In Conclusion

Now that everything's wrapping up, we thought we would all include a bit about what we took away from doing this whole project.

That's a wrap!

I watched a lot of things over the course of this blog that I never would have otherwise. As I watched, I kept the prospect of analysis in the back of my mind. Due to this process, I feel that I am much more aware of my reactions to television, and other forms of media, as they occur. Whereas before this blog, I may have simply reacted without questioning the media source, I now am better equipped to recognize what triggered my response as well the broader influence it could have on the public.

I also realized that I do not watch enough comedy. In the past comedy made up most, if not all of my video entertainment. I enjoyed it immensely despite the fact that most, if not all of the humor, was not meant for my age group at the time. I am definitely going to go back and revisit many things from my childhood.

Archeology is mostly portrayed on television for the purpose of entertainment, even though it can be educational. If archaeologists were to produce a television show or two, then they could really improve the accuracy of how the public perceives the discipline.

-Angus

This semester, I looked at TV in ways that I never would have before.  TV shows either focused their episode around archaeology or sprinkled in it a bit in one episode; there wasn't much in the middle.  Also, a lot of the shows addressed archaeology very simply.  Mostly, it seems to me that TV shows treat archaeology the same as anything else in using stereotypical portrayal, but these stereotypes are more likely to be taken as fact because  many people don't have the exposure to "real" archaeology and can't easily sort out what is fact from what is fiction.

-Alyssa

When all is said and done, TV is made to be entertaining. Be it a documentary or an episode of a kids show, all productions want to pull you in so that you will keep watching. More than anything this blog made me realize that even if a show is biased or portraying a strangely distorted view of archaeology, the pros outweigh the cons. There may be biases and stereotypes, but if the public is more excited about learning about the ancient world, there is nothing to worry about. Over the top shows like Ancient Aliens will never be seen as serious, and if we can make these stereotypes common knowledge, only good things can come from showing archaeology on television.

-Norio

Critically analyzing television shows has really opened my eyes. One of the most important things I took away from this experience was how the bias introduced to the medium varied by the target audience and purpose of the show. Another overall theme was the clever 'lending' of credibility. This was especially relevant in the 'pseudo-science' shows. Finally, my personal opinion regarding archaeology in media has changed. Though the field may be grossly misrepresented, simply having the idea in the media raises awareness. It increases the chance that a person may be encouraged to actually find out what archaeology is all about. Televisions' version of radioactive waste ('Ancient Aliens') is actually justified by the possibility of someone stumbling upon some real knowledge.
-Dan

I feel like I really learned a lot about American culture and media with this blog assignment. After taking a look at a variety of history shows, I think media is the future solution for archaeology to present themselves to the general public. If I were to make an archaeology TV which would be graded an A+ on our scale, it needs to have these elements:

Accurate general background information.

Clear abstract, easy for audience to follow.

Relaxing (no dramatic music), maybe comic pictures added, jokes, comic images for illustration.

A variety of forms of media can be used, like pictures, should also take advantage of the music.

I also think archaeologists should be more involved in these productions. In generation, experienced archaeologists are mostly middle age or elder people, so it is kind of hard for them to learn to how to use “New Tools”, or how to engage people in these forms of media. This is another problem for archaeologists to solve.

-Terry

The Dark Ages: Documentary

So far on this blog I have only talked about TV shows, and for good reason. Isn't that the first thing you think about when someone mentions TV? But there was a time when places like the History channel didn't focus on reality TV and actually played documentaries. So what kind of effect do documentaries like "The Dark Ages" have on archaeology? Should we be worried that these kinds of productions aren't being made as frequently any more? Lets see.

The Dark Ages is, as the title implies, about the dark ages in Europe: the time between the fall of the Roman Empire and the Renaissance. This was a time of plague, disorder, death and brutality. The documentary starts by showing the destruction of Rome and then moves on to describing a wide variety of features of the Dark Ages, from the systems of government, the power of religions, leaders and sicknesses. This is all relayed by a large number of (very violent) reenactments, animations and professors and professionals that are there to lend some credibility to the feature.

Isn't this what you want to see on a Saturday morning?

Right off the bat, there were many parallels with the documentary we watched in class ("Pyramids of Death"). There is foreboding music, a dramatic narrator, and the documentary is chock full of some odd, sometimes silly recreations. Many of them are violent, with plenty of blood and killing being shown. This is not a documentary for kids, but a documentary about one of the darkest periods of European history really shouldn't be. That being said, this is a really, REALLY violent documentary. There is gallons of blood on display, bodies everywhere, and they are not above showing a beheading or a guy sticking his hand in a vat of boiling oil. Seeing as these recreations are a majority of what the documentary is about, its obsession with darkness and death really alienates the audience. While the information may be interesting, the reenactments are violent enough that it may turn some people away.

