OUT OF THE BOX: Popular Notions of Archaeology in Documentary Programmes on Australian Television Stephen Nichols Abstract Popular representations of archaeology are investigated through a content analysis study of documentary programmes screened on Australian free-to-air television. Although public opinion survey research suggests that mass media, particularly television, are one of the major ways in which the Australian public encounters archaeology, no systematic investigation of the archaeological content appearing on Australian television has previously been undertaken. The results of the study show that the archaeo-historical documentary genre reinforces and perpetuates many familiar archaeological stereotypes and that Australian archaeology rarely, if ever, features in these programmes. The implications for Australian archaeology are discussed and potential strategies for engaging mass media in a public archaeology context are considered.
Introduction Developing an effective practice of public archaeology through which to communicate and engage with the wider community is an important issue for Australian archaeologists in the twentyfirst century. This is true whether ‘the public’ is conceptualised as ‘the State,’ in terms of heritage management, research funding and educational frameworks, or as ‘the people,’ in terms of social discourse (see Merriman 2004). The need for more effective public outreach is emphasised by recent surveys of public attitudes towards archaeology in Australia which point to a wide interpretive gulf between archaeologists and the nonarchaeological world (Balme and Wilson 2004; Colley 2005; du Cros 1999). Although limited by small sample sizes, the Australian survey findings are supported by other more extensive surveys conducted in Canada (Pokotylo and Guppy 1999) and the United States (Ramos and Duganne 2000), and are consistent with the anecdotal evidence of Australian archaeologists (Colley 2002; Lilley 2005). The survey research suggests that while a broad general interest exists among some sections of the Australian community, as in other Western societies, popular notions of archaeology are characterised by a number of common misconceptions and stereotypes (see Table 1). Along with familiar misconceptions about dinosaurs, digging for treasure, exotic foreign lands and eccentric old academics, survey data reveal widespread notions that there is no archaeology to do in Australia, that archaeology is a discretionary and selfindulgent activity, and that archaeology has little relevance for contemporary society. It would seem that many people, including the ‘well-educated’, are unaware of Australian archaeology and have little concept of the extent or nature of Australia’s archaeological record or its interpretation. School of Social Science, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia
Merriman (2004) argues that to bridge this type of gulf between archaeology and society, archaeologists should focus more ‘academic attention’ on their relationships with the public. If this is so, we should look more critically at the available survey research to identify those areas where more attention might be warranted. One of the main points highlighted in survey results is that many respondents nominated mass media, particularly television, as their main source of information and learning about archaeology (see Balme and Wilson 2004:22; Colley 2005:58; Pokotylo and Guppy 1999:405; Ramos and Duganne 2000:17). Although regularly discussed by archaeologists, specific mass media presentations of archaeology to the Australian public have yet to be systematically investigated, and few Australian archaeologists have engaged with issues highlighted by media researchers (Colley 2002:168). Given the prominent role television appears to play as a source of public information about archaeology, more indepth consideration of the nature of this medium and the information it dispenses may be useful. What is the essential character of archaeological television programming available to public audiences in Australia? Do popular representations of archaeology on television support the misconceptions and stereotypes identified by public opinion surveys? And if they do, what does it mean for public archaeology in Australia? How should Australian archaeologists approach an engagement with mass media? These issues were investigated by conducting a content analysis study of a sample of archaeological documentary programmes screened on Australian free-to-air television.
Archaeology on Television In surveys, the emphasis on television as a source of archaeological learning is significant. Comparative rankings of the public’s top five most frequently nominated sources of information about archaeology are shown in Table 2. Other forms of media mentioned in the surveys included magazines, newspapers, books and movies, while the most important non-media sources of information were museums, school and travel. As Colley (2005:58) has pointed out, it is interesting that neither the internet nor radio feature significantly in any of these surveys. Archaeology appears on Australian television in a variety of contexts (see Colley 2002; du Cros 2002). Apart from documentaries, archaeology sometimes features in news and current affairs stories, in magazine-style science-based programmes, such as Catalyst (ABC), in educational programmes aimed at school students, such as Totally Wild (Network 10), as well as travel, drama, movies, comedy and even in advertising (Figure 1). The presentation of archaeology in all these forms of television is of interest, but by sheer weight of presence and visibility in Australian programming schedules it is the archaeological documentary programme that demands our initial attention.
Number 63, December 2006
35
Out of the Box: Popular Notions of Archaeology in Documentary Programmes on Australian Television
Table 1 Public misconceptions about Australian archaeology and related survey findings.
