19th July 2011, 01:40 PM
Marcus Brody Wrote:As regards the media, almost every story relating to an archaeological discovery ahead of a development is written to emphasise the unexpected nature of the find, and how the archaeologists were called in by the developer in response to it. This is despite the fact that most discoveries are made as part of a pre-development phase of fieldwork on the site, often with the specific aim of recording a site whose existence was already known, and that it's usually closely timetabled into the programme of work. This seems to be because the minutiae of planning conditions doesn't make for good copy - I've explained to a number of journalists that the archaeologists were already on site prior to a discovery being made because it was a condition of planning consent, but you can see their eyes glaze over (and why wouldn't they, it's not a particularly interesting subject, though I've always thought journalists should be interested in ensuring the accuracy of their reporting).
Also the story is often filtered through the clients own media and/or publicity department who's only angle is to demean the archaeologists and take all the credit themselves. They have no interest at all in what actually happened, or the academic significance of the archaeology.