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
