Courtesy of Red7s.

And the natural response to such an assault is to lash out, to get defensive, and to blame our audience for “not getting it.�?Reacting like this in the moment is a difficult thing to suppress but reacting like this given time to reflect? There is a very real problem here.

I bring this up because I witnessed a paper at our last SHA conference that deeply dismayed me. I want to be perfectly clear, I am not writing this to pick on the speaker and this issue is certainly not theirs alone in any case. However, the presentation reflected a deep-rooted attitude in archaeology that only harms our overall efforts to connect with a public audience and show them that our work is worthwhile.

The problem is that our audience is getting a human response, but they are not likely to see it that way. They will see an out of touch elitist, and as hard as this is to swallow, they are not entirely wrong. The ultimate issue here is that we are the ones that did not get it. An audience’s understanding is not their responsibility; it is ours.

But this is good news! This small shift in perspective from, “my audience didn’t get it�?to “my program was inadequate�?makes a huge difference. With the former, we absolve ourselves of responsibility and set ourselves up for failure time and again. With the latter, we take control of the only thing we can control and then we sway the things that we cannot.

Original painting by Ken Marschall.

To figure out the problem when you get this reaction, look to the audience for clues. What did they say? How did they say it? Often, a question or comment only seems foolish on the surface. If we take the time to really consider what the individual was telling us, we can find a clue to where we went wrong.

If, for example, someone goes into great detail about their personal investment in the site or subject and concludes by saying, “Why can’t you just talk about nice things?�?this, despite superficial appearances, not a stupid question. They are not expressing themselves very well, sure (few of us do in moments of high emotion), but this person is actually pointing out two problems.

First, they did not know what to expect when they attended the program. Look at the title, look at the introduction, or look at how it was marketed. Somewhere in there is a problem. Find this flaw. The program might simply require a word or image change, or (as I have often found myself) maybe all our audience needs is a more explicit explanation of the subject. That individual might still have chosen to attend if they knew what to expect, but they would have walked away elated or intrigued having learned something that enriches their understanding of the site or subject they love so much.

Melvan Tibbetts himself. (Original photo courtesy of University Archives and West Florida History Center)

I am prone to this tendency myself. For example, I give a talk where I demonstrate the personality encoded in primary documents using a collection of letters written by a soldier stationed in Pensacola, Florida for a part of the Civil War. Unfortunately, I kept getting suggestions that I include more history of Pensacola during the war. I took far too long (with much griping about people not “getting it�? to realize that the fault was with my presentation. All I needed to do was directly tell the audience in my introduction that, “This is not really about the Civil War, this is about how I came to know Melvan Tibbets who wrote these letters 150 years ago.�?I have never gotten a request for more history since.

The second clue the irate attendee was providing us is a failing that archaeologists (and perhaps anthropologists and historians) often fall prey to. We forget that our work is important. Not just to the higher ideals and the deeper understandings we strive for, but to the cultural descendants of our research subjects.

Kayode Ewumi

To them, this is not an abstract, but interesting, topic. It is a part of their community identity. When we go into these communities and disprove a local legend or lambast a favorite site, they are (in a very real way) under assault from outside invaders and a defensive reaction is perfectly understandable.

We have a prime example of this mistake here in my part of Florida. In this case, a biological anthropologist (so it’s not just us) decided to do what amounted to a criminal investigation into accusations of abuse at a recently closed and long-running state operated boy’s reform school. The town this school was located in went berserk. But of course they did. Every single person in that town either worked in that school themselves or had a relative, friend, or ancestor that worked there. This was personal.

Applying these principles allows me to give a talk on the Confederate monument debate in the rural South without being tarred and feathered. (Original image courtesy of Stanley Foreman)

Does this mean we avoid these difficult or contentious subjects? Naturally not. A subject’s sensitivity often means it is more important to discuss. However, we need to be more tuned into the communities we are working in. If applicable, take the time to hold meetings, hear their concerns, discuss compromises where necessary, and explain our reasoning where compromise is not possible. If meetings are not practicable then we must choose our words carefully and show that we acknowledge and understand their feelings. Most importantly though, give them a chance to see and know us as people, not just some faceless, out of touch academics here to attack them.

