9
Making a Place for Archaeology in K–12 Education
Winona J. Patterson, M. Elaine Franklin, and Rebecca Hammond
The Benefits and Importance of Archaeological Education
Crow Canyon Archaeological Center was founded on philosophies of experiential and hands-on learning opportunities for students in need of a nontraditional classroom (Lightfoot and Lipe, chapter 2, also Franklin, chapter 8 in this volume). In providing these educational opportunities, Crow Canyon has spent the last forty years exemplifying the benefits and importance of archaeological education for K–12 students in public and private schools. Archaeological content adds a well-rounded or “big picture” understanding of the world and how the people within that world work (Popson and Selig 2019). Crow Canyon has always attempted to evolve with the ever-changing face of education and is now working to create curriculum opportunities that keep in the same vein of teaching and learning that makes Crow Canyon unique but also add elements that are of high priority in the world of education, such as science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM).
There sometimes seems to be a fundamental need within certain fields of science to obscure or ignore the human side of scientific study, or at least a failure to acknowledge human connections. Yet, to a great extent, scientific knowledge is a product of the human experience, and many areas of science are dedicated to studying all aspects of humanness. Others focus on how humans have impacted the earth and how to mitigate the harmful effects. Still, others exist to advance knowledge in fields like technology and medicine. To approach science as purely data-driven and erase humanity from the picture diminishes scientific endeavors and serves to alienate many young people who might otherwise choose to pursue a career in science. As noted by Franklin (chapter 8 in this volume), “an empirical understanding of past events does not demand the exclusion of feelings or of a caring frame of mind.”
Archaeology is generally considered to be among the social sciences, which, unfortunately, are typically separated from the hard sciences, such as biology, chemistry, and physics. This classification can be problematic for young people who are interested in studying the human past but cannot see how their interests might articulate with other scientific fields. Recognizing archaeology for what it is—a multidisciplinary field of study—helps resolve this dilemma for students. Archaeology combines hard sciences with social sciences, making it ideally situated to bridge K–12 subject matter (Mullins 2019). This multidisciplinary approach allows students who are introduced to the field during their studies an opportunity to experience science in all of its dimensions and, in the process, gain insight into the shared humanity of our past, present, and future.
This positioning of archaeology as an integrative discipline is an important message for Crow Canyon to be able to convey to the larger educational community. High-stakes testing and demand for rigid adherence to discipline-specific curriculum standards have made it increasingly difficult for teachers to justify student field trips to study topics not explicitly listed in their standard course of study.
In this chapter, we unpack the discipline of archaeology to demonstrate how STEM and other K–12 subjects are embedded in archaeological research and to show how important archaeology is to advancing knowledge of the human past for young learners. In our discussion, we suggest new curricula that Crow Canyon might develop to better build the Center’s brand as a place where K–12 students experience authentic STEM, history, and social studies education.
Social Study, Social Science, Science?
Most opportunities available for teaching archaeology to students in K–12 classrooms are grounded in archaeology’s connection to social studies, including elements of history, culture, and geography. The field of archaeology, however, also reaches into many interconnected, STEM-based areas (Mullins 2019), resulting in enormous, missed opportunities for introducing archaeology in K–12 curricula. We argue that these scientific elements can and should serve as an important bridge for helping precollege students learn about the discipline.
The classification of archaeology as a social science or soft science prevents its inclusion in the standard course of study for K–12 education in the United States. There is no doubt that archaeology is social, but within the field there is little doubt that it is a scientific practice based in data-driven analyses and research-based theory. This chapter does not aim to diminish the importance of archaeology as a social science but instead aims to elucidate the scientific aspects of archaeology to show how it can be used to broaden opportunities for students, allowing them to explore a greater array of subjects throughout their academic careers.
Archaeology utilizes method and theory from many different fields of science, including chemistry, geology, botany, biology, zoology, mathematics, and others with the goal of gaining insight into the beliefs, behaviors, and practices of past cultures and societies. Through a heavy reliance on data, statistics, and analyses, archaeologists can gain insights into elements of the human past, create foundations of knowledge to share broadly, expand understanding of past peoples, and make connections to the present.