I have an accent, a PhD and glasses, hear me.

Speaking of information, how are all the facts relayed to the audience? Well, the writing in the show isn't exactly top notch, in fact some of it is actually laughable. Right in the beginning of the show the narrator says "Rome... is invaded by a band of dirty, sweaty, smelly thugs" talking about the Visigoths. This kind of subjective writing is worrying in a documentary, but overall it doesn't do much harm. Though lines like this pop up from time to time to make the documentary seem more "dramatic", "The Dark Ages" features mountains of facts that are much less subjective. There are many, many talking heads in this documentary, much more so than  "Pyramids of Death" which does add some credibility to it. This is not the type of venue where you can really skew what the professors and experts are saying, so I felt as though the amount of professional input was perfect: they didn't make the documentary boring and they generally had something interesting to add to the discussion.

Overall, I had a similar reaction to "The Dark Ages" as I did to "Pyramids of Death". The show doesn't exactly distort anything about the study of the ancient world, but it doesn't do a great job of showing information. It's overly violent and focuses a little too much on "entertainment", but it had some decent facts and does bring in awareness for this time period. In the end, if even one person looks up the Dark Ages when the documentary is over, it's a win for archaeology. 

What's Right? 
Lots of talking heads (which is good here), a nice amount of facts, gives a good general overview of the time period. 
What's Wrong?
Way too overly violent, low production value and some iffy writing.
Grade: B

Blue's Clues, "Prehistoric Blue"

Steve, Blue, and their dinosaur friend

Today's topic: dinosaurs.  Specifically, how does "Blue's Clues" portray dinosaurs?

It all starts when Shovel and Pail find dinosaur footprints in the backyard.  Shovel gets scared that they are dinosaurs roaming around the backyard and Pail explains that they are all extinct, meaning none are alive anymore.  She explains that dinosaurs must have walked there millions and millions of years ago and now the footprints have stayed and turned to stone.  Shovel acts so scared of dinosaurs, which is a confusing preconception to me.  Why would we want to teach kids to be scared of something that they haven't even really learned about yet?

Hopefully you're familiar with the basic premise of "Blue's Clues:" the episodes follow a man named Steve as he tries to solve a question by piecing together clues left by his puppy, Blue.  However, the actual clue game isn't important for this critique.  In case you were wondering, the answer is chameleon.  It wasn't hard to figure out.

First, one important piece is the mail-time segment, which shows a video of kids in the Museum of Natural History.  It lets kids see the real bones of dinosaurs.  Even if they do not fully understand the ideas of prehistory or the existence of dinosaurs, then at least maybe they can appreciate the sheer scale of the reconstructed dinosaurs.  They're ginormous.

Next, Steve and Blue travel millions of years back in time into a dinosaur diorama.  Here, there is a pretty barren landscape except for volcanoes, prehistoric plants, and a water source.  The first dino we meet is an Apatosaurus, a very friendly leaf eater, and a huge contrast from whatever imaginary creature Shovel was scared of in the beginning of the episode.  Next, we encounter a baby Stegosaurus and his mama.  A mean Allosaurus comes along and Mama Stego has to use her tail spikes to scare him away and protect her baby.  This dino on dino action still isn't scary because Blue's Clues's animation makes everything cute and friendly looking, as is appropriate with such a young audience.  Finally, we happen upon an Archaeopteryx, a birdlike dinosaur.  Kids probably wouldn't realize it, but this name contains the same root word (meaning ancient) as archaeology.

The episode ends off by relating modern animals back to their dinosaur relatives, thereby making dinosaurs relevant to kids' lives, rather than just having them exist as a sort of imaginary creature.

All in all, it was a nice little episode and I enjoyed the cute dinosaurs, but now that I'm older, Steve comes off as kind of creepy.  Weigh those two things against each other in your decision to watch Prehistoric Blue.

As a final note, I watched this episode on Netflix and couldn't find it on YouTube.  If you have a Netflix subscription, you can watch it here.

