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 twentyrst 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 ndings 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 Australias 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, specic 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 identied 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 signicant. Comparative rankings of the publics top ve 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 signicantly 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.
35

Number 63, December 2006

Out of the Box: Popular Notions of Archaeology in Documentary Programmes on Australian Television

Table 1 Public misconceptions about Australian archaeology and related survey ndings.

General Public Enquiries to Consulting Firm du Cros (1999) n=24 Archaeology happens mostly overseas, not much archaeology to do in Australia.

Western Australian University Students

Sydney University Undergraduate Archaeology Students Colley (2005) n=60

Canada

United States

Balme and Wilson (2004) n=119 Classical and Egyptian civilisations dominate public ideas about archaeology. Majority of respondents unable to name an Australian archaeological site (either Indigenous or European).

Pokotylo and Guppy (1999) n=963

Ramos and Duganne (2000) n=1016 Egypt identied by many people as the location of the worlds most important archaeological sites.

Initial interest in Classical archaeology archaeology at school is considered most was associated with important by many classical and Old World people. themes. 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. 16% of respondents directly associated archaeology with palaeontology.

Archaeology is all about digging, especially digging up treasure or dinosaurs.

Majority of respondents associated archaeology with digging, fossils, or dinosaurs.

Digging is associated with top-of-mind responses about archaeology for the majority of people.

High emphasis on the Most people do not process of archaeology connect archaeology rather than the with Indigenous issues. knowledge produced.

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.

Most people view archaeology as an academic practice and are largely unaware of CRM work or nonacademic professionals. Many people associate archaeology with romantic images. Romantic images of adventure and discovery in far-away places are common. As above. The majority unaware that archaeological work is done to comply with laws and public policy.

Universities and museums considered the most likely place for archaeologists to work.

Archaeology is a discretionary and selfindulgent activity.

As above.

Around 45% of Archaeology is rarely respondents important in political situations and has little considered archaeology relevance to Australian not relevant or society. dont know while a further 15% thought archaeology might be a bit relevant.

Low awareness of archaeologys relevance to Australian society prior to studying archaeology at university.

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.

36

Number 63, December 2006

Stephen Nichols

Figure 1 Totally Wild lming during the 2004 eld 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 ctional or dramatic forms. If audience perceptions of archaeology are inuenced 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 lm 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 dened by the researcher and applied consistently to each unit of content analysed, thereby generating quantiable 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 rm 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 specic media over some dened 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 briey 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 515% of Australian viewers. In those households watching pay TV, documentaries only account for a small proportion of viewing, well behind general entertainment, movies, childrens 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 rst-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 1 2 3 4 5

Australia Balme and Wilson (2004) Television Magazines and newspapers (combined) Books Museums Movies

Canada Pokotylo and Guppy (1999) Museums Television Travel/site visits Magazines and newspapers (combined) Books

United States Ramos and Duganne (2000) Television Magazines and newspapers (combined) Books School College

38

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 dened 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, identied 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 identied 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, conrming 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 librarys Collection Development Policy Guidelines, as well as retaining any programme specically requested by University
Table 3 Documentary programmes included in content analysis sample.

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 ve 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 identied in the sample; and (5) Key imagery and themes, which aims to dene some of the genrespecic elements that characterise archaeological documentary programmes. Categories were developed to investigate popular documentary portrayals of archaeology and to explore the extent to which content reects the misconceptions and stereotypes identied 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

# 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Programme Secrets of the Pyramids Nefertiti, Egypts Mysterious Queen Lost Cities of the Maya Ancient Apocalypse: Collapse of the Maya Empires of Stone: The Colosseum Ancient Apocalypse: The Mystery of the Minoans Empires of Stone: The Acropolis Ancient Apocalypse: Sodom and Gomorrah Empires of Stone: The Great Wall of China Ancient Apocalypse: Death on the Nile The Real Spartacus Napoleons Lost Army The Lost City of Roman Britain The Private Lives of Pompeii Desert Rescue Britains Oldest House Our Top Ten Treasures The Mystery Mummies of Rome The Real Jason and the Argonauts Atlantis Reborn Again When the Romans Ruled Africa The Mummies of Taklamakan The Corsair of St Malo Karakoum: Treasures of the Lost City

Network SBS ABC SBS SBS SBS SBS SBS SBS SBS SBS SBS SBS SBS ABC SBS SBS SBS SBS ABC ABC SBS SBS SBS SBS

Date 19.07.03 3.08.03 16.08.03 2.09.03 7.09.03 9.09.03 14.09.03 16.09.03 21.09.03 23.09.03 27.09.03 19.10.03 26.10.03 26.10.03 2.11.03 9.11.03 16.11.03 23.11.03 30.11.03 30.11.03 7.12.03 14.12.03 21.12.03 28.12.03

