Supporting Archaeology
Defining public support for Dutch Archaeology
Supporting Archaeology
Defining public support for Dutch Archaeology
July 2014
Céline N. Pas
Student number 10000364
Master’s Thesis for Archaeology, Landscape & Heritage
University of Amsterdam
Supervisors
Dr. H. van Londen
Drs. C. Leeflang
I
Abstract
This thesis addresses the term ‘public support’, what it entails and how it can be measured. It also assesses the differences in support for archaeology in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States of America, and for the field of nature preservation, both in the level of support as in its character. Possible factors of influence on these levels of support are offered, and it is viewed whether there something could be learned from these other countries and the other field.
Public support, as a term, is used quite often, but is almost never explained. Based on several sources, it possible to conclude that, as it is derived from politics, public support is best described as a neutral or positive attitude towards something, in this case archaeology. Public support is split into three elements, both for a better understanding of the concept as for the benefit of measuring support. These elements are knowledge, attitude and actions. Knowledge is, quite understandably, the general knowledge the public has of archaeology. Attitude is best described as the whole of opinions and judgements of value one has of archaeology. Actions is the undertaking of archaeological activities, which show peoples support. Questionnaires can be used in order to find out what the support for archaeology is among the general public. By asking questions based on the three elements of support, there is a lot to discover. Questions about knowledge provide an impression of the image people have of archaeology, whilst questions on the attitude sketch the peoples support in width. One can also measure the support in depth, by questions on activities. Generally it can be said that the more activities one undertakes, the deeper their support is. Support is often much wider than it is deep.
Based on several questionnaires and inquiries, it can be concluded that there are in fact differences between the support for archaeology in the different countries and between archaeology and nature preservation in the Netherlands. Compared to support for archaeology in the Netherlands, support for nature preservation is both wider and deeper, meaning that both more people have a positive attitude towards nature preservation, and more people undertake actions that show for their support. Support for archaeology in the United States of America is comparable in its width, but people there are far more likely to act upon their support by undertaking archaeological activities, meaning that their support is much deeper. Due to the lack of an inquiry into support for archaeology in the United Kingdom, no definite conclusions can be drawn for this country.
Possible influences on support that were regarded are the sizes of the labour forces, the way archaeological monuments can been seen and experienced, and the way archaeology as a field is put in the spotlight. The labour force active in nature preservation in the Netherlands is slightly larger than the force of archaeologists in the Netherlands. The sizes of the archaeological labour force in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom are relatively very similar, whilst the part of archaeologists in the society of the United States of America is considerably lower. As support for archaeology in the United States and support for nature preservation in the Netherlands are both higher than support for archaeology in the Netherlands, and there are more people active in nature preservation, but less in American archaeology, it is difficult to draw a firm conclusion on the influence of the workforce onto support. The size of the labour force seems to have a positive effect on support for nature preservation, but support for archaeology in the USA is still higher than in the Netherlands, even though there are less people working in it. As for visibility and experiencing, nature is more visible than archaeology in the Netherlands, which may explain the higher level of support. In the United States, however, archaeology is much less present in the landscape than in the Netherlands, contradicting this relation between visibility and support. Experiencing and participating, however, are two cornerstones for archaeology in the United States of America and for nature preservation in the
II Netherlands. This public function and stepping in the spotlight may well be the most important factor in higher levels of support.
Several recommendations have been made, both for achieving higher levels of support – in width and in depth – as for further research. Firstly, a universal standard for minimal levels of support should be determined, so that conclusions can be drawn from researches into public support and the numbers coming from those researches can be put in perspective. For improving support for archaeology, it should be accentuated in the direct vicinity of people, so that they can experience it in their daily lives. Access to archaeological should be improved, and there should be a focus on local archaeology. A broad audience can be reached by using popular media, such as television, which will improve the width of support. A deeper support can be gained by personal contact with archaeology, and by experiencing it hands-on. An important recommendation for further research is the organization of research into the support for archaeology on a European scale. Each country would issue the exact same questionnaire, so that results can be perfectly compared. Best practices can then be compared in order to, ultimately, reach the goals set in the Valletta and Faro conventions, and make as many people as possible conscious of the importance of our cultural heritage.
III
Foreword
Lying before you is the result of four years of study. This thesis could not have been written without the help and support of certain individuals. I would like to thank them for their guidance and advice.
First of all, I’d like to thank my first supervisor, Heleen van Londen, for giving me the right directions. Many thanks go to Caroline Leeflang, for willing to be my second reader and supervisor. Without the information collected by Douglas Rocks-Macqueen, this thesis could not have been written, so my gratitude goes out to him as well. Finally, I’d like to thank my boyfriend, family and friends for their support, uplifting words and cups of tea.
IV
Contents
Introduction ... 1
Chapter 1: Public Support... 3
1.1 Meeting a need ... 3
1.2 Defining support ... 3
1.3 Measuring support ... 4
1.4 The numbers tell the tale? ... 5
1.5 Enhancing Support ... 5
1.6 Conclusion ... 6
Chapter 2: Methods & Practices ... 8
2.1 Methodology & Process ... 8
2.2 Accounting for choices ... 8
2.3 Data ... 9
2.4 Further notes and comments ... 12
2.5 Conclusion ... 12
Chapter 3: Digging archaeology? ... 13
3.1 Support for Dutch archaeology ... 13
3.2 Dutch Archaeology ... 15
3.3 Public involvement in the Netherlands ... 16
3.4 Conclusion ... 17
Chapter 4: Comparing countries: Netherlands vs. the UK and the USA ... 19
4.1 Support for Archaeology in Britain ... 19
4.2 Support for Archaeology in the USA ... 20
4.3 Britain’s Archaeologists ... 23
4.4 American Archaeologists ... 23
4.5 Visibility in the United Kingdom ... 24
4.6 Visibility in the United States ... 25
4.7 Conclusion ... 25
Chapter 5: Comparing fields: Culture vs. Nature ... 27
5.1 Support for Nature preservation ... 27
5.2 Working in Management & Preservation ... 28
5.3 Involving the Public ... 29
5.4 Visibility of Nature ... 29
5.5 Conclusion ... 30
Chapter 6: Learning from the ‘competition’ ... 31
6.1 Support gap? ... 31
6.2 Other differences ... 32
6.3 Influence of the labour force ... 33
6.4 Visibility ... 33
6.5 Expecting the impossible? ... 34
6.6 Conclusion ... 34
Conclusion and Recommendations ... 36
Conclusions ... 36
V List of recommendations ... 37 Bibliography ... 38 Literature ... 38 Websites ... 40 Non-printed sources ... 41 Recognition of images ... 41
1
Introduction
In the 1970’s, Charles McGimsey first introduced the term ‘Public Archaeology’, and started the trend of sharing the knowledge from excavations and the study of material culture with a wider audience. This is now known under McGimsey’s original term ‘Public Archaeology’ or as ‘Community Archaeology’.1 Although this thesis is not about these practices, it would not be
complete without a describing them shortly. Although the two terms are sometimes used interchangeably, there is some difference between the them. Public archaeology is the conducting of archaeological research for the public, and providing information for the public to absorb. Community archaeology goes much further. Not only does it give knowledge to the people, it also involves them in the process of knowledge being created, by letting them participate in excavations and letting them think about research questions.2 Community
archaeology, therefore, entails a larger amount of participation than public archaeology .
