Archaeology, deep time and reconciliation: kids teaching kids at the Willandra Lakes World Heritage Area

Introduction

The teaching of the Australian historic narrative in our schools is in something of a pickle. Certainly there are many good examples of Australian history being taught well across the country, but it would not appear to be taught consistently well across Australia. School students appear to have mixed feelings regarding the value of learning about Australia’s past, and quite disconcertingly it would appear that Aboriginal history is one of the least interesting of topics taught to students of history (Clark 2008). Perhaps one of the most serious failings of history teaching across the country is the lack of a comprehensive teaching program incorporating the prehistoric narrative. Within Australia there is little recognition by the general public of the ancient cultural past of the first Australians, with its inherent socio cultural complexities and diversity.

Without an appreciation and respect for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture (ancient and modern) by non Indigenous Australians we argue that reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians will continue to be a difficult goal to achieve. Formal education at school is where most people obtain their knowledge and appreciation of archaeology and history that they will take with them into their adult life (Swain 2007). If this area incorporating over 99.4% of Australia’s human past is not communicated effectively to students, then there is little hope that the general Australian citizen will have a respectful and meaningful appreciation of Australia’s prehistory.

Archaeology provides a means of appreciating the complexity of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander past, but it must be made more accessible to non Indigenous Australians if people are to learn about the significant 50,000 year contribution made by the first Australians to the National Story. Of equal importance is the way in which Indigenous prehistory and history is taught to students, it needs to be both engaging and interactive.

The backdrop to this situation has seen over the last two decades a considerable shift toward an understanding and acknowledgement of greater Indigenous custodianship over their cultural past. Debates over who owns the past have heavily influenced the practice of archaeology within Australia, and has resulted in some very positive outcomes. These include (but are not limited to) increased recognition of the significance of Aboriginal heritage, dramatically increased Aboriginal employment in heritage management, and the development of a more community oriented archaeological practice which has seen an exponential increase in the transfer of knowledge between archaeologists and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander custodians. The later has been an incredibly productive development in terms of the growth of the discipline as it has not only added to the intellectual growth of archaeology but has resulted in a clearer appreciation of perspectives and a realisation that there is in fact a great deal of common ground shared between many Indigenous Australians and archaeologists.  

The first Mungo Youth conference was designed with the objectives of promoting a greater appreciation for Aboriginal people by developing an interactive learning experience focussing on the prehistoric past in Australia. It is a complex aspect of the National narrative to teach, and one that many educators would appear to have shied away from. Designed by educators with a strong interest in the Aboriginal past, the intention was to broaden the experience of students and teachers by exposing them to Aboriginal Elders, archaeologists and National Parks staff in the Willandra Lakes World Heritage Area (which includes Mungo National Park). The conference is planned to be a biannual event held within the Willandra Lakes. The Willandra is an iconic Australian landscape, the 13 fossil lakes preserving a record of deep time incorporating the remains of megafauna and hundreds of archaeological sites dating to the last Ice Age. The Willandra also contains the world’s largest Pleistocene human fossil trackway and some of the earliest examples of complex mortuary rituals, such as the cremated burial of Mungo woman dating to around 42,000 years BP (Before Present). The key features in the landscape are the ancient lunettes, whose sediments have not only archived a powerful symbol of the deep antiquity of Aboriginal occupation of Australia, but preserved a highly significant record of dramatic fluctuating climatic change throughout the last inter-glacial and glacial phase of human history. With ancient geological structures such as the Walls of China and its towering residuals, it is a powerful and engaging backdrop to teach the story of Aboriginal occupation of Australia. 

Figure 1. The 'Walls of China'. Sir Russel Drysdale circa 1950

The importance of “Prehistory”

For some the use of prehistory as a term for defining Australia’s ancient human past holds negative connotations which has led to suggestions that the term is inappropriate and should be abandoned. David and Denham (2006) have noted that the use of the prefix ‘pre’ indicates that it represents one state advancing to another. They therefore conclude that the definition is ‘evolutionary in character, imbued with the notion that cultures will move forward from a lower to a higher state’. In Australia a number of alternative terms have been proposed, such as pre-contact which does sound a bit Star Trek.