General Public Enquiries to Consulting Firm
Western Australian University Students
Sydney University Undergraduate Archaeology Students
Canada
United States
du Cros (1999) n=24
Balme and Wilson (2004) n=119
Colley (2005) n=60
Pokotylo and Guppy (1999) n=963
Ramos and Duganne (2000) n=1016
Archaeology happens mostly overseas, not much archaeology to do in Australia.
Classical and Egyptian civilisations dominate public ideas about archaeology. Majority of respondents unable to name an Australian archaeological site (either Indigenous or European).
Archaeology is all about digging, especially digging up treasure or dinosaurs.
Majority of respondents associated archaeology with digging, fossils, or dinosaurs.
Initial interest in Classical archaeology archaeology at school is considered most was associated with important by many classical and Old World people. themes.
Egypt identified by many people as the location of the world’s most important archaeological sites.
All sites mentioned by students were overseas in Britian, Italy, Greece, Egypt, the ‘Near East’ and South East Asia. Some confusion during school years about archaeology and dinosaurs.
High emphasis on the Most people do not process of archaeology connect archaeology rather than the with Indigenous issues. knowledge produced.
16% of respondents directly associated archaeology with palaeontology.
‘Digging’ is associated with ‘top-of-mind’ responses about archaeology for the majority of people.
Less than 1% Indigenous perspective. Although ‘dinosaurs’ feature as top-of-mind Many people think response for only 10% artefacts have a of the population, 85% monetary value. agree that dinosaurs are something archaeologists study. 1% associated archaeology with Indigenous peoples.
Archaeologists are male, bearded, academic and eccentric.
Archaeology is a discretionary and selfindulgent activity.
Many people associate archaeology with romantic images.
Around 45% of Archaeology is rarely respondents important in political situations and has little considered archaeology relevance to Australian not relevant or society. ‘don’t know’ while a further 15% thought archaeology might be a ‘bit relevant’.
36
Romantic images of adventure and discovery in far-away places are common.
Low awareness of archaeology’s relevance to Australian society prior to studying archaeology at university.
Number 63, December 2006
Most people view archaeology as an academic practice and are largely unaware of CRM work or nonacademic professionals.
Universities and museums considered the most likely place for archaeologists to work.
As above.
As above.
The majority unaware that archaeological work is done to comply with laws and public policy. Archaeology may Most people be important for thought archaeology Indigenous land claims. was relevant to understanding Archaeology has no the modern world. broader social or However, they were political dimensions. unsure about how this relates to what archaeologists do.
Stephen Nichols
Figure 1 Totally Wild filming during the 2004 field season of the Mill Point Archaeological Project (Photograph: Emma Oliver).
Number 63, December 2006
37
Out of the Box: Popular Notions of Archaeology in Documentary Programmes on Australian Television
The type of programme under consideration here has emerged as a successful form of television genre within mainstream media ‘industries’. They are well-funded productions, often produced by, or in association with, large media conglomerates (e.g. Discovery, National Geographic, BBC) who may even fund the archaeological investigations upon which the programme is based (Fagan and Rose 2003; Silbermann 1999). The archaeological or ‘archaeo-historical’ documentary genre has a strong popular following that can attract worldwide audiences in the tens of millions; ‘throw in some theme-related merchandise, a glossy book tie-in, and the sale of commercial time to prestigious sponsors and you have a potentially profitable media enterprise’ (Silbermann 1999:80). A familiar format has been established for these types of programmes. Usually an authoritative narration, interspersed with expert interviews and images of ‘real archaeologists’ doing ‘real archaeology’, is combined with computer-generated imagery and/or dramatic reconstructions of the past to create a viewing experience that is held out to audiences as an informed and serious treatment of the subject in question. Documentary programmes make direct claims to reality at both the level of the image (this is a real archaeologist doing real archaeology) and at the level of general exposition (these are actual known facts about archaeology) (see Corner 2001; Hall 2003). The claims to reality made by documentary programmes distinguish them from other portrayals of archaeology in fictional or dramatic forms. If audience perceptions of archaeology are influenced by television documentary presentations then a deeper understanding of these programmes is needed. A decade ago, Piccini (1996:S90) made the observation that ‘archaeo-historical documentary film is almost entirely untheorised’. Little has changed in this respect, although an increasing body of work regarding the visual representation of archaeology and the archaeological past is clearly relevant (e.g. Moser 1998, 2001, 2003; Smiles and Moser 2005). For present purposes, however, the intention is not to attempt any detailed theoretical treatment of the archaeological documentary programme per se, rather it is to initiate a process of enquiry regarding the popular presentation of archaeology on Australian television, focusing initially on one of its most visible components. Fiske and Hartley (2003:8) provide excellent advice as to where such a process should begin: ‘the starting point of any study of television must be with what is actually there on the screen’.
