In this chapter I distinguished and discussed four main themes which can account for practically all portrayals of archaeology in contemporary popular culture. Each theme represents one particular dimension of what might be called ”archaeo-appeal” (Holtorf 2005: chapter 9). Significantly, there are some aspects which all these themes share:

None of the four themes take the past itself particularly seriously. Mostly, the archaeologist is portrayed not in relation to his actual ability to find out what happened in the past but in relation to certain qualities that are associated with this basic ambition. These qualities may be the adventurous character of archaeological fieldwork, the exciting detective-work that leads to important discoveries which may solve historical mysteries, the possibility of eventually being able to make great revelations of wide significance, and the professional duties of the specialist who takes good care of the archaeological heritage as a non-renewable resource. It is as if any specific historical information or indeed interpretation has only meaning in so far as it contributes to any of these themes, making the adventure more adventurous, the mystery more (or less) mysterious, the revelation more likely, or the protection more urgent.

In none of the four themes the actual results of archaeological work are thus particularly important. Instead, what matters most are various aspects of the process of doing archaeology (see also Daniel 1964: 162; Borbein 1981: 60; Holtorf 2004): the archaeologist’s own heroic journey, the gradual piecing together of the case by locating and analyzing significant clues, the constantly maintained hope that some true revelation will emerge from on-going work, and the knowledge that scarce remains are being managed and treated responsibly. Just like an adventure story is not characterized by precisely what the hero accomplishes but how he gets there, so a detective story does not rely a lot on what the solution of the case eventually is, and professional management of a scarce resource is not really about protection for any specific site or artifact and its historical information. I would argue that even great archaeological revelations are often more effective at making audiences gasp at how somebody could have reached them than at making them consider the implications of what they actually imply.

These observations are specific to archaeology’s portrayal in contemporary Western popular culture. However, the phenomenon that the object and the results of scientific studies can seem less interesting than the desire and the process of studying themselves is not unique to archaeology. They occur also in many other sciences which feature unsolved mysteries, adventurous fieldwork, searches for evidence, and the prospects of large revelations, among other popular themes. In other words, all scientific disciplines are to some extent perceived and appreciated in metaphorical terms (Haynes 1994).

The implications of the conclusions of this and all previous chapters will be discussed in the final chapter, which will draw the book to a close. Before that I need to discuss though the principal models that can govern professional archaeologists’ engagement with the portrayal of their subject in popular culture.

Forward to Strategies of engagement

Return to Table of Contents

Return to Home

References