Prehistory actually means something quite specific and has universal recognition, it need not be viewed as a negative term and archaeologists should work toward explaining its true meaning to the broader public. Put simply, it refers to the time before writing. In his classic study Daniel (1962) defines history sensu stricto as that period of humanities past that is recorded in ‘inscriptions on stones and tombs, in diaries, state papers, treaties, memoirs, and books . . . written history’. With reference to prehistory he observes that ‘it is, of course, pre-written-history that we mean when we speak of prehistory’. It is as simple as that.

If we were to consider 2mya Homo ergaster (or what some would call African Homo erectus) as the starting point for humankind then prehistory encompasses over 99.5% of all humanities past. If instead we are to consider the starting point as the earliest fossils of our species, Homo sapiens,a mere 200,000 years old (MacDougal 2006), prehistory still covers the vast majority of the time that modern humans have inhabited the earth. In Australia the actual period of written history accounts for 0.4% of the time of human occupation on the continent, in Africa 2.5%, in the Americas 7% and in Europe 5.7%. Conversely in New Zealand 25% of the nations past is represented by the historic period (the Maori people arriving 800 years ago, the British just over 200 years ago). The principal point is that for the majority of time that modern humans have occupied the various continents of the world this past is reconstructed through the techniques of archaeology, there is no written record, and our understanding has relied on the analysis of material culture, fossils and skeletal material and other forms of palaeo-environmental evidence. If one is to understand the great depth of the human experience within Australia, then it is necessary to understand its prehistory.

Many Australian archaeologists have moved beyond developing models that simply explain human society moving from simple to more complex forms of social and economic life (e.g. Hiscock 2007), these transformations were not a simple linear process and it would seem appropriate for the appreciation of this complexity to now be communicated to the general public. Certainly if we look at the earliest archaeological evidence within Australia we see many examples of highly complex hunter-gatherer behaviour at the initial stages of human colonisation (Franklin and Habgood 2007). There has been an increasing understanding of the complexity of hunter-gatherer societies, and there is good reason to suggest that this complexity extends into deep prehistory (Hiscock 1997) and did not simply emerge as part of an ‘intensification’ movement in the mid to late Holocene, as has been proposed by those arguing for the development over time of more ‘complex hunter-gatherers’ (see, for example, studies in Price and Brown 1985). The method in which modern prehistoric archaeology has been practiced in Australia over the last 45 years has revolutionised the way in which hunter-gatherer studies have been conducted. An example is the regional prehistory of New England undertaken by Professor Isabele McBryde (1974) which was a landmark study in developing an appreciation of the complexity of the Aboriginal past by identifying long distance trading networks, diversity in material culture between different Tribal Groups, and the complexity of mortuary rituals, to just name a few. Prehistory as practiced in Australia has played the major role in deconstructing the myths of socio-cultural simplicity, ancient literate societies are no longer recognised as having a monopoly on socio-economic and cultural complexity and it is perhaps time to leave behind the semantic arguments and instead move onto the important issue of explaining this complexity to the general public.  

In Nations such as France préhistoire has been embraced and plays a direct role in the national story (Swain 2007). This is in part a result of the awe inspiring discoveries in areas such as the Decorated Grottos of Dordogne in the south of the country, including such dramatic places as Lascaux. The explanation is of course more complicated than simply being one of aesthetics; this is only part of the reason for such a strong connection. It would seem reasonable to suggest that the pride in this record may stem from the French seeing a direct biological and cultural link with the Cro-Magnon people. Indeed the site of Cro-Magnon is one of the sites within the World Heritage area, which contains altogether over 147 prehistoric sites (Boneville and Hemono 2006). The interpretation of the area has been enhanced by the development of the National Museum of Prehistory in Les Eyzies which has helped place the record from Dordogne in an international context.

World Heritage areas such as Dordogne represent powerful monuments to the prehistoric past. Equally,Ethiopia has made a strategic move to put their prehistoric past at the forefront of the National narrative, realising that it holds the potential to increase cultural tourism to add to the developing economy. Palaeoanthropology is now being developed to attract tourism and with such landscapes as the Lower Valleys of the Omo and the Awash inscribed on the World Heritage list, these places have the potential to provide an interactive experience for those wishing to develop an appreciation of modern humanity’s origins.