Content Analysis Methodology Content analysis is a systematic and quantitative method for analysing communications, widely used in mass media research (see Deacon et al. 1999; Krippendorff 2004; Neuendorf 2002; Wimmer and Dominick 2000). The goal is to break down a sample of media content into pre-determined categories, relevant to the question at hand, then measure or quantify the occurrence of these categories. The categories constructed and the system of measurement adopted are defined by the researcher and applied consistently to each unit of content analysed, thereby generating quantifiable data about the way particular issues, subjects or groups are treated in a related body of media texts. In this way, content analysis can ‘offer hard evidence on topics about which we often have quite firm but unfounded opinions’ (McKee 2002:67). Of course there are important limitations to what content analysis can reveal about media texts. While it may be an objectively orientated means of quantitatively surveying and characterising the manifest output of specific media over some defined period, content analysis cannot of itself provide any direct evidence about how audiences interpret media content or the wider social contexts in which it was produced (Fiske and Hartley 2003). The usefulness of results will also depend on the sample of media selected and the categories of analysis constructed for the study.
The Programme Sample In Australia, archaeological documentary programmes appear on both free-to-air television and pay TV. Here it is useful to briefly consider ratings trends compiled for the Australian television industry (see Australian Film Commission 2006). Depending on the time of day, pay TV only accounts for between 5–15% of Australian viewers. In those households watching pay TV, documentaries only account for a small proportion of viewing, well behind general entertainment, movies, children’s shows and sport. The audience share of pay TV may increase through time, but for now most Australians still get their television, and their documentaries, for free. Amongst free-to-air audiences the long-term trend is marked by a steadily increasing ratings share for the so-called public networks, ABC and SBS, whose combined audience had reached 21.5% in 2004. Additionally it is the public networks which dominate in documentary programming. During 2004 the ABC and SBS accounted for over 70% of the first-release documentary content shown on free-toair television. It is not surprising that all of the archaeological documentary programmes which appeared on Australian free-
Table 2 Most frequently cited sources of public information and learning about archaeology.
Ranking
38
Australia Balme and Wilson (2004)
Canada Pokotylo and Guppy (1999)
United States Ramos and Duganne (2000)
1
Television
Museums
Television
2
Magazines and newspapers (combined)
Television
Magazines and newspapers (combined)
3
Books
Travel/site visits
Books
4
Museums
Magazines and newspapers (combined)
School
5
Movies
Books
College
Number 63, December 2006
Stephen Nichols
to-air television during the six-month sampling period for this study were screened on either the ABC or SBS networks. The sampling population for this study can be defined as all archaeological documentary programmes appearing on free-toair television in Brisbane, Queensland, during the six month period 1 July 2003 to 31 December 2003, identified from the weekly television guides in the Sunday Mail newspaper. The period chosen for sampling constitutes a recent timeframe that is free from obvious programming abnormalities (e.g. 2004 Olympic Games coverage) and representative of general freeto-air programming schedules for Australian television. An archaeological documentary programme was identified as any advertised documentary which, based on either its title or its accompanying promotional summary, was likely to contain content of an archaeological nature. Review of the weekly television guides yielded a total of 33 such programmes, more than one a week, confirming a substantial archaeological presence on Australian television. The study sample was selected from this list and comprised all those programmes for which a recording was held in the Social Sciences and Humanities Library (SS&H) at the University of Queensland. The SS&H Library records and retains a wide range of television programmes in accordance with the library’s ‘Collection Development Policy Guidelines’, as well as retaining any programme specifically requested by University
teaching staff. The result was a sample of 24 programmes for analysis (Table 3).
The Content Coding Frame The frame of analysis for this study comprised five main content categories. The categories analysed were: (1) Spatial and temporal coverage, to investigate what regions of the world, what cultures, and what types of archaeology are mostly represented; (2) Issues and theory, which considers the types of topics and archaeological discourses addressed in the programmes; (3) Practice and methods, focusing on what archaeologists are shown doing in documentary programmes; (4) Archaeologists appearing, to assess the visual and situational characteristics of individual archaeologists identified in the sample; and (5) Key imagery and themes, which aims to define some of the genrespecific elements that characterise archaeological documentary programmes. Categories were developed to investigate popular documentary portrayals of archaeology and to explore the extent to which content reflects the misconceptions and stereotypes identified in public opinion surveys (Table 4). The unit of analysis was the programme itself, content categories were applied to each programme as a discreet unit of content. Programmes were viewed and coded for relevant variables within each content category using a standardised
Table 3 Documentary programmes included in content analysis sample.
