**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:

1\. Demographic data on the respondent\'s age, education and length of
residence in the province;

2\. Knowledge of prehistoric archaeology in general and British Columbia
archaeology in particular;

3\. Opinions about the value and significance of prehistoric archaeology
in modern society; and

4\. Awareness of heritage conservation legislation.

**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]{.underline} 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**.

Response N % of respondents

(N=401)

Study fossils, such as dinosaurs 227 56.6

Study the remains of past cultures 377 94.0

Study living cultures 65 16.2

Uncertain 11 2.7

**Table II.  Public Opinions on Archaeological Practice**.

Response N % of respondents

(N=360)

Excavation of valuable art objects 155 43.1

Purchase artifacts for museum

collections 105 29.2

Develop museum collections and

exhibits 41 10.2

Study lifeways of past cultures 232 64.4

Other 55 15.3

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.

![](media/image1.jpeg){width="4.320138888888889in"
height="3.388888888888889in"}

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**.

Information source N % of respondents

(N=368)

Television 297 80.7

Newspapers 174 47.3

Courses 172 46.7

Movies 110 29.9

Magazines 241 65.5

Books 216 58.7

**Table IV. Level that archaeology should be introduced in the school**.

Level N % of respondents

Elementary school 220 55.7

Secondary school 123 31.1

University 30 7.6

Should not be taught 8 2.0

Uncertain 14 3.6

Total 395 100.0

**Table V. Preferred sources of more information on archaeology.**

Information source N % of respondents

(N=268)

Television 205 76.5

Newspaper 108 40.3

Education system 155 57.9

Archaeological dig visit 177 66.1

Museum exhibits 182 67.9

Magazines 124 46.3

Books 106 39.6

**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.

![](media/image2.jpeg){width="4.5in" height="2.890277777777778in"}

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**.

Legal ownership N % of respondents

(N=327)

Finder of artifact 48 14.7

Landowner of site 50 15.3

Nearest Indian band 51 15.6

Province of British Columbia 234 71.6

**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.