2015Journal of Field ArchaeologyRequires access

On the challenges and benefits of indoor archaeology: 15 years at the Archeodome (Mitchell Prehistoric Indian Village, South Dakota)

Landon P. Karr, L. Adrien Hannus, Alan K. Outram

Open publisher page 1 citations

Abstract

Field archaeology is normally associated with outdoor excavation and exposure to the natural environment. Archaeological excavations have adapted to a wide spectrum of these conditions, but the recent prominence of archaeological sites as tourist attractions and educational facilities has occasionally led to dramatically different environments for the archaeological recovery, interpretation, and preservation of evidence, including facilities that permit indoor excavation. This article explores 15 years of experience at the Mitchell Prehistoric Indian Village in South Dakota. An “Archeodome” covering part of the site represents a non-traditional excavation and preservation environment that presents considerable benefits and challenges for archaeologists. The structure provides the basis for evaluating the nature of indoor excavation within its archaeological and educational context and provides a cautionary note for archaeologists, heritage groups, tourist boards, and others interested in the preservation of archaeological sites. Though this article focuses on the Mitchell site, the information reported has broad implications for sites where structures cover archaeological deposits.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Field archaeology is normally associated with outdoor excavation and exposure to the natural environment. Archaeological excavations have adapted to a wide spectrum of these conditions, but the recent prominence of archaeological sites as tourist attractions and educational facilities has occasionally led to dramatically different environments for the archaeological recovery, interpretation, and preservation of evidence, including facilities that permit indoor excavation. This article explores 15 years of experience at the Mitchell Prehistoric Indian Village in South Dakota. An “Archeodome” covering part of the site represents a non-traditional excavation and preservation environment that presents considerable benefits and challenges for archaeologists. The structure provides the basis for evaluating the nature of indoor excavation within its archaeological and educational context and provides a cautionary note for archaeologists, heritage groups, tourist boards, and others interested in the preservation of archaeological sites. Though this article focuses on the Mitchell site, the information reported has broad implications for sites where structures cover archaeological deposits.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 1 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Field archaeology is normally associated with outdoor excavation and exposure to the natural environment. Archaeological excavations have adapted to a wide spectrum of these conditions, but the recent prominence of archaeological sites as tourist attractions and educational facilities has occasionally led to dramatically different environments for the archaeological recovery, interpretation, and preservation of evidence, including facilities that permit indoor excavation. This article explores 15 years of experience at the Mitchell Prehistoric Indian Village in South Dakota. An “Archeodome” covering part of the site represents a non-traditional excavation and preservation environment that presents considerable benefits and challenges for archaeologists. The structure provides the basis for evaluating the nature of indoor excavation within its archaeological and educational context and provides a cautionary note for archaeologists, heritage groups, tourist boards, and others interested in the preservation of archaeological sites. Though this article focuses on the Mitchell site, the information reported has broad implications for sites where structures cover archaeological deposits.

Key concepts: Excavation, Archaeology, Prehistory, Context (archaeology), Natural (archaeology), Archaeological evidence, History, Geography

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
On the challenges and benefits of indoor archaeology: 15 years at the Archeodome (Mitchell Prehistoric Indian Village, South Dakota) — Research Paper | ScholarLens