Ever since a large part of the European Union member states signed the European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage3, this interacting with the public has
become even more important. The ninth article of this treaty is about the interaction with the public. The article is cited below.
Each Party undertakes:
i. to conduct educational actions with a view to rousing and developing an awareness in public opinion of the value of the archaeological heritage for understanding the past and of the threats to this heritage;
ii. to promote public access to important elements of its archaeological heritage, especially sites, and encourage the display to the public of suitable selections of archaeological objects.4
Not only does the Valletta treaty tell us what should be done, it also gives a clue to why the public should be educated about archaeological heritage. It states that ‘rousing and
developing an awareness of the value of the archaeological heritage’5 is the aim of the education.
The article above, therefore, does not describe the goal, but only the means. Education should be used to increase support.
The Valletta Treaty is not the only European convention that has attention for public involvement in heritage. The Faro Convention from 2005, that was not signed by the Netherlands, but some of its aspects are being applied, also brings up the subject of public participation, especially in article 12, where the importance of participation is emphasized. It is stated here that everyone should be encouraged to participate in the process of identification, study, interpretation, protection and presentation of cultural heritage, and that the public should also be able to reflect and debate on the opportunities and challenges which the cultural heritage represents. They are also to improve access to heritage sites, especially among young or disadvantaged persons, in order to raise awareness about its value, the need to maintain and preserve it and the benefits that can be derived from it. 6
As archaeology is dependent on public support for its existence, it has become increasingly important that it is supported by the public. This is also seen as an important drive for conducting public archaeology. When asked in a questionnaire for my Bachelors Thesis, 41%
1 Matsuda/Okamura, 2011, 2. 2 Pas 2013, 3-4.
3 More commonly known as ‘the Valletta Treaty’ or ‘the Malta Convention’.
4 Article 9 in the European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage 5 Quote from the ninth article in the convention mentioned above.
2 percent of Dutch municipal archaeologists think that public support is the most important benefit of Public Archaeology for archaeology itself.7
Although public support is a much-used term in archaeology, it is never made very clear what this actually is, or why it is needed. Almost every article on Public Archaeology mentions public support as an important aim or effect of interacting with the public, none of them, however, describe how social support can be measured, or how much support should be strived for. It is also not known how support for Dutch archaeology can be compared to other countries, or to other, competing fields of work. Levels of support might be higher or lower in these other places, of may differ in character completely. This thesis handles these issues. It attests the meaning of public support and why it is needed. Additionally, it compares the levels and characters of support for archaeology in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States of America, and for the field of nature preservation in the Netherlands. Some of the possible causes for these differences are also put forward. These differences in support can help to orientate where we stand with our support, whether we are ahead or behind on other countries and on other fields. Possible causes for differences in support, can help to detect factors that may cause higher levels of support. These factors may be used and applied in policy-making for archaeology in the Netherlands, in order to improve support for Dutch archaeology.
This thesis is build op in the following way. The first chapter is mainly an introduction to public support, describing its provenance and ways of measuring public support. The second chapter is a technical chapter in which the research methods are explained, and in which certain choices are justified. Chapter 3 treats the current state of public support for archaeology in the Netherlands. The fourth chapter compares the Dutch, British and American situations, whilst the fifth chapter is a comparison between the field of nature protection and archaeology and their support. The sixth chapter sums up what we might learn from other fields, and what we might be able to achieve in archaeology. The last chapter is the conclusion, in which final recommendations will be made.
7 Pas 2013, 15.
3
Chapter 1: Public Support
This first chapter evaluates how the need for public support came into existence and how it could be measured and evaluated. Attention is also given to the fact that measuring the level of support for archaeology does not tell the whole tale and to the possibilities of the enhancement of this support.
1.1 Meeting a need
‘Support’ often accompanied by the word ‘social’ or ‘public’ is a term that, on a first glance, has nothing to do with archaeology. It is a term that finds it origins in politics and policy making. Public support is traditionally the acceptance and approval of a policy by the target group of that policy.8 As one would expect in a democratic society, when policy is made or changed, but not
supported by a majority of the public, it will be dismissed. Currently, support is no longer just about policy but about everything that needs public funding.
Public support is seen as the acceptance and approval by individual citizens, but also by civil society organizations, directors, policy officials, political parties and public opinion as a whole.9 All these parties together form the group of people who could form the public support.
When dependent on gifts and subsidies from private persons and the government for being in existence, it is vital that a cause is valued and therefore contributed to. What ‘the people’ find of importance, that is where the money will flow to. Every penny can, unfortunately, only be spent once, so different causes, such as nature preservation, animal care or, in our case, archaeology must compete. In other words: when a cause is not supported, it will not be maintained, and therefore is likely to stop existing.10
Public support is of the utmost importance for archaeology. If the public does not see a return on their inlay, they may decide that archaeology is no longer needed and it will lose the public funding that it receives. An even more influential result would be less governmental interference with archaeology, and less legislation to protect it. In order to prevent this from ever happening, archaeologist try to gain as much public support as possible.