What's Right?
Explaning extinction, Museum of Natural History segment, names of dinosaurs, relating dinosaurs to modern animals.
What's Wrong?
Conflicting portrayals of dinosaurs as mean and nice. 
Grade: A-

Relic Hunter: Buddha's Bowl

One thing that we have not seen much of on this blog so far is a television show with real actors playing out a story. Conveniently, "Relic Hunters," does just this. My very first thought when beginning this show was how it fit the "Indiana Jones" typecast so snugly. Just watch the opening credits yourself:

The story follows a basic narrative structure. An adventurous professor, Sydney, and her bookish young teaching assistant are asked by members of a small village to find a legendary artifact, "Buddha's Bowl," a supposedly magical dish that refills itself with cash. The adventure becomes dangerous when a rival of Sydney's also goes after the bowl. Hilarity ensues.

The show is essentially an Indiana Jones ripoff, complete with (really cool) swords fights and beautiful women.

Here, Sydney uses her knowledge of archaeology to
find this clue in the wall of an underground poker club.
Whooooo archaeology! Where's Nick Cage?

The portrayal of archaeology and what archaeologists do is obviously glorified (and completely made up) to a point beyond recognition. Like Indiana Jones, she is more of an adventurer than anything. Archaeological analysis is less like careful examination and more like roughly handling artifacts looking for clues:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_ER0xAXOUM&t=6m36s

There are shows that entertain with archaeology and the mystery that surrounds it, and those that fit into this adventure stereotype that we have created. The former (think "Ancient Aliens") targets people who want to learn a bit about archaeology or the past. The latter ("Relic Hunter," "National Treasure") is just a convenient and proven storyline that producers can use again and again.

What's Right: Literally nothing. You could say that any exposure is good exposure, but there is so little archaeology that I don't know if that's true.
What's Wrong: First, the misrepresentation of archaeology is pretty glaring. The field is shown as more of a swashbuckling adventure rather than a scientific pursuit. From its characters to it's plot, the show is a bad 'Indiana Jones' ripoff.
Letter Grade: C- 

Bonekickers

The British television show, "Bonekickers," is a 6-episode archaeological drama. 

Bonekickers

The main characters of the show make up a team of "archaeologists" that solve archaeology-related mysteries. Episodes usually involve some sort of ancient quest, which the team solves with some spunky determination from their leader, and the use of high-tech equipment.

Here is a 1 minute trailer that I think captures the essence of the show

There is an element of detective work/crime fighting to the show. The team of bonekickers is always struggling to overcome evil competitors who seek objects of power. These range from holy relics to the legendary sword Excalibur! 

Archaeology is wildly misrepresented in this series. I am not going to list all of the ways the show departs from true archaeology. The use of heavy machinery to perform excavations and the frequent destruction of artifacts are two examples that show this.

If reality is something you consider to be a key component of good television, "Bonekickers" is not the show for you. If, however, all you are looking for is an excuse to get excited about archaeology, and you don't mind plenty of ham-fisted catchphrases about digging, then you might want to try this show.

Whats right? This show promotes excitement and interest in the field of archaeology, as well as enthusiasm for learning about the past.

What's wrong? The representation of archaeology in BoneKickers is so far afield from reality that I was not sure if it counted as archaeology on television. I was not even certain that the main characters were, in fact, meant to be archaeologists until i heard one of them (the one with the Indiana Jones hat) shout, "Don't mess with me I'm an archaeologist!"

Letter Grade:D

Project Free TV has episodes that can be watched for free online.

A Day In The Life Of A 10-Year-Old In...

"A Day In The Life Of A 10-Year-Old In..." is a kids TV show made by the BBC. The main character  in the show is a boy named Eric. As a kid with a full imagination, he is able to go back to different ancient time periods. 

In this one show, for example, Eric and his family moved to their new house, and then he saw a guide along the road of a Mesolithic museum...

• This video is really fun to watch!  Even though this is a kids show, I laughed out load several times. The main characters of the show are hilarious and they do many funny things. At one point during the show, Eric was learning to hunt using an arrow but sadly (and humorously!) hit his father in the butt.
• As a kids show there is not much information in it, but the knowledge offered is pretty basic and easy to understand. For a "history idiot" like me (I don't even know what old British life was like), I learned a lot from this show. Because the information is simple, it is not hard to guarantee the accuracy since there is not a lot to check.
• Another unique feature of this show is that they have the boy act as the narrator, talking about his life as people of different time periods. The audience feels that they are listening to a story, not a lecture( unlike NOVA, which gives me the feeling of a lecture). 
• Shows are about 2-3 minutes, which makes it very impressive that they are both fun to watch and educational. I also think this is a good way to present archaeology because in this day in age we are all about high-efficiency, like learning a lot in a short time, and also have fun with it.

Later when he is in class, he traveled to Norman times...

Another time, he went on a trip to Roman British times...

