Make-Believe Rituals: Reflections on the Relationship between Archaeology and Education through the Perspective of a Group of Children in Rio

de Janeiro, Brazil
Marcia Bezerra, Catholic University of Goias, Goias, Brazil

ABSTRACTS
Abstracto: Este ensayo reporta sobre investigaciones entre un grupo de ni6os escolares brasile6os que fueron entrevistados para ver como ellos consideraban la arqueologia, como su conocimiento del pasado afecta su comprension del presente, y como su experiencia del presente les informa su vista del pasado, R6sum~: Ce papier presente des recherches menees parmi un groupe d'6coliers bresiliens afin de savoir comment ils voient l'archeologie, comment leur connaissance du passe affecte leur comprehension du present et comment leur exp6rience du present renseigne leurs vues du passe.
O O _O

[T]he miracle that we would hope for from the bottom of our hearts, the school as a preserved universe, island of purity--in which all disparities and social struggles would come to a stop, this miracle does not exist: the school is part of the world. (Snyders 1977:18)

Introduction
Throughout 2001, I coordinated an intervention 1 project with a group of 144 twelve-year-old children at a private school in the city of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The idea was to stimulate scientific interest among students by appealing to the curiosity that most of them have about archaeology, contributing to their intellectual growth and to a better understanding of archaeology. This was a six-month project, divided into distinct phases, one of which was the interpretation of an archaeological case study (a fictitious archaeological site) that required the students to keep a journal. As a way to document and evaluate the proiect, I conducted two series of interviews, which together with the journals, were the foundation of my doctoral dissertation (Bezerra de Almeida 2003).

O O
~C

~c
60

Make-Believe Rituals

61

The objectives of the dissertation--different from those of the intervention project--were related to reflection on the relationship of the public (especially children) with archaeology and archaeologists. With this goal in mind I sought an understanding of the social representations of archaeology for children by examining the elements that constitute such representations. In my dissertation, I discussed questions related to archaeology and education as well as to the social role of archaeology. In this article I present part of the analyses of the interviews with students and of the reports they wrote as the starting point for discussing three main topics: (1) the introduction of archaeology in schools as a mechanism of access to the students' worldview; (2) the social representations of archaeology and prehistory for the children; and (3) archaeology as an instrument for emancipatory educational practise. I emphasise analysis of the reports, but consider also the oral accounts as a way to reflect on questions that give us a better understanding of the culture of children (Demartini 2002), which I believe to be critical for developing the relationship between archaeology and education. These data are also important in the elaboration of intervention projects that could change the stereotypical vision of archaeology, as well as encourage its use as an instrument for the establishment of a critical perspective on education.

The Educational (Intervention) Project

The project was developed in partnership with four teachers at a middle-class private school in the city of Rio de Janeiro. The objective was the introduction of archaeology as a didactic tool for the teaching of several disciplines of the school curriculum. Believing that the introduction of archaeology to children should include concrete activities, I decided to construct a mock archaeological site on school grounds. The materials I used were modern/commercial ceramic vases, human and animal bones, modern Indigenous necklaces, and a series of pigments. The excavation was preceded by four stages: (1) a series of interviews; (2) a lecture to the students and teachers involved in the project; (3) an exercise with an excavation simulator toy (Archaeologist Kit); and (4) the introduction of archaeological topics in arts, sciences, and history classes. In history classes the students learned some important elements of the scientific method, such as observation and the description and elaboration of hypotheses. The study of material culture was also considered, and this allowed children to (according to them) "ask questions of the objects" Additionally, the programme advanced issues related to prehistory. In the science classes, and in the context of soil studies, the teacher presented topics related to agriculture, emphasising the relation of humans to the

