**THE ARCHAEOLOGIST AS GLOBAL EDUCATOR**

Phyllis Mauch Messenger

and

Walter W. Enloe

**Introduction**

Archaeology is the stuff of our childhood fantasies about exotic
peoples, places, and times. The subject matter of archaeological
exploration seems almost limitless, with discovery, intrigue, and
foreign locations often thrown in. To many, archaeology would seem to be
the perfect career. Yet archaeologists often are not succeeding in
communicating what they do, why and how they do it, and why it might be
important. And, it can be argued, they \"do not take enough notice of
the perceptions of the past held by the public\" (Stone 1989: 195). The
current focus on cultural heritage resource preservation is a key factor
motivating archaeologists to look for opportunities to improve their
performance in the area of public education, especially in the schools.
This article will attempt to offer paths of thought along which those
interested in studying the nature of humankind in a variety of times and
places\--which certainly includes archaeologists and educators\--might
meet.

Archaeologists and educators share common areas of interest and have
much to offer one another. The archaeologist seeks to create interest in
the study and support of archaeology, including the preservation of
cultural heritage resources. The archaeologist realizes a need to reach
students in K-12 classrooms, ideally offering more than a \"dog and
pony\" show. The educator wants to help students gain an understanding
of who we are and how we fit in the world (a \"global perspective\"), in
part by studying human responses to change over time. The educator seeks
to help students understand the commonalities of being human and to
respect the rich diversity of human culture. The educator seeks to gain
access to community resources, integrating enrichment activities into
the curriculum in a meaningful way.

In order to understand and integrate these goals, let us look at the
growing field of global education and at anthropologists\' analysis of
the role of anthropology/archaeology in it. We will build a profile of
\"archaeologist as global educator,\" and a parallel profile of
\"archaeolo­gist and child as active learner and explorer,\" with
examples of activities and approaches that illustrate the possibilities
of using global education as a framework for archaeology in the schools,
and archaeology and cultural heritage education as powerful tools for
global education.

**Global, International, and Multicultural Studies**

There is a growing movement in United States elementary and secondary
education to address, appreciate, and understand the multicultural
nature of our population. In many areas this is a mandated addition to
the curriculum. Multicultural education addresses the reality that
countries such as the United States are a plurality of peoples, that, in
fact, \"we are the world,\" and that we must help our children respect
the commonalities of being citizens of one country while respecting the
varieties of cultural differences within it. We are not so much a
melting pot as a multi-ingredient salad or a cultural mosaic.

The movement toward globalizing or internationalizing curricula
recognizes our increasing global interdependence and the need to
understand the world and our place in it. For many educators, \"global\"
is synonymous with \"international\" and encompasses a variety of
diverse educational goals and strategies: area studies and foreign
languages; multicultural and intercul­tural education; international
relations and foreign policy studies; international development studies;
and single issue perspectives on a global scale, such as environmental
or war-and-peace issues. Global education also has been defined as
either world issue and problem studies or world-centered approaches to
education (i.e., the world as an interdependent system). A more
integrating (as well as historic) definition of global is \"interactive
and systemic,\" suggesting spherical completeness and comprehen­siveness.
An interactive whole understood synchronically and diachronically\--that
is, historically or developmentally and presently or in process\--may
refer to the world, humanity, a particular culture or village, or the
local community or classroom. More specifically we use the term global
to convey the concept of the planet as an interactive whole (Gaia or
spaceship earth) and the human species as an interactive whole (human
family, global village).

We recognize that the last half century has brought rapid and sweeping
changes, uniting humanity through technological break­throughs in
transportation and communication, causing it to become, in Martin Luther
King\'s terms, more of \"a neighbor­hood,\" linked by technology as well
as by global problems such as global warming, pollution, and uneven
distribution of resources. On numerous occasions, Dr. King argued that
unless we learn to see ourselves as a \"bro­therhood\" (\"humanhood\" or
humanity) and resolve our global problems, \"we will perish together as
fools\" (Washington 1986: 117-122). Similarly, human scientist and
psychoanalyst Erik Erikson contends that human beings are the only
living species that tend toward \"pseudo-speciation.\" Through gender,
race, or cultural background, we tend to segregate, we tend to rate as
superior or inferior, we tend to differentiate our single, organic
whole\--the human species (Erikson 1968: 41-2). A global perspective in
education, then, will be informed by the concepts of interactive system,
whole world, the whole of organic life (including humanity), and the
whole of human culture.