Inquiry-Based Learning
Instruction in American K–12 schools has traditionally involved a considerable amount of didactic instruction with an emphasis on rote learning. In the last two decades, the pendulum has gradually swung away from this style to instruction that is more student centered and inquiry based. In this paradigm, students have greater agency for what and how they learn, with teachers taking on the role of facilitators. This model is well suited to science and history education, since inquiry forms the basis of all scientific and historical research and is inherent to the work of archaeologists. STEM-focused lessons can also provide opportunities for student-centered, inquiry-based learning. The development of critical thought requires that students be active participants in their education; rote learning or traditional didactic instruction is not the most effective way to engage student interest, enhance concept development, or activate long-term memory.
In archaeology, the need to posit questions and seek answers to those questions is a never-ending process. Creating lessons in which students are given the opportunity to develop research questions and design methods for exploring them promotes student-centered, inquiry-based learning opportunities. A prime example of this type of lesson is the simulated excavation module presented at Crow Canyon. In this module, students participate in a mock excavation in which they are asked to create a research question and hypothesize their findings before they begin collecting relevant data from their excavation units. This approach reinforces two key ideas: first, archaeologists only excavate to gain an understanding and knowledge of the past, and second, the incorporation of inquiry allows students to experience the constant flow of thought and questioning that takes place throughout the archaeological process. In addition to their research questions, students also work to identify the period in which the site was occupied through the analyses of several diagnostic artifacts, furthering the process of inquiry throughout the activity.
Students need stimulating, hands-on, multimodal activities that allow them to think, conceptualize, research, and analyze. In the following sections, we present the challenges of bringing this type of inquiry into the classroom through archaeology and discuss approaches that may be utilized to break through some of those barriers.
Opportunities and Application
There are many opportunities for creating K–12 STEM-based lessons that are contextualized in the discipline of archaeology. Investigations into soil samples, pottery composition, and animal science will help students understand big picture anthropological concepts such as subsistence and foodways, giving greater relevance to their studies. Additionally, archaeology is a wonderful way to integrate studies of human geography with environmental science, exploring ways past peoples interacted with their world, the impact that interaction has had on the earth, and the implications for the present.
Through classroom visits, archaeologists can offer lessons on topics such as the analysis of plant materials, chemical analysis, stratigraphy, and laws of superposition (Kelly and Thomas 2010, 88, 103). Lessons created on these topics can work as tie-ins with existing course material but with the added benefit of archaeological context. Since the implementation of these elements would be built into the existing curriculum, this would allow teachers to include the lessons as extensions, problems of practice, career exploration (Mullins 2019), or simply as another lesson or unit within general instruction. By including archaeology in this way, students can be given archaeological content in small chunks, allowing them to see what is possible within the field.
Whether students come to the archaeologist, or the archaeologist comes to the students, this type of collaboration provides educators with opportunities to present STEM lessons in a context that makes the concepts and skills more interesting and relevant. Interactions with archaeologists also provide students with insight into career possibilities they may never have considered. While it is ideal to be able to interact with students who are physically in the classroom, it is also possible to work with them via online video-conferencing platforms where lessons utilizing Pear Deck—an interactive extension for Google Slides presentations—would be ideal. Companies such as Nepris coordinate classroom visits for scientists and other professionals with students around the globe.
Creating and Adapting STEM-Based Archaeological Curricula
Archaeologists who seek to offer educational opportunities to younger students have found themselves thoroughly rutted in an educational niche that prevents them from finding a legitimized place in K–12 schools. Those who are working to provide educational opportunities for students to learn about archaeology find themselves in a labyrinth of seemingly insurmountable obstacles except, perhaps, those in postsecondary settings. The maze of red tape, standards, and mandated curricula can be effective deterrents for those who seek to introduce younger students to archaeology (Davis 2000 and 2003). The current emphasis on narrowly defined STEM content further complicates efforts to find a fit for interdisciplinary fields in formal public education.