62

MARCIA BEZERR4

natural environment. The arts curriculum included prehistoric art. I offered the teacher published iconographic material on Native Amazonian populations as well as motifs found in Brazilian archaeological sites. In the first case I wanted to consider the meaning of the motifs for the Native populations and, in the second, to present Brazilian rock art to the students, improving their understanding of this type of art. The students elaborated their own interpretations of the paintings based on information provided by the teacher. In the classroom stage of the project, the students chose motifs and copied or created paintings in red and black on the external surface of ceramic vases. The products of this activity were used in the excavation. In this way, we created an increasing involvement with archaeology in the classroom and students were able to familiarise themselves with scientific procedures of excavation. Interviews were conducted before and after the project and they allowed me to get to know the target population, contributing to the development of activities and serving as an instrument to evaluate the project itself. The reports concern the excavation and were also used as evaluation tools. At the end of the project I produced an educational video (Bezerra de Almeida and Lopes 2001) about the relationship between archaeology and education.

The Reports and Interviews: The Children's Voices

The testimony of children is a fertile way to investigate questions pertaining to childhood (Quinteiro 2002:35). Listening to children means understanding that they bring to school their multiple belongings, through which, according to Dayrell (2001), they create their "own culture, glasses through which they see, feel, and attribute sense and meaning to the world" (141; also see Gusmao 2003). Demartini (2002) points out how little use we make of the statements and critiques of children. One exception is Florestan Fernandes's (1979) classic work "As 'Trocinhas' do bom retiro" in which he considers the culture of the children living in working-class neighbourhoods in the city of Sao Paulo. In rapport with Fernandes's thinking, I emphasise the importance of the children's accounts as a research source. I consider the voices of the children through interviews and reports so as to access--in between the lines of their narratives about imagined prehistoric rituals and their representations of archaeology--the "cultural worlds" (Quinteiro 2002) of a group of middleclass twelve-year-old students in Rio de Janeiro.

The Reports
Each group of four children received an index card for the description and interpretation of the materials they found in the mock excavation. In their re-

Make-Believe Rituals

63

ports, the students related the site to three groups: men, women (gender), and children (age). The causes of death attributed to members of each group were different. Some men were thought to have died of diseases and natural causes, but the majority were said to have died of violent causes such as wars, invasions, and cannibalistic practises. One report relates a ritual in which a man and an animal were roasted in a hearth. The man was seen as a victim of cannibalism, which he could not escape. Other reports state the man's death resulted from his brave attempt to defend himself or his territory. Yet another report registers the death of a "Religious primitive man who was killed because he knew something and was burnt and cut into pieces, mutilated." The children referred mostly to "prehistoric men"; women were cited in only two cases. Explanations for the deaths of women were different: a woman was considered to be to blame for her own fate, accused of breaking rules and committing sins. In one case the children described a death ritual of a couple accused of transgressing religious canons. The woman was blamed for the "sin;' while the man was just an "accomplice." Children are mentioned in two cases only: one was a child eaten by an animal and the second was a girl who became ill and died. Neither of these children could have defended themselves, which frees them from the responsibility of their deaths. A male perspective permeates all student discourse--boys and girls. The reports referred to "primitive man," "Neanderthal man," or "prehistoric man." Men were characterised as responsible for subsistence, security, and religious rituals. Women, cited in less than 10 percent of the reports, appear in disadvantaged situations, such as dying in consequence of disobeying social rules and as being incapable of taking care of their own security. Moreover, the description of material culture related predominantly to what the children see as the masculine universe: hunting and fishing implements, ceramic vases for male organised rituals, sacred amulets for men, and so on. Even the creation of the ceramics is attributed to men. Artefacts related to women are invariably related to personal aesthetics, such as necklaces. In most of the reports examined, students' interpretations used elements also present in the interpretive models of professional archaeologists. The words primitive, evolved, domination, invasion, invention, and civilization are frequently used to describe prehistory. Their rationale is that "primitive men" eat anything that surrounds them and that they only manage to "dominate" nature when they "invent" agriculture, becoming "evolved." This would allow sedentism, which would imply greater complexity, verified by the "beautiful craft and ceramic vases" used in religious rituals. Duveen (2002) observes that "the child is usually the most conservative element in a classroom" (188). He thinks that children's resistance to an egalitarian vision of the genders represents a fear of "the loss of a sharp and clear image of the world" (288) that not even fantasy dares to undo. Children clearly prefer a linear evolutionary model to explain the prehistoric past. The adaptive

64

MARCIA BEZERRA

model described by children is strongly permeated by the colonialist legacy (Funari and Noelli 2002).

