In the past, archaeologists and Indigenous Peoples did not always co-operate well. This has changed for the better, but is that also reflected in documentaries about archaeology? Indigenous Peoples...Show moreIn the past, archaeologists and Indigenous Peoples did not always co-operate well. This has changed for the better, but is that also reflected in documentaries about archaeology? Indigenous Peoples have been mis- and underrepresented in the mainstream media. It is therefore important to show the relationship between Indigenous Peoples and archaeologists in a correct way. Thus the research question of this thesis is: How are Indigenous Peoples (re)presented in contemporary documentaries on the archaeology and heritage of Central America? This was studied by analysing three documentaries. The cinematic language was explained in chapter two in order to be able to analyse documentaries. Then ethnographic content analysis was used to set up categories and variables to collect data from the films by analysing the characters. A definition of if a character was considered Indigenous or not was set up by studying the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), and the discussion between scholars on different definitions for Indigenous Peoples. The analysis of the data showed that from the three movies, with a total of 29 characters, only two characters could be considered Indigenous. This means that in these movies the Indigenous perspective was underrepresented. Also, some of the variables showed that these Indigenous characters were treated differently than other characters. Western filmmakers or production companies should be aware that they are not inclusive, which they should be according to UNDRIP. Western filmmakers should start collaborating with Indigenous Peoples when making movies about their history and heritage, because then Indigenous Peoples can regain control of their stories and represent themselves.Show less
Archaeology on television has been a widely debated subject amongst academic archaeologists. Perhaps the dilemma that archaeologists face is that archaeology – its practice, its interpretations and...Show moreArchaeology on television has been a widely debated subject amongst academic archaeologists. Perhaps the dilemma that archaeologists face is that archaeology – its practice, its interpretations and the archaeological record it studies – is much like television, in that they both require high degrees of involvement to give them meaning. Thus concerns arise over the validity and ambiguity of the television programme’s information, and the archaeologist’s authority in discerning the past. However, should archaeologists be concerned about portrayal of archaeology in television documentaries? To provide answers to this question, the presentation of archaeological research, sites, objects and researchers in nine documentaries on the National Geographic Channel in the Netherlands in 2013, that were produced in 2012 and 2013, were analysed through ethnographic content analysis. The documentaries mainly focused on the practice of research, including the scientist’s fascination with research. Sometimes research methods were repeated before the camera after it initially had taken place, or they were shown ‘live’ and its results were analysed first-hand. However, the appearance and discussion of the research processes varied per type, possibly due to the structure of the method. In particular, archaeological fieldwork is a difficult process to capture on film, but the process of archaeological interpretation was often embedded in the entire storyline. Amongst other researchers, archaeologists appeared few in number. However, the archaeologists had a specific authoritative role as guides in understanding the past, and they would appear several times in a documentary to provide context or to interpret research results. It was found that certain narrative styles enabled, or disabled, involvement in the research and interpretation processes. There were many cases in which archaeology was presented in an open, yet informative way, while regarding the archaeologists (and researchers in other fields) as authorities. However, research can also be faked or appear unauthentic and authority can be abused. Therefore in communicating archaeology to the public a high degree of transparency is key.Show less
