President's Message
May/June 2008
(as published in Arch Notes New Series 13(3))
The other day a young adult, who currently finds themselves at a crossroad in his life, wrote me as president of the OAS asking for career advice. While that person had just completed a programme in the communications field, success was not found there. And so, the person mused about returning to school to complete a bachelor's degree in Archaeology. What are the prospects, I was asked?
I am certain that most OAS members who practice archaeology professionally are often asked this same question. I know I am. And while the recent hype over the new Indiana Jones movie (Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull) and even the appointment of Harrison Ford to the board of the Archaeological Institute of America, has put archaeology back under some kind of popular, public spotlight, the answer we give to young people eager to pursue the dream we, or some of us, are living, must be carefully weighed. We are, after all, potentially affecting someone's future.
"Harrison Ford has played a significant role in stimulating the public's interest in archaeological exploration," said Brian Rose, President of the AIA. "We are all delighted that he has agreed to join the AIA's Governing Board."
I wouldn't want to quibble with Brian Rose over the kind of interest that was created around archaeology. Personally, I would venture that most people who've seen the Indiana Jones films were only marginally aware that Indy was an archaeologist. Further, I very seriously doubt that anyone who has watched his films could tell us very much about archaeology, quite simply, because, as we all know, these films do not portray archaeology, archaeologists or true archaeological objectives and research methods. But they are great fun to watch; packed with lots of adventure, thrills, exotic locales and priceless ancient artifacts (at least one per movie!). So they are good entertainment, but no more than that. Using this as a model in a potential response to a young person needing guidance in understanding how they should chart out their lives would be unfair and just plain wrong. In actual fact, I doubt very many people invoke his image in any serious way, although I must admit I often use his quote that "Archaeology is about facts, not truth...if its truth you want, go to Philosophy 101 down the hall" (or something to that effect!).
So what are the correct points to bring out in a response to the question? Everyone has a different perspective on which to base their answer and the next few lines are limited to my own narrow experience. I usually provide complementary but sometimes opposing elements in my answer. For instance, I point out that archaeology, at a very personal level, is about a passion, a yearning for discovery, for opening up the past, for connecting with worlds that can only be dreamed about, that can only be tangibly reached through the material evidence long abandoned and lying hidden below the surface. Without that driving fire, forget it. If you think pursuing archaeology will bring you fame and fortune, you will almost certainly be disappointed. If you hope to find that elusive, wonderful and spectacular artifact, forget it. At the heart of real archaeology (as opposed to Dr. Jones' brand) is redundancy, patterns that repeat themselves and thereby inform us about what people regularly did, how they structured their world and not one-ofs, no matter how extraordinary they may be. So patience, as well as passion must be at the core of your desire to undertake the studies and put in the time, effort and money in obtaining the qualifications to make this your lifelong dedication.
That might do to get you to the front door of Archaeology, but how to get in? What are the job prospects, the employment possibilities? Well, government, academic and museum positions are few and not likely to expand significantly, and the turn-over is quite slow. On the other hand, there is the whole world of consulting archaeology, one for which people are rarely trained while in university. The world of archaeological contracting is one with significant competition, yet significant room for expansion and accommodation of newcomers as well. It is first and foremost a business and no one should convince themselves otherwise. This isn't research, although it has the potential to provide huge amounts of valuable research data which are usually only utilized on the consultants' own time. And of course, this brings us back to patience and passion...
In the end, many people shy away from the commitment and the uncertainty, yet they take some archaeology courses and hopefully they join organizations like the OAS in order to keep up with recent trends and discoveries. Most importantly, they carry in them an appreciation and respect for our archaeological heritage, and at some future municipal council meeting, they raise their hands during a public review of a proposed development and they inquire about the steps that have or will be taken to protect any known and potential archaeological resources at the site of the development. They become advocates for the archaeological past. They help set deeply the roots of archaeology in Ontario and elsewhere into fertile soil so that archaeology ceases to be perceived by the wider public as an exotic study, but simply as the way we learn about those who came before us in our own neighborhoods, as the way we learn about the land we all cherish.
That past may never make it onto a big silver screen, let alone the wide-screen HDD's more and more numerous in our homes, yet it is a fascinating story of how the land came into being, slowly emerging from under a continental glacier, sometimes being flooded by an inland sea then eventually taking on its current configuration after some serious tilting and rebounding, and at the same time going through a series of evolutions of its floral and faunal populations. Across this dynamic canvas, human actors are constantly present, changing their props with each change of the scenery, being inventive, being constant, being linked on a continental scale through exchange networks that extend in all directions. This is the tapestry of Ontario's story with some pieces better known than others and so many yet to be identified, let alone detailed.
Last winter (Arch Notes New Series 12(6), Nov-Dec 2007) I commented on yet another television report about the Franklin Expedition and the search for evidence of its fate. Recently I was contacted as a follow-up on that President's Message with a challenge: identify some of these stories which would be worthy of putting on television, which could persuade those in positions to do so, to release scarce resources to document and bring to the public's attention episodes and stories of Ontario's past. In our discussion, it became apparent that in spite of my stressing that Ontario's past may not have the panache of lost XIXth expeditions in the Arctic, visual impact and adventure sell. So here is the challenge to us all, especially to the contractors who come across so much and about whose work we really know so little: send me your documentary ideas and I'll pass them along (not as my own, I can assure you). And don't worry about the camera appeal; let's focus on human and historical interest, on unknown and insightful data. The challenge to documentary makers and broadcasters is to package the realities of the past and make them appealing. The past has its own inherent qualities that must be respected. Who knows, perhaps there is a way to bring the archaeology of Ontario to the airwaves.
Jean-Luc Pilon