public perceptions of archaeology in nigeria: the case of
TRANSCRIPT
Volume 15, 2018
Public Perceptions of Archaeology in Nigeria: The Case of Students in Selected
Secondary Schools in Ibadan.
Oluwafemi O. Ajomale,
Department of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Ibadan, Nigeria.
C.A. Folorunso
Department of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Ibadan, Nigeria.
Abstract
The study sampled secondary school students in Ibadan metropolis to assess their knowledge
about the discipline of Archaeology. The students were selected from both public and private
secondary schools to consider if the type of school attended by respondents could be a factor
in their knowledge about Archaeology. Gender of the respondents and the educational
background of their parents were also considered in the analysis of the responses. The study
established that 69% of the respondents had good knowledge of Archaeology and that all the
factors considered, that is, public or private school, gender, and educational background of
parents, had no influence on the knowledge of the respondents.
Keywords. Archaeology, secondary schools, perceptions, respondents, Ibadan,
Introduction
Archaeology has been misunderstood and its significance is not adequately appreciated
among the general public (Feder et al. 1984). Archaeology does fascinate the general public,
but most people have only vague or mistaken ideas about what archaeology actually is and
what archaeologists do. The popular impression is that archaeologists are adventurers and
treasure hunters, travelling the world and digging artefacts from ruins. Archaeology at present
is not in the curricula of secondary schools in Nigeria. The present study aims at assessing the
knowledge that secondary school students have about the field of archaeology and the way
they perceive archaeology and archaeologists.
There had been several studies on public perception of the discipline of archaeology. A study
involving over 1000 student respondents selected across continental United States established
that the level of knowledge about archaeology and what archaeologists do is fairly broad with
the majority of the respondents giving at least one accurate description. However, there was
the misconception that archaeologists study fossils and dinosaurs, rocks and stones, and
events of the 19th and 20th centuries. The study concluded that "the students’ knowledge
about what archaeologists do is neither solid nor clear” (Ramos and Duganne, 2000).
A study at the University of Sydney between 1999 and 2004 involved 53 second- and third-
year undergraduate students enrolled in a public archaeology unit who were asked to state
some public benefits of archaeology to the society. It was established that each student’s prior
knowledge of archaeology had influence on their understanding of archaeology and its
benefits to the public. The responses demonstrate a broad spectrum of understandings and
opinions (Colley, 2007). A study assessed the perception of Australians about archaeology
and archaeologists using 119 mostly adult respondents. The respondents had reasonable idea
of what archaeology is but still confused archaeology with the earth science disciplines,
although few responses were indicative of the fact that there was a reasonable level of
complete ignorance about what archaeology is. The study also found that more than 50% of
the respondents could not mention any archaeological site in Australia (Balme and Wilson
2004). In the same study at the University of Western Australia, young students with higher-
than-average intelligence and education were shown to be positive about archaeology and had
a much more accurate and realistic understanding of the subject than another student group
who were studying subjects other than archaeology (Balme and Wilson 2004).
Though there had long been the widespread practice of amateurs in archaeology but it was
not until recently that archaeologists recognized the importance of public accessibility and
public outreach to create opportunities for people to become involved in archaeological
research. Innovative public education programmes are being developed for members of the
public to actively participate in archaeology and has developed into a new field recognized as
public archaeology. The primary goals of public archaeology are to create and maintain a
positive public interest in archaeology and to promote the conservation of heritage sites
(Smith and McManamon 1991). Justifying archaeological research in a manner which will
satisfy the general public is perhaps the most difficult task of educational archaeologists.
Population and Sampling
The target population for the study is secondary school students in Ibadan but 25 schools
were selected, 13 public and 12 private schools. The public schools were purposively chosen
to represent the varied catchments (characteristics) of the population that patronize them (the
elites/middle class and the lower class/urban poor). Purposive sampling method was used for
selecting respondents based on their level of study (final year - SS3 and penultimate year -
SS2), gender and social background (level of education attained by parents). The method
allowed the selection of respondents with varied characteristics. Eight (8) students were
selected in each school to make a total of two hundred (200) respondents.
Research Instruments
A self-designed structured questionnaire instrument was used. The first section of the
questionnaire solicited information on the socio-demographic variables of the respondents
which included their level of study, gender, level of education attained by father and mother
(1. No education 2. Primary only 3. Secondary 4. Tertiary). The sections that elicited
responses to the research questions requested the respondents to state if they agree or disagree
with a statement or they don’t know.
Data Analysis
Data collected were analysed using Microsoft Office Excel package and descriptive statistical
tools.
