Archaeology and Comedy

It is time to look at humorous representations of archeologists. 

The first video is a short clip from the British sketch comedy "That Mitchell and Webb Look."

In this clip, archaeologists unearth what they believe to be an ancient Roman videotape. Then, after some analysis back at the lab, they meet with several other archaeologists to verify the legitimacy of the find. The archaeologists are portrayed as being absorbed in their own areas of expertise and out of touch with reality. 

Although the goal of the sketch is clearly not to represent archaeology with complete accuracy, some aspects of real archaeology are included. For example, the excavation site was set up with a square grid, and the archaeologist uses a brush to dust off the discovery. 

A second example of archaeological satire is the "Monty Python" sketch, Archaeology Today.

It begins with an interview of two archaeologists by the host of a television show. The interview quickly falls into chaos. The setting then changes to Egypt, where the excavation of an archaeological site is taking place. 

There is no practice of true archaeology during this excavation. The archaeologist in charge, even as he stands in a knee-deep hole in the ground, is wearing a dress suit and bow-tie. He is also singing with happiness, pausing only to pick up an unbroken piece of ancient Sumerian pottery that must have been lying on the ground. The men he is in charge of are using shovels to dig holes which seem to be randomly placed.

Comedy may not place a lot of importance on accurate facts, but it could be used as a valuable tool for conveying archaeology to the public. There are many inapt stereotypes of archaeologists and misconceptions about what it is that they do. Comedy has the potential to counter some of these misconceptions by using humor to highlight the inaccuracies.

What's right?: In the 1st video, there is actually an excavation grid set up. The rest is ridiculous, but obviously so. The audience is not meant to believe what they watch, only to enjoy. No misconceptions about archaeology stem from these two videos.

What's wrong?: Literally every single thing (except for the 1st two seconds of the 1st clip) is inaccurate. It is difficult to learn about what archaeology is by watching comedy.

Letter grade: B+

Archaeology in News Programs

We've been talking a lot about depictions of archaeology in basic, scripted, and scheduled television. But what about news reports? While it is still archaeology in television, the format is much different than what we are used to analyzing.

Recently, CNN made a live broadcast from "The Situation Room," about the discovery of the lost city of Mirador. Located in Guatemala, these pyramids are the largest in the world by volume. The pyramids are considered the "cradle of Mayan civilization," and hold tremendous value as a potential key to learning about of the past.

Right off the bat, the broadcast starts with exciting music and gushing praise from the first reporter. The man who introduces the story uses the words "fascinating" and "amazing" to describe the upcoming story.  There is also an up-tempo soundtrack. Both of these features are intended to hype up the upcoming segment and entice the viewer to tune in. More than anything, the reporters seem to be constantly reminding us that they were there first and that the information we are seeing is brand new. This is the most apparent bias.

This is hanging around the bottom of the screen at all times.
What do they want us to get from this?

The report also makes use of small graphics on the bottom to the screen that shout "EXCLUSIVE" and "The Lost City of Mirador: The Cradle of Mayan Civilization." Again, these are intended to make the report seem important, and thus more interesting and watchable.

Despite the initial slight sensationalization of the report, I was pleasantly surprised by the actual content. Though they initially focus on the unusual size of the ruins and their current state of danger, a good amount of real information is presented. More importantly, it is conveyed concisely by actual archaeologists and is made interesting. A great example occurs one minute into the clip (link below), as an archaeologist clearly explains why we should care about this discovery in an engaging manner.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voY8jNcuGe8&noredirect=1&t=1m01s

More relevant, concise information is shown at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voY8jNcuGe8&t=2m11s

In my opinion, a good portrayal of archaeology

Overall, this broadcast does a great job of quickly presenting their message in an engaging fashion.

I feel that it is very interesting and important to note the background of a television broadcast. In contrast with planned television shows, news broadcasts are put together much more quickly. They have a much broader target audience, and a much shorter time period to present their information. Does this mean that the message is more candid, as there is less time to influence the message? This one clip does not offer a definite conclusion. However, it does make me think that the inherent constraints of live depictions of archaeology in the news cause the presentation to be clear, to the point, and accurate.

What's Right: Information is concise and accurate. They showed good, current shots of the actual site. There was also input from experts.
What's Wrong: Not much. One possible bias in any news source is the bias towards sensationalism. This news source plays up the fact that they are reporting this news first, and that it is important.
Grade: A-

Let's look at commercials!