Some questions to think:
• Do you think this kind of kids show, which is more entertaining than other shows, did a better job in engaging the audience than other non-kids shows?

• Do you think this show presents its information clearly and efficiently to the audience?

• What do you think they can do to improve this show?
  
  General Comments:     
  What's right:Comics does good job in engaging audience, short show easy to follow.
  
  What's wrong: Not really, like this one a lot.
  Grade:A+
  
  

Why Photos? Please Show Me Some Videos!

This is a video clip I found on Youtube when I was hunting for archaeology commercials that introduces ancient sites in Europe. It caught my attention when I started to watch it.

This video is made by a website called Sites & Photos, which was established in 2005 by Samuel Magal, a certified archaeologist and photographer. It was created in order to fill the void in professional, high-quality documentation of archaeological sites and ancient art. Over the years the collection has been expanded to include most religious sites from all historical periods.

I am impressed by this video because:

• These moving images make me feel that these sites are presented more vividly and enable us to view the sites from several angles at one time. Most of the time when I see images of a historical site, I would like to imagine them in my brain. Watching videos have kind of done that for me; I could pay more attention to appreciate the beauty of the sites.
• Also having animals and kids playing inside the video makes the audience feel more related to the sites, unlike in photos where everything is stopped.
• Bright and gentle music is used in the first part of the video, making me feel happy when I was watching it. I feel like they are trying to create a relaxing and quiet atmosphere and let the audience focus on the photo.
• The filmmaker also did a good job in taking these photos, like how he set the angle of the camera. Sometimes we have camera hanging high to get the overview of the site. There are some very special moments:

           - 2:34 we are on a trip going across a rock cave
           - 4:52 Jerusalem: we can see crowds moving here, showing that lots of people come here because of their belief.

I feel like this video would be good as a guide to viewing historical sites, but there is no information provided to illustrate these sites, making this video more "art" than anything else.
Questions to think about:

• Do you think these pictures and the background do a good job in engaging the audience?
• Do you think this show presents its information clearly and efficiently to the audience?
• What do you think they can do to improve this show?

General Comments:     

What's right:Pictures and background music fit each really well, it is real art here.

What's wrong: Not enough illustartion for images, not easy to follow.

Grade:B+

Deadliest Warrior

We've talked about experimental archaeology in our class a few times and, unless I'm going crazy, the Spike TV show "Deadliest Warrior" was mentioned at some point during our discussion. I had only seen little bits and pieces of the show before, but since experimental archaeology seems like a topic that is especially relevant for TV I decided to take a closer look at this simulation show. Does the future look promising for this brand of archaeological television?

Calm down, man. Unless that loincloth stops bullets, I dunno how you're gonna beat a navy seal.

Each episode of "Deadliest Warrior" pits two classes of warrior against each other to see who would win in a fight. After collecting "battle data" mainly consisting of weapons tests on dummies, pigs and other targets, the hosts of the show (supposedly) input the data into a computer program which calculates which warrior would win. The episodes span from modern day bouts to more ancient ones, but the processes of the show seem to stay the same. The bulk of each episode consists of the hosts of the show sitting around and talking about how badass each of the combatants were and then watching movie stuntmen or "weapons experts" come in to beat up some gelatin dummies (and sometimes pigs) before they're analyzed by a medical professional. Between the weapons tests and talking heads, there is a wealth of reenactments of the different warriors fighting.

G...guys? I think he's dead. 

Since this blog is about ancient worlds on TV, I  tried to watch episodes that had ancient warriors fight against each other. I thought maybe the hosts of the show would have some historians (or archaeologists) talk about the way these warriors lived and how that affected their combat prowess, or at the vary least have the historians come in to talk about the weapons being used. For the most part I was disappointed. Though the show does give you a quick background as to who the fighters were, it's not the main focus of the show at all. The show will discuss historical context for five minutes at the most. Here's an example of some of this background information in an episode about Ivan the Terrible and Hernan Cortez:
Ivan the Terrible

Here you get to see just how short the historical context is, as well as the quality of the recreations: pretty, pretty bad. So the focus of the show really isn't on teaching the cultural context of the warriors, but that's okay. When you see a show called "Deadliest Warrior", that's not really what you're expecting. But the brevity of the context that is there is a little worrying. For an hour long show that has so much filler, they could have focused on the cultural bits a little more.

So what is the focus of the show? The weapons. Here's an example of the show testing a sword.

Look at that javelin. That is a nice javelin.