A number of educators have elaborated the basic characteristics of a
school curriculum that is global, addressing the need to understand the
world and its cultures and our relationship to them. Archaeologists
should find it useful to reflect on how their perspectives on a
particular culture illustrate or encompass the components of these
conceptions, as well as how an understanding of anthropological concepts
and processes could enrich the global classroom. In current thinking
about social studies in general and global education in particular, we
find an increasing emphasis on an historical perspective to current
issues, evaluating human responses to change and seeing patterns and
systems in particular geographic contexts, rather than looking at
isolated events. The goal is to provide a context or foundation for
social participa­tion. It is possible to envision the eventual
formulation of a new interdisciplinary area of human studies. Recent
academic develop­ments have established human science as a recognized
rubric, within which the traditional social sciences, including
archaeology, interface with biology (Piaget 1972). With the
interdependency of the human sciences and the humanities, a more
complete approach to the study of human beings can be formulated which
will foster human attitudes and skills that transcend the school house
and are essential capacities that aid the lived experience of students
as a whole.

Global educator Lee Anderson delineates a set of global citizenship
competencies in terms of self-perspective and self-awareness.
Archaeologists will recognize these as issues and questions they deal
with in their research and teaching, particularly the fourth point.
Anderson\'s themes are: 1) A capacity to perceive oneself and all other
individuals as members of a single species of life whose numbers share a
common biological status, a common way of adapting to their natural
environments, a common history, a common set of biological and
psychological needs, common existential concerns, and common social
problems; 2) A capacity to perceive oneself, the groups to which one
belongs, and the human species as a whole as a part of the earth\'s
ecosystem; 3) A capacity to perceive oneself and the group one belongs
to as participants in the transnational social order; 4) A capacity to
perceive oneself, one\'s community, one\'s nation, and one\'s
civilization as both \"cultural borrowers\" and \"cultural depositors\"
who both draw from and contribute to a \"global band of human culture\"
that has been and continues to be fed by contributions by all peoples,
in all geographical regions, and in all periods of history; and 5) A
self-conscious capacity to perceive that the world system and its
component elements are objects of perception, beliefs, attitudes,
opinions, values, and assumptions on our part as well as the part of
others (Anderson 1979).

Educator Willard Kniep, of the American Forum\--Global Perspectives in
Education, sees the need for holistic strands across subject areas and
through grade levels in order for a curriculum to be global (Kniep
1988). These strands are addressed through broad school-community
collaboration, inquiry, and consensus on these two essential questions:
What is the nature of the contemporary world? What skills, attitudes,
and knowledge do students need to be responsible and reasonable
participants for the future in a world we know to be increasingly
complex, changing, and interdependent?

This growing orientation toward educating for local and global
citizenship and, corres­pondingly, the need to reevaluate the changing
role for education in a changing multi-boundary, trans­national world, is
no better formulated than through the perspective of the United States\'
foremost educational reformer, John Goodlad. He has proposed that the
total system worldview of economist Kenneth Boulding (1985) is a novel
paradigm approximating \"the way things are\" and providing a guidepost
for school renewal and curriculum restructuring. Goodlad has adapted
Boulding\'s world model to provide an appropriate systems model for
global studies. Goodlad categorizes various methods of study and subject
matter through which students expand their localized view of the world
into the wider context of global systems (Goodlad 1988, also see 1984).
His systems (and some of the methods and subjects he lists) are: 1) the
world as a physical system (the physical sciences, technology), 2) the
world as a biological system (e.g., zoology, ecology), 3) evaluative and
belief systems (studies in the bases of choice and decision making,
e.g., religion, economics), 4) communicative and expressive systems (the
means and ways of human communica­tion and expression), 5) the human
species (studies in the traits and characteristics of human beings,
e.g., history, the arts, religion, archaeology), and 6) the global
village\--social, political and economic systems (how humans
collectively manage their lives, e.g., anthropology, economics, ecology,
archaeology). While archaeology is central to the last two, methods and
subject matter related to archaeology are found in all areas of
Goodlad\'s vision of the scope of school-based curricula for expanding
students\' worldviews.

