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-