Dutton's Dirty Diggers: Bertha P. Dutton and the Senior Girl Scout Archaeological Camps in the American Southwest, 1947–1957
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How is it possible that I did not know about Dutton's Dirty Diggers and their excellent adventures in the American Southwest? Why didn't I get to go on an Archaeological Mobile Camp when I was a teenager? I knew nothing about this fascinating chapter of southwestern archaeology, Dr. Bertha Dutton, or the more than two hundred senior girl scouts who used the road less traveled to learn about the archaeology, cultures, and environment of the magnificent Southwest.Bertha P. Dutton, an archaeologist and ethnologist, was truly a giant and an unsung heroine of archaeology, cultural outreach, and public education in the years when America was emerging from World War II amidst great societal changes. Catherine Fowler's Dutton's Dirty Diggers is a fine tribute to Dutton, who planned and led expeditions of teenage girls into remote regions of the Southwest for eleven years. In the later years of the program, she even involved veteran mobile campers in real archaeological excavations at Pueblo Largo. Her work became a model for Girl Scouts USA's programs for older girls for thirty years.Born in 1903, Bertha, or “Bert” as she was known to most, developed a lifelong interest in cultures and ancient history. In the 1930s, she attended the University of New Mexico where she studied archaeology, ethnology, and geology. Eventually, she earned a doctoral degree in anthropology and worked in the field throughout her life. Bert devoted much of her time “to educating the public about lifeways of the Indigenous peoples of the region and their histories. . . . She firmly believed that sound information led to better and more nuanced and genuine cross-cultural understanding—a strong message of cultural anthropology to which she was fully committed” (12–13).I am particularly impressed with the curriculum for the Archaeological Mobile Camps, which typically used two-week on-the-trail experiences to focus on “centers of great archaeological importance . . . Pueblo and Navajo Indian territory . . . [and] the greatest wonders of nature” (78). In her message from 1950, Bert described the program: En route, a program constituting a study of human life in its out-of-door setting will be conducted, and with the natural world for its laboratory, and with both ancient and living communities for its books. This camp will introduce to the young citizens of the United States, the anthropological background of the Southwest, and will serve to widen and sharpen their perspective of the science of man from the standpoint of general education and culture (79, emphasis in original).Dutton was clearly far ahead of her time for her inclusion of living communities in the understanding of past cultures and the cultural geography of the twentieth century. In the twenty-first century, non-Native people in many parts of the United States rarely have a chance to meet an Indigenous person. Under Bert's careful planning, more than two hundred young women (Bert's “daughters”) got to meet Indigenous peoples in their home territory and learn about their cultures directly from them. It must have been a significant experience for many of them judging from the paths their lives took into advanced degrees in anthropology, biology, and history. The author, a Digger herself, earned a doctoral degree in anthropology, taught at the University of Nevada, Reno, and specialized “in ethnoarchaeological, ethnobiological, and linguistic research of Great Basin Indigenous peoples” (235). At least two Diggers became lawyers. Many became nurses and teachers who taught a wide variety of subjects. Others went on to become artists and musicians. Those who did not pursue careers maintained their interest in history and archaeology and cultivated knowledge both locally and in other parts of the world. Many remained involved in scouting for much of their adult lives. When Bert was asked if she thought she had any influence on her “Digger Daughters,” she was characteristically modest, “I guess I gave some guidance . . . . or just as a friend” (239).Dutton's Dirty Diggers is a good read for anyone interested in the history of archaeology education in the Southwest, the history of the Girl Scouts of the USA, or the changing face of the nation after the war. Bumping over unpaved roads in ancient vehicles with at least one flat tire almost every day, transporting water in a dry environment, camp cooking, and flooded tents: the girls loved it and sang their hearts out the entire trip. While I thoroughly enjoyed the book, I must confess that I cringed a bit when reading about the removal of human remains during excavations at Pueblo Largo. Although I understand that it happened and was accurately reported, I was surprised to find no explanation of this extremely sensitive issue and its ramifications for archaeological practice since the late-twentieth century.Thank you for showing me a part of southwestern history that I never knew and a wonderful portrait of a life so well lived. I laughed, I cried, and I will never forget Bertha Dutton and her Dirty Diggers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".