For the majority of Australians, a strong biological and cultural link does not exist with the prehistoric past. For example the petroglyphs of Ku-ring-gai Chase National Park, despite being on the northern outskirts of the city of Sydney, are perhaps more foreign to the majority of the population of that city than the Palaeolithic art of France. Be that as it may, Australia has a number of equally significant cultural landscapes on the World Heritage list and within its National Parks. Such sites, including the Willandra Lakes World Heritage Area provide a tangible and for many visitors a mysterious link to the past. The enigmatic Willandra landscape, incorporating towering residuals and a seemingly endless skyline requires good educational aids if its significance and complexity is to reach the average Australian. The site has revealed an immense archaeological record, some of which, such as the Willandra fossil trackway, provide an ideal interactive link to this mysterious past. It is the mystery of the Willandra’s past and the significance of its discoveries that perhaps provides the most effective means of capturing the imagination and enthusiasm of young students. 

A time to teach prehistory?

A number of recent developments have perhaps made it the correct time to lobby for the inclusion of prehistory in school teaching on a comprehensive scale. The proposal to develop a National History Curriculum, raised by the previous Liberal Government, and further endorsed by the newly elected Labor Government (a party more sympathetic toward the acknowledgement of the Aboriginal past) has provided the opportunity for Australian archaeologists to put forward this important agenda. The advantages and disadvantages of a National Curriculum have been discussed by Clark (2008). Significant proposals detailing why Australian prehistory should be taught as part of a National curriculum were submitted by the Australian Archaeological Association (AAA) in 2007. The key to successfully getting prehistory on the National narrative will be developing partnerships with a range of stakeholders to deliver programs and resources relevant to school groups. The National Archaeology Week (NAW) initiative (Westaway and Tunn 2003) has developed such networks for teaching Australia prehistory to school groups, and relevant programs have provided numerous school children with an insight into Australia’s ancient past. If the success of NAW is to be expanded, it is time to establish partnerships with education units within museums and importantly Aboriginal communities and cultural centres, and develop resources relevant to school curricula and in liaison with the various state syllabus committees.

The recent publication Archaeology of ancient Australia (Hiscock 2007) has potentially provided a text that is relevant for advanced senior high school students. It provides a comprehensive overview of the complexity of Australia’s prehistory, introducing a number of challenging topics. One of its central themes is illustrating the complexity of Australia’s prehistory, and deconstructing myths of a stagnant culture that has largely been modelled from the ethnographic past. The book identifies the challenges of interpreting Australia’s prehistory, and identifies that there was likely to have been great variation, change and adaptation throughout the past 50,000 year. The identification of this complexity perhaps provides one of the greatest challenges to the archaeological community and this in itself is an important fact. There is not one clear narrative in Australian prehistory, it is a challenging interdisciplinary subject that incorporates a range of possible interpretations which lends itself well to being taught in a school context. The book is organised in 12 chapters, which carefully breakdown the key issues in Australian prehistory, it is ideally suited for advanced level students working through a semester long unit. The production of an equivalent text for senior primary and general high school level students could perhaps represent the next step required to produce intelligent and challenging resources for teachers and their students.

The development of books that can interpret the record in a user friendly manner (for example, Lawrence 2006) are an important aspect of this development, but equally (if not more) important is the establishment of agreements with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander custodians, National Parks authorities, and state education bodies to deliver a number of field based education programs. The advantage of having these activities on National Parks is that such localities should already have in place management frameworks and associated resources to manage large numbers of visitors accessing archaeological sites. Ideally the development of Aboriginal education officer positions could play a direct roll in liaising between the various stakeholders and facilitate the delivery of professional events. 