#
Programme
Network
Date
Time
Original Release
1
Secrets of the Pyramids
SBS
19.07.03
2
Nefertiti, Egypt’s Mysterious Queen
ABC
3.08.03
7.30pm 1999, BBC
3
Lost Cities of the Maya
SBS
16.08.03
4
Ancient Apocalypse: Collapse of the Maya
SBS
2.09.03
7.30pm 2001, BBC/TLC
10.00pm 1999, BBC/TLC 7.30pm 2003, BBC/History Channel
5
Empires of Stone: The Colosseum
SBS
7.09.03
7.30pm 2001, Channel 4
6
Ancient Apocalypse: The Mystery of the Minoans
SBS
9.09.03
7.30pm 2001, BBC/TLC
7
Empires of Stone: The Acropolis
SBS
14.09.03
7.30pm 2001, Channel 4
8
Ancient Apocalypse: Sodom and Gomorrah
SBS
16.09.03
7.30pm 2001, BBC/TLC
Empires of Stone: The Great Wall of China
SBS
21.09.03
7.30pm 2001, Channel 4
10
9
Ancient Apocalypse: Death on the Nile
SBS
23.09.03
7.30pm 2001, BBC/TLC
11
The Real Spartacus
SBS
27.09.03
7.30pm 2000, Channel 4
12
Napoleon’s Lost Army
SBS
19.10.03
8.30pm 2003, BBC
13
The Lost City of Roman Britain
SBS
26.10.03
8.30pm 2003, BBC
14
The Private Lives of Pompeii
ABC
26.10.03
8.30pm 2002, Channel 4
15
Desert Rescue
SBS
2.11.03
8.30pm 2003, BBC
16
Britain’s Oldest House
SBS
9.11.03
8.30pm 2003, BBC
17
Our Top Ten Treasures
SBS
16.11.03
8.30pm 2003, BBC
18
The Mystery Mummies of Rome
SBS
23.11.03
8.30pm 2003, BBC
19
The Real Jason and the Argonauts
ABC
30.11.03
7.30pm 2003, Atlantic Productions
20
Atlantis Reborn Again
ABC
30.11.03
10.00pm 2000, BBC
21
When the Romans Ruled Africa
SBS
7.12.03
8.30pm 2003, BBC
22
The Mummies of Taklamakan
SBS
14.12.03
8.30pm 2003, BBC
23
The Corsair of St Malo
SBS
21.12.03
8.30pm 2003, BBC
24
Karakoum: Treasures of the Lost City
SBS
28.12.03
8.30pm 2003, BBC
Number 63, December 2006
39
Out of the Box: Popular Notions of Archaeology in Documentary Programmes on Australian Television
coding form. The aim when constructing category recording variables is to create an exhaustive and mutually exclusive measurement that meaningfully reflects some aspect of the material under investigation and which can be applied according to ‘observer-independent’ rules. For detailed information regarding the specific recording variables used in each category, operational definitions and coding instructions, see Nichols (2004). Completed viewing documents were collated and summarised by category in a Microsoft® Excel spreadsheet.
Results All of the programmes were screened on the ABC or SBS networks during prime evening viewing times. The SBS network accounted for 20 of the 24 programmes in the sample (83%), suggesting SBS audiences are the main consumers of archaeological documentaries in Australia. The average running time of programmes is approximately 50 minutes and 18 of the programmes (75%) were originally released through the BBC. Although not specifically included in the frame of analysis, it is worth noting that a brief survey of the advertised programme descriptions reflects a number of romantic archaeological images. Explicit references to digging, discovery, pyramids, mummies, Egypt, lost cities or treasure appear in either the title or the promotional summary for 12 programmes in the sample (50%).