Global educators have developed the framework for preparing young people
for life in a world increasingly characterized by pluralism,
interdependence, and change. As political leaders and citizens add to
the voice calling for global education, its attainment becomes more of a
reality. And those, including archaeologists/anthropologists, who can
make an informed contribution to our understanding of the human species
and the global village will be valued in the education community. This
vision is edging toward reality. Take, for example, the 1989 report of
the National Governor\'s Association, which argues that education must
prepare young people for an increasingly globalized world:

Times have changed. Revolutionary advances in science, technology,
communica­tions and transportation have brought nations and peoples
together. World trade and financial, economic, and political
developments have transformed disparate economic systems into a highly
interdependent global marketplace. Today, the nations that inhabit the
planet are often more closely linked than neighboring states or villages
were at the turn of the century.

Yet these important changes are not reflected in the way many U.S.
schools prepare students for citizenship. In educating students, the
languages, cultures, values, traditions, and even the location of other
nations are often ignored. Schools and universities reflect the same
lack of global understanding that pervades the nation from government
and business leaders to school children.

**Anthropology/Archaeology in a Global Curriculum**

The framework developed by global educators insists upon the inclusion
of an anthropol­ogical perspective. The extensive potential contribution
of archaeology to this curriculum through both content and methods
provides a challenge and an opportunity to the archaeological community.
By understanding the philosophy and goals of global education,
archaeologists can begin to work with educators to provide a valued
component of the educational experience.

Where do we begin? In 1989 the Curriculum Task Force of the National
Commission on Social Studies in the Schools issued a report which urges
the teaching of social studies in every K-12 grade to ensure development
of qualities crucial to citizenship, including the ability of students
to see themselves as part of the larger human experience, to understand
the diversity of world history and cultures, and to grasp the critical
values and analytical perspectives appropriate to the analysis of the
human condition. One of the contributors to the report was
anthropologist Jane J. White, co-chair of the Task Force on Teaching
Anthropology in the Schools for the American Anthropological Association
(AAA). Her discussion of the contributions anthropology can make to the
social studies curriculum includes a number of points which
archaeologists wanting to argue the relevancy of archaeology to global
education should keep in mind. Many of her points address those outlined
above by Kniep, Goodland, and Boulding. White states, \"The central goal
of anthropology is to explain why groups of people are different from
each other . . . \[and to\] try to explain each group\'s way of life in
terms of their own perspectives.\" We would add that an authentic global
perspec­tive builds upon human com­monalities to explicate more fully
human differences. Anthropol­ogy has a wealth of big ideas\--culture,
evolution, adaptation, cultural contact, technological change. Studying
them helps students organize data and perceive patterns. White quotes
Clifford Geertz, \"The aim is to draw large conclusions from small, but
very densely textured facts; to support broad assertions . . . by
engaging them with complex specifics\" (Geertz 1973: 21-28). White sees
the application of anthropological processes\--analyzing artifacts,
documents, art and narrative, and daily life accounts\--as adding depth,
intensity, and variety to work in social studies.

White cautions that teachers must move beyond a \"touristy\" or strange
lands and friendly peoples approach to cultures, through the use of case
studies to give a complex picture. This will \"help students confront in
intellectually honest ways the sometimes threatening concept of cultural
differences. If the challenge is met, then students will have moved one
step closer toward becoming true world citizens\" (White 1989: 36).

The anthropological perspective is a major component of the historical
cultures approach to world studies as described by Paul Bohannan, past
president of the American Anthropological Association (AAA) and of the
African Studies Association, in a handbook looking at five approaches to
world studies curriculum (Woyach and Remy 1989). This approach focuses
on the dynamics of cultural change within history, especially responses
of challenges to the environment. By looking at the achievements of
different cultures in meeting challenges, why societies have faltered,
and speculating on what might have been, students are led to a new
understanding of our problems today and the premises that may cloud our
eyes. This approach emphasizes the urgent need for cross-cultural
understanding and helps us express and assess the premises of our own
and other cultures. Having the perspective of different times and places
helps us achieve those goals.

