UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

"Spirit Camp" : indigenous website preferences Lafleur, Mary-Lou Terry 2007

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_2007-0465.pdf [ 8.95MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0100829.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0100829-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0100829-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0100829-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0100829-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0100829-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0100829-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0100829-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0100829.ris

Full Text

"SPIRIT CAMP" Indigenous Website Preferences by Mary-Lou Terry Lafleur B.A., The University of British Columbia, BC, 2001 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Anthropology) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August 2007 © Mary-Lou Terry Lafleur, 2007 Abstract T h e Internet has b e c o m e an important m e d i u m for d isseminat ing information about a r c h a e o l o g y to the public. R e s e a r c h by archaeo log is ts on how they c a n u s e the Internet is in its infancy. T h i s thesis e x a m i n e s an Indigenous group 's perspect ives on the del ivery of a rchaeo log ica l content through websi tes . T h e Spirit C a m p archaeo log ica l site is located in St6:lo Territory in the F raser Val ley , British C o l u m b i a . • T h e Spirit C a m p websi te project w a s crea ted to explore the St6:lo peop le 's preference regarding graphic -d e s i g n a n d interactivity in two otherwise identical websi tes . Unders tand ing Indigenous perspect ives is essent ia l for col laborat ive projects and is beneficial to both a r c h a e o l o g y a n d Indigenous communi t ies if d o n e with respect and trust, a s this c a n lead to a better understanding of history. T h i s thesis d i s c u s s e s a n d a n a l y z e s f e e d b a c k obta ined from the St6:l6 about the two Spirit C a m p websi tes a n d the d isseminat ion of knowledge about their a n c e s t o r s via the Internet. T h e more graphical websi te gu ides the viewer with a storybook-l ike interface while the other websi te al lows readers to view material in plain text with a s tandard m e n u a n d scrol lbar. F e e d b a c k from 24 participants w a s col lected through a n individual survey quest ionnaire , a n d three a g e - b a s e d f o c u s groups: youths, adults, a n d E lders . T h i s r e s e a r c h s h o w s that e n h a n c e d graphic d e s i g n a n d i n c r e a s e d levels of interactivity in websi tes d o inf luence website preference. E lders telling stories, colour, photos , g a m e s , m u s i c a n d mov ing objects are e x a m p l e s cited by St6:l6 m e m b e r s a s addit ions to future webs i tes which e n h a n c e their exper ience . All the m a l e participants preferred the m o r e graphic websi te , while w o m e n ' s pre ferences were 5 3 % in favour of the m o r e graphical websi te . Da ta f rom the f o c u s groups demonst ra tes that v iewers ' opinions vary by gender a n d a g e . Th is r e s e a r c h informs us how to effectively work with a n d respect Indigenous p e o p l e s . It d o e s s o by suggest ing the u s e of culturally sensi t ive methods , s u c h a s interviews a n d f o c u s g roups , to acquire Indigenous perspect ives o n the presentat ion a n d d isseminat ion of a rchaeolog ica l information. ii Table of Contents Abstract « Table of Contents Hi List of Tables v List of Figures vi Acknowledgements vii 1. Introduction 1 1.1. Background 4 1.1.1. St6:l6 4 1.1.2. Spirit Camp . _ 5 1.1.3. The Research Project 6 1.1.4. General Public Opinions of Websites _ 6 2. Theoretical Perspectives and Relevance to Literature 7 2.1. Research Question 9 3. Methodology 9 3.1. Websites . 11 3.1.1. The Heron Site . _11 3.1.2. The River Site 12 3.1.3. Comparison of the River and Heron Websites '12 3.2. Participants 13 3.3. Research Methods 14 3.3.1. Survey Questionnaire 14 3.3.2. Focus Group Questions .15 4. Results: Survey & Focus Groups 15 4.1. Survey Questionnaire Results 15 4.1.1. Group A: Chehalis Community School _17 4.1.2. Group B: Sto.lo Education Centre 18 4.1.3. Group C: Lalems Ye Siyolexwe (House of Elders) 18 4.2. Focus Group Results 19 4.2.1. Group A: Chehalis Community School 20 4.2.2. Group B: St6:l6 Education Centre _21 4.2.3. Group C: Lalems Ye Siyolexwe (House of Elders) 23 5. Interpretations and Comparative Analysis 24 5.1. Overall Preference 25 5.2. Gender Differences 26 5.3. Linear vs. Non-Linear Preferences 27 5.4. St6:l6 Perspectives 28 5.5. Websites as Educational tools 29 5.6. Aboriginal Connectivity 30 5.7. Computers & Technology 30 iii 5.8. Other Focus Group Comparability Issues 31 5.9. Summary of Answers to Focus Group Questions 32 5.10. Challenges of Running Focus Groups 33 5.11. Hypothesis Evaluation 33 6. Discussion 34 6.1. Working with Community 34 6.2. Other Results 35 6.3. Recommendations 36 6.4. Future Research 38 7. Conclusions 41 Bibliography 43 Appendix A - Behavioural Research Ethics Board of UBC 50 Appendix B - Pages from the Heron and River Websites 51 Appendix C - Survey Questions 63 iv List of Tables Table 1. Focus group questions 15 Table 2. Focus group participants' background information 16 Table 3. Focus group participants' computer experience 17 Table 4. Website preferences by focus group 25 Table 5. Website preferences by gender for Focus Groups A and B 26 Table 6. Website preferences by gender for Focus Groups A and B combined 26 Table 7. Male and female preferences of graphically enhanced/animated sites 27 Table 8. Website preferences by focus group 31 v List of Figures Figure 1. Heron Introduction: Page 7 51 Figure 2. Heron Site: Harrison River Page 51 Figure 3. River Site: Home Page 52 Figure 4. Heron Site: Introduction to "The Dig" Section 53 Figure 5. Heron Site: "The Dig" - Level 53 Figure 6. River Site: The Dig Section Page 54 Figure 7. Heron Introduction: Page 2 55 Figure 8. Heron Introduction: Page 3 55 Figure 9. Heron Introduction: Page 4 56 Figure 10. Heron Site: Home Page 56 Figure 11. Heron Site: Discovery of Spirit Camp Sample 57 Figure 12. Heron Site: Creating a Research Design Sample 57 Figure 13. Heron Site: 2001 Spirit Camp Field School Sample 58 Figure 14. Heron Site: "The Dig" 58 Figure 15. River Site: Traditional Territory of St6:l6 Nation Page 59 Figure 16. River Site: Discovery of Spirit Camp Page 60 Figure 17. River Site: Research Design page 61 Figure 18. River Site: Field School 2001 Page 62 vi Acknowledgements I would like to thank Susan Rowley, for all the help, suggestions, guidance and facilitation provided along the way; you were a calming force when things went awry. I would also like to thank David Pokotylo who was on my committee for his knowledge and understanding of the Spirit Camp site. The Chehalis Band Office, the Scowlitz Band Office, the Chehalis Community School and St6:lo Nation, particularly the St6:lo Education Centre, Lalems Ye Siyolexwe (House of Elders), were most gracious in allowing me the pleasure of sharing their thoughts and ideas. I would also like to thank Ditta Cross who more than assisted in the focus groups, she was a life saver and a true friend in the whole process. I am greatly indebted to the Focus Group Kit series when it comes to how to plan, develop questions, moderate, involve community members, analyze and report the focus group results. I would like to thank my parents who, without their love and support over the years, I would never have gotten this far. My sister Tina and my friend Donna provided valuable editorial comments. Finally, but certainly not least, I owe unlimited love and thanks to my husband, Rob. He has definitely aided me in my journey as much as I was able to help him in his and it is a blessing to have such a wonderful partner to take this voyage with. vii 1. Introduction T h e Internet is a recent method of communica t ion that h a s r isen exponential ly in u s e . For m a n y people , it has b e c o m e their default s o u r c e of information (R ichards 2006). A rchaeo log is ts have long s e e n the n e e d to c o n n e c t c o m p u t e r s a n d a r c h a e o l o g y a s demonst ra ted by the first c o n f e r e n c e held by the C o m p u t e r Appl icat ions in A r c h a e o l o g y organizat ion in 1973. M c D a v i d (2000) a n d Z u b r o w (2006) list two views o n the re levance of the Internet in d isseminat ing information: the "utopist" v iew (Bolter 1991; L a n d o w 1992; Rhe ingo ld 1993) a n d the "apocalyptic" v iew (Kester 1994; Kroker and W e i n s t e i n 1991; P o s t m a n 1992). T h e utopist v iew is that the Internet will lead to equa l a c c e s s of knowledge. C a r e y (1992) d i s c u s s e s the 'mythos' about digital technology (130), which he identifies in North A m e r i c a n a s the p h e n o m e n o n that "identifies electricity a n d electrical power , e lectronics a n d cybernet ics , c o m p u t e r s and information with a new birth of communi ty , decentral izat ion, eco logica l ba lance , a n d socia l harmony" (114). Further, Z u b r o w (2006) states that "one h o p e s that the 'new' will provide where the old h a s failed" (14). T h e s e v iews s u g g e s t the Internet demyst i f ies by providing knowledge to all. T h e apocalypt ic v iew is that the Internet will ruin society by destroying soc ia l networks. R e s e a r c h e r s remain divided o n the importance of the Internet in a r c h a e o l o g y , a s s e e n by recent d e b a t e s on whether or not to u s e the Internet extensively for d isseminat ing information to the genera l public in s e s s i o n s at the C a n a d i a n A r c h a e o l o g i c a l Assoc ia t ion ( C A A ) annua l meet ings in 2003 a n d 2004. T h e Internet provides archaeo log is ts with a v e n u e to educa te , to teach a n d to inform the genera l public about a rchaeo logy . B y do ing this w e m a y create a public that is aware a n d c o n c e r n e d with protecting the nonrenewab le r e s o u r c e w e call the a rchaeo log ica l record . T h i s is o n e further step in the d isseminat ion of information a n d in the preservat ion of the past, two va luable considerat ions w h e n do ing a rchaeo log ica l r e s e a r c h . A r c h a e o l o g y a s a W e s t e r n discipl ine n e e d s to b e sensi t ive w h e n studying Indigenous populat ions (Watkins 2000; Tr igger 1980; M i h e s u a h 1998). M a n y Indigenous peop le v iew a r c h a e o l o g y a s the "grave robber profess ion," a stereotype unfortunately promoted by popular culture in m o v i e s a n d novels (Nichols et al . 1999). W h i l e this is an overly negat ive stereotype, a rchaeolog is ts must recogn ize that they still maintain authority a s the interpreters of ancient cul tures. M c K e e (1994) a n d M c D a v i d (2000) both d i s c u s s how archaeo log is ts are uncomfor table with shar ing d e c i s i o n s regarding r e s e a r c h direct ions, particularly with peop le outs ide of a rchaeo logy . However , there are others w h o are comfortable with this col laborat ive and public work. E x a m p l e s include Tr igger (1980), Ye l lowhorn (1996), Z i m m e r m a n (1998, 2003) a n d 1 Watk ins (2000). A l though there are c h a l l e n g e s to col laborat ive work, the a d v a n t a g e s outweigh a n y d isadvantage . T h i s idea is not new but is referred to by Z i m m e r m a n (1998) a s "ethnocritical archaeology": (t)his a p p r o a c h directly involves ind igenous peop le (or a n y other affected group) in the a rchaeo log ica l p r o c e s s , working together with a rchaeo log is ts to set r e s e a r c h a g e n d a s a n d perhaps e v e n getting involved in the excavat ion a n d a n a l y s e s (83). T h i s type of work c a n be scientific in nature, a n d still b e a c c o u n t a b l e to a "specif ic public" ( Z i m m e r m a n 1998: 83). Further, this a p p r o a c h c a n b e s e e n in E c h o - H a w k ' s r e s e a r c h where he d i s c u s s e s the s u c c e s s f u l integration of a rchaeo logy a n d oral tradition a s a path to r e s h a p e ancient h u m a n history (1997). A l though, this project d o e s not directly u s e oral tradition, f o c u s groups are similar to the traditional d i s c u s s i o n style u s e d by m a n y Indigenous g r o u p s . T h i s r e s e a r c h project is the first to d i s c u s s a rchaeo log ica l websi tes b a s e d on the opin ions a n d percept ions of Indigenous people . It informs the deba te on the u s e of the Internet in public a r c h a e o l o g y from the a c a d e m i c perspect ive a n d g ives v o i c e to Indigenous perspect ives . It is the responsibil i ty of those produc ing an a rchaeo log ica l websi te to be ethically accountab le to the people w h o m the websi te represents . T h e C a n a d i a n A r c h a e o l o g i c a l Assoc ia t ion 's ( C A A ) Statement of Principles for Ethical Conduct Pertaining to Aboriginal Peoples e n c o u r a g e s partnerships with Abor ig inal communi t ies , a n d states archaeologis ts shou ld "respect the cultural s igni f icance of oral history a n d traditional knowledge in the interpretation a n d presentat ion of the a rchaeo log ica l record of Aboriginal peoples" (N icholson et al . 1996). A l though, the C A A d o e s not specif ical ly state how this is to b e d o n e , websi tes are clear ly o n e m e a n s of interpreting a n d present ing information, and therefore, fall under these guidel ines. Further to this d i s c u s s i o n of ethical accountabi l i ty is the A s s e m b l y of First Nat ions ( A F N ) a n d the C a n a d i a n M u s e u m s A s s o c i a t i o n s ( C M A ) joint deve lopment of a n "ethical f ramework a n d strategies for Aboriginal Nat ions to represent their history a n d culture in concer t with cultural institutions" titled Turning the Page: Forging New Partnerships Between Museums and First Peoples (Hill & N icks 1992: 12). T h r e e major i ssues were identified to redress the i m b a l a n c e s between m u s e u m s and First P e o p l e s : 1) i n c r e a s e d involvement of Abor ig inal p e o p l e s in the interpretation of their culture a n d history by cultural institutions; 2) improved a c c e s s to m u s e u m col lect ions by Abor ig ina l p e o p l e s ; a n d 3) the repatriation of artifacts a n d h u m a n remains (ibid.). 2 Th is research project a d d r e s s e s a s p e c t s of all these i s s u e s . It i n c r e a s e s the involvement of the St6:l6 people of the F r a s e r Va l ley in British C o l u m b i a in the interpretation of their culture by providing them with an opportunity to c o m m e n t on two websi tes present ing the Spirit C a m p archaeo log ica l site. A c c e s s to col lect ions is improved by bringing information to the St6:l6 peop le through the websi te . Finally, s o m e of the artifacts are visual ly repatriated through their portrayal in the site. Indigenous a r c h a e o l o g y has grown a s archaeolog is ts a c c e p t Indigenous peop les ' right to a vo ice in the interpretation of their past (Watkins 2000). T h i s thesis w a s motivated by the increas ing popularity of both Indigenous a r c h a e o l o g y and the Internet. T h i s st imulated a des i re to create a websi te working with a local Indigenous communi ty a n d to attain f e e d b a c k about the final product . T h i s project p romotes increased communica t ion between archaeo log is ts and Indigenous peop le . St6:l6 ances tors are portrayed in this websi te . There fore , St6:l6 d e s c e n d a n t s (from three distinct genera t ions-E lders , adults a n d youths) were a p p r o a c h e d to inquire how graph ics affect their percept ions a n d opinions of the two websi tes presented . B y s p e a k i n g directly to the St6:lo (or peop le living in Storlo traditional territory w h o participate regularly in St6: lo heritage), insight a n d f e e d b a c k w a s g a i n e d a s to their preferences for a n d r e s p o n s e s to the presentat ion of their heritage, specif ical ly related to websi te graphic des ign and interactivity. Th is f e e d b a c k g a v e communi ty m e m b e r s a c h a n c e to inf luence the final vers ion of the website . T h i s p r o c e s s r e c o g n i z e s their un ique perspect ive , v o i c e a n d cultural rights to their heritage and its interpretation. E q u a l partnerships are n e c e s s a r y for ethically a n d social ly c o n s c i o u s bodies of work, and these partnerships h a v e a direct impact not only o n past histories, but a l s o o n our present a n d future relat ionships. Whi le both posit ive a n d negat ive a s p e c t s of this col laborat ive p r o c e s s will b e d i s c u s s e d throughout this thesis, it is important to note at the outset that the posit ives outweigh negat ives. Listening to communi t ies a n d r e s p o n d i n g to their f e e d b a c k is critical to creat ing lasting relationships built o n trust. T h e purpose of this research is three-fold: (1) to explore St6:l6 percept ions of an a rchaeo log ica l websi te presented in two different formats: the River Site a n d the Heron Site; (2) to investigate h o w gender a n d a g e affect opin ions a n d (3) to c o m p a r e St6:lo perspect ives to m o r e genera l da ta about websi te preference. In 2001, P r o f e s s o r s S u s a n Rowley a n d Dav id Pokoty lo rece ived a U B C Facul ty of Ar ts Instructional Suppor t & Information T e c h n o l o g y grant to create a websi te b a s e d o n the Spirit C a m p archaeolog ica l site a n d field s c h o o l (see d i s c u s s i o n below). T h e websi te w a s to be u s e d a s a teaching 3 and information tool for U B C students studying a r c h a e o l o g y , a n d be a c c e s s i b l e to the genera l public. It a lso presented an opportunity to investigate r e s p o n s e s a n d elicit f e e d b a c k from a n Indigenous perspect ive about the u s e of websi te graphics . T h e driving interest behind this r e s e a r c h c o n n e c t s three a reas of a rchaeology: digital a rchaeo logy , Indigenous a rchaeo logy , a n d public a rchaeo logy . Digital a r c h a e o l o g y "uses future technology to understand past behaviour" (Zubrow 2006:27) .This graphic des ign c o m p a r i s o n project s e e m e d to be a bridge between these three a r e a s of study. T w o webs i tes d e s i g n e d in two different graphic formats, with identical content about an a rchaeo log ica l site in St6:l6 territory, were created . T h e s e websi tes will then be presented to St6:lo p e o p l e in order to determine their pre ferences . D o St6:lo people v iew o n e a s more culturally appropriate, m o r e interesting, more informative, more aesthetical ly p leas ing , a n d m o r e entertaining than the other, a n d if s o w h y ? T h e s e quest ions are a d d r e s s e d in m o r e detail in the d i s c u s s i o n sect ion ( s e e sect ion 5.1). U n d e r the C A A ethical guidel ines, Indigenous peop le shou ld be r e s p e c t e d . O n e w a y of demonstrat ing this respect is through involving them in d i s c u s s i o n a n d a n a l y z e s of their own cultural her i tage—an a p p r o a c h fol lowed throughout this r e s e a r c h . First, permiss ion w a s obta ined from St6:lo Nation a n d from the C h e h a l i s B a n d Off ice to conduct r e s e a r c h in their communi t i es . S e c o n d , c o n s e n t forms were sent to all participants. Participants under the a g e of 18 were sent both student a s s e n t fo rms and parent /guardian c o n s e n t forms. Fol lowing St6:l6 Nat ion protocols, c o p i e s of the thesis will b e depos i ted in the St6:l6 Nation A r c h i v e s . In addition, c o p i e s will a lso b e g iven to the C h e h a l i s C o m m u n i t y S c h o o l , St6:lo Educat ion Cent re , and the Lalems Ye Siyolexwe ( H o u s e of E lders ) . Addit ionally, a s required by U B C policy, the project a lso rece ived certification from the U B C Behav ioura l R e s e a r c h Eth ics B o a r d (Appendix A ) . Fol lowing through on the phi losophy of inclusion in the project, o n e websi te will be forwarded to St6:l6 Nation/Tribal C o u n c i l for approval before being m a d e ava i lab le to the public o n the Internet. T h i s project is a smal l p iece of a long s tanding relationship be tween the U B C Laboratory of A r c h a e o l o g y ( L O A ) a n d the St6:lo people . 1.1. Background 1.1.1. St6:l6 St6:lo traditional territory, known a s S'olh Temexw, ex tends from L a n g l e y to north of Y a l e (British C o l u m b i a ) and includes about 5000 people w h o identify t h e m s e l v e s a s St6: l6. "St6:l6 Nation," the political body , that c a m e together originally for treaty p u r p o s e s conta ined 21 of the 24 b a n d s c lassi f ied culturally 4 a s Sto. lo peop le (St6:l6 Nation 2002). T h e original plan for this project w a s to work with St6:lo Nat ion, through contacts m a d e from a previous ethnographic field s c h o o l during which I interviewed six St6:lo Nation Counc i l lo rs about their perspect ives on a rchaeo logy . However , dur ing the undertaking of this project St6:l6 Nation split into two bod ies : St6:l6 Nation (14 bands) and St6:l6 Tribal C o u n c i l (8 bands ) . T w o (Cheha l i s a n d Ya le ) of the 24 b a n d s are currently go ing through the treaty p r o c e s s under their o w n terms a n d are not part of St6:l6 Nat ion or St6:l6 Tribal C o u n c i l . A l though culturally St6:lo, s o m e m e m b e r s of these two b a n d s d o not call t h e m s e l v e s St6:l5, but prefer to refer to t h e m s e l v e s by their own n a m e . Th is is the c a s e with C h e h a l i s . 