Spatial and Temporal Coverage
programmes shown on Australian television? Does any Australian archaeology appear? No Australian archaeology of any description appears in the sample. Europe is the primary geographic focus for 12 programmes (50%) with Africa (Egypt), Asia, Central America and the Middle East making up the balance (Figure 2). The temporal focus of the sample is totally dominated by Old World civilisations, which are the primary subject matter in 18 programmes (75%) (Table 5). Consistent with the focus on Old World civilisations, classical archaeology and Egyptology are the most frequently represented types of archaeology (Figure 3). The results in this category suggest that the primary focus of archaeological documentary programmes on Australian television is Europe and North Africa and, to a lesser extent, Asia and Central America. The predominant cultures represented in archaeological documentaries are Old World civilisations, particularly Egypt, Rome and Greece, strongly supporting the notion that archaeology happens mostly overseas and that there is not much archaeology to do in Australia. These results accord with the survey research of Balme and Wilson (2004) and Colley (2005), who found that classical images and Old World civilisations dominate popular ideas of archaeology amongst members of the Australian public. The surveys in North America made similar findings (see Pokotylo and Guppy 1999; Ramos and Duganne 2000).
What regions of the world, what cultures, and what types of archaeology are mostly represented in the documentary Table 4 Content categories used for analysis of documentary programmes. For detailed information regarding the specific variables in each category see Nichols (2004).
Content Category
Key Recording Variables
Misconceptions and Stereotypes
Spatial and temporal coverage Geographic focus. Temporal focus. Type of archaeology.
Low awareness of Australian archaeology; archaeology is seen as something that only happens overseas and is most often associated with classical Old World civilisations and Egypt.
Issues and theory
Archaeology is a discretionary and self-indulgent activity with little relevance for contemporary society.
Archaeological topics addressed. Appearance of ‘fantastic’ archaeology.
Most people do not associate archaeology with Indigenous issues. Practice and methods
Activities depicted. Other professions and disciplines appearing.
Archaeology is all about digging, especially digging up treasure or dinosaurs.
Archaeologists appearing
Name. Title. Organisational affiliation. Gender. Apparent age. Apparent nationality. Personal appearance. Interview setting.
Archaeologists are male, bearded, eccentric academics.
Narrator/presenter. Audio qualities/music. Use of reconstruction and dramatic re-enactment. Stereotypical images.
Many people associate archaeology with romantic or exotic images and themes.
High emphasis on the process of archaeology.
Key imagery and themes
40
Number 63, December 2006
Universities and museums considered the most likely place for archaeologists to be working.
World Region
Type
Unable to Classify
Central America
Africa
Middle East
Europe
0
Biblical
2
Underwater
4
Historical
6
Other Civilisation
8
Egyptology
10
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
Classical
12
Prehistory
No. of Programmes (n=24)
14
Asia
No. of Programmes (n=24)
Stephen Nichols
Figure 2 Primary geographic focus of archaeological documentary programmes.
Figure 3 Types of archaeology represented in documentary programmes.
Issues and Theories
that such programmes are rare, suggesting broader syntheses of the human past are not a primary feature of the archaeohistorical documentary genre. Although there is a heavy focus on Old World civilisations, such focus is mostly concerned with specific events or episodes in the past (e.g. the ‘collapse’ of a particular civilisation, a specific battle, the sinking of a particular ship, the effects of a natural disaster, the building of a specific structure, the life of a known historical figure) or revolves around the discovery of a particular artefact or site. Subject matter generally appears as a standalone topic of curiosity, with no ‘before’ or ‘after’, and any wider anthropological goals of archaeology receive little attention. The narratives and storylines woven around the topic in question often involve a mystery or problem which must be ‘solved’. Where change is considered, it is dealt with mainly through diffusionist-style culture history paradigms of invasion, conquest and migration, through environmentally or economically deterministic explanations of ‘collapse’, or in terms of cultural evolutionary ‘progress’. On the basis of the content analysed in this category, archaeological documentary programmes can be seen to support popular ideas that archaeology is a discretionary and self-indulgent activity and has little direct relevance for contemporary issues.
What sorts of topics comprise the main subject matter of archaeological documentary programmes? What types of theoretical frameworks are used to explain the past? Do ‘fantastic’ archaeological explanations about the past appear and, if so, how are they treated? The sample was analysed for references to various issues concerning the human past which Fagan (2001:29) suggests are essential introductory discourses for archaeology. Such issues include human origins (the origins and evolution of human behaviour, symbolism and language), the peopling of the planet (explaining diversity), the origins of agriculture (transitions from hunter-gatherer to agricultural lifeways), the appearance of ‘complex’ urban societies (how and under what conditions did these develop) and the impacts of Western expansion (how the expansion of Western civilisation affected the hunter-gatherer, agricultural and urban states of the world that it encountered after classical times). None of these topics explicitly featured in the sample of content analysed. Anecdotally, however, programmes dealing with some of these issues do appear on Australian television but the results in this category demonstrate
Table 5 Primary temporal focus of archaeological documentary programmes on Australian television (category variables after Fagan 2004).