The Interviews
Besides soliciting reports, I conducted two series of interviews: the first was made during the beginning of the project, before the students had any contact with archaeology in the school, and the second, three months later, during the concluding stages of the project. 2 The students were interviewed individually and in groups. The purpose of this strategy was to evaluate the project, identifying changes in the perception and attitude concerning archaeology. This difference was considered in my analysis of the interviews. I did not consider questionnaires adequate since, when it comes to children, written assignments are not the best way to obtain information) The act of writing is associated with "homework," making children very worried and anxious about giving the correct answers. The result is that they do not express themselves spontaneously. Furthermore, during an interview it is possible for the interviewer to repeat or explain any question that the student may have difficulty understanding. I chose a semistructured type of interview, defined by L~idke and Andr6 (1986) as a technique that, organised around a basic plan, allows for adaptations that may become necessary during the course of the research. In some cases, it was actually necessary to introduce new methods along the way. The option of videotaping was particularly interesting since it allowed for the documenting of "nonverbal discourses )' Despite initial constraint, most of the students were very enthusiastic about the videotaping. In this section I consider the first series of interviews. Throughout the process, the modifications I made concerned mainly the format of the questions and the introduction of new questions, derived from questions brought up by the students. I asked the children,"What is the first image that comes to your mind when you hear the word archaeology? Do you know any archaeologists? What does an archaeologist do? What is the purpose of archaeology? Have you heard of archaeology here in Brazil? What would be your first response should you find a buried (ancient) object?" These questions relate to a three-dimensional universe: information, representation, and attitude. Information concerns the organisation of knowledge that a determined group has over an object; representation is the image or social model that allows for mediation between the subject and the group or concrete world; attitude emphasises global orientation in relation to the object of representation (Moscovici 1978:69). I started each interview by asking the child to describe the first image that came to mind when he or she heard the word archaeology. One of the students

Make-Believe Rituals

65

said that his image of archaeology was that of"someone excavating in a desert looking for a dinosaur." We could then assume that to him the archaeologist works outdoors, in the desert, and that archaeology is associated with excavation. Nevertheless, when asked specifically about the workplace of archaeologists, the same student answered, "Oh, I think he works at some kind of office where he keeps the relics he finds, someplace in which he keeps all of his reports?' These associations were frequent in the children's accounts. Nevertheless, when reflecting objectively about the workplace, they point to a very different scenario. In other words, when asked directly about the workplace of archaeologists, most students answered by referring to closed spaces. The frequent mention of excavations was related to the kind of activity in which archaeologists engage. The association between excavation and work is not clear in the responses. This may have roots in the concept of work itself for the children. In her analysis of the concept of work in didactic books, Faria (2000) concludes that, for children in public schools, work is a survival instrument, and for children in private schools work is a kind of amusement. According to her analysis, study is children's work and any kind of manual labour is despised. She thinks that in a capitalist society, school separates "homo faber" from "homo sapiens?' The distinction is made in didactic books when they separate manual from intellectual work. The former would correspond to the peasant with his tools, the latter to the executive at his office desk. She concludes that "in the ideology of the dominant class, the difference between manual and intellectual labour rests on the part of the body that executes the activity" (65). It is important to mention that Faria based her study on didactic books and questionnaires answered by children in both public and private schools. Her point of view is considered here as a possible explanation of the distinction that the students made between excavation (manual labour) and work in closed spaces (intellectual work). The introduction of the word work in my question resulted in students attempting to adapt this new image-archaeology as work--within their particular universe of representations, where archaeological work has a well-defined form: it is intellectual, hence, performed in closed environments. The study developed by Nadai and Bittencourt (2000) in a private school in S~o Paulo, with children of the same age range, reveals a picture closely related to my discussion. According to the authors, to most students "the period of 'slavery' was previous to that of 'industrialization,' even when they considered work in the mill as a process of industrialization. The anteriority is determined by the use or not of 'human force'" (83). For them, manual labour is an important indicator of their notion of time, which implies "technological advancement?' This perspective suggests that, for the students, technological progress is associated with the establishment of another