1.1.2. Spirit Camp Spirit C a m p (DhRI-25) is a cultural a n d archaeolog ica l site located at Ca lami ty Point o n the north bank of the F r a s e r River near the conf luence of the Harr ison a n d F r a s e r Rivers , northwest of Chi l l iwack. H u m a n occupat ion at Spirit C a m p g o e s back approximately 5000 to 7000 years (Morr ison 1994; Pokoty lo 2004). It w a s first recorded a s an archaeologica l site in the 1970s ( B C A r c h a e o l o g y B r a n c h 1974). In 1994, St6:l6 communi ty m e m b e r s p lanned a 'spiritual retreat' with a s u m m e r cultural program for chi ldren. T h e y required a location c l o s e to both Chi l l iwack a n d Scowl i tz communi t ies , a n d yet remote e n o u g h s o that people coming a n d going would not disrupt cultural events . Ca lami ty Point w a s c o n s i d e r e d a n ideal location, a s it w a s remote with no car a c c e s s , but near both Chi l l iwack a n d Scowl i tz . C o m m u n i t y m e m b e r s dec ided the retreat would b e u s e d specif ical ly a s a s u m m e r cultural program for children to learn traditional knowledge a n d va lues from St6:l6 E lders ( G . M o h s pers . c o m . 2005). T h e y cal led it Spirit C a m p . A s part of the program, they p lanned to build a traditional pit h o u s e . T h e property owner, J u n e Keevi l , w a s contacted a n d permiss ion w a s obta ined to u s e the property for the c a m p . G o r d o n M o h s , the St6:lo Nat ion Archaeo log is t at the time, a s k e d the peop le in c h a r g e of building the pit h o u s e , which involved digging a circular pit over a metre d e e p , to avo id the a r e a near the river, a s this w a s c lassi f ied a s a high potential a rchaeologica l z o n e ( G . M o h s pers . c o m . 2005) . Desp i te fol lowing these gu ide l ines , artifacts were u n c o v e r e d a lmost immediately. T h e project w a s s topped a n d an a s s e s s m e n t of the e x p o s e d archaeo log ica l deposi ts w a s under taken. T h i s e m e r g e n c y r e c o n n a i s s a n c e w a s limited to o n e day. T h e test cuts revea led six cont inuous cultural layers; 59 tools a n d 407 f lakes w e r e recovered (Morr ison et al . 1994). T h i s work indicated the potential of Spirit C a m p to m a k e a significant contribution to our understanding of St6:l6 heritage. 5 In s u m m e r 2001, a joint a rchaeo log ica l field s c h o o l w a s p lanned between St6:l6 Nat ion, specif ical ly the Scowl i tz First Nat ion, a n d the Laboratory of A r c h a e o l o g y at the University of British C o l u m b i a ( U B C ) . T h e bas ic quest ions p o s e d were how a n d w h e n did peop le u s e Spirit C a m p ? (D. Pokotylo pers . c o m . 2005). 1.1.3. The Research Project T w o websi tes were crea ted us ing identical textual and photographic content about the Spirit C a m p archaeolog ica l site. T h e first w e b s i t e - t h e Heron Site-is m o r e graphical ly e n h a n c e d a n d is more interactive. C o l l e n e Armst rong of Points North, a websi te c o m p a n y , w a s contracted to create the Heron Site. A s funds were limited, this w a s in large part a labour of love for both her a n d her t e a m . T h e s e c o n d websi te , ca l led the River Site, is similar to m o s t websi tes on the Internet. It w a s crea ted o n c e the first w a s comple ted ; I constructed the River Site with identical text a n d photographic content, but with a different presentat ion format. It conta ins photos a n d text with minimal graphics and colour. St6:l6 m e m b e r s participated in f o c u s groups to view, a n d d i s c u s s the two websi tes . Both o p e n - e n d e d a n d c l o s e d quest ions were a s k e d of the participants, after which, the r e s p o n s e s were c o m p a r e d a n d contrasted, a c r o s s , within, a n d between the groups a s well a s by a g e and gender . 1.1.4. General Public Opinions of Websites C o m p u t e r s intrigue the public a s a new technology a n d med ia to learn a n d entertain. T h i s interest g ives des igners the c o n s u m e r b a s e to exper iment with different formats including graphical ly rich websi tes . O f c o u r s e , it is a lso important that graphics e n h a n c e , not detract f rom, the intended m e s s a g e . S tud ies h a v e s h o w n that the m o s t important a s p e c t of a websi te is c lear and c o n c i s e content presentat ion in a m a n n e r that f lows ( R e e d et al . 2000; K a y e & J o h n s o n 1999; Pol lock & W i l s o n 2002; Dav is & Hantula 2001). It is a lmost a s important for d e s i g n e r s to listen to their audience(s ) a n d err o n the s ide of caut ion by select ing the hypertext a n d visual format likely to r e a c h the largest target a u d i e n c e . W h e n websi tes were a new technology, researchers v iewed their deve lopment in opposi te w a y s , either positive (Bolter 1991; L a n d o w 1992, Rhe ingo ld 1993) or negat ive (Kester 1991; Kroker a n d Weinste in 1991; P o s t m a n 1992). T h e posit ive position v iewed websi tes a s the new m e d i a that would aid in the democrat izat ion of knowledge through equal availability of information. T h e negat ive posit ion s u g g e s t e d that websi tes would c a u s e degradat ion of our soc ia l , e c o n o m i c or political institutions. W e 6 know from further r e s e a r c h that neither posit ion w a s complete ly accura te ( M c D a v i d 2000; Bolter 1991; L a n d o w 1992; Rhe ingo ld 1993; Kester 1994; Kroker a n d Weinste in 1991; P o s t m a n 1992; Z u b r o w 2006). W h i l e websi tes h ave un tapped potential to bring content to the m a s s e s , w e have no proof that this will result in equa l a c c e s s to knowledge . A s Delor ia (1995) notes, profess ionals of all kinds like to control content to protect not only the written product but a lso their position in society. A survey in 2000 e x a m i n e d the C a n a d i a n public 's "percept ion, knowledge , a n d attitudes toward archaeolog ica l heritage" (Pokotylo 2002: 91). A c c o r d i n g to Pokotylo 's (2002:102) quest ion "How effective are e a c h of the following w a y s of learning about a rchaeo logy?" the perce ived ef fect iveness of the Internet d e c r e a s e d with the increas ing a g e of the respondents . However , "women rated the ef fect iveness . . .signif icantly higher then men" , a l though, overal l " respondents c o n s i d e r e d it to b e the least effective w a y of learning about a rchaeo logy" (Pokotylo 2002: 101 ,102 ) . T h e s e results however , m a y not represent the perspect ive of youths. T h e survey included peop le 18 years of a g e or older a n d m i s s e d the y o u n g e r generat ion who grew up us ing the Internet. Addit ional ly, the survey results m a y be outdated in this a r e a , a s Internet u s e habits h a v e c h a n g e d dramatical ly in only a few years ( N U A 2003). Further e v i d e n c e to support the idea of a technological lag in the survey results c o m e s from r e s p o n s e s of a mixed a g e cluster c l a s s of s tudents (aged 9-12) in 2002 . A group of Anthropo logy graduate students ( including myself) at U B C d e v e l o p e d and del ivered a n archaeolog ica l c o m p o n e n t to e lementary students a s part of a c o u r s e requirement for Anthropology 541 - Publ ic A r c h a e o l o g y . W e o b s e r v e d that the s tudents u s e d the Internet prior to us ing "traditional" m e a n s of acquir ing information, s u c h a s written texts. T h i s c o r r e s p o n d s to R ichard 's (2007) f indings. T h e students a lso ranked websi tes . S tudents regard webs i tes e n d i n g in ".edu", those run by universit ies, a n d other educat ional facilities in the United States , a s be ing highly va luable a n d accura te . Graphica l ly e n h a n c e d websi tes were a lso v iewed a s more accura te b e c a u s e the students perce ived that more time a n d m o n e y had been put into their d e s i g n . T h e y a r g u e d that y o u would not put t ime a n d m o n e y into produc ing a websi te that w a s inaccurate . R e l i a n c e o n the Internet by younger peop le m e a n s a significant a g e group are not included in surveys on public a r c h a e o l o g y ( R a m o s & D u g a n n e 2000; Pokotylo 2002, 2007; Pokotylo and G u p p y 1999), b e c a u s e of their a g e . 2. Theoretical Perspectives and Relevance to Literature A n increas ing b o d y of literature d i s c u s s e s the Internet, c y b e r s p a c e , m e d i a , a n d computers in a rchaeo logy . Prior to 2000 most r e s e a r c h f o c u s e d o n the survey a n d r e s o u r c e variety (lists of data or archaeo log ica l website resources ) (R ichards & R y a n 1985; D u r u s a u 1998; L o c k 2003; R ichards 2007, Z u b r o w 2007), G I S , and /or virtual recreat ions of sites ( M c P h e r r o n & Dibble 2001). With our growing re l iance o n the Internet it is e a s y to forget that the Internet is only at most 38 years old (Wikipedia 2007) . T h u s , a rchaeo logy-spec i f i c literature is limited in its d i s c u s s i o n of the Internet. It is important to note that organizat ions s u c h a s Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods have had an impact on a r c h a e o l o g y a s d i s c u s s e d at their 1997 c o n f e r e n c e entitled Archaeology in the age of the Internet (Dingwall 1999). T h e w e b journal Internet Archaeology, which has b e e n publ ishing s ince 1996, h a s a d d e d cons iderab ly to the body of literature in this a r e a of study. I s u g g e s t that the publication of s u c h texts a s : Using Computers in Archaeology (Lock 2003), Digital Archaeology: bridging method and theory ( E v a n s & Da ly 2006), a n d Archaeology and the Media (C lack & Brittain 2007), is o n e s ign that the Internet is popular for d isseminat ing information a m o n g archaeologis ts , a n d contributes both methodological ly a n d theoretically to the discipl ine (Zubrow 2006). Z i m m e r m a n (2003) a d v o c a t e s working with Indigenous people in present ing the past to the public. M y work for this project strives to further this type of col laborat ion by revisiting Indigenous peop le after the project, in this c a s e the a rchaeo log ica l websi te , has b e e n comple ted . T h e purpose of this next step is to attain f e e d b a c k from communi ty m e m b e r s to determine our ef fect iveness at delivering a rchaeo log ica l information and working collaboratively, a n d to give communi t ies a v e n u e for present ing their op in ions a n d a d v i c e o n how to improve. Fo l low-up exploration of Indigenous peop les ' websi te pre ferences is n e c e s s a r y for building stable a n d healthy working relat ionships. T h i s evolv ing p r o c e s s will m a k e websi tes more a c c e s s i b l e a n d relevant to Indigenous peop le . I s u g g e s t that Indigenous peop le shou ld be active in all a s p e c t s (from start to finish) of the project where poss ib le . W h i l e des igners of a rchaeo log ica l websi tes m a y want to educa te their a u d i e n c e , the motivations of the a u d i e n c e m a y not be educat iona l . K a y e a n d J o h n s o n (2002) identify three major personal motivations for a c c e s s i n g websi tes: information, entertainment a n d socia l iz ing. T h e s e motivations are further inf luenced by factors s u c h a s personality, a g e , gender , educat ional background a n d cultural b a c k g r o u n d (Kaye & J o h n s o n 2002) . T h e s e motivations affect how o n e v iews websi tes a n d websi te p re fe rences ( S c h u m a c h e r & Morahan-Mar t in 2001) . A l though these are all interesting factors, only a g e a n d g e n d e r w a s tested in this r e s e a r c h project. S i m o n (2001), S c h u m a c h e r & Morahan-Mar t in (2001) a n d S a u n d e r s (2006) demonstra te that g e n d e r affects websi te preference. T h e r e is a l s o e v i d e n c e that a g e 8 ( G V U 1999; N C I A 2000; N U A 2001 , 2003; Statistics C a n a d a 2006; Pokotylo 2002, 2007) plays a role in website pre ference b e c a u s e of overal l comfort with the technology . T h e creation of a n a rchaeo log ica l websi te is a c o m p l e x p r o c e s s with mult i - layered perspect ives . Whi le a websi te is written by o n e p e r s o n or group, the creators; the opinions/ interests of the Indigenous group represented and /or the genera l public are important to c o n s i d e r in websi te deve lopment . T h e perspect ives of the creators , the Indigenous group and/or the genera l public m a y not be discrete a n d c a n over lap. In a b e s t - c a s e scenar io , the creators and Indigenous peop le shou ld h a v e an o p e n d ia logue a n d partnership w h e n creat ing a website . T h i s s u b s e q u e n t partnership provides a richer, m o r e complex exper ience for all a u d i e n c e s . It is a lso important that the n e e d s of all g roups be b a l a n c e d against costs (both time and money) . 2.1. Research Question T h e research quest ion for this thesis is: D o St6:lo communi ty m e m b e r s perceive two websi tes with the s a m e archaeolog ica l content but visual ly different a s eq u a l , or d o they favour o n e over the other a n d , if s o , w h y ? T h e null hypothes is is that there is no di f ference in pre ference between the two websi tes . T h e alternative hypothes is is that v iewers will prefer o n e or the other. Fac to rs s u c h a s a g e a n d gender were taken into considerat ion a s part of the genera l testing f ramework. Whi le there are m a n y different g roups within St6:l6, m o s t peop le identify t h e m s e l v e s a s St6:l6 thus m a k i n g culture a constant in this study. T o evaluate these h y p o t h e s e s , communi ty m e m b e r s were a s k e d to participate in f o c u s groups to identify their opinions a n d pre fe rences . E a c h participant a lso comple ted a short survey with quest ions about their background a n d compute r exper ience . 3. Methodology T h i s project is a c a s e study b o u n d e d by t ime (two month data collection) a n d p lace (St6:l6 territory). T h i s project w a s d e v e l o p e d a s a structured inquiry. T h e r e s e a r c h quest ion w a s p o s e d . T h e two websi tes were d e v e l o p e d to test the quest ion . F o c u s g r o u p s a n d short surveys provide the data for ana lys is . Finally, observat ions were e x p a n d e d b e y o n d the speci f ic g roups to include c o m p a r i s o n s with the genera l public where avai lable. F o c u s g roups were c o n s i d e r e d the most appropriate method to: 1) obtain information; 2) provide flexibility to both participants and moderators ; 3) study a g e a n d g e n d e r 4) work with peop le of differing technological skills; a n d 5) attain f e e d b a c k from marginal ized p e o p l e s . 9 Marginal ized and/or co lon ized p e o p l e s are reclaiming their rightful p lace in history by d e m a n d i n g to be heard . F o c u s g r o u p s provide a culturally appropriate method for eliciting information f rom marginal ized populat ions b e c a u s e I think that they create a n envi ronment c loses t to traditional Indigenous d i s c u s s i o n s within W e s t e r n methodolog ies , a n d are c o n d u c i v e to the shar ing a n d e x c h a n g e of ideas . S h a r i n g c i rc les, a s u s e d by G o u d r e a u (2006), are appropriate, espec ia l ly in c i r c u m s t a n c e s involving sensit ive material a s they are culturally def ined methods . However , not all Indigenous peop le c h o o s e to u s e this method of r e s e a r c h . F o c u s g roups provide a great potential for vo ic ing a wide range of perspect ives a n d al low people to give their own point of view, without being led by a set pattern of quest ions . S o m e participants have their m e m o r i e s triggered by other s p e a k e r s a n d are ab le to u s e these ideas a s s tepp ing-s tones to participate m o r e fully. T h i s often takes them in directions that were not ant icipated. T h r e e f o c u s groups were c o n v e n e d . F o c u s g roups often involve professional modera tors . However , this w a s not poss ib le d u e to funding constraints. A profess ional moderator m a y c la im objectivity for a project. T h e main r e a s o n for us ing f o c u s groups is to elicit subt le h idden a n s w e r s (Fowler Jr . 1995). A c k n o w l e d g i n g m y inexper ience, I modera ted two of the f o c u s g r o u p s with a co l l eague , Ditta C r o s s , ( B A B E d ) , acting a s recorder . T h e third f o c u s group w a s modera ted a n d recorded by Ditta C r o s s , a n Innu/Mohawk who a g r e e d to help a n d w a s invaluable in mak ing communi ty m e m b e r s feel m o r e comfortable with the a c a d e m i c p r o c e s s . I bel ieve the Indigenous ancest ry of Ditta a n d mysel f m a y have led to the overal l comfort level felt by participants. T h e f o c u s group methods e m p l o y e d were der ived from the Focus Group Kit (Morgan et al . 1998), a ser ies of instructional texts. F o c u s g roups e n a b l e d i s c u s s i o n of m o r e than o n e i s s u e . In addit ion, giving participants the opportunity to formulate thoughts prior to the actual f o c u s group k e e p s the g roup g r o u n d e d , a n d a c k n o w l e d g e s that participants h a v e a certain a m o u n t of control over information (Morgan et al . 1998). F o c u s g roups are a lso a g o o d w a y of getting to know a n d s h a r e information. T h e flexible quest ioning style of f o c u s groups a c k n o w l e d g e s m o r e d iverse a n d interesting d ia logue than c l o s e d quest ions (Morgan et al . 1998). T h i s w a s c o n s i d e r e d a more appropr iate w a y of gaug ing attitudes towards the two webs i tes . Further, d ivergent thoughts e m e r g e naturally w h e n the format of the f o c u s group is kept informal a n d inviting. In a previous r e s e a r c h project us ing interview s e s s i o n s in St6:l6 Nat ion territory (Lafleur 2003), s o m e informants stated that survey quest ions: (1) m a d e peop le feel that they w e r e not be ing l istened to; 10 (2) were s o m e t i m e s irrelevant a n d forced; a n d (3) did not permit participants to control the information that they s h a r e d . T h e s e three statements are justification a lone for us ing f o c u s g roups . There fo re , only a smal l survey w a s u s e d to col lect more personal data o n individuals, which w a s administered prior to the start of the f o c u s group. T h e initial r esearch plan w a s to involve only peop le of St6:lo d e s c e n t . However , it s o o n b e c a m e c lear that this w a s too c l o s e d a concept . M a n y r e s e r v e s include peop le f rom other Indigenous communi t ies , a s well a s non- Indigenous peop le w h o work, live in, a n d are an integral part of the network a n d m a k e u p of the communi ty . T h e participants in this project had a wide range of educat ion a n d lived in St6:lo traditional territory. T h e r e were two major alterations to the original research plan: 1) T h e St6:l6 Nat ion went through political restructuring in A u g u s t of 2004, splitting into two main g r o u p s : St6:l6 Nation a n d St6:lo Tribal C o u n c i l . A s a result of the c h a n g i n g political l a n d s c a p e , I d e c i d e d to dea l directly with b a n d s geographica l ly c loses t in proximity to the Spirit C a m p archaeo log ica l site: Scowl i tz First Nat ion, a n d C h e h a l i s First Nat ion. However , this d o e s necessar i l y imply that t h e s e b a n d s w e r e the most involved throughout the p r o c e s s . 2) T h e original r e s e a r c h had intended to look at severa l g roups div ided by a g e . However , after severa l months of p h o n e cal ls , e -mai ls and m o r e political c h a n g e o v e r s , it b e c a m e c lear that I would h a v e to f o c u s on local s c h o o l s , a s well a s Lalems Ye Siyolexwe ( H o u s e of E lders) at St6:lo Nat ion. T h i s a l lowed the study to include youths, adults and E lders . In the e n d , three f o c u s groups were facilitated with the C h e h a l i s C o m m u n i t y S c h o o l , the St6:lo Educa t ion Cent re , a n d the Lalems Ye Siyolexwe ( H o u s e of E lders ) . 3.1. Websites 3.1.1. The Heron Site T h e Heron Site is structured to take the reader o n a journey. It has an an imated introduction with a heron (red, white a n d black) f ishing o n a dark blue a n d black b a c k g r o u n d with river audio ( s e e F igure 1 -A p p e n d i x B) . E a c h p a g e of the Heron Site fills the s c r e e n . T h e p a g e s are blue with white writing a n d a brown h e a d e r (Figure 2 - A p p e n d i x B). G r a p h i c s a n d d e s i g n s are u s e d to control the websi te envi ronment , creating a linear (chronological) interaction with the websi te w h e r e b y the viewer c a n only a c c e s s o n e p a g e at a time. T h e a b s e n c e of a pull d o w n m e n u on e a c h p a g e s e r v e s to k e e p v iewers in 11 the sect ion a n d is d e s i g n e d to f o c u s e s their attention o n the content. For representat ive Heron Site s a m p l e p a g e s s e e A p p e n d i x B. Moreover , there is little potential for the viewer to get s idetracked by other information. T h e Heron Site u s e s Arial 15pt font for m o s t of its text a n d 20pt P a p y r u s font for the h e a d e r s , which m a k e s the text large a n d readab le . 