In this context at least, the public is not our enemy, we are both their enemy and our own. The onus is on us to ensure the audience understands our message. And when we are unsuccessful? Look to their responses to clues for how to fix the problem. When things go wrong, do not take the easy road and blame the audience, we must consider our own actions. They are the only things we can control.

If you want some good advice on how to better connect with an audience, I highly recommend the excellent “If I Understood You, Would I Have This Look on My Face?�?by Alan Alda. I also recommend “Interpretation: Making a Difference on Purpose�?by Sam H. Ham as an invaluable guide for helping us be intentional in our public outreach.

References

Ewumi, Kayode (actor)
2016  Image from Happy Belated. From television series Hood Documentaries. BBC Three.

Foreman, Stanley
2012  “In Between the Big Stories: Crazy Things Happen When You’re Cruising Around.” Stanley Foreman Photos. <//stanleyformanphotos.com/news/?p=650>. Accessed 18 October 2017.

Kospoth, Nicolas von
2005  Hercules Bosio Louvre. Statue by Francois Joseph Bosio. Wikimedia Commons. Accessed 12 June 2018.

Marschall, Ken
1988  A retouched photograph of painting T1987b-98 showing the forward part of the bow section with Alvin illuminating the crow’s nest in 1986. The Art of Ken Marschall. <//www.kenmarschall.com/wreck.html#Num5>. Accessed 12 June 2018.

Red7s
2015   Fish Slap! imgur.com. <//imgur.com/gallery/rT5iCil>. Accessed 12 June 2018.

University Archives and West Florida History Center
186?  Photo of Melvan Tibbetts. Accession M1986-16. University Archives and West Florida History Center, Pensacola, Florida.

The post Interpretive Sins appeared first on Society for Historical Archaeology.

The March for Science champions robustly funded and publicly communicated science as a pillar of human freedom and prosperity. We unite as a diverse, nonpartisan group to call for science that upholds the common good and for political leaders and policy makers to enact evidence based policies in the public interest.

You can learn more at the March website here:  //www.marchforscience.com/

The post SHA @ March for Science appeared first on Society for Historical Archaeology.

In March 2014, social media was alight with calls to axe the National Geographic show “Nazi War Diggers�? The collective online efforts of archeologists, historians and others led to the program being canceled before it was broadcast. In January 2016 we experienced déjà vu, as the UK’s Channel 5 aired “Battlefield Recovery�? the same program renamed and (possibly) re-edited. Twitter comments �?not only from archeologists �?have been largely negative, and the viewing figures have apparently plummeted with each episode. However, the show is also a reminder of why archeologists must continue to engage with the media and the wider public, and that we are not the only interest group looking to influence television programming with regards to cultural heritage and history.

Recently, the Society for American Archeology discussed the challenges of presenting archeology within reality TV. They noted that, while programs such as “Diggers�?are still problematic, sustained dialogue with the National Geographic Channel has led to improvements, and may bring more in the future (read about Montpelier’s successful collaboration with the show). On the Society of Historical Archaeology’s blog, archeologist Charles Ewen noted regarding National Geographic Channel’s 2014 cancellation of “Nazi War Diggers�? “Is this only a temporary reprieve till the next outrageous show comes along? Will this be a rolling battle against edutainment with no end in sight? Perhaps not, but we are going to have to be willing to work with the networks.�?Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News Corp’s acquisition of National Geographic in November 2015 resulted in significant senior staff layoffs. Whether National Geographic preserves its reputation will likely depend on financial calculus. Communications professor W Joseph Campbell noted that Fox have a choice. They could move National Geographic toward greater professional respectability as they did with the Wall Street Journal, or they could move it “down-market�? as they did with the New York Sun and News of the World. Time will tell which path they choose. Whatever happens though, archeologists wanting to engage with a broader audience must work in venues such as these, or risk being resigned to obscurity in the echo chamber of the ivory tower.

The post Why programs like “Battlefield Recovery�?show that archeologists�?work with the media is far from done appeared first on Society for Historical Archaeology.

