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'6col-

iers 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
[T]he miracle that we would hope for from the bottom of our hearts, the
_O school as a preserved universe, island of purity--in which all disparities
E 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 archaeolog-
O ical site) that required the students to keep a journal. As a way to document
O and evaluate the proiect, I conducted two series of interviews, which together
with the journals, were the foundation of my doctoral dissertation (Bezerra de
~C Almeida 2003).
~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 chil-
dren 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 ac-
cess 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 impor-
tant in the elaboration of intervention projects that could change the stereo-
typical 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, hu-
man and animal bones, modern Indigenous necklaces, and a series of pig-
ments. 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 exer-
cise with an excavation simulator toy (Archaeologist Kit); and (4) the intro-
duction of archaeological topics in arts, sciences, and history classes.
In history classes the students learned some important elements of the sci-
entific method, such as observation and the description and elaboration of
hypotheses. The study of material culture was also considered, and this al-
lowed children to (according to them) "ask questions of the objects" Addition-
ally, the programme advanced issues related to prehistory.
In the science classes, and in the context of soil studies, the teacher pre-
sented 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 popula-
tions 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 un-
derstanding of this type of art. The students elaborated their own interpreta-
tions 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 prod-
ucts of this activity were used in the excavation. In this way, we created an in-
creasing 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 ac-
tivities 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 middle-
class twelve-year-old students in Rio de Janeiro.

The Reports
Each group of four children received an index card for the description and in-
terpretation 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, inva-
sions, 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 can-
nibalism, which he could not escape. Other reports state the man's death re-
sulted from his brave attempt to defend himself or his territory. Yet another
report registers the death of a "Religious primitive man who was killed be-
cause 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 them-
selves, 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 disad-
vantaged situations, such as dying in consequence of disobeying social rules
and as being incapable of taking care of their own security. Moreover, the de-
scription 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 el-
ement in a classroom" (188). He thinks that children's resistance to an egali-
tarian 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, iden-
tifying 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 chil-
dren, 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 re-
search.
In some cases, it was actually necessary to introduce new methods along
the way. The option of videotaping was particularly interesting since it al-
lowed for the documenting of "nonverbal discourses )' Despite initial con-
straint, 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 ques-
tions 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 uni-
verse: information, representation, and attitude. Information concerns the
organisation of knowledge that a determined group has over an object; repre-
sentation is the image or social model that allows for mediation between the
subject and the group or concrete world; attitude emphasises global orienta-
tion 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 excava-
tion. Nevertheless, when asked specifically about the workplace of archaeolo-
gists, 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 re-
ports?' These associations were frequent in the children's accounts. Neverthe-
less, 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 en-
gage. The association between excavation and work is not clear in the re-
sponses. 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) con-
cludes 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 sepa-
rate manual from intellectual work. The former would correspond to the
peasant with his tools, the latter to the executive at his office desk. She con-
cludes 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 dis-
tinction 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 re-
lated to my discussion. According to the authors, to most students "the pe-
riod 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 "tech-
nological 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) excava-
tion 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 an-
swers; 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 archaeol-
ogist that, forged from the dominant ideology, instantiates the trope of ex-
plorer of "exotic civilisations," and reaffirms the dominant view of the
occidental white man, rich or supported by a patron, who is also a white occi-
dental man.
Even though several children alluded to the feminine sphere--undoubt-
edly 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 re-
searchers 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 rep-
resented 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 re-
flects two issues considered by Santos (2002) as "foundational discoveries of
the millennium" and they are "the savage, as the locus of inferiority, and na-
ture, 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 un-
equal 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 edu-
cation" 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 creativ-
ity 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 dis-
favoured students would end up accepting the cultural imposition, perpetuat-
ing 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 prob-
lematise 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 cul-
tural identities opens the way for the invasion of an identitT forged by the dom-
inant 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 cul-
tural identity. Manipulation of the past has served political agendas world-
wide, 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 ar-
chaeological 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 ar-
chaeology 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 responsi-
bility of another professional. What they said after three months is that ar-
chaeologists were the ones in charge of the entire process--from excavation to
laboratory--and that excavation included nonmanual labour such as draw-
ing, registering, studying, and report writing. We can see that they started re-
ferring 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 re-
quires intellectual input and that, by the same token, all intellectual jobs re-
quire 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 edu-
cation and that we can use it to reflect on ideas reproduced in schools. By con-
cluding 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 disci-
pline.

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 eval-
uative 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 educa-
tional video, made from images filmed during the entire project, including the inter-
views 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 Pedag6g-
ica). Archaeologists Kit. Made by Toypower Industry. Code ESC3338. Elec-
tronic document, http://www.toypower.com.br.
Bezerra de Mmeida, M.
2003. The Hunchback Austhralopitecus: Children and Archaeology in a Public Ar-
chaeology 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. Screen-
play 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 desenvolvi-
mento. In Textos em representagOes socials, edited by E Guareschi and S. yovch-
elovitch, 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 pe-
quenas. 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, Au-
totes Associados, Campinas, S~o Paulo, Brazil (Coleg~o Educa~o Contem-
por~nea).
GusmSo, N.M.M. de
2003. Os desafios da diversidade na escola. In Diversidade, cultura e educag~o: Ol-
hares 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 Univer-
sit~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, ed-
ited 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 Ar-
queologia Brasileira. Sociedade de Arqueologia Brasileira, Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil.