PUBLIC ATTITUDES TOWARDS ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT
David L. Pokotylo and Andrew R. Mason
Introduction
Few archaeologists would disagree that a large segment of the public is fascinated by the ancient past. We often cite public interest in archaeology as the basis of heritage conservation legislation and research programs in both Canada and the United States (see Lipe 1977; King 1981). The public's interest in archaeology also has a negative aspect. Despite the gains made in passing heritage conservation legislation, site looting and vandalism remain major threats to the archaeological resource base. More stringent laws alone will not resolve this problem. Rather, an effective solution requires a major change in public opinion to increase awareness and understanding of our archaeological heritage. As effective heritage resource conservation comes to depend more and more on public understanding and support of archaeology, the profession must take responsibility to foster an archaeologically well-informed public. Archaeologists, however, still remain at odds about how to best respond to the public interest in archaeology (Fagan 1984). Lipe (1977) recognized this problem in his classic paper on conservation archaeology, and recommended that the discipline find out just what the public finds appealing about archaeology, and then use the results to promote the case for conservation, research, and education activities. Epp and Spurling (1984) also note the critical need for such information given the more active and influential role that public hearings, opinion polls and lobby groups now play in the heritage resource decision-making process. Although information on public interests in archaeology can contribute to the future success of resource conservation programs, little research on this topic has been attempted by either the academic or management communities. Davis (1978) identifies five principal forms that the public's interest in archaeology can take: 1) romanticism, 2) aesthetics, 3) nature of the human community, 4) social roots and 5) technical avocation. However, we do not have systematic data on how widely held these interests are. We are acutely aware that our discipline attracts a pseudoscience fringe that enjoys a high public profile (see Cazeau and Scott 1979; Cole 1980; Wauchope 1962). Over the past decade, the entertainment media have also fueled public interest, producing more and more movies, television programs, books and newspaper articles on archaeology, which range dramatically in their depictions of the profession and its activities. Archaeologists deal with a public that often has romantic and simplistic notions of what the discipline studies, and views archaeology as remote from the main concerns (and fiscal priorities) of modern society (Fagan 1984). A number of studies have conducted survey research to more accurately monitor public interest levels. Feder (1984) surveyed Central Connecticut State College students to assess their acceptance of pseudoscientific claims in archaeology and related fields presented in the popular media. Based on his analysis of responses to questions on archaeological and paleontological topics, Feder noted that large percentages of the student sample simply did not know whether pseudoscientific claims were true or not. Students also considered television and teachers to be equally reliable sources of information. Feder (1984:536) concluded that "students are largely ignorant of archaeology and related topics" and "are a ripe audience for pseudoscientists and charlatans who parade as archaeologists and would have the public accept all sorts of unacceptable nonsense about the past and its study". In Canada, two opinion polls have indirectly addressed public awareness of archaeological topics. In a province-wide survey, the Alberta Environmental Commission Authority (1972) found that 96% of the residents sampled were concerned about preservation of the province's archaeological and historic heritage. Opinions on ownership of heritage objects favored the finder slightly more than the government (53% vs. 47%). Sixty-seven percent of the sample believed that public education was the most practical way of preventing the continued destruction of Alberta heritage sites, and 85% agreed that heritage education should commence as early as the first grade in school. A poll by the Ontario Heritage Foundation shows that archaeology in Ontario has a low level of public support (White 1982). Only 31% of the sample was aware that the Foundation awarded grants for archaeological research, while 43% thought grants for archaeology were important. However, respondents were much more supportive of architectural conservation, suggesting that the public is more enthusiastic about heritage when the resources are familiar and tangible (White 1982). The above results are intriguing, but we need further attitudinal data dealing specifically with current archaeological issues to better utilize our available resources to improve public understanding and support for archaeology. In this article, we present some preliminary results of a continuing survey of Vancouver, British Columbia, area residents' opinions on prehistoric archaeology and heritage conservation legislation, compare the results to previous surveys, and assess potential ways to promote positive perceptions of the profession, the resource and its conservation.