As mainly policy has been discussed above, one could think that this thesis is mainly about public support for archaeology policy. This, however, is only relevant to archaeologists and some related fields of work. Archaeology itself is relevant to all of society. In this thesis, when support for archaeology is mentioned, this is only support for the field of archaeology in itself, that concerns itself with excavations and the study of material remains and not archaeological policy. There is a difference between these two, as one can be supportive of archaeology in itself, but can be not supportive at all for the policy for archaeology.
1.2 Defining support
In the paragraph above, it is stated that public support exists when something is accepted and approved. This is true, but it is also slightly more complicated than just that. Public support is composed of both approval and the absence of disapproval. Neutrality, or not having an opinion is usually also interpreted as support. Neutrality is seen as the minimal form of support.11 This
neutrality is also seen as supportive because a person may not express their positive feelings.
8 de Bakker/van Koppen2009b, 15. 9 Ibidem, 15.
10 According to Otter 2003, 123, not every policy area is subjected to this, development aid, for example, is
an ‘elite area’ funded independent of public opinion. As are trade, international politics, international cooperation and small-scale military interventions (IOB 2009, 32).
4 When something is regarded as negative, public support is absent. It may be said that one could best have as much persons as possible showing their approval for archaeology.
Public support is a very vague concept, and although it is used, it is not much-explained. This is most likely because it is very hard to do so. However, to make it more understandable, public support is often divided into four elements: knowledge, attitude, opinion and actions.12 Knowledge is what one knows of archaeology. Attitude is a little more complex. It
is composed by the importance that is attached to archaeology, the willingness to contribute to it and their intentions to do so. Opinion is more about what is thought about different aspects of archaeology, and an overall positive or negative opinion. Actions are the (possible) translation of this attitude into behaviour.13 Attitude and opinion are very closely related, and will be merged
for the rest of this thesis under attitude. Knowledge, attitude and actions are connected, but not in the way of ‘knowledge causes (positive) attitude, causes actions (of support)’. Although it is regularly thought that it is a causal relationship, they are related in a much more complicated manner. Knowledge is not an indispensable condition for a positive attitude. It is even possible that the more one knows about a subject, the more they oppose to it. There seems to be a closer relationship between attitude and actions.14 Indeed, why would anyone go to an archaeological
museum when they have no affinity with archaeology whatsoever? Affinity for archaeology, however, does not guarantee that a person will ever visit an archaeological museum. Public support for archaeology therefore is not dependent solely of the spread of knowledge, and a supportive attitude cannot always be measured in actions. The next paragraph tells more about measuring support.
1.3 Measuring support
To measure the public support for archaeology, the most probable tool one would use would be a questionnaire. It is a rather cost effective and easy way to gain information from large amounts of people. And to know how people feel about archaeology, there is simply no other way then just asking them. There are different ways of collecting data for a public support questionnaire: face-to-face, by phone, or, currently most popular, online. Questionnaires are, however, not flawless. When speaking to someone in person or on the phone, people are more inclined to give socially desirable answers then when filling it in anonymously online. Also, a questionnaire is usually filled in by people who are already positive about the subject, whilst persons who are negative about it, usually do not want to spend any time on filling it in. Both these can cause a bias in the results, letting them seem more positive than they are.15
Now, measuring the support for a specific organisation is relatively easy. It becomes more complicated when something conceptual as archaeology must be measured. To help overcome this, questionnaires usually make use of the three elements of public support. They measure the knowledge and attitude towards archaeology, and the ways this is shown in behaviour. However, there is often more attention for the knowledge and attitude than for the aspect of behaviour, whilst actions are the most reliable expression of attitude. This might be because it is rather difficult to measure actions, other than in numbers of visitors to archaeological museums, sites, or the Dutch archaeological theme park ‘Archeon’.16
Measuring the knowledge of respondents is relatively easy, but as indicated in the former paragraph, this is the part of support that has the least correlation with the other parts. When one finds out that little is known about Dutch archaeology among Dutch citizens, one can choose 12 Develtere 2003, 14-15. 13 Develtere/Pollet 2002, 3-4. 14 IOB 2009, 20. 15 Ibidem, 24-24. 16 de Bakker/van Koppen 2009b, 16.
5 to invest more in education, but this does not give a guaranteed positive result upon public support. Questions about attitude are always a bit troublesome, for people are inclined to give slightly more positive answers than is actually their opinion, trying to make their opinion sound more socially acceptable.17 When questions about actions in archaeology, like visiting a museum,
are asked, the answers do not always represent the facts, it is only what people choose disclose about it. One should also be careful when asking questions about what people would want or intend, because very often, respondents never actually do what they intend. The method of a questionnaire is not without flaws, but at this moment, it is all that we have to find out about peoples knowledge, opinions, attitudes and actions. Some of the flaws, like giving socially acceptable answers, can be partially corrected by asking the same question more than once, but in a different manner. 18
1.4 The numbers tell the tale?
When a questionnaire is held, and the answers analysed, there are a lot of percentages to work with. How does one make them meaningful? According to Ruelle and Bartels, the ‘amount of support’ is best to be divided into four possible quantities. These are a strong, an ambiguous, a weak and a non-existing support. 19 They also add a fifth possible quantity, the zero-option. This,
however, only applies to something new, on which no real opinion has been formed yet, such as a new policy.20 What percentage of support relates to which quantity is, unfortunately, not given.
One can expect that a strong support equals a very high percentage, whilst non-existing support equals a very, very low percentage of support. Given that there are four options, one could say that strong =/> 75%; Ambiguous = 50-75%; weak is 25-50% and non-existent =/<25%. This, however, does not have to apply at all. There is no universal standard of how much support suffices. It is something that every organization or discipline, apparently, needs to decide for themselves, based upon wishes and expectations.21
Although there is no assumed minimum of support, it is of course possible to learn from the many studies into public opinion that have been done in the past. These studies, however, are not very clear on when exactly their support is strong or weak. There is one study, by the International Olympic Committee into the support for the 2028 Olympic Games in the Netherlands, where a 70% support was seen as acceptable.22 This is, however, the only study
that has been found that gives such a clear criterion for public support.