When archaeology educators provide teachers with lessons that are aligned to curriculum standards and are STEM focused, it can help alleviate some of these obstacles. Having a portfolio of lessons that are designed with these parameters in mind can facilitate the inclusion of archaeology in public education, whether working for an archaeological project, presenting in a classroom or on a field trip, or simply providing resources to colleagues who teach archaeology. The following discussion provides an overview of lessons currently available at Crow Canyon that are STEM based, those that can be adapted within STEM curricula, and opportunities for broadening an understanding of the interdisciplinary nature of archaeology for teachers and other members of the public.
STEM Lessons
Spoonful of Dirt is a one-hour lesson developed by Crow Canyon educators and archaeologists that helps students understand what can be discovered by analyzing sediment found on archaeological sites. Student groups are presented with four soil samples from different areas of the site. They are then asked to complete several tests on the soil that allow them to explore visual analysis, chemical analysis, palynology, and microartifacts of their soil samples. Students are asked to use data to determine what part of a site their sample came from and record and share their findings.
Another STEM-based lesson developed at Crow Canyon, titled Introduction to Dendrochronology, presents students with the basic methods for tree-ring dating and teaches them how archaeologists date samples of wood to determine when a site was occupied. This lesson lends itself to digitization, allowing students to move the samples around on screen and interact with the materials in a new way. It also provides educators with a means to create additional materials for lesson extensions in their own classrooms. Lesson extensions and add-on materials present students with options for further exploration of a specific concept or topic of interest. For example, students who have been given a basic lesson on the study of archaeology could be provided with an extension in which they complete a more authentic hands-on activity, like a simulated excavation, to clarify information and bring the lesson to life.
One of Crow Canyon’s most recently developed STEM-based lessons aims to teach students about remote sensing. The focus of the lesson is to introduce students to geophysical survey methods, specifically electrical resistivity survey, how it works, and how data can indicate site layout and density without the need for excavation. This lesson allows students to analyze data collected during a recent survey, interpret the data, and report their findings. While the lesson has been developed for in-person learning, it may be adapted for online delivery.
Although not currently available from Crow Canyon, survey-focused lesson plans could be developed that range in difficulty and depth, based on available resources. An e-learning module focused on archaeological survey methods would engage students in the virtual survey of an area by placing digital pin flags where material culture is identified. Students would be able to explore the digital terrain by looking for architecture and other features. For a more hands-on survey project, students could physically walk a survey grid with replica or simulated artifacts and features that represent a given time period. To integrate elements of technology into the lesson, the survey project could include the utilization of a handheld Global Positioning Systems (GPS) device or a smartphone that georeferences data points.
Another type of survey lesson could be focused on mapping a portion of a school, a classroom, or specific area of the landscape using a compass and tape. If school grounds are unavailable, or if conducted in a virtual environment, students alternatively may create sketch maps of their homes and discuss their discoveries with the class. For a high-tech approach to mapping, electronic distance meters, a Trimble or other technology could be used for mapping if available.
The goals of K–12 survey and mapping lessons are to emphasize the mathematical elements of the archaeological process, as well as the importance of collecting, recording, and analyzing data. Survey and mapping can also teach students about the geographic features of an area, including its topography and natural resources. Gaining an understanding of an area through surveying and mapping will help students understand why people built their houses and communities where they did, how people utilized the resources available in a given area, and how people in the past survived in a place that may seem uninhabitable.