Category Variable (temporal focus)
No. of Programmes
%
Human Origins
0
0
European Hunter-Gatherers
1
4
Indigenous Australia
0
0
First Americans
0
0
African Hunter-Gatherers
0
0
First Farmers
0
0
18
75
Old World Civilisations Mesoamerican Civilisations
2
8
Andean States
0
0
Modern World (Post-AD 1500)
3
13
Other
0
0
Total
24
100
Number 63, December 2006
41
Out of the Box: Popular Notions of Archaeology in Documentary Programmes on Australian Television
The appearance and treatment of so-called ‘fantastic’ archaeology was also investigated. Extraterrestrials, New Age pyramid power, Tutankhamen’s Curse or Atlantis received mention in three of the 24 programmes analysed (12.5%). In each case, fantastic theories about the past were presented in a generally ‘neutral’ manner, leaving the viewer to make up his/her own mind. This confirms the presence of fantastic theories in mainstream documentary presentations of archaeology and is consistent with the assertions of Hiscock (1996:152) and with the findings from Feder (1984, 1999) and Balme and Wilson (2004:23), which suggest that ‘irrational’ or ‘non-archaeological’ explanations for the past have a strong following amongst some people in contemporary Western society and that many others are prepared to ‘keep an open mind’ on such issues.
Archaeological Methods and Practice What are the main archaeological activities depicted in documentary programmes? What other professions or disciplines are associated with archaeology? Excavation is the most common archaeological activity depicted in television documentaries, appearing in 19 (79%) of the programmes analysed (Figure 4). The high incidence of excavation is consistent with public perceptions that archaeology is all about digging (e.g. Balme and Wilson 2004; du Cros 1999; Pokotylo and Guppy 1999; Ramos and Duganne 2000) but since excavation is central to the process of archaeological investigation it is not unreasonable to expect its frequent depiction in documentary portrayals of the discipline. More telling perhaps is that in the majority of cases (78%) it was graves, crypts, tombs or other human burial contexts which were the main focus of the excavations shown. Laboratory analysis and processual science are also widely depicted, appearing in 14 programmes (58%). The portrayal of archaeological science is heavily associated with ‘laboratory’ images, white coats, microscopes and expensive technical equipment. Complex scientific processes are often condensed into a few minutes of footage and the ‘results’ of scientific research are treated within extremely logical-positivist frameworks of ‘proof ’. The presentation of archaeological science in this way may reflect the popularity of forensic fiction books and television programmes more generally. A range of other disciplines and professions appear in archaeological documentaries (Figure 5). Historians appear most frequently, closely followed by geologists. These results correlate closely with the survey reported by Ramos and Duganne (2000), which found that those disciplines most often associated with archaeology are history and geology. Once again, this may not seem unreasonable given that archaeologists often do work with historians and geologists. However, as would be expected with such a heavy ancient history focus in the sample, the majority of historians appearing are ancient historians, further reinforcing popular associations between archaeology and the classical world. The association with geology may reinforce significant public confusions between archaeology and earth sciences, but there is no association with palaeontology in any of the programmes analysed, suggesting that archaeological documentaries do not directly reinforce misconceptions about archaeology as the 42
study of dinosaurs. The representation of anthropology is also noteworthy. Although physical anthropologists appear in six programmes (25%), socio-cultural anthropology does not figure at all. In all cases, physical anthropologists appear as experts in specialised scientific contexts concerned with the analysis of human remains.
