Letters: British Archaeology 103, November/December 2008

Star Letter â€“ Moribund stereotypes

David Jennings

There is a legitimate concern about the explosion of data, the expansion in the number of organisations that undertake research, and the need to understand landscapes rather than isolated sites (Gary Lock, A professional mockery, feature July/Aug). In this debate the genesis of the data, whether "developer funded" or "academic research", is irrelevant. Oxford Archaeology believes that accessibility to all data and analysis is fundamental, as is the establishment of strong inter-institutional research networks. We will not, however, transform the sector if we continue to rehearse moribund stereotypes.

Gary doubts OA's commitment to the presentation of digital reports to OASIS. However, it has been OA policy since 2007 to include PDF copies of reports (34 at the last count) for all OASIS submissions. The absence of these from the Archaeology Data Service's on-line index is probably a function of the ADS's very sensible requirement that reports are first validated by heritage environment records. OASIS has only been in operation since 2002, not the late 1990s as is implied in the article.

While I am grateful to Gary for drawing attention to the lack of OA's project report on the Marchamby pass in the HER (for which there can be many causes), the Oxfordshire County Museum's accession number (OXCMS 5005.54) is shown on the OASIS entry, and the full report can be found there. It is inaccurate to state that the report is not in the public domain.

OA takes its educational commitment extremely seriously, having submitted more than 1,500 archives to a wide range of museums. We are working hard along with many other organisations (including some members of University of Oxford) to develop richer and better access to archaeological material. Clearly this very commitment acknowledges that there is much room for enhanced and new forms of presentation, but I would like to suggest that while polemical pieces might make for exciting journalism, articles founded on a better comprehension of the realities of modern professional practice might have a more beneficial outcome.

David Jennings, director and chief executive officer, Oxford Archaeology

Local reporters

As members of Barry Lane's "grey community" (Letters, Sep/Oct), we are pleased to say that our report is available to the wider world.

The biggest outcome of the community project Royton Lives through the Ages, run from 2004â€“2008, was the excavation of Royton Hall for which we achieved the Marsh Award. The scholarly report we commissioned from the University of Manchester is available on our website. We are investigating how to submit it for publication on OASIS. Copies have been placed with Royton Library and Oldham Local Studies and Archives. The full report is also in the resource pack that we compiled for schools.

We have also produced a popular publication and three DVDs. We enjoyed considerable media coverage and have items on the web site designed to be accessible by the public.

It would give us great pleasure to write a report for a county journal. We have had lots of encouragement in the Greater Manchester region of the north-west and wholeheartedly support Barry in his thoughts about bringing more community group and local society reports to the wider world.

Pointed helmets

Michael Lewis says "helmets are never shown with nasal guards [in manuscripts] until about the 12th century" (Bayeux Tapestry, Sep/Oct). A conical helmet with a nasal guard was found at Doura Europos, the late-Roman frontier city on the Euphrates, while another is illustrated in the Notitia Dignitatum of cAD400â€“420. Nasals are also found on a group of early fourth century Roman helmets with rounded, combed skulls, of which the best known is probably one from Deurne in the Leiden Museum, and, of course, on the eighth century York Coppergate helmet.

There is no such thing as a "mailed hauberk". Hauberks were made of mail, a term that was the standard one for armour made of interlinked rings during the whole of the medieval period. "Chainmail" is a pleonasm first recorded in Francis Grose's Treatise on Ancient Armour and Weapons of 1786.

Digital future

Bernard J Mulholland raises an interesting issue (Letters, Jul/Aug), but the vast majority of today's heritage-related digital data (let alone the other billions of bytes produced daily) will be indecipherable to the computers of 20 years hence. I have documents that were produced a decade ago in a popular word processor that now requires a 15 year old computer to read (should I evermanage to find one).

There are certain organisations, such as those behind the open archaeology banner (www.IOSA.it, www.openarchaeology.net), helping to prevent this trend by using open standards for document production, and survey and mapping data where possible. This will be readable by future programs, as the file formats are not under the control of any one vendor, and never can be, and the software will always be free.

The problem also applies to hardware, and an increasing number of files and disks, and hence archaeological information, will not be available to our successors â€“ unless we think ahead to just exactly which technologies we use to record it.