Bohannan discusses the importance of the concept of cultures as the
\"stuff\" that makes people of different times and places different from
one another. The birth, development, and death of different cultures is
the very substance of human history. Looking at the two manifesta­tions
of culture as \"artifact\" and \"mentifact\" aid in the ever difficult
task of defining culture, says Bohannan. We would add that active
enquiry by students, activities describing and interpreting one\'s own
culture, and otherwise empowering children as archaeologists and
ethnographers will enhance that understanding.

**The Archaeologist as Global Educator**

How can the archaeologist combine the demands of global education, the
promise of anthropology, and the needs of the child into an educational
experience that the archaeologist can facilitate? We have adapted Selby
and Pike\'s profile of a global teacher to indicate how and where the
archaeolo­gist\'s skills and expertise can be applied.

According to Selby and Pike (1988: chap. 4), the global teacher is
globalcentric, looking at broad systems. We would add, the archaeologist
looks at the past on both the small and the large scale to see how
global conditions, trends, and developments have changed over time.

The global teacher is concerned about culture and perspective, wanting
to present a coherent understanding of cultures studied. \"Cultures are
portrayed as neither monolithic nor unchanging\" (Selby and Pike 1988:
chap. 4). In-depth study of cultures is emphasized to encourage respect
for diversity and promote tolerance and appreciation of other
perspectives and world views. The archaeologist can offer deep treatment
of a single culture at a single moment or over time, and in comparison
to other cultures. An archaeological comparison of our material culture
with that of another culture may remove the exotic quality often
associated with differences and in the process will contribute to
respect for the culture and its objects, as well as the process for
studying them.

The global teacher is future oriented, conveying that humans can
influence the future by their actions; it is not predetermined. Students
develop skills to cope with an accelerated rate of change. The
archaeologists\' portraits of cultures deal with change and adaptation,
often through a great depth of time. Their histories suggest how past
human actions affected nature and cultural development, both their own
and that of other groups.

The global teacher is a facilitator, helping students learn how to
learn. Rather than only presenting a long lecture full of complicated
facts, the archaeologist has the opportunity to help students understand
how we know what we know about a culture. Students can be presented with
clues and the opportunity to experience moving from evidence to
hypothesis. The archaeologist should have the confidence to admit that
we don\'t have all the answers (or necessarily the right ones) and
encourage self-esteem by letting the child take chances, too.

The global teacher believes in human potential, recognizing that
students are eager to discover and relish a challenge. This educator
\"knows that students who are put in contact with what they perceive to
be real issues and problems are intrinsically motivated\" (Selby and
Pike 1988: chap. 4). The archaeologist can seize on the enthusiasm for
discovery and the fascination with the exotic image of the archaeologist
to encourage students to understand the methodic and scientific side of
archaeol­ogy. The issue of site protection, for example, can be
powerfully presented if students are offered positive actions that they
can take as a group, as individuals, or with their families. A simple
negative message of \'no, don\'t touch, let the professionals do it\' is
not productive. Instead, positive actions, such as adopting a site (or
project or archaeologist), learning more about preserva­tion, or
understanding how to report collections or sites, what should be
reported, and to whom, are important.

The global teacher is concerned with the development of the whole
person, accepting \"that there are diverse and synergistic dimensions to
human learning including the abstract, the concrete, the experiential,
the analytical, the rational, the intuitive, and the emotional\" (Selby
and Pike 1988: chap. 4). The archaeologist can lead students through the
variety of learning styles involved in archaeological investigation.
Simple materials, such as old magazines, or phone books, can be used to
look for commonalities and differences, trace changes in types of ads,
products that appear or disappear, the appearance of last names
reflecting the introduction of new immigrant groups, and other
characteris­tics. Students might begin with publications from their own
year of birth, moving backward or forward to other significant dates, to
develop a sense of change between time markers.

The global teacher employs various teaching/learning styles in the
classroom, including action research, group discussion, experiential
units, role plays, simulation games, and direct and hands-on experience.
The archaeologist can offer a range of activities, including group
exercises in measuring, quantifying, and estimating, hands-on
exploration of cultural material, and role playing in another time and
place. Some activities can take place during the visit or residency of
an archaeologist. Others can occur before or after, guided by handouts
or discussions between teacher and archaeologist. Students might be
asked to create a personal geography of a special place, describing or
drawing it, and letting their peers try to determine its location,
meaning, and identity. Or they might bring an object from early
childhood and let others analyze its significance.