66

MARCIA BEZERRA

modality of work that does not require "human force" that is, intellectual work. I believe, therefore, that the notion of work for middle-class children in our society supports the idea of archaeology as adventure, since to them, (i) excavation gets confounded with archaeology; (2) work is associated with intellectual activities; (3) excavation is a manual activity; and (4) work, for schoolchildren, is synonymous with study, but, on the other hand, outdoor manual activities are identified with nonprofessional activities or with play/leisure. Concerning the question "Do you know any archaeologists?" there were three types of answers: (1) fictional characters: Indiana Jones, the researchers of Jurassic Park, and the character of a cable television series; 4 (2) negative answers; and (3) me (their interviewer). Clearly the fictional characters known to the children reinforce the idea of archaeology as adventure. The film and television productions cited by the children purvey an image of the archaeologist that, forged from the dominant ideology, instantiates the trope of explorer of "exotic civilisations," and reaffirms the dominant view of the occidental white man, rich or supported by a patron, who is also a white occidental man. Even though several children alluded to the feminine sphere--undoubtedly due to my presence--the masculine image is deeply embedded in their perceptions. This was particularly evident among the students who cited the "archaeologist" of Jurassic Park--in answer to the second question. The researchers in the film in question are actually palaeontologists--a couple-nevertheless the children mentioned only the man. The film suggests a gendered division of research areas: the man studies dinosaurs and the woman studies plants. The study developed by Thomaz (2001) with children of the same age range in two private schools in Rio de )aneiro shows that two-thirds of the drawings depicted male archaeologists, while female archaeologists were represented in only one-third of the drawings. None of the boys depicted women, but the girls linked archaeology with women in one-third of the cases. In this case, children made drawings without the knowledge that they were destined to go to a female archaeologist, which made biases in that regard impossible. The studies of Duveen (2002) show that, even between children "the genders are not a terrain free of disputes, and even here power relations can generate resistance" (289). The unpretentious interpretations of children reveal a worldview that reflects two issues considered by Santos (2002) as "foundational discoveries of the millennium" and they are "the savage, as the locus of inferiority, and nature, as the locus of exteriority" (35), in other words, "the primitive, the other, the different, the nonevolved." Further, the culture of children underlines the polarisation of female and male roles, leaning toward a vision that emphasises male domination and, consequently, female fragility.

Make-Believe Rituals

67

Archaeology and Education

School is not the foremost agent responsible for the formation of these unequal social and cultural constructions. These are forged before the individual enters school, but in the school space they are often perversely cultivated. Thus, instead of creating individuals conscious of the cultural diversity, school moulds individuals who reproduce the stereotypes of the dominant culture (Gusm~o 2003:155). Freire (2002) harshly criticizes this practise, which he calls "banking education" where the focus in the educational process is the teacher. Students are simply objects and, as such, do not know anything. Their actions are restricted to listening, receiving, following, and adapting. Such a context erases creativity and critique and emphasises passivity and naivete. In this model Freire (2002) criticises that the teacher acts as an authority, in charge of reproducing the dominant discourse. Privileged students would have the task of legitimating and maintaining their dominant worldview; and disfavoured students would end up accepting the cultural imposition, perpetuating their exclusions. With very little or no access whatsoever to what Bourdieu (1987) calls "cultural capital," these less privileged groups would largely ignore the value of their cultural heritage. This fosters the formation of individuals who are unlikely to abandon their condition of subservience, unable to problematise reality, and unprepared to assume their historical place, considering themselves as subjects in the construction of their own identities. This makes it possible for the individual to be culturally invaded, since the assumption of cultural identities opens the way for the invasion of an identitT forged by the dominant interests that tend to homogenise the differences (Freire 2002). To Freire, the only way to change this picture is through the understanding of education as revolutionary cultural action. He states that it is through education that it is possible for individuals to "know the whys and haws of their adherence to the reality that gives them a false knowledge of itself and of themselves" (172). Archaeology deals with the past--one of the most critical elements of cultural identity. Manipulation of the past has served political agendas worldwide, causing the loss or denigration of cultural identity among minorities that are excluded from historical records. This includes the appropriation of archaeological patrimony by the dominant groups and the spoliation of the memories of the disadvantaged and underrepresented. These observations indicate the importance of the development of an archaeological education programme in schools. First, because by considering questions that require the study of different cultures through material culture, archaeology allows the students the acknowledgment of their own cultural identity. Second, as a scientific discipline, archaeology can awaken the interest of students in science in general, something that I believe is fundamental to the development of a critical attitude.