It is important to note that whilst research into public support can be very useful, it is often also very relative. The data from the questionnaire may show that archaeology is generally considered to be of great importance, but this does not give insight into the true situation. As stated in the first paragraph, archaeology is just one of the many fields competing for money and attention. When you would ask respondents to rank all these competing causes, archaeology might not score very high relative to the others.
1.5 Enhancing Support
One investigation into public support does not tell much on its own. Usually, it is accompanied by follow-ups, to be able to see the development of such a support. That development is interesting, because often one wants to know whether the attempts to improve public support 17 IOB 2009, 26. 18 Ibidem, 27. 19 Ruelle/Bartels 1998, 405. 20 Goldenbeld/Vis 2001, 26. 21 de Bakker/van Koppen 2009b, 18. 22 Elling/van Rens 2011, 7.
6 are working. Enhancing support can work in to different ways. One may want to broaden support, or deepen it. Broadening support means that new people become supportive of archaeology. Deepening support means that the people that already are supportive, become even more so.23 Naturally, the ideal situation is a broad and deep support for archaeology, but
that is not very realistic. Very often, public support for things such as development aid, may seem large, but is actually rather superficial.24 As one would say, it is often a mile wide, but only
an inch deep.
In the ideal situation, support for archaeology would be both wide and deep. The wideness of support would be expressed in knowledge and attitudes, whilst depth is expressed in actions and behaviour. Since more support provides more political advantages, it is always positive when support is growing, and very negative when support decreases. Also, as the youth is the future, it is vital to have as much support in the youngest generations as possible. It would therefore be most advantageous if children and youngsters could be actively involved with archaeology.
It is generally accepted that involving the public in archaeology causes more support. Nick Merriman, in his article from 2004 calls this, rather negatively, the ‘deficit model’: the faulty citizen is in need of education, so he learns to understand and appreciate archaeology better.25
Holtorf’s ‘public relations model’ suits the quest for public support even better. He describes this as a way to improve the image of archaeology and to keep the right to excavate, gain political and public support and gaining a positive influence on archaeological legislation.26 Both authors
clearly see public archaeology as a way to contribute to gaining support for archaeology. Involving the public, then, should be aimed upon to gain more support.
In the Netherlands, the enhancement of the support for archaeology should be a matter addressed by policymakers, as they are link between archaeology itself and the public and politics.27 It should be an ambition held by those responsible for archaeological policy to gain as
much support for the field as they possibly could. As the field as a whole can benefit from this, it would be positive if the whole field would try to contribute to this goal.
1.6 Conclusion
In this chapter, we have discovered that public support came into existence as a way to determine if a cause like archaeology should receive money out of the public sphere, the essence of a democratic society being that we all decide together what things are important and should be maintained. The loss of this public support could not only mean a cut-off from public funding, which would be bad enough, but also that the government could stop protecting cultural heritage and archaeology, which would be a very grave matter.
Although public support is a very complicated matter that is almost impossible to adequately describe, it is helpful to split it into three elements: knowledge, attitude and behaviour. Attitude and behaviour here are the best indicators of public support. Support, then, can be most properly described as a neutral or positive attitude towards archaeology, possibly expressed in behaviour such as visiting sites and museums.
Measuring the amount of support is best done by a questionnaire, although this means of gaining information is not without its flaws, which can be partially neutralised. The measuring is most frequently done by detecting just how much the public knows about archaeology, and what
23 IOB 2009, 21. 24 Ibidem, 22.
25 Merriman 2004, 5-6. 26 Holtorf 2007, 150.
27 According to the website of the Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands:
7 their general attitude towards it is. Their actions and behaviour to show for this attitude are also taken into account. Based on all this information gathered from a representative respondents, it is possible to come to a percentage of the amount of support.
The percentage calculated based upon the results of a questionnaire, however, does not tell you whether the support is sufficient or not. This is mainly something left to decide by the organisation or cause the questionnaire was about. Generally one would say that a high percentage is better than a low percentage, and a percentage of over 50 would probably count as sufficient. When measuring support for archaeology, it is important to keep in mind that we do not live in a vacuum, with archaeology as the only contender. The importance of archaeology relative to other possible causes should be examined to discover where exactly we stand in the pecking order.
Finally, it should be noted that finding out how large the public support is, is only one element of an attempt to enlarge that support, it being in depth or width. It only provides a measurement, but it does not affect the support in any way.
8
Chapter 2: Methods & Practices
This chapter describes the methods used for this research and the specific steps undertaken. It also has attention for the choices that have been made for this research and for the data used. The questions addressed in this thesis are whether there are there differences in support for archaeology in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States of America and if there is a difference between support for archaeology and nature preservation in the Netherlands. It is then assessed what the explanations for these differences might be, in order to be able to make recommendations for the improvement of support for archaeology in the Netherlands.
2.1 Methodology & Process
The main category this research falls into is that of Desk research. No original data are produced, but data from previously held surveys and questionnaires are taken and, as far as possible, have been made comparable.
The first step of this research was making a proper definition of the term ‘public support’ and a further conceptual exploration of the term. For this, use was made of literature from a range of other fields, such as politics, development aid and road safety. With this definition in mind, the public support for Dutch Archaeology was analysed, using information from four different sources: a Masters thesis by J. Bolt, two researches by the Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau (SCP, the Netherlands Institute for Social Studies) and a study by the Rijksdienst Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek (ROB, currently known as the Rijksdienst voor Cultureel Erfgoed, RCE, the Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands). This data will be elaborated upon in chapter 2.3 below. The amount of archaeologists in the Netherlands were calculated, based on the ‘Discovering the Archaeologists of Europe’ report28, as were the ways the public is
involved in archaeology, to be able to compare them to other countries and fields of work. The same information has been gathered on the United Kingdom, the United States of America and the field of nature preservation in the Netherlands. These choices are accounted for in chapter 2.2 below. For the information in these chapters, a variety of surveys have been used, also described in chapter 2.3 below.
All data of these three chapters have been used an compared, to see whether there is a difference between the support for archaeology in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States of America, and between support for archaeology and nature preservation, both in the Netherlands. The data was also used to deduct whether the size of the workforce, or visibility and the way it can be experienced, both of archaeology as the visible traces of the past, as of archaeology as a field and science, could possibly have an influence on this support. These factors may be indicators of success, which may lead to recommendations for enhancement of the support for archaeology in the Netherlands.
