ‘target group’). They are a prime mediator between science and the public.

There are about 400 archaeological open-air centers across the world, with 6 million visitors per year. The key words for these centers are education, presentation (with living history), and experiment.

These three aspects come together in their basic objective of interpretation of archaeological data.

Such centers are not museums in the traditional definition. One of their most important characteristics is that they do not own any original artifacts, everything is ‘fake’ so to speak. That does not mean they do not have a collection, but in most cases the information that goes with these artifacts is more important than the artifact itself. Their houses, decoration, and tools are there to be used, and if they break, they can be constructed anew - according to the latest insights in archaeology (Figures 6 and 7).

The staff working in such a center either present their museum in a way similar to a modern museum, or they act like living history actors, dressed up and playing a role which fits the timeframe the center depicts.

Not being a museum does not imply that those centers are very commercial. They have a message to get across and gaining more insight in the past through experiments is part of their mission.

The main task of the archaeological open-air centers is to present an image of the past as the interpreters see it, to their visitors. An important part of these visitors are school groups, which receive the information in programs where they themselves need to be active. This ‘hands-on’ approach is a type of formal education.

A type of more informal education is applied to day tourists. They partly visit these centers for a popular day out, but seeing how ‘their’ ancestors lived and being informed plays a role as well. For them, it is a kind of ‘edutainment’ (see Tourism and Archaeology).

Archaeological open-air centers need people who are both experienced in crafts as in archaeological knowledge.

Scientific involvement in the archaeological centers prevents them from telling nonsense to the public. Moreover, continuous involvement ensures that centers give an up-to-date image of the past, according to the latest scientific insights. The centers on their part broaden the support for archaeology as a science drastically. The final advantage which archaeologists can find in open-air centers is the use of them as field laboratories, occasionally or for long-term experiments. This applies both for academic research and for training students.

Historic Overview

The oldest archaeological open-air centers were constructed at the end of the nineteenth century and portrayed a romantic image of the past.

Around Lake Constance, in the period 1888-1940, much attention was paid to lake dwellings. This was

Figure 6 Neolithic house in the outdoor archaeological garden at Asparn/Zaya, Austria. Picture: Roeland Paardekooper.

Figure 7 Bronze Age houses at the archaeological park at Montale, Italy. Picture: Roeland Paardekooper.

Still the period when excavations were especially carried out by the nobility. Excavations of these lake dwellings in the northern Alpine region made a wealth of information available about the people living on the coasts of these lakes in the Neolithic and the Bronze Age.

A still existing example of such a lake dwelling reconstruction is situated in Unteruhldingen, on the German side of Lake Constance (Http://www. pfah! Bauten. de). The first ‘prehistoric’ houses were built here in 1922. In the years immediately preceding WWII, these lake dwelling museums had role in promoting the fatherland. At present, Unteruhldingen is one of the

Most popular open-air centers across the world and has the capabilities of being innovative and showing a constantly updated presentation about the past (Figure 8). Other elements are self-criticism of its role in the past and teaching the public how we know what we know.

In 1925, work started in Virginia on reconstructing ‘Colonial Williamsburg’ (Http://www. history. org). The place is a living history museum themed on the eighteenth century, a period many Americans take pride in. It contains 88 original houses and 50 reconstructions and receives at present a million visitors per year. Here, they interpret the origins of the idea of America, conceived decades before the American Revolution.

In Poland, following wetland excavations at Biskupin (Http://www. biskupin. pl), first reconstructions of an Iron Age settlement were made in 1936 (Figure 9). The project raised a lot of attention and acquired the character of a national monument, playing a role in defining Polish nationality up to the present day. Biskupin has a major educational value and is one of the most frequently visited open-air centers across Europe. With their long history, they have been able to maintain knowledge on building wooden constructions. Since the 1980s, Biskupin is the venue of the largest archaeological festival in the world. Yearly, about 80 000 visitors come and see a themed festival on, for example, ‘Romans and

Figure 8 Two of the groups of lake dwellings at the Unteruhldingen Museum, Germany. Picture: Roeland Paardekooper.