Hadrian shock

Is it necessary that every mention of Hadrian (feature, Sep/Oct) brings into the text or exhibition the alleged fact of his homosexuality, or even paedophilia? Hadrian by this relationship, which appears to be far from unusual for his time, is cast as a deviant or worse, whereas personalities throughout history with the possible exception of Henry VIII are rarely, if ever, defined by their sexuality. The implications of the constant coverage of Antinous by theoretically academics is not dissimilar from the coverage one would expect in a modern tabloid.

Putting Bonekickers to rest

Now the dust raised by Bonekickers is settling, we might pause to consider just why a TV series based in a university archaeology department caused such a fuss.

Speaking for myself, I was not quite sure how to decipher the high concept, post-modern Bonekickers (if such it was), although as with several broadsheet television reviewers, once I took life-style advice from the mighty Michael Winner and calmed down, things did look much better. I sense that my initial confusion was shared by some more voluble viewers; but after all, archaeology is archaeology and TV fiction is make-believe. I suspect that there is little, or nothing, that a television screenplay, however implausible or "bonkers", can do to damage "real", "proper" or "genuine" archaeology (I quote from our respondents).

With Spoilheap (Sep/Oct), I believe that imagination is key, and if Bonekickers arouses initial interest in things archaeological; if a drama, however daft, reaches prospective students or enthusiasts that Time Team, or for that matter an Archers sub-plot, has not, or perhaps cannot: that's terrific. Whether we get further entertained (or outraged) by such extraordinary archaeological adventures, remains to be seen. Audience figures fell from 6.8 to 4.3m during the course of the series, but industry gossip is that a second series of Bonekickers is not out of the question.

Here are some readers' thoughts, opened by three responses from academics invited to comment. Among those sadly unable to contribute was Prof Lord Colin Renfrew, who had "been travelling and missed it".

Far-fetched but good

I thought that Bonekickers was a very good idea, let down by poor execution, perhaps because it was written and produced in a rush. Much of the criticism that I've seen has focused on the inaccuracy of the archaeology. It is possible to get too hung up on this kind of thing: in Peter Ackroyd's novel First Light, all of the archaeological techniques are made up, and it doesn't detract from the enjoyment of the book at all. But because Bonekickers styled itself on forensic thrillers like CSI, the techniques are more central to the story. So, when carbon dates were depicted as coming back instantaneously, or human remains were detected with geophysics, it made one squirm a little. The need to have everything happening at break-neck speed, rather than allowing themes to develop over time seemed tome to indicate a storyline that had been dashed off in a hurry. The real problem with Bonekickers was that it was too often incoherent, with the attempt to link together King Arthur, Boudica and Tennyson too contrived and flimsy.

Despite all that, I hope that the BBC will commission a second season. Given a bit more time and thought, I think that archaeology could provide the raw material for more subtle storylines, and the existing characters could be developed in interesting ways. I'm not all that concerned about the way that the series might be misrepresenting the discipline. Plenty of people were attracted to archaeology in the 1970s by Erich von DÃ¤niken, or in the 1980s by Indiana Jones. If that spark of interest has been created, it is down to archaeologists in the universities to demonstrate to our students that the reality of the subject is just as exciting as the fiction, or more so. One aspect of the series that I did find particularly attractive was the representation of archaeology as a multicultural discipline, which has something to say to people beyond the white middle classes. In my experience, it's actually British Asians who are starting to be attracted to the subject, but the portrayal of black archaeologists might have some small part to play in transforming the popular perception of who can legitimately do archaeology.

Any positive 21st-century representation of archaeology and archaeologists can only be good for the public perception of our discipline, no matter how far-fetched the characters and story-line. Hopefully the popularity of the series will have a positive impact on student recruitment as well. Already it has been mentioned several times by applicants at open days in York. The phrase "Don't mess with me â€“ I'm an archaeologist!" will live on amongst my favourite one-liners.

Appalled

It's ill-written rubbish and its academic content is less than zero. To my mind, it promotes nothing but derision. It reduces archaeology to a set of runaway techniques, applied to non-questions by a team composed of lunatics. If Mark Horton couldn't influence the outcome, he should not have let his name be used. I've seen three, and that is quite enough for me.