Another lesson developed by Crow Canyon educators and archaeologists is called Cactus Ruin, which is a simulated paper excavation. The Cactus Ruin lesson can be found on the Crow Canyon website, https://www.crowcanyon.org/educationproducts/CactusRuin/IntroPage.asp. This lesson could easily be adapted to a digital format and enhanced with images of the site and excavation units. The general concepts taught through the digital version would be the same as for the paper excavation: students would create a research question and hypothesis for their excavation, choose units to excavate that provide the best data for testing their hypothesis, analyze data from their selected units, and report their findings; but their level of understanding and engagement would still be greatly enhanced. The digital conversion would provide a fillable PDF where students record their work. Teachers could further enhance the lesson with a presentation using Pear Deck, a presentation add-on program that allows students to interact in real time. Additionally, the lesson could be completely revamped as a webquest, which is an assignment or project that requires students to use the internet to research a question or problem of study. Students could work collaboratively in groups or independently, reporting their findings to the group at the end of the lesson. This would give them an opportunity to practice their presentation skills and summarize their findings like a professional archaeologist (Hölscher 2020).
Integration of archaeology lessons can also move beyond science and social studies and be fitted in an English Language Arts (ELA) class or even a music lesson. At Crow Canyon, students were invited to attend an evening program featuring David Nighteagle playing the flute. In this lesson, he not only played music for the students but also taught the parts of the flute and how it works in terms of physics; in doing so, he created a great cross-curricular example for students to connect physics to musical instruments and see the science in music.
Rich Resources for Future Curriculum Development
In addition to the lessons referenced so far, the Crow Canyon website offers additional resources such as timelines showing the cultural chronology of the region, research papers, and site reports that can be utilized in the classroom. Crow Canyon offers weekly webinars about various topics in archaeology that are recorded and available to view on the Center’s YouTube channel. These talks can be presented in classrooms as topics for discussion, used as lesson extensions, or linked to STEM education lessons. In addition to recordings of the weekly webinars, the YouTube channel offers various videos on other topics, including regional geography, Ute history, agriculture, Native American perspectives in archaeology, and other topics related to STEM, history, and social studies content.
Crow Canyon also offers content on its website that can help bridge and create cross-curricular connections. A few of these connections are presented in the Village Ecodynamics Project (VEP), the Pueblo Farming Project (https://pfp.crowcanyon.org), and several other data-driven projects completed throughout the last forty years. The VEP (https://crowcanyon.github.io/veparchaeology/) provides content and connections between multiple fields of study, including geology, geography, computer science, economics, and others. The project was designed to reconstruct the past through computer simulation and analysis of all known archaeological sites in a portion of southwestern Colorado and northern New Mexico. There are numerous sets of data available as a result of this project, such as climate, soil, and sources of lithic material.
Other resources available through the Center’s website, such as the Pueblo Farming Project (PFP), presents research data that can inform curriculum development for K–12 classrooms. The PFP includes agricultural content and provides data from ongoing agricultural farming plots on the Crow Canyon campus. This project looks at dry farming techniques used by Pueblo farmers in the past and in Pueblo communities today. Through this study, farmers who work in drought-ridden areas, or those who have a general lack of rainfall, can create a plan for farming with the little water available and still have crops that flourish. Students could work to create their own experimental archaeology project within these confines to determine if they can find success in utilizing dry farming techniques.
Implementation, Collaboration, and Ethical Considerations of Archaeological Curricula
Implementation of archaeological lessons in K–12 settings requires consideration of the context in which learning takes place. Lessons are often presented through an extracurricular activity, field trip, or camp. In this context, students may be given significantly less time to study archaeology than if it were being presented in a more formal education context. Educators in these more informal settings will need very specific plans for the scope and pacing of their lessons to ensure that they are able to address the essential understandings they are hoping to convey. Even when archaeology education takes place in the context of formal schooling, there are often still challenges related to time, space, and restrictions on materials. Chunking portions of a lesson into multiple shorter periods may be necessary due to time constraints, and alternative teaching spaces such as gyms or outdoor areas may be required, depending on the activity.
In addition to the concerns just mentioned, a number of ethical points should also be considered when implementing an archaeological curriculum. Archaeologists often study a people’s history and culture that is different from their own. For Crow Canyon, this is the history and culture of the Pueblo people. However, the ancestral Pueblo landscape is also home to the Diné (Navajo), Ute, Paiute, Apache, and Anglos. To teach about archaeological research in ethical and respectful ways requires inclusion and collaboration at many levels (Davis and Connolly 2000). The following is a discussion of how Crow Canyon educators approach curriculum implementation with ethical considerations in mind.