Demographic Characteristics of Respondents
The respondents were made up of 96 students (48%) from private schools and 104 (52%)
from public schools making a total of 200 of which 90 (45%) were males and 110 (55%)
were females. The private schools’ respondents consisted of 43 males (44.8%) and 53
females (55.2%) while there were 47 (45.2%) males and 57 (54.8%) females from the public
schools. Only 6 (1.5%) out of the total of 400 parents (fathers and mothers) of the 200
respondents were said to have no education while 21 (5.25%) had only primary school
education. There were 125 (31.25%) parents that had secondary school education and 248
(62%) had tertiary education. Therefore, 93.25% of the parents could be taken to have had
sufficient education (Table 1 and Figure 1).
Educational Level Parents Respondents
No Education Father 4 1%
Mother 2 0.5%
Primary Education only Father 15 3.75%
Mother 6 1.5%
Secondary Education Father 68 17%
Mother 57 14.25%
Tertiary Education Father 113 28.25%
Mother 135 33.75%
Total 400
Table 1: Parents’ educational background.
Key: M- Mother
Figure 1: Levels of education of the parents of the respondents F- Father
Knowing archaeology
The respondents were asked to state if they agree or disagree with, or don’t know the
statements that sought to test their knowledge of archaeology such as 1. archaeology is the
study of the past, 2. archaeology studies human evolution, 3. artefacts, rocks and minerals are
of interest to archaeology, 4. ancient sites are important for the conduct of archaeological
studies and 5. there are archaeological sites in Nigeria.
The responses were analysed on the basis of private and public schools, gender and the
educational levels attained by the parents of the respondents.
Private and Public Schools and knowing archaeology
The responses from the private schools’ respondents show that 13.5% disagreed and 18.8%
did not know the statements describing archaeology, that is 32.3% did not show clear
understanding of archaeology, while 67.7% showed clear understanding of archaeology. On
the other hand, the responses from the public schools show that 13.5% disagreed and 16.4%
did not know the descriptions of archaeology, that is, 29.9% did not show understanding of
archaeology while 70.1% showed understanding. In practical terms there was no significant
difference between the responses of the private and public schools’ respondents (Table 2 and
Figure 2).
Disagree Don’t know Agree TOTAL
Private Public Private Public Private Public Private Public
13 14 18 17 65 73 96 104
13.5% 13.5% 18.8% 16.4% 67.7% 70.2%
Table 2: Test of respondents’ knowledge of archaeology among private and public schools’ students.
Figure 2: Knowledge of archaeology among private and public schools’ students.
Gender and knowing archaeology
The analysis shows that 12.2% and 17.8% male respondents respectively disagreed and did
not know the description of archaeology, that is 30% could not show understanding of the
discipline while 70% agreed and thus had knowledge of archaeology. The female respondents
had 12.7% and 17.3% respectively as those who disagreed with, and those who did not know
the description of the discipline, that is 30% did not have understanding of archaeology while
70% had understanding. Gender could not therefore be a factor for showing knowledge or
lack of knowledge among the respondents (Table 3 and Figure 3).
Disagree Don’t know Agree Total
Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female
11 14 16 19 63 77 90 110
12.2% 12.7% 17.8% 17.3% 70% 70%
Table 3: Knowledge of archaeology by gender.
Figure 3: Knowledge of archaeology by gender.
Level of education of the parents of the respondents
The responses were further analysed to establish if there exited any correlation between the
background of the respondents in terms of the education levels attained by both parents (father and
mother) and their knowledge of archaeology. There were six (6) 3%) respondents out of the
total of two hundred (200) respondents who indicated that their fathers had no formal education of
which five (5) did not know the descriptions of archaeology while one agreed with the description.
Another fourteen (14) respondents indicated that their fathers had only primary school education of
which three (3) did not show a knowledge of archaeology. Sixty-five (65) respondents had fathers
who had secondary school education and twenty-one (21) 32.3%) of them could not recognize the
descriptions of archaeology while forty-four (44) 67.7%) did. There were one hundred and fifteen
(115) respondents whose fathers had tertiary level education, thirty-five (35) 30.4%) could not
recognize the description of archaeology while eighty (80) 69.6%) did. With the exception of the
respondents whose fathers had no formal education, there is no marked difference in the
distribution of the responses among the other groups (Table 4 and Figure 4).
Disagree Don’t know Agree
No
education
Pry Sec Ter No
education
Pry Sec Ter No
education
Pry Sec Ter
Total
1 8 15 5 2 13 20 1 11 44 80 200
0.5% 4% 7.5% 2.5% 1% 6.5% 10% 0.5% 5.5% 22% 40%
Table 4: Responses on level of awareness by public school respondents according to fathers’ education.
