Doing down archaeology?

[BAJR Host]

A report in the Arts section of the Guardian 4th March -
talks about how we (as archaeologists) talk archaeology down - specificly Stonehenge... turning it from a mysterious place into a neolithic megalithic site with unknown function... we take away the mystery and add the dry description...

I thought about Rosslyn Chapel in Midlothian (as you know a place close to my er... heart) Is it a mysterious chapel that may hide the grail? OR A fine though incomplete structure built in the 15th century in Gothic style.

Do we have to play the game of talking up? or do we tell the plain facts... what do they want from us??? can we be both?

"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[mercenary]

I'm sure most archaeologists have had the experience of getting excited talking about a feature or site and being criticized by colleagues for "not being scientific" or the evidence not proving the interpretation. It sure strips the fun out of archaeology.

I'm all for a rigourous approach to the analysis and reporting, but feel that we should soften this somewhat in our dealings with the public. Having said that, some coverage in the press goes much too far in the search of an interesting story.

I suppose its up to archaeologists to be creative in finding the interesting stories behind the facts.

[mercenary]

Having now read the story I am amazed that Mike Parker Pearson and Francis Pryor are held up as archaeologists who stick to the boring facts!!!!!

[Gog]

You are never going to get anything sensible written about Stonehenge in any part of the media. I think we'd be better off if the Army had bulldozed it during the First World War. The idea that we talk archaeology down supposes that there is a much more interesting history out there that we are suppressing - shades of Graham Hancock.

[BAJR Host]

I'm an albino monk actually ...

"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[Dirty Dave Lincoln]

As a descendant of the royal house of Atlantis myself,i always prefer my colleagues to dumb down any discoveries made (at least till i've found the royal treasure hid in exile!)in our fair land.
Has any one else heard of a book claiming the Trojan war took place in the Cambridge Fens?

[Gog]

Bit ironic that one of your ads is currently trying to flog a new Templar dvd - coincidence, or ...?

[oldgirl]

I recently had all my non-archaeology colleagues mocking me for getting excited about a 12th century drain. Thanks goodness my archaeology colleagues were equally enthused when they saw the pictures, at least they now think we're all mad......

There is a difference between being enthusiastic and unsubstantiated flights of fancy and many people (archaeologists or not) can't tell the difference.

In the meantime, I'm off to find that atlantean treasure mentioned above....... anyone know where I can get a saddle for my seahorse?

[mercenary]

quote:Has any one else heard of a book claiming the Trojan war took place in the Cambridge Fens?

Yep, had that one handed to me by a family member many years ago. I seem to recall it was more interesting than most Graham Handcock works, which I have also been given.

[Beardstroker]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host
Do we have to play the game of talking up? or do we tell the plain facts... what do they want from us??? can we be both?



I know we probably shouldn't demystify sites like Stonehenge et al with scientific jargon, but if I'm honest, I tend to do it specifically around the kind of people who do go all mystic and New Agey, mainly because I know it infuriates them, particularly if you do it in a calm and serene fashion.

The way I look at it, we've had to put up with enough halfwitted garbage from these people over the years, so its about time we got our own back :D

Besides, the information we've been able to glean from sites like this, make them extremely awe inspiring enough anyway.

[mercenary]

I completely agree Beardstroker, but the archaeological profession probably needs to recognize that if it doesn't sell itself, to the wider public and to government, it will struggle.

[BAJR Host]

if it is not already!

"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[Mole]

Yes Beardstroker - you are always calm and serene ...woof, woof.:D:face-approve:

[Beardstroker]

quote:Originally posted by Mole

Yes Beardstroker - you are always calm and serene ...woof, woof.:D:face-approve:


That was a one off. And I hid the bodies well enough (I think):D

[Dirty Dave Lincoln]

How many of us upon saying what we do for a living get the same list of questions, usualy starting with "oh,that sounds interesting". I don't know whether its a case of selling the profession to the wider public to generate funding or should we be involving the public more in what we do? On commercial sites this is virtually impossible, despite local interest in the history of their own area. which is a shame considering how popular programmes like Time Team are.
Oldgirl, i think i saw one of those saddles on E-bay.

[Sith]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

I thought about Rosslyn Chapel in Midlothian (as you know a place close to my er... heart) Is it a mysterious chapel that may hide the grail? OR A fine though incomplete structure built in the 15th century in Gothic style.

Could it not be a 15th century chapel decorated with masonic symbols at the whim of its mason or his client? 'Mysterious' interpretations of this particular site have much more to do with Mr Brown's fantastical and uncritical approach to history and documentation than they do to archaeological interpretation. I used to visit Rosslyn chapel regularly as a child and don't remember anyone mentioning the grail.

This doesn't mean that our interpretations should be dull, after all a very wise (and be-whiskered) fellow once wrote that "Dead archaeology is the driest dust that blows".

D. Vader
Senior Consultant

Vader Maull & Palpatine
Archaeological Consultants

Don't make me destroy you, Curator

[Dirty Dave Lincoln]

The problem with archaeology reports/journals/publications is that we tell the story of what was there in the past (either building survey or a site history) and tend to ignore the human aspectof the history- rather strange really as archaeology/history is about people in the past;so non archaeologists are naturally more interested in being told a good story from the human side of things.However there is difference between "hamming" things up to tell a story and inventing the whole hog from a bacon sarnie!