Survey Methods
University of British Columbia students enrolled in an Applied Archaeology course taught by the senior author conducted public opinion surveys in February-March of 1985 and 1989. The survey involved the distribution of questionnaire forms to 550 households equally distributed among 11 select neighbourhoods in greater Vancouver. The 1985 survey sampled 300 households. Two hundred and fifty households were sampled in 1989. The neighbourhoods were selected by the students' location of residence. This admittedly judgmental sampling method nevertheless provided a good cross-section of socioeconomic areas in Vancouver. The survey questionnaires were hand delivered directly to the occupants, and the surveyor returned two-three days later to pick up completed forms. Occupants returning completed forms were given a free admission to the UBC Museum of Anthropology. The return rate avaerage of both surveys was 73% (64% in 1985 and 84% in 1989). Questions were designed to elicit from the respondents their understanding of prehistoric archaeology and archaeological resource conservation and the sources of this information. The questionnaire presented bounded answers in a multiple choice format that ensured standardized responses for statistical analysis. Although the specific content of the questionnaire form varied each year, 29 questions common to both surveys are reported here. The questions are grouped into four categories:
Survey Data and Results
Nature of the Survey Sample
In terms of age, 98% of the sample was over 18 years of age. The majority (56%) range in age from 18-35 years; 33% were 36-55 years old, and 9% were over 55 years. The sample mode is 18-25 years (32%). Twenty percent of the sample listed a high school degree as highest education level completed, and 8% did not graduate from high school. Seventy-three percent had some form of post-secondary education. In this latter group, 10% have a technical-vocational diploma, 18% have an undergraduate university degree and another 11% hold a postgraduate degree. The sample proportion with post-secondary education is higher than the 51.3% value recorded in the 1986 Vancouver census. The major discipline of post-secondary study was arts (38%), followed by science (19%) and applied science (14%). Ten percent listed commerce as the main discipline, 8% were in education, and the remaining 11% were in other fields ranging from physical education to law. The median duration of residence in British Columbia is 21 years, and ranges from less than one year to 99 years. Upper and lower quartiles of the distribution are 14 and 32 years, respectively. In summary, the sample tends to be relatively young and well-educated in the arts and sciences. Most have lived in the province for appreciable period of time to have some familiarity with its environmental and cultural setting.
Knowledge of Prehistoric Archaeology
Residents were asked about their visits to heritage sites, museums, and archaeological site excavations to monitor general levels of heritage awareness and interest. Ninety-three percent of the sample had visited a museum which exhibits archaeological artifacts, and 61% had visited a heritage site. These figures suggest that heritage interests are popular recreational activities. However, few people (5%) had visited an archaeological site excavation. This low value more likely reflects the limited opportunity for on-site visits in the province, rather than lack of interest, given the higher numbers for developed heritage sites. The high general interest level in heritage is countered by considerable misunderstanding of the scope and practice of prehistoric archaeology. Most respondents selected "remains of past cultures" when asked to identify what prehistoric archaeologists study (see Table I). However, over half of the sample chose "fossils, such as dinosaurs", and 52% selected both responses. No significant association exists between the two opinions--people selecting the "remains of past cultures" were not more likely to reject the "fossils" response. Although the results reveal misconceptions about the scope of prehistoric archaeology, few respondents admitted that they were uncertain about the subject. Ten percent of the sample did not respond when asked to specify what archaeologists do, which suggests a higher level of uncertainly on this topic. The majority of those responding identified the appropriate response--"studying lifeways of past cultures" (see Table II), and were more likely to reject the notion that archaeologists excavate burials for valuable art objects and that archaeologists purchase artifacts for their collections (chi square significance at p<.01). Nevertheless, 19% of the sample selected both the "lifeways" and "burial excavation for valuable art objects" responses.
Table I. Public Opinions on the Scope of Archaeology.
Table II. Public Opinions on Archaeological Practice.