2.2 Accounting for choices
An important choice made in this thesis, is that for two countries and a different field of work to compare the Dutch archaeology sector to. The United Kingdom was chosen for two reasons. The first is the persistent notion in the Netherlands that the situation is much better in the UK than in the Netherlands.29 This seemed like an excellent opportunity to determine whether this
notion is true or false. The second reason for choosing the United Kingdom is because of its
28 Van Londen et al. 2014.
9 advocating role in public archaeology. The second country or confederation, the United States of America, was chosen mainly because it is the cradle of public archaeology. For both countries, the ability of the author to understand the national language was, of course, also a crucial factor. The field of nature preservation was chosen for its similarities to the field of archaeology. Both fields attempt to protect something valuable to society from bulldozers and suburbs. To preserve both archaeology and nature, often choices have to be made that are not economically advantageous. Moreover, both fields are dependent on a positive public opinion for their existence.
2.3 Data
Especially for the paragraphs on the levels of support (3.1, 4.1, 4.2 and 5.1), existing surveys were used. In this paragraph, the methodology of those surveys is treated. The trustworthiness of the results is assessed, as is the representativeness of the sample. Due to differences in methods, researchers, countries and fields, there are also some discrepancies between the surveys, which shall also be discussed. The data will be discussed divided per country/subject, which means that the data used for support for archaeology will be treated first, followed by the data for support for archaeology in the United Kingdom and the United States of America, and finally the data for nature preservation in the Netherlands. Table 1 below lists all questionnaires that were used, the year they were published and, more importantly, the years the questionnaires were conducted, in order to sketch a clear image of the discrepancies in time for the used questionnaires.
Inquiry Year of publishing Years the questionnaires cover
J. Bolt (Netherlands) 2008 2007
SCP (Netherlands) 2005 1996, 2004
SCP (Netherlands & UK) 2007 2004
ROB (Netherlands) 2002 Before 2000
C. Bonacchi (UK) 2014 2009-2011
SAA (USA) 2000 1999
Nature preservation (Netherlands) 2007 1996, 2001, 2006 Table 1: list of used questionnaires, their publishing year and the years the questionnaires cover.
Dutch Archaeology
In order to obtain a clear picture of the support for archaeology in the Netherlands, a total of four sources are used, comprised by three different parties. The first is a Masters Thesis by Jacqui Bolt from 2008, the second and third are results from questionnaires held by the Netherlands Institute for Social Research (Sociaal Cultureel Planbureau, SCP) from 2005 and 2007 and the fourth is an investigation by the Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands (Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel erfgoed, RCE/ ROB), from 2002. They will be further elaborated upon below.
Jacqui Bolt conducted a survey into the interest for Dutch Archaeology in the Netherlands for her Masters Thesis in 2008. For this questionnaire, she mainly asked questions about the knowledge, the attitudes and actions of her respondents, which corresponds to the definition drawn in chapter 1, and the possibilities for measuring support given there. For her questionnaire, she gathered 500 respondents via a website, 370 of which provided enough information to analyse.30 The questionnaire was online during a short period of time in at the
end of 2007 or early 2008 (not specified in report) and only Dutch citizens completed it. She
10 managed to get around the problem posed in 1.3 of this thesis, which states that only persons who are already interested in the subject are inclined to fill out the questionnaire, by not mentioning the subject beforehand. However, the results of her questionnaire seem to be somewhat biased. More than half of her respondents were highly educated, which does not reflect the Dutch society. Also, all respondents with a nationality other than the Dutch have been filtered out in de evaluation of the questionnaire, which, equally, does not reflect the diversity of Dutch Society.31 There are some other problems with specific questions, which are addressed in
Chapter 3.1. From this questionnaire, mainly the level of interest in Dutch archaeology and the activities as intended are useful for comparison with the other countries and field.
The second source is a report by the SCP on Dutch participation in culture. Most of the information on different subjects comes from a questionnaire that is posed every four years since 1979 (Aanvullend voorzieningengebruik onderzoek, AVO). This source does not give information about archaeology, however, so an additional inquiry was made on this subject. The SCP cooperated with the department of Education, Culture and Science (Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschappen, OCW), in a questionnaire amongst 5800 respondents, conducted in the spring of 2004, amongst respondents from the entire society. This questionnaire is a replica of one held in 1996, so the results could be compared. Respondents were asked about their activities in the past twelve months. No attention is given to the representativeness of the questionnaire, but as it is conducted by a professional research firm, it is assumed that it was a representative group of respondents. For this research, mainly the actual actions of the Dutch population in support of archaeology could be used, as could the demographics of those interested. The 2007 report from the same bureau (SCP) was based on the 2004 questionnaire, but highlighted some different aspects. The additional information that could be gathered from this report was the frequency of visits to archaeological activities. This information, however, is not comparable to any of the information gathered on the United Kingdom, the United States of America or on the field of nature preservation.
The third investigating party is the RCE, who were still the ROB at the time of their first report in 2002. This was not a questionnaire, but only information that could be gathered on participation from other sources. This is has the advantage that all data are factual and not dependent on human variations on the truth sometimes encountered in surveys. The information was gathered in various ways, whichever was most appropriate for the given archaeological activity. For instance, for the number of visitors to websites, several websites were contacted, for the numbers of visitors to archaeological museums, the museums were contacted. Although all this information is very interesting all the information is rather outdated. Most information is from before 2000, more than 14 years ago. Although it sheds excellent light on the situation at that time, it may be less useful for studying the current interest for archaeology. The results it produced were furthermore not comparable to the other countries and field. The Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands published another report, this time not only about archaeology, but about heritage as a whole. The chapter about public involvement in that report was based on the information of the Netherlands institute for social research, of which the outcomes were already described above.32 This report, consequently, was
left out of this study.
31 Bolt 2008, 24.
11
United Kingdom
For the support for archaeology in Britain, one survey was mainly used, that of Chiara Bonacchi from May 2014. Some additional information was gathered from the 2007 SCP study, already mentioned above.
