So what are archaeologists to make of their portrayal in contemporary popular culture? In the previous six chapters I surveyed a number of key realms, some empirical and some theoretical.

From the perspective of the tourist (chapter 2), the TV watcher and the newspaper reader (chapter 3), it is hard to avoid the conclusion that archaeology is everywhere and that it is one of the most appealing themes of our age. With reference to the trends in society that I discussed in chapter 1, one might say that archaeology provides particularly engaging experiences for the Experience Society and extremely evocative stories for the Dream Society. In other words, archaeology is a very trendy subject in the Western world, and far more than the specialty interest of a few. But in stating that, what kind of archaeology am I actually referring to?

The currency of archaeology is rooted in a few key stereotypes and clichés of the discipline which, individually or combined, evoke what I have been calling ”archaeo-appeal” (Holtorf 2005: chapter 9). In this book I distinguished (in chapter 5) four particularly important themes that characterize the portrayal of archaeology in popular culture. According to the A theme, archaeologists are heroes who go through exciting adventures in exotic locations. In the D theme, they are detectives and scholars who successfully solve their cases by knowing how to find and read clues in the right way. Archaeologists can also miraculously bring the past back to life and may be able to reveal some great truths for the benefit of humankind reassuring us about our prospects – which I called the R theme. Closer to home, according to the C theme, archaeologists rescue precious sites and artifacts from obliteration so that academics and others can appreciate them even in the future. Significantly, these grand four themes do not only involve the intellect but also our bodies and emotions. Archaeology is about the hardship of fieldwork, the longing for treasures, and the joys of discovery. It is about the satisfaction of putting one more puzzle piece into place and suddenly see the larger picture. It is about the intricate practicalities of running a rescue excavation and saving archaeological heritage from imminent destruction, while being under pressure from all directions. For many archaeologists, both in popular culture and in reality, all this together constitutes a way of life. Sometimes, others find it an enviable way of life.

These stereotypical clichés that have come to dominate the public perception of the discipline share that they all present archaeology in metaphorical rather than literal terms. By that I mean that in each theme archaeology comes to stand for something other than what it purports to be in concrete terms. It is not normally the specific site being investigated, the specific clue being discovered, the specific insight being gained, or the specific artifact being rescued that matter a lot in their own right. Instead, the specifics only matter in so far as they become elements in larger stories simultaneously being told about great adventure, detective work, quests for answering Big Questions, or careful resource management. What all four themes share too, is their emphasis on archaeology as a process, that is on ”doing” archaeology rather than on the actual results being produced. There is very little appreciation in popular culture of the fact that archaeologists can tell us in some detail what specifically went on in the past, and far more emphasis is given to how they arrive at any specific insight, notably through digging up artifacts and piecing together various kinds of available evidence (see chapters 3 and 5). Even indoor museums, like the Archaeological State Museum in Konstanz (Germany), have understood that a simulated excavation site evokes an appealing archaeological atmosphere that provides a particularly favourable scene for presenting archaeological exhibits and displays. That fascination with the practice of archaeology was also born out in the existing surveys of peoples’ attitudes towards archaeology, as shown in chapter 4. The most common association people have with ”archaeology” is invariably the notion of digging up things, and because of this particular archaeo-appeal many would enjoy getting into archaeology themselves. Other scientific fields, like physics, chemistry and psychoanalysis, share with archaeology a popular emphasis on the way they are being done. But in the popular perceptions of, for example, engineering, meteorology, ecology, or psychology it matters a lot more than in archaeology precisely what knowledge they arrive at.

Are there, then, any significant differences between the three countries of Sweden, the U. K., and Germany which I focused on in my research? Except from chapter 3 when I discerned slightly diverging profiles of archaeology in these nations’ national TV schedules, especially regarding the very significant role of Time Team in the U.K., I did not say a great deal about such differences in other chapters. The reason for that is that I do not think that any existing differences in the relative importance of certain stereotypes are very large. In any case, they did not emerge prominently from the qualitative methodology I mostly worked with. My examples were chosen from all three countries, as they seemed to illustrate each point best. Among them, you will however find a stronger representation of films that were originally published in English. That is hardly surprising since so much of contemporary Western popular culture – for better or worse – has its roots in Hollywood. The extent to which Hollywood at the same time has become appropriated around the world became clear to me when I heard of the Hong Kong produced movie Undiscovered Tomb (2002) which has been described as ”Asia’s Tomb Raider” .

As I argued in chapter 6, it is a disputed issue how professional archaeologists should react toward the existing clichés of archaeology. Drawing on some recent discussion within Science Studies and science policy debates, I distinguished three approaches that summarize the principal positions available to professional archaeologists (assuming that one does not wish to ignore the phenomenon entirely). According to the Education Model, the public simply needs to be better informed and enlightened about what archaeology really is. The Public Relations Model, on the other hand, insists that public opinion matters in relation to the public image of archaeology which in turn affects the degree of political support archaeologists can expect to receive for their work. Finally, the Democratic Model emphasizes that archaeology will serve the people best if it actually allows them to participate in setting the agenda for professional archaeology, according to their own preferences and desires. Arguably, these popular preferences and desires are indicated (though perhaps not exhausted) by the realities of how archaeology is presented in existing popular culture.

The aim of my discussion was not to suggest any simple strategy by which professional archaeologists could determine the single best response to, for instance, a new Indiana Jones movie. Instead, I hope that future discussions among professionals will be helped by the possibility to refer to a set of well-defined models defining the principal positions available. All sorts of hybrid positions are likely to emerge in relation to specific cases. There is, however, one aspect that I wish all archaeologists would take to heart more than they have until now. That is the realization that in the public domain archaeology is as much a brand as it is a discipline.

Forward to Archaeology as a brand

Return to Table of Contents

Return to Home

References