Figure 4: Knowledge of archaeology based on educational levels of the fathers of respondents
When the levels of education attained by the mothers were considered, there were only two (2)
mothers that had no education and their wards had knowledge of archaeology. There were six (6)
mothers who had primary school education, of which two (2) of their wards could not recognize
the descriptions of archaeology while four (4) did. Fifty-seven (57) of the mothers had secondary
school education of which twenty (20) of their wards did not show knowledge of archaeology
while the thirty-seven others recognized the descriptions of archaeology. The respondents whose
mothers had tertiary level education were one hundred and thirty-five (135) in number. Thirty-
eight (38) of them did not have knowledge of archaeology while the ninety-seven (97) did. It
shows that the educational status of the mothers of the respondents did not influence their
knowledge of archaeology (Table 5 and Figure 5).
Disagree Don’t know Agree
No
education
Pry Sec Ter No
education
Pry Sec Ter No
education
Pry Sec Ter
Total
- 1 8 16 - 1 12 22 2 4 37 97 200
- 0.5% 4% 8% - 0.5% 6% 11% 1% 2% 18.5% 48.5%
Table 5: Responses on level of awareness by public school respondents according to mothers’ education
Figure 5: Knowledge of archaeology based on educational levels of the mothers of respondents.
To further substantiate that the educational background of the parents of the respondents had no
influence on their knowledge of archaeology, the distribution of the various levels of education of
parents in the two groups of those with knowledge and those without knowledge of archaeology
was analysed (figure 6). There was no definite pattern of distribution more than the reflection of
the size of the population of each educational level in the sample. Compare figures 1 and 6.
Figure 6: Distribution of parents of respondents on the basis of educational background
compared for those with and without knowledge of archaeology.
Perceptions of archaeology and archaeologists
The perceptions of the respondents of archaeology and archaeologists were evaluated from the
responses to the following statements: 1. archaeology is a prestigious course; 2. archaeology is a
lucrative course; 3. archaeologists have job opportunities; 4. archaeologists are professionals and 5.
archaeologists are grave diggers. The responses were analysed on the basis of private and public
schools and gender.
Private and public schools and perceptions of archaeology and archaeologists
The responses to the five statements by the respondents from both private and public schools were
in all practical sense similar. For example, 64.2% and 60.6% of private and public schools’
respondents respectively agreed that archaeology is prestigious while 63.5% and 62.4% respectively
agreed that archaeology is lucrative. On the other hand, 5.3% and 7.7% private and public schools’
respondents respectively disagreed that archaeology is prestigious while 14.6% and 13.9%
respectively disagreed that archaeology is lucrative. The statement that archaeologists are
professionals elicited 11.5% and 10.5% disagreement from respondents in private and public
schools respectively while 75% and 68.6% respectively agreed. The statement that archaeologists
are grave diggers elicited roughly equal incidents of disagree, don’t know and agree responses, 26%
and 31.8% disagree, 39.6% and 27.1% don’t know and 34.4% and 41.2% agree in private and
public schools respectively (Table 6). When all respondents were merged into one, the responses
reflected the same patterns as in the private and public schools. More respondents (14.2%)
disagreed that archaeology is lucrative than those who (6.5%) disagreed that archaeology is
prestigious. More respondents (72%) agreed that archaeologists are professionals than those who
(53.5%) agreed that archaeologists have job opportunities, while 28.7%, 33.7% and 37.6%
respondents respectively disagreed, did not know, and agreed that archaeologists are grave diggers
(see Figure 7).
Statements Disagree Don’t know Agree
TOTAL
Private Public Private Public Private Public Private Public
Archaeology is prestigious 5
5.3%
8
7.7%
29
30.5%
33
31.7%
61
64.2%
63
60.6%
95 104
Archaeology is lucrative 14
14.6%
14
13.9%
22
22.9%
24
23.8%
61
63.5%
63
62.4%
96 101
Archaeologists have job
opportunities
20
20.8%
12
11.5%
28
29.2%
33
31.7%
48
50%
59
56.7%
96 104
Archaeologists are professionals 11
11.5%
9
10.5%
13
13.5%
18
20.9%
72
75%
59
68.6%
96 86
Archaeologists are grave diggers 25
26%
27
31.8%
38
39.6%
23
27.1%
33
34.4%
35
41.2%
96 85
Table 6: Perceptions of archaeology and archaeologists by private and public schools’ respondents
Figure 7: Perceptions of archaeology and archaeologists.
