III/ The Archaeological Evidence

[1 hr 30 min]

1. Explain to the class that for many years the sagas were the only sources of evidence available to scholars studying Norse exploration and colonization in the North Atlantic.  This is a good opportunity to review the saga evidence as a whole one last time, using the board to record key names and events and to sketch a rough timeline.  Encourage students to take notes.
   [10 min]
2. Footprints Activity. This activity models the basic patterns of inductive thinking used by archaeologists when interpreting archaeological data.  The archaeologist’s job is to construct a general picture of past human activity from the numerous specific pieces of physical evidence left behind by that activity.  In archaeology, these pieces of evidence are called artifacts, while in this simulation they come in the form of footprints.
   1. Give each student a copy of the Critical Thinking: Observations and Interpretations handout, explaining that their task is to build a reasonable interpretation of what has happened here.
   Note:  In order for an interpretation to be deemed ‘reasonable’, it must be supported by observations of fact.  It is essential to note that observations and interpretations are fundamentally different.  Observable facts are absolutely knowable, black and white (e.g. one set of footprints is larger than the other).  These differences may be quantified objectively and are not subject to argument or debate.  However, various interpretations may be constructed upon the basis of these facts.   These interpretations are always subject to question (e.g. the notion that one animal was larger than the other is a reasonable interpretation based on the evidence of footprint size, but it is not an observable fact, as we cannot see the actual animal).
   2. Students must record their observations (facts) and interpretations separately for each panel in the diagram, according to the instructions on the handout. Ultimately, based upon observable facts, each should arrive at a reasonable interpretation of just what happened.
      [5-10 min]
   3. Elicit student interpretations, emphasizing the importance of solid observations as well as their clear distinction from the interpretations.  Indicate that this is a model of the type of analysis regularly undertaken by archaeologists, where in the place of footprints there are artifacts.  This is the type of analysis they will perform next.
      [10 min]
3. Relate to the class how, in the early 1960s, explorer Helge Ingstad and his wife, archaeologist Anne Stine Ingstad, discovered the ruins of a Norse settlement on the northern tip of Newfoundland.  Since then, the site of L’Anse aux Meadows has been extensively excavated.  With the saga evidence in mind, students will now have an opportunity to examine this site through archaeologists’ eyes.
4. Divide the class into task groups of 2-4 students and assign each group one of the three main structure complexes at L’Anse aux Meadows.  Provide each group with a L’Anse aux Meadows Feature Records and a copy of the L’Anse aux Meadows Archaeological Site Plan.  Both will be required to answer the questions posed on the Archaeological Analysis Sheet, a copy of which should be provided to each student.
   
   L’Anse aux Meadows Archaeological Feature Packs:
   
   
   1. Structures A-B-C
   2. Structures D-E
   3. Structures F-G

   Before the groups set to work, briefly review the site plan with the class using a visual aid (such as an OHP).  Point out the three main complexes of structures and note their positions relative to each other and to the furnace hut located on the south side of Black Duck Brook.  This furnace hut is significant for the overall interpretation of the site’s history [see Birgitta Wallace’s readings at end of unit].

   [20 min]

5. After the small groups have examined the archaeological evidence and each student has answered the Archaeological Analysis Sheet, those groups who examined the same features should briefly come together and compare notes.  Outstanding questions and/or difficulties in interpreting the evidence are to be dealt with within the group, the intention being for individual group to reach a consensus.  Each of the three larger groups must select a speaker to present their findings to the rest of the class using the OHP [the plans provided may be used as OHP masters].
   [20 min]
6. Speakers from each of the three larger groups present their interpretations in sequence, indicating how distinctly how individual observations gave rise to particular interpretations.  Encourage audience members to participate by scrutinizing the presenter’s interpretations and by asking questions where the train of thought is unclear.
   [20 min]
7. When the presentations conclude, facilitate a summative class discussion based around the following questions
   [15 min]


• Were all of the buildings occupied at the same time?
• Is there evidence of social class distinctions in this settlement?
• How long was the site occupied? 
• What were the Norse doing here? Or, what was the purpose of this settlement?
8. Follow up the summation of student interpretations by assigning readings from all or part of Birgitta Wallace’s professional archaeological interpretation of the site.