The global teacher believes in lifelong learning and sees him or herself
as a perpetual learner. Students are encouraged to ask good questions
and understand that our answers and solutions are impermanent. The
archaeologist knows from experience that our understanding of people and
events is evolving and can facilitate student\'s understanding of the
same process. This is especially apparent in the study of past cultures
as research technologies improve. In addition, the increasingly
recog­nized contributions of indigenous groups and developing
cultures/nations in studying, explaining, and owning their own past has
led to an enrichment and deepening of our understanding of the human
past and its continuity with the present (e.g., Layton 1989).

The global teacher tries to be congruent, seeking to keep the medium and
the message in harmony, as well as one\'s own professional and personal
life. The archaeologist who respects and admires past cultures must be
willing to show respect for the beliefs and needs of contemporary
cultures. A valuable exercise in developing empathy and understand­ing
involves archaeologists and students assuming roles of different
individuals or representatives of various countries in a round table
discussion of rights to cultural objects (see Messenger 1989: chap. 14).
Another discussion might be based on an actual event in their community,
such as the desecration of a public monument or cemetery vandalism.

The global teacher is rights-respectful, with a goal of shifting the
focus of power and decision making in the classroom. The goal is
autonomy and empowerment of the individual, encouraged by a system of
feedback and evaluation. The archaeologist can contribute to this
process by helping students understand the dynamic processes of group
investigation, discus­sion, and give-and-take which comprise good
archaeological investigation\--cooperative learning at its best.

The global teacher seeks fundamental interdependence across the
curriculum, with continuity in aims, objectives, and teaching and
learning strategies through subject matter and grade level. Ideally, the
archaeologist\'s contribution would include interaction and discussion
with teacher groups to discuss integration of archaeology at different
learning levels. How and where are cultures, systems, and areas of the
world currently introduced in the curriculum? What are alternative
strategies? The archaeologist can offer types of presentations to be
devel­oped, seeking a dialogue with teachers on how to introduce new
topics\--either by the archaeologist or by the classroom teacher\--into
the curriculum. One avenue to such group discussions is through district
or state teacher workshops. For example, a state social studies
conference might feature a session led by an archaeologist on
\"archaeology and the study of the past across the cur­riculum\" or
\"current research in archaeology/anthropology.\" This sort of approach
might also be developed within one globally-minded school or through a
college of education or state department of education.

The global teacher is a community teacher who recognizes opportunities
for holistic education offered by the local community. The archaeologist
often represents a set of resources, including archaeologi­cal societies,
museums, historical societies, colleges or universities, and local
heritage sites and interpretive centers. Connected with an archaeologist
in one way or another is often a cadre of archaeology students,
volunteer excavators (sometimes senior citizens), and other
professionals from the related institutions. Often these individuals and
institutions can be called upon to serve as additional resources in the
classroom or in providing fieldtrip opportunities. For example, senior
citizens who have worked as volunteer excavators might work with a class
on an extended project after an archaeologist has visited the class.

**Archaeologist and Child as Active Learner**

**and Explorer/Scientist**

How do we make archaeology meaningful to a child\'s experiences?
Children work from the present backward. They find it difficult to make
a leap of understanding from their own environment to other situations
distant in time and space. A 1986 survey of a multicult­ural group of
school children in Great Britain elicited such views of history as: \"I
don\'t see how it could help you now. Nowadays is so different.\" Or,
\"You\'re in this world now. The past is gone\" (Emmott 1989: 25).
Children often find social studies\--including archaeology\--boring as
it is usually presented. When archaeological studies begin in a context
distant from a child\'s personal meaning system, it is usually handless,
inactive, and unengaging. The following discussion will offer
perspectives on bridging the gap between here and there, now and then.

If we wish to teach children something about global citizenship, about
the past, or about respect for cultural heritage, we must actively seek
to make those concepts relevant to their classroom, community, and home.
And we should encourage their participation in meaningful activities
that address a variety of learning styles (see Gardner 1983). In
Piaget\'s terms, we are simply suggesting that we aid the active lived
experience of children (Piaget 1972). Increasingly, we know that
learning is an active, constructive, meaning-making process. \"The
medium is the mes­sage.\" How we teach must reflect the natural
development and experience of our students. If we want children to
understand the world as an interdependent entity whose development
requires active collaboration, we cannot simply tell them about it by
\"covering the material.\" We must teach them in ways in which learning
is cooperative, active, engaging, and full of hands-on meaningful­ness.
We must take seriously that children are not primarily passive receivers
of information, a mode that is so characteristic of much of our
schooling practice. They are human scientists\--creators, explorers,
discoverers, interpreters, and meaning-makers.

