What causes Bad Archaeology on TV?

Based on my limited experience of talking to a handful of companies I can see two inter-connected issues which could make the difference between a good show and a bad show. One is poor communication between the TV people and the archaeologists – that’s both sides fault. The other is when the TV producer comes in with a fixed idea of exactly what he wants to do even if the archaeologists show that concept is wrong, trivial or irrelevant. When that happens it’s the archaeologist’s fault. The first problem is one I’ve touched on before. Making a television programme is an interdisciplinary project. That means that a good archaeology programme has to be both good archaeology and a good programme. Simply being good archaeology isn’t enough, because if it’s dull television then another programme with a similar attention to detail will not be commissioned. This requires the archaeologist to accept that while they may be able to lecture to a bunch of undergraduates who have to sit through Red Figure Ware 101, they may not be the experts in producing a television programme. Television is not simply a lecture for the masses. The act of reducing the communication to a small box places restrictions which you don’t have in a lecture. It also gives opportunities.

An example of where I learned something recently was at the filming of the astronomy segment at Foamhenge. Filming the sunrise section was easy enough, that had to be inside the circle with dramatic light and shadow, but where do you film the view from the outside in. I suggested the far side of the Slaughter Stones. It seemed like a good place. You’d see stones, indicating you were outside the circle, but you’d still be able to make out the main part of the model in the background. Then I thought again. The Heel Stones would be closer the Avenue, which was the point of this section. The objection from the producer and director was one which would have never crossed my mind. The jump in visible size of the model would be so large that the cut between the last scene of sunrise and the first of sunset would be too disorientating. Rather than concentrating on the message, the viewers would be sub-consciously trying to mentally re-orientate themselves. Looking at this section over again it’s plain to see they got it right. Given they do this as a job and my total filming experience was watching it being done for five minutes from quite a distance, that’s no surprise.

The bits that worked best were where we knew exactly what the TV crew were looking for, so we knew what we needed to give them to make it work. The parts that were dropped were generally things that I hadn’t explained so clearly, or else where I couldn’t work out why they were asking for information. A lot of the time wasn’t spent answering the question but working out exactly what the problem was so that we knew we were talking about the same thing.

There is a difficulty though in that the archaeologist and TV producer have different goals in making an archaeology programme. The archaeologist wants to make it archaeologically sound and an exciting television programme. The TV producer wants to deliver as large an audience, of the right social groups for the advertisers, as possible. If it’s archaeological gibberish it doesn’t matter, just so long as it delivers the viewers. An archaeologist is therefore taking a gamble when they work with a TV producer. Is the archaeologist providing archaeological expertise and options to the producer, or merely cheap credibility?

The TV producer certainly doesn’t gamble. Usually they ask what previous experience someone has had of television. Even on obscure subjects they don’t just pick anybody, but ask around to find out who would be likely to good. The BBC are filming a major series this summer and autumn for transmission in 2006. They held open auditions for the series. I can’t tell you exactly what the series will be beyond excavation and dramatic reconstructions despite attending these auditions and talking on the phone to a researcher. Information flows just the one way, to the producer. It shows the power relations in the television process. There’s little doubt power is in the hands of the producer.

What is more surprising is the degree to which archaeologists accept this. Some demands from a producer are accepted which would be laughed at if a book publisher had made them. An archaeologist asking what a producer’s previous work is like is regarded as an oddity. This is because of the limited opportunity to make television programmes. The opportunity to counter someone’s warped ideas about the past and pass on your own warped ideas about the past to millions is seductive. Nevertheless in many cases there are talented archaeologists who are selling themselves short. I think that there are good producers. It would be great if they got more work because archaeologists were willing to appear on programmes like Meet the Ancestors or Time Team rather than A Cheaply Produced History of the Whole Roman Empire in 27 Minutes.

There is an acceptance that there will be poor archaeology programmes and the good ones are to be treasured. I cannot agree with the assertion by some people (including myself in the past) that the good programmes are good because the archaeologists are allowed to set the terms and the poor programmes are the product of TV producers. Time Team is good television and I can’t think of a single archaeologist that would suggest “Hey, let’s do a whole excavation in just three days!” (for those who aren’t familiar with the programme post-ex is done, but not filmed). TV producers should know what good TV is and should be listened to. Equally they aren’t the archaeological experts, if the archaeology or history is poor they aren’t the ones who should know better. It is possible to complain that the integrity of a programme was lost because of a bad producer. However if a producer can pull the same trick again and again then he’s clearly not bad at his job. If an archaeologist doesn’t check a producer’s history or ignores it then who is to blame for poor quality television? —–