3.1.2. The River Site T h e River Site h a s minimal g raph ics , most evident in the h o m e p a g e - F igure 3 (see A p p e n d i x B - for m o r e e x a m p l e s of p a g e s f rom this website) . T h e River Site a l lows the viewer to skip sect ions . T h e b a c k g r o u n d is s tone grey a n d there are no mov ing graph ics . T h e text font s i z e in the River Site var ies a n d u s e s Dreamweaver default pixel a n d percentage m e a s u r e s rather than point font. T h e first p a g e u s e s Arial 12 pixels font (roughly the s a m e s i ze a s 9pt font); the following p a g e s u s e Arial 8 0 % font (basical ly smal ler text); the h e a d e r s are Arial - bold 1 1 4 % (bigger than 12pt font); a n d the m a s t h e a d is 100 pixels (a larger header , c a . half a n inch high d e p e n d i n g o n s c r e e n s ize) . T h e River Site h a s two m e n u s , o n e at the top, a n d o n e on the left h a n d s ide of the s c r e e n . T h e r e are few graph ics ; instead the f o c u s is on the text a n d photos . Mobility is relatively unrestricted a n d the viewer c a n switch from sect ion to sect ion with e a s e . T h i s websi te conta ins the exact s a m e text content, including the spel l ing errors (which had not b e e n corrected at the t ime of the f o c u s groups) , a s the Heron Site. 3.1.3. Comparison of the River and Heron Websites T h e m o s t obv ious dif ference between the River and Heron Sites is in v iewer interaction. F o r this project, "Interactive" is def ined a s : the d e g r e e to which two or more communica t ion parties c a n act o n e a c h other, o n the communica t ion m e d i u m , a n d on the m e s s a g e s a n d the d e g r e e to which s u c h inf luences are s y n c h r o n i z e d (Liu a n d S h r u m 2002: 2). Neither websi te c a n b e classi f ied a s highly interactive, a s neither requires input f rom the viewer. Rather the f o c u s is on what c a n be te rmed navigational interactivity (links, m e n u s , animat ions, v ideo cl ips - all pass ive ) . E x a m p l e s of high interactivity could include a "talk to the archaeologist" sect ion (functional 12 interactivity), or a sect ion where viewer c h o i c e s c h a n g e the o u t c o m e (adaptive interactivity) (see M c D a v i d 2 0 0 0 : 1 6 5 ) . I c o n s i d e r the Heron Site a m e d i u m interactivity site. A n e x a m p l e of this level of interactivity is the "Explore the Dig" sect ion , where the v iewer exp lores different layers of the excavat ion a n d in situ artifacts by cl icking on different parts of the dig (see F igures 4 a n d 5 in A p p e n d i x B) . T h e River Site, in contrast, is c o n s i d e r e d a low interactivity site, s i n c e the v iewer only reads a n d looks at pictures. F igure 6 (in A p p e n d i x B) s h o w s part of the "Explore the Dig" sect ion from the River Site. T h e p a g e is photo h e a v y a n d the only poss ib le visitor interaction is p a g e scrol l ing. T h u s , while the dig sect ion is highlighted in the Heron Site, it b lends into the River Site. Ano ther a s p e c t of interactivity in the Heron Site is the w a y it r e a d s like a story, w h e r e a s the River Site is s e g m e n t e d into sec t ions . T h e Heron Site a l so has larger text than the River Site. Whi le , there are more p a g e s in the Heron Site, they are shorter in length. T h e River Site has a top a n d left navigation bar, w h e r e a s the Heron Site has navigation buttons located at the bottom of e a c h page . T h e Heron Site buttons allow o n e to d o less a n d often direct you the viewer to m o v e forward, rather than al lowing constant sect ion c h a n g e s . T h e Heron Site h a s a b a l a n c e between text a n d white s p a c e , w h e r e a s the River Site has an obv ious imba lance be tween text a n d white s p a c e with text predominant . T h e s e d e s i g n di f ferences were purposeful ly s e l e c t e d to investigate the quest ion of how two webs i tes , identical in text -based content, yet visually very different, affect viewer percept ions of the site. 3.2. Participants T h r e e f o c u s g r o u p s were held. F o c u s G r o u p A cons is ted of 13-15 year olds attending the C h e h a l i s C o m m u n i t y S c h o o l ; F o c u s G r o u p B c o m p r i s e d adults 18-49 years old at the St6:lo E d u c a t i o n Cent re ; a n d F o c u s G r o u p C m e m b e r s were from the Lalems Ye Siyolexwe a n d were between 58-79 years o ld . All participants rece ived a smal l gift (a m u g with a s a l m o n motif d e s i g n e d by Hais la artist Ly le Wi lson ) a n d a s n a c k . A total of 31 (16 f e m a l e s a n d 15 ma les ) subjects participated in this study, and 27 (15 f e m a l e s and 12 males ) of them comple ted the survey. H o w e v e r , o n e individual w h o comple ted the s u r v e y is n o n -Indigenous, a n d h a s b e e n d ropped f rom the ana lys is . T h e s e three f o c u s groups were del ivered in slightly different w a y s to the participants. However , e a c h f o c u s group m e m b e r rece ived the survey quest ionnaire prior to the group meet ing . T h e C h e h a l i s C o m m u n i t y S c h o o l group ( F o c u s G r o u p A ) v iewed the websi tes for o n e hour in their compute r c l a s s two d a y s prior to the f o c u s group. T h i s a l lowed the youths to explore the websi tes at their own p a c e a n d a l lowed the teacher to prepare them to participate in a compare /cont ras t d ia logue. A 13 c o m m o n f o c u s group pract ice is to review s o m e of the results with the group prior to departure . Unfortunately, this w a s not poss ib le , a s the f o c u s group had a l ready taken up the entire hour allotted for the d i s c u s s i o n . T h e St6:lo Educa t ion C e n t r e G r o u p ( F o c u s G r o u p B) did not v iew the websi tes prior to the focus group. T h e adults spent 20 minutes looking at e a c h website , after which they c a m e together to d i s c u s s the websi tes for a total of about o n e hour a n d 15 minutes. Limited compute r availability (due to Internet connect ion difficulties) resulted in s o m e adults pairing up to look at the websi tes . T i m e constraints restricted this group 's a c c e s s to the webs i tes . A t the e n d of the f o c u s group, f e e d b a c k w a s provided a s to how F o c u s G r o u p B a n s w e r s c o m p a r e d to t h o s e of F o c u s G r o u p A . T h e Lalems Ye Siyolexwe ( H o u s e of E lders ) from St6:l6 Nation ( F o c u s G r o u p C ) did not view the websi tes a h e a d of t ime, a s the receptionist a d v i s e d that few E lders had h o m e computers . A s there were no computers in the a s s i g n e d r o o m , the webs i tes were presented in PowerPo in t format. T h e River Si te w a s read to the E lders , a s the smal l text s i z e w a s not visible e v e n with the L C D projector. T h e f o c u s group took approximately two hours from start to f inish. Further, the moderator real ized that the reading of the site w a s n e c e s s a r y to a c c o m m o d a t e o n e gen t l eman who w a s go ing blind. N o f e e d b a c k w a s g iven to the E lders at the e n d , a s it w a s not m a d e c lear to the moderator that this shou ld occur . 3.3. Research Methods 3.3.1. Survey Questionnaire T h e quest ionnaire w a s div ided into two sec t ions: B a c k g r o u n d Information a n d C o m p u t e r E x p e r i e n c e . It w a s d e s i g n e d to take five to ten minutes to comple te , which w a s a c c o m p l i s h e d . T w o slightly different quest ionnai res w e r e u s e d in this study. G r o u p A rece ived the survey form in A p p e n d i x C - V e r s i o n 1, a n d G r o u p s B a n d C rece ived the s u r v e y in A p p e n d i x C - V e r s i o n 2. C h a n g e s to the quest ionnaire were m a d e following prel iminary ana lys is of r e s p o n s e s f rom F o c u s G r o u p A . In the Background Information sect ion Q u e s t i o n 7 " D o you bel ieve that you h ave a higher than a v e r a g e interest in the subject of a rchaeology /h is tory? Y e s or No" w a s a d d e d to the two later f o c u s groups to help determine peop les ' genera l interest in a r c h a e o l o g y . In the Computer Experience sec t ion , F o c u s G r o u p A results indicated that ques t ions 6 a n d 7 were unc lear a n d v a g u e . Q u e s t i o n 6 originally had a n error. It stated, "Do you u s e a L o w s p e e d or Hi s p e e d Internet se rv ice? Y e s or No" suggest ing that if o n e u s e d either L o w or Hi s p e e d , the r e s p o n s e would b e "yes", w h e n in actual fact, it w a s intended to identify which 14 type they u s e d . It was modif ied to differentiate m o r e clear ly between L o w a n d Hi s p e e d Internet: "Do you u s e a L o w s p e e d or Hi s p e e d Internet s e r v i c e ? L o w or Hi". Q u e s t i o n 7 originally a s k e d "Which websi te d o you prefer a n d why?" R e s p o n d e n t s a n s w e r e d with their favourite website , often a g a m e or m u s i c websi te . T h e intent w a s to ask , "Which of the two websi tes that you just v iewed did y o u prefer and why?" T h i s b e c a m e Q u es t i o n 8 in the rev ised survey. In addit ion, an extra quest ion w a s a d d e d , a s a new Q u e s t i o n 7: "Do you feel that you h ave a higher than a v e r a g e interest in the Internet a n d W e b surf ing? Y e s or No." It w a s a s k e d to determine the users ' percept ions of their compute r skills. 3.3.2. Focus Group Questions T h e quest ions presented to e a c h f o c u s group are listed in T a b l e 1. F o c u s G r o u p A rece ived quest ions 1-6 a n d F o c u s G r o u p s B a n d C rece ived quest ions 1-8. A s with the survey , two quest ions were a d d e d to increase clarity, minimize misunders tand ing , a n d r e - e m p h a s i z e s o m e of the earlier quest ions. T a b l e 1. F o c u s group quest ions . 1. W h a t d o you like about the two w e b s i t e s ? 2. W h a t d o you dislike about the two w e b s i t e s ? 3. W h a t d o you s e e a s the differences/similarit ies between the two s i t es? 4. W h a t w a s o n e thing that you learned from e a c h si te? 5. W e d e s i g n e d these two sites to be very different a n d are only go ing to h a v e the opportunity to put o n e of these websi tes up . W h i c h would you prefer to s e e put u p ? 6. W e are trying to unders tand how to m a k e websi tes of interest to St6:l6 a n d to other First Nat ions. W h a t adv ice d o you h a v e for u s ? 7. D o you think a r c h a e o l o g y websi tes are relevant in St6:lo Terr i tory? 8. D o you feel that you c o u l d h ave learnt m o r e from the w e b s i t e s ? If s o , h o w ? 4. Results: Survey & Focus Groups 4.1. Survey Questionnaire Results T h i s sect ion presents the results of the survey . T a b l e 2 presents b a c k g r o u n d information; T a b l e 3 lists computer exper ience . T h e tables include additional f o c u s group information, s i n c e s o m e participants were transitory a n d did not comple te the survey . T h e effect is most not iceable in regards to participant n u m b e r s , which d o not f luctuate in T a b l e 2, but vary in the text. T h e smal l s i z e of the s a m p l e did not allow for valid tests of statistical s igni f icance. T h e f o c u s g roup results d o not h a v e discrete numbers a s it w a s often quite difficult to count h e a d s during the actual s e s s i o n s . P e r c e n t a g e s ca lcu la ted where poss ib le . However , in the a b s e n c e of s u c h data rank va lues (few = less then 2 5 % of participants, s o m e = between 2 5 % a n d 5 0 % , m a n y = be tween 5 0 % a n d 7 5 % , m o s t =more than 75%) are u s e d to des ignate the relative 15 number of peop le who agreed or d i s a g r e e d with a statement. T h e results for the three f o c u s groups (youth, adults, a n d Elders) are d i s c u s s e d in s u c c e s s i o n . T a b l e 2. F o c u s group participants' b a c k g r o u n d information. Background information Group A Group B Group C n % n % n % 1. G e n d e r M a l e 6 5 5 % 4 6 7 % 5 5 0 % F e m a l e 5 4 5 % 2 3 3 % 5 5 0 % 2. A g e (years) 13-15 11 100% 18-39 1 1 7 % 40-50 5 8 3 % 50-69 5 5 0 % 70-79 2 2 0 % 3 - N A 3 3 0 % 3. Cultural background Indigenous 11 1 0 0 % 5 8 3 % 10 1 0 0 % C a u c a s i a n 1 1 7 % 4. L a n g u a g e s p o k e n at h o m e Engl ish Carr ier 11 100% 6 1 100% 1 7 % 10 1 0 0 % H a l q ' e m e y l e m 1 1 0 % 5. Highest g r a d e of educat ion G r a d e 7 11 100% E l H i 1 4 6 7 % 3 3 0 % Col lege /Univers i ty N A 2 3 3 % 3 4 3 0 % 4 0 % 6. H o w H a v e you learned about H i s t o r y ? 2 Elders/ fami ly 10 9 0 % 4 6 7 % 10 1 0 0 % M u s e u m s 3 2 7 % 3 5 0 % 2 2 0 % S c h o o l s / T e a c h e r 6 5 5 % 3 5 0 % 5 5 0 % Cultural centers 2 1 8 % 2 3 3 % 3 3 0 % Archaeo log ica l excavat ion 0 0 % 1 1 7 % 3 3 0 % T V 1 9 % 3 5 0 % 3 3 0 % B o o k s 1 9 % 3 5 0 % 4 4 0 % M a g a z i n e s 0 0 % 2 3 3 % 4 4 0 % W e b s i t e s 3 2 7 % 1 1 7 % 3 3 0 % Other 1 9 % 2 3 3 % 0 0 % 7. Higher than a v e r a g e interest in a r c h a e o l o g y /history ? Not Co l l ec ted 3 - y e s 5 0 % 6 - y e s 60 Not Co l l ec ted 3 - n o 5 0 % 3 - no 4 0 % 1 Elementary and High school (ElHi) 2 Percentages for Question 6 add up to more than 100% as respondents listed multiple choices. 16 Table 3. Focus group participants' computer experience. Computer Experience Group A Group B Group C n % n % n % 1. Do you own a computer? Yes 4 36% 4 67% 5 50% No 7 64% 2 33% 5 50% 2. Do you use your own computer or any computer regularly? Yes 8 73% 5 83% 6 60% No 3 27% 1 17% 4 40% 2b. If yes, what do you use your computer for?3 Entertainment (music & games) 6 55% 3 33% 2 20% Work 0 0% 2 17% 3 30% Research 2 18% 2 33% 3 30% No response 4 36% 3 50% 6 60% 3. Do you use the Internet? Yes 11 100% 4 67% 4 40% No 0 0% 2 33% 6 60% 4. About how much time do you spend on the Internet each week? Under 3 hours 4 36% 2 33% 3 30% 3 to 9 hours 2 18% 0 0% 2 2% Over 9 hours 2 18% 2 33% 0 0% No Response 3 27% 1 17% 5 50% 5. What tasks do you use the Internet for?4 e-mail 3 27% 1 17% 0 0% Research 5 45% 5 83% 1 10% Entertainment 8 73% 2 33% 0 0% Work/school 0 0% 2 33% 2 20% 6. Do you use a Low speed or Hi speed Internet service? Low or Hi LOW speed 0 0% 3 50% 1 10% HI speed 11 100% 2 33% 3 30% None/NA 0 0% 1 17% 6 60% 7. Do you feel that you have a higher than average interest in the Internet and Web surfing? Yes or No Yes Not Collected 2 33% 2 20% No Not Collected 4 67% 6 60% None/NA Not Collected 0 2 20% 8. Which of the two websites that you just viewed did you prefer and why? (info from focus group & survey compiled) Heron Site 9 82% 4 67% 6 60% River Site 2 18% 2 33% 2 20% NA 0 0% 0 0% 2 20% 4.1.1. Group A: Chehalis Community School This group of 11 Indigenous participants from a grade 7/8 class consisted of six males and five females between ages 13-15. English was the main language spoken at home. Ten of eleven students indicated Percentages for Questions 2b and 5 add up to more than 100% as respondents listed multiple uses or tasks. 4 The replies for research/school differ between questions 2b and 5 — this may be due to participants having different understandings of the terms "use" and "task." 17 Elders in r e s p o n s e to the quest ion "where h a v e y o u learned about your history?" T h i s demonst ra tes the cont inued importance of E lders in Indigenous communi t ies a s s o u r c e s of knowledge about the past . T h e s e c o n d highest r e s p o n s e w a s schoo l a n d teachers with six of e leven respond ing affirmatively. T h i s illustrates that educators (whether formal or informal) are important in the l ives of youths. A l though the quest ion "Do you feel that you have a higher than a v e r a g e interest in the Internet a n d w e b surf ing?" w a s not a s k e d of this group, n o n e of the students had a problem finding the two websi tes . T h e s e youth were obviously adept at us ing the Internet. R e s p o n s e s to "which of the two websi tes that you just v iewed did you prefer a n d why?" demonst ra te why this quest ion was c h a n g e d for s u b s e q u e n t f o c u s g roups . T h e a n s w e r s fell into three main websi te categor ies: mus ic , g a m e s , and r e s e a r c h . N o n e of the r e s p o n s e s referred to the Heron or the River websi tes . H o w e v e r , the answer to this quest ion e m e r g e d dur ing the focus group, with nine of e leven students (81 %) preferring the Heron Site. 4.1.2. Group B: St6:l6 Education Centre T h e s e c o n d group c o n s i s t e d of six full-time participants, four m a l e s a n d two f e m a l e s . O n e ma le w a s n o n -Indigenous. Four other individuals c a m e and went during the f o c u s group, c a u s i n g fluctuations in the n u m b e r of participants. A s a result, the number of r e s p o n s e s to the quest ions var ies. Part icipants' a g e s ranged 18-49, all except o n e were a g e d 40-49. Educa t ion level c o m p l e t e d var ied; however , all but o n e were enrol led in the Educa t ion Cent re . O n l y four a n s w e r e d the quest ion "where have you learned about your history (circle all that apply)?" a n d all listed E lders and family. T h e majority (75%, 3 of 4) a l so stated m u s e u m s , s c h o o l , T V , a n d b o o k s . T h i s s u g g e s t s a wide range of s o u r c e s are be ing u s e d for attaining information about history in genera l . A n s w e r s to "do you feel that y o u have a higher than a v e r a g e interest in the subject of a rchaeology /h is tory? Y e s or No" w e r e split evenly a m o n g the six respondents . F o u r of the six G r o u p B participants o w n e d h o m e c o m p u t e r s , and five sa id they u s e d a c o m p u t e r o n a regular bas is . Overa l l , 6 7 % (4) preferred the Heron Site, a n d 2 0 % (1) did not provide an a n s w e r o n the s u r v e y quest ionnaire . 4.1.3. Group C: Lalems Ye Siyolexwe (House of Elders) G r o u p C cons is ted of ten St6:lo E lders , five m a l e s a n d five f e m a l e s , with an a g e range of 58-79 . All sa id they s p o k e Engl ish at h o m e normally, a n d o n e a l s o ment ioned s p e a k i n g H a l q ' e m e y l e m . In r e s p o n s e to 18 "where h a v e you learned about your history?" (see T a b l e 3) the pattern aga in s u g g e s t s that those interested in their history are likely to s e e k out a variety of m e d i a . It a l so demonst ra tes the impor tance of E lders a n d family within an Indigenous worldview. W h e n a s k e d "do you feel that you have a higher than a v e r a g e interest in the subject of archaeology/h is tory?" 6 0 % of the participants indicated a higher than a v e r a g e interest in the subject . F ive participants (50%) had h o m e computers , while another (10%) h a d regular a c c e s s to a computer . O n l y 4 0 % stated they u s e d the Internet, but 5 0 % g a v e r e s p o n s e s for actual ly s p e n d i n g time on the Internet. T h i s group had a slightly higher interest in a r c h a e o l o g y (60%) than their u s a g e of the Internet (40-50%). In r e s p o n s e to "which of the two websi tes that you just v iewed did you prefer a n d why?" eight did not provide an answer on the s u r v e y quest ionnaire . However , w h e n a s k e d during the focus group , wh ich of the two websi tes they preferred, two c h o s e the River Site, six preferred the Heron Site, and two were not avai lable having s t e p p e d outs ide the r o o m . 4.2. Focus Group Results T h e a n s w e r s to the f o c u s group quest ions (see T a b l e 1) often c a m e about in a roundabout way , poss ib ly d u e to the quest ioning style of the nov ice moderators , or possibly b e c a u s e participants did not s e e the quest ion a s important to t h e m . G r o u p A a n d B participants f o c u s e d on likes a n d disl ikes about the two webs i tes (quest ions 1 a n d 2) a n d found it quite e a s y to talk about the similarities a n d di f ferences (quest ion 3). All participants f rom the first two groups stated that they had a n d cou ld learn (quest ion 4 a n d 8) someth ing from the websi te a n d that the websi tes were about St6:l6 culture. A m o r e in-depth testing m e c h a n i s m would be n e e d e d to identify whether someth ing w a s learned or not. Q u e s t i o n 5, regard ing "Which websi te would you like to s e e put up?" w a s r e s p o n d e d in favour of o n e websi te , the Heron Site, al though, there w a s s o m e indecis ion a m o n g s t the younger fema le participants to be d i s c u s s e d m o r e fully in the F o c u s G r o u p A results. Part icipants r e s p o n d e d to giving adv ice (question 6) in an intriguing fash ion , a s they s u g g e s t e d that e v e n if they t h e m s e l v e s were not personal ly interested in viewing t h e s e webs i tes , others in the communi ty and /or other Indigenous communi t ies would be , a n d that the information provided w a s important. Q u e s t i o n 7 on re levance was a s k e d in F o c u s G r o u p s B a n d C , a n d the majority thought that the websi te would b e relevant in their territory. F e w stated they cou ld necessar i ly h a v e learned more . T h e y had informative ideas o n how to improve the websi tes . 