The full title of the project of which this book is the outcome was ”The portrayal of archaeology in contemporary popular culture – opportunity or obstacle for the promotion of cultural heritage?” Chapters 1 to 5 discussed different aspects of the first part of this agenda. This and the following chapter, in turn, will address the second part: that crucial question of what, if anything, archaeologists are to make of the way archaeology is portrayed in popular culture.

For many archaeologists the key issue in this context appears to be that they feel fundamentally misrepresented regarding the depiction of both the (existing knowledge about the) past and their own occupation. They would like to change the way archaeology is portrayed, to make it more accurate. Indeed, in some cases, unrealistic public expectations for archaeology are created that lead to disappointment when the professionals cannot meet them (Felder et al 2003: 162-3). The resulting frustrations on both sides are understandable, especially if you keep in mind the degree to which archaeologists are typically emotionally attached to their profession as well as to their subject. Complaints about misrepresentations in the media are therefore very common. The question is, however, whether it is not the archaeologists who in turn misunderstand the role and function of the media. Indeed, the author and historian Neil Asher Silberman (1999: 82) doubted that archaeology is ready for prime time:

Maybe it’s time that members of the discipline (of archaeology) recognize that popularization is not merely repeating scholarly hypotheses in simple language so as to be understandable to the great unwashed.

Similarly, in his review of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, the archaeologist John Gowlett (1990: 157) warned against certain overreactions by his colleagues regarding the accuracy of how archaeologists are represented in this movie:

I cannot think of anything worse than pontificating upon whether any archaeology in this fails to meet reality. That would be about as worthwhile as spotting the impossibilities of physics in Star Wars. Pointing out ”archaeological flaws” in the Lara Croft films is an undertaking that is just as unnecessary (Rose 2003). The overwhelming majority of people do not seem to have difficulties in distinguishing film realities from lived realities, past or present. I do not think that more than a very few believe that all professional archaeologists literally seek golden treasures in the jungle. But the most important point here is not the fact that professional archaeology and popular culture operate within very different frames of reference – separate discourses – that are widely recognised for what they are. Instead, it is crucial to step back from the immediate representations and realities, and consider some of the bigger issues at stake, on a broader social and political level. These issues are largely about the relations between science and society.

In the following I will be referring to three principal models for these relations between science and society. The underlying distinctions are modified from the work of Peter Healey (1999) and others who recently contributed to the discussions around what used to be called the ”public understanding of science” (see e.g. House of Lords 2000; Hargreaves & Ferguson 2000; Elam and Bertilsson 2003).

• The Education Model, which involves the gaining of reliable knowledge by an elite of scientists and its subsequent dissemination to those with knowledge ”deficits” contributing to their enlightenment and competence as citizens;

• The Public Relations Model, which seeks to improve the public image of science in order to secure its license to practice and increase social and political support for science, science spending and science legislation. A higher profile of some sciences (though probably not archaeology) promises to create additional social wealth as a result too;

• The Democratic Model, which emphasizes scientific responsibility and sustainable development and is based on participatory processes in which non-scientists predominate.

According to each model, scientists have reason to be concerned about the relations between science and society. Followers of the first model tend to lament about a widespread scientific illiteracy that prevents people from making informed choices in our knowledge-based society, and they like pointing out scientific inaccuracies in media representations. Those subscribing to the second model often complain about distorted media coverage of science damaging its reputation and thus its interests in society. Finally, supporters of the third model are worried about state-supported scientists being ’illiterate’ about the real world themselves and acting against citizens’ interests or desires by pursuing unwanted or even dangerous research beyond the realm of proper, democratic accountability.

Although they first emerged at different times, all three models are currently co-existing and competing, although they can be combined both in a single person’s outlook and in any chosen strategy. Each model has nevertheless led to a distinctive way of science engaging with the public. The elitist Education Model implies that science holds ”a monopoly on truth in society” and is seeking to transmit that truth and its context as accurately as possible to large, passive audiences in accessible formats – often being frustrated by the independence of the media (Weingart 1998: 869-70; cf. House of Lords 2000: chapter 7). The Public Relations Model, in turn, is based on the understanding that in order to maintain or increase public support for science it is essential to win the hearts and minds of large sections of the populations through intensive lobbying (Kirby 2003: 242-6). Typical are reminders that

in modern democratic conditions, science like any other player in the public arena ignores public attitudes and values at its peril. Our recommendation for increased and integrated dialogue with the public is intended to secure science's ’licence to practise’, not to restrict it. (House of Lords 2000: 5.50)

The Democratic Model, finally, recognizes that, in a democratic system, science must answer to peoples’ needs, address their desires and concerns, and be subjected to political control by non-scientists – even though they may occasionally decide against what seems to be in their own best interest.

It is revealing to compare which images of human beings are implied in each model. Whereas the last model implies a view of ”the public” as citizens who are essentially able to form their own mature opinions about difficult questions, the former two models depict people as ignorant or incompetent: malleable by media representations and, if left for themselves, unable to gain viable knowledge or make competent judgments about either reality or science. The choice between the three models is thus also a choice between some major political philosophies.

The attitudes and approaches underlying these three basic models can also be discerned in archaeologists’ existing evaluations of the way they are portrayed in popular culture (see also Merriman 2004).

Forward to The Education Model

Return to Table of Contents

Return to Home

References