Time

Original Release

7.30pm 1999, BBC 10.00pm 1999, BBC/TLC 7.30pm 2003, BBC/History Channel 7.30pm 2001, BBC/TLC 7.30pm 2001, Channel 4 7.30pm 2001, BBC/TLC 7.30pm 2001, Channel 4 7.30pm 2001, BBC/TLC 7.30pm 2001, Channel 4 7.30pm 2001, BBC/TLC 7.30pm 2000, Channel 4 8.30pm 2003, BBC 8.30pm 2003, BBC 8.30pm 2002, Channel 4 8.30pm 2003, BBC 8.30pm 2003, BBC 8.30pm 2003, BBC 8.30pm 2003, BBC 7.30pm 2003, Atlantic Productions 10.00pm 2000, BBC 8.30pm 2003, BBC 8.30pm 2003, BBC 8.30pm 2003, BBC 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 reects some aspect of the material under investigation and which can be applied according to observer-independent rules. For detailed information regarding the specic recording variables used in each category, operational denitions and coding instructions, see Nichols (2004). Completed viewing documents were collated and summarised by category in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet.

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 ndings (see Pokotylo and Guppy 1999; Ramos and Duganne 2000).

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 specically included in the frame of analysis, it is worth noting that a brief survey of the advertised programme descriptions reects 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

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 specic variables in each category see Nichols (2004).

Content Category

Key Recording Variables

Misconceptions and Stereotypes 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. Archaeology is a discretionary and self-indulgent activity with little relevance for contemporary society. Most people do not associate archaeology with Indigenous issues.

Spatial and temporal coverage Geographic focus. Temporal focus. Type of archaeology. Issues and theory Archaeological topics addressed. Appearance of fantastic archaeology.

Practice and methods

Activities depicted. Other professions and disciplines appearing. Name. Title. Organisational afliation. Gender. Apparent age. Apparent nationality. Personal appearance. Interview setting. Narrator/presenter. Audio qualities/music. Use of reconstruction and dramatic re-enactment. Stereotypical images.

Archaeology is all about digging, especially digging up treasure or dinosaurs. High emphasis on the process of archaeology.

Archaeologists appearing

Archaeologists are male, bearded, eccentric academics. Universities and museums considered the most likely place for archaeologists to be working.

Key imagery and themes

Many people associate archaeology with romantic or exotic images and themes.

40

Number 63, December 2006

Stephen Nichols

No. of Programmes (n=24)

12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Central America Middle East Europe Africa Asia

No. of Programmes (n=24)

14

Egyptology

Underwater

Prehistory

World Region

Type

Figure 2 Primary geographic focus of archaeological documentary programmes.

Figure 3 Types of archaeology represented in documentary programmes.

Issues and Theories

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

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 specic events or episodes in the past (e.g. the collapse of a particular civilisation, a specic battle, the sinking of a particular ship, the effects of a natural disaster, the building of a specic structure, the life of a known historical gure) 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.

Table 5 Primary temporal focus of archaeological documentary programmes on Australian television (category variables after Fagan 2004).

Category Variable (temporal focus)

No. of Programmes 0 1 0 0 0 0 18 2 0 3 0 24

Human Origins European Hunter-Gatherers Indigenous Australia First Americans African Hunter-Gatherers First Farmers Old World Civilisations Mesoamerican Civilisations Andean States Modern World (Post-AD 1500) Other Total

Unable to Classify

Other Civilisation

Classical

Historical

Biblical

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

0 4 0 0 0 0 75 8 0 13 0 100

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, Tutankhamens 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 conrms the presence of fantastic theories in mainstream documentary presentations of archaeology and is consistent with the assertions of Hiscock (1996:152) and with the ndings 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.

study of dinosaurs. The representation of anthropology is also noteworthy. Although physical anthropologists appear in six programmes (25%), socio-cultural anthropology does not gure at all. In all cases, physical anthropologists appear as experts in specialised scientic 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 identied 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 specically identied 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 scientic activities in the laboratory. Specic feminist perspectives on archaeology or the past, however, are not canvassed. No academic qualications are given for the majority of archaeologists (68%) appearing in the programme sample. With respect to organisational afliation, 33% of archaeologists are specically associated with universities or museums. Other organisations, such as archaeological trusts and government instrumentalities, account for 27% of the archaeologists identied, while no organisational afliation 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 signicantly different from the likely occurrence of these practices in the general population, although this has not been statistically veried. A majority of archaeologists (89%) appear in casual attire and they are seen mostly outdoors, particularly in the eld, but also appear in laboratories, museum galleries and collections areas, libraries, ofces, 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.