Yes, the King and Ringy, that duo you love to hate will be kicking off the third season of Diggers, July 20th on The National Geographic Channel. What? They’re still in business!? All the other such shows �?Savage Family Diggers,Dig Fellas, and Dig Wars, have all gone by the wayside. Curiously, Diggers has actually been a hit for the NGC. Even with that ratings success, things will be a bit different this season.

As I mentioned in a previous blog, the National Geographic Society wants to win back its brand and they have turned to professional archaeologists for help. In cooperation with Half Yard Productions, the producers ofDiggers, both the SHA and the SAA assembled panels to review the rough cuts of each of the episodes for season 3. These panels made comments, on what they saw and these were often incorporated into the final episodes. They also compensated the panels for their time and effort. The SHA panel put this money ($3000) into the student travel fund.

So, what has changed? First, they have eliminated the dollar value assessments of the artifacts that are recovered. This has been one of the main objections from the archaeological community and we told the production company that it was a deal breaker if it stayed. Still, this was a huge concession on their part since valuation of the finds is the “payoff�?on popular shows such as Pawn Stars, Antiques Roadshow, and Storage Wars. We will see how much it is missed by the non-professional audience.

Second, they have hired a new on-screen archaeologist, Marc Henshaw. Marc has a PhD in Industrial Archeology and Heritage from Michigan Tech. He owns his own archaeological consulting firm, Nemacolin Archaeological Services and writes an archaeological blog www.archaeologydude.com where he shares his insights into the everyday life and mind of a professional archaeologist. Accordingly, he subscribes to a holistic stakeholder approach to archaeology. His blog proclaims “that if you can’t make the archaeological sites important to the community, they will never be worth anything to that community either from a heritage standpoint or a preservation standpoint.�?Seems like the right guy for the show and there is a chemistry developing between he and metal detectorists.

Finally, they have sought out real archaeologists to partner with when possible. This has proven to be no small feat as most archaeologists were understandably reluctant to have them or the disruption of their cameras, on their sites. Still they managed to work with a few archaeologists this season and these proved to be the best episodes. In fact, the season begins with the boys volunteering at Montpelier and being shown the cooperative ropes by our own Matt Reeves (who has shared about his public metal detecting programs here before). It is worth watching.

Is it a good show now? That depends upon what you want. It is entertaining, the backstories and graphics are good, and they visit some interesting places. The boys are still over-the-top silly, but apparently that is part of their charm. And honestly, many of the shows on PBS have bought into the cult of personality (e.g. History Detectives, This Old House, Secrets of the Dead). Diggers may not be your favorite show, but at least I don’t think you will hate it now. If you do, there’s always CSPAN.

The post Diggers Done Right appeared first on Society for Historical Archaeology.

I thought, oh no, not again! I was transported back two years to when the National Geographic Channel debuted their metal detecting reality show, Diggers.  The reaction to that show was just as vociferous, if not as swift. The National Geographic Channel listened to us then, perhaps they would now.

I emailed David Lyle, CEO of the National Geographic Channels and said that the preview of their new show, Nazi War Diggers, had offended many archaeologists, myself included. I also emailed Jeff Altschul, president of the SAA, who had been getting an earful from his constituency.  He decided to make it a two prong attack and take their objections to the National Geographic Society. David Lyle responded to my email relatively quickly and said that the clip had been taken out of context and provided me with the full description of the show. He also said it would only be aired in Europe  My response was that the SHA was an international organization and that it was being joined by other international organizations (SAA, AAA, AIA, EAA, and the EASA). Our list of concerned was growing larger and growing impatient. They got the message.

Jeff Altschul drafted a joint letter that all the major organizations signed, but by then the National Geographic Channel had already issued this statement:

“National Geographic Channels International, in consultation with colleagues at the National Geographic Society, announced today that it will pull the series Nazi War Diggers from its schedule indefinitely while questions raised in recent days regarding allegations about the program can be properly reviewed. While we support the goal of the series, which is to tell the stories of long lost and forgotten soldiers, those left behind and still unaccounted for, and illuminate history working in concert with local governments and authorities, we also take seriously the questions that have been asked. National Geographic Channels is committed to engaging viewers in the exploration of the world and all of us associated with National Geographic are committed to doing our work with the highest standards.  We know the same holds true for our producing partners, including our partners on this series.�?/p>

Is this only a temporary reprieve till the next outrageous show comes along?  Will this be a rolling battle against edutainment with no end in sight?  Perhaps not, but we are going to have to be willing to work with the networks.