Chiara Bonacchi conducted her surveys on three different locations, of which two are of importance to this survey. Bonacchi compared results from the United Kingdom with Italy, so she asked questions in the medieval gallery of the Museum of London, amongst viewers of the archaeology-themed television programme ‘Time Team’ and in an exhibition about medieval archaeology in Italy. Only the results from the first two groups were used in this thesis. Bonacchi had 500 respondents in the Museum of London and another 423 via a Facebook fan page for the Time Team, all aged 18 and over. The questionnaire was held between October 2009 and April 2011.33 A problem for this thesis is that a substantial part of the respondents was not actually
from the United Kingdom, although for the ways archaeological information is accessed, results were also given for UK residents only. An important thing to note about this questionnaire, is that its respondents do not at all represent the British society as a whole. The places the respondents were found – a museum and a fan page for an archaeological television programme – make sure that all respondents already have a higher than average interest for archaeology, and could be said to be already acting on their support. This has as a result that the percentages for taking part in archaeological activities will be much higher here than in other such questionnaires. As such, the results that could be used for the comparison are only the order of popularity of the activities and the demographic differences.
Some information given by the 2007 SCP study was also used, as it gave information on the visits to archaeological sites on a European level. This, however, was only one figure, that could only be compared to the Netherlands.
United States of America
For information on the support for archaeology in America, only one source was used. This is a study by Harris Interactive, commissioned, amongst others, by the Society for American Archaeology (SAA), conducted to understand the American’s perceptions, knowledge and attitudes about archaeology. To achieve this, a questionnaire was held amongst 1016 adults (aged 18 and over) from the 48 continental United States. The questionnaire was conducted between August 12 and September 14, 1999 by telephone. Respondents for this questionnaire are very representative for the entire adult population of the United States, as they were carefully selected as such.34 As this inquiry focussed on knowledge, attitudes and actions of
respondents towards archaeology, it can be compared to the Dutch inquiry by J. Bolt very easily.
Nature preservation
In gathering information on the support for nature preservation in the Netherlands, two sources were used. The first is an article from 2009 in a wider study into support for nature preservation in the Netherlands, the second is an article in a magazine about Nature from 2013.
The first article is based upon three questionnaires, held every five years since 1996, so also in 2001 and 2006, all published one year later. The information gathered in the last questionnaire, in 2006, is most used for this thesis. This questionnaire was sent to a sample of 1700 representative Dutch persons between 16 and 75 years of age, of which 1485 filled in the survey (87%).35 This makes the questionnaire representative for the Dutch population. This
33 Bonacchi 2014, 382-384. 34 Ramos/Duganne 2000, 5-7.
12 questionnaire gathered information on attitudes and actions for nature, which makes it very comparable to the results for archaeology in the Netherlands.
The second source for nature preservation in the Netherlands is an article from a magazine about nature from 2013. The main information gathered from this was about the rising members of organizations protecting nature. This information, however, could not be compared to archaeology in any country.
2.4 Further notes and comments
In this paragraph, further problems that occurred in the time working on this thesis will be described.
The first problem encountered whilst writing this thesis, was the lack of a proper investigation into the support for archaeology in the United Kingdom. As described in Chapter 2.3, something in that direction was done recently, however, as it did not address the entire British population, but only those visiting a museum of a fan page for an archaeological television programme, it did not provide an image that is representative for the entire British population.
The second problem that was encountered was the discrepancy between the archaeological monuments in the Netherlands, the scheduled sites in the United Kingdom and the archaeological sites in the United States. The archaeological monuments in the Netherlands form the group of most important sites, which are thoroughly protected. The scheduled sites in the United Kingdom have a similar status, and those sites are only a fragment of all archaeological sites in the kingdom. The archaeological sites in the United States, however, all seem to have the same status, without classification. This means that the numbers presented in Chapter 4.6 would likely be much lower when only the most important sites were included in the calculation.
2.5 Conclusion
To conclude this chapter, we can state that the method for this thesis is as followed. First, a definition for ‘public support’ was created, using literature. Subsequently, the level of support for archaeology in the Netherlands was inventoried, as was the support for archaeology in the United Kingdom and the United States of America and the support for nature preservation in the Netherlands. These four levels of support were than compared to one and other, to be able to state where support for archaeology stands compared to other countries and fields. For each country, the size of the employees was inventoried, as were their visibility and the ways they interacted with the public, so it could be ascertained whether these factors could possibly be of influence on the level of support. This can also lead to an assumption that something might be learned from those other countries or field, guiding us to ways to improve the support for archaeology in the Netherlands.
13
Chapter 3: Digging archaeology?
This chapter treats what is currently known about public support for archaeology in the Netherlands. It also reflects on the current state of archaeology in the Netherlands, how does the system operate, how many archaeologists are there. Because engaging with the public is seen as the most important stimulus for growing public support, it is investigated how the public is involved in archaeology.
3.1 Support for Dutch archaeology
In chapter 1.3 it was explained how public support could be measured. Public support and participation in Dutch archaeology have been measured in the past in multiple inquiries. This paragraph gives a summary of the most important outcomes of these researches. To maintain clarity, each research has been given its own miniature paragraph.
J. Bolt
In 2008, J. Bolt did a study into the public support for Archaeology in the Netherlands. She determined that 91% of her respondents know what archaeology entails, and 71% showed interest for Dutch archaeology. Only 17% claimed they were not interested at all, whilst 12% had a neutral attitude. A staggering 90% found Dutch archaeology informative and that they could learn something out of it, which
is strange, considering that only 71% thought it was interesting.36 When it comes to intentions
and behaviour, displayed in table 2 above, 50% of respondents wanted to visit an excavation, and 58% would like to go to an archaeological museum. An archaeological theme park would be visited by 56% of respondents. 44% would like to watch television shows about Dutch archaeology, and only 24% would like to read about it. According Bolt, men and women are equally interested in archaeology, and the difference in interest between different levels of education were not significant. She also discovers that there is a higher interest for more local archaeology than for more national archaeology.37
Although these numbers seem to reflect positively on support for archaeology, the research is somewhat biased, as stated in Chapter 2. The question whether or not a respondent knows what archaeology is, only shows the perception of the person filling it in. They may be convinced they know what it entails, but they might be wrong, she does not verify if they really do know. Also, when Bolt askes about actions, she actually askes respondents what they would want to do to experience archaeology, not what they have done. As stated in Chapter 1.3, there can often be a large discrepancy between what people intend to do and what they actually do. These numbers, consequently, do not represent active involvement, but the ways that people would want to be involved.
