This issue of Archaeologies is largely the result of professional conversations and knowledge sharing that took place during the Eighth World Archaeological Congress (WAC-8) in Kyoto, from 28 August to 2 September 2016, when some of the authors (Frappell, Guilfoyle, Murakami, Zarmati) presented papers on archaeology education. Others who have been doing outstanding work in this area (Corbishley, Fabjan and Stipančić, Poole, Riley) were invited by the editors to submit papers for this special edition which focuses on archaeology for young people, from early childhood to late teens.

Archaeology education for children and young adults is an area of research that falls between the two knowledge domains—and professional areas—of archaeology and education. Most research and reporting of programs and pedagogy tend to focus on archaeology in tertiary institutions (see Burke and Smith 2007), with very little in the area of schools and preschools since Smardz and Smith’s landmark publication, The Archaeology Education Handbook: Sharing the Past with Kids (2000).

A few welcome pre-tertiary studies have recently appeared, such as Corbishley’s (2011) global review of archaeology in schools, Henson’s (2017) article on archaeology in UK schools and a special issue of the journal Advances in Archaeological Practice with two articles on childhood learning (Moe 2016; Henderson and Levstik 2016). Organisations such as the Archaeological Institute of America, the Society for American Archaeology and Archaeology Scotland have produced websites that offer educators practical ideas for teaching archaeology to young people, in and out of the classroom. This edition of Archaeologies aims to make a significant contribution by presenting seven papers on exemplary practice in archaeology education for young people.

Challenging Stereotypes

The first impressions young people have about archaeologists and archaeology are usually imprinted in their minds by what they have seen in television shows or movies during their childhood. When educators ask, what is an archaeologist, or, what does an archaeologist do, the most common response is that he “digs stuff up”, or “digs up dinosaurs”. Educators in schools and other learning institutions such as museums spend a significant amount of time working hard to undo the popular, swash-buckling stereotype of Indiana Jones—and to a lesser extent Lara Croft—propagated by the media. These days, the messages educators endeavour to convey are that archaeologists don’t just “dig up stuff”, archaeology is a complex process of scientific investigation, not all archaeologists are men and archaeologists don’t dig up dinosaurs (palaeontologists do). All contributors describe how they aim to give students a broad experience of archaeology, emphasising that it is a complex process of scientific research. For example, Riley provides details on how to set up a simulated dig and teach the principles of stratigraphy, typology and the rudiments of chemical or physical analysis.

If archaeology is defined more broadly as the study of material culture, then it is reasonable to assume that its basic principles, concepts and procedures can be explained to very young children, as long as the explanation is presented using language and pedagogy that cater to their cognitive and physical capabilities. The challenges and nuances of teaching archaeology to early learners are exemplified by Fabjan and Stipančić’s paper on how they teach archaeology to preschool children aged 3–6 years. They explain sophisticated concepts, such as decomposition of organic materials in an archaeological context, by using simple teaching aids such as a doll and hand puppets. They demonstrate that learning activities can be fun (and may even be delicious), but must also be intellectually engaging and appropriate to the age of the children. Experienced educators know they need to capture students’ attention and imagination. Active, kinaesthetic, sensory, experiential learning activities are pedagogical techniques used by educators to engage young people in learning.

Fabjan and Stipančić consolidate learning by inviting children to create something artistic and meaningful to them. This enables them to express their understanding of concepts and to frame memories of their experience. For older children, Corbishley and Dhanjal explain how the outcome of the Garbology Project was a dance without words performed by students which “presented the five stages of waste: Discarded (objects thrown away), Found (fragments washed and identified), Reconnected (putting fragments together to form recognisable everyday objects), Memories (students questioning older people about more recent finds) and Waste (students dressed as organic and inorganic material with a finale holding the placards RECYCLE, REUSE, REDUCE)”.

Connecting to the “Real”

Authenticity is an important aspect of archaeology education. Young people like to know they are connecting with “real” archaeologists, “real” sites and “real” artefacts. Corbishley and Dhanjal describe simulated excavations designed by the Museum of London, Canterbury Archaeological Trust, and a small museum in Dunwich in Suffolk that use authentic artefacts to engage students in learning. In her case study of the “Dig!” and “Dug!” programs at Colonial Williamsburg Virginia, Poole explains that authenticity of digging on a real archaeological site “is the quality that resonates most with participants”; they feel they have contributed to a meaningful project rather than a manufactured (or simulated) activity. These programs are so popular that one of the problems Colonial Williamsburg now faces is keeping up with demand. The emotional connection with artefacts made and used by people from the past helps imprint the experience in the memory. Zarmati and Frappell tell us that students feel excited when they handle “real” artefacts that have been excavated from The Big Dig site: “When I touch things that belong to people who lived centuries ago, I feel shivers up and down my spine; I feel really connected to them”.