Museum archaeology once played a dominant role in interpreting Aboriginal culture, but it was often done with little to no consultation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait custodians. Its absence in museum galleries may reflect the museum community’s response to Indigenous Australians drive to reinforce their dominant position in presenting the narrative of their cultural past. It may also simply reflect a trend that has been noticed in modern museums such as the Smithsonian’s National Museum of the American Indian (Swain 2007), where a thematic approach avoiding reference to familiar archaeological concepts such as chronology or typology has been deliberately adopted. If this is the case, and if archaeology has in reality been rejected by Aboriginal communities, then archaeology’s challenge as noted by Russel (2000), is to better engage with indigenous stakeholders to reinvigorate the discipline to once again bring the prehistoric past into the museum. There are of course numerous examples of archaeologists and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people working together in community based archaeological projects (see for example Davidson et al. 1995) that have demonstrated how far the discipline has progressed.

Museums need to also play a more direct role in constructing the prehistoric narrative. It is reasonable to suggest that Australia’s major museums have shied away from telling the story of Australia’s ancient human past, which raises questions as to why major museums do not consider prehistory as an important part of the story (see Russel 2000 for a discussion on this issue with reference to the Melbourne Museum). The focus in Aboriginal Australian galleries has been increasingly on the more recent and ethnographic past since 1788. Mike Smith has noted that ‘prehistoric archaeology, although featuring complex ideas, relies on unprepossessing collections: a few chipped stone artefacts, small pieces of red ochre, bones and shells (food remains), the rare bone artefact . . . and the charcoal of old camp fires’ (Swain 2007). This perception perhaps reveals why prehistoric archaeology does not feature more prominently in the National Museum of Australia. While the ethnographic past can be projected back onto the more ancient past, it does run the risk of providing an oversimplified view of Australia’s prehistory (Hiscock 2007). If this oversimplified model of Australian prehistory is to be deconstructed it is time to address the Australian human past more comprehensively. The relative importance of explaining the complexity of Australian society prior to 1788 seems to have been somewhat lost in our museums and perhaps reflects a conscious movement away from the narrative of archaeology.

Museums need to rise to the challenge of teaching the interesting and very ancient Australian human past. A self imposed divide exists within many museums, between education aimed at school groups and other audiences (Swain 2007). One aspect that museums are well versed in is their capacity to engage with Aboriginal community representatives to develop exhibitions; the Museum’s Australia policy document Previous Possessions New Obligations provides an excellent model for engaging with communities to develop exhibitions in partnership. The timing is ripe for State Museums to commence producing an inclusive prehistoric narrative in consultation with Aboriginal communities. Community based archaeology has demonstrated that the ancient past is an aspect of heritage held in high reverence by the majority of Aboriginal Australians. Another important element of community based archaeology is that it helps identify Aboriginal culture as a continuous and living one by not only recognising the Indigenous continuity with the landscape and the associated cultural associations, but by also offering an opportunity for Indigenous community representatives to be directly involved in researching and documenting their own past. Without meaning to sound too arrogant, it may be possible to view community based archaeology, particularly in the South East of Australia, as a form of cultural revival (a form quite distinct but not in conflict with other such initiatives such as men’s and women’s camps, language workshops, bush foods programs, seed propagation nurseries, and so on). It should be possible for museums to develop intelligent exhibitions that engage and challenge the general public and ultimately encourage a deeper respect for this ancient past. Exciting models interpreting prehistory can be found abroad, for example the National Museum of Prehistory in Les Eyzies and the Chicago Field Museum’s Ancient Americas exhibit. Certainly in the past Australian Museums have developed exhibits that not only effectively present aspects of the Aboriginal past but provide opportunities to interact with it, for example the replica of the Burril Lake Rockshelter excavation (now removed) and Blue Mountains Rock Art Gallery at the Australian Museum. Museum’s have the potential to play a major role in contributing to a National syllabus incorporating Australia’s past commencing from 50,000 years ago and the development of an on site museum at Mungo National Park represents one such exciting development (see the paper by Mitchell, Charles, and Westaway in the WAC museums session). An equally important element of such developments, however, is to demonstrate the ongoing continuity of Aboriginal culture. This is an aspect particularly well done by modern museums such as the Smithsonian’s National Museum of the American Indian and the National Museum of Australia with exciting and diverse programs such as 'Tracking Kultja'

