Unlike in the case of some other sciences like the biosciences, society and future economic wealth are not likely to depend a great deal on archaeological knowledge about the past. Archaeology and the jobs of very many professional archaeologists, in turn, depend very much on a number of variables in society: the degree to which political authorities support archaeological museums and other archaeological institutions, the political consensus among tax payers, their representatives and certain other benefactors that it is a good thing to spend a fraction of their money on designated archaeological research projects, the social acceptance of existing laws about the protection of cultural heritage, the willingness of developers or others who have to pay for rescue excavations prior to development and trust the rationales for that, the preference of all sorts of people not to vandalize archaeological sites and artefacts but to visit archaeological museums or to study archaeology at institutions of higher education, and many more. What the Swedish archaeologist Göran Burenhult (1975: 239) wrote three decades ago is today as valid as it was then: ”In final analysis, archaeology is dependent on the general public attitude towards it”. This is echoed in a statement by the American anthropologist John Cole (1980: 23):

On the selfish, professionalistic level, archaeologists have a stake in building and preserving a public constituency interested in their research if they are to keep their jobs, grants, book sales, and even their data base.

In recent years, this kind of reasoning has been accepted by more and more individual archaeologists (see e.g. Addyman 1987; Cleere 1988; Rieche 1996; Smardz 1997; Paynton 2002; Darvill 2004; Felder et al 2003: 162-4) as well as by institutions like the Council for British Archaeology or the Archaeological Institute of America. By the same token, archaeologists have increasingly understood how much their discipline already owes to a number of key public relation successes in the past. Heinrich Schliemann’s self-portrayals, bestsellers like Ceram’s history of archaeology (1980 {1949}), ”TV Personalities of the year” like the archaeologists Mortimer Wheeler (in 1954) and Glyn Daniel (in 1955), movie stars like Harrison Ford in the Indiana Jones blockbusters, popular TV series like Time Team – all helped to create an immense amount of interest and good will in archaeology without which the discipline and its standing today would quite simply be unimaginable.

As the American Classicist Jon Solomon (1998: 93) put it, Hollywood has helped giving archaeology ”a higher profile than almost any other academic discipline”. This widely held realization among archaeologists of the significance of media exposure for the well-being of their discipline and the strategic initiatives that have resulted from it, is what the journalist Neal Ascherson (2004) referred to when he argued that archaeologists are better at manipulating the media than vice versa. That argument puts into perspective the earlier mentioned common complaint by archaeologists that they are at the peril of unpredictable and (as far as they are concerned) misleading reports by ”sloppy” journalists. Many archaeologists are nowadays keen to popularize their own concerns and interests. But since there is no direct link between the amount of knowledge people have of a given subject and the degree to which they are favourably inclined towards that subject, this can occasionally mean that the image conveyed is not entirely realistic. They seem to agree with the German journalist and scientist Karlheinz Steinmüller who stated succinctly in a recent conversation (Beth and Steinmüller 2004: 236) that even ”crackpot visions can have a positive effect”. And John Cole (1980: 27), for example, argued that even in relation to the most extreme cases of ”cult archaeology”, i.e. what others would call pseudo-archaeology,

archaeologists can ill afford to ignore movements so popular with their popular constituency, and they need to react positively on several levels if they are to maintain or broaden their support rather than cede it to cult movements by default.

In other words, even a false image may need to be cultivated if that is what secures public support and interest in an entire discipline, ultimately perhaps even assuring its survival. This kind of reasoning is a far cry from genuine attempts to make all sections of society understand and appreciate the past and the realities of archaeology. It becomes evident that in the Public Relations Model people are sought to be manipulated in order to make their opinions more compatible with the interests of professional archaeology. Peter Addyman (1990: 262; 1987: 12), creator of the fabulously successful Jorvik Viking Centre (see chapter 2), was not afraid to describe its function as an ”effective propaganda machine” that ”brainwashed 5% of the population into our view of the Viking age and of archaeology”.

It is sometimes assumed in such contexts that once ”hooked”, people will be motivated to find out what archaeology is really like: ”enthusiasts can learn the full story later. If we make archaeology too serious from the beginning, we’ve blown it,” wrote John Gowlett (1990: 157). But is the engineering of interest and support on some false pretenses really a legitimate strategy of lobbying, or should archaeologists not simply face the music of public opinion, however worthwhile its professional representatives think archaeological work might be for society if its members only knew ’better’?

Similar issues crop up again in relation to the recruitment of archaeology students and thus ultimately of professional archaeologists. Without any doubt, popular films like Stargate and the Indiana Jones movies as well as TV documentary series such as Time Team have contributed to a steep increase in student numbers in archaeology. Yes, these portrayals of archaeologists did get people interested, and it is hardly surprising that some of the hype of TV archaeology resembles University Departments prospectuses (as discussed in chapter 3). But one also needs to ask whether archaeologists should be complicit in misleading students about the content and character of their degree course. Another worry ought to be precisely which kind of additional students are attracted to archaeology in this way. Meredith Fraser (email conversation 2003) is rightly concerned that:

the portrayal of archaeologists in mainstream popular culture as primarily white, male, heterosexual, ’able-bodied’ individuals serves to alienate experiences, identities and individuals that do not conform to this model of the ’ideal archaeologist.’ Ultimately, such portrayals have a detrimental effect on both the real and perceived accessibility of archaeology to individuals and communities that are not represented by this ’ideal.’

This argument is also born out by Jane Baxter’s (2002a: 16) experiences with American undergraduate students who from watching archaeological movies and documentaries got the impression that archaeology was not for them:

they consistently stated that these images left them feeling alienated from archaeology as a discipline, that archaeology was an inaccessible discipline to the lay public, and that they themselves probably could never be archaeologists.

In both cases, it is clear that archaeology is not automatically best served by indoctrinated representations that command the largest popular appeal. Moreover, effective propaganda machines like films or popular visitor attractions also carry the risk of potential abuse. Peter Addyman (1990: 263) himself had “little doubt that the Jorvik methods of communication can implant whatever messages are formulated” and therefore bring a particular responsibility for the person deciding about these messages. Addyman himself has done the utmost to maintain academic standards in Jorvik’s own brainwashing efforts (see chapter 2). Yet, in a way, his integrity was sheer luck for the rest of us, because there is no established way for society to control which precise messages are implanted in visitors through private visitor attractions (provided they are not in direct conflict with the law).

Whereas the Education Model was socially problematic, the Public Relations Model is politically and, by implication, ethically difficult. Arguably, both these models are too exclusive in the sense that they do not necessarily benefit a large enough number of the population. A final alternative is therefore the Democratic Model. That model does not seek to improve existing knowledge, change attitudes of audiences, or imply what it takes to be a real archaeologist: instead it expects the professionals to change according to what people actually want from archaeology.

Forward to The Democratic Model

Return to Table of Contents

Return to Home

References