Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T00:22:44.926Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Public Opinion and Archaeological Heritage: Views from Outside the Profession

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

David Pokotylo  and
Neil Guppy
David Pokotylo
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology & Sociology, University of British Columbia, 6303Northwest Marine Drive, Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1Z1, Canada
Neil Guppy
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology & Sociology, University of British Columbia, 6303Northwest Marine Drive, Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1Z1, Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A survey of public opinion on archaeological heritage in British Columbia, Canada, focused on five main areas: knowledge of archaeology, interest and participation in archaeology, the role of archaeology in modern society, awareness and support of heritage conservation initiatives, and Aboriginal stewardship of the archaeological record. Public opinion data collected from a random sample of 963 residents of the greater Vancouver metropolitan area indicate a high level of interest and support for archaeology and heritage conservation, but also a high level of misunderstanding about the archaeological record and current legislative measures to protect it. In contrast to recent changes in legislation and initiations within the discipline, public attitude towards Aboriginal stewardship of archaeological resources is generally negative. Education, age, and gender are significant factors affecting differences in opinion.

Résumé

Résumé

Una encuesta público sobre elpatrimonio arqueológico en Columbia Británica, Canadá, se enfocó en cinco áreas: conocimiento de arqueología, interés y participación en arqueología, el rol de la arqueología en la sociedad moderna, atención y apoyo a las iniciativas de conservación del patrimonio, y manejo del patrimonio a manos de grupos aborígenes. La encuesta se aplicó a una muestra al azar de 963 habitantes de Vancouver. Los resultados indican que existe un alto nivel de interés y apoyo a la arqueología y conservación del patrimonio. Pero estos también indican que existe un bajo nivel de comprensión del registro arqueológico y de las medidas legislativas corrientes para protegerlo. En contraste con los cambios legislativos recientes y cambios dentro de la disciplina, la actitud pública hacia el manejo aborigen de los recursos arqueológicos es generalmente negativa. Educación, edad, y género sonfactores que afectan significativamente las diferencias de opinión.

Type
Articles
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 64 , Issue 3 , July 1999 , pp. 400 - 416
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References Cited

Apland, B. 1993 The Role of the Provincial Government in British Columbia Archaeology. BC Studies 99: 7–24.Google Scholar
Ascher, R. 1960 Archaeology and the Public Image. American Antiquity 25: 402–403.Google Scholar
Blake, D. E., Guppy, N., and Urmetzer, P. 1997a Being Green in B.C.: Public Attitudes towards Environmental Issues. BC Studies 112: 41–61.Google Scholar
Blake, D. E., Guppy, N., and Urmetzer, P. 1997b Canadian Public Opinion and Environmental Action: Evidence from British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Political Science 30: 451–172.Google Scholar
Davis, M. 1978 Archaeology, A Matter of Public Interest. In Papers in Applied Archaeology, edited by Gunn, J., pp.15—18. Center for Archaeological Research, University of Texas, San Antonio.Google Scholar
Epp, H.T., and Spurling, B.E. 1984 The Other Face of Janus: Research in the Service of Archaeological Resource Management. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 8: 95–113.Google Scholar
Fagan, B. M. 1984 Archaeology and the Wider Audience. In Ethics and Values in Archaeology, edited by Green, E. L., pp. 175–183. Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
Fagan, B. M. 1977 Genesis 1.1; or Teaching Archaeology to the Great Archaeology-loving Public. American Antiquity 42: 119–125.Google Scholar
Feder, K. L. 1995 Ten Years After: Surveying Misconceptions about the Human Past. CRM (Cultural Resource Management) 18(3): 10–14.Google Scholar
Feder, K. L. 1984 Irrationality and Popular Archaeology. American Antiquity 49: 525–541.Google Scholar
Feder, K. L. 1996 Boom Bust and Echo. Mcfarlane Walter and Ross, Toronto.Google Scholar
Haas, J. 1996 Power, Objects, and a Voice for Anthropology. Current Anthropology 37: S1–S22.Google Scholar
Hill, T., and Nicks, T. 1992 Turning the Page: Forging New Partnerships between Museums and First Peoples: Task Force Report on Museums and First Peoples. Assembly of First Nations and the Canadian Museums Association, Ottawa.Google Scholar
Inglehart, R. 1990 Cultural Shift in Advanced Industrial Society. Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
Knudson, R. 1991 The Archaeological Public Trust in Context. In Protecting the Past, edited by Smith, G. S. and Ehrenhard, J.E. pp. 3–7. CRC Press, Boca Raton.Google Scholar
Lipe, W.D. 1974 A Conservation Model for American Archaeology. Kiva 39: 213–245.Google Scholar
McGhee, R. 1989 Who Owns Prehistory? The Bering Land Bridge Dilemma. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 13: 13–20.Google Scholar
Mackinney, L. 1994a Something Old in the Earth: Front-End Interviews about Archaeology with Visitors to the California Academy of Sciences. Manuscript on file, California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Mackinney, L. 1994b “That Sense of Adventure“: Front-End Interviews about Archaeology and Indiana Jones Visitors to the California Academy of Sciences. Manuscript on file, California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco.Google Scholar
McManamon, F. P. 1991 The Many Publics for Archaeology. American Antiquity 56: 121–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milbrath, L. 1984 Environmental Vanguard for a New Society. State University of New York Press, Albany.Google Scholar
Nevitte, N., and Kanji, M. 1995 Explaining Environmental Concern and Action in Canada. Applied Behavioural Science Review 3: 85–102.Google Scholar
Nevitte, N., and Kanji, M. 1996 Statement of Principles for Ethical Conduct Pertaining to Aboriginal Peoples: A Report from the Aboriginal Heritage Committee. Canadian Archaeological Association, Toronto.Google Scholar
Pokotylo, D., and Brass, G. 1997 Interpreting Cultural Resources: Hatzic Site. In Presenting Archaeology to the Public: Digging for Truths, edited by Jameson, J.H. Jr., pp. 156–165. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, California.Google Scholar
Pokotylo, D., and Mason, A. 1991 Public Attitudes towards Archaeological Resources and their Management. In Protecting the Past, edited by Smith, G. S. and Ehrenhard, J.E. pp. 9–18. CRC Press, Boca Raton.Google Scholar
Potter, P. B. Jr. 1990 The “What” and “Why” of Public Relations for Archaeology: A Postscript to DeCicco's Public Relations Primer. American Antiquity 55: 608–613.Google Scholar
Steger, M. A. E., and Wirt, S. L. 1989 Gender Differences in Environmental Orientations: A Comparison of Publics and Activists in Canada and the US. Western Political Quarterly 42: 627–49.Google Scholar
Trigger, B. 1988 Who Owns the Past? Museums and Politics: The Spirit Sings and the Lubicon Boycott. Muse 6(3): 13–14.Google Scholar
Turnbaugh, W. A 1994 Preparing for Prehistory. SAA Bulletin 12(4): 12-15. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Winter, B., and Henry, D. 1997 The Sddlnewhala Bowl: Cooperation or Compromise? In At a Crossroads: Archaeology and First Peoples in Canada, edited by Nicholas, G. P. and Andrews, T. D., pp. 214–223. Simon Fraser University Archaeology Press, Bumaby.Google Scholar