Netherlands Institute for Social Research (SCP)
The unlikely high numbers of Bolt’s research are contradicted by a research done in 2005 by the Netherlands Institute for Social Research (Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau, SCP), that confirms that although interest for archaeology is growing, it is not that established (yet). The study was
36 Bolt 2008, 27-34 37 Ibidem, 41, 46.
Activity Percentage
Visit an excavation 50
Visit archaeological museum 58
Visit archaeological theme park 56
Watch TV programme 44
Read 24
Table 2: Percentages of respondents wanting to participate in archaeological activities. Based on Bolt 2008, 32-34.
14 done over two years, 1996 and 2004, and shows a slight growth in interest. Table 3, below, shows that the most popular archaeological ‘attraction’ is, in fact, an archaeological monument, something that Bolt’s research did not even consider.38 Archaeological expositions hold,
however, a good second place. The percentages of visitors for Dutch archaeology are significantly lower than what Bolt showed them to be. In the broadest definition possible, 34% of the Dutch population visited at least one of the given archaeological activities. The difference may lay in the fact that this study specifically asked for activities that had already been done in de past twelve months, whilst Bolts’ research was more about intentions. This would also confirm the previously described discrepancy between intentions and actions. The SCP inquiry does detect a difference in interest between age groups. In 1996, the age groups 45-54 and 55-64 are the most interested groups, where 22% of those individual groups undertook an archaeological activity at least one in the past twelve months. Least interested is the group 25-34, with 17%. In 2004, the groups 55-64 and ≥ 65 are most interested, both with 30%. The lowest age group (25-34) still counts the lowest percentage of interest, 24%. Interesting is the extensive growth in the 65 and over group, from 14% in 1996 to 30% in 2004. The more interested sex, according to this research, is male, with 22% and 29% respectively for both years. Female interest is 16% and 25% respectively. It also states that the higher people are educated, the more interested in archaeology they are.39
The activities mentioned in table 3 were undertaken four of more times in the past twelve months by 1% of the population in 1996. In the same year, 18% undertook 1-3 archaeological activities. By 2004, these numbers were 2% and 26% respectively, which means both number have risen significantly. The average number of visits per visitor has risen from 1.6 to 1.8 in the intervening eight years.40
38 The activities taken into account by her were archaeological theme parks (reconstructions),
excavations, museums, reading and watching television.
39 van den Broek/Huysmans/de Haan 2005, 31-32. 40 Huysmans/de Haan 2007, 122.
Table 3: Interest for archaeology, respondents 25 and over. Percentage that visited at least once in the past 12 months. Based on van den Broek, Huysmans and de Haan 2005, 31.
Activity 1996, % 2004, % 1. Excavation 4 5 2. Theme park 3 5 3. Other reconstructions 4 8 Archaeological expositions 4. In archaeological museum 3 7
5. In museum with only partly archaeological collection 13 14 Visible archaeological monuments
6. Only elements in landscape (e.g. Tumuli) 11 16
7. Including monuments (e.g. Castles) 17 22 At least one of the above
8. Narrow definition (excluding 5. and 7.) 19 27
15
Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands (ROB/RCE)
In 2002, what is now the Cultural Heritage Agency published a report on the then existing state of archaeology. Part of this investigation was an assessment of the interest in Dutch Archaeology. They did not base this on a questionnaire, as is the usual approach, but they collected a wide range of independent data, which when combined can shed some light on the demand for archaeology. Newspaper articles, visitors to websites, visitors to archaeological museums and exhibitions and the circulation of archaeological magazines were taken in to account. As were the number of members of archaeological societies, the influx of new archaeology students, participants in archaeological courses and the number of memberships to the Monuments Watch. To describe all of the outcomes on the eight different outings of interest for archaeology monitored by the Cultural Heritage Agency in detail, would be too comprehensive for the scope of this thesis, but they will be described briefly.
The number of articles of newspapers has been reasonably constant between 1992 and 2001, about 35 unique messages every two weeks. When all reprinted articles are counted, there are about 260 every two weeks. Visitors to websites are rising between 1996 and 2001, but this can partly be explained by the rise of internet itself. The agency also monitored the visitors to archaeological representation, but made use of the same information the Netherlands Institute for Social Research (see above). The circulation of archaeological magazines is split up into the small-scale magazines of local archaeology societies, and the circulation of the one nationwide popular scientific ‘Archeologie Magazine’. The circulation of local magazines generally remains the same, whilst the nationwide magazine grew with about 335 pieces a year between 1996 and 2001, a total growth of 48.2%.41 The number of members to archaeological societies stays more
or less the same, but because of an entirely new society for detector amateurs, the total number of members rose 22.3% between 1990 and 2000. The influx of new students for archaeology in universities has risen strongly. Between 1994 and 2001, this number grew by 123,2%. The numbers of participants into courses in archaeology for professionals have also grown. These courses usually focus on the practical side of archaeology in policymaking and spatial planning. Between 1999 and 2000 the number of participants rose by 28%, and another 30% between 2000 and 2001. As an owner of a monument, it is possible to have a membership with the Monuments Watch, which entitles you to regular check-ups, small repairs and information when needed. The number of memberships rose slightly, but so did the number of monuments. The percentage of monuments with a membership therefore did nog grow substantially.42
3.2 Dutch Archaeology
In order to gain insight in the ways the public might get involved in Dutch archaeology, it is meaningful to know how archaeology functions in Dutch society. This paragraph will show more insight into the way archaeology is applied in the Netherlands, and how the number of archaeologists compare to society.