There is no doubt in my mind that this constitutes some form of archaeology: weapons experts are using exact replicas of ancient weaponry to show what kind of damage the weapons can inflict. These parts are entertaining to a degree, but they really don't teach you a whole lot. Sure, they show you how much damage specific swords, spears and axes do to a dummy (which may be fun to see for some people), but what do these tests say about the past? That there were lots of nice, sharp, damaging weapons. That's about it.

Show that dummy what for!

The main problem I have with this show is the ratio of filler material to experimental archaeology. But even if there was more testing, the show doesn't really teach you a lot about the ancient past. It seems that the main objective of the show is pure entertainment with almost no educational value. That's okay, but I personally got a little bored of watching big guys swing stuff at pigs. Besides the tests, the reenactments are not good at all. There is a lot of repetition, a lot of really bad blood effects, and a lot of laughable acting.

Is it entertaining? For a little while sure. Is it educational? Hardly. Overall the show just doesn't do it for me, and it's definitely sad that this is one of (if not the most) popular experimental archaeology show to date.

What's Right? 
Good general overviews in the beginning, interesting premise.
What's Wrong?
For the most popular experimental archaeology show in history, it really doesn't teach as much as it could. Wasted potential. 
Grade: B-

Past-Arama

We've talked about a few animated TV shows on this blog already, but none of them are as widely viewed by adults and teenagers as the show I'm going to discuss today: Futurama.

The one and only!

What is "Futurama?" Well, it's sort of like a sci-fi, wackier, more mature version of "The Simpsons" (which makes sense because they were created by the same person). The main character is a normal guy named Fry who gets cryogenically frozen in the year 2000 and is unfrozen 1000 years later. Fry works for a package delivery company (run by his great (x30) nephew) along with a ragtag group of future people including a robot, a mutant, a crustacean alien and a Jamaican. The show involves a lot of trips to strange far away planets, time travel and other sci-fi elements, but from time to time the show delves deeply into the background stories of all of its characters. When "Futurama" delves into Fry's past, it will usually make fun of archaeology a little bit. This is featured prominently in an episode titled "Jurassic Bark." I'm going to focus a lot of this post on that episode, but also talk about the show as a whole.

Why am I talking about a show that takes place in the future in a blog focusing on the ancient past? The thing that is really interesting about archaeology in "Futurama" is that it's mentioned all the time; it's just in the background. Since Fry is the main character, you would think there would be a lot of "fish out of water" kind of themes in the show as he gets used to the future. Thing is, Fry is kind of stupid and just accepts a lot of what happens to him. What usually happens on the show is that from time to time people will mention a fact about the "past" (our present) that is either blatantly false or well known to us today. Here's an example of a joke in that vein:

This clip, and a lot of clips like it, make it obvious that "Futurama" is set in a future where archaeology is either not taken seriously or is just completely shoddy. With this in mind, it actually makes quite the statement about what the world would be like with crappy archaeology. What is this statement? Well, lets see. 

When I thought about archaeology in "Futurama," I immediately thought of "Jurassic Bark," an episode that actually got nominated for an Emmy once upon a time. While at a museum, Fry finds his old fossilized dog on display. He gets it back and tries to clone it while his best robot friend Bender starts to get jealous. The whole episode is on Netflix for those of you who want to see it (S4E7), but be warned, it has one of the saddest endings to a TV episode I have ever seen. The first half of the episode makes a lot of little pokes at archaeology. Fry is at the museum because archaeologists uncovered the pizzeria that Fry used to work at, and he is showing Bender how "people of his time" used to live (to which Bender says "Interesting! No wait, the other thing: tedious"). 

There are a lot of interesting little visual tidbits that I can't show due to copyright reasons, so I'll describe them and make some comments:

• The banner above the museum reads "Treasures of the Stupid Ages: Loot From the Recent Pizzeria Excavation". This is just a passing comical thing, but it shows how people of the "Futurama" age sometimes look down upon the past like we do now. 
• When Bender first walks into the very, very downtrodden looking pizzeria, he exclaims "Truly, they were as gods who built this place!", poking fun at how archaeology glorifies things that were probably very ordinary in their time. 
• Next, a museum curator walks in and says "Next, we come to the splendidly preserved wooden pizza paddle" (shows animatronic boy being paddled) "Scientists theorize it was used to gently discipline the delivery boy" (Fry jumps in) "For your information this was not just used to paddle my butt. It was also used to move pizzas and crush rats!" (Curator) "I don't know where you get your facts, sir, but I am a volunteer housewife with 45 minutes of orientation and a harlequin romance about archaeologists". 
• Fry decides that he will protest in front of the museum to get his fossil-dog back. He then performs "My people's native dance" (the hustle). Leela, Fry's friend, reads from a history book (called "Dances of the Ancient Bronx") and says "It says this part of the hustle implores the gods to grant a favor, usually a Trans-Am". 
• Fry finally confronts the archaeologist in charge of his dog who says "No, we're sorry, there's just too much the fossil can teach us about dogs from your time" (Fry) "His name was Seymour. He was once intimate with the leg of a wandering saxophonist. He had wet dog smell, even when dry, and was not above chasing the number 29 bus" "The 29? Interesting. That's all I needed! You can have your dog back". 

