Although TV programmes sometimes give a different impression, most archaeology is local archaeology. Indeed, according to Peter K. Betty (2002: 1056), publishing director with the British publisher Tempus, the wider interest in archaeology is generally stimulated by two main factors: television and local involvement. In terms of mass media, the interest in ”all things local” is a domain of local and regional newspapers which have the space to report about a wide range of stories, often in considerable detail. An unpublished survey, which was conducted in 2003 by Ingrid Pfeiffer among 33 non-archaeologists of all ages, yielded the result that more than two thirds knew a local excavation site about which 17 (71%) had learned from newspaper reports and only 9 (38%) from TV reports. This indicates the significant role of newspapers. Although the influence of (far more restricted) regional TV news is large too, people learn predominantly through newspaper reports about archaeological excavations that are going on in their own neighbourhood.

Just like archaeology has expanded over recent years on our TV schedules, newspapers too have become more interested in archaeological stories. In a survey of archaeological coverage in the British newspaper The Daily Telegraph, Karol Kulik (2003a) could show that it had increased by over 700% (!) in one 18-month period during the mid-1990s.

In seeking to understand the meaning of archaeology as currently depicted in newspapers, a few preliminaries are worth discussing. Most importantly, it is dangerous to assume that only because academics are used (and expected) to evaluate texts on the basis of their written content rather than their headlines or images, newspaper readers do the same.

Concerning newspaper reporting about ongoing excavations, a Swedish archaeologist expressed in an email to me his view that (1) headlines only function to catch the reader’s attention and that it is the main content of the paper that matters most (and can be best influenced by archaeologists) and (2) that more important than getting the story right from the start is to motivate journalists to return to the site later and report about it again (giving archaeologists the chance to gradually tell their story). Arguably, however, this position is strangely naive about the decisive importance of the chosen headline (and associated images) in determining the specific character, appeal, and relevance of the entire story (cf. Kulik 2003a). It also underestimates the way in which the meaning of a recurring story is to a large extent determined when it is first told rather than developing gradually.

Even a cursory look at archaeological news headlines reveals directly some of the main cultural meanings of archaeology in popular culture. Excluding the very many straight news items and reports about current events or topical political decisions, many headlines of archaeological stories refer to one of four themes: an interesting discovery, a mystery solved, on-going detective work, or a new scholarly insight (see also Högberg forthcoming). Newspaper journalists are inclined to try and catch the readers’ interests by referring to tried-and-tested themes, even if they are clisches. As on TV, Archaeology in newspapers is increasingly becoming ”archaeotainment” (Kapff 2004).

Figure 3.4

The Swedish archaeologist Stig Welinder (1987) conducted an analysis of all references to archaeology in four Swedish and Norwegian newspapers during the year of 1985, chosing one national and one regional paper in each country. His results demonstrated that most articles focus on only a few aspects of their work, namely field work, handling of finds, cultural heritage management, and the presentation of research results. He summed up his findings like this (1987: 36, 130; my translation):

The characteristic archaeologist is active in the cultural landscape, at heritage or excavation sites, or in museum archives and exhibitions. Archaeologists have things in their hands: a spade, a drawing-board, artifacts. At the same time, the archaeologist is a theoretician and expert, an expert for prehistoric and early historical people and societies, for the preservation and restoration of the cultural landscape, for ancient ways of life and techniques.

Expectations for archaeological fieldwork are about an exciting hunt for sensational finds and treasures. With the help of shovels and spades and sensible technical equipment, the archaeologist penetrates into the unknown, the mystical and the mysterious.

Recently, Stig Welinder (1997) and Anders Högberg (forthcoming) basically confirmed these results in the light of new studies of Swedish newspapers reporting about archaeology.

Newspaper images, too, tend to show archaeologists working on site as well as particular finds, thus corresponding to the association of ”digging up things” which people have when they hear the word ”archaeology” (as discussed in chapter 4). An analysis of all print media articles (including some printouts from online sources) published about archaeology in the German state of Saxonia in 2002 yielded some interesting figures. Although one in three (often short) reports were picture-less, those with pictures showed most frequently archaeologists at work (35%) and particular finds (26%), sometimes held by the archaeologist in charge, with another 12% being photographs of the archaeological site as such. Almost one in every four articles contained more than one image, often mixing the most popular motifs.

These major trends were also born out in Bodil Petersson’s (1994) study of newspaper articles about the famous Swedish site of Birka (see chapter 7). Many of the headlines of her sample referred to the process of digging up Viking Age treasures of one sort or another. In terms of illustrations, again, approximately one third of the associated images showed archaeologists at work in the field and another quarter depicted individual finds.The journalist Neal Ascherson (2004: 155) suggested a possible explanation for this tendency to foreground specific discoveries. Since, by tradition, archaeology in newspapers is consigned to news pages, they are expected to be reports about events, such as new discoveries, and not discussions of, for instance, carefully considered historical interpretations or their wider implications as in feature articles that may appear in the culture or science sections.

Interestingly, Elisabeth Pühringer (2000: 80-1) argued that on TV, too, the most common, stereotypical images shown are that of the archaeologist squatting on the ground gradually revealing some bones or artifacts with a trowel or brush, and the archaeologist on the dig site, holding or showing cleaned up finds, talking to the camera.

Newspaper stories about archaeology thus confirm the emphasis in TV programmes on the process of doing archaeology in the present. They all focus on archaeologists digging, finding, revealing, and studying things. In particular, the image of archaeology is excavation-centred. As Welinder commented (1987: 157), what is lacking is – paradoxically – a historical time perspective.

Newspaper reports thus do not predominantly educate about the past but celebrate the work of archaeologists mainly in terms of clue-hunting, discoveries, mysteries, and revelations (see also Högberg forthcoming; cf. chapter 5). This is what draws readers, what makes an archaeological story relevant to them. I have not been able to discern any notable differences of that trend between the U.K., Sweden and Germany. It is important to realise in this context that I do not claim that newspaper readers are not interested in anything else than stereotypical headlines and images. What I am arguing is that they appear to be especially interested in archaeology when it is presented in this way. Could that have anything to do with what people generally are thinking about archaeology?

Forward to What people are thinking about archaeology

Return to Table of Contents

Return to Home

References