Commercials are a TV standby.  Because of their brevity and subtle undertones, people don't usually notice how much they actually take away from commercials, other than an impression of the advertised item.  In fact, commercials can do much to change our perceptions of a wide range of subjects, including archaeology and the ancient world.

Let's take a look at three specific commercials, all from different years and different countries.

Guitars cause people to gyrate in pain

First, there is Pepsi's archaeology commercial that aired in the US in 1985.  It takes place on Earth, somewhere in the future.  An archaeologist/professor (scholarly stereotype) is guiding students through a cave tour of a 1985 present-day location and identifying artifacts.  Inconsistent with true archaeological practice, all artifacts are whole.  At one point, the archaeologist holds up a guitar and declares that it produced excruciatingly loud noises to which people would gyrate in pain.  This is comical to viewers because we know that listening to guitars does not cause people pain (well, most people anyway), but it also illustrates the point that inferences that archaeologists make about the past based on objects may not be true.  This commercial combines the future with the past and is held together by characteristically 1980s visual effects and shots of Pepsi cans throughout.

Just another priceless Roman vase

Second, T-Mobile ran an archaeology commercial in the UK in 2008.  Here, archaeologists are digging for more minutes.  Their clothes seem pretty accurate and you can see a brief shot of the overview of the layout and parceling out of the site.  One archaeologist finds what he calls "just another priceless Roman vase" and throws it into a pile where it breaks on top of others just like it.  Again in this commercial, artifacts are represented as whole and complete items, rather than as being discovered in fragments.  An unfortunate downside of this ad is that it trivializes the value of artifacts, portraying the idea that if you don't find exactly what you are looking for, then it is worthless.

Look at that headdress

Finally, in 2010, AT&T produced a Mexican commercial centering around the Aztecs.  The first noticeable feature is the dramatic music, which continues throughout the duration of the commercial.  There is a very green jungle, a jaguar (I think) symbolizing the conflict of man vs. beast, and, of course, violence.  The idea of the Aztec people being warriors is central.  The first half of the commercial relies on dramatic recreations with extravagant costumes and violence.  It then links the warrior spirit of the Aztecs to the warrior spirit of the Mexican national soccer team, who happen to play at Estadio Azteca (Aztec Stadium).  However, I don't understand what this commercial has to do with phones.

Like any form of media, there are some things these commercials do well in portraying archaeology and the ancient world, and others they do not.  Ultimately, it is up to the viewer to interpret and analyze what they see and draw their own conclusions.

What's Right?
Unclear portrayals of archaeology and the ancient world, finding whole artifacts.
What's Wrong?
Brings archaeolgoy to the mainstream.
Grade: C

Jackie Chan Adventures

We've all heard of Jackie Chan the movie star, but have you heard of his animated kids show "Jackie Chan Adventures"? From 2000 to 2005, Jackie Chan portrayed a fictionalized version of himself on a TV show of his own creation. In this show, Jackie Chan is not only his normal kung-fu fighting self, but also an archaeologist out to save the world.

In the episode shown above, the basic plot of the entire first season is laid out. Jackie Chan is doing his archaeology thing in a Bavarian castle, trying to find a lost cache of treasure. Unluckily, the castle is filled with traps, and Jackie barely makes it out alive with a golden shield that he picked up. He soon finds out that there are two parties of people who are very interested in the shield: a government organization that monitors international crime called Section 13, and a giant crime syndicate called the Dark Hand. The Dark Hand is looking for twelve magical talismans, and Section 13 enlists Jackie's help to find the talismans before the criminals do. Cue the stereotypical world hopping, talisman hunting and bad-guy beating.

Jackie in his archaeology getup. Sort of Indiana-esque, minus the hat.