68

MARCIA BEZERRA

Conclusion
At the end of the project, during the second series of interviews, I verified that the majority of the students were astonished when they realised that the work of archaeologists was not restricted to excavation. Most answers demonstrate that the students consequently elevated archaeology to the category of work. It is worth remembering that during the first interviews it was very clear that their notion of work referred to intellectual and not manual activities. If archaeology was a synonym of excavation, and associated with manual labour, it could not be considered as work in the full sense of the concept. For them, archaeologists entered the picture only by finding interesting objects, but from that m o m e n t on the intellectual work would get started under the responsibility of another professional. What they said after three months is that archaeologists were the ones in charge of the entire process--from excavation to laboratory--and that excavation included nonmanual labour such as drawing, registering, studying, and report writing. We can see that they started referring to the real archaeologist as a professional like any other: "Excavating is fun; I just think that if you are a professional archaeologist it gets more difficult than what we did here in school." We can see that this group of children learned, in practise, that there is no dichotomy between manual and intellectual work; that manual labour requires intellectual input and that, by the same token, all intellectual jobs require some degree of manual labour. In a society with a slavocrat tradition, such as Brazil, this intervention in the students' concept of work makes some difference. I hope it is clear that archaeology is a valuable tool in the context of education and that we can use it to reflect on ideas reproduced in schools. By concluding that the representations about archaeology are founded in other representations, I suggest that its presentation should be always in the form of an intervention, since articulating its contents with the public necessarily touches on ideas and values that are beyond the traditional scope of the discipline.

Notes
1. I see this project as an "intervention" since it originated as an action plan with delineated objectives, with follow-up of the planned activities, and the creation of evaluative and action mechanisms. (See Andr4 2003.) 2. The six-month duration of the project mentioned at the beginning encompasses the first meetings for the elaboration of the project until the conclusion of the educational video, made from images filmed during the entire project, including the interviews with the students.

Make-Believe Rituals

69

3. The use of drawings has been very effective in studies with children and about children. (See Gobbi 2000.) 4. "Walking with Dinosaurs." Discovery Kids presented by Discovery Channel. Channel 41 in Brazil.