I like many others read your article (In view, Jul/Aug) and was looking forward to seeing Bonekickers. However after watching the first episode I was appalled (like most archaeologists and indeed most viewers). Mark Horton promised that the show would promote a better understanding of archaeology. However, the only outcome seems to have been an embarrassment universally to all archaeologists. We all spent the next few days either ranting or laughing at the inaccuracies. The promise to "showcase scientific methods" was even more appalling in its execution. After many years of watching programmes such as Time Team the general public have a very good idea of what can be achieved. Many non-archaeologists I know commented on the inaccuracies â€“ the dendrochronology and pollen was just laughable. However, the most worrying thing is that quite a lot of people also believed that this was how real archaeology is conducted! The promise of realism will leave many people with a false impression of modern archaeology and potentially put the discipline back many years in the public's perception.

Michael Grant, senior environmental archaeologist (palynologist), Wessex Archaeology

Spoilheap (Sep/Oct) seems to approve of the dreadful Bonekickers on the basis of its viewing figures (can't be bad, if "archaeology" is involved); apparently its critics lack a sense of humour, imagination, romance, soul, etc. And that's about it, apart from stylistic comparisons with other programmes. The message seems to be: this is popular television â€“ deal with it. I can't wait for Spoilheap to tackle the upcoming fashion series, The Emperor's New Clothes (only joking!). I'm sure I can't be alone among your readers in asking for more than languid post-modernism in my TV critics. If Spoilheap can't identify with that, perhaps he (or she) should leave TV criticism to those who can.

Embarrassed

Such archaeological methods as depicted in Bonekickers have not (I hope!) been practiced for at least 100 years when antiquarian vicars liked to amuse themselves on Sunday afternoons by digging into several round barrows before tea. Bonekickers is not about archaeology at all. It is about treasure hunting. My expectations were not high but given the media hype and reassurances of good archaeological content I expected that this, at least, would be accurate. I was sadly disappointed. I would be embarrassed to admit being the archaeological advisor of this series.

Why is it that almost all archaeological programmes have a connection with Bristol University? Do I detect a bit of rivalry between colleagues? Would it not be healthier for the archaeology departments/experts of other universities to have more involvement in the media and in the production of television programmes?

This first Bonekicker's programme, far from being a gripping drama and also intelligent/educational, not only imparted a false impression of archaeology but also misinformed on many levels. Some of the viewing public have difficulty separating fact from fiction. The dumbing down of many television programmes has reached unacceptable levels and the makers of television drama and documentaries alike should be advised to aim higher. The writers of Bonekickers appeared tome to have read Paul Bahn's excellent, The Bluffer's Guide to Archaeology, taken it literally and tried, unsuccessfully, to incorporate it into television drama.

Ashamed

Great news! I have come up with a wonderful scheme to make riches beyond the dream of avarice by creating a new television series, loosely based on the recent BBC hit, Bonekickers. My series will avoid the pitfalls of improbable story lines by making use of a reality format where comedy will be provided by having the action performed by people who don't know what they are doing.

My idea is to have a group of young seamstresses transform gardens under the leadership of an archaeologist who knows nothing about gardening! It will be Ground Force without gardeners â€“ a recipe for hilarious ironic comedy!! The comely seamstresses will be led and inspired by fictional Oxbridge Professor of Archaeological Omniscience, none other than Dr Frankie Abbot FSA. I plan to propose the idea to a top Channel 4 executive shortly and will spend the rest of my life in a state of indescribable luxury.

I can't recall ever seeing such utter rubbish presented as archaeology. Resistivity survey finding bodies, lab results turned round in one room in a matter of hours, instant radiocarbon results, impossible organic preservation, on-site identification of middle eastern iron... endless endless drivel.

Whoever acted as consultant to this ridiculous farce should be ashamed and embarrassed. On top of this we have a disastrous script and appalling amateur dramatics, it has to be the worst TV I have seen in a very long time. British Archaeology stated this would be a "new series that might just transform the public image of archaeology". It certainly will.

Miss Carroll will even answer questions on chat shows as Lara, after taking a crash course in archaeology. She said: "I've always wanted to be an action hero". New Tomb Raider Lara Croft model Alison Carroll prepares for work, Daily Mail Aug 11

Please send your ideas for the magazine: we may not publish them all, but we will read and take notice. Ed

We welcome letters from readers. They may be emailed to Mike Pitts the Editor at editor@britarch.ac.uk or faxed to 01904 671384. They may be edited.

British

Archaeology

The voice of archaeology in Britain and beyond

Issue 103

Nov / Dec 2008

Contents

news

features

on the web

letters

CBA correspondent