A question on the antiquity of human occupation in British Columbia monitored substantive knowledge on regional archaeology. Respondents were asked "In your opinion, how long have people lived in the region now known as British Columbia?", and could select one of nine time intervals (see Figure 1). Thirteen percent of the sample did not answer the question. Of those responding, only 19% chose the time interval supported by present research (5,000-10,000 years). Over 21% selected time ranges less than 1000 years B.P., while 22% indicated ages greater than 20,000 years B.P. The above results question the effectiveness of present means of transmitting information about archaeology as a discipline and substantive research results to the public. What information sources do the public use to obtain their archaeological knowledge? Respondents were asked, "Where have you learned about prehistoric archaeology?", and could select any number of sources listed. Table III shows the distribution of responses. Television programs are the predominant information source, followed by magazines and books. Approximately equal numbers of people learned about archaeology from courses versus newspapers. Movies were the least selected information source, and were the only source in just one case. This should partially alleviate the profession's concern about the fallout from Hollywood's "Indiana Jones" archaeological stereotype.
Relevance
of Prehistoric Archaeology
When asked "Is archaeology relevant in contemporary society?" 84% of the sample chose 'relevant', and 4% checked 'not relevant.' The remaining 12% were uncertain. The profession assumes that education is the foundation of a better informed public, but would the public support prehistoric archaeology taught in the education system curriculum, and at what level? Responses to this question are tabulated in Table IV. The majority of the sample thought that archaeology should be taught as early as the elementary school level. The value is considerably less than the proportion of Alberta survey sample agreeing that heritage education should start in Grade one (56% vs. 85%). A minimal number considered archaeology to have no place in the education system. Looking beyond the education system, 67% of the sample indicated that they would like more information on prehistoric archaeology made available to the general public. Respondents desiring more information were asked to select preferred sources. The results are tabulated in Table IV. Television programming is the most preferred information source. A high proportion of respondents expressed an interest in visiting on-site excavations, ranking only slightly behind museum exhibits. This high level of interest in site excavation is important when compared to the proportions of the sample that are uninformed about archaeological scope and methods, and the small number who have visited excavations in progress. Respondents were also queried about the political role of archaeological research in current Native land claim issues in British Columbia. Forty-six percent of the sample maintained archaeological research should be used to support land claims cases, 18% did not think such data should be used and 36% was uncertain about the issue.
Table III. Source of Information about Archaeology.
Table IV. Level that archaeology should be introduced in the school.
Table V. Preferred sources of more information on archaeology.
Understanding of Heritage Conservation Legislation
Figure 2 shows opinion levels on three heritage conservation issues: the need for legislation, awareness of current legislation, and legal penalties for archaeological site destruction. A great majority of respondents thought there should be legislation to protect archaeological sites. This is slightly less than the 96% level of concern about heritage preservation expressed in the Alberta survey. Only one-third of the sample were aware that provincial heritage conservation legislation presently exists, and over half were uncertain whether laws existed or not. Ninety percent of the sample believed that an individual or corporation should be penalized for knowingly destroying a site. When queried about the nature of a penalty for site destruction, 21% selected a jail term, 72% chose a fine, and 31% favored both. In the 1989 survey, respondents who identified a fine or jail penalty were also asked to suggest appropriate amounts. Fines ranged from $50 to $5,000,000, with a median of $10,000. The median suggested jail sentence was 5 years, and ranged from one to 20 years. Twenty-seven percent of the sample felt that developers should be required to pay all salvage excavation costs when land development projects threaten archaeological sites, 36% thought that developer should pay some of the costs and 37% stated none. The relationship between the antiquities market and the looting and destruction of archaeological sites is well documented (Vitelli 1984). In British Columbia, legislation to assign ownership of archaeological artifacts to the province in trust is currently being drafted (British Columbia Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture 1990; Project Pride Task Force 1987). However, a lasting solution to the problem also requires heightened public awareness of the problem. Table VI presents responses to the question of who should have legal rights to prehistoric archaeological artifacts. Respondents could select any number of choices. The province was the preferred legal owner, ranking well above all other choices and the 47% level in the Alberta survey. Approximately equal numbers selected the Indian band nearest to the site of origin and the owner of the land on which the artifacts were found.
