When archaeologists mention their profession during a party, the first thing they hear is “Oh, like Indiana Jones! I wanted to be and archaeologist when I was little, finding gold seems so exciting...Show moreWhen archaeologists mention their profession during a party, the first thing they hear is “Oh, like Indiana Jones! I wanted to be and archaeologist when I was little, finding gold seems so exciting”. This short text illustrates that the image of archaeologists seems to be different from reality. There seem to be several stereotypes about archaeologists, these can seem innocent, but they can have real effects on the field of archaeology as a whole. All kinds of wild stereotypes that are attached to archaeologists can have influence on their work and on the importance of archaeology in the eye of the public. This is not beneficial for public support or professional relations. This thesis investigated the current image of archaeologists in the Netherlands. A survey was launched to find out what the Dutch public thinks archaeologists are like and what they do in their line of work.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