Native Voices
Native American perspectives and contributions have not always been present in the field of archaeology. This exclusion is now recognized as a disservice to the discipline and to building trusting relationships between descendant community members and archaeologists. Native American voices need to have a prominent place in the shaping of research designs and in the telling of their own histories, not just in theory or consultation, but in practice. This has been accomplished, in part, through Indigenous archaeology. Indigenous archaeology attempts to add Native voices to archaeological study and to normalize the inclusion of Native American archaeologists in the field. Additionally, and perhaps to a greater degree, Indigenous archaeology attempts to push archaeological research topics and questioning to better align with the wants and needs of Native American groups and to bring about the end of, or at least lessen, the Eurocentric viewpoint that has been present in western archaeology for hundreds of years (Watkins 2000, 19). By including Native voices, archaeologists are welcoming partnerships and building relationships with Native people, which should have been a focus from the start of archaeological research on Indigenous lands (Mullins 2019).
At Crow Canyon, opportunities to work and build relationships with Native communities and partners are of great importance (see Suina, chapter 7, and Ortman, chapter 6 in this volume). This work is practiced by including Native scholars in program delivery to provide a multivocal approach to understanding the past, developing and maintaining partnerships with various tribes, incorporating the Native American Advisory Group in mission-related activities and projects, and the awarding of scholarships for Native American K–12 and college students.
Cultural Sensitivities
Many Native groups have sensitivities to material culture remains, and every effort should be made when creating lessons to present information in a culturally sensitive manner. For example, Crow Canyon provides programs to Native students on a regular basis and has found several ways to ensure students are able to participate in programming while also respecting their cultural taboos (Davis 2001). Some Native students are not able to work with authentic artifacts or faunal remains due to traditional cultural beliefs; thus Crow Canyon provides replica artifacts for them to examine. Crow Canyon also asks every student group about cultural sensitivities to make sure that they are providing the best experience for Native and other students. These are examples of modifications that can be made for students, but instructors will need to allow for feedback throughout the lesson to make sure that students’ needs are met.
Conservation Archaeology
Over the last several decades, archaeological research in the academic and research setting has shifted away from the complete excavation of sites to limited excavation. This practice, commonly referred to as conservation archaeology (Lipe 1974), allows for research to be conducted while also leaving as much of the site intact as possible (Kelly and Thomas 2010, 393). This shift is also more fitting with Native beliefs that sites should not be disturbed, that they should be left as they are, and that by excavating sites, we are disturbing the resting place of their ancestors (Suina, chapter 7 in this volume).
Conservation archaeology involves a shift from excavation and focuses instead on the preservation and stabilization of sites (Lipe 1974; Pedeli and Stefano 2014). This is accomplished through remote-sensing techniques and a reliance on data that have already been collected and published or curated for use by other archaeologists. Is conservation archaeology always ideal? Not necessarily—every site is different and holds its own story—but by excavating only a small portion of the site, archaeologists are able to advance their understanding of the people who lived there and also preserve the site. Conservation archaeology better aligns with Indigenous viewpoints on excavation, which most tribes agree should not happen (Suina, chapter 7 in this volume). It is important to introduce this concept when teaching students about archaeology and to explain that there is more to archaeology than excavation. Of key importance is pointing out that excavation is a destructive process that destroys the site being studied. By implementing conservation archaeology, archaeologists ensure greater safety and preservation of the site, as well as provide opportunities for future research, using previously collected data and other portions of the site.