Oh Fry, always the joker.

The themes present in "Jurassic Bark" aren't unique to the episode. In a clip that was posted earlier but is now broken, the gang visits an old car museum where they learn about the traffic jams of old New York as places of "free discourse" (swearing at each other) and how "primitive robots" built the first "automo-car". Of course by built they mean robots in togas beat the cars with clubs. This clip does a lot of similar things to what "Jurassic Bark" does: It blatantly gets things wrong about the past, it displays very normal things like pizza paddles and traffic jams and makes them seem culturally and historically significant, and it makes little jokes about how the things archaeologists are looking for are sometimes unimportant (like the 29 bus thing). Overall, both parts of the show display archaeology as kind of a trivial study that doesn't get the picture of the past quite right. To be fair, this show is a comedy, and comedies are not known for glorifying any sort of profession. That being said, these clips do make some fair points. Archaeology does put ordinary things on a pedestal, but besides making fun of this, "Futurama" never goes out of the way to say if this is good or bad. It pokes fun at other professions just as harshly as archaeology.

The thing I like about what this episode (and a lot of "Futurama") does is that it puts us in the shoes of people in the ancient past. What will people in the future think of us? How are they misinterpreting the clues we left behind? Are we doing the same thing today? Though this show is in no way serious, if you look under the hood there is actually some intelligent commentary about the ancient world, how we perceive it and how the public in general perceives museums and archaeology as a whole, and it's funny while it does it. 

Nothing like a little comedy to lighten up a commentary.

What's Right?

Surprisingly deep commentary about how we view archaeology today and what the world would be like without it. 

What's Wrong?

Very stereotypical view of archaeologists (but what TV show doesn't have this).

Grade: A-

Ancient Aliens

I can honestly say that there is not a single archaeological depiction in television that I have looked forward to more than the History Channel's "Ancient Aliens." Though it may seem like a credible source of information, especially since it is aired on the History Channel, "Ancient Aliens" is closer to pseudoscience. In pop culture, "Ancient Aliens" is best known for the internet meme starring Giorgio A. Tsoukalos:

"His hair is full of secrets!"

As the meme implies, the show is popularly known for explaining ancient happenings by simply saying "aliens did it."

Their message and the way that the creators present their information to the viewer is extremely interesting, both because of the popularity (over two million viewers in December of 2011, according to Wikipedia.com), and the mix of entertainment and education. I watched the episode titled: "Aliens and Lost Worlds." The whole episode is below:

Whatever criticism you may level at "Ancient Aliens," you must admit that the camerawork is spectacular and the show is perfectly suited to its target audience. It bounces quickly from breathtaking shot to breathtaking shot. Especially in the opening sequence, the viewer is bombarded with eye candy. The soundtrack is just as over the top. To get a feel for the use of soundtrack, listen to the video without watching. Try to understand what emotions are meant to be evoked with each sound. These elements really help set the mood for the episode.

A concerned-sounding narrator is also involved, often asking grand questions such as "Did aliens help build this ancient civilization? Why did they come? What did they want?" The camera also cuts to older men who are obviously supposed to be sources of authority. They also offer cryptic and leading questions. The producers essentially confront you with a whirlwind of incredible pictures of ancient civilizations while asking mysterious and unique questions. The purpose is to whip the viewer up into a state of wonder and intrigue to suck them into the show. Perhaps the best example is the opening sequence. The producers introduce three different storylines and how they could connect to aliens, culminating in a scene in which questions like "Where did they come from? Are they coming back?" fly toward you like outer space. It sounds ridiculous, and it is. Watch the ridiculous finale below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iygJcRxmwQY&t=1m15s

Ancient Aliens does, however, make some effort to appear reputable. When introducing new sites, they start with a factual representation of the civilization, accompanied by a couple of sound bites from Phd.'s.