Interestingly, all that was known about the show was the few paragraphs and the clip on the website. Admittedly, the producers could not have picked a more inflammatory video to post and with their initial missteps with Diggers, the archaeological community was not inclined to cut them any slack. Still, Jeff and I have seen that the NGC had worked to make the show Diggers better and we were willing to hear them out and work with them on Nazi War Diggers.  However, the program has been shelved and it doesn’t look like it will be aired without substantial reworking, if ever.

So what does this tell us? I think it tells us that the NGC is willing to work with the archaeological community if we are willing to work with them. I know many of you will scoff and insist that there is no working with this unethical machine. Yet our negotiations have produced results. Say that about Spike’s Savage Family Diggers or the Travel Channel’s Dig Fellas or Dig Wars. There is no redeeming archaeological value to any of those shows, but I hear no hue and cry to boycott those networks. Probably because we know that they don’t care.

The post Nazis, Ethics and Tolerance appeared first on Society for Historical Archaeology.

The post Ethics: Who Decides? appeared first on Society for Historical Archaeology.

The following post discusses the first metal detecting workshop open to the general public, directed by the Montpelier Archaeology Department this Spring. The post was co-authored by Dr. Matthew Reeves, Director of Archaeology and Landscape Restoration at the Montpelier Foundation, and Scott Clark, a member of the metal detecting community and participant in the 2013 workshop. Mr. Clark lives in Kentucky and holds a BS in Computer Science from Southern Illinois University, and blogs about metal detecting at //detecting.us, where you can read about his experience at the workshop. You can read about Dr. Reeves’ previous metal detecting workshop with metal detector dealers from Minelab here.

Participants Peter Roder and Krisztina Roder surveying the front lawn of Montpelier with archaeologist Samantha Henderson. This survey is intended to locate the early 19th century carriage road as well as other sites located on the front lawn for future preservation and study.

In mid March, the Montpelier Archaeology Department completed the first public archaeology program at Montpelier that was open to the general metal detecting public. This program pairs metal detectorists with trained Montpelier archaeology staff to conduct gridded metal detector surveys across a section of the 2700-acre property to locate and identify archaeological sites. This survey work is combined with lectures regarding what archaeology can reveal of sites, human activity, and how it meets the goals of a historic site such as Montpelier. On one level, the purpose of this program is to locate historic sites so they can be preserved. It just so happens that controlled and gridded metal detector surveys are one of the most efficient means of finding a range of sites from ephemeral slave quarters, to barns, and sites characteristically missed by standard shovel test pit surveys.

As the week progressed, provenance and context began to frame conversations which had previously been artifact-centric. It became clearer that once detectorists have insight into the broader hypothesis of a project, the sooner they became immensely productive allies in achieving its goals. They expressed the importance of feeling the years they’ve spent mastering their hobby was being respected by the professionals beyond only a field technician’s role.

Participant Fred Delise showing off nail he recovered from an 18th century activity area. Participants learn how to identify nails and their significance for dating and interpreting archaeological sites.

The knowledge flowed many directions. The detectorists�?expressions when presented the full richness of nail dating techniques was equaled only by those of the archaeologists as they learned how dating shotgun shells could tell you when a wooded area was likely open fields! When the excitement of archaeology is transferred to a group labeled as pot hunters and looters, the fallacy of a one-size fits all for metal-detectorist community is revealed.

Participant Jim Wirth excavating a metal detector hit accompanied by archaeologist Jimena Resendiz during survey of a wooded portion of the Montpelier property. While this particular woodlot was originally intended for a selective forestry cut, the number of archaeological sites we have located through metal detector survey has marked it for preservation.

