Good one Dave :-)
After all we satirise, lampoon and generally denigrate medics of all
varieties, solicitors, politicians, journalists etc. Is there any
particular reason why archaeologists should remain untouched?
Dave Tooke wrote:
> I don't really care that much, though, I confess I do get irritated
> with people who watch stuff they dislike and then proceed to criticise
> If you don't like it, watch something else.
> Dead simple.
> There does seem to be an element in some of the criticism that serious
> archaeologists feel that their profession should be treated with
> respect, and a seeming common intellectual distaste at the portrayal
> of the subject in this programme, a sort of relishing of the horror.
> Personally, I think it's fun, and archaeologists are lucky to be
> portrayed in such a good light. Think how grateful journalists would
> be to be shown as heroic dedicated seekers after truth, regardless of
> the fact that the typesetting process portrayed was laughable.
> Dave Tooke
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gareth Talbot"
> <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 9:49 AM
> Subject: Re: [BRITARCH] Incredible documentary
> I'm not so sure it is sarcasm to be honest (and I would disagree that
> it is the
> lowest form of wit - that space is reserved for Jim Davidson).
> It's more of a humerous counterpoint, based on the reactions of people
> involved in archaeology. I get the impression Miles likes the
> programme (hope
> I'm right Dr. R!).
> To be frank I would say you are the one who should 'get over it' and
> up a wee bit Mr Tooke.
> My penny's worth.
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 09:25:03 +0100, Dave Tooke <[log in to unmask]>
>> It's true.
>> Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.
>> For a bunch of people who seem to hate the programme there are an awful
>> of you for whom it seems required viewing: if only so that it can be
>> comprehensively slagged off, thus demonstrating your own knowledge and
>> fitness for membership of the clique.
>> Get over it. It's not a documentary, it's a fictional drama. So even
>> some of
>> the "history" is fictional , so what?Why do people insist that it must
>> represent archaeologists as they are, when no other TV drama does
>> that for
>> any other purportedly represented group.
>> And the plea at the end for archaeologists to occasionally take a
>> leap of
>> imagination chimes nicely with modern concerns about agency, habitus,
>> lived lives.
>> Dave Tooke
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Miles Russell" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 11:03 PM
>> Subject: [BRITARCH] Incredible documentary
>> Wow - hadn't realised that the new series of Meet the Ancestors had
>> already (well I missed the first 5 minutes and Julian Richards wasn't
>> on it,
>> but, to be fair, I can't think what else it could have been - unless
>> the BBC
>> has a new flagship archaeological documentary that I wasn't
>> previously aware
>> of) and what a story it was! The reconstructions were of a uniformly
>> quality and, although I missed where exactly the evidence had originally
>> been obtained (I assume there must be a new scroll of history from a
>> previously lost ancient source - perhaps uncovered from a library at
>> Herculaneum or Pompeii) but boy does this change our perception of Roman
>> relations with Britain and the British. I certainly now will look at the
>> Boudiccan revolt in a new light (and am hastily re-jigging my PowerPoint
>> lecture for next years intake accordingly). I wonder why Tacitus and Dio
>> Cassius never mentioned this in their great works (which are shown
>> now to be
>> rather inaccurate and misleading)? Wow indeed.
>> Not sure what the bits in-between the dramatic reconstructions were
>> to say, however, having missed the beginning of the documentary, but
>> made a change from the usual "talking heads". I didn't catch the name
>> of the
>> archaeological unit / university department involved nor how they
>> were first
>> led into this particular line of enquiry, but what a result!
>> Admittedly the
>> team seemed a bit haphazard with regard to their methods (and I'm
>> sure that
>> more should have been said on the programme about legislative
>> infringements - Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings, World Heritage
>> status, Treasure Act etc - and permissions required in order