TV opportunity

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host
If I get in I totally disagee If I don't .. I totally agree

What with? My point about the potental for damage or the perpetuation of the stereotypical Lara Croft/Indiana Jones ideology?

As for the first I have in mind the sort of damage that was caused in the wake of the nationwide hunt for Kit williams' silly jewelled rabbit in his 1979 best-seller Masquerade. Thousands of holes were dug all over the place by lots of people who imagined hey had cracked the "code". Residents of Tewkesbury had their gardens dug up by trespassers and Haresfield Beacon, a National Trust site near the author's Gloucestershire home, was carved up by diggers. The "treasure" was eventually dug up as the result of a number of substantial holes dug nocturnally (by metal-detector using treasure hunters) at the foot of a statue of Catherine of Aragon in a park in Ampthill, Beds. It seems to me that a televidsed version only increases the scope for such collateral damage, and as such I think its an irresponsible idea. Why does the "treasure" have to be "buried"?

And - money or no money - is it really responsible television to utilise ancient sites merely as a carrfier of "clues" where "buried treasure" may be found? Should we as archaeologists not be pressing to get over a different message on the significance of ancient sites rather than just pandering to the stereotypical "ancient mysteries/ buried treasures" malarky?

Paul Barford

[tom wilson]

I agree with Paul, however there's not much point us getting all hot under the collar about it.

What might be constructive is to lobby the production company to include a few archaeology-friendly points in the bumf they will no doubt be producing for treasure hunters.

For example, I doubt that they are going to hide their baubles in a scheduled monument (although it wouldn't hurt to make sure). Perhaps they should state that clearly, so if you are taking part you know not to bother digging through barrows etc.

This is a case for Rescue, maybe?





'Have a good plan, execute it violently, do it today'.
General MacArthur

[BAJR Host]

Like Tom, I think there is an opportunity to educate the public, rather than just tut and disagree with something that will happen anyway.

If I was on the show it (aye right) I would of course be acting responsiblily - but remember this is TV... it has to be exciting, it has to be larger than life to get the ratings... it is what you do with these ratings... can you utilise the show to highlight issues, to create awareness..? It could even be done in conjunction with RESCUE in the UK, who could get lots of publicity out of explaining why... So once more I am for the positive approach... change only comes from involvement...

:face-huh:

Another day another WSI?

[Curator Kid]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

...remember this is TV... it has to be exciting, it has to be larger than life to get the ratings...

I'm not sure I subscribe to this point of view Mr. Hosty. One of the things that constantly gets on my nerves about archaeological TV is precisely that it seems it has to conform to these principles. Why??? Iain Stewart's geological series' don't involve him dressing up as rocks and jumping up and down to describe vocanoes. He is an expert in his field and can use his knowledge to make both educational and interesting television. David Attenborough doesn't pretend to be a Gorilla or a Giraffe to go and interact with them and present them to the public for a wildlife programme - he is an expert and doesn't need to. Similarly David Starkey didn't dress up as Henry VIII and perform comedic recreated executions of Anne Bolyen and Catherine Howard looky-likeys in his series on the Tudors. Why should archaeological experts be thought of any differently?

I'd be really interested to see a decent archaeology series on the TV, but if all I get are some fools firing cannons for a laugh in the middle of a field, or someone running about a site shouting and waving his arms around telling me how exciting something is, without telling me why or placing it in a proper context (and at the same time knackering it with a machine), then frankly I'm not interested, and I don't see why the public should be either.

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by tom wilson

I doubt that they are going to hide their baubles in a scheduled monument (although it wouldn't hurt to make sure). Perhaps they should state that clearly, so if you are taking part you know not to bother digging through barrows etc.

I do not think for one moment that they would be hiding stuff in scheduled sites, the problem is that not everybody with a spade and an idea in their head that they "know" where the treasure is will be aware of which of the places they want to dig is or is not an archaeological/NT/SSSI site. Not all sites (even protected ones) are so obviously so to ALL members of the British public. My comments were not directed to the ten official seekers who will no doubt be properly briefed, but the idea that any Tom, Dick and Harriette viewer can race to get the same goodies..

I think its all to do with the way we put over our discipline. IS it just some mad race to get shiny baubles out of the ground? That is certainly the impression that much media coverage gives, do we conform to the popular stereotypes, or should we be trying to inform them?

Paul Barford

[Digger]

Perhaps it is best to contact the Search producers and find out if they are covered by insurance for damages sustained to listed sites, private property, etc, caused directly or indirectly by their programe. At this stage, with it still in pre-production, it may force them to look at various issues that they have not contemplated. Forwarned of potential issues at this stage means that they have no excuse of 'lack of foreknowledge that X could have caused such damage as a result of our programe' and places a degree of liability on the company and production team.

[tom wilson]

Point one: Paul, it was to the participation of the general public that was referring. There will, no doubt, be a website and an information pack and all manner of accompanying gubbins for this series, which represents an opportunity for us as archaeologists to get a message across to a very broad public. It's an opportunity to make a distinction between archaeology and treasure hunting. However, it shall only be so if someone with a little legitimacy approaches the production company and convinces them of the virtues of our case.

Point two: David, while I understand your motivations, any cautious pronouncements on the importance of heritage that you might make are almost certain to end up on the cutting room floor. You've done lots of media stuff. You know as well as I do that they'll listen and record for hours until you get tired and give them the sound bite they were after all along. I'd stay behind the camera if I were you.





'Have a good plan, execute it violently, do it today'.
General MacArthur

[Paul Barford]

Tom, I dont think our problem is with the people that like to read things and find out things for themselves. The trouble is this looks like one of those "reality/adventure" shows [rather than anything with pretensions to be catering for a highbrow audience]. As such its going to reach mostly the sort of people that dont tend to want to go too deeply into a topic (if you get my drift). So I dont think whatever and how much "bumph" they produce, it will make too much difference at that level. Its the very concept which to my mind is flawed and should have us thinking about possible consequences.

Paul Barford

[BAJR Host]

I am talking to the Search production team this afternoon about this... so any positive steps you feel they could take (apart from not doing it ) speak now... I will pass it on.



Another day another WSI?

[Pipeliner]

I hope that this is not an attempt Mr Hosty to add some favour to your application to the show !!!!!!!!!!! (joke)

As it may be to the detriment of my own application !!!!!!!!!!!