The Swedish survey (Statistiska Centralbyrån 2002) found that 83% of all Swedes watch TV-programmes about history. The interviewees were also asked whether they had ever received information about an archaeological excavation and if yes, where this information came from. 70% answered ”Yes, from radio or TV”, with an additional 60% stating ”Yes, from articles in newspapers or magazines.” Only 2% received information from the Internet. The survey also concluded that 22% of the 6 million adult Swedes (and 32% of those with higher education) know about archaeological excavation from guided tours at excavation sites. However, when the Swedes were asked where they would be looking for additional information about an archaeological excavation or find, 41% pointed to the Internet (58% of those with higher education), 37% to newspapers or magazines, 34% to libraries, and only 16% to radio or TV. The discrepancy between the actual influence and the ascribed potential of the Internet would support the hypothesis that for the most part, the Swedes do not search for additional information about archaeological excavations and are content with the information they already receive.

Figure 4.1

The American survey (Ramos and Duganne 2002) confirmed the huge significance of TV as the main source of information about archaeology. It concluded that 56% of adult Americans learn about archaeology from TV, followed by magazines (33%) and books (33%), and newspapers (24%). When asked where they would like to learn about archaeology, the Americans confirmed the relative significance of the media as it already exists (TV 50%, magazines 22%, books 21%, newspapers 11%).

In Canada too, TV seems to be most common source of archaeological knowledge (Pokotylo and Mason 1991). Concerning the question where they had learned about prehistoric archaeology, 81% of the (not representative) sample selected Television, followed by Magazines (66%), Books (59%), Newspapers (47%), Courses (47%), and Movies (30%!) from a given list of possible answers. More than two out of three replied that they would like to see more information on prehistoric archaeology made available to the general public. This group was then asked where they would like to receive additional information. On another pre-selected list, they chose most often Television (77%). Interestingly though, 68% would like to receive more information on archaeology from Museum exhibits and 66% would like to learn more by Visiting an archaeological dig. Any interpretation of the unusual preference for museums must take into account that, in exchance for returning the survey forms, respondents were offered free admission to the local University Museum of Anthropology. We do not know if they were regular museum visitors anyway.

Another, later study by Pokotylo and his students (Pokotylo and Guppy 1999) enquired about sources of existing archaeological knowledge too. This was the only survey where Television came second (55%) after Museums (58%), with Travel ranking third (37%). When asked, how they would like to learn more about archaeology, the same sample indicated similar preferences, though with TV in front again: Television (68%), Travel (62%), and Museums (58%). The popularity of museums and travel is striking. The fact that respondents had immediately before been asked whether information on archaeological research was ”accessible” to them (so that they were perhaps already thinking about going places) and that most of those responding were middle-aged, well educated Euro-Canadians who, once again, were promised free admission to the University Museum of Anthropology in return for submitting the questionnaire may go some way in contextualising these answers.

A large, recent Canadian survey (Pokotylo 2002) found that in terms of perceived effectiveness of learning about archaeology (on a scale from 0 to 10), watching TV/movies had the same level of approval as reading books/magazines (7.2), and came after travelling to actual archaeological sites (8.1) and attending a college/university (7.6) but before surfing the Internet (6.9).

A fairly small survey undertaken in the UK, confirmed the dominating significance of TV in informing people about archaeology (Paynton 2002).

Forward to The most common association people have with ”archaeology” is digging up things

Return to Table of Contents

Return to Home

References