Of course, across Australia a rich archaeological record can be found in literally the backyards of many regional communities. Every region of Australia, from the Mallee scrub to the Australian Alps, the islands of the Torres Strait and the desert fringe of the Sturt and the Simpson, retains evidence of the pre 1788 past. It is a fragile record, and fortunately many of these sites and places are actively managed by National Parks and similar authorities (there are notable exceptions, particularly in those states with strong links with the mining industry. One need only look to the controversy of the Burrup Peninsula to see that retaining significant heritage in situ can take second place to industry). It is a largely untapped educational resource. If the educational purpose of such places can be recognised through a new National History curriculum, it is possible that this may have a number of flow on effects, such as a greater public appreciation for their value and as a result a greater number of resources put into their conservation and management. This is a measure desperately needed in some states. One criticism of the development of a National History Curriculum is that it will create content that does not have regional relevance, as Clark notes ‘why should students in Broome have the same connections with Indigenous histories as those in Byron Bay or Suburban Melbourne’ (Clark 2008). However there is the potential for regional resources to be identified and promoted by creating synergies between museums, State Departments of Education, National Parks Authorities and Traditional Owners. This could possibly be advanced at an early stage by linking in with the existing National Archaeology Week initiative that currently operates across Australia.

A possible means of moving such a partnership forward is working with the numerous cultural centres and keeping places that are found across Australia. By developing a regional prehistory inclusive curriculum it will provide opportunities for these institutions to play a direct role in telling the story of Australia’s ancient past. This offers reconciliatory benefits that are difficult to estimate in the short term, but in the longer term could potentially initiate a reversal in the broader public opinion on Aboriginal cultural heritage, an area that is likely only understood and respected by a small percentage of the Nation. An additional benefit is that the development of educational programs that engage in a more thoughtful way the Aboriginal past are likely to encourage Aboriginal parents to place greater support toward school education. Many Aboriginal adults have not obtained high levels of schooling. The Table below compares the highest level of secondary schooling completed for those Indigenous and non-Indigenous people, 18 years or over, who do not have a non-school qualification. It shows that 49.9 per cent of non-Indigenous Australians had no non-school qualification compared with 71 per cent of Indigenous Australians.

Table 1: Highest level of schooling completed, 2002 [113]
Level completed	Indigenous (%)	Non-Indigenous (%)
Year 9 or below	33.4	15.8
Year 10 or 11	26.9	18.8
Year 12	10.7	15.3
No non-school qualification	71.0	49.9

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As a result it is more likely that for many indigenous people there is not the same value placed on school education as there is for those who sustained access to education. If schooling environments and programs did not serve Indigenous Australians well when they were students why should it be valued any differently now?

Equally we must be conscious of not creating a situation where Aboriginal students become ‘ambassadors’ for Aboriginal heritage within their classrooms, if this role is not actively sort by the students (conversely we have observed situations where Aboriginal students have revelled in the role). 

In the State of Victoria, Koorie (Indigenous) students have a lower level of attendance than all students across all year levels. On average, by Year 9, Koorie students are missing from school about one day a week. Koorie students are more likely to be early school leavers. At present, 16% of Koorie students leave school between Years 9 and 10, 22% leave between years 10 and 11, and 41% leave between Years 11 and 12. The rates for non-Koorie students are 3%, 5% and 18% respectively.

The Mungo Youth Conference

If content can be more considerate to the Aboriginal past, and is taught in an engaging and meaningful way, then it has the potential to gain the support of Aboriginal parents. The Mungo Youth Conference was initially developed as a celebration of the Willandra Lakes 25th anniversary since it was inscribed as Australia’s first World Heritage Area but it soon developed into a trial program to interest and engage with students from a variety of backgrounds. It employed a model where ‘kids teach kids’ in a landscape documenting a 50,000 year story of climate change and human adaptation.

The conference was a three-day event which occurred in a specifically constructed tent community in the field and within the world heritage area of the Willandra. In addition the camp was located adjacent to an area excavated by Isabelle McBryde that contains one of Australia’s earliest dated freshwater middens (Bowler 1998). The area was also more recently excavated by Shawcross and Westaway as part of a community excavation incorporating members of the Paakintji, Mutthi Mutthi and Ngyampaa Aboriginal Tribal Groups. The Mungo Youth Conference was founded on the educational premise that it could create an authentic student centred approach to learning about prehistory and it would create powerful references to contemporary challenges including climate change and reconciliation. An essential aspect of the program was to stress the ongoing Aboriginal connection with the landscape.