If you watch this episode, you can probably tell that the show isn't exactly focused on the archaeology part of Jackie Chan's skill set. The show is not supposed to be educational in any way, focusing completely on action sequences and entertainment. If you don't want to watch the full episode, here's a part where Jackie is fighting off some shadow ninjas:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGft6pcq_ok#t=16m13s

It's pretty intricate fighting, and you can tell a lot of time went into the action sequences of the show. But even if the show isn't focusing on Jackie's archaeology, the audience is reminded pretty frequentlythat he is an archaeologist. Jackie is in the same vein of archaeologists as Indiana Jones, as he is doing all his work and ass kicking for the good of the world and all that. But he also has to constantly do research and  tend to the antique artifacts in his uncle's shop, something that is played for laughs a lot in the show:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGft6pcq_ok#t=3m05s

In essence, the show has a pretty tasteful portrayal of archaeology. While Jackie may be jumping around in ruins and fighting off demons, Jackie is also says many times that he is "just an amateur" and that his archaeological expertise is only a small aid to his overall job.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGft6pcq_ok#t=10m51s

The show is meant for kids, and isn't meant to be read into much. It does perpetuate the idea of the adventuring archaeologist, but unlike other forms of media that do this, it actually mentions the value of research quite a bit. There's nothing here for a professional archaeologist to get angry about.

It's a fun little show, and I may come back to it again if I think of something relating the show to archaeology.

What's Right?
Balances fun for kids with explaining that this is not what real archaeology is like. 
What's Wrong?
Jackie is an Indiana Jones archetype who goes hunting for artifacts, but its a non-serious kids show meant for entertainment rather than education.
Grade: B+

The Magic School Bus, Episode 32: "Shows and Tells"

If you were an American kid going to elementary school in the 90s, chances are that you remember "The Magic School Bus," with its catchy theme song and eccentric teacher Ms. Frizzle.  This episode focuses on a show and tell competition, with students competing to see who "shows" the best object and then does the best "tell" about it to win a huge, shiny trophy.

Arnold brings in an unknown object that belonged to his great aunt, famous archaeologist Arizona Joan.  (Arizona Joan…Indiana Jones!)  When Arnold was little, she told stories about how she searched for things left behind by people a long time ago and how she tried to figure out how people lived based on the stuff she found.   Arnold's Mom said that "her entire life was a voyage of discovery."

From 3:47-4:12, Arizona Joan is shown lying rope lines and brushing off dirt, which is characteristic of true archaeology.  However, she also finds whole objects.

The main focus of this episode is finding out what this mystery hoop object is.  One classmate asks, "how do we figure out what this thing is if the people who used it aren't around to tell us?"  At this point, Ms. Frizzle examples that it is called an artifact and defines artifact in a way that is both accurate and makes sense to kids.  The episode approaches archaeology as a science that uses scientific method and hypothesis testing.  They use Arizona Joan's journal to generate hypotheses, which are then tested with the "suppositron," where the students are put into super-cool Magic School Bus virtual reality to learn interactively.

Tribal people: feathers and bows and arrows?

Components in this episode that I questioned were:

The ever-eccentric Ms. Frizzle

• The representation of tribal people (8:48 and 13:12): Is this a fair and accurate depiction?
• Ms. Frizzle's archaeologist clothes (13:42): Of course, her dress is as eccentric as ever, but it is themed with brown towns, archaeological tools, and small artifact bits.
• The statement that the archaeologist makes a copy of the artifact to test while the original is kept safe: I don't understand how this is possible.

At the conclusion of the episode, the class learns and concludes that the decorated hoop and arrows are an early dartboard-type game.  They have learned and demonstrated how archaeologists fit clues together to learn about people of the past

During the sort of epilogue to the episode (23:20-25:00), Liz the Lizard does a mini excavation, which seems pretty reliable in how it is carried out.  Narration also addresses the notion of archaeologists as adventurers and clarifies it, saying that although they visit exciting places, there is a lot of work to be done.  It can talk days or weeks to dig out one artifact and they must be careful to label everything.  It is also brought up that only archaeologists should do the digging, otherwise information can be lost.  There is a great emphasis on finding artifacts and learning about how people lived long ago.

Liz the Lizard digging for artifacts

Watching "The Magic School Bus" brought back a sense of nostalgia for me.  It still holds my attention, fifteen years after it has been off of tv.  Go ahead and watch the whole episode and see if you feel the same way!

What's Right?
Defines archaeology, shows an excavation, does not portray artifacts as treasure.
What's Wrong?
Representation of tribal people, makes out archaeology to be rigid.
Grade: B+

Secrets of the Viking Sword

Secrets of the Viking Sword

The Ulfberht Sword was the ultimate weapon owned by selected Vikings. The swords were far better than any other sword in all of Europe. The Ulfberht was a revolutionary high-tech tool as well as a work of art. However, the Metallurgical technique used to make the Ulfberht remains unknown.


So how did Viking sword makers design and build the Ulfberht, and what was its role in history? The secret behind its design creation and use have been lost for a thousand years.