19 4.2.1. Group A: Chehalis Community School T h e first quest ion a s k e d during the f o c u s group w a s "What d o you like about the two webs i tes?" T h e students liked the Heron Site's "animated stuff', "stuff moving", "cultural stuff', "pictures", "boats, z o o m i n g boats," "zooming buttons, sub-but tons," "background, logo," "cool d iagrams", a long with the "info," "lots of exploring," "lots of digging.", "few words." S tudents were in agreement (95%) with the participants w h o m a d e these statements . T h e s e pre fe rences c a n be divided into three major categor ies: information, graphics a n d technology. Mos t s ta tements (90%) involved graphics or technology, few (10%) related directly to information. T h e s e c o n d quest ion a s k e d w a s "What d o you dislike about the two webs i tes?" S o m e r e s p o n d e r s (i.e., 25 - 50%) sa id "lots of digging - kind of bland," "I don't like those buttons," "I don't like the window delay", a n d "archaeo logy looks boring". In s o m e c a s e s , I recorded the number of students who r e s p o n d e d affirmatively to a statement. However , there were m a n y quest ions where I w a s unab le to monitor the prec ise level of a g r e e m e n t or d isagreement within the group. Mos t (over 75%), if not all, students tended to a g r e e with e a c h other. T h e students often freely volunteered information. Dur ing the d i s c u s s i o n of quest ion two o n e student volunteered that he liked the co lours "black, red and white" a n d all the other students a g r e e d . R e d w a s their preferred t h e m e colour for the website , a l though neither of the sites had a red theme . T h e third quest ion a s k e d , "What d o you s e e a s the differences/similarit ies between the two si tes?" All noted that the River Site pictures were g o o d . S ta tements given about the River Site were that "it w a s about Nat ive culture," "links click on right to paragraph", "the h o u s e stuff', "better with menu" , a n d it w a s "cleaner - m o r e detail." A t least 8 0 % of the participants a g r e e d with e a c h of these statements . T w o girls sa id they thought, "The whole websi te w a s good . " All students disl iked the fact that there were "too m a n y words", a n d "felt that it n e e d e d m o r e colour, a n d m o r e pictures." C o m m e n t s about the Heron Site included that "we like the birdie," "the birdie is better," "needs colour," a n d "we like the h o u s e stuff'. T h e fourth quest ion "What w a s the o n e thing that you learned from e a c h of the si tes?" w a s not p o s e d , a s w e ran out of our allotted t ime. However , the students did mention that the River Site "was about Native culture," suggest ing they learned someth ing . Ques t ion 5 states " W e d e s i g n e d these two sites to be very different a n d are only go ing to h a v e the opportunity to put o n e of t h e s e websi tes up . W h i c h would you prefer to s e e put up?" T h e initial r e s p o n s e w a s that s e v e n of the e leven participants preferred the Heron Site; however , two of the f e m a l e participants c h a n g e d their r e s p o n s e s . T h u s , the final tally w a s nine of the e leven participants stated that they preferred to s e e "the birdie" (Heron Site) up on 20 the Internet. T h e sixth quest ion states " W e are trying to unders tand how to m a k e websi tes of interest to St6:lo a n d to other First Nat ions. W h a t a d v i c e d o you h a v e for u s ? " T h i s quest ion w a s r e s p o n d e d to avidly. T h e students c o m m e n c e d by telling us what shou ld be a d d e d to both sites. D i s c u s s i o n f o c u s e d on the preferred Heron Site. T h e y r e c o m m e n d e d m u s i c in the b a c k g r o u n d , pe rhaps a w o m e n ' s warrior s o n g or d r u m m i n g . T h e y a lso thought that E lde rs , C h i e f s or "grandmas" talking would be a nice touch . O n e student felt the who le site shou ld b e narrated, s o that they would not have to read it. T h e inclusion of an an imated vers ion of S laha l (a gambl ing g a m e ) , a n d translations into their traditional l a n g u a g e (Ha lq 'emeylem) were a lso s u g g e s t e d . Al l s tudents wanted m o r e pictures and more graphics on the front page , s u c h a s "the c r a n e moving around more , m o r e birds up top, a n d m a y b e an eag le in the background." T h e final two f o c u s group quest ions 7 a n d 8 on re levance to St6:l6 a n d learning more , were not p o s e d at the t ime F o c u s G r o u p A w a s held. A l though neither quest ion w a s a s k e d in the f o c u s group, the students did m a k e statements sugges t ing affirmative r e s p o n s e s to both quest ions . Furthermore, three of the 11 students sa id they would have c h e c k e d the websi tes out o n their o w n , while the rest sa id that they s p e n d most of their t ime playing compute r g a m e s . 4.2.2. Group B: St6:l6 Education Centre T h e first quest ion a s k e d during the f o c u s g roup w a s "What d o y o u like about the two webs i tes?" fol lowed by "What d o you disl ike about the two webs i tes?" T h e s e two quest ions , however , were not kept discrete during the f o c u s group s e s s i o n and often m e r g e d into the third quest ion , "What d o you s e e a s the differences/similarit ies between the two s i tes?" Q u e s t i o n 3 w a s often u s e d a s a w a y of keep ing ideas distinct about the two sites. T h e Heron Site w a s preferred during the f o c u s group s e s s i o n by 75% (six of eight) of the participants. P e o p l e stated that it "was more professional ," "had more background detail", a n d g a v e the viewer "feelings of exploration". Part icipants stated that the "print s i z e w a s g o o d " b e c a u s e "their aunt ies would b e able to read it", "there w a s lots of colour", which s h o w e d "creativity", a n d the "pictures were funny". T h e "content w a s good-relat ively, fairly in-depth" accord ing to o n e participant. All thought the dig sect ion would be e n h a n c e d by the addition of buttons or information bubbles to tell you what to d o . T h i s w a s a n important construct ive cri t icism. F o c u s G r o u p B participants c o n s i d e r e d the River Site a g o o d v e n u e for quick, e a s y information. However , all felt it w a s "too chronological" . Further, they all a g r e e d that the River Site "does not h a v e 21 e n o u g h life; it w a s too stale" a n d that the "printing n e e d e d to b e larger" s o that their m o m s a n d g r a n d m a s could read it. Finally, they a d d e d that there w a s too m u c h text-"pages g o o n a n d on." Ques t ion 6, ' W e are trying to unders tand how to m a k e webs i tes of interest to St6:lo a n d to other First Nat ions. W h a t a d v i c e d o you have for us?" , elicited r e s p o n s e s which f o c u s e d on what they would a d d to the Heron Site. All s u g g e s t e d m u s i c but that it did not n e e d to b e thematic. Anyth ing from c lass ica l m u s i c to rap or traditional m u s i c and m a y b e e v e n "music v ideos" could work. T h e y sa id , whi le the content w a s g o o d , they wanted more detai led information, all a g r e e d . O n e participant noted, a n d the rest a g r e e d , that websi tes give "our y o u n g peop le a c c e s s to our culture, [which is] s o m e t i m e s miss[ed] growing up", a n d that "our culture is s h r o u d e d in mystery [and] websi tes help". T h i s led to further d i s c u s s i o n about how the websi te w a s "very user friendly.. . n ice c o l o u r . . . m a y b e . . . m o r e depth , but [overall it] c o v e r e d all the b a s e s . " Ques t ions 4 a n d 8 were unintentionally b lended into the following quest ion "What would you have liked to learn from the websi te , if there w a s someth ing you wanted to know about a r c h a e o l o g y - w a s it o n the site, or would you have wanted to know s o m e t h i n g e lse about a r c h a e o l o g y ? " O n e r e s p o n s e to this quest ion w a s that "I would have liked to s e e the actual dig ...I liked the graph ics of where you went down a little (the Explore the Dig section)." W h e n a s k e d the quest ion " W e d e s i g n e d these two sites to be very different a n d are only go ing to h a v e the opportunity to put o n e of these websi tes up. W h i c h would you prefer to s e e put up?" the r e s p o n s e s were clear ly in favour of the Heron Site. O ther r e s p o n d e n t s ment ioned that "there's a lot more on o n e p a g e , for the River," "I found . . . the information w a s valuable ." O n e respondent s a i d , "I didn't get to f inish it" a n d s u g g e s t e d 20 minutes to view a webs i te is too brief. In addit ion, an interesting d i s c u s s i o n a r o s e f rom this quest ion with o n e participant stating: Whi te society, I f ind w h e n they're read ing our culture, I don't think they're grasp ing the exact f lavour of what the Native peop le are today, a n d e v e n back then of what w e v a l u e . . . T h e y ' r e mystified by . . . the l o n g h o u s e or tipi c e r e m o n y . . . t h e y get s o involved that they don't real ize that w e pray, s ing a n d ce lebrate life. I don't think they g rasp that, b e c a u s e , a s Nat ives mysel f be ing in the white communi ty a n d having white f r iends a lot of t ime they're s c a r e d of the myst ical , they don't want to get to know our culture, I g u e s s it s c a r e s them, b e c a u s e it's s h r o u d e d in mystery and politics. T h e adults in particular s e e m e d quite keen o n be ing unders tood by outs iders , wh ich is why m a n y a g r e e d with this gent leman's d i s c u s s i o n . T h e participants s e e m e d to bel ieve that webs i tes could b e crea ted to 22 have a posit ive effect on their l ives a n d non- Indigenous peop les ' l ives. T h i s is quite interesting s i n c e websi tes t h e m s e l v e s tend to be s h r o u d e d in mystery (Zubrow 2006). It is important to take this kind of f e e d b a c k ser iously, b e c a u s e it reminds us that w e (archaeologists) still h a v e work to d o . Further it s u g g e s t s that websi tes are v iewed a s potentially useful tools for communica t ing to a u d i e n c e s inside a n d outs ide the communi ty . T h e final quest ion a s k e d w a s "Do you think a r c h a e o l o g y websi tes are relevant in St6:lo territory?" O n e r e s p o n s e w a s that "sure, y e s , in a n y territory, a s far a s Nat ive culture is c o n c e r n e d , I think it is very important, b e c a u s e it g ives our people , espec ia l ly our y o u n g p e o p l e a c c e s s to it, to what 's there - a n d they s o m e t i m e s m i s s this growing up". All participants a g r e e d with this statement. T h u s , a rchaeolog is ts shou ld be e n c o u r a g e d to create webs i tes . 4.2.3. Group C: Lalems Ye Siyolexwe (House of Elders) Six of the eight quest ions ( s e e T a b l e 1) were a s k e d during this f o c u s group. Q u e s t i o n s 4 a n d 8 o n learning a n d a r c h a e o l o g y were not a s k e d . T h e following are the informative a s p e c t s of the f o c u s group. Part icipants' r e s p o n s e s d o not necessar i ly conform to the quest ions a s k e d a n d there w a s s o m e departure f rom the quest ions . T h e E lders did not feel the n e e d or the inclination to d i s c u s s the websi tes , but definitely favoured the Heron Site. In r e s p o n s e to quest ion 1 "What d o you like about the two webs i tes?" or quest ion 2 "What d o you dislike about the two webs i tes?" s o m e E lders did not want to d i s c u s s the "sites" b e c a u s e they "don't bel ieve in the digs." I think this w a s probably a m iscommunica t ion a s it w a s not c lear that the quest ion a s k e d w a s in regard to the websi tes and not a rchaeo log ica l s i tes. O n e major suggest ion the E lders m a d e w a s to include stories about the d a n g e r s of do ing a r c h a e o l o g y f rom a spiritual perspect ive . O n e E lder told this story about a n a rchaeo log ica l site: .. . the archaeologis t got hit by a spirit. H e got k n o c k e d out co ld . T h e y took him into the hospital ; they didn't know what w a s wrong with h im. T h e y had to get a spiritual pe rson to revive h im. Th is is how d a n g e r o u s this [archaeology] is . . .our a n c e s t o r s were s o powerful that our spiritual healers today m a y not be ab le to revive a p e r s o n . [This] g u y [an archaeologist] w h o [was] bitten [by a spirit], before he got bit he s a w o n e of our ances tors and it w a s a warrior all d r e s s e d in bucksk ins and regal ia a n d he meant to kill this guy [the archaeologist ] . Tha t is why I'm say ing it's d a n g e r o u s what 's h a p p e n i n g a n d that is someth ing that the E lders [have] s e e n . T h e c a m e r a , this v ideo c a m e r a , to them it is a w e a p o n . S o he w a s protecting him[self], his power . O u r people w e r e warriors [and] this is 23 what warriors watching the batt leground [do], a n d they haven't s e e n c a m e r a s or anything a n d they're lucky they [the spirits] a l lowed these pictures to be taken. A l though this d i s c u s s i o n w a s initiated by o n e gent leman, there w a s a genera l a g r e e m e n t (over 75%) by all the E lders present . S o m e E lders tempered this by c o m m e n t i n g on their des i re to learn about a rchaeo logy . Relat ive to the other g r o u p s , there w a s no d i s c u s s i o n about technology (such a s i n c r e a s e d interactivity for e x a m p l e through m u s i c or colour), a l though all participants a g r e e d that websi tes are a g o o d w a y to get information to the youth. O n e E lder stated: W h e n I think of websi tes , the next generat ion that's the only w a y they are go ing to know, b e c a u s e of the technology n o w a d a y s . T h e r e aren't m a n y of us w h o tell a story a n y m o r e . S o how are they going to be ab le to know our ancestors , e x c e p t from b o o k s . W h e n a s k e d if this w a s a g o o d w a y to learn about culture a n d heritage, o n e E lder r e s p o n d e d "I think it is the only way." T h e E lders s u g g e s t e d there shou ld be "a m a p that s h o w s other si tes in St6:l6 territory, to g o o n t h e s e websites". T h e E l d e r s f o c u s e d on whether a r c h a e o l o g y shou ld be d o n e , by w h o m a n d for w h o m . T h e y a l s o a g r e e d with the E lder w h o stated that their peop le know: w h e r e there are more sites and burials but they don't want to d i s c l o s e it b e c a u s e they don't want to be interfered with, by a n y o n e e lse , a rchaeolog is ts or a n y b o d y e lse , s o nothing has b e e n sa id about it. I know s o m e of our peop le are aware of m o r e sites. T h i s quote reflects a distinct Indigenous perspect ive in regards to a rchaeo logy . A l though the r e s p o n s e s fell outs ide the f o c u s group quest ions , it would have b e e n disrespectful to direct the E l d e r s to a speci f ic topic of d i s c u s s i o n , w h e n they had their minds set on another . It is important to r e e m p h a s i z e that the E lders did r e s p o n d , albeit outs ide the boundar ies of the speci f ic quest ions . However , the m e s s a g e del ivered by the E lders w a s in s h a r p contrast to G r o u p s A a n d B. 5. Interpretations and Comparative Analysis T h e youth a n s w e r e d quest ions succinct ly a n d d i s c u s s e d the websi tes from a techno logy bas is . T h r e e individuals (from G r o u p s B & C ) not iced that the text of the webs i tes w a s the s a m e . F o c u s G r o u p B f o c u s e d o n typos a n d technological p rob lems . O n c e they determined (on their own) that the text w a s identical in both sites, they a b a n d o n e d the River Site. T h e E lders ( F o c u s G r o u p C ) did not have the opportunity to m o v e back a n d forth between the websi tes , but rather had the River Site read to them. 24 W h e n they d i s c o v e r e d that the text content w a s the s a m e , they greatly favoured the Heron Site with more colour a n d larger text. T h e s e features of the Heron Site m a k e it eas ier to read a n d m o r e user-fr iendly. T h e y paid little attention to the actual content of the website , but f o c u s e d on their percept ions of a rchaeo logy . A c c e s s to the websi tes w a s quite different f rom the other f o c u s groups; it w a s d o n e to provide comfort with the Internet a n d a c c o m m o d a t e o n e gent leman 's loss of sight. 5.1. Overall Preference T h e Heron site w a s preferred by 19 of the 2 4 5 (79%) participants (see T a b l e 4). T h o s e w h o preferred the River Site (5 of 24, 21 %) b a s e d their c h o i c e o n the ability to get the information they wanted without hav ing to g o through the whole website . T h o s e w h o preferred the Heron Site stated their p re ference a s related to interactivity a n d storytelling. P r e f e r e n c e rates varied insignificantly between the f o c u s g roups . Y o u t h s s h o w e d the highest preference for the Heron Site (82%). T h i s w a s fol lowed by adults (80%) a n d then E lders (75%). T a b l e 4. W e b s i t e p re fe rences by f o c u s group. H e r o n Site River Site Total n % N % n % F o c u s G r o u p A 9 8 2 % 2 18% 11 1 0 0 % F o c u s G r o u p B 4 8 0 % 1 2 0 % 5 1 0 0 % F o c u s G r o u p C 6 7 5 % 2 2 5 % 8 1 0 0 % Total 19 7 9 % 5 2 1 % 24 1 0 0 % Did the St6:l6 participants actually v iew o n e websi te a s more culturally appropriate, m o r e interesting, m o r e informative, more aesthetical ly p leas ing , a n d m o r e entertaining than the other? I s u g g e s t that they did o n all a c c o u n t s . T h e Heron Site w a s preferred for a n u m b e r of r e a s o n s . O n e r e a s o n w a s b e c a u s e it w a s presented in a storybook format, which they l inked to their oral tradition. In this w a y they s a w the Heron Site a s m o r e culturally appropr iate than the River Site. M o r e t ime w a s spent looking at the Heron Site, out of c h o i c e , the e n h a n c e d graph ics m a d e it more interesting, more informative, more aesthet ical ly p leas ing a n d m o r e entertaining - a l though participants did not a lways u s e these words . T h i s s u g g e s t s that peop le found the Heron Site m o r e e n g a g i n g . 5 The number of respondents discussed in this section is 24 (it excludes two Elders who did not respond or were unavailable to state their preferences and the one Caucasian male). Tables 4 to 8 reflect this exclusion. 25 5.2. Gender Differences T h e initial result for F o c u s G r o u p A w a s that 1 of 5 (20%) of the f e m a l e s preferred the Heron Site. However , two of the girls c h a n g e d their minds a n d the final result w a s that the Heron Site w a s preferred by 3 of 5 (60%) of the f e m a l e s in F o c u s G r o u p A ( s e e T a b l e 5). T h e r e are three possibilit ies for this c h a n g e : 1) there m a y have b e e n peer inf luence, 2) there m a y h a v e b e e n an initial indecis ion and /or 3) mistaken identity, c a u s e d by mixing up the two websi te n a m e s . I s u g g e s t that the most likely scenar io is a combinat ion of the three possibil i t ies. T a b l e 5. W e b s i t e p re fe rences by gender for F o c u s G r o u p s A and B. F e m a l e M a l e H e r o n Site River Si te H e r o n Site River Si te n % n % n % n % F o c u s G r o u p A 3 6 0 % 2 4 0 % 6 100% 0 0 % F o c u s G r o u p B 1 5 0 % 1 5 0 % 3 1 0 0 % 0 0 % Total 4 5 7 % 3 4 3 % 9 1 0 0 % 0 0 % T h e s e c h a n g e s in pre ference m a y hav e b e e n el iminated if quest ion 8 "Which websi te did you prefer a n d why?" o n the survey quest ionnaire (Appendix - C V e r s i o n 1) had b e e n c learer . F o c u s g roups create different d y n a m i c s . Part icipants are often inf luenced by others. T h e interaction factor is o n e of m a n y r e a s o n s f o c u s groups are va luable , s ince they demonst ra te group d y n a m i c s a n d represent the w a y Indigenous peop le often r e a c h dec is ions , by group c o n s e n s u s . G r o u p B f e m a l e s were split evenly with o n e participant preferring e a c h websi te . Unfortunately, the distribution result for ma le / fema le pre ference w a s not noted for G r o u p C . A s it could not b e determined, G r o u p C is e x c l u d e d from the following d i s c u s s i o n . Merg ing F o c u s G r o u p s A a n d B s h o w s 5 7 % of f e m a l e s preferred the Heron Site a n d 4 3 % preferred the River Site. T h i s s u g g e s t s a marginal p re ference for the Heron Site f rom the perspect ive of f e m a l e participants. If w e m e r g e the g e n d e r ratios for F o c u s G r o u p s A & B (see T a b l e 6), w e get a c lear pattern of g e n d e r d i f ferences. T h e results s h o w a 4 to 3 pre ference for the Heron Site a m o n g s t f ema les . H o w e v e r , the m a l e pre ferences clearly d isplay a different pattern with all n ine (100%) preferring the Heron Site. T a b l e 6. W e b s i t e p re fe rences by g e n d e r for F o c u s G r o u p s A a n d B c o m b i n e d . M a l e F e m a l e Tota ls n % n % n % River Si te 0 0 % 3 4 3 % 3 1 9 % H e r o n Si te 9 1 0 0 % 4 5 7 % 13 8 1 % Tota ls 9 1 0 0 % 7 100% 16 1 0 0 % 26 T h u s there is a marked dif ference in m a l e a n d f e m a l e p re fe rences of the webs i tes . T h e s e results c o m p a r e with r e s e a r c h d o n e by S i m o n (2001) and S a u n d e r s (2005), who demonst ra te di f ferences between f e m a l e a n d ma le websi te pre ferences . A s S i m o n d i s c u s s e s : F e m a l e s (52%) s u g g e s t e d that sites mak ing u s e of pul l -down m e n u s are eas ie r to navigate than those with levels that require them to click through to a c h i e v e their object ives. M a l e s , on the other hand , indicate that si tes mak ing extensive u s e of graphics a n d animated objects are clear ly their p re ference (77%) (S imon 2001:30). F e m a l e (43%) pre ference of the River Site (with a pul l -down menu) , w h e r e a s S i m o n ' s results found that 5 2 % of f e m a l e s prefer sites with m e n u s . S i m o n ' s results s h o w that f e m a l e s (48%) prefer extensive u s e of graphics a n d an imated objects (2001: 30), w h e r e a s this project s h o w s that 5 7 % of f e m a l e s preferred this type of site. T h i s is really a 50-50 split in pre ference . However , the n u m b e r s here a p p e a r to be slightly reversed . S i m o n has a slight minority for preferring g r a p h i c s , w h e r e a s this s tudy s h o w s a slight majority (see T a b l e 7). T h i s s u g g e s t s that in this study there is a slight di f ference between the genera l public a n d St6:lo participants in the f e m a l e participants. T a b l e 7. M a l e and f e m a l e p re fe rences of graphical ly e n h a n c e d / a n i m a t e d sites M a l e s F e m a l e s G r a p h i c L o w - G r a p h i c G r a p h i c L o w - G r a p h i c S i m o n (2001) results 7 7 % 3 3 % 4 8 % 5 2 % T h i s Projects results 1 0 0 % 0 % 5 7 % 4 3 % T h e u n a n i m o u s ma le pre ference for the H e r o n Site s h o w s an e v e n stronger pre ference for graphical ly e n h a n c e d site than the 7 7 % ma le preference for sites with extensive u s e of g raph ics and an imated objects reported by S i m o n (2001). T h u s , webs i tes with extensive graphics m a y h a v e a ma le bias that d o e s not satisfy the n e e d s or wants of f e m a l e v iewers . T h e s e f indings c o r r e s p o n d to N ie lsen (1999), w h o s u g g e s t s that fema le v iewers are m o r e conservat ive w e b browsers . Th is indicates a n e e d for alternative websi te formats for e a c h gender . 