Hilda Taba, the great researcher and teacher educator, outlined the
ideal teacher-learner/learner-teacher twenty years ago for the Foreign
Policy Association\'s conference on inter­nationalizing the K-12
curriculum. This work offers a framework of the active global learner
within which we can place the kinds of activities and interactions that
archaeology can contribute (Collins 1982).

Taba\'s active learner develops certain kinds of knowledge, including
organized sets of concepts, ideas, and/or generalizations that enable
him or her to put masses of data in order. The active learner can
process information; that is, analyze data, form generalizations, ask
pertinent questions, make inferences, use data to hypothesize, to
predict causal change, and as a useful model for inquiry, for analysis,
and for probing problems. The active learner is a self-learner and has
the intellectual tools and desire to do his or her own data processing
and keep on learning. Well-organized visits to archaeological sites or
labs, along with preliminary visits by archaeologists to schools for
discussions with teachers and classes can offer this sort of active
learning opportunity. A key to the success of such a project is the
availability of a staff person to carry out the planning of activities
and creating of work sheets, artifact boxes, and other learning tools,
as well as the stability of a project to continue over a period of time
(e.g., Shaw 1989: 5-9).

The active learner has a genuine sense of participation, involvement,
and commitment. Activities developed out of an encounter with
archaeology might include creating an archaeologi­cal record of the
students\' own class or school, doing experimental archaeology or
ethno­archaeology by growing a garden using certain techniques or crops,
making pottery with appropriate tools and materials (such as shells,
pebbles, and corncobs to smooth the clay), or making a scrapbook of news
items related to archaeology. (See Hawkins, 1987, for further
discussion)

The active learner can face change without trauma; that is, can grasp,
take hold of, influence, and control in a constructive manner the change
processes underway. The active learner has a capacity to transcend his
or her own ethnocentric skin, seeing equivalents in values and
universals in the human condition, and possessing the sensibilities that
are neces­sary to live in a pluralistic world. The active learner can
handle community, national, or international situations objectively;
that is, can treat other peoples\' (nations\') feelings or value
patterns as \"facts\" or \"givens\" in a situation. The active learner
has a sense of the complexity of issues, both local and global. Students
might begin a personal exchange of artifacts of their own culture with
students from other cultures, whether it be Minnesota and Japan or
California and Tennessee. These \"culture boxes\" help students confront
what they value and try to see the objects they choose as someone from
another culture might see them. Teachers and students can create culture
boxes of a place they have visited, of a rural or urban contemporary
American family, or of the culture of their school community (Enloe
1990).

The active learner has loyalties, realizing that loyalty is not a finite
quality and that one can be loyal to a range of people or institutions
or ideas simultaneously. Emmott\'s discussion of the British survey of
school children looked at children\'s attitudes about their own varied
cultural backgrounds. Most of the children claimed they would pass on
more about all aspects of their cultures than their parents did, which
the children identified as one reason for learning about the past. They
emphasized language, myths, religion, music, and art, in that order.
Emmott notes that 89 percent of the children surveyed found family
history interesting, and suggests designing projects aimed at creating
individual family histories by interviewing grandparents and retirees.
This active enquiry would help \"create a sense of the personal meaning
of the past and its effect on ordinary people\'s lives\" (Emmott 1989:
42). This version of archaeology in our own back yard would be a
valuable lesson on the topic of history preceding the classroom visit of
an archaeologist who would talk about family histories of a more distant
culture.

**Conclusion**

It is clear that the archaeologist is well positioned to step into the
roles of active learner and global teacher, offering a broad perspective
on cultures and change over time. Done with care and thoughtfulness, we
can present a positive, active message to children that encourages them
to understand and respect other cultures, past and present; respect what
remains of them, just as they respect themselves and the world around
them; and participate in the quest for understanding. By valuing the
process and results, we will share in the owner­ship/stewardship of the
past and actively work to preserve it.