In the past, all archaeology in the Netherlands was controlled by the Cultural Heritage Agency (ROB/RCE) and the universities. Since Malta, most excavations are done by commercial companies. The Cultural Heritage Agency has lost most of its control by the government’s decentralisation policy, and now only has an advising role. Archaeology is now an issue for the
41 ‘Archeologie Magazine’ currently has a circulation of 6000 pieces every issue (once every two months)
(http://archeologieonline.nl/adverteren) There is a new magazine now, called ‘Vind’, which has a
circulation of 16000 pieces every issue (once every three months)
(http://www.vindmagazine.nl/9/Adverteren/)
16 municipalities, who have to implement it in to their local policies.43 In doing so, they have a large
amount of freedom, as they can decide on what sites they want to protect and how they want to research them.44
It is very much possible that the size of the group of people working of archaeology, the labour force, is of influence on the level of support for archaeology in that country. To be able to draw a conclusion on this, the percentages of archaeologists in the working population and the entire population are calculated for each country and the field of nature preservation. A very recent research into the state of Dutch Archaeology has been the ‘Discovering the Archaeologists of Europe’ project, which is a European-wide research into the archaeological sector. The part about the Netherlands provides some very interesting information. Among other things, an inventory of the size of the workforce has been made. Based upon the results of a questionnaire, supplemented with some estimates,
it is calculated that a total number of 1335 persons have a paid job in archaeology in the Netherlands. Together, they represent a total of 1058,6 FTE.45 The share of
archaeologists in the labour force and in the total population are displayed in table 4. As the total
working force in the Netherlands is 7,3 million46, Dutch archaeologists form a total of 0,0183%,
or 0,183‰ of the workforce, which implicates that for every archaeologist, there are 5.468 people working in another sector. It also means that, as there are now 16.855.045 Dutch citizens47, archaeologist form 0.0079% (0.079‰) of the total population. Against every
archaeologist there are 12.624 non-archaeologists.
3.3 Public involvement in the Netherlands
As described in Chapter 1.5, a good way to gain more public support for archaeology is by involving the public. In order to gain insight in the Dutch attempts to increase support, this paragraph will discuss the public involvement in the Netherlands.
Generally, one could distinguish five main parties who could possibly engage with the public: the government (national, regional and local), the universities (including the University of Applied Sciences), museums and other heritage institutions, the commercial companies and the large Dutch volunteers organization, ‘Archeologische Werkgemeenschap Nederland’ (AWN). Commercial companies in the archaeology sector will organize public events or publish, but not unless they are hired to do so. Universities are generally only concerned with education and some excavations, and are not attending to the wider public. This leaves us with the government, the AWN and the museums and heritage institutions. The latter will often engage with public, since it is their purpose to attract the public and educate them about their collection. Then there is government, which can be divided into national, regional (provinces) and local (municipalities). As described in the previous paragraph, the national government now only has
43 According to the website of the Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands:
http://archeologieinnederland.nl/regels-en-beleid/wie-doet-wat-0
44 van Londen et al. 2014, 15. 45 Ibidem, 23-25.
46 According to Statistics Netherlands (CBS),
(http://www.cbs.nl/nl-NL/menu/themas/arbeid-sociale-zekerheid/publicaties/barometer-beroepsbevolking/barometer-werkzame-beroepsbevolking-art.htm)
47 On 03-06-2014 According to Statistics Netherlands (CBS),
(http://www.cbs.nl/nl-NL/menu/themas/bevolking/cijfers/extra/bevolkingsteller.htm)
Table 4: Percentages in the working and total population that are archaeologists, and the archaeologists/non-archaeologist ratio. Based on van Londen et al. 2014, 23-25.
% of 1 in … is an
archaeologist Working population 0,0183 5468
17 an advising role, and no longer see it as their task to inform and engage with the public. All the executive tasks have been delegated towards the municipalities, which we will discuss in more detail just below. The regional government, the provinces, generally manage depots and provincial heritage institutions, and as such often engage with the public. As said before, the municipalities are now responsible for their local policy towards archaeology, and also have to execute the more public task of engaging with the public. The AWN, the society of volunteers in archaeology, is usually also rather active in public engagement.
Just last year, a study has been done into public engagement by municipal archaeologists in the Netherlands. This shows that for 83% of respondents, engaging with the public is part of their job description. In 76% of cases, there is a budget in time or money to enable the actual performance of that task. When there is a budget, this is often small, or it is the last priority on the list. As a result, public engagement happens, but not on a scale that could be possible if every archaeologist who has it as his task would have sufficient budget available. As it is now, most archaeologist (98%) have organised a public activity in the past, of which a lecture is the most popular by far. The six other most popular activities, organized by 83% or more of the archaeologists are open days or tours; talking on radio or television; publishing folders, brochures or books; activities in schools; exhibitions and the participation of the volunteers in excavations. This last activity stands out because of its high degree of participation. This multiple choice option may have been biased, because respondents may have thought mainly about the volunteers of the Dutch Archaeological Group (AWN), whilst a more local, inexperienced group was meant.When we look at frequency, it is clear that 24% organizes an activity at least once a month. 39% of respondents has an activity about 3-6 times a year. A large group of 34% organizes something once a year or even less or at a very random basis. 48
3.4 Conclusion
This chapter was meant to find out more about the public support for archaeology in the Netherlands. Three different researches show that, although knowledge and general interest are rather high, only half of these people act upon their interest. Translated back into the three elements of support introduced in Chapter 1, we can say that knowledge is at a high level, as is attitude. Actions, however, are less well represented. This may lead to the conclusion that, albeit support for archaeology in the Netherlands seems to be wide, it is not very deep.
When we look at Dutch archaeology, we see that the high level of decentralisation has caused the national government to have little direct influence on the practice. It also shows that the Dutch archaeology sector is in fact very small, as only 0,0183% of all working people, and a mere 0.0079% of the entire population.
It seems that in the Dutch system, public involvement is mainly a task for museums and heritage institutions, and local government, the municipalities. Although some more regional or provincial governments also seem to organize activities in that field. A recent study shows that, albeit most municipal archaeologists have engaging with the public in the job description, only three-quarters of them are given budget to fulfil this task. A large part of them, however, find their budget insufficient to be very effective.
Archaeologists’ expectations of public support are rather optimistic. As it is now, most of the population is superficially interested in archaeology, and one-third convert this in to actions. Only 2% of all people are genuinely deeply interested. Support, at this point, is wide, but not deep. By comparing these results with those in other countries, namely the United Kingdom and the United States, and with another field of work, nature preservation, it may become clear what
18 causes differences in support and how we can learn from others to enhance ours. This can be observed in chapters 4 and 5.