Table VI. Public opinion on ownership of archaeological artifacts.
Comparative Analysis
To better understand the basis of the above opinions, we treated education and knowledge of archaeological scope and practice as control variables. These were revised and crosstabulated with other opinion questions, and tested by chi square analyses for statistical significance at the .05 probability level. Responses to the scope and practice of archaeology questions were initially grouped into "informed" and "uninformed" opinions. People informed about the scope of archaeology identified only the study of remains of past cultures; those informed on practice selected either the development of museum collections and exhibits, or study of past lifeways responses. Any other response to either question was classified as uninformed. Respondents informed about the scope of archaeology were more likely to make informed selections about archaeological practice (87%), but only half of those informed on practice chose correctly for scope. We also defined a "well informed" group that was informed on both questions for comparison with other opinion variables. Only 29% of the respondents met this criterion. The sample was classified into groups with and without post- secondary education. Approximately equal proportions of each education level group had informed opinions about the scope (high school=40%, post-secondary=43%) and practice (high school=71%, post-secondary=73%) of archaeology. Antiquity estimates show the largest difference between education groups: 20% of the post-secondary sample selected the acknowledged time range versus 14% for the high school group. None of these relationships are significant. Respondents lacking post-secondary education were more likely to be uncertain, or to consider archaeology not relevant, than those with post-secondary schooling (23% vs. 13%). However, the proportion of well informed respondents with this opinion was similar to the rest of the sample (15% vs. 17%). No significant associations exist between the respondents' education or information level, and opinion about whether archaeology should be taught in the education system. Education level has a significant association with opinion on land claims: the sample with post-secondary education was less likely to be uncertain, and more likely to support the use of archaeology in land claims, than those with no post-secondary schooling. No significant relationships exist between opinions on need for legislation, knowledge of present laws, penalty for destroying sites, developers' financial responsibility, and education level or knowledge of archaeology. Education level is significantly associated with opinions on provincial ownership of artifacts and the finder's legal rights to artifacts. Respondents with high school as highest education level were more likely to support the finder's legal rights to artifacts than the post-secondary sample (22% vs. 12%), but were less likely to support government ownership (60% vs. 76%). There were no significant relationships between individuals well informed about archaeology and any of the ownership variables.
Conclusion
The survey data show that the public has a high level of interest in archaeology, and is concerned about heritage resource conservation. The results also indicate considerable support for legislation to protect cultural resources, public ownership of archaeological resources and continuing archaeological education and research. The study also reveals that present means of transmitting information about archaeology and archaeological conservation to the public are inefficient. Although the sample had a higher than average education level, it lacked both a clear understanding of what archaeology is and a basic knowledge of regional prehistory, and was unaware of existing legislation. In most cases, the respondent's education level and current archaeological knowledge made little difference to the extent of erroneous opinions. We obviously need to improve the general level of public knowledge about archaeology, but how can this be best accomplished? The survey results suggest some general means by which this knowledge could be effectively increased. Television programming should be considered an ideal vehicle for delivering information to the public: most respondents have viewed television programs on archaeology, and this medium is the most preferred source of further information. The museum system is another viable means of increasing public awareness. Almost all respondents had visited museums, and over half preferred museum exhibits as a source of further information. We should also recognize the very high interest level in on-site visits to see archaeological research in progress, and make efforts to incorporate a public programming component in research projects whenever possible. Articles in magazines and newspapers, and books with topics related to archaeology have exposed many sample respondents to archaeology. Well-written, accurate, informative and (most importantly) entertaining reports could receive a higher profile if they were regularly published in media that have wide public distribution. We should also not discount the positive role that archaeological fiction can play in exposing the public to the prehistoric past. Jean Auel's "Earth's Children" series (1980, 1982, 1985) has enjoyed massive success with over 2 million hardcover copies and 12 million paperback editions sold (Fagan 1987:132). More archaeologists may want to follow Kurten's (1986a, 1986b) and Thomas' (1987) example of scientists writing archaeological fiction (see Fagan 1987) to bring current research to a much wider audience. The subject of public interest in archaeology is timely, and this study represents an initial step to achieve a better understanding of the topic. The results of the present survey are intriguing and certainly warrant further work. We hope that the results will encourage similar studies in other regions to see if larger scale patterns are evident.