Archaeologists Appearing What nationalities are represented amongst the archaeologists appearing in documentary programmes? Do any Australian archaeologists appear? Do the archaeologists appearing in documentary programmes support a stereotyped image of archaeologists as male, bearded, eccentric academics? A total of 73 individual archaeologists could be identified by name in the programme sample. A summary of the variables recorded for each of these individuals is provided in Table 6. European (63%) and North American (15%) archaeologists comprise the majority of those archaeologists identified in the sample, with British archaeologists (34%) comprising the single largest nationality group. No Australian archaeologists appear and only one Indigenous archaeologist (North American) was identified. This is not surprising given the heavy classical/European focus of the subject matter included in the sample. One-third of the archaeologists appearing in the programme sample are female. On an individual programme basis, 15 of the 24 programmes in the sample (63%) include both male and female archaeologists, six programmes (25%) identify only male archaeologists, one programme (4%) only female archaeologists, while no archaeologist could be specifically identified by name in two programmes (8%). Female archaeologists appear in the same range of contexts as their male counterparts, which include trekking through the jungles of Central America, diving on eighteenth century shipwrecks, excavating mummies in the desert sands and undertaking scientific activities in the laboratory. Specific feminist perspectives on archaeology or the past, however, are not canvassed. No academic qualifications are given for the majority of archaeologists (68%) appearing in the programme sample. With respect to organisational affiliation, 33% of archaeologists are specifically associated with universities or museums. Other organisations, such as archaeological trusts and government instrumentalities, account for 27% of the archaeologists identified, while no organisational affiliation was given in 40% of cases. The proportion of archaeologists who have beards (15%) or who appear wearing glasses (30%) is not considered to be significantly different from the likely occurrence of these practices in the general population, although this has not been statistically verified. A majority of archaeologists (89%) appear in casual attire and they are seen mostly outdoors, particularly in the field, but also appear in laboratories, museum galleries and collections areas, libraries, offices, restaurants and other indoor settings. Individual archaeologists often appear in a variety of contexts within a single programme. Taken together, these results do not directly support a strong stereotypical image of archaeologists as male, bearded, eccentric academics.
Number 63, December 2006
Stephen Nichols
12 No. of Programmes Activity
4 2 Others
Medical
History
0 Engineering
Epigraphy/Document Research
Environmental Reconstruction
Experimental Archaeology
Archaeological Science
Excavation
Finding Sites
0
6
Geology/Earth Science
5
8
Biology
10
10
Astronomy
15
Physical Anthropology
20
Architecture
No. of Programmes
25
Discipline/Profession
Figure 4 Archaeological programmes.
activities
depicted
in
documentary
Key Imagery and Themes
Figure 5 Other disciplines appearing in archaeological documentary programmes.
Discussion
What types of dramatic and visual conventions are deployed within the archaeo-historical documentary genre? To what extent do popular stereotypical images of archaeology appear? Voice-overs are provided by unseen narrators in 21 programmes (88%), while an on-camera presenter appears in three programmes (12%). In two of these three instances, the presenter is also an archaeologist. The sex of voice-overs is evenly split between males (50%) and females (50%) although no on-camera female presenters appear. The general audio qualities of the voice-overs themselves were not (subjectively) characterised as ‘sensational,’ they are best described as ‘measured and serious,’ but music soundtracks are used extensively to create dramatic effect and mood. Reconstruction and re-enactment are often utilised in archaeological documentary programmes. Computer-generated reconstruction or artistic impressions are used in 20 programmes (83%), primarily to show how structures or landscapes looked in the past, how things worked or how something was built. Dramatic re-enactment appears in 16 programmes (67%) to portray various events from the past, particularly warfare, human sacrifice and rituals, murder and assorted violent acts. A number of stereotypical images were identified in the programme sample. Ancient ruins and human remains are the most common images, appearing in 19 (79%) and 15 (63%) programmes respectively. Exotic locations such as deserts and jungles appear in a total of 12 programmes (50%), pyramids (Egyptian or otherwise) are seen in seven programmes (29%) and ancient inscriptions or hieroglyphs in six (25%). Based on the viewing and analysis of the content sampled, several recurring themes are evident. Archaeology is presented primarily as: discovery, adventure and quest, where exotic locations, ‘frontiers’ and ‘lost’ civilisations are prominent; as detective story, where the archaeologist must follow the clues and solve an ancient or obscure mystery from the past; as forensic science ‘CSI style’; and as the ‘handmaiden of (ancient) history,’ where archaeology appears only in a supporting, subordinate role to the historian. Themes such as these highlight key genrespecific elements into which archaeology has been ‘packaged’ for commercial purposes, they are the perceived ‘selling points’ of archaeology for mainstream media producers.