Why Archaeology? Creating Responsible Citizens
In creating archaeological curricula, we must be aware of the messaging that we send to students. The importance of archaeology and its purpose must be explicit. Students should come away from the lesson, unit, or course knowing that archaeology is not about digging up artifacts but about uncovering the human past, particularly the unwritten past. Without archaeology, the only historical narrative that is legitimized and perpetuated is that which was written down, eliminating the majority of human narratives by excluding the voices of those without access to the tools of literacy or power. When archaeology reveals unwritten histories, it becomes a powerful tool for social justice, as those who feel they have no voice often feel they have no power in the present. Archaeology can illuminate steps we need to take in the present to build a better future.
Moving Forward
Crow Canyon Archaeological Center has spent the last forty years exemplifying the benefits and importance of teaching archaeology to K–12 public and private school students. In creating an environment where students can experience learning through hands-on, experiential methods, Crow Canyon has opened up the world of archaeology to students around the US and beyond. Through access to online content and the creation of STEM-based lessons, Crow Canyon has set the standard for what archaeological education can be for K–12 students in public and private schools.
Archaeology provides an opportunity for different, yet interconnected, viewpoints in scientific fields such as biology, environmental science, geology, geography, botany, and many others (Mullins 2019). Despite the lack of archaeological curricula in K–12 settings, there are numerous ways in which archaeology can be integrated or introduced to students as an opportunity for cultural, career, and STEM-based exploration (2019). This chapter highlighted a few of the possibilities available at Crow Canyon as well as the potential for additional STEM-based lessons in the field of archaeology. Lessons ranging from hands-on, inquiry-based explorations, to fully online lessons, are suggested. Implementation of archaeology lessons should take into consideration voices of descendant communities, cultural sensitivities, and preservation concepts, such as conservation archaeology. These key ideas act as a guide in the lesson-planning process to ensure the responsible teaching of archaeology as a field of study, emphasizing its importance in expanding knowledge of the human past, and inspiring future archaeologists.
Archaeology education presents a plethora of opportunities for students to engage in inquiry-based learning experiences. These experiences provide opportunities that challenge students to think critically and learn about the world. It can shape the way in which students learn about the past so that they will be able to make better, more informed decisions as they move into their future.
References
- Davis, M. Elaine. 2000. “Archaeology Education and the Political Landscape of American Schools.” In Antiquity 74 (283): 194–198. Durham, UK: Durham University.
- Davis, M. E. 2001. “Knowing Others and Other Ways of Knowing: Cultural Issues in the Teaching of Science.” In Professional Development in Science Teaching and Learning, edited by J. Rhoton and P. Bowers, 113–124. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
- Davis, M. Elaine. 2003. “Governmental Education Standards and K–12 Archaeology Education Programs.” In The Archaeology Education Handbook: Sharing the Past with Kids, edited by C. Smardz and S. Smith, 54–71. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.
- Davis, M. Elaine, and Marjorie R. Connolly. 2000. Windows into the Past. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing.
- Hölscher, David Frederik. 2020. “Mobile Technology and Science Outreach in Archaeology: Integrating Didactics.” In Communicating the Past in the Digital Age: Proceedings of the International Conference on Digital Methods in Teaching and Learning in Archaeology (12–13 October 2018), edited by Sebastian Hageneur, 156–166. London: Ubiquity Press.
- Kelly, Robert L., and Thomas, David Hurst. 2010. Archaeology. 5th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
- Lipe, William D. 1974. “A Conservation Model for American Archaeology.” Kiva 39, no. 3/4 (Spring–Summer): 213–245.
- Mullins, Cailey D. 2019. “Archaeology for the People: Community-Based Research, Hands-On Education, and Their Place in Archaeology.” MA thesis, Chapel Hill.
- Pedeli, Corrado, and Stefano Pulga. 2014. Conservation Practices on Archaeological Excavations: Principles and Methods. Los Angeles: Getty Trust Publications.
- Popson, Colleen P., and R. Selig. 2019. “Putting Archaeology and Anthropology into Schools: A 2019 Update.” Journal of Archaeology and Education 3, no. 3 (March): 1–26. https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/jae/vol3/iss3/1/.
- Watkins, Joe. Indigenous Archaeology: American Indian Values and Scientific Practice. Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press, 2000.