During the program, participants spend a day at the archaeology site to learn how we recover artifacts. In this shot, archaeologist Jeanne Higbee trains Tom Ratel in the art of unit excavation. This particular site is a quarter for field slaves that we are excavating as part of a four-year NEH study of the enslaved community at Montpelier. This site was defined by metal detector surveys conducted during a similar program held in 2012.

Interested in doing your own workshop at your institution? Dr. Reeves has made his workshop manual available for download here. 

This project was held in conjunction with the National Trust for Historic Preservation (see their blog on this program) and Minelab Americas.

The post Open Minds, Clearer Signals – Metal Detectorist and Archaeologist Cooperation Takes Another Step appeared first on Society for Historical Archaeology.

UPDATE: This post by Charlie Ewen has received a great deal of response, both here on the blog and in backchannels. Because the SHA Blog is a space for dialogue and discussion, we have modified this posting to include a dissenting opinion from Archaeologist Dan Sivilich, as well as a commentary by SHA President Paul Mullins summarizing and contextualizing the debate. There contributions can be found after the initial post. Please continue the discussion in the comments!

Is it Better?

Charlie Ewen
SHA President-Elect

On Tuesday, January 15, 2013, nearly a million viewers tuned into National Geographic’s reality show, Diggers.  I figure in that half hour, more people were exposed to that archaeological message than everyone who has ever read everything that I have, or will, ever write.  Granted, I don’t crank out many bestsellers, but I have managed to publish enough not to perish.  The point I am making is that, even on a second tier cable network, you can reach a lot people.

As I have mentioned in previous blogs, there is a price to be paid when reaching out to the masses. Moving into the realm of the media, especially network or cable television comes with an entertainment price tag. Here, the real question is, how willing are archaeologists to work (read: compromise) with the entertainment industry?  Do we take the high road and lose relevance with most of the public or do we sell out and lose our professional souls?  Is there a middle ground?

Meeting with the Nat Geo

In a previous blog I discussed meeting with the National Geographic Channel to discuss how they could make their show more acceptable to archaeologists. The producers discussed the challenges National Geographic Society (NGS) faces in the highly competitive world of commercial television. They reminded the archaeologists present of the on-going role of NGS as an enabler of world-class research and a source of great story telling, highlighting the challenge NGS now faces in its effort at becoming more expansive in communication without losing sight of core mission and ethical principles that have always guided the Society. In this context, the producer outlined the Channel’s interest in seeking advice from the archaeological community about the ethical guidelines that any future programming could both operate within and promote, while advancing the goal of reaching broad audiences using contemporary television storytelling.

Archaeologists’ concerns

I think it appropriate here to make explicit our archaeological ethics.  The SHA has a codified seven ethical principals (a synopsis is presented below):

1. Adhere to professional standards of ethics and practices
2. Support the preservation of archaeological sites and collections
3. Disseminate research results in an accessible, honest and timely manner.
4. Collect data accurately and appropriately curated for future generations.
5. Respect the dignity and human rights of others.
6. Items from archaeological contexts shall not be traded, sold, bought or bartered as commercial goods, and it is unethical to take actions for the purpose of establishing the commercial value of objects from archaeological sites or property that may lead to their destruction, dispersal, or exploitation.
7. Encourage education about archaeology, strive to engage citizens in the research process and publicly disseminate the major findings of their research.

The compromise

The National Geographic Channel has actually re-imagined their show to address our main concerns.  They partnered with some ongoing digs and had their hosts, “KG and Ringy�? assist in the recovery of artifacts.  I have seen a couple of the new shows in the National Geographic series and they ARE better.  Yes, the boys are still over the top in their enthusiasm to find “nectar�?  But they are actually under the direction of qualified archaeologists who point them in the right direction.  And, yes, NGC did hire a staff archaeologist, Kate Culpepper, who follows after the boys and records what they found and, more importantly, where it was found (a process that led to the very recent discovery relating to the Hatfields and McCoys).  I also saw no mention that the artifacts were to be sold. (Actually, I was told that the Diggers had never sold any artifacts.  They simply had them appraised on camera because people always want to see what their finds are worth).  So, that addressed my major concerns: research design, context and no trafficking in artifacts.