5.3. Linear vs. Non-Linear Preferences F o c u s G r o u p A felt the Heron Site w a s too chronologica l a n d directed (i.e., the browser could not skip p a g e s a s easily). N ie lsen (1999) d i s c u s s e s the impor tance of s tandard ized sites for c o n s i s t e n c y s o Internet u s e r s feel m o r e at e a s e w h e n browsing. T h e students demonstra te this s o m e w h a t through their perspect ives that the Heron Site w a s too chronolog ica l ; this m a y relate to the youths' inc reased familiarity 27 with websi tes in genera l , and that the River Site c a n b e s e e n a s a s tandard ized site. Thei r r e s p o n s e s s u g g e s t those less familiar with the Internet in genera l , a n d with the s tandard w e b p a g e , m a y find the Heron Site m o r e visually p leas ing , a s they s e e it without the bias of yea rs of browsing. In contrast, G r o u p B found the River Site to be "too chronologica l . " T h e r e is a c o m p l e t e reversal of wh ich site is c lassi f ied a s chronological between F o c u s G r o u p s A a n d B, this could b e a n a g e - b a s e d di f ference in percept ion, where adults are possib ly not a s Internet s a v v y a s the youth. A l though, both g r o u p s differed in which websi te they s a w a s too chronologica l they did not differ in websi te preference. G r o u p A preferred the Heron Site (82%) by a very strong majority. F o c u s G r o u p B liked the directionality of the Heron Site (67%), a s it took them on a journey a n d had more of a storytelling e lement . W h a t d o e s it m e a n for a websi te to b e "too chronolog ica l?" T h e a n s w e r d e p e n d s on how participants u s e the term chronologica l . Both F o c u s G r o u p s A a n d B had participants w h o stated that o n e of the websi tes w a s "too chronologica l ." Al l other participants in the two groups a g r e e d with this statement. All websi tes are created in a linear fash ion , al lowing for wel l -organized a n d non-repetit ive websi tes . T h i s linearity in content presentat ion is often s e e n a s be ing "too chronologica l ." Chrono log ica l is def ined a s "relating to, or a r ranged in or a c c o r d i n g to the order of time" (Mer r iam-Webster 2007). Ideas of the non-l inear (non-chronological ) tend to be v iewed by websi te browsers a s m o r e progress ive , g lobal [and e v e n more Indigenous], while l inear (chronological) text tends to be s e e n a s be ing less global a n d less progress ive ( R e e d et al . , 2000) . T h e dif ference between F o c u s G r o u p A a n d B w a s not only in a g e but a lso in perce ived l ineari ty/chronology. T h e youth ( F o c u s G r o u p A) , with m o r e Internet exper ience , m a y have m o r e Internet savvy , but then why did they think the Heron Site w a s "chronological"? P o s s i b l y "chronological" for them m a y b e a posit ive label as they preferred the Heron Site. W h e r e a s , F o c u s G r o u p B, the adults, u s e d "too chronologica l" a s a negat ive label in regards to the River Site. T h i s has targeting a n d definition implications for future websi te d e s i g n . 5.4. St6:l6 Perspectives T h e r e is definitely a St6:l6, a n d poss ib ly Indigenous, perspect ive that c a n be identified in this project. Storytelling is a vital part of St6:l6 culture, which w a s c o u l d be o n e of the r e a s o n s f o c u s group participants preferred the Heron Site. In St6:l6 culture, oral traditions have b e e n p a s s e d on from generat ion to generat ion and h a v e surv ived over t h o u s a n d s of years . T h i s tradition h a s remained a n d has a lso t r a n s c e n d e d to other forms of literature a n d art. It s e e m s r e a s o n a b l e to v iew the w e b a s another poss ib le ex tens ion of this. Further, the fact that youth list E lders a s a n important p l a c e to learn about their 28 past affirms the strong role of oral history a m o n g St6:l6 today a n d thus further supports the storytelling telling format of the Heron Site a s m o r e culturally appropriate than the River Site Participants in the youth focus group a g r e e d that "red" is a better colour than "blue" for the websi te . It is likely that a quest ion about colour in all three f o c u s g r o u p s would h ave elicited a pre ference towards red b e c a u s e of the importance of the colour red to the St6:l6 people . T h e St6:l6 regard red highly, b e c a u s e it represents life, a n d is a powerful a n d renewing co lour (Car lson 2001) . Tumul th or "red ochre", for example , is c o n n e c t e d to c e r e m o n i e s (Car lson 2001). It is worn on a rchaeo log ica l si tes for spiritual protection a n d is part of the requirements of the St6:lo A r c h a e o l o g i c a l R e s e a r c h Permit . O n e E lder stated that tumulth "won't protect h im, it's not for them," which basical ly m e a n s that tumulth is meant to protect Indigenous people and not non- Indigenous peop le . A l though E lders did not specif ical ly state to u s e red o n the website, it is an important e n o u g h a s p e c t of their culture for the u s e of red o c h r e to have b e e n d i s c u s s e d during the f o c u s group. Th is r e s e a r c h indicates that colour shou ld be d i s c u s s e d with Indigenous communi t ies w h e n building a website . N ie lsen (1999) s u g g e s t s that the u s e of colour in webs i tes is most effective w h e n it follows a s tandard . T h e default websi te colour tends to be blue text on a white b a c k g r o u n d . M a r c u s (1997) and Murch (1985) a rgue that opposi te co lour combinat ions , s u c h a s blue a n d yel low or red a n d green , are effective. However , M u r c h (1985) a r g u e s that blue b a c k g r o u n d s are okay, but blue text is not. L ing a n d Scha ik ' s (2002) research supports both of these v iews by demonstrat ing that the blue/yel low combinat ion led to the best per formance for hits, a s did the default blue/white combinat ion . However , St6:l6 people are c lear that the colour red is a n important addit ion to a n y website , which is contra to the perce ived w isdom (Nei lsen 1999, M u r c h 1985, L ing a n d S c h a i k 2002) . 5.5. Websites as Educational tools Both the adult a n d E lder groups a g r e e d websi tes are a g o o d w a y to inform youth about heritage. E lders and adults have probably o b s e r v e d increased Internet and c o m p u t e r u s e a m o n g the youth over the years . T h e s e two groups m a y perceive that i n c r e a s e d u s a g e by the youths is congruent with the youths' preference for this m e d i u m . However , u s a g e a n d pre ference are two very different m e a s u r e s . T h e youth themse lves did not to m a k e the distinction that only y o u n g peop le would prefer the websi tes , but thought e v e r y o n e would like the websi tes . T h e youth listed E lders a n d family a s their most important s o u r c e s of information, ten of e leven , w h e r e a s websi tes were only give by three of e leven participants. T h e adult a n d E lder g roups m a y be surpr ised by s u c h a result. It s u g g e s t s that o n e s "relations" are still important in 29 St6:l6 territory. T h e Internet shou ld b e s e e n a s an extension a n d not a rep lacement to E lders a n d family, s c h o o l s a n d teachers , m u s e u m s a n d cultural centers , T V , b o o k s , M a g a z i n e s a n d other fo rms of educa t ion . A l though, youth m a y h ave a greater affinity to the Internet s ince they have grown up with it; older individuals who h a v e the t ime a n d inclination are sure to find a p lace for t h e m s e l v e s within this burgeoning information b a s e . However , without m o r e research on this a r e a , this is largely specu la t ion on m y part. 5.6. Aboriginal Connectivity Current statistics by Aboriginal C a n a d a Portal (2003) indicate E lders are "connected" . Abor ig inal C a n a d a Portal data for 2003 s h o w that 7 0 % of Aboriginal communi t ies had bas ic Internet connectivity; a n d "almost" 2 0 % of these u s e d h i g h - s p e e d methods to c o n n e c t (Aboriginal C a n a d a Portal 2003). B y 2004 , the Aboriginal C a n a d a Portal indicated that 9 0 % of Aboriginal communi t ies h a d bas ic Internet connectivity with a lmost 5 0 % at high s p e e d . U n c o n n e c t e d Aboriginal communi t i es d e c r e a s e d f rom 3 0 % to 1 0 % in o n e year. A l though communi ty a c c e s s to the Internet d o e s not imply all individuals h a v e a c c e s s to the Internet, this research demonst ra tes that the majority of St6:lo individuals are c o n n e c t e d . Al l individuals in F o c u s G r o u p A (youth) u s e the Internet, while 6 0 % a n d 4 0 % u s e the Internet in F o c u s G r o u p s B (adults) and C (Elders) , respect ively. T h i s is crucial , a s a c c e s s to the Internet a n d relevant content h ave b e e n cited a s the main barriers to u s a g e for most minority g r o u p s ( M c D a v i d 2000) . Wi th increased connectivity a n d a c c e s s to the Internet, Indigenous peop le are likely to e x p a n d their u s a g e b e y o n d banking, medica l adv ice , a n d g a m e s ( K a y e a n d J o h n s o n 2002). Internet u s e r s are highly motivated by their o w n political interests. Without the barriers to compute r a c c e s s b e c a u s e of L o w s p e e d Internet or s low computers , they will indeed m o v e into new a reas of h y p e r s p a c e ( K a y e & J o h n s o n 2002) . 5.7. Computers & Technology C o m p u t e r and/or technological anxiety were noted for s o m e f o c u s group participants in the adult a n d E lder g r o u p s . Thei r a w k w a r d n e s s a n d anxiety w a s often c a u s e d by a lack of familiarity with the technology . T h e youths were comfortable with the technology . A n y u n e a s i n e s s the E lders ' exhibited w a s most likely correlated to their v iew of themse lves a s l ess knowledgeable about c o m p u t e r s in gen era l . M a n y of the adult w o m e n exhibited less interest in d i s c u s s i n g or viewing the webs i tes ; however , there were only three of them. T h e interpretation of this data is problematic g iven the smal l s a m p l e s i z e . 30 N o n e of the youth s e e m e d to have any fear of the technology, but s o m e were m o r e into us ing computers a n d the Internet. Indeed, the youth r e s p o n d e d differently than F o c u s G r o u p s B a n d C , a s they spent m o s t of their t ime d i s c u s s i n g the technology or content rather than sk ipping to alternative topics . A 2003 study by Forrester R e s e a r c h in E u r o p e found 2 0 % of peop le over a g e 55 h a d Internet a c c e s s a n d this represented a 5 0 % increase in two a n d a half yea rs ( N U A 2003). T h i s inc rease s u g g e s t s the elderly are rapidly o v e r c o m i n g their fears . Forty percent of St6:l6 E lders in this study u s e d the Internet—double the ratio for E u r o p e . C a n a d i a n data indicate only 13 .9% of peop le a g e d 65 a n d over in 2000 a c c e s s e d the Internet f rom h o m e , but by 2003 , this rate inc reased to 2 4 . 9 % (Statistics C a n a d a 2006). A m o n g St6:l6 E lders , u s a g e rates are quite impress ive (40-50%, s e e T a b l e 3) a n d substantial ly higher than the data for C a n a d i a n sen iors . C o m p u t e r s a n d the Internet are va luable med ia to reach large populat ions. It s e e m s this technology is rapidly b e c o m i n g m o r e c o m m o n p l a c e in h o m e s and s c h o o l s ( N U A 2003) . T h e c o s t of h o m e computers cont inues to d e c r e a s e . Forty-eight percent (13) of the participants in this study had h o m e computers a n d 7 0 % (19) u s e d compute rs regularly (whether at work, schoo l or h o m e ) . However , the c o s t of the Internet, espec ia l ly in m o r e isolated communi t ies , c a n still have a great impact on Internet u s e . Most participants (20, 74%) stated that they had Internet a c c e s s . Part icipants' Internet u s e var ied widely f rom about 2 - 2 1 hours a week , with most estimating a u s a g e of less than 5 hours a w e e k . With a n a v e r a g e of 7 0 % computer a c c e s s a n d 7 4 % Internet a c c e s s , it a p p e a r s that St6:l6 peop le cons ider this technology important for entertainment, s c h o o l , work and r e s e a r c h . 5.8. Other Focus Group Comparability Issues E a c h f o c u s g roup w a s different in terms of a g e and exper ience . However , the results of e a c h f o c u s g roup were sufficiently similar to s u g g e s t that a g e d o e s not a p p e a r to h a v e affected websi te preference ( s e e T a b l e 8). T a b l e 8. W e b s i t e pre ferences by f o c u s group. 9 Heron Site n % n % Y o u t h s 2 1 8 % 9 8 2 % Adul ts 1 2 0 % 4 8 0 % E lders 2 2 5 % 6 7 5 % Tota ls 5 2 1 % 19 7 9 % 31 T h e percen tages from T a b l e 7 demonst ra te the similarities in preference for the Heron Site at: 8 2 % for youths, 8 0 % for adults a n d 7 5 % for E l d e r s . Y o u t h s have a c c e s s to computers on a regular bas is through s c h o o l (100%). T h i s n u m b e r d e c r e a s e s slightly with the middle a g e d , a s evident by the adult g roup who u s e d the Internet at a rate of 8 3 % (this cou ld be b iased a s it w a s a n adult educat ion group). T h i s percentage d e c r e a s e s aga in in the E lder group with 4 0 - 5 0 % actually us ing the Internet. A l though there is a c lear pre ference for the Heron Site by all three focus groups , not all g roups u s e the Internet equal ly. T h i s i ssue requires further examinat ion. 5.9. Summary of Answers to Focus Group Questions Q u e s t i o n s 1, 2 & 3 a s k e d participants to d i s c u s s their l ikes/disl ikes and a lso the similarit ies/differences regarding the Heron and River Sites. Overa l l , most participants wanted more interactivity a n d graphics , larger print, a n d to avo id sites they label led a s "too chronological ." T h e Heron Site is c loser to fitting these pre ferences , but participants s u g g e s t e d that it could u s e the colour red, music , a m a p , narration by E lders a n d "bubbles" o n how to u s e the dig sect ion . Part icipants stated that the River Site a l so lacked these features, a n d in addit ion a p p e a r e d too text heavy , too chronologica l , and graphical ly boring. However , the River Site w a s liked b e c a u s e of its m e n u s , which al lowed quick a c c e s s to information. All participants liked the fact that both dealt with St6:l6 culture. Q u e s t i o n s 4 a n d 8 deal ing with what w a s or could be learnt, were a n s w e r e d together, but were never fully d i s c u s s e d by participants. "Learning" is the premise behind quest ions 4 a n d 8 but "learning" is outs ide the s c o p e of this thesis project. Q u e s t i o n 5, "Which would you prefer to s e e up?" w a s a n s w e r e d with e a s e , the Heron Site w a s preferred a n d is the websi te they would like to s e e o n the Internet. T h e participants had no q u a l m s about giving a d v i c e in reply to quest ion 6. However , a d v i c e from the youths targeted improvements with the digital technology, whereas , adults a n d E lders provided a d v i c e o n how to work with Indigenous people . T h e main sent iments e x p r e s s e d c o n c e r n e d the n e e d to be culturally sensit ive, to demyst i fy a n d respect Indigenous culture, and to a c k n o w l e d g e c h a n g i n g traditions within Indigenous culture. T h e s e are guidel ines to follow with Indigenous peop le to create mutually beneficial relat ionships. It is important to include Indigenous viewpoints throughout the r e s e a r c h p r o c e s s . In reply to quest ion 7, regard ing websi te re levance in St6:l6 territory, participants stated that they s e e websi tes a s relevant in St6:lo territory. 32 5.10. Challenges of Running Focus Groups T h e r e were a d v a n t a g e s a n d d isadvan tages to al lowing participants to view the websi tes before the focus group. If participants talk to e a c h other a h e a d of t ime then they m a y not be a s talkative during the f o c u s group. A rectification of this poss ib le prob lem would be to d e c r e a s e the amount of time between the websi te viewing a n d the f o c u s group. It is a lso a d v a n t a g e o u s to have visual c lues a n d to revisit the websi tes e v e n briefly during the focus group. In this research the prior e x p o s u r e to the websi te d o e s not a p p e a r to have negatively affected the results f rom F o c u s G r o u p A . In future r e s e a r c h , I would s u g g e s t that participants browse e a c h of the websi tes a h e a d of t ime a n d would a s k that they take notes while do ing s o to d i s c u s s these f indings in m o r e detail during the f o c u s group. T h i s would m a k e for improved conversat ion , involvement a n d f e e d b a c k by al lowing the participants t ime to brainstorm. Further, it m a y be adv isab le to h a v e a f e m a l e only focus g roup to elicit m o r e conversat ion a n d prevent ma le inf luence. T h e results presented here shou ld be c o n s i d e r e d in light of this observat ion. T h e planning of participant recruitment a p p e a r e d s imple on paper; however , it w a s m u c h m o r e compl ica ted in pract ice. T h e final focus groups were b a s e d o n word of mouth through m y communi ty contacts . In hindsight, a pilot focus group shou ld have been held prior to undertaking the r e s e a r c h in order to test the quest ions and to gain m o r e exper ience before venturing out into the communi ty . In addit ion, this would h a v e led to c h a n g e s in ques t ions before the first f o c u s group, which would m a k e the three f o c u s groups m o r e c o m p a r a b l e . T h e r e are definite f o c u s group i s s u e s : s u c h a s having to tabulate numbers from nodding h e a d s , tapes a n d transcripts. V i d e o c a m e r a s a n d an addit ional data recorder would have b e e n helpful . T h e r e were difficulties in m e a s u r i n g shifting opin ions in the f o c u s g roups . Further, there were t ime i s s u e s with e a c h f o c u s group. F o r e x a m p l e , in the adult g roup s o m e participants felt that they n e e d e d m o r e t ime to read the websi te . M o s t of these i s s u e s were logistical a s f o c u s G r o u p s A a n d B were s c h e d u l e d during c l a s s t ime. Unfortunately; there w a s no alternative t ime to hold the f o c u s group s e s s i o n s . Finally, it w a s s o m e t i m e s difficult to get all participants to participate fully. However , I would s u g g e s t the posit ives outweigh the negat ives a n d focus groups are a n appropriate a n d useful research method w h e n working with Indigenous p e o p l e s . 5.11. Hypothesis Evaluation T h e Spirit C a m p websi te w a s replicated in two different formats (the f? /Verand Heron sites) to determine whether St6:l6 communi ty m e m b e r s favour o n e over the other a n d , if s o , w h y ? T h e null hypothes is is that 33 there is no dif ference in participants' pre ference be tween the two webs i tes . T h e alternative hypothes is is that participants prefer o n e over the other. Resu l ts s h o w the initial hypothesis of no di f ference in pre ference is rejected, and the alternative hypothes is is suppor ted , a s the majority of v iewers (79%) preferred the Heron Site. T h e e v i d e n c e is overwhelmingly in favour of the Heron Site, the websi te with greater interactivity, storytelling, a n d e n h a n c e d graph ics . T h e results s h o w pre ference of the Heron Site at 8 2 % for youths, 8 0 % for adults a n d 7 5 % for E lders . However , a g e d o e s not a p p e a r to b e a major factor in regards to preference. In contrast , analys is by g e n d e r demonst ra tes that f e m a l e v iewers view websi tes differently (only 5 7 % preferred the Heron Site). T h i s s u g g e s t s that for f ema le v iewers, websi te deve lopers m a y have to m a k e alternative websi te formats avai lable to attract a larger viewing a u d i e n c e . Resul ts for ma le participants, confirm previous r e s e a r c h demonstrat ing an increased interest in graphics and interactivity. 6. Discussion 6.1. Working with Community C o m m u n i t y participation is important a n d n e c e s s a r y , but not a lways e a s y . W o r k i n g with peop le at every s tage of a project inc reases both monetary a n d t ime c o s t s . However , c o m m u n i t y m e m b e r s are highly knowledgeab le a n d their contributions are invaluable. T h e bigger quest ion b e c o m e s , "Is it e v e n appropriate to g o a h e a d a n d create webs i tes about a communi ty 's heri tage without their involvement?" T h e a n s w e r is no . Mos t peop le in the communi ty are m o r e than willing to help in these projects, a n d m a n y will ass is t e v e n if they c a n n o t participate fully. T h i s goodwil l w a s evident in those who not only m a d e sugges t ions , but were a lso motivated to contact other educat ional facilities o n my behalf. Overa l l , J u n e tended to be a very b u s y t ime of year for m a n y of the educat ional es tab l ishments . Unfortunately, it w a s too late in the year to attract m a n y participants. In the future, it would h a v e b e e n more prudent to have f o c u s groups set up for the month of S e p t e m b e r at the beginning of the s c h o o l year. C o m m u n i t i e s must be involved not only in setting the r e s e a r c h a g e n d a s in their own communi t ies but a lso in the d isseminat ion of the knowledge ga ined (Rob inson 1996). Sel f -determinat ion is the only w a y that peop le in Indigenous communi t ies are go ing to b e able to prosper . T h i s a p p r o a c h to a r c h a e o l o g y is o n e step in creat ing c o m m o n ground . In addit ion, it is the archaeolog is ts ' responsibil i ty, both professional ly a n d academica l l y , to treat the peop le w e work with, with dignity and respect . 34 T i m e is a lways a factor w h e n working with communi t i es . Issues s u c h a s g o v e r n m e n t restructuring (e.g., band chiefs a n d counci ls are e lected every two years ) c a n create c h a l l e n g e s . O n e m a y have to wait until a n e w C h i e f starts to restart the contact p r o c e s s . It is important to b e flexible a n d ready for c h a n g e and to h a v e respect for the peop le o n e is working with (Singleton 2003). However , it is a lso important to r e m e m b e r that this is your project, s o you are the o n e w h o h a s to keep peop le motivated a n d o n s c h e d u l e . Y o u r project m a y be a n interesting one , but if o n e cannot sell it to peop le c o n s u m e d with press ing soc ia l and e c o n o m i c i s s u e s on reserves then nothing you d o will get the project d o n e in a timely fash ion . Addit ionally, British C o l u m b i a First Nat ions peop le are deal ing with treaty negotiat ions. T h e s e are of primary importance for the peop le of this a rea . H e n c e , the most important thing is to start a s early a s poss ib le o n c e you have your plan. It is a lmost imposs ib le to avo id being thrust into the local political s c e n e in s o m e w a y . T h u s , it is important for researchers to b e reflexive, critical a n d respons ib le ( M c D a v i d 1997, 2000; L e o n e et al . 