By sharing ownership we do not lose our right to archaeological
resources as scholars and researchers, but we gain a broader base for
stewardship of cultural heritage resources. Developing a stronger
cultural norm for preservation may take several genera­tions, but it is
not beyond our grasp. The public schools are a logical place to begin.

**References Cited**

Anderson, Lee (1979) [Schooling and Citizenship in a Global
Age]{.underline}. Social Studies Development Center, Indiana University,
Bloomington.

Boulding, Kenneth (1985) [The World as a Total System]{.underline}.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Bohannan, Paul (1989) \"An Historical Cultures Approach.\" In
[Approaches to World Studies. A Handbook for Curriculum
Planners]{.underline}, Robert B. Woyach and Richard C. Remy, eds.,
Needham Heights, Mass: Allyn and Bacon.

Collins, Thomas H. (1982) [Getting Started in Global
Education]{.underline}. Arlington, VA: National Association of
Elementary School Principals.

Enloe, Walter (1990) [Cultural Information Exchanges]{.underline}.
(forthcoming) Minnesota Department of Education, 660 Capitol Square
Building, St. Paul, MN 55101.

Emmott, Kathy (1989) \"A Child\'s Perspective on the Past: Influences of
Home, Media and School.\" In [Who Needs the Past? Indigenous Values and
Archaeology]{.underline}, R. Layton, ed., London: Unwin Hyman.

Erickson, Erik (1968) [Identity, Youth, Crisis]{.underline}. New York:
Norton.

Gardner, Howard (1983) [Frames of Mind]{.underline}. New York: Basic.

Geertz, Clifford (1973) [The Interpretation of Cultures]{.underline}.
New York: Basic Books.

Goodlad, John (1984) [A Place Called School]{.underline}. New York:
Houghton Mifflin.

\-\-\-- (1988) \"A New Look at an Old Idea: Core Curriculum.\" In [Next
Steps in Global Education]{.underline}, Willard Kniep, ed., New York:
American Forum, pp. 15-23.

Hawkins, Nancy W. (1987) [Classroom Archaeology: An Archaeology Activity
Guide for Teachers]{.underline}. Baton Rouge: Division of Archaeology.

Kniep, Willard (1988) [Next Steps in Global Education]{.underline}. New
York: American Forum.

Layton, R., ed. (1989) [Who Needs the Past? Indigenous Values and
Archaeology]{.underline}. London: Unwin Hyman.

Messenger, Phyllis Mauch, ed. (1989) [The Ethics of Collecting Cultural
Property: Whose Culture? Whose Property?]{.underline} Albuquer­que:
University of New Mexico Press.

National Governors\' Association (1989) \"America in Transition: The
International Frontier.\" A Report of the National Governors\'
Association, in [Access]{.underline}, #85, The American Forum for Global
Education.

Piaget, Jean (1972) [Science of Education and the Psychology of the
Child]{.underline}. New York: Viking.

Selby, David, and Graham Pike (1988) [Global Teacher, Global
Learner]{.underline}. London: Stroughton.

Shaw, Rachel (1989) \"Combining Archaeology and Education\--An Example
from England.\" In [Archaeology and Education]{.underline}, Vol. I:
Issue 1, Fall.

Stone, Peter G. (1989) \"Interpretations and Uses of the Past in Modern
Britain and Europe. Why Are People Interested in the Past? Do the
Experts Know or Care? A Plea for Further Study.\" In [Who Needs the
Past? Indigenous Values and Archaeology]{.underline}, R. Layton, ed.,
London: Unwin Hyman.

Washington, James M., ed. (1986) [A Testament of Hope\--The Essential
Writings of Martin Luther King, Jr.]{.underline} San Francisco: Harper &
Row.

Woyach, Robert B. and Richard C. Remy (1989) [Approaches to World
Studies. A Handbook for Curriculum Planners]{.underline}. Needham
Heights, Mass: Allyn and Bacon.

White, Jane J. (1989) \"Anthropology.\" in [Charting a Course: Social
Studies for the 21st Century]{.underline}, A Report of the Curriculum
Task Force of the National Commission on Social Studies in the Schools,
pp. 31-36.