That being said, there is plenty to quibble about.  The boys are still annoyingly silly.  You’d think if they’ve been doing this for as long as they claim they wouldn’t fall into a grande mal seizure every time they found a colonial-era button.  And, according to some of the archaeologists whose sites were used, the shows ARE somewhat scripted (not to the extent of their rival, Spike’s American Diggers �?but that’s more pro wrestling than pro archaeology).  However, I am encouraged that the producers are making a good faith effort to improve the show.

I would also add that the shows are genuinely more entertaining.  The professional archaeologists seem to work well with metal detectors and the boys seemed to be even more enthused (if that is possible) about making contributions to our knowledge of the past.  There is an accompanying website for the show which I found to be informative and entertaining.  The bits about responsible metal detecting and doing archaeology are educational without being preachy.

But not everyone is as happy with the new shows.  I have heard from several archaeologists who are unhappy with the fact that the artifacts are still given a monetary value at the end of each show.  They also decry the absence of a visible archaeologist in the shows.  You actually have to visit the show’s website to see the extent to which National Geographic has tried to comply with archaeological ethics.  These are valid points.  Assigning a value to an artifact does increase it marketability.  However, virtually every reality show of this type (e.g. Pawn Stars, American Pickers, Storage Wars, etc.) ends with a valuation of the items collected.  What I do like about the valuation of the artifacts on Diggers is that it serves as a realistic counterpoint to the wildly inflated values assigned to artifacts by Ric Savage on American Diggers.  Getting $10 for a Civil War Minnie ball is a poor justification to invest in a $600 metal detector.  And to be clear, these artifacts are NOT being sold.  And the archaeologists HAVE been peripheral characters on the show (though not on the actual projects).  Still, it is the perception that needs to be dealt with here.

Conclusion

Our job is to explain to the general public (because we can’t do it alone) why our ethical positions are important.  Archaeology is more than just finding stuff.  It’s determining the story the stuff has to tell.  The daring search for treasure is a compelling hook we can use to engage the public, but it is just the beginning of our work.  Now I think archaeology is entertaining all by itself, but even I must admit that some days it is like watching paint dry.   Obsessing with a tape measure and a Munsell book may be good archaeology, but it is poor television.  So, do we put up with a bit of slapstick before the real archaeologists deliver the educational punchline at the end of each show?  Or do we write off a large chunk of the population as beneath our intellectual reach?   It depends upon whom you want to reach.

Nobody learns if they aren’t listening, but how low must we go to reach the average television viewer? Was the History Channel’s Digging for the Truth breaking new ground or making it up? Even the archaeologically thoughtful Time Team out of Great Britain makes American archaeologists cringe when their stalwart crew arrives at an archaeologist’s site to solve all their vexing problems in three days�?time.  The American version has had trouble securing an audience �?even on Public Television!

Surely there is some middle ground that gets our point across without boring the public to tears?  We will see if Diggers can strike that balance.  It has become apparent that these ‘reality�?shows are not going away.  They are cheap to make and audiences like them.   And whereas almost a million viewers watched the last episode of Diggers, more than a million watched the last episode of Spike’s travesty, American Diggers. Boom baby, indeed!

A Response

Dan Sivilich
President
Battlefield Restoration and Archaeological Volunteer Organization

I read the SHA blog about the NatGeo TV “Diggers” show and I could not disagree more with the idea that the show has improved.  I was one of the 14 people that were invited to National Geographic TV for our input on how to clean up the show. It was carefully orchestrated by a professional moderator. I tried to bring up my concerns about the cast but, my questions were directed away.  Yes, they did hire an archaeologist, who is never seen or mentioned on the show. She works in the background. The viewing audience has no clue about serious archaeology. They simply get the message: dig holes and remove objects. The show still puts a monetary value on the objects. So what has been improved?