1987; Potter 1994). Col laborat ive w e b projects, s u c h a s the Levi Jordan site ( M c D a v i d 2000), a n d the Sister Stories site ( J o y c e et a l . 2000), reach out to target a u d i e n c e s for f e e d b a c k a n d understanding through blogs, a n d d i s c u s s i o n g r o u p s . A l though the Levi J o r d a n and the S is ter Stor ies websi tes d o not dea l with Indigenous people , they are great mode ls for working with communi ty . However , it is t ime to take this a little further. Archaeo log is ts n e e d to u s e the f e e d b a c k they attain from communi t ies m e m b e r s a n d create websi tes with more cultural sensitivity. Indigenous peop le are m o r e than just a great "target aud ience ." Indigenous people are a va luable resource , with a s take in how their history is represented to the outs ide world. T h e y shou ld b e consu l ted at all s tages of a project; this inc ludes obtaining a n d implement ing f e e d b a c k o n the products of r e s e a r c h . 6.2. Other Results P e o p l e in the communi t ies were p l e a s e d to have b e e n consu l ted a n d were often surpr ised that s o m e o n e e v e n wanted their op in ions. T h e E lders , who descr ibed t h e m s e l v e s a s hav ing little or no knowledge about computers a n d the Internet, w e r e m o r e helpful on this r e s e a r c h topic than they probably imagined . T h e y f o c u s e d on d i s c u s s i n g a rchaeo logy , a s they knew it, rather than o n technology. Desp i te the n u m e r o u s archaeolog ica l a n d anthropological projects with public c o m p o n e n t s in the a r e a , it is c lear that the archaeolog ica l communi ty still has a long way to g o to el iminate distrust. A s J a m e s o n (2003:158) notes, w e n e e d to arm communi t ies with "the knowledge a n d unders tand ing of a rchaeo logy , which c a n contribute to peop le 's s e n s e of identity a n d ultimately improve their lives". T h i s is o n e w a y archaeolog is ts 35 c a n help m e n d past animosit ies and o p e n d o o r s of communica t ion a n d coopera t ion ( J a m e s o n 2003: 158). F o c u s G r o u p C , the E lders , still d o not trust archaeologis ts and /or they bel ieve that a rchaeolog is ts are in spiritual d a n g e r f rom their ignorance . T h e adults a p p e a r e d less s u s p i c i o u s of archaeologis ts and stated that they would va lue the c h a n c e to visit an actual a rchaeo log ica l excavat ion to s e e what it is all about. Neither the adults nor the youths ment ioned sites be ing spiritually d a n g e r o u s . S tudents , on the other hand , s e e m e d to vary in their op in ions. S o m e sa id a r c h a e o l o g y looked boring from the websi tes; however , others s e e m e d interested in learning about more about their culture through a r c h a e o l o g y . Most (5, 83%) F o c u s G r o u p B participants would h a v e liked the opportunity to visit the archaeologica l site. T h i s indicates that a rchaeo log is ts must cont inue to o p e n up sites to m e m b e r s of the communi ty with formal invitations. M a n y archaeolog is ts have o p e n h o u s e s a n d events in which communi ty m e m b e r s a n d the public are e n c o u r a g e d to c o m e out a n d look at si tes be ing e x c a v a t e d . S o m e t i m e s this c a n b e limited by a c c e s s , or by other factors s u c h a s t ime or r e s o u r c e s . In the 2001 Fie ld S c h o o l , there w a s no "open h o u s e " day; however , the project w a s h a p p y to a c c o m m o d a t e requests a s they a rose . T h i s w a s largely d u e to logistics (D. Pokotylo pers . c o m . 2004). T h e o p e n n e s s of archaeologists to mak ing their work m o r e public will d e c r e a s e susp ic ion from communi ty m e m b e r s , who have m a n y stories about the dangers of do ing a r c h a e o l o g y from a spiritual perspect ive . T h i s will a lso d e c r e a s e the v iew of a r c h a e o l o g y a s a secre t society with its jargon a n d nonpubl ic f a c e (Deloria 1995). T h i s c l o s e d s h o p perspect ive s e e m e d to be reiterated by s o m e of the E l d e r s . O n e E lder stated "you don't think they'd like it if w e went and d u g up their old h o m e s t e a d s a n d took things away . Al l t h o s e things be long to s o m e b o d y a n d they shou ld stay there". Another sa id "I don't bel ieve in the d igs . C a u s e I know o n c e there were a lot of quality sites, it s e e m s that the whole val ley . . . tell them about it a n d the first thing they want to d o is dig it up (agreement in background) and w e don't want this." T h e s e unanticipated r e s p o n s e s have contributed to the larger i s s u e s of col laborat ive work a n d relat ionships between archaeologists a n d Indigenous people . 6.3. Recommendations F o c u s groups are c lose ly related in style to Indigenous d i s c u s s i o n m e t h o d s a s o p p o s e d to surveys that are foreign. Further, f o c u s groups are r e c o m m e n d e d a s a culturally respectful method of study in Indigenous communi t ies that rely heavily o n an oral tradition. St6:l6 peop le a p p e a r e d to enjoy participating in the f o c u s group format. F o c u s g roups al lowed participants w h o felt they h a d nothing to contribute to o p e n up, a n d a lso a l lowed p e o p l e to g o off topic by enabl ing them to p o s e their o w n 36 quest ions . T h e d i s c u s s i o n s that e n s u e d from these seeming ly "off topic conversat ions" were s o m e t i m e s the most interesting a n d fortunate m o m e n t s for both the researcher a n d the participants despi te be ing tangential to the f o c u s of this study. T h e s e d i s c u s s i o n s are directly relevant for larger i s s u e s of col laborat ion between Indigenous people a n d archaeolog is ts , while not having direct re levance to this study. F o c u s g roups a n d websi tes are a n important w a y to give the d e s c e n d a n t St6:l6 peop le the opportunity to be involved in projects within their territory. T h e r e is further potential to work with t h e s e a n d other data to determine how to work better with communi ty m e m b e r s a n d to create websi tes of interest to all St6: lo peop le . R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s for future websi tes about a r c h a e o l o g y in St6:l6 territory are that: 1) the spiritually a n d culturally significant colour red shou ld b e a strong c o m p o n e n t in the des ign , 2) information shou ld be presented in a storytelling m o d e , a s this a p p e a r s to a p p e a l to the largest percentage of people , a n d 3) graphics shou ld be u s e d a long with greater interactivity. T h e adult a n d E lder g roups indicated that webs i tes are a n a c c e p t a b l e form of d isseminat ing St6:l6 cultural heritage, particularly to y o u n g e r generat ions . Archaeo log is ts must be e n g a g e d with the public both o n the local a n d the global /nat ional s c a l e . T h e Internet c a n b e a significant v e n u e for this type of interaction. W e b s i t e s are a n excel lent w a y to d issemina te information to large g roups of peop le . In conjunct ion with b o o k s , b rochures , m u s e u m s , a n d archaeo log ica l site tours, websi tes c a n help archaeologis ts effectively c o n n e c t the past to the present . B y mak ing the genera l public m o r e aware of the a rchaeo log ica l record a s a n important n o n r e n e w a b l e resource , w e c a n all work together to preserve our col lect ive history for future genera t ions . O n l y with the help of the public c a n we truly p reserve a n d protect the a rchaeo log ica l record . T h i s project a d d s to the a rchaeo log ica l body of work by creat ing another a v e n u e for those interested in a r c h a e o l o g y to find information about h u m a n history. With the help of d e s i g n e r s knowledgeab le about a rchaeo logy , a rchaeo log is ts c a n d e v e l o p webs i tes that are effective in d isseminat ing information. T h e best pract ice would be for the archaeolog is t a n d the des igner to interact prior to fieldwork, to e n s u r e that speci f ic information is recorded in the field to be u s e d on the websi te . T h e p r o c e s s of creat ing a websi te is tedious, e v e n w h e n all the data is readily avai lable. Information n e e d s to be organ ized a n d readab le from the point of v iew of the intended a u d i e n c e . It is a lso important that the archaeologis t be aware of the des igner 's intentions a n d v ice v e r s a . T h e des igner must h a v e knowledge about a rchaeo logy , s o both parties c a n clearly outline their n e e d s . F o r e x a m p l e , the archaeolog is t must be ab le to d ia logue with the des igner , s o the intended a u d i e n c e c a n 37 clearly unders tand and interact with the information presented . In addit ion, the des igner n e e d s to articulate what kinds of material (e.g. , photos, quotes , etc.) the archaeologis t will n e e d to procure while working in the field a n d after. T h i s col laborat ion is important if the vision of the websi te is to be rea l ized. Without this col laborat ion, the websi te m a y not h a v e all the e lements n e c e s s a r y for creating a m e m o r a b l e a rchaeo log ica l exper ience . T o create popular webs i tes , a rchaeologis ts n e e d to provide more appropriate material to d e s i g n e r s s o that they c a n m a k e the websi te intriguing e n o u g h to capture the browser 's attention but not c o m p r o m i s e the scholar ly content . T h i s is not difficult: the past is a fundamenta l h u m a n curiosity a n d is thus interesting to most of the public (Pokotylo & G u p p y 1999; M c D a v i d 2000; R a m o s & D u g a n n e 2000; Pokoty lo 2002 , 2007). It is up to archaeolog is ts , w h o h a v e traditionally b e e n the holders of the information, to d issemina te it in a user-fr iendly f ash ion . T h e Internet a n d the W e b have a l ready crea ted a forum for peop le with d issent ing v iews; it is better for a r c h a e o l o g y a s a whole to inc rease the shar ing of information, rather than h a v e incorrect information looted out of our r e s e a r c h or h a v e correct information misinterpreted ( M c D a v i d 2000) . 6.4. Future Research T h i s r e s e a r c h project br idges three a r e a s of study: digital a rchaeo logy , Indigenous a r c h a e o l o g y a n d public a r c h a e o l o g y . A s o n e of the first projects to attempt to bridge these a r e a s , the research d e s i g n of this project had to b e d e v e l o p e d from scra tch . B e n c h m a r k data from c o m p l e m e n t a r y research efforts s u c h a s c a s e studies, f o c u s groups a n d surveys are n e e d e d to provide an empir ical bas is for r e s e a r c h c o n c l u s i o n s on the u s e of the Internet in a rchaeo logy . T h i s study has a d d e d to this d a t a b a s e . T h e research presented is b a s e d on a relatively smal l s a m p l e of individuals within an Indigenous communi ty . T h i s is too smal l a s a m p l e to fully unders tand the v iews of all St6:l6 peop le , let a lone Indigenous peop le in genera l . W h i l e smal l s a m p l e s i ze m a y restrict the s c o p e , the study a n d its m e t h o d s provide a m o d e l for future r e s e a r c h . T h u s , more c a s e studies, focus groups a n d surveys are n e e d e d to a n a l y z e the relationship of the Internet a n d a rchaeo logy , not only, in St6:l6 territory, but a c r o s s all Indigenous communi t ies . T h e s e studies would provide the data n e c e s s a r y for us to create culturally appropriate a n d meaningful a rchaeo log ica l websi tes . O n e a rea of future r e s e a r c h could entail replicating this s tudy with other g roups by creat ing two n e w but identical websi tes of r e l e v a n c e in their own a r e a to s e e if the results f rom this r e s e a r c h that c a n be genera l i zed to other Indigenous p e o p l e s and/or the genera l public. 38 T h e St6:lo a lso offer further r e s e a r c h opportunit ies of the type d o n e in this study. T h e r e are 24 bands within St6: lo territory. W h a t a re the similarities a n d di f ferences in attitudes, pre ferences a n d percept ions towards archaeo log ica l websi tes a c r o s s these b a n d s ? If d i f ferences exist, what motivates t h e s e ? Future r e s e a r c h projects us ing f o c u s groups n e e d not b e f o c u s e d o n a g e but could be structured on gender , i n c o m e , or ethnicity. M o r e s u r v e y s a n d f o c u s group a long the lines of the o n e s in this project would provide a m o r e representat ive sampl ing of St6:lo peop le . S o m e quest ions to build on this study are: W h a t is your preferred t h e m e colour(s) for the webs i te? W h a t types of a c c o m m o d a t i o n s shou ld b e u s e d for peop le w h o are older or w h o h a v e disabil i t ies? F o r e x a m p l e , is it to the archaeologis ts ' benefit to u s e large text or e v e n include a n a u d i o c o m p o n e n t in websi tes to m a k e them m o r e a c c e s s i b l e to E l d e r s ? W o u l d you h a v e looked at this websi te on your o w n ? Will you look at this websi te a g a i n ? D o you think this websi te he lps demysti fy Indigenous peop le a n d create understanding with the genera l publ ic? D o these websi tes m a k e a r c h a e o l o g y m o r e inviting? T h e latter quest ions are really a n extension on the learning ques t ions I a s k e d in m y r e s e a r c h that were never succinct ly or adequate ly a n s w e r e d . T h e g e n e s i s for t h e s e a r e a s of future r e s e a r c h c a m e out of the f o c u s groups and the r e s p o n s e s provided by the participants. T h e s e quest ions , both broad a n d speci f ic , c a n m o v e research towards effectively understanding archaeo log ica l websi te pre ferences of Indigenous peop le . T h i s r e s e a r c h m a y a lso help to provide the broader Internet c o m m u n i t y with the information they n e e d to build websi tes that are m o r e attractive to Indigenous p e o p l e s a n d thus would rece ive greater u s a g e . A quest ion arising from this r e s e a r c h that cannot be a n s w e r e d with the data col lected is, "Why did F o c u s G r o u p A (youths) a n d F o c u s G r o u p B (adults) not a g r e e on which of the two websi tes were "chronological"?" Adul ts a n d E lders s u g g e s t e d that the Internet is a g o o d w a y to teach the youths, but not necessar i ly t h e m s e l v e s , about a r c h a e o l o g y . T h i s s u g g e s t s that a g e m a y b e a var iable affecting r e s p o n s e s , a l though a g e did not affect the overal l results for websi te pre ference . T h i s finding s u g g e s t s that pre ference a n d u s a g e are not necessar i ly o n e a n d the s a m e . H o w d o e s o n e test for the di f ferences between pre fe rence a n d u s a g e ? Individuals m a y prefer a websi te but d o e s that truly indicate that they will actually u s e the webs i te? Further f o c u s groups a n d surveys would help in creat ing a larger d a t a b a s e which al lows r e s e a r c h e r s to m a k e m o r e general izat ions a n d c o m p a r i s o n s by be ing m o r e representat ive of the communi ty . T h e importance of oral history in Indigenous culture w a s evident f rom r e s p o n s e s by youths, adults, a n d E l d e r s , who listed Elders / fami ly a s the most important m e a n s for learning about their history. 39 T h u s , it would b e prudent to ask quest ions probe the cont inuing r e l e v a n c e of these cultural methods of knowledge t ransmiss ion . F o c u s group ques t ions could include: "How is storytelling relevant in St6:l6 territory today?" E l d e r s s u g g e s t us ing the Internet a s a storytel l ing/teaching tool. H o w d o individuals perce ive websi te e f fect iveness in ach iev ing t h e s e teaching a n d storytelling g o a l s ? Is storytelling via the Internet an appropr iate method for d isseminat ing knowledge about cultural heritage to outs iders? A further next s tep is a cross-cul tura l s tudy of websi te p re fe rence which cou ld determine similarities a n d d i f ferences a m o n g Indigenous peop le b e y o n d St6: l6 territory. Th is could then b e ex tended to Indigenous a n d non- Indigenous p e o p l e s . A l though the initial data presented in this research project, and that of S i m o n (2001), s u g g e s t little dif ference in websi te preference cross-cultural ly , larger s a m p l e s are required to formally test this, a s are studies to determine how culture a n d world view affect pre ferences in a rchaeo log ica l websi tes . T h e s u r v e y quest ionnaire u s e d in this study obta ined s o m e s o c i o - e c o n o m i c information; never the less , the o n e a rea miss ing in this survey is i n c o m e level of participants. R e s e a r c h s u g g e s t s that e c o n o m i c background is a factor in understanding Internet u s a g e . F o r example , Statistics C a n a d a ' s 2003 survey results c o n c l u d e that "82% of h o u s e h o l d s in the highest i n c o m e group had a m e m b e r w h o u s e d the Internet f rom home," while those from the $24 ,000 to $43 ,999 i n c o m e bracket, only h a d a 4 5 % u s a g e (Statistics C a n a d a 2006)." However , this survey a l s o s u g g e s t s that the lower i n c o m e group had the strongest growth a 1 3 % i n c r e a s e in u s a g e from 2002 to 2003 (ibid). H o u s e h o l d type (one p e r s o n , two p e r s o n , s ingle, marr ied, etc.) is another a r e a often col lected in surveys (Statistics C a n a d a 2006). B a c k g r o u n d information w a s gathered in this study for a g e , gender , educat ion , l a n g u a g e a n d cultural b a c k g r o u n d . However , only a g e a n d g e n d e r were a n a l y z e d fully. O f the remainder , educat ion level a p p e a r s quite interesting a s previous s tudies by Statistics C a n a d a in 2003 demonstra te that "nearly 7 7 % of h o u s e h o l d s with s o m e o n e with a university d e g r e e were c o n n e c t e d from home," w h e r e a s "only about 12% of h o u s e h o l d s in which the highest level of attainment w a s less then high s c h o o l were c o n n e c t e d from home" (2006). However , Internet connec t ion a n d Internet u s a g e are two different m e a s u r e s a n d n e e d to be r e s e a r c h e d further a s they h a v e implications for a rchaeo log ica l websi tes a s a m e a n s to c o m m u n i c a t e with Indigenous communi t ies a n d the public. M o r e surveys , to gather background information a n d compute r exper ience , a c c o m p a n y i n g focus groups would b e n e c e s s a r y to draw out further patterns particularly in a cross-cul tura l study. 40 7. Conclusions T h i s project has demonst ra ted that graph ics a n d interactivity are important for d isseminat ing information via websi tes to Indigenous peop le . It has d i s c u s s e d the importance a n d responsibi l i ty of a rchaeo log is ts to be ethically accountab le . It a l so has es tab l ished the n e e d for Indigenous representat ion at all s t a g e s of the research p r o c e s s a s s tewards of their o w n past , present a n d future histories. T h e null hypothes is s u g g e s t e d that there would be no pre ference for either websi te . However , St6:lo communi ty m e m b e r s had a c lear p re fe rence (76%) for the m o r e graphic a n d interactive Heron Site. T h i s project d i s c u s s e s that participants s a w the Heron Site a s more culturally appropriate, m o r e informative, more aesthetical ly p leas ing , a n d m o r e entertaining than the River Site. T h e s e pre ferences were often b a s e d on intangible feel ings that o n e websi te w a s "just better", but e v e r y o n e e x p r e s s e d that the Heron Site told the story of Spirit C a m p in a m o r e p leas ing manner . Further, the River Site (preferred by 2 4 % of participants) a p p e a r e d too "text heavy" in format/presentat ion despi te the fact that both sites had identical texts. Part icipants preferred the story format websi te that u s e d m o r e imagination a n d graphic des ign . A l though the Internet elite ( B o s l e y 2000) m a y prefer the standardizat ion of webs i tes (Nie lsen 1999), this studies ' f indings s u g g e s t that the industry n e e d s to explore alternatives. D o e s the format of a websi te affect the percept ions of the Indigenous viewing a u d i e n c e , in this c a s e , St6:lo p e o p l e ? T h e study a p p r o a c h e d this quest ion by d i s c u s s i n g the River a n d Heron webs i tes with three focus groups of youth, adults a n d E l d e r s . T h e results s h o w that format affects percept ion a n d that s u c c e s s f u l websi tes must satisfy the n e e d s of the viewer, whether t h o s e n e e d s be information, entertainment or both. T h e pre ference for the story-telling format demonst ra tes that the d e s i g n of the data del ivery affects v iewers. T h i s project affirms that E l d e r s are an important r e s o u r c e for Indigenous communi ty m e m b e r s in today's society. St6:l6 participants prefer the m o r e structured websi te , Heron Site, e v e n with identical content. T h e ana lys is demonst ra tes g e n d e r is the most important factor for this particular study. T h e r e are definite d i f ferences be tween g e n d e r p re fe rences . V e r y little d i f ference in preference o c c u r s a c r o s s a g e . T h e Heron a n d River Sites d i s c u s s i o n attempts to facilitate a b a l a n c e between the burgeoning of websi tes created by non-archaeo log is ts , a n d the n e e d for a r c h a e o l o g y webs i tes written a n d crea ted by archaeologists a n d their Indigenous partners. T h i s project informs the d e b a t e o n the u s e of the Internet for public a rchaeo logy , Indigenous a r c h a e o l o g y a n d e v e n digital a r c h a e o l o g y . T h e best w a y for archaeologists to counter misinformation is to c rea te information written in readily a c c e s s i b l e formats . 