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 scientic processes are often condensed into a few minutes of footage and the results of scientic research are treated within extremely logical-positivist frameworks of proof . The presentation of archaeological science in this way may reect the popularity of forensic ction 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 signicant 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

Number 63, December 2006

Stephen Nichols

25

12 No. of Programmes
Archaeological Science Excavation Experimental Archaeology Epigraphy/Document Research Environmental Reconstruction Finding Sites

No. of Programmes

20 15 10 5 0

10 8 6 4 2 0 Biology Geology/Earth Science Physical Anthropology Engineering History Architecture Astronomy Medical Others

Activity

Discipline/Profession

Figure 4 Archaeological programmes.

activities

depicted

in

documentary

Figure 5 Other disciplines appearing in archaeological documentary programmes.

Key Imagery and Themes

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 sacrice and rituals, murder and assorted violent acts. A number of stereotypical images were identied 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 genrespecic elements into which archaeology has been packaged for commercial purposes, they are the perceived selling points of archaeology for mainstream media producers.

Discussion
The results of this study show that, at least in terms of their manifest content, archaeological documentary programmes screened on Australian television reect many of the misconceptions and stereotypes identied 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 eldwork, 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 specically reinforce widespread notions that there is no archaeology to do in Australia and that archaeology has little direct relevance for modern Australian society. These ndings 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 19461955 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 scientic technology, the presentation of non-Western cultures as unchanging and timeless, and the domination of male archaeologists. Despite signicant 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?
43

Number 63, December 2006

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 identied by survey research may well reect a lack of any meaningful nonmedia archaeological experiences as much as they reect the consumption of popular media products. Nonetheless, given

the pervasive nature of mass communications in the twenty-rst 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 signicant 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 Male

Measure

Total No. (%) (n=73) 49 (67%) 24 (33%) 23 (32%) 50 (68%) 22 (30%) 2 (3%) 20 (27%) 29 (40%) 25 (34%) 21 (29%) 11 (15%) 7 (10%) 5 (7%) 4 (5%) 1 (<1%) 54 (74%) 18 (25%) 11 (15%) 3 (4%) 59 (81%) 22 (30%) 51 (70%) 6 (8%) 65 (89%) 2 (3%) 43 (59%) 18 (25%) 12 (16%)

Males (n=49) n/a n/a 16 (33%) 33 (67%) 15 (30%) 2 (4%) 14 (29%) 18 (37%) 16 (33%) 13 (27%) 8 (16%) 6 (12%) 4 (8%) 2 (4%) 0 33 (67%) 16 (33%) 11 (22%) 3 (6%) 35 (72%) 15 (31%) 34 (69%) 5 (10%) 42 (86%) 2 (4%) 29 (59%) 9 (18%) 11 (23%)

Females (n=24) n/a n/a 7 (30%) 17 (70%) 7 (29%) 0 6 (25%) 11 (46%) 9 (38%) 8 (33%) 3 (13%) 1 (4%) 1 (4%) 2 (8%) 1 (4%) 21 (88%) 2 ( 8%) n/a n/a 24 (100%) 7 (29%) 17 (71%) 1 (4%) 23 (96%) 0 14 (58%) 9 (38%) 1 (4%)

Female Title Professor/Dr None Given Organisational Afliation University Museum Other None Given Nationality British Other European North American Asian Other Unknown Apparent Age Under 30 30-50 Over 50 Facial Hair Beard Moustache Only None Glasses Yes No Dress Formal (suit &/or tie) Casual Both Interview Setting Outdoors/Field/On-Site Indoors/Museum/Lab Both

44

Number 63, December 2006

Stephen Nichols

Time Team phenomenon is seen by some as a generally positive inuence on the popular television presentation of archaeology, its geographic and cultural focus is xed exclusively on Great Britain. For Australian viewers, in the absence of any experience to the contrary, archaeology remains something that only happens overseas. To engage directly with these types of commerical media genre, high-quality entertaining Australian documentaries about Australian archaeology are needed. With the growing public and political prole of Australias past, as evidenced most recently by the so-called national history summit (Department of Education, Science and Training 2006), it is perhaps an opportune time for Australian archaeologists to conceive and promote such projects amongst Australian documentary makers. Although imported television programmes continue to proliferate at the expense of local content, many Australian documentaries do get made, they do get funded, and both the ABC and SBS do regularly include Australian documentary content concerning a wide range of topics in their programming schedules. However, we should not limit our media engagement strategies only to established entertainment genres. If, beyond raising awareness, the goal is to challenge the dominant discourses and hegemony from which familiar archaeological stereotypes are constructed in the rst place, then we must also consider the possibilities afforded by a rapidly evolving landscape of alternative media production.