After the scene is set, the narrator makes a jump into the absurd, connecting the facts with a supposition about alien involvement. In the case of the first visited site, the ancient city of Copan in present day Honduras, the narrator suggests that because their civilization had a written language, they were contacted by aliens. The narrator then asserts that "ancient astronaut theorists" agree, though the qualifications of these theorists is not specified. From this point on, evidence is based on the wonderings of authors, writers, and other unqualified "theorists." In Copan, the famous Giorgio A. Tsoukalos, publisher in Legendary Times magazine, asserts his alien theories based on the fact that some of the Copan statues looked like they had tubes or buttons on them that resembled astronaut suits. None of their "evidence" seems to hold any scientific value at all. In short, it is sensationalized wonderings meant to attract a certain type of person.

For an example of a leap of logic supported only by authors and publishers, check out this part:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iygJcRxmwQY&t=4m5s

This statue, according to one speaker, resembles some kind of astronaut. Yeah...

The person that "Ancient Aliens" is trying to attract is someone with a passing interest in ancient worlds or aliens who wants to be entertained with mystery and wonder. With their unfounded yet awe-inspiring theories and exciting filming style, "Ancient Aliens" does their job admirably.

One of the Phd's thrown in to spew facts and lend credibility.
 Look at that mustache! I believe whatever he says!

The basic formula for Ancient Aliens is essentially this: drum up excitement with filming tactics, introduce the setting, give some facts, show some Phd.'s, then connect the setting with aliens. From there on, have unqualified men give testimonials and explanations of wild theories. It is simple and effective.

Archaeology in the media comes in shades of grey. On one end of the spectrum, it is purely informational, intended only to present information on the ancient worlds using the scientific method. On the other end, facts are used to lend credibility to outlandish theories that aren't actually supported by real evidence. "Ancient Aliens" is solidly positioned in the latter area.

I believe that portraying archaeology as something other than a scientific pursuit is somewhat damaging to its reputation. What I mean by this is when a television show presents outlandish and unproven theories alongside real proven facts, all the information is degraded.

What's Right: If anyone is doing their job right on the set of 'Ancient Aliens,' it's the effects guys. From the soundtrack to the camera shots, the atmosphere created by the effects really helps make the show alluring and mysterious. There are also a decent amount of facts sprinkled around
What's Wrong: Everything else. The show blatantly misrepresents the views of the general scientific community with their clever formula of mixing Phd.'s and 'authors.' Most of the material is essentially made up, which misrepresents  archaeology and the past.
Grade: D+

The Naked Archaeologist: Who Wrote the Bible?

After watching NOVA for two weeks, the "Naked Archaeologist" totally got my attention this time. Unzip archaeology and make it naked! It is amazing that the film makers can put together so much information in such a short amount of time. The show is produced by Emmy Award–winning journalist Simcha Jacobovici, together with Avri Gilad.

Music: While documentaries like to use mysterious and dramatic music to engage their audience, this show uses more amusing music, so that the audience feels more relaxed and comfortable compared to other documentaries. Sometimes even pop music is used when the narrator is talking.

Video Clips: The most incredible part of this show. Clips are mostly quotes from films to show the audience scenes they are talking about. The most interesting example is when they are talking about the different versions of the Bible. (5:00) "God creates the animal, and then human." Then we saw a tiger yawning, and then a little girl kissing a boy. (Other example: 9:10, is there an incorrect transmission of the Bible?)

Comics: At 5:22 we saw a scroll dancing with disco music, even smiling at us! (5:45) Comics like this definitely help to engage the audience and let them feel more connected to the show. This also reminds me of one of the advertisements we watched of a car with a polar bear in it, that most of my classmates really liked.  Later, someone that looks like Moses burst into the screen, as if he were saying "hi" to us.

Interview: At the beginning of the show, a random survey of people walking reminds the audience of the questions they would also have: Most families have Bibles at home, but no one thinks about who really wrote it. Interviews also contribute a lot to the show, our main "actor" usually uses interviews to prove the answers to his questions and doubts. In the interviews, questions are pretty logical and hit the point. Sometimes, the journalist star will even have arguments with the people he interviewed. However, most of the interviews are just scholars or archaeologists talking and interviewers approving the point. (6:30) 

Other thoughts: In my opinion, this is the way modern archaeologists should  present themselves. I found one of the major problems for the presentation of archaeology is the lack of connection with the modern society. For audiences who are not really experts, it is hard for them to make connections with only archaeological information.  
Questions to think:

• Do you think this kind of history show, which is more realxing than others, did a good job in engaging the audience?

• Do you think this show presents its information clearly and efficietly to the audience?

• What do you think they can do to improve this show?

General Comments:     

What's right:The archaeologist shows his own way of trying to figure out his questions.  Lots of comic pictures are added to illustrate things. 