41 Th is information has the potential to increase the genera l publ ics overal l k n o w l e d g e a n d ethical responsibil ity. T h i s m a y ultimately aid in the protection of the a rchaeo log ica l record . T h e results of this r e s e a r c h indicate the Heron Site is the preferred of the two formats c o n s i d e r e d for d isseminat ing information about St6:l6 heritage. Implementation of s o m e of the c h a n g e s s u g g e s t e d by the communi ty is adv isab le . T h e most significant modif icat ions are the implementat ion of more red throughout the website , the addition of s o m e mus ic , an E lder 's w e l c o m i n g m e s s a g e , a m a p , a n d information on how to u s e the dig sect ion . M o r e c h a n g e s m a y keep the a u d i e n c e on the websi te longer. S o m e of these c h a n g e s could include sect ions that alter to suit the n e e d s of speci f ic v iewers or that allow viewers to interact with archaeolog is ts through blogs or d i s c u s s i o n g roups . Finally, I h o p e I have g iven a fair a n d just presentat ion of the op in ions a n d percept ions the participants s h a r e d in the f o c u s g roups . A strong majority of the participants prefer the Heron Site. I r e c o m m e n d that U B C s e e k permiss ion from St6:lo to m a k e this websi te publicly a c c e s s i b l e , with s o m e of the c h a n g e s r e c o m m e n d e d by the participants. M o r e importantly, I h o p e that both m y thesis and the Heron Site cont inues to be an important contributing part to the St6:lo Nat ion's b o d y of knowledge . 42 Bibliography Aboriginal Canada Portal 2003 Report on Aboriginal Community Connectivity Infrastructure. Electronic Document, http://wv\w.aboriginalcanada.gc.ca/acp/site.nsf/vDownload/connectivity2003report/$file/2003ROAC pdf, accessed on Jan 11, 2007 2004 Report on Aboriginal Community Connectivity Infrastructure. Electronic Document, http://www.aboriginalcanada.gc.ca/acp/site. nsf/vDownload/connectivity2004report/$file/2004ROAC pdf, accessed on Jan 11, 2007 Amiel, T., and S. L. Sargent 2004 Individual Differences in Internet Usage Motives. Computers in Human Behavior 20:711-726 Hill, T., and T. Nicks. 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. BC Archaeology Branch 1974 British Columbia Archaeology Site Survey Form for DhRI25. BC Treaty Commission 2007 BC Treaty Commission Electronic Document, Electronic Document, http://www.bctreaty.net/nations/soi_maps/Stolo_Nation_SOI_map_ammended.jpg, accessed on May 21, 2007. Blake, M. 2004 Fraser Valley Trade and Prestige as Seen From Scowlitz. In Complex Hunter-Gatherers; Evolution and Organization of Prehistoric Communities of the Plateau of Northwestern North America, edited by W. C. Prentiss and I. Kuijt, pp.103-112. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake. Bolter, J. D. 1991 Writing Space: The Computer, Hypertext, and the History of Writing. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale. Bonnichsen, R., and A. K. Schneider 1999 Breaking the Impasse on the Peopling of the Americas. In Ice Age Peoples of North America: Environments, Origins, and Adaptations, edited by R. Bonnichen & K. L. Turnmire, pp. 497-519. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis. Bosley, A. 2000 Pollsters Don't Trust Internet Elite. Electronic Document, http://www.carleton.ca/jmc/cnews/29092000/n4.htm, accessed on July 5, 2007. Carey, J. 1992 Communication as Culture: Essays on Media and Society. Routledge, New York. Carlson, K. T. 2001 A St6:l6 Coast Salish Historical Atlas. Douglas & Mclntyre, Vancouver. Childe, S. T. 2002 The Web of Archaeology: Its Many Values and Opportunities. In Public Benefits of Archaeology, edited by Barbara J. Little, pp. 228-237. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Clack, T., and M. Brittain 2007 Archaeology and the Media. UCL Press, London, in press. 43 C o o k - L y n n , E . 1998 A m e r i c a n Indian Intellectualism a n d the N e w Indian Story. In Natives and Academics: Researching and Writing about American Indians, edi ted by D e v o n A . M i h e s u a h , pp. 111-138. University of N e b r a s k a P r e s s , L incoln . Creswel l , J . W . 1998 Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design Choosing Among Five Traditions. S a g e Publ icat ions, T h o u s a n d O a k s . Dav is , E . S . , a n d D. A . Hantula 2001 T h e Effects of D o w n l o a d D e l a y o n P e r f o r m a n c e a n d E n d - U s e r Sat isfact ion in an Internet Tutorial . Computers in Human Behavior 17:249-268. Deloria, V . Jr . 1992 Indians, Archaeo log is ts , a n d the Future. American Antiquity 57(4):595-98. 1995 Red Earth, White Lies. Scr ibner , N e w York . Dingwall , L. 1999 Archaeology in the age of the Internet: CAA 97: Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology, Ox ford , U K : A r c h e o p r e s s . B A R International S e r i e s 750. British A r c h a e o l o g i c a l Reports , Ox ford . D u r u s a u , P. 1998 [1996] High Places in Cyberspace: A Guide to Biblical and Religious Studies, Classics, and Archaeological Resources on the Internet. S c h o l a r s P r e s s H a n d b o o k S e r i e s . S c h o l a r s P r e s s , At lanta. E c h o - H a w k , R. 1997 Forg ina a N e w Ancient History for Nat ive A m e r i c a . In Natives and Academics: Researching and Writing about American Indians, edi ted by D e v o n A . M i h e s u a h , pp. 88-102. University of N e b r a s k a P r e s s , L incoln . E ighmey , J . 1997 Profiling U s e r R e s p o n s e s to C o m m e r c i a l W e b S i tes . Journal of Advertising Research (October) 37:59-66. E v a n s , T . L. a n d P . Da ly 2006 Digital Archaeology: Bridging Method and Theory. Rout ledge , L o n d o n . F e r g u s o n , D. A . a n d E . M. P e r s e 2000 T h e W o r l d W i d e W e b a s a Funct ional Alternative to Te lev is ion . Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 44(2):155-174. Fowler, F . J . , Jr . 1995 Improving Survey Questions Design and Evaluation. App l i ed S o c i a l R e s e a r c h Me thods S e r i e s V o l . 38. S a g e Publ icat ions, Cal i fornia . G o u d r e a u , G . 2006 Exploring the Connection Between Aboriginal Women's Hand Drumming and Health Promotion (Mino-Bimaadiziwin). M . S c . thesis , University of Alberta , E d m o n t o n . University of Alberta B r u c e P e e l S p e c i a l Col lec t ions , E d m o n t o n . Graph ic , V isual izat ion, and Usability C e n t e r ( G V U ) 1999 GVU 10th WWW User Survey. M a y 4, 1999. G e o r g i a T e c h R e s e a r c h Corpora t ion . Electronic D o c u m e n t , h t tp : / /www.gvu.gatech.edu/user_surveys /survey-1998-10 / index.html , a c c e s s e d on A u g u s t 31 ,1999. 44 H o k a n s o n , B. , a n d S . H o o p e r 2000 C o m p u t e r s a s Cogni t ive M e d i a : E x a m i n i n g the Potential of C o m p u t e r s in E d u c a t i o n . Computers in Human Behavior 165:537-552. H o w e , W . 2002 Creating Small, Fast Loading Graphics for Web Pages. [On-l ine serial] E lectronic D o c u m e n t , ht tp: / /www.walthowe.com/pubweb/gg1.html , a c c e s s e d o n J a n 15, 2006 . H u a n g , M - H . 2003 Des ign ing W e b s i t e Attributes to Induce Experiential E n c o u n t e r s . Computers in Human Behavior 19:425-442. J a m e s o n , J . H. Jr . 2003 Purveyors of the Past : Educat ion a n d O u t r e a c h a s Ethical Imperatives in A r c h a e o l o g y . In Ethical Issues in Archaeology, edited by L. J . Z i m m e r m a n , K . D . Vitelli, a n d J . Hol lowel l -Z immer , p. 152-161. Al tamira P r e s s , Wa lnut C r e e k . J o y c e , R., G u y e r , C , a n d M. J o y c e 2000 Sister Stories. N e w York University P r e s s . Electronic D o c u m e n t , E lectronic D o c u m e n t , http: / /www.nyupress.org/sisterstories/ , updated in 2000, a c c e s s e d on April 12, 2001 . K a y e , B. K. 1998 U s e s a n d Gratif ications of the W o r l d W i d e W e b : F r o m C o a c h Potato to W e b Potato. The New Jersey Journal of Communication 61 (1 ):21 -40. K a y e , B. K., and T . J . J o h n s o n 1999 T a m i n g the C y b e r Frontier: T e c h n i q u e s for Improving On l ine S u r v e y s . Social Science Computer Review 17(3):323-337. 2002 Onl ine a n d in the know: U s e s a n d Gratif ications of the W e b for Political Information. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 46(1):54-71. Kester , G . 1994 A c c e s s D e n i e d . Information Policy and the Limits of Liberalism. University of R o c h e s t e r . Electronic D o c u m e n t , h t t p : / / d i g i t a l a r t s . u c s d . e d u / ~ g k e s t e r / G K _ W e b s i t e / R e s e a r c h / A c c e s s Denied.html . , a c c e s s e d on J u n e 24, 2006 . Kroker , A . , a n d M. A . We ins te in 1994 T h e T h e o r y of the Virtual C l a s s : Not a W i r e d Culture, But a Cul ture Tha t is W i r e d Shut . St . Martin's P r e s s , N e w York . E lectronic D o c u m e n t , http: / /pol i t ics.ankara.edu.tr /~erdogan/kroker.html, a c c e s s e d on J u n e 2006. Lafleur, M. 2003 We are all Sto.lo, But We Are Not the Same: Councillors Perspectives on Archaeology. Unpub l ished , Depar tment of Anthropo logy a n d Soc io logy , University of British C o l u m b i a . V a n c o u v e r . L a n d o w , G . P . 1992 Hypertext: The Convergence of Contemporary Critical Theory and Technology. T h e J o h n Hopkins University P r e s s , Balt imore. Layton, R. 1989 Who Needs The Past? Indigenous Values and Archaeology. Unwin H y m a n , L o n d o n . L e e , M. J . , and M. C . T e d d e r 2003 T h e Effects of T h r e e Different C o m p u t e r Tex ts on R e a d e r s ' R e c a l l : B a s e d o n W o r k i n g M e m o r y Capac i ty . Computers in Human Behavior 19:767-783. 45 L e o n e , M . P., Potter, P. B. Jr . and S h a c k e l , P. A . 1987 T o w a r d a Critical A r c h a e o l o g y . Current Anthropology 28(3): 283-302. L ing, J . & P. v a n S c h a i k 2002 T h e Effect of Text a n d B a c k g r o u n d C o l o u r o n V isua l S e a r c h of W e b P a g e s . Displays 23: 223-230. Lock , G . 2003 Using Computers in Archaeology; Towards Virtual Pasts. Rout ledge , L o n d o n . Liu, Y a n d L. J . S h r u m 2002 W h a t is Interactivity and Is It A lways S u c h a G o o d T h i n g ? Implications of Definit ions, P e r s o n , a n d situation for the Influence of Interactivity in Advert is ing Ef fec t iveness . Journal of Advertising, 31 (4): 53-64. Electronic D o c u m e n t , http: / /yupingl iu.com/Lui-Shrum_lnteract ivi ty.pdf, a c c e s s e d on J u n e 25, 2007. M a r c u s , A . 1990 Graph ica l U s e r Interfaces. In Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction, edited by M. He lander , T . K . L a n d a u e r , a n d P. P r a b h u . pp. 423-440 . E lsev ier S c i e n c e P u b C o , Nor th-Hol land. M c D a v i d , C . 1997 Editors Introduction. In M c D a v i d , C . a n d B a b s o n , D. (eds) In The Realm of Politics: Prospects for Public Participation in African-American Archaeology. Historical A r c h a e o l o g y Vo l 31(3). Cal i fornia, P e n n s y l v a n i a , Soc ie ty for Historical A r c h a e o l o g y . 2000 T o w a r d s a M o r e Democra t ic A r c h a e o l o g y ? T h e Internet a n d public A r c h a e o l o g i c a l Pract ice . In Public Archaeology, edited by N. Merr iman, a n d T . S h a d l a - H a l l , pp . 159-183. Rout ledge , L o n d o n . M c K e e , L. 1994 Is it Futile to T ry a n d B e U s e f u l ? Historical A r c h a e o l o g y a n d the A f r i c a n - A m e r i c a n E x p e r i e n c e . Northeast Historical Archaeology 2 3 : 1 - 7 . M c L e o d , J . M . a n d L. B. B e c k e r 1981 T h e U s e s a n d Gratif ications A p p r o a c h . In Handbook of Political Communication edited by D . D . N i m m o , and K.R. S a n d e r s , pp.67-99. S a g e Publ icat ions, Bever ly Hills. M c M a n a m o n , F. P. 1991 T h e M a n y Pub l ics for A r c h a e o l o g y . American Antiquity 56(1 ):121 -130. M c P h e r r o n , S . , a n d H. L. D ibble 2001 Using Computers in Archaeology: A Practical Guide. McGraw-H i l l , N e w York . Mer r i am-Webste r O n L i n e Dictionary 2007 Merriam-Webster OnLine Dictionary. Mer r i am-Webste r Inc. E lectronic d o c u m e n t : ht tp: / /mw1.merr iam-webster .com/dict ionary/chronological , a c c e s s e d on A u g u s t 21, 2007. M i h e s u a h , D. A . (editor) 1998 Natives and Academics: Researching and Writing About American Indians. University of N e b r a s k a P r e s s , L incoln . M o r g a n , D. L., R. A . , Krueger , a n d J . A . K ing 1998 Focus Group Kit. 6 vo ls . S a g e Publ icat ions, T h o u s a n d O a k s . Morr ison, S . , H. My les , a n d B. Thorn 1994 Spirit C a m p : W h e r e the Pas t a n d Present Meet . Midden 25(5): 9-11. M u r c h , G . 1985 C o l o u r G r a p h i c s - B l e s s i n g or B a l l y b o o ? Computer Graphics Forum 4 :127-135. 46 National C o m m u n i c a t i o n s a n d Information Administrat ion (NCIA) 2000 Falling Through the Net: Defining the Digital Divide, U S Depar tment of C o m m e r c e . E lectronic D o c u m e n t , http: / /www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fttn99/contents.html, updated N o v e m b e r 1999, a c c e s s e d o n A u g u s t 30, 2005 Nichols , D. L , A . L. Klesert , a n d R. A n y o n 1999 [1989] Ancest ra l S i tes , S h r i n e s a n d G r a v e s : Nat ive A m e r i c a n Perspec t i ves on the Eth ics of Col lec t ing Cultural Propert ies . In Whose Culture? The Ethics of Collecting Cultural Property, edi ted by P. M . M e s s e n g e r , pp . 27-38. University of N e w M e x i c o P r e s s , A l b u q u e r q u e . N i c h o l s o n , B. , D. Pokotylo, a n d R. Wi l l i amson (Eds. ) 1996 Statement of Principles for Ethical Conduct Pertaining to Aboriginal Peoples: A Report From the Aboriginal Heritage Committee. C a n a d i a n A r c h a e o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n . E lectronic D o c u m e n t , h t tp : / /www.canadianarchaeology.com/eth ica l . lasso, a c c e s s e d on J u n e 24, 2006. Nie, N., a n d L. Ebr ing 2000 Study Offers Early Look at How Internet is Changing Daily Life. E lectronic D o c u m e n t , http: / /www.stanford.edu/dept/news/pr/00/000216internet.html, a c c e s s e d on April 28, 2006 N ie lsen , J . 1999 When Bad Design Elements Become the Standard. E lectronic D o c u m e n t , http: / /www.useit .com/alertbox/991114.html, a c c e s s e d o n April 28, 2006. Novak , T . P., a n d D. L. Hof fman 1998 Bridging the Digital Divide: The Impact of Race on Computer Access and Internet use. E_ Commerce Times. E lectronic D o c u m e n t , h t tp : / / e lab .vanderb i l t . edu /Research /papers /Br idg ing%20the%20Dig i ta l%20Div ide%20-% 2 0 T h e % 2 0 l m p a c t % 2 0 o f % 2 0 R a c e % 2 0 o n % 2 0 C o m p u t e r % 2 0 A c c e s s % 2 0 a n d % 2 0 l n t e r n e t % 2 0 U s e % 2 0 % 5 B H o f f m a n . % 2 0 N o v a k % 2 0 - % 2 0 F e b % 2 0 1 9 9 8 % 5 D . p d f , a c c e s s e d o n A u g u s t 30, 2005 Novak , T . P., D .L . Hof fman, a n d A . V e n k a t e s h 1998 Diversity on the Internet: T h e Relat ionship of R a c e to A c c e s s a n d U s a g e , " In Investing in diversity: Advancing opportunities for minorities and the media, edited by A G a r m e r . W a s h i n g t o n , D. C . T h e A s p e n Institute. E lectronic D o c u m e n t , h t t p : / / e l a b . v a n d e r b i l t . e d u / R e s e a r c h % 2 F p a p e r s % 2 F D i v e r s i t y % 2 0 o n % 2 0 t h e % 2 0 l n t e r n e t % 2 D % 2 0 T h e % 2 0 r e l a t i o n s h i p % 2 0 o f % 2 0 r a c e % 2 0 t o % 2 0 a c c e s s % 2 0 a n d % 2 0 u s a g e % 2 0 % 5 B H o f f m a n % 2 C % 2 0 N o v a k % 2 C % 2 0 A l l a d i % 2 0 V e n k a t e s h % 2 0 % 2 D % 2 0 O c t % 2 0 1 9 9 7 % 5 D % 2 E . p d f , a c c e s s e d on A u g u s t 30, 2005 . N U A Internet S u r v e y s 2001 Citizenship Education Fund: Digital Divide Remains Apparent in US. N U A Internet S u r v e y s . E lectronic D o c u m e n t , ht tp: / /www.nua. ie /surveys/?f=VS&art_id=905356631 &rel=trueupdated updated on 4 April 2001, a c c e s s e d on J u n e 20, 2006 (not a c c e s s i b l e on M a y 2 3 r d , 2007) 2003 Forester Research: One in Five European Seniors Online E lectronic D o c u m e n t , ht tp: / /www.nua. ie /surveys/ index.cgi?f=VS&art_id=905358750&rel=true, a c c e s s e d on O c t 20, 2005 . (not a c c e s s i b l e o n M a y 2 3 r d , 2007) P a p a c h a r i s s i , Z . , a n d A . M . Rub in 2000 Predictors of Internet U s e . Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 44:175-196. Pokotylo , D. 2002 Publ ic Op in ions a n d C a n a d i a n Archaeo log ica l Heri tage: A National Perspec t ive . Canadian Journal of Archaeology 26(2):88-129. 2004 Spirit Camp (DhRI 25): An Early Period Occupation in the Lower Fraser Valley, British Columbia. P a p e r presented at the 5 7 t h Northwest Anthropologica l C o n f e r e n c e , E u g e n e , O R , M a r c h . 47 2007 A r c h a e o l o g y a n d the " E d u c a t e d Public" A Perspect ive f rom the University. The SAA Archaeological Record 7(3): 14-18. Pokotylo, D. a n d N. G u p p y 1999 Publ ic Op in ion a n d A r c h a e o l o g i c a l Heri tage: V i e w s F r o m Outs ide the P ro fess ion . American Antiquity 64:400-416. Pokotylo, D. a n d A . M a s o n 1991 Publ ic Attitudes T o w a r d s A r c h a e o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s a n d Thei r M a n a g e m e n t . In Protecting the Past, edi ted by G . S . Smi th , a n d J . E . E h r e n h a r d , pp . 9-18. C R C P r e s s , B o c a R a t o n . Pol lock, P. H., a n d B. M. W i l s o n 2002 Eva luat ing the Impact of Internet T e a c h i n g : Prel iminary E v i d e n c e from A m e r i c a n National G o v e r n m e n t C l a s s e s . Political Science & Politics 35(3):561-566. P o s t m a n , N. 1992 Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology. N e w York: P a n t h e o n . Potter, P. B. Jr . 1994 Public Archaeology in Annapolis: A Critical Approach to History in Maryland's Ancient City. Smi thson ian Institution P r e s s : W a s h i n g t o n , D C . R a m o s , M . and D. D u g a n n e 2000 Exploring Public Perceptions and Attitudes about Archaeology. P r e p a r e d by Harris Interactive for the S o c i e t y for A m e r i c a n A r c h a e o l o g y . F e b 2000. Electronic D o c u m e n t , h t tp: / /www.saa.org /publ ic / resources/pubpercp.html , a c c e s s e d on A u g 6, 2007 . R e e d , W . M., J . M . O u g h t o n , D. J . A y e r s m a n , J . R. Ervin Jr . , a n d S . F . G i e s s l e r 2000 C o m p u t e r E x p e r i e n c e , Learn ing Style, and H y p e r m e d i a Navigat ion. Computers in Human Behavior 16:609-628. Rhe ingo ld , H. 1993 The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. HarperPerren ia l , N e w York . E lectronic D o c u m e n t , ht tp: / /www.rheingold.com/vc/book/ , a c c e s s e d on J u n e 24, 2006. R ichards , J . D. 2006 Electronic Publ icat ion in A r c h a e o l o g y . In Digital Archaeology: Bridging Method and Theory edited by T . L. E v a n s a n d P. Daly , pp . 213-225. Rout ledge , L o n d o n . R ichards , J . D. a n d R y a n , N . S . 1985 Data Processing in Archaeology. C a m b r i d g e University P r e s s , C a m b r i d g e . R o b i n s o n , M . P. 1996 S h a m p o o A r c h a e o l o g y : T o w a r d s a Participatory Act ion R e s e a r c h A p p r o a c h in Civi l Socie ty . Journal of Native Studies 16: 125-138. S a u n d e r s , J . 2006 G e n d e r a n d T e c h n o l o g y in E d u c a t i o n : A R e s e a r c h Rev iew. A n abbreviated vers ion of this paper will b e publ ished under the title G e n d e r and T e c h n o l o g y : W h a t the R e s e a r c h Te l ls U s in the Handbook of Gender and Education, edited by C . Skel ton, B. F ranc is , and L. S m u l y a n . S a g e Publ icat ions, L o n d o n , in p r e s s . E lectronic D o c u m e n t , ht tp: / /www. josanders.com/pdf /gendertech0705.pdf , a c c e s s e d on O c t o b e r 16, 2006 . S c h u m a c h e r , P., a n d J . Morahan-Mar t in 2001 G e n d e r , Internet, and C o m p u t e r Attitudes a n d E x p e r i e n c e s . Computers in Human Behavior 17:95-110. 48 S c h w i m m e r , B. 1997 Anthropo logy on the Internet: A R e v i e w of Networked R e s o u r c e s . Current Anthropology. 37(3): 561-568. S i m o n , J . S . 2001 Impact of Cul ture a n d G e n d e r on W e b S i tes : A n Empir ical S tudy . The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems (Winter) 32(1 ):18-37. S ingle ton, T . A . , a n d C . E . O r s e r , Jr . 2003 D e s c e n d a n t C o m m u n i t i e s : Linking P e o p l e in the P resen t to the Past . In Ethical Issues in Archaeology, edited by L. J . Z i m m e r m a n , K. D. Vitelli, and J . Hol lowel l -Z immer, pp. 143-152. Altamira P r e s s , Wa lnut C r e e k . Spirit C a m p - A r c h a e o l o g y in Act ion 2006 Spirit Camp - Archaeology in Action. C r e a t e d a n d d e s i g n e d by Points North Electronic D o c u m e n t , ht tp: / /www.ataoc.ca/dev/Spir i tCamp/spir i t .htm, a c c e s s e d on O c t o b e r 14, 2006. Statistics C a n a d a 2006 C a n a d i a n Internet U s e Survey . The Daily. T u e s d a y , A u g u s t 15, 2006. Electronic D o c u m e n t , ht tp: / /www.statcan.ca /Dai ly /Engl ish/060815/d060815b.htm, a c c e s s e d on M a r c h 12, 2007. St6:l6 Nation G o v e r n m e n t 2002 St6:l6 Nat ion G o v e r n m e n t Electronic D o c u m e n t , http: / /www.stolonation.bc.ca, a c c e s s e d o n M a y 23, 2007. Tr igger , B 1980 A r c h a e o l o g y and the Image of the A m e r i c a n Indian. American Antiquity. 45(4):662-76. T r i n g h a m , R. 2004 Interweaving Digital Narrat ives with D y n a m i c Archaeo log ica l D a t a b a s e s for the Publ ic Presentat ion of Cultural Her i tage. In Enter the Past: The E-way into the Four Dimensions of Cultural Heritage - CAA2003. Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology, edited by W . B o r n e r a n d W . Stadtarcheolog ie , pp . 196-200. Ox ford , U K : A r c h e o p r e s s . B A R International S e r i e s 1227. British A r c h a e o l o g i c a l Repor ts , O x f o r d . Watk ins , J . 2000 Indigenous Archaeology: American Indian Values and Scientific Practice. Al tamira P r e s s , Walnut C r e e k . Wik ipedia 2007 Wik ipedia , the F r e e E n c y c l o p e d i a . E lectronic document , http://en. Wikipedia.org/wiki / W i l s o n , B., and M. Lowry 2000 Constructivist Learn ing on the W e b . New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education no.88 (Winter 2000):79-88. Ye l lowhorn , E . 1996 Indians, A r c h a e o l o g y a n d the C h a n g i n g W o r l d . Native Studies Review 11 (2): 23-50. Z i m m e r m a n , L. 1998 W h e n Data B e c o m e P e o p l e : A r c h a e o l o g i c a l Eth ics , Rebur ia l , a n d the P a s t a s Publ ic Heri tage. International Journal of Cultural Property 7(1 ):69-86. 2003 Presenting the Past. Altamira Press, Wa lnu t C r e e k . Zubrow, E . B. W . 2006 Digital A r c h a e o l o g y A Historical Context . In Digital Archaeology: Bridging Method and Theory edited by T . L. E v a n s a n d P. Daly , pp . 10 -31 .Rout ledge, L o n d o n . 49 Appendix B - Pages from the Heron and River Websites Spirit Camp spirit Camp - Arckieologu. in Act ion Within traditional St6:ld terntorij. there are mantj places of legend, former villages, camp*, trails, burial grounds, spiritual traininggrounds, rock painting* and carvings, quarrt) sites, spiritual places, transformer sites and ceremonial grounds. JZ£>-http:/'www.ataoc.ca/dev/S pin tCamp/S pint, htm Figure 1. Heron Introduction: Page 7. Spirit Camp T h e Spirit O i m p 5 t o r u - ' r d i t t o ' ii TetritoiT| itheSUSiir <•!: i tton Harrison River The Harrison River is a key feature of ine Upper Fraser Vaiey; H was a major transportation rout© into the Interior, and also -an exceptionally rich safcrson river. Harrtsori is a short (1Q km) but wk5e river, draining Harrison Lake tntofhe Frase* River Harrison lake is a 64 km-fpng arm reaching northwest into the Cascade Mountains, ulSmatery connecting with the Ultooet Rivor in the territory of She St'aiimc people > The rterriion Rhwr and its tributaries make up oneof a few watersheds in Canada which supports all six species of salmon. Sockeye. Pink, Chum. Chinock, Coho and Steefhead. Even today, the number of returning salmon te exceptional, particularly spring salmon runs. _httgj//wwwjuaoc^a/d^^ Harrison Rrver Figure 2. Heron Site: Harrison River Page. 51 Spirit Camp: Archaeology in Action httpAna^Jakehcaduxa/~rprtnint(Spirit_Cain[)-2tid_w(^^agt1ndcx.hlm Spir i t C a m p : A r c h a e o l o g y in A c t i o n Traditional Territory Discovery of Spirit Camp Research Design Field School 2001 The Dig Home Spirit Camp Story Traditional Territory Harrison River Where Two Rivers Meet: Scowlitz Site Calamity Point Discovery of Spirit Camp Cultural Camp Digging a Pit House Urgent: Archaeology Test Cut Reaching Bottom Cultural Dues Dating Dig future Directions Research Design Moving forward Sio:lo Heritage Policy Sto.lo Nation Permit B.C. Permit Heritage 2001 tteldwork Goals Modifying the Design Ready, Set... Field Schooi 2001 Spirit Camp Begins Camp Life Preparing the Site Excavation The Dig Within traditional Sto.lo Territory, there are many places of legend former villages, camps, trails, burial grounds, spiritual training grounds, rock paintings and carvings, quarry sites, caches, spiritual places, transformer sites and ceremonial grounds. Spirit Camp, a 5000 to 7000 year old archaeological site at the confluence of the Fraser and Harrison River near Aggasiz. B.C. is one such place. In 2001, an archaeological Field school organized by the University of British Columbia and guided by members of the Std:l0 First Nation excavated at the site. Welcome to an exploration of their journey through time ... i Traditional Territory of St6:lo Nation i Discovery of Spirit Camp i Research Design i Spirit Camp 2001 Field Schooi i The Dig « Previous About Us | Site Map | Home | Contact Us | ©200.'. Company Name Home N e x t » It o f l 28/06/2005 3:57 PM| Figure 3. River Site: Home Page. 52 Spirit Camp T h e S p i n ' : C o m p S i o n j - T h e D i § Page 1 of 1 http:/%ww.ataoc.ca/dev/Spiril(-"'iuiip/Spiril.htni Figure 4. H e r o n Site: Introduction to " T h e Dig" Sec t ion . Spirit Camp T h e S p i r i t C a m p 5 t o r n - T h e D i e BH|| ' '1 L _ J EU 12 Liver C Photo: traaal Excavation of Srart bv«t of fciyst C expwmfj a ctnpp&i Mate take, in aubune 1 left ansa o' pd h l t p C ' w w w .a taoc .ca f devvSpi r i tCamp/Spi r i t .h tm Figure 5. H e r o n Site: " T h e Dig" - Leve l . 53 Spirit Camp: Archaeology in Action Spirit Camp: Archaeology in Action Page 1 of8 Traditional Territory ( Discovery of Spirit Camp Research Design j Field School 20011 The Dig I I Home I The Dig Traditional Territory Harrison River Where The Rivers Meet Scowl itz Site Calamity Point The Dig Section is based on the data gathered during the 2001 Spirit Camp Field School. Imagine, if you will, the discovery of amazing objects each with their own stories to tell. Discovery of Spirit Camp Cultural Camp Digging a Pit House Urgent Archaeology Test Cut Reaching Bottom Cultural Clues Dating Dig Future Directions Research Design Moving Forward St6:l6 Heritage Policy St6:l6 Nation Permit B.C. Permit - Heritage 2001 Fieldwork Goals Modifying the Design Ready, Set... Field School 2001 Spirit Camp Begins Camp Life Preparing the Site Excavation The Dig Layer A is the surface humic layer, extending 10-20cm deep, composed of densely matted grass roots. There are abundant cultural materials present, but roots, small animals and current human activity have caused significant natural disturbance, making it unreliable for recognizing signitcant cultural information. Ble://C:\Dwuments%20and%20Semngs\Mary-Lou%20Laneiir\M 28/06/2005 Figure 6. R iver Site: T h e D ig Sec t ion P a g e . 54 Spirit Camp Pag E I of 1 Spirit Camp - Archaeoio^tj in Action Spirit Gimp, a *000 to "OOO year old archaeoloejcal site at the confluence of the rraserand Harrison Rivers near Aijissiz, B.C. is one such place. 0 V sklpintmJuctlon http:/'S*ww ataocca/dev/Sr^tCamp/SpmlJitm^^ 24/06,7005 Figure 7. Heron Introduction: P a g e 2. Spirit Camp Pag ! 1 of 1 Spirit Camp - Archaeo!oe,q in Action In 2001 an archaeological field school organized bii the University of British Columbia and gl ided hi) members of tne Stciilo first Nation excavated at the site. i *» http:/'www.aiaoc.ca'dev/Spinl( ':urip/SjnntjMn^_ 24/06/2005 Figure 8. Heron Introduction: P a g e 3. 55 Spirit Camp Page 1 of 1 Spirit camp - Archaeology in Action Welcome to an exploration of their journey through time. http://vywwataoc.ca/dev/SpiritCamp/Spirit.htm Figure 9. Heron Introduction: P a g e 4. Spirit Camp T h e S p i r i t C a m p S t o r t j r^ttj^ /Ajrwwji^ ^ Page 1 of 1 Figure 10. Heron Site: H o m e P a g e . 56 Spirit Camp Page I of 1 T h e S p i r i t C a m p S t o r a - D i s c o v e r t ) o f S p r i t C a m p t i -> «' r r Cufturd Oirnp In 1394, membefs of Ihe St6:lo Nation selected Calamity Point as the site tor "Spirit Camp," a summer cultural program lor children to team traditional cultural knowledge and values from Sto ft elders. The activities at Spirt Camp included teaming how to harvest and process salmon. Cultural Can Figure 11. Heron Site: D i s c o v e r y of Spirit C a m p S a m p l e . Spirit Camp T h e S p i r i t C a m p S i o n j - C r e a t i n g \a R e s e a r c h D e . yy Moving f\xwanfj The 1934 investigation suggested a considerable age tu the jT deposits at Spirit Camp, or as the site is otficalty known, !*" DhRI 25. ISee Our den Grid System in the glossary fat an 1 explanation of trie nftiriai desgmaic n ) It appeared tn span j the entire Early Period in southwestern B C. Further mvesBgaton of the site naturally fell ro Or David Fnkoryto of; the Department of Anthropology at UBC During the 1590s. Dr. Pofcotylo's work indudeC cofa tar arsons with the Stfrlfi Nation and other archaeotegists studying the Early Period archaeology of the Lr. lower hraser i-nver car-yon ana vaiiey. He wnrwrj ansefy — — — — with the Stfrrfj at Xs ytem. the I latzic Rock site tnvesbgaron of DhRI 25 would provide an excellent opportunity to continue Ns long term study of the Early 71 / r ? r 7 L _ / i r http:/A¥ww.ataoc.ca/dev/SpintCanip/Spint.iitm Figure 12. Heron Site: Crea t ing a R e s e a r c h D e s i g n S a m p l e . 57 Spirit Camp Page 1 of 1 T h e S p i r i t C a m p S t o r t j - 2001 S p i r i t C a m p H e l d S c h o o i Sprit- 0 * m p ftcsgns Sy the end of May. 2001. everything was in place to begin investigations st Spirit Camp. Two sites were required. Since Calamity Point could only be reached by water, K was decided to set up thing and lab quarters at an old schoo^ar£S;;acro9$"tr*e river, tab supplies, camping gear and food could be easily transported by road. Learn more about Archaeokxjtca? Field School from a student's perspective. • ta ArcnaeoJogJcat Field School Right For you? •Gear! EZL7 L~Z7 FZ7 Spirit Oi r r ip B e a n s ^vit£^wwi^rtao^^ Figure 13. Heron Site: 2001 Spirit C a m p Field S c h o o l S a m p l e . Spirit Camp Page 1 oft Figure 14. Heron Site: " T h e Dig". 58 Spirit Camp: Archaeology in Aerie™ Page I c-fl Spi r i t C a m p : A r c h a e o l o g y in A c t i o n Traditional Territory Discovery of Spirit Camp R«««arch Dealgn : Field School 20011 The Dig Homo Traditional Territory of St6:ld Nation Traditions) Territory Ham sen ftivtr Wtute* The Puvers Meet ScOwfctZ Sit* Calamity Point Ditseetfy of Spirit Camp Culture Camp P*0$Rg a Pit HOU^ Urgent Araiaedogy Test Cut teaching bottom Cultural du t s Dating Dig Future D»-*i(:*i0f>t-exceptrorsa=. :.:-<?T.-.^  v , me spring salmon run Where tea Rivers Hamson River The Harroon River i5 3 key restore or me Upper Fraser vasey K was a major transportation route mlo tne interior, end an excepfeonafcy rfctl saimon ftVW The Harrison »fv»»r rs a snort (tOkrn; Out wide rrver craving mto the Fraser River Tne Harrison [Mm is a W km-iono; arm reacting tlOftftMH into the Cascade Mountains. uftimaTeiy conrechng Mtfi M l usooet Rver m the ttntory o?m? S r t T M K people The Hattson River ana its rnhMtanes make up one or a few * atersneas Hi Canada wNcfl supports a;} six specks or safrnon Sockeye, pink. Chum. Cninook.Coho «r-<= "Sleesrsead Even today, me numoer of reluming salmon:< Research Design Moving Forward Sto.Id Heritage Policy $t<-'id Nation Perrm t 6.C Perrnit - Heritage Modtryiftg the Design Field Soho©!2001 Spirit Gamp frowns Preparing the Srte Ths Dig Where the Harrison flow* into me Prase* £?rver the *at«r is turtyjent and dangerous it ts not surprising mat the ;and at « 1 confluence *s history a#y cttad Calamity Pom. tt? importance as a a sawon harvesting ana processing site has fceen passes down through the ages Oral tracton says mat the tractranai ftshma tetrmifjje of clip-netting orginateci where tne Harmon « M Fraser Rivers meet Aftc «ts sad to he tne only area Mong the tower Fraser wnere one tan etfecSrvefyvrtM dry talnon The Seowtftt Site <DhRr6) ^ust upstream from me Harrison ana Fraiser confluence, the Scawse HOB was occupied for the sast 3000 years Thss important archaeology $;te c^ntatna over <.0 burial fac&ties. intfucftng Duma* NMNJMS and catona, that date tD tne test 10OG years Arthaeoiogicaiirive^gations of Oa* ste oegan mine early '990s whan excavation conhrreefl a Jong history of cunurai use For more man 2000 vean people harvested and processed season at mis tttatfon, tsttttwwig settlements and aevesoping deep spate* teiafcons wtfi tne temtsc ace Ah important QUMtHM (yet uftawwswaj is me rtlMHWMMp Dtfttsn the spirit Camp and Swwltt Stt** Fe? more Infonaioon afcout me BeowKl sire v*Mt ' V.:.- ;>*-»••: xivr.;,<:>. \ y&im .•• Cai amity Point ;«e of BpMI Carp, naroco Caiarr>*ty Point on rnsdem maps, 13 on the wtn snore of me Phaser ttwir, OMtNooMftfl die confluence of me Fraser and tonsan Rrver. it is located on a grassy terrace, cteafea of forest when the nee was rarmea feecjc m me i«irt aria tssg** « Previous out Us J Site Map 5 Home} CoMact Us f ^ "003 Company Name Home N e x ! » I hthj;//flashJakeheaun.cav'^ rp<iTuni;^ Canip-2nd web pagenTraditiond^OTcmtory^^Oof^^ 24/06/2005 Figure 15. River Site: Tradit ional Territory of St6:lo Nation P a g e . 59 [Spirit Camp: Archaeology in Action http://flash.lakelieadu.ca'" rpetruni Spirit_Camp-2nd_>veb page Discov.. 1 of 1 Spirit Camp: Archaeology in Action Traditional Territory Discovery of Spirit Camp Research Design Field Schooi 2001 The Dig Home Discovery of Spirit Camp Tradition.!! Territory Harrison ^iver Vvtsere Two Rivers Meet Calamity Poi-'t Discovery of Spirit Camp Culture Camp OiGgim a House U n e n t Archseolcoy Test Cut fteaf.hing Sottom Culture: Ciues Daeng OiQ Future OinbcOorrS Research Deetgn Moving Forward St6:H Heritage Polio St6:tt Nation Perm* B.C. Pernilr • Heritage 2001 F.eWwo«k Goals Mocffytng the Design Ready, Set... Field School 2001 Spirit Cams Begins Camp Life Preparing the site Fxcavsfton The Dig Cultural Camp In I894. members of the Stdk> Nation selected Calamity Point as the site tor 'Spirit Camp." a summer culture! program fo( children to learn traditional cultural knowledge and values torn Sto:lo eider*. The activities at Spirt Camp included teaming how to harvest and process salmon. Dtrjrjjng Pit House One program project was the construction of a traditional p« Kkin. tO metres m diameter and 2 metres deep. At- !he camp members dug a 10m diameter and 2m deep pS forth* house, they uncovered a large number of stone artifacts, such as pebble tools, choppers, ceres and numerous utilized takes Thra was a very substamial archaeological deposrt. but how old was tl, and how was it related to oiher nearby sites? Immediaiety upon (he discovery of the archaeological materials, the pit house project was stopped Gordon Mohs was the Ste to Heritage consultant at the time, on behalf of the St6 kj Matron, requested that an assessment "the exposed archaeological deposits be undertaken UBC archaeology students Sandra Morrison. Heather Mytes and Thorn were invited to carry out the investigation. found several distinct cultural layers exposed in the pit house wall, and thousands ot stone artifacts in the bask d>rt In order to learn at much as possible in the limited time available (one day?)- the archaeologists used the pit house excavation to their advantage. rt test cut was excavated to avoid as little further disturbances as possible. hinn, Sottom test cut extended to the bottom of the pit house hole. 165 cm below surface b determine if there were deeper archaeological deposits, a small iest pa was dug into the pit house ftoor. reaching glacial its at 285cm below the surface throughout, the layers :oflowmg the archaeological investigation, the entire pit was refilled The test excavations revealed si* cultural layers four in the test cut and two more in the shovel-test pit. Cultural occupation appeared to be continuous Key features of the deposits were large amount of fire-altered rock and a substantial number of chipped stone debns from | making stone tools. rig the Dig \:t f -. of the most intriguing findings was the nature of the tooh discovered Spirit Camp ere were relatively few ground stone tools, but an abundance of chipped stone tools Cart>on dating of samples from the middle and lower layer yielded dates of 3260*/-80 and 7150 I00 8P. This suggested that the site is very old. •obably exlendmg through the Charles and OCC (Old Cordaieran Cufture) period (5000-3500 BP). So although this excavation was severely limited in time, it revealed thai this was potentially a very signifcant archaeological sue Future Directions The results of the initial investigation of Spirt Camp raised rt e questions than answers. Howokf is the site? How did people utilize it? What is tf>e relationship w»ih the Scowliusite? Were they part of ot large settlement? s clear that further investigations would be necessary to get a better understanding of the site. A report on the 19EW archaeological investigation was published w The Midden Morrison. Wytes. Thorn called Sprit Camp; Where the Past and Present Meet. 26(5)8-11 (1994). About Us j Site Map i Home | Cont&d Us | ©2003 Company Name 28/06-2005 5:54 PM Figure 16. River Site: D i s c o v e r y of Spirit C a m p P a g e . 60 Spirit Camp: Archaeology in Action Page 1 of5 Spirit Camp: Archaeology in Action Traditional Territory Discovery of Spirit Camp Research Design Field School 2001 The Dig Home R e s e a r c h D e s i g n Traditional Territory Harrison River Where Two Rivers Meet Caiamity Point Scowlitz Site Discovery of Spirit Camp Cultural Camp Digging a Pit House Urgent Archaeology Test Cut Reaching Bottom Cultural Clues Dating Dig Future Directions Research Design Moving Forward St6:l6 Heritage Policy St6;l6 Nation Permit B.C. Permit - Heritage 2001 Field work Goals Modifying the Design Ready, Set.,. Field School 2001 Spirit Camp Begins Camp Life Preparing the Site Excavation The Dig Moving Forward The 1994 investigation suggested a considerable age to the deposits at Spirit Camp, or as the site is officially known. DhRI25. (See Borden Grid System in the glossary for an explanation of the official designation.) It appears to span the entire Early period in southwestern B.C. Further investigation of the site naturally fell to Dr. David Pokotylo of the Department of Anthropology at UBC. During the 1990s, Dr. Pokotylo's work included collaborations with the Std:lo Nation and other archaeologists studying the Early Period archaeology of the lower Fraser River canyon and valley He worked closely with the Std:IO at Xa:ytem . the Hatzic Rock site. Investigation of DhRI25 would provide an excellent opportunity to continue his long term study of the Early Period in the lower Fraser Valley and build on the body of knowledge that would enable comparisons between coastal and inland sites. Working with the St6:l6 Nation and specifically the Scowlitz First Nation. Dr. Pokotylo planned an archaeological dig at Spirit Camp for the summer of 2001 that would build on the preliminary work done in 1694. St6:l6 Heritage Policy Any archaeological work in Solh Temexw, St6:10 Traditional Territory, must be planned and carried out in consultation with the St6:IO Nation's Department of Aboriginal Rights and Titles. The St6:l6 Heritage Policy, in place since the 1980s, guides cultural research, including archaeological excavations. While the policy has been revised over the years, its philosophy of "respect and protection for the people, land, resources and environment" remains paramount. An important requirement ofthe St6:l6 Nation is that the protocols and beliefs of their culture be respected. To this end. the St6:l6 activelv participate in archaeoloaical ffle://C:\Documfflte%20and%20S 28/0672005 Figure 17. River Site: R e s e a r c h D e s i g n p a g e . 61 Spirit Camp: Archaeology in Action Page 1 of 14 Spirit Camp: Archaeoiogy in Action Traditional Territory Discovery of Spirit Camp ; Research Design Field School 2001 The Dig Home | Field School 2001 Traditional Territory Harrison River Where Two Rivers Meet Scowlitz Site Calamity Point Spir it t a»*r* Sjr* Discovery of Spirit Camp Cultural Camp Digging a Pit House Urgent Archaeology Test Cut Reaching Bottom Cultural Clues Dating Dig Future Directions Research Design Moving Forward Stotio Heritage Policy Sto;lo Nation Permit B.C. Permit - Heritage 2001 Fieldwork Goals Modifying the Design Ready, Set... Field School 2001 Spirit Camp Begins Camp Life Preparing the Site Excavation The Dig Rnirit Cs»mrv PrniA/*t Port ing road. By the middle of May 2001, everything 1 was in place to start archaeological investigations at the Spirit Camp site. Two sites were required. Since Calamity Point could only be reached by water, it was decided to set up the living and lab quarters at an old schoolyard across the river. Lab supplies, camping gear and food could be easily transported by file://C:\Docnrofflte%20and% 28/06/2005 Figure 18. River Site: Field School 2001 Page. 62 Appendix C - Survey Questions Appendix Version 1 - Survey for Group Background information 1. Gender (please circle): male female 2. Age: 3. Cultural background: 4. What Language do you normally speak at home? English Other If other, indicate which language do you speak at home 5. Please indicate the highest grade of education you have completed: 6. How have you learned about your history (circle all that apply): Elders/Family Museum School/Teacher Cultural center Archaeological excavation TV Books Magazines Websites Other: Computer Experience 1. Do you own a computer? Yes No 2. Do you use your own computer or any computer regularly? Yes No If yes, what do you use your computer for? 3. Do you use the Internet? Yes No 4. About how much time do you spend on the Internet each week? 5. What tasks do you use the Internet for? 6. Do you use a Low speed or Hi speed Internet service? Yes No 7. Which website did you prefer and why? 63 Appendix Version 2 - Survey for Groups B & C Background information 1. Gender (please circle): male female 2. Aqe: 3. Cultural backqround: 4. What Language do you normally speak at home? English Other If other, indicate which language do you speak at home 5. Please indicate the hiqhest qrade of education you have completed: 6. How have you learned about your history (circle all that apply): Elders/Family Museum School/Teacher Cultural center Archaeological excavation TV Books Magazines Websites Other: 7. Do you feel that you have a higher than average interest in the subject of archaeology/history? Yes No Computer Experience 1. Do you own a computer? Yes No 2. Do you use your own computer or any computer regularly? Yes No If yes, what do you use your computer for? 3. Do you use the Internet? Yes No 4. About how much time do you spend on the Internet each week? 5. What tasks do you use the Internet for? 6. Do you use a Low speed or Hi speed Internet service? Low Hi 7. Do you feel that you have a higher than average interest in the Internet and web surfing? Yes No 8. Which of the two websites that you just viewed did you prefer and why? 64 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0100829/manifest

Comment

Related Items