Acknowledgements. UBC students enrolled in Anthropology 424, Applied Archaeology, assisted in the questionnaire design and conducted the surveys. Heather Koulas, Brad Smart, Jim Spafford, Philip Walker and Dick Woo participated in the 1985 survey. The 1989 survey involved Catherine Bartl, Vicki Feddema, Deborah Hayles, Lee McFarlane and Andrew Mason. The Department of Anthropology and Sociology, UBC, covered costs for duplicating the questionnaire forms. Computing funds were provided by the UBC Faculty of Arts. Michael Ames, Director of the UBC Museum of Anthropology, generously donated the museum passes that contributed to the high response rate. Kathryn Bernick prepared the graphics. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 43rd Northwest Anthropological Conference, Eugene, Oregon, March, 1990.
References Cited
Alberta Environment Commission Authority (1972) The Conservation of Historical and Archaeological Resources in Alberta: Report and Recommendations. Edmonton, Alberta.
Auel, J.M. (1980) The Clan of the Cave Bear. Crown Publishers, New York.
----- (1982) The Valley of the Horses. Crown Publishers, New York.
----- (1985) The Mammoth Hunters. Crown Publishers, New York.
British Columbia Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture (1990) Toward Heritage Legislation: A Proposal for Public Review. Victoria, B. C.
Cazeau, C., and S. Scott (1979) Exploring the Unknown: Great Mysteries Re-examined. Plenum Press, New York.
Cole, J.R. (1980) Cult Archaeology and Unscientific Method and Theory. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol.3, pp.4-33. M.B. Schiffer, ed. Academic Press, New York.
Davis, E.M. (1978) Archaeology, A Matter of Public Interest. In Papers in Applied Archaeology, pp.15-18. J. Gunn, ed. Center for Archaeological Research, University of Texas at San Antonio.
Epp, H.T. and B.E. Spurling (1984) The Other Face of Janus: Research in the Service of Archaeological Resource Management. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 8: 95-113.
Fagan, B.M. (1984) Archaeology and the Wider Audience. In Ethics and Values in Archaeology, pp.175-183. E.L. Green, ed. The Free Press, New York.
----- (1987) Life with Ayla and her friends: Jean Auel and the new phenomenon of Ice Age fiction. Scientific American 256(6):132-135.
Feder, K.L.(1984) Irrationality and Popular Archaeology. American Antiquity 49: 525-541.
King, T.F. (1981) The NART: A Plan to Direct Archaeology toward more Relevant Goals in Modern Life. Early Man 3(4):35-38.
Kurten, B. (1986a) How to Deep-Freeze a Mammoth. Columbia University Press, New York.
----- (1986b) Singletusk: A Novel of the Ice Age. Pantheon Books, New York.
Lipe, W.D. (1977) A Conservation Model for American Archaeology. The Kiva 39:213-245.
Project Pride Task Force (1987) Stewardship and Opportunity: Report of the Ministerial Task Force on Heritage Conservation. British Columbia Ministry of Tourism, Recreation and Culture. Victoria, B.C.
Thomas, E.M. (1987) Reindeer Moon. Houghton Mifflin, Boston.
Vitelli, K.D. (1984) The international traffic in antiquities: archaeological ethics and the archaeologist's responsibility. In Ethics and Values in Archaeology, pp.143-155. E.L. Green, ed. The Free Press, New York.
Wauchope, R. (1962) Lost Tribes and Sunken Continents. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
White, J. (1982) The 1982 annual meeting - banquet address by Mr. John White, Chairman of the Ontario Heritage Foundation. Canadian Archaeological Association Newsletter. 2(1):12.
Return to the Table of Contents Open the Microsoft Word Version of this Article
|
