Basically, if you want to do reasonable amounts of Egypt and the Ancient Near East, you need to go to Macquarie.
In a horrible twist of irony, Macquarie doesn't really teach archaeology as a subject in itself. Archaeological subjects are taught by area-specialists (eg Egyptian Archaeology), and, to be honest, not very well. The best archaeologist at Macquarie who taught Egyptian archaeology is now in Austria and her replacement, whilst undoubtedly the best in the university, is very young. There is one general archaeology subject and it is rubbish.
From what I've seen, the non-Egyptologists at Macquarie are very poorly trained in archaeology and have to rely on on-site training when they go overseas. I'm not really sure what it's like elsewhere, but it seems that most Australian universities either stick to archaeology as a method of historical enquiry in area-studies (eg Macquarie) or teach it far too theoretically (eg USyd). I've seen that ANU has a combined archaeology/physical anthropology program, which would be a very good idea if you wanted to be a field archaeologist.
If you're interested in a specific period/place of history, I'd recommend studying that, and then seeing how you can get archaeological experience to tack onto it. That's what I did; I did a degree in ancient history but primarily in Egyptology, which was very well taught. Then I've had fieldwork experience and are now doing archaeological training here.
As for the rankings: Ignore them. What was said above about them being based solely on post-grad is incorrect (THES and Shanghai use undergrad almost exclusively), but rankings are really not helpful in choosing a university.
I mean most rankings rank Harvard above Oxford but Harvard only has one Egyptologist there, has a smaller library, fewer students in Egyptology, etc, so it would be worse for me.
Choose the uni that's right for you.
