In the way of a summary, it is illuminating to compare how each of the three models applies to the British TV phenomenon Time Team (see chapter 3).

According to the British heritage expert Henry Cleere (2000), Time Team ”presents a somewhat distorted and over-simplified picture of what archaeology is really about.” He argues that ”(t)he time has now surely come to have enough confidence in the appeal of the subject … to modify the format slightly so as to present a more balanced and honest picture.” According to Cleere, ”the potential is there for something that will improve the quality without losing the ratings.” Significantly, quality is here signified by an accurate picture of what archaeology is about. Moreover, this picture ought to be perfected once that commercial necessity, the ratings, are satisfactory. This is a position typical for proponents of the Education Model.

John Walker, Chief Executive of the York Archaeological Trust, on the other hand is a follower of the Public Relations Model. When I met him in York (see chapter 2), he stated that the most important role of Time Team in relation to archaeology was its usefulness in the field of politics. In his experience, the popularity of the TV series helped convincing politicians that archaeology is important and worthwhile to take into account. Time Team has changed the image of archaeology from stuffy to cool, and broadened the popular appeal of archaeology in the UK considerably. Mike Heyworth of the Council for British Archaeology explained the value of that change by speculating whether a future Chancellor of the Exchequer (i.e. British Finance Minister) may be more sympathetic to the desires of archaeologists because he is now an enthusiastic watcher of Time Team.

The net result of all the TV archaeology is that my job as a curator is made easier because virtually everyone who comes to us with a planning application now understands at least the basic issues surrounding archaeology (although I do get a bit tired of the agents for developers proving how their developer is sensitive by telling me how much they enjoy watching Time Team!) Vince Russett, email to the discussion group britarch (2003)

Finally, in line with the Democratic Model, one can consider the popular Time Team format as representing something like an archaeology of the people. This was certainly born out with the The Big Dig project in the summer of 2003 (see chapter 3). As the official web diary of the event recalls, loads of people enjoyed joining the experts in their investigations of the British past. Time Team archaeologist Mick Aston (under the entry for Sunday, 22 June 2003) is reported to have said about his experience in the village of Great Easton in Leicestershire:

I walked down the High Street with Tim Taylor at lunch time and nearly every garden had people digging a hole and filling out recording sheets. It’s brilliant to see so many people getting involved with their archaeology. This really is what it’s all about. People learning about and enjoying their past in a constructive way.

Francis Pryor, too, liked this initiative and had this to say about its critics: ”I smell elitism and self interest and I don’t like it” (The Guardian, 21 June 2003). The event would arguably have been even less elitist and more democratic if people had actually been allowed and encouraged to do anything and only what they wanted with the finds from their back gardens!

So where do we go from here? Which model do I offer as the way forward regarding archaeology’s awkward relationship with its portrayal in popular culture? The Education Model, the Public Relations Model, and the Democratic Model each provide very different strategies for archaeology’s public relations. The point of this book is not to choose between them but to ensure that future debates among professional archaeologists on this issue can make reference to the specific arguments, both in favour and against, that characterize each of these models. Indeed, much might be said for combining elements of all these models into future strategies of archaeology engaging with the public. These discussions will have to go hand in hand with further considerations of the aims of archaeology in society, as these have a large impact on how to engage with the portrayal of archaeology in popular culture.

The final chapter of the book will sum up the argument presented in this book and mention a few archaeological projects and initiatives that I find particularly interesting and indeed promising for the future development of public archaeology.

Forward to Public archaeology reconsidered'

Return to Table of Contents

Return to Home

References