understands archaeology, then a purposeful media strategy must be a crucial element in any framework of public archaeology for Australia. One key goal should be to increase the availability and access of Australian archaeological content for Australian audiences. Engaging directly with established mainstream television genres may be one aspect of such a strategy, and there is no reason why big-budget popularly entertaining documentaries about Australian archaeology should not be made. Ultimately though, to make a difference, beyond the entertainment values of popular archaeology, we will need to meaningfully engage our publics with our own media content. This might best be achieved through exploring an alternative media strategy outside the realm of commercialised mainstream media production.

Acknowledgements
I thank Sean Ulm, Annie Ross and Leonn Satterthwait for their support and supervision of the research on which this paper is based. The assistance of Helen Cooke, Social Sciences and Humanities Library, University of Queensland, is also appreciated. The paper has been greatly enhanced by the comments and suggestions of Jane Balme and Sarah Colley who refereed the manuscript.

References
Ang, I. 1990 Culture and communication: Towards an ethnographic critique of media consumption in the transnational media system. European Journal of Communication 5:239-260. Ang, I. 1991 Desperately Seeking the Audience. London: Routledge. Ascher, R. 1960 Archaeology and the public image. American Antiquity 25(3):402-403. Aston, M. and A. Selkirk 2005 Once upon a Time Team. Current Archaeology 200:372-377. Australian Film Commission 2006 What Australians are Watching. Retrieved 15 May 2006 from http://www.afc.gov.au/gtp/newmedia.html. Balme, J. and M. Wilson 2004 Perceptions of archaeology in Australia amongst educated young Australians. Australian Archaeology 58:19-24. Colley, S. 2002 Uncovering Australia: Archaeology, Indigenous People and the Public. Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin. Colley, S. 2005 Consumer choice and public archaeology in and beyond the academy. Australian Archaeology 61:56-63. Corner, J. 2001 Documentary realism. In G. Creeber (ed.), The Television Genre Book, pp.126-127. London: British Film Institute. Deacon, D., M. Pickering, P. Golding and G. Murdock 1999 Researching Communications: A Practical Guide to Methods in Media and Cultural Analysis. London: Arnold. Department of Education, Science and Training 2006 The Australian History Summit. Retrieved 14 September 2006 from http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_ education/policy_initiatives_reviews/key_issues/Australian_History_Summit/ Downing, J. 2001 Radical Media: Rebellious Communication and Social Movements. London: Sage. du Cros, H. 1999 Popular notions of Australian archaeology. Journal of Australian Studies 62:190-197. du Cros, H. 2002 Much More than Stones and Bones: Australian Archaeology in the Late Twentieth Century. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press. Fagan, B. 2001 In the Beginning: An Introduction to Archaeology. 10th ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Fagan, B. 2004 People of the Earth: An Introduction to World Prehistory. 11th ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Fagan, B. and M. Rose 2003 Ethics and the media. In L. Zimmerman, K. Viteli and J. Hollowell-Zimmer (eds), Ethical Issues in Archaeology, pp. 163-175. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.

Alternative Media
Over recent decades, the increasingly widespread availability of image-making equipment and communications technology have greatly increased the production, circulation and reach of so-called alternative media, which are being used more and more as vehicles for mediating cultural revival, identity formation and political assertion (Ginsburg 1994:5). Unlike recognisable media industries the form and content of alternative media is less easily dened, but encompasses all those media texts and messages which express an alternative vision to hegemonic policies, priorities, and perspectives (Downing 2001). Alternative media may share the same transmission spaces as mainstream commercial media texts, sometimes simultaneously, utilising both established and emerging communications technologies. They include Indigenous media productions, community television, independent lm makers, in-house media and email distribution networks, as well as a host of locally-produced publications and websites. Archaeologys place within this emerging landscape of alternative media, and the potential role of archaeology itself as a site of alternative media production, remains largely unexplored by Australian archaeologists.