Gender and the perceptions of archaeology and archaeologists
The responses of the male and female respondents to the statements about perceptions of
archaeology and archaeologists are substantially similar. Generally, larger numbers of the
respondents had favourable perceptions of archaeology and archaeologists (see Table 7 and
Figure 8).
Statements Disagree Don’t know Agree Total
Male Female Male Female Male Female M F
Archaeology is prestigious 5
5.6%
8
7.3%
28
31.1%
34
31.2%
57
63.3%
67
61.5% 90 109
Archaeology is lucrative 11
12.6%
16
14.5%%
21
24.1%
25
22.7%
55
63.2%
69
62.7% 87 110
Archaeologists have job
opportunities
13
14,4%
19
17.2%
27
30%
34
30.9%
50
55.5%
57
51.8% 90 110
Archaeologists are professionals 10
11.1%
10
10.9%
17
18.8%
14
15.2%
63
70%
68
73.9% 90 92
Archaeologists are grave diggers 27
30.3%
25
27.2%
30
33.7%
31
33.7%
32
35.9%
36
39.1% 89 92
Table 7: Perceptions on archaeology and archaeologists by gender
KEY: M- Male F- Female
Figure 8: Gender and the perceptions of archaeology and archaeologists.
Discussion and conclusion
The survey reported here sought to measure the level of awareness of the discipline of archaeology
among secondary school students in some selected schools in Ibadan. The two main issues of the
enquiry was whether the students had knowledge of archaeology as a course of study and what
they thought of archaeology and archaeologists. The demographic characteristics of the sampled
students formed the basis of the analysis to understand the responses.
The analysis established that the kind of school attended by the respondents, private or public, the
gender and the level of education of parents were not factors in determining if they had or did not
have knowledge of archaeology. There was 67.7% of the private schools’ respondents who could
identify the simplified statements that described archaeology while it was 70.1% for the public
schools. As regards gender, equal percentage (70%) of male and female respondents recognized the
statements describing archaeology. For the level of education attained by the parents (fathers and
mothers) there were few respondents who had parents without formal education or with only
primary school education but they had knowledge of archaeology whereas 17.5% and 19% of
respondents whose fathers and mothers respectively had tertiary education did not identify the
statements which described archaeology. The overall responses showed that 138 (69%)
respondents agreed with the statements which described archaeology while 62 (31%) either
disagreed (13.5%) or did not know (17.5%) (Table 2 and Figure 9).
Figure 9: Overall distribution of respondents with and without knowledge of archaeology.
The perceptions of archaeology and archaeologists were analysed on the basis of the kind of school
attended and the gender. Again, the characteristics of the respondents made no difference to the
responses. Generally, the respondents had favourable perception of archaeology and archaeologists
with 72% of them agreeing that archaeologists are professionals. More than 50% of them
considered archaeology to be prestigious and lucrative and that archaeologists have job
opportunities. However, 28.7% of the respondents disagreed with the statement that archaeologists
are grave diggers, 33.7% did not know and 37.6% agreed. One factor that might be responsible for
the patterns of the responses is that all the schools were urban based, in a university town where
there was a teaching department of Archaeology. Studies in other locations (urban non-university
towns, sub-urban, semi-rural and rural) are required to validate the above observation. A final
remark is that a lot still needs to be done to get archaeology to the public space in Nigeria because
of the sizable number of students in the surveyed sample who were not well informed about the
discipline despite living in an urban university town with a teaching department of Archaeology,.
References
Balme, J. and Wilson, M. (2004) Perceptions of archaeology in Australia amongst educated young
Australians. Australian Archaeology 58:19-24.
Colley Sarah (2007) Public benefits of archaeology: Result from a student questionnaire. Australian
Archaeology, No. 65: 30-36. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40287922
Feder K.L. (1984) Irrationality and popular archaeology. American Antiquity 49.3: 525-541.
Ramos, M. and Duganne, D. (2000) Exploring Public Perceptions and Attitudes about Archaeology.
Harris Survey, Society for American Archaeology
Selig R.O. (1991) Teacher training programs in anthropology: The multiplier effect in the
classroom. In Smith K.C. & McManamon Francis P. (eds) Archaeology and Education: The
Classroom and Beyond, Archaeological Assistance Study No.2. Washington, D.C.3-6.
Smith K.C. & McManamon Francis P. (eds) (1991) Archaeology and Education: The Classroom
and Beyond, Archaeological Assistance Study No.2. Washington, D.C.3-6.