A quick reality check - the dating evidence for the burial being Saxon came
up very late in the day, as the programme made clear: much was done in the
remainder of the film to alert people to the importance of this, but the
filming of the Romans at Stonehenge was done weeks before the dating
evidence was finally in, and had to be to fit the production schedule.
From: Mark Simmons [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 03 August 2000 19:28
To: [log in to unmask]; Cinnamon Jones
Subject: Re: Annoying filming techniques
----- Original Message -----
From: Cinnamon Jones <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 02 August 2000 14:20
Subject: Annoying filming techniques
> I accept Sue Richardson's point.
> I think too that the real story of the Stone Henge
> burial was in danger of being hidden under the weight
> of graphic imagery. My own rather cynical view on
> this particular episode, was that the producers
> desperately wanted it to be a Roman act.
> Comments please
> Cinnamon Jones
I wonder if the director/editor found the Roman Re-enactors more
"Televisual" than the Anglo-Saxon ones ?
It's a bit of a cliché in Re-enactment that people immediately home in on
the Romans at any multi-period event because a Legionary is very
identifiable (time period, what they do, nice armour etc). This also goes
for children, as the Romans are the most popular National Curriculum subject
in KS2 out of the "Romans, Anglo-Saxons and Vikings" unit.
On the other hand, Medieval re-enactors can be difficult for the public to
distinguish between (perhaps excepting the Vikings).
PS is it me, but is this series of "Secrets of the Dead" very
sensationalistic and dumbed down ? The Jamestown one last Monday was
interesting, but they've only found one body so far, and all that stuff
about him being shot on purpose was badly evidenced. Not a murmer about it
being accidental, as the skeleton is labelled in the display. Can't wait for
the witchcraft one ;-)