Their barbarian neighbors’ or ‘In the shadow of the pyramids’.

In the first decades after WWII, not many new open-air centers were conceived. Groundbreaking work was done under the guidance of the Dane Hans-Ole Hansen, when the Lejre Experimental Centre (Http://www. lejre-center. dk) was conceived. From the very beginning, the centre was an interdisciplinary field station. It combines characteristics of a theme park (its low threshold) with a museum’s scientific background and one keeps aware of the relevance to present-day society. The center represents a dynamic, informal, and nonrecognized learning, both for school children and adults alike. The well-balanced constellation between presentation, education, and research as practiced in Lejre has been an inspiration to dozens of other centers. Lejre does its own research, tries to involve university students by giving introductory courses in experimental archaeology, publishes Both scientific and popular books, and offers means and opportunities to experimental archaeologists across the world to do experiments in Denmark.

In 1972, Peter Reynolds set up an archaeological field laboratory with aid from the Council of British Archaeology (CBA) entitled ‘the Butser Ancient Farm Research Project’ (Http://www. butser. org. uk). Among the existing archaeological open-air centers, it is the one with the most scientific aspirations.

Butser has been developed as working Iron Age farm with, since 2003, a Roman villa, filmed and described by the Discovery Channel (Figure 10). The foremost goal is to be used by archaeologists and their students, but education plays an important role as well. The experiments carried out follow a strict regime, thus having a high scientific value.

In the late 1970s, with much discussion between archaeologists, an Iron Age fortress (Figure 11) was partly reconstructed in Sweden at Eketorp (Http:// Www. eketorp. se) on (Oland.

Some of the questions which played an important role in the discussion in Sweden were:

•  Does a (re)construction have any use at all?

•  What is the goal of (re)constructing? Is it research, education, tourism, or adventure?

•  Does it generate new knowledge or does it reproduce established knowledge?

Eketorp has been successful in addressing problems about reconstructing environments, based on archaeological data. Old archaeological hypotheses were tested and new ones were formulated, showing

Figure 10 View of the interior of the Romano-British villa at Butser Ancient Farm, UK. Picture: Roeland Paardekooper.

Both the reach of experimental archaeology and its limits. Eketorp was at the beginning of a boom of ‘living history villages’ across Sweden.

Many centers need to generate a large part of their income themselves. Since the 1980s, some centers could start up with a big sum of money from a particular fund. One of these places, still with a noncommercial goal, is the Middelaldercentret in Denmark (Http://www. middelaldercentret. dk). Their theme is about medieval techniques and machines of war. The center started off with some catapults and archaeologists still do research in areas like medieval ways of making gunpowder. An important characteristic for the 75 000 visitors is the many volunteers in their living history role.

Future developments might be seen in centers like Bachritterburg Kanzach in southern Germany (Http:// Www. bachritterburg. de). It is not their motto (‘‘be surprised - understand - experience’’) which is new, nor their approach to using living history groups. Much of the information which is used in creating the center and its reconstructions is based upon detailed experimental research at universities in different countries. What makes this project being mentioned here innovative is that it is financed with European funds. More and more often, European structural funds are used to create tourist attractions like archaeological open-air centers in rural areas. A major weakness is that the money can only be used to construct a center, not in running it.

There are just a few open-air centers which have theme park characteristics, for example, the Irish National Heritage Park. But a commercial theme park is different from an archaeological open-air center. Theme parks are ‘‘extreme examples of capital intensive, highly developed, user-oriented, man-modified, recreational environments’’ (Pearce, 1988, 60).

Archeon (Http://www. archeon. nl)inthe Netherlands, with almost 200 000 visitors per year, is presenting itself as living history theme park. It is organized as a company, that is, the commercial role is evident, but the managers know that they have to retain quality and keep contact with universities to ensure this. More people learn here about national Dutch history then in the National Dutch Museum of Antiquities just 30 mi away.