The results of this study show that, at least in terms of their manifest content, archaeological documentary programmes screened on Australian television reflect many of the misconceptions and stereotypes identified in public opinion surveys (see Table 1). The predominant focus is on classical Old World civilisations, Europe, Egyptology and ancient history. Little consideration is given to current theoretical or ethical issues in archaeology and there is a notable lack of Indigenous, non-European or feminist perspectives. There is a heavy emphasis on the process of archaeological fieldwork, the most frequently depicted activity is the excavation and analysis of human remains and archaeological science is treated mostly in terms of technological wizardry. Furthermore, the visual and dramatic conventions deployed in these programmes utilise a range of stereotypical imagery and themes which often promote archaeology as a mysterious, adventurous, esoteric pursuit. For Australian audiences, the conspicuous absence of Australian content must also specifically reinforce widespread notions that there is no archaeology to do in Australia and that archaeology has little direct relevance for modern Australian society. These findings can be usefully compared with previous analyses of popular print media undertaken in the United States. Ascher (1960) looked at the presentation of archaeology in Life magazine from 1946–1955 which, at that time, had a cumulative quarterly circulation in North America of over 70 million copies. He observed a heavy focus on European archaeology, a strong emphasis on discovery, little concern for the interpretation of artefacts, and the portrayal of archaeologists as highly skilled technical experts. Gero and Root (1990) found a range of similar themes in their analysis of archaeological content in National Geographic Magazine over its 100 year publication history, noting a strong bias towards classical Western civilisations, a lack of attention to ‘whole continents and subcontinents’, such as Australia, a focus on the ‘thrill’ of discovery, a primacy given to scientific technology, the presentation of non-Western cultures as unchanging and timeless, and the domination of male archaeologists. Despite significant changes and developments within the discipline itself, the essential nature of popular archaeological representation appears to have changed little in over a hundred years. Of course, for a decolonising archaeology this must be the cause of some concern, but how should we respond to the situation?
Number 63, December 2006
43
Out of the Box: Popular Notions of Archaeology in Documentary Programmes on Australian Television
To begin with, it must be recognised that mass media are only one of the ways in which Australian publics might encounter archaeology. Archaeology can also be experienced through the education system, through interactions with archaeologists in the local community, through the operation of heritage management legislation, and through other forms of popular representation such as museums, tourism, art and literature (Nichols et al. 2005). Media researchers have shown that contemporary media audiences are not a homogenous mass who passively absorb predetermined messages directly through their television screens. Rather, people actively interpret and negotiate media texts according to the wide range of social, cultural and subcultural contexts in which their lives are lived (see Ang 1990, 1991; Hall 1980; Hall 2003; Lacey 2002; Liebes and Katz 1993; Morley 1992, 1995; Spitulnik 1993). From a public archaeology perspective, the stereotypes and misconceptions identified by survey research may well reflect a lack of any meaningful nonmedia archaeological experiences as much as they reflect the consumption of popular media products. Nonetheless, given
the pervasive nature of mass communications in the twenty-first century, and considering the archaeology profession in Australia numbers only in the hundreds (see Ulm et al. 2005), mass media will probably always be a significant way in which at least some proportion of our society encounters archaeology and the archaeological past. In terms of popular entertainment, the archaeo-historical documentary genre has clearly become a successful form of media enterprise. As this study shows, much of the archaeology content on Australian television comes from overseas, particularly from the United Kingdom and Europe, and is produced in association with large multinational media conglomerates, such as the BBC. Since the time of the sampling period used in this study, Australian audiences have also witnessed the rise of a ‘reality television’ version of archaeology with the immensely popular Time Team (ABC). Funded by another British television giant, Channel 4, this series clearly steps outside some of the traditional formats and conventions of the archaeo-historical documentary programme (see Aston and Selkirk 2005:376). But although the
Table 6 Summary of variables recorded for archaeologists appearing in documentary programmes.
Category Recording Variable Sex
Measure
Total No. (%) (n=73)
Males (n=49)
Females (n=24)
Male
49 (67%)
n/a
n/a
Female
24 (33%)
n/a
n/a
Title
Professor/Dr
23 (32%)
16 (33%)
7 (30%)
None Given
50 (68%)
33 (67%)
17 (70%)
Organisational Affiliation
University
22 (30%)
15 (30%)
7 (29%)
2 (3%)
2 (4%)
0
20 (27%)
14 (29%)
6 (25%)
Museum Other
Nationality
Apparent Age
Facial Hair
None Given
29 (40%)
18 (37%)
11 (46%)
British
25 (34%)
16 (33%)
9 (38%)
Other European
21 (29%)
13 (27%)
8 (33%)
North American
11 (15%)
8 (16%)
3 (13%)
Asian
7 (10%)
6 (12%)
1 (4%)
Other
5 (7%)
4 (8%)
1 (4%)
Unknown
4 (5%)
2 (4%)
2 (8%)
Under 30
1 (