Now a modern-day blacksmith, Rick Furrer, will try to reveal the sercret of the Ulfberht Sword. He took this job because it is so challenging. Can he bring the Ulfberht back to life?

The reconstruction of the Ulfberht is the main theme of the whole documentary. Most of the questions in the show were about the creation process: How is the Ulfberht's metal different from the metal of other swords? How is the Ulfberht made? All these secrets were left for the audience and blacksmith to figure out. 

In Chapter Two of the show, it interested me that they talked about fighting skills in ancient war fields.  The Ulfberht Sword wouldn't guarantee your victory; fighting skills were the key to winning the battle in Viking combat. Warriors mainly pounded against armor and shields and a sword is just a tool. But, the Ulfberht Sword does give its master a big advantage, because of its unusual flexibility that can withstand a lot of stress. It was even considered a weapon with magic power. It is nice that the film makers put some other information related to the theme into the film. It is obvious that someone interested in weapons would also want to know more about ancient warfare. In this way, the audience won't feel bored with only one topic.

In the third part of the show, Rick the blacksmith has taken his steel out of the crucible. It then takes eight hours to pound the steel into the shape of a sword. Next, a small piece of steel is sent to the largest steel company in the world to test to see if it is good enough to make the sword. In one part of its testing, a technician uses a microscope to check the surface of the sward: It is purely clean there, with very little slag (a byproduct of smelting metal ores). This part of the documentary went over complicated chemical theory, like the characteristics of the steel, in order to explain why the Ulfberht is different from others. 
 

One of the unique charactristic of the Ulfberht Sword is the "Ulfberht" lettering written on the sword. What kind of technique did they used to successfully write it? What does this lettering even mean? Only very skilled craftman can make the Ulfberht. As Rick trys to write this on his blade, we are on our journey to find out the secret of "Ulfberht." Several archaeologists are interviewed here saying there is no written history of this name or word. Then some assumptions are raised about the origin of this word, but no evidence have been provided to prove these assumptions. The only thing in the show is the reconstruction, which is considered as evidence of the assumption. This is the same trick used in other documentaries, such as "Pyramids of Death."

Overall the show did a good job using the progress of manufacturing the sword as the main theme of the show, going back and forth between the sword manufacturing progress and its historical background. But looking critically at the third part of the show, I don't believe it. How can someone have all of these conclusions on something without any written history?

Questions to think:

• Do you think this kind of documentary show,which is more entertaining than others, did a better job in engaging the audience?

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

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

General Comments:     
What's right:Use manufacturing process of sword throughout the show, very easy for audience to follow. Lots of useful information provided.

What's wrong: Some information are not realibale, kind of vague, should be more clear of what they said.

Grade:B

Television and Archaeology

Television is a home entertainment hallmark in the United States and countless countries across the world.  It is one of the most far-reaching and available sources of media to today’s public.  Because of this, the options of what it can display are limitless.  Although archaeology is not a field of study or work that most people directly experience in their day-to-day lives, it has a prominent presence on television.  Not only is it the center-point of a number of popular TV shows like “Ancient Aliens” on the History Channel and various documentaries spread across many networks, but it also makes one-episode appearances in TV shows such as “The Magic School Bus” and “Hey Arnold!”  Television shows depicting archaeology and the ancient world are targeted at adults and children, scholars and the average viewer, and everyone in between.  Accuracy of archaeological portrayals vary from program to program, but all programs are created with the underlying goal that their episodes be created with the goal of capturing a viewer’s attention from start to finish.  It is an underlying tenet of television to generate viewership and profit, but how does this affect the truthfulness of a show’s content?

Everyone watches TV, but do we realize what we are watching?

Questions that will be considered while reviewing archaeology in television include:
·      Who is the target audience?  Is the target audience aware that they are being exposed to archaeology?
·      How accurate does the archaeological content of the show seem to be?
·      Is there any bias in presenting archaeology or the ancient world?
·      Does the program seem authoritative and believable in its presentation of facts, even if they may be incorrect?
·      What techniques are used to convey information to the viewer?
·      How does a television portrayal of archaeology affect the greater discipline of archaeology and what people think of archaeologists?

This blog will explore the relationship between television and archaeology, as well as the broader implications of that relationship. At the end of each post, we will quickly summarize what's good about the show, what's bad, and a grade that we give the show, episode or genre overall.