‘… students came together in a special place to celebrate and to learn, to grow together and to enjoy themselves. The students knew that the Willandra Lakes World Heritage area (which includes Lake Mungo) is an area which tells a major story of humanity and of Australia – They were advised by educators and elders that “…the land whispers to us about the past and writes a story of change – of people, of climate and of plants and animals.”  Archaeologists revealed that “for over 50,000 years Indigenous Australians have been of this land and that important sign posts of that story are captured within the landscape… it is story like no other”. Elders asked that the students and teachers “…listen to that story - through the wisdom of the Elders, through the mindfulness of scientists, through the pastoralists and through each other”. Students were invited to be open to the spirit of place and to build their own knowledge and power. Choose to thrive was the invitation and in doing so chose to make a difference by helping to make their world more caring, intelligent and sustainable for all…’.

 

Figure 2. Outer Arumpo Excavation

Prior to the conference teachers were required to develop the capacities of students in two key areas – as young researchers working with their teachers, elders and scientists to investigate a topic and as the presenters themselves. Their engagement required them to be young pedagogues with a capacity to “teach” other students of their own learning in an interactive manner.

The teachers themselves participated in new learning so as to ensure that they had the competence to transfer into an effective and authentic practice the ‘kids teaching kids’ pedagogy.

Student teams were asked to develop presentations from one of six topics: Mungo Man, Mungo Woman; Climate Change – World Change; Mega Fauna; Culture and Dance; Food, Weapons & Survival; Initiation – growing up then and now.

Primary and secondary students, working in their schools in small teams, engaged in a semester length study prior to the conference. Presentations were then considered and those that met specific criteria (quality of content and presentation, interactivity with peers, hands on activity, use of relevant technology) were selected and those teams then presented at the conference. There were two teams per topic.

Teachers were asked to utilise ‘essential questions’ to ensure the development of deep understanding and integrated thinking, including:

• How does learning about other cultures help us to understand ourselves?
• How do we find out the truth about things that happened long ago?
• Why do people seek to discover what is unknown?
• What does it mean to ‘come of age’ and how does that differ across culture, time and gender?
• What keeps people of different cultures from living/working together?
• What brings people together?
• What is reconciliation and is it achievable?
• How do archaeologists/ scientists seek to discover the unknown?
• How does archaeology/ science help us to understand the world we live in?
• Is science always right? Does it help us?

The conference featured a number of elements including: student led workshops; a range of community activities led by Aboriginal Elders; archaeological activities in the field; team building and student leadership; cultural events; the modelling of a range of significant personal, artistic and professional achievements by indigenous members from the local community; creative performances.

The educational scope of the conference asked for the development of curriculum materials which could be used to further the study of a true history of Australia. This was not achieved however it signals the attainable and great opportunity available in developing and transforming prehistory from the current state which is virtually nothing in the curriculum for the vast majority of Australian students into something of substance and value.

Discussion

In History’s children Anna Clark notes that students are uniformly bored with the manner in which Aboriginal history is taught within schools. Importantly she notes that ‘students haven’t closed off from Indigenous history- it’s just that most of them have had very sporadic approaches to the topic, with far too much repetition and not enough material they can engage with’ (Clark 2008). In some ways it is similar to the Aboriginal past that we see displayed in most of our state museums. The rich diversity of Aboriginal culture and the Aboriginal experience post 1788 seems to be comprehensively addressed in a number of state museums, however the rich narrative of the complex ancient past is sadly lacking. The “contact period” is a past that represents a very small percentage of a much larger story. There is certainly no argument here suggesting that Aboriginal history does not deserve a prominent role in interpreting the Aboriginal past, on the contrary it is an aspect of the Nation’s more recent past that all should be aware of and indeed museums and schools have made considerable efforts to ensure that the post 1788 story is reinforced. The Aboriginal historic period does however only represents the last 200 years of Australia’s past. There would seem to be another 50,000 ± 200 that seems to have slipped off the National narrative. Certainly it is mentioned in many places, but the detail and its complexity is far from clear and is perhaps understood by only a very small percentage of Australians. The inclusion of this past on a National History curriculum has enormous potential to begin a reversal of this trend. Not only will it serve to inform the upcoming generations of the pre 1788 story, but it also holds enormous reconciliation potential. Greater understanding of this story could generate a greater respect for the Aboriginal position, which ideally would lead to a greater respect for Aboriginal cultural heritage and its central position in Australian society. If prehistory is not addressed formally and professionally by cultural and educational (primary and secondary) institutions this aspect of the nations past will continue to be neglected or interpreted by individuals either ill qualified to properly assess the complexity of the evidence and debates (and on a regional level, there are many) or even worse be distorted by those pursuing spurious political agendas wishing to rewrite aspects of the Nations past (for example, Windschuttle and Gillin 2002, for a rebuttal see Westaway and Hiscock 2005).

