Setting an agenda for the education for and of archaeological knowledge

Archaeology is not only a discipline that bridges the humanities and sciences but also one which brings people together. Through archaeology, we tell stories that speak to a shared cultural history extending tens of millennia into the past. There are also individual stories which resonate with our modern lives, and through that resonance, provide connections between disparate members of contemporary communities. There are numerous global examples where local archaeological research has brought communities together, crossing divisions of age, gender and culture, drawn together through a shared interest in the lives of past peoples. This recognition of an interconnected history is a characteristic that is unique to the discipline of archaeology and is something that we, as a contemporary Community of Practice, can build upon to elicit excitement and interest from the public in the work that we do, to highlight why it is important, and why it ought to continue.

Consequently, education underpins the past, present and future of Australian archaeology. Without it, we have no means whereby new generations of archaeologists and heritage advocates can learn their craft, incorporating new and innovative best practice approaches. Nor are we able to engage a public whose interest and support for the archaeological past is critical to ensuring its contemporary relevance. It is, therefore, surprising that archaeological education is not higher on our national disciplinary agenda.

Archaeological education occurs under two banners: the education for archaeological knowledge (those training to be archaeologists) and the education of archaeological knowledge (those learning to think archaeologically outside of the discipline). Here, I present a brief overview of the historic and contemporary context of each of these outcomes and explore opportunities to set a future national archaeological education agenda.

Education for archaeological knowledge

Education and the translocation of ideas and methodologies have been directly responsible for the shaping of Australian archaeology over the last seven decades. In the mid-1950s, John Mulvaney saw the need for dedicated archaeological training in Australia, enabling graduates to continue their studies with a focus on the Australian record and Australian methodologies. The impact of Grahame Clark’s enthusiasm for the study of ‘world prehistory’ in his teaching and research at the University of Cambridge, provided opportunities for many of his students to undertake research in places including Australia.

In the decade following 1955, Australian-specific archaeological methods and approaches were developed and used to train a new generation of Australian archaeologists. The early influence of Cambridge training on archaeological approaches in Australia continued through the 1970s, joined by anthropological archaeologists educated in North America (Murray and White 1981). It was during this time that the importance of archaeological education in the shaping of the discipline was raised, particularly as applications to Cultural Heritage Management emerged. This was highlighted by the theme of the second Australian Archaeological Association conference in 1979: ‘Education and Training in Prehistory and Archaeology’. Archaeological science and the role it could play in telling the Australian archaeological story also began to be applied. The influence of anthropological archaeology teaching and research programs in Australia in the 1970s also led to greater consultation, then collaboration, with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, linking cultural and natural landscapes. In recent decades, the teaching and learning of Australian archaeology has sought to explicitly include Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ontologies, epistemologies and axiologies (Pollard 2019), diversifying how we interpret the archaeological record, bringing new perspectives to ways of knowing, being and doing followed by past communities.

Today, the training of new archaeologists faces many challenges. Very few tertiary educators are trained in education, contributing to a decline in the use of best practice pedagogical approaches. Archaeology departments around the world are tackling rising cuts to funding and teaching resources. In Australia, field schools and practical subjects are declining particularly quickly, a significant problem for a highly vocational discipline. Students are increasingly graduating with very limited experience in the practical aspects of archaeology, presenting not only a concern for archaeological educators but also for the broader practicing discipline.

Over the next five years we must aim to develop discipline-specific pedagogies—the methods and practice of teaching archaeology, specific to the Australian context. An excellent starting point is the implementation of a discipline-based education research (DBER) framework (National Research Council 2012) which aims to (1) understand how students learn discipline concepts, practices, and ways of thinking; (2) understand how students develop expertise; (3) identify and measure learning objectives and forms of instruction that advance students towards those objectives; (4) contribute knowledge that can transform instruction; and (5) identify approaches to make education broad and inclusive. Such a framework is ideal for a multidisciplinary and vocational field such as archaeology and many of us involved in archaeological education already utilise a similar approach. What is missing is the synthesis and dissemination of this information to national and international colleagues.

Education of archaeological knowledge

While the training of future archaeologists is a priority for archaeological education, it is equally important that we advocate for the teaching of archaeological knowledge to those outside our field. In doing so, we are training a wide range of people to think archaeologically—to see people, places and objects not only in their spatial context, but also through the additional lens of time (Zarmati 2022:15).

Archaeology is an interesting and engaging discipline and as a result, significant numbers of students continue to take archaeology subjects for personal and professional interest, without the intention of becoming archaeologists themselves (Monks et al. 2023). Many of the skills and methodological approaches used in Australian archaeology are relevant to other fields. Through elective tertiary subjects, public events and casual courses, we can create opportunities through which archaeological thinking and collaborative approaches can become embedded within any number of professions. In doing so, we also lay the groundwork for conversations between family, friends and colleagues on the value of the Australian archaeological story.

One cohort that we must continue to actively engage are primary and secondary teachers and it is here that the teaching of archaeological knowledge can have the greatest impact. While archaeological epistemology has been included both explicitly and implicitly within Australian and state/territory curricula over the last 20 years, there remains ongoing misconceptions about Australian archaeology within the general public (Monks et al. 2023; Nichols 2006). Common examples include that ‘Australia lacks an archaeological record’, that ‘archaeologists work overseas’, that the ‘Australian archaeological record is static’ and, of course, that ‘archaeologists study dinosaurs’. These fundamental errors highlight the urgent need for the development of a systematic, nation-wide, and accessible approach to public outreach and engagement. I firmly believe that the shortest route to correcting these misconceptions is through our schools. In providing clear and meaningful classroom resources and professional development opportunities to teachers, we can influence generations of students who will go on to join every conceivable profession and influence future public discourse.

Direct links to archaeology can be found in a wide range of thematic areas, including history, science, geography, design and technology, and visual arts. At a national level, the unit ‘Ancient Australia’, introduced into the Australian curriculum in 2012, has recently been transformed into ‘Deep Time History’ (v.9, 2022). Like its predecessor, this topic is based almost entirely on the archaeological (material) record rather than written historical sources. To teach this new unit, educators will require knowledge and skills for which they have not yet been trained—knowledge and skills which Australian archaeologists are uniquely equipped to teach them.

A national archaeological education agenda

Together, the upheaval of the university sector triggered by the global COVID-19 pandemic, the decline of support for humanities, arts and social science programs in primary, secondary and tertiary education, and the increasing recognition of the importance of learning about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories and cultures, have precipitated the urgent need for a new national approach to archaeological education. Here, I outline several essential components that I think can positively contribute to this outcome.

Education for archaeological knowledge

• The development of discipline-specific pedagogies focussed on the unique nature of archaeology and the multifaceted ways in which it needs to be taught.

• The requirement that tertiary educators complete education training/qualifications.

• Greater field-based learning opportunities, particularly those which are co-designed and co-taught with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander colleagues.

• The teaching of culturally competent methods and approaches to interpretation through collaborations with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.

Education of archaeological knowledge

• Increased opportunities for primary and secondary students to experience archaeology within and beyond their classrooms.

• Increased opportunities for teachers to experience archaeology to learn more about the discipline and how better to teach it across multiple thematic areas.

• Targeted resources for curriculum authorities and professional teaching associations at national and state/territory levels to support the integration of archaeological epistemology in classrooms.

The dissemination of archaeological knowledge within and beyond our discipline is vitally important. We must not lose this chance to continue to strengthen the practice of Australian archaeology and reach broader audiences to generate interest and excitement about our work.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.