Conclusion
Survey research suggests television is one of the main ways in which the public learns about archaeology in the Western world. Documentary programmes constitute a signicant and highly visible component of the archaeological programming available to Australian television audiences. Analysis of the archaeology documentary content appearing on Australian television shows it is overwhelmingly imported from overseas, it has a strong Eurocentric bias, and much of it is presented within the traditions of well-established Western colonial stereotypes. If mass media continue to be an important way in which the wider community

Number 63, December 2006

45

Out of the Box: Popular Notions of Archaeology in Documentary Programmes on Australian Television

Feder, K. 1984 Irrationality and popular archaeology. American Antiquity 489(3):525-541. Feder, K. 1999 Frauds, Myths and Mysteries: Science and Pseudoscience in Archaeology. 3rd ed. Mountainview: Mayeld. Fiske, J. and J. Hartley 2003 Reading Television. London: Routledge. Gero, J. and D. Root 1990 Public presentations and private concerns: Archaeology in the pages of National Geographic. In P. Gathercole and D. Lowenthal (eds), The Politics of the Past, pp.19-37. London: Unwin Hyman. Ginsburg, F. 1994 Culture/media: A (mild) polemic. Anthropology Today 10:5-15. Hall, A. 2003 Reading realism: Audiences evaluations of the reality of media texts. Journal of Communication 53:624-641. Hall, S. 1980 Encoding/decoding. In S. Hall, D. Hobson, A. Lowe and P. Willis (eds), Culture, Media, Language, pp.128-138. London: Hutchinson. Hiscock, P. 1996 The New Age of alternative archaeology in Australia. Archaeology in Oceania 31(3):152-164. Krippendorff, K. 2004 Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology. 2nd ed. London: Sage Publications. Lacey, N. 2002 Media Institutions and Audiences: Key Concepts in Media Studies. New York: Palgrave. Liebes, T. and E. Katz 1993 The Export of Meaning: Cross-Cultural Readings of Dallas. Oxford: Blackwell. Lilley, I. 2005 Archaeology and the politics of change in a decolonizing Australia. In J. Lydon and T. Ireland (eds), Object Lessons: Archaeology and Heritage in Australian Society, pp.89-106. Melbourne: Australian Scholarly Publishing McKee, A. 2002 Textual analysis. In S. Cunningham and G. Turner (eds), The Media and Communications in Australia, pp.62-84. Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin. Merriman, N. 2004 Introduction: Diversity and dissonance in public archaeology. In N. Merriman (ed.), Public Archaeology, pp.1-17. London: Routledge. Morley, D. 1992 Television, Audiences and Cultural Studies. London: Routledge. Morley, D. 1995 Theories of consumption in media studies. In D. Miller (ed.), Acknowledging Consumption, pp.296-328. London: Routledge. Moser, S. 1998 Ancestral Images: The Iconography of Human Origins. New York: Cornell University Press.

Moser, S. 2001 Archaeological representation: The visual conventions for constructing knowledge about the past. In I. Hodder (ed.), Archaeological Theory Today, pp.262-283. Oxford: Blackwell. Moser, S. 2003 Representing archaeological knowledge in museums: Exhibiting human origins and strategies for change. Public Archaeology 3:3-20. Neuendorf, K. 2002 The Content Analysis Guidebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Nichols, S. 2004 Out of the Box: Popular Notions of Archaeology in Documentary Programs on Australian Television. Unpublished BA (Hons) thesis, School of Social Science, University of Queensland, Brisbane. Nichols, S., J. Prangnell and M. Haslam 2005 Hearts and minds: Public archaeology and the Queensland school curriculum. Australian Archaeology 61:71-79. Piccini, A. 1996 Filming through the mists of time: Celtic constructions and the documentary. Current Anthropology 37:S87-S112. Pokotylo, D. and N. Guppy 1999 Public opinion and archaeological heritage: Views from outside the profession. American Antiquity 64(3):400-416. Ramos, M. and D. Duganne 2000 Exploring Public Perceptions and Attitudes about Archaeology. Retrieved 8 October 2006 from http://www.saa.org/Pubedu/ nrptdraft4.pdf. Silberman, N. 1999 Is archaeology ready for prime time: Digging and discovery as mass entertainment. Archaeology 52(3):79-82. Smiles, S. and S. Moser (eds) 2005 Envisioning the Past: Archaeology and the Image. Oxford: Blackwell. Spitulnik, D. 1993 Anthropology and mass media. Annual Review of Anthropology 22:293-315. Ulm, S., S. Nichols and C. Dalley 2005 Mapping the shape of contemporary Australian archaeology: Implications for teaching and learning. Australian Archaeology 61:11-23. Wimmer, R. and J. Dominick 2000 Mass Media Research: An Introduction. Melbourne: Wordsworth.

46

Number 63, December 2006