We are certainly not naïve enough to believe that teaching the ancient Indigenous past will lead to a reversal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander disadvantage and socio-economic stress. The issues confronting Indigenous Australians are on an enormous scale, and have been the focus of government programs for many generations. What we would argue is that teaching the story of prehistory needs to be part of the all of government approach to addressing the inequality that remains between Indigenous and non Indigenous Australians. The prehistoric narrative constitutes the vast majority of time that people have inhabited Australia, and it is time that this element of the past becomes a more prominent part of the National story. Programs such as the Mungo Youth Conference hold great potential to develop the mechanisms necessary to deliver engaging and meaningful educational resources that will relay the significance of Australian prehistory and demonstrate the continuity of Aboriginal culture. With the case of the Willandra, it has been a ‘ground up’ movement, the potential of which both State and Commonwealth Governments were quick to realise.

Conclusion

While prehistory is a term that is unpopular with some Australian archaeologists and indeed some Aboriginal people, it is a term that does have universal appreciation. If a more appropriate term with international meaning can be devised we welcome it, but the debate over the semantics is quite periphery to the main point that we would like to communicate in this paper. The important challenge for educators, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and archaeologists is to communicate the complexity and significance of hunter-fisher-gatherer groups to the broader public, and why this 50,000 year record of achievement needs to be a central part of the National narrative. If we involve the broader public in the archaeological stories that lie within their regions then we will potentially foster a greater and more meaningful sense of place. 

The Mungo Youth Conference attempted to bring together students, teachers, Aboriginal Elders and custodians, archaeologists and National Parks staff to create an environment that encouraged a deeper understanding of the Aboriginal past by a study of the ancient Willandra landscape. It did not approach these issues through archaeology alone, and what made the archaeology more meaningful was that it provided one component of the story of the Willandra Lakes World Heritage Area.

The Youth Conference highlighted a number of shortcomings of the program, and identified a lack of relevant resources for teaching students about people in the ancient Australian landscape. It was also established that the Elders role in the proceedings needed a clearer definition and supporting materials. Unfortunately even though money was acquired to employ an Aboriginal liaison officer for the program to help co-ordinate the Aboriginal elders role, finding a person from the community proved difficult. In the future an Aboriginal education officer will be engaged for this role if possible. Perhaps the most encouraging aspect of the conference was the actual ‘kids teaching kids’ component. The student directed learning was effective in engaging their fellow students (and arguably more so than if simply done by teachers). Students were able to convey to their junior colleagues that such debates as climate change over the last Ice age and the extinction of the megafauna and the human role are not clearly understood, and that there is in fact a variety of explanations for what may have happened. Students were challenged to think about these different arguments, and indeed some students offered explanations for their preferred models of climate change and megafaunal extinction.

Another important outcome was the role Aboriginal mentors played in the conference, and a number of inspiring individuals including lawyer Rudolph Kirby, television producer Angela Bates and hip-hop artist Little G provided entertaining insights for all kids present on what it was that inspired them to go onto successful and challenging careers. What was perhaps most relevant about the mentors role is that they had grown up in the same community as the majority of the students, their stories were resonant to the life of those students. The power of this outcome was not initially anticipated as more ‘iconic’ figures were sought (such as Cathy Freeman, Michael Long et al.), the strength of having successful mentors who are in fact locals is an approach to be continued. The Youth Conference is planned again for 2009 where the programs of the 2007 conference will be enhanced and improved.    