References Cited
AndrE, M.E.D.A. de 2003. Etnografia da prcitica escolar. Papirus, Campinas, SP (S4rie Pratica Pedag6gica). Archaeologists Kit. Made by Toypower Industry. Code ESC3338. Electronic document, http://www.toypower.com.br. Bezerra de Mmeida, M. 2003. The Hunchback Austhralopitecus: Children and Archaeology in a Public Archaeology Project in School. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation in archaeology. Universidade de Sgo Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil. Bezerra de Mmeida, M., and Lopes, C.D. 2001. Archaeology Goes to School: An Experience with Simulated Excavation. Screenplay and presentation by Marcia Bezerra de Mmeida. Direction by Cadu Dias Lopes. Rio de Janeiro: Centro de Produ~ao de TV e Video, 2001.1 VHS tape (27 min.), VHS, audio/color. Bourdieu, E 1987. A economia das trocas sirnb6licas. Perspectiva, Sgo Paulo, Brazil. Dayrell, J. 2001. A escola coma espa~o s6cio-cultural. In Mfiltiplos olhares aobre educafao e cultura, edited by J. Dayrell, pp. 136-161. UFMG, Belo Horizonte, Brazil. Demartini, Z. de B.E 2002. Inf~ncia, pesquisa e relatos orals. In Par urna cultura da infdzncia: Metodologias de pesquisa corn crianFa, edited by A.L.G. Faria, Z. de B.E Demartini, and P.D. Prado, pp.l-18, Autores Associados, Campinas, Sao Paulo, Brazil (Colesao Educa~ao Contemporanea). Duveen, G. 2002. Crianqas enquanto atores socials: As representaq6es socials em desenvolvimento. In Textos em representagOes socials, edited by E Guareschi and S. yovchelovitch, pp. 261-298, Vozes, Petr6polis. Faria, A L.G. de 2000. Ideologia no livro diddtico. Cortez, Sao Paulo, Brazil (Quest6es de Nossa l~poca, v. 37). Fernandes, E 1979. As "Trocinhas" do bom retiro. In Folclore e rnudan(a social na cidade de Sao Paulo, edited by E Fernandes, pp. 153-256, Vozes, Petr6polis. Freire, E 2002. Pedagogia do oprirnido. Paz e Terra, Sao Paulo, Brazil (O Mundo Hoje, v. 21).

70

MARCIA BEZERRA

Funari, EP. de, and ES. Noelli 2002. Pr~-Hist6ria do Brasil. Contexto, S~o Paulo, Brazil (Repensando a Hist6ria). Gobbi, M. 2000. Desenho infantil e oralidade: Instrumentos para pesquisas com criangas pequenas. In Por urea cultura da inf~lncia: Metodologias de pesquisa corn crianca, edited by A.L.G. Faria; Z. de B.E Demartini, and ED. Prado, pp. 69-92, Autotes Associados, Campinas, S~o Paulo, Brazil (Coleg~o Educa~o Contempor~nea). GusmSo, N.M.M. de 2003. Os desafios da diversidade na escola. In Diversidade, cultura e educag~o: Olhares cruzados, edited by N.M.M. Gusm~o, pp. 83-105. Biruta, $8o Paulo, Brazil. L/Jdke, M., and M.E.D.A. Andr6 1986. Pesquisa em educag~o: Abordagens qualitativas. Editora Pedag6gica e Universit~ria Ltda, $8o Paulo, Brazil. Moscovici, S. 1978. A RepresentaF~o Social da Psicancilise. Zahar, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Nadai, E., and C.M.E Bittencourt 2000. Repensando a nog~o de tempo hist6rico no ensino. In O ensino de histdria e a CriagSo do Fato, edited by J. Pinsky, pp. 73-92. Contexto, S~o Paulo, Brazil. Quinteiro, J. 2002. InfSncia e educa~o no Brasil: Um campo de estudos em constru%~o.Por urea cultura da infClncia: Metodologias de pesquisa corn crianr edited by A L.G. Faria, Z. de B.E Demartini, and RD. Prado, pp. 19-48. Autores Associados, Campinas, $8o Paulo, Brazil (Cole~o Educa~o Contempor~nea). Santos, B. de S. 2002. O tim das descobertas imperiais. In Redes ctdturais, diversidades e educaq8o, edited by I.B. Oliveira and E Sgarbi, pp. 19-36. DP & A, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (O Sentido da Escola). Snyders, G. 1977. Escola, classes e luta de classes. Moraes, Lisboa, Portugal. Thomaz, L.V.. 2001. Entre llipis e pap6is: A arqueologia no imagin~irio infantil. In Resumos do Congresso da Sociedade de Arqueologia Brasileira, edited by Sociedade de Arqueologia Brasileira. Sociedade de Arqueologia Brasileira, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.