Archaeology and the Curriculum

All education programs presented in this volume aim to provide students with as holistic an experience of archaeology as possible. However, behind the technicalities of conveying the details of archaeological method can lurk thorny issues of interpretation and “the hidden curriculum”—a side effect of schooling—in which students learn norms, values and beliefs unintentionally (or intentionally) conveyed inside and outside the classroom (e.g. Portelli 1993). Dealing more specifically with archaeology, Beaudoin (2016: 14, 25) points out that “archaeological literature becomes a series of imaginary narratives made ‘more real’ with every additional research” and that “habitual practices and unconscious conceptualisation have influenced the narratives created”. In this sense, all education is political.

Education programs aim to present local, state and/or national history in one way or another, whether it be through school curricula or museum displays, with the ultimate aim being the preservation of heritage and cultural memory. However, archaeology’s role in creating history can be contentious, and over the last century there have been many instances of state control in which archaeology has been used to promote particularist or nationalist histories (Sommer 2017).

Freire famously contrasted “banking education”—in which students acquire socially received ideas—and “problem-posing education”—through which “people develop their power to perceive critically the way they exist in the world with which and in which they find themselves” (Freire 2005 [1970]: 83). Zarmati and Frappell, and Riley use a “problem-posing” approach, known in education as inquiry learning, which prompts students to learn through questioning and, especially with young adults, encourages them to question what they’re learning and why they’re learning it.

Decolonisation and Multiculturalism

The combination of self-reflexive archaeology and critical pedagogy can be a powerful agent of decolonisation (Zarmati 2015). Guilfoyle and his colleagues describe work in Alaska where young people from First Nations interact with archaeologists to find out about their own past and in so doing challenge and correct standard (mis)interpretations. These young people’s concerns over invasive archaeological methods are echoed by members of other First Nations in Australia, Canada and elsewhere. Their connection to archaeology is personal as is that of the Japanese children discussed by Murakami and, to a lesser extent, the young Slovenians described by Fabjan and Stipančić. These authors ingeniously avoid ‘particularism’, in Murakami’s case by highlighting the environment (“Rice from the Sea”) or in Slovenia by focusing on the ancient international trade in amber.

In countries such as England, the USA and Australia, where multiculturalism is now the norm, archaeology can create a sense of community (see Waterton 2015 for definitions of “community”). In England, Corbishley and Dhanjal have brought archaeology directly into the school grounds, enabling students to learn about the long past of the place in which they live today, going back about 1500 years. Similarly, students from any background can be engaged by accessing authentic artefacts from ongoing archaeological investigations, as described in this volume by Poole at Colonial Williamsburg in the USA and Zarmati and Frappell at The Rocks in Sydney.

Global Ideology and Sustainability

OECD 2030 says, “Children entering school in 2018 will need to abandon the notion that resources are limitless and are there to be exploited; they will need to value common prosperity, sustainability and well-being. They will need to be responsible and empowered, placing collaboration above division, and sustainability above short-term gain” (OECD 2018: 3).

Williamsburg and The Rocks are maintained through use, as are many famous places such as Pompeii or Teotihuacan, but less popular archaeological sites may deteriorate through neglect, vandalism or deliberate destruction, such as at Nineveh in 2014 and Palmyra in 2015 and 2017. Teachers could discuss these problems in more senior classes dealing with ethics or civics. A good starting point for information on this highly important topic is the multi-author volume on the conservation of archaeological sites (Sullivan and Mackay 2013).

The papers in this issue of Archaeologies open our eyes to archaeology’s strong potential for globalising the imagination of young people, in both space and time. Archaeology brings out the diversity and unity of human experience, extending back to the very start of consciousness. We and our children are better placed to evaluate the Anthropocene if we can see it in relation to the deeper past.

We leave you with the words of Kenji Murakami who tells us that the symbol of the Hyogo Prefecture Archaeology Museum shows the hands of children: “The hand below signifies ‘searching for the past’, and the hand above ‘catching the future’… Between the two hands is the phrase ‘Past and Future’ which means ‘Learn from the past and create the future’”. This is a poignant reminder that the future of archaeology, for field archaeologists, academics and those in cultural institutions, is in the hands of young people. It is therefore in our interest to invest our attention, time and money in teaching them well.