Archaeology has played a primary role in telling the complexity of the Mungo story, but it was only one aspect. It has the potential to be a more positive mechanism for informing students of the significance of the Aboriginal past in Australia and establishing a greater respect for Aboriginal cultural heritage and conversely, working toward the important national social agenda of reconciliation. It is important to stress that the archaeology mattered a great deal in the conference as the availability of a strong archaeological (and admittedly geological) knowledge base made the significance of the Willandra apparent which in many ways has led to the attraction to the Willandra (and indeed its inscription as a World Heritage Area). The Youth Conference captured perhaps for the first time a community of young learners who focused on gaining a true sense of time and of history. The map we have currently created for young Australians is not histories territory. Re – visioning and reinterpreting Australia’s history through the thoughtful integration of archaeology into the curriculum of schools (and the processes of doing so) is integral to the promise of a reconciled community. And it is more than that – in the words of the biologist EO Wilson ‘…if we dream, press to discover, explain, and dream again, thereby plunging repeatedly into new terrain, the world will somehow become clearer and we will grasp the true strangeness of the universe.’ 

References

Bonneville, P and Hémono, P. (2006). The world heritage: UNESCO’s classified sites. Bonneville Connection, Quebec.
Bowler, J (2008). Archaeology in Oceania
Clark, A (2008). History’s children: History wars in the classroom. University of New South Wales Press, Sydney.
David, B & T. Denham (2006). ‘Unpacking Australian prehistory’. In B. David, B. Barker and I.J. McNiven. The social archaeology of Australian indigenous societies. Aboriginal Studies Press, Canberra.
Franklin, N & Habgood, P (2007). ‘Modern human behaviour and pleistocene sahul’ in Review. Australian Archaeology 65: 1-16.
Hiscock, P (2007). Archaeology of ancient Australia. Routledge.
Lawrence, H (2006). Mungo over Millennia. Maygog Publishing, Tasmania.
MacDougal, I, et al 2006. ‘The age of the Omo fossils’. In Nature.
McBryde, I. (1974). Aboriginal prehistory in New England. Sydney University Press, Sydney.
Price, TD and J Brown (eds) (1985). Prehistoric hunter-gatherers: the emergence of cultural complexity. San Diego: Academic Press.
Russel, L (2000). ‘Where is the past? Locating archaeological discourses and narratives in the Melbourne Museum’. In The Artefact. 23: 3-8.
Swain, H (2007). An introduction to museum archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Westaway, MC and Hiscock, P ‘The extinction of rigour: a comment on “The extinction of the Australian Pygmies’ by Keith Windschuttle and Tim Gillin. In Aboriginal History 29: 142-147.
Westaway, M and Tunn, J (2003). ‘National archaeology week’. In Australian Archaeology 56: 52-53.
Windshuttle, K and Gillin, T (2002). ‘The extinction of the Australian pygmies’. In Quadrant. 
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, August 2006. A statistical overview of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in Australia.
Wannik (Learning Together – journey to our future): Education Strategy for Koorie Students in Victoria. 2008. Victorian Department of Education and early Childhood Development

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Dr Michael Westaway is the curator of cultures and histories (archaeology) at the Queensland Museum, in Queensland, Australia, and was the executive officer of the Willandra World Heritage Area. Dr Westaway is an archaeologist with a PhD in anthropology and palaepathology and his reputation is as an expert in the story of our human ancestors. His innovations in learning include the introduction of Archaeology Week for schools. Mr Robert Biggs is currently a liaison principal, is a former principal of Irymple Secondary College, in Victoria, Australia, and has been a principal consultant in Africa and Victoria, Australia. Mr Biggs inspired the concept and convened on behalf of the Willandra Lakes World Heritage Festival the Mungo Youth Conference. Ms Helen Healy manages major arts, food, wine, environmental and cultural events across three states in regional Australia. Her passion is for events that have a lasting and positive impact on communities. Ms Healy managed and innovated development of the Mungo Youth Conference.

Go to top of page     Go to online discussion