“Diggers” recently did a show in NJ at a Revolutionary War historic site and dug musket balls.  There was no mention of archaeology, mapping, artifact context, spatial relationships or a site report.  I must have missed seeing a GIS map of the site? I found out that the archaeologist mapped the finds using a handheld GPS. The area where artifacts were found appeared to be primarily wooded. In 2006 I published a paper on how inaccurate handheld GPS units are under the best conditions. Here are a few of the repercussions of their NJ show:

1. The NJ State Park Police had to be put on alert at Monmouth and Princeton Battlefields, for the novices who got a shiny new detector and saw that digging musket balls is fun and OK to do.  Where to go – a battlefield!  In the past, there have been a number of uneducated first-timers at both parks that had to be educated by the Park Police of the potential consequences of metal detecting on a protected historic site.
2. Contrary to what we were led to believe by NatGeo, they valued Rev War musket balls at $10.  Now the hardcore looters will turn to Monmouth and Princeton.  A few years ago 3 were arrested on Christmas day thinking the Park was not patrolled on a holiday! They were wrong.
3. We who metal detect take great offense at what they are doing to our public image.  We have been working very hard to improve our public image and this show makes a mockery of it.
4. What would Sir Edmund Hillary say about the character of National Geographic?

We should not condone the actions of “Diggers” simply because a few people think it is entertaining. It is an embarrassment to anyone who seriously wields a metal detector: archaeologist or hobbyist alike. I have yet to find one person who uses a metal detector that actually likes the show or has a different opinion. I have spoken with several metal detector manufacturers and even they will not support this show in its current format.

Archaeology and the Media

Paul Mullins
SHA President

For many archaeologists, television portrayals of archaeology are inevitably shallow, focused on inconsequential details, or verging on unethical practice. From National Geographic’s “Diggers�?/a> to the press conference discussing the University of Leicester Archaeological Services�?excavation of Richard III, many of our colleagues have apprehensively monitored how the discipline is being represented, and many scholars are not especially pleased with archaeology’s popular cultural and mass media presence.

This week no archaeological story has received more press than the confirmation that a skeleton excavated in Leicester in September 2012 is almost certainly the mortal remains of Richard III, the last Plantangenet King of England. The presentation of that data on February 4^th and the revamped “Diggers�?/a> force us to think about how such scholarship shapes the public perception of archaeology and if the media presentations of archaeology risk becoming the tail that wags the dog. Can we capture the complicated methodological practice of archaeology in a television show? Can the complex details of nearly any archaeological study be distilled into a palatable, entertaining, and intellectually rigorous popular representation?

The Richard III project has been told in thoughtful detail by a University of Leicester page detailing the excavations, and in many ways it is unfair to use this particular project as an example of how archaeology is presented in the media. The Leicester project was faced with distinctive if not utterly unique challenges: since they potentially held the bones of a British monarch, there was exceptionally intense interest in the results of their analysis, and it had little to do with the analysis of the medieval friary where Richard apparently rested for half a millennium. The Leicester team in many ways controlled the public representation of their scholarship by holding a press conference, and while the astounding global press must be well-received in the halls of University of Leicester administration, good scholars presented the evidence in a preliminary form and did their best to manage the way their work is represented. Yet in the end much of the press will fixate on the bones of a monarch and likely miss the many thoughtful details the ULAS scholars have outlined.

Since SHA representatives met with the National Geographic Society in May to register our complaints over the research ethics of their metal detecting show “Diggers,�?the show has revamped its presentation of the two avocational detectorists out digging historic artifacts. The most critical change perhaps was the addition of a staff archaeologist to monitor that all excavation was conducted with the parameters of ethical and legal practice, and she catalogs all the artifacts the two detectorists locate. The show continues to display the estimated value of artifacts at the end of each program, though they do not actually sell any artifacts. SHA President-Elect Charlie Ewen’s assessment of the show this season is that it has improved in many ways as archaeology, even if we may individually not find the show itself especially compelling.

Dan Sivilich is among the SHA members who remains disappointed with “Diggers’�?representation of historical archaeology in general and avocational metal detecting in particular. In his blog posting here, Sivilich (who attended the National Geographic meeting in May as an SHA representative) concedes that the show may have employed an archaeologist to supervise the two detectorists, but she has almost no screen presence and the show does not make any significant effort to represent archaeological research methods or insights. He remains firmly opposed to any valuations of artifacts at all, a move that he argues encourages looting. While the show may technically be in keeping with SHA Ethics that do not accept the commercial exploitation of artifacts, his argument is that simply conceding exchange value risks encouraging people to simply see artifacts as commodities.