What's wrong: Sometimes I feel like I am lost, should go into more details.

Grade:B+

Hey Arnold!, "The Journal"

"The Journal" is the final episode of the "Hey Arnold!" series.  Arnold finds his father's journal, which explains events from when his parents met, to his birth, to the last day he saw his parents.

Arnold's parents, Miles and Stella

Notable background:

• Miles (Arnold's father) was part of an anthropological research party in San Lorenzo, Central America, where he met Stella (Arnold's mother), a botanist/physician studying local plants and hoping to find cures for jungle illnesses.
• One day, they are hiking and fall into a river.  They are saved from falling down the waterfall by the Green Eyed People, the original inhabitants of San Lorenzo.  To thank them, they decide to recover a stolen relic called La Corazón that was stolen by a local pirate and treasure hunter named La Sombra.  They succeed and return it to one of the ancient shrines of the Green Eyes.
• Miles and Stella leave San Lorenzo and get married, but come back after their honeymoon (during which they rescued a group of people from a broken-down cable car) because the Green Eyes have been struck by a disease and only trust Stella and Miles to help them.
• Stella gathers plants to make the cure and drops it off at another shrine.  The Green Eyes recover.
• Months later, Stella goes into labor and she and Miles end up in the jungle while a volcano is erupting.  They come upon a temple of the Green Eyes, where a bed is ready for her and she gives birth to Arnold.

Points to consider:

•  Adventure is everywhere.  Miles and Stella can not escape adventure, even on their honeymoon.
• The local Green Eyed People are made out to be mysterious and primitive, and we know hardly anything about them.  Miles and Stella have a unique relationship with the Green Eyes, who seem to be always watching over them.
• Artifacts are seen as treasure, that is stolen and then recovered by outsiders and returned to the natives.
• Miles hates Spiders, similar to how Indiana Jones hates snakes.
• At one point, Miles tells Stella not to look at La Corazón.  This is a reference to the movie Raiders of the Lost Ark when Indiana Jones says not to look at the Ark of the Covenant.

What's Right?
Indiana Jones references? Not much.
What's Wrong?
Archaeology as adventure, artifacts as treasure, strange representation of the native people
Grade: D
 

"The Great Inca Rebellion" : A Critical Stream of Consciousness

The Great Inc Rebellion

Watch "The Great Inca Rebellion" on PBS

• Nova and NatGeo
• Opens up with archaeologists and Peru natives digging, recreations of the Inca and the Spanish, and beautiful nature backgrounds
• "The first gunshot wound of the New World" --> you've got me hooked
• Recreations, maps, modern city --> flashback to the formula of "Pyramids of Death"
• VIOLENCE
• Archaeological digging is more prominent than I have seen in other documentaries
• Cemetary: bodies buried in a crouched sitting position facing east, but burials are not traditional on the top layer of the graveyard --> WHY
• Guillermo Cock is an unfortunate name
• Bioarchaegologist sounds credible because she's using biological terms, but I'm not entirely sure what she's taking about, except for her conclusions of violent death (which I already knew)
• My brain is working too fast for this documentary in places --> I want the answer before they even formally ask the question (I guess I'm above the lowest common denominator)
• Portraying the Spanish as bad guys --> not typical Western supremacy view
• Portraying the Inca as victims --> typical Western supremacy view
• Bioarchaeologist is prominent (and female)
• This is like Incan CSI
• "Could this be a gunshot?" "It could be" followed by technical terms --> contrast between the smart and the not-so-smart
• Documentaries seem to like the theme of violence in the ancient world
• The written historical record of the Spanish was exaggerated and altered --> how much of any written history is true without bias?
• Comparing European documents with Inca physical evidence --> forensics in archaeology
• Technical forensic and biological explanations are hard to follow until their very predictable conclusions of violent deaths
• Evidence that women fought in battle? Fleeting question that is not answered
• Collaboration of the disciplines --> already brought in the forensic scientists, now let's call on the historians
• Voiceover translation for a 91 year old female Peruvian historian is an elderly sounding British-ish woman ... what is the point of that?
• Pizarro's concubine's mother sends an army --> role of women in a significant historical event is very strong
• Personalizing the man that the remains once were, but it's all conjecture
• Combination of story (recreation and history) and evidence (archaeology and science), where one does not severely overpower the other
• Focal question of why burials were different was finally explained and answered
• Concluded with answering questions, rather than strictly dramatics

What's Right?
Poses and answers questions, use of experts.
What's Wrong?
Conjecture, strange cinematographic effects to grab attention.
Grade: B-