But perhaps his most strongly held sentiments revolve around how the show represents metal detectorists. The stars of the show–“King George�?Wyant and Tim “The Ringmaster�?Saylor—are, in Charlie Ewen’s charitable words, “annoyingly silly.�?Dan is less charitable, fueled certainly by his own long-term work with a vast range of avocational metal detectorists who have partnered with archaeologists. For some of our members metal detecting has long been caricatured in popular media and by professional archaeologists, and detectorists want to stress their professional practices in keeping with archaeological research ethics. But these two guys prone to bizarre phrases of excitement risk undoing much of the professionalism honed by avocational detectorists.

Regardless of how we each feel individually about “Diggers,�?it presents some ethical complications as we present complicated science and interpretive narratives in the inevitably reductionist sound-bite medium of the media. This was what chagrined many observers of the Richard III media coverage, with Mary Beard complaining in The Times Literary Supplement that �?/span>What put me off was a nexus of things to do with funding, university PR, the priority of the media over peer review, and hype … plus the sense that–intriguing as this was, a nice face to face moment with a dead king–there wasn’t all that much history there, in the sense that I understand it.�?/p> Beard wondered over “the question of whether media interest starts to set research agendas. This runs through many areas, but especially archaeology. �?I’m quite prepared to believe that this skeleton is Richard III (he’s where we would have expected him after all) — but he is part of a climate which pushes people to celebrity history and archaeology, and may even detract from more important work that doesn’t have that glitz.�?Indeed, we may find that much of what archaeology does simply is not readily adaptable to mass media discourse. Yet in a moment that archaeology is under fire we may feel compelled to use the media to keep us on the radar of the state and our University administrators, even if we are apprehensive of how our work will be represented in the hands of journalists without any significant archaeological background. Is any press—even if it is simplistic or stereotypical–good press? I am disinclined to simply walk away from the media and popular culture because it is not really an option: what we do is simply too visible and holds significant interest to quite a few people. But we need to be firm and fair partners when we choose to work with the media, and we need to register our complaints when we think our work is not being represented fairly. So let us know what you think of “Diggers,�?Richard III, and your own experiences with the popular representation of archaeological research, and lets work toward asking what works well and how more of us can borrow from those success stories.

What are your thoughts? Please continue the discussion and debate in the comments below!

The post National Geographic’s Diggers: is it better? appeared first on Society for Historical Archaeology.

�?We will have a local supervising archaeologist during all metal detecting and digging.
�?We will have a full-time crew position for a person with an archaeology degree and field experience; that person will keep a detailed catalog / map of every item we find, process the artifacts in the proper way, and see that whatever person or organization that takes ultimate possession of the artifacts is also provided with the documentation.
�?At the end of each episode, we will meet with an archaeologist to discuss the historical importance of the items, and to place them in their historical context.
�?We will not place a monetary value on the objects we find. Instead, we will focus on the “historic value” of the items, and the stories they can tell.
�?Throughout each episode, we will feature “responsible metal detecting tips,” about laws pertaining to metal detecting: where it’s not okay to go, what to do if you stumble across an important archaeological site, etc. The tips relate directly to the content of each episode, so they will vary widely. These will help to actively discourage illegal relic hunting/looting, and stress that respect is the key to metal detecting responsibly: respect of the law, of the landowner, and of our common cultural heritage.

The post National Geographic’s Diggers Redux appeared first on Society for Historical Archaeology.

The SHA has written a letter to the Canadian Prime Minister joining our international colleagues including the Society for American Archaeology who have appealed to the Canadian government to reconsider the scope of these transformations in one of the world’s models for historic preservation, cultural heritage, and historic archaeology.  Let’s hope that by the time we meet in Quebec in January, 2014 the Canadian government will reconsider the breadth and sweep of these changes.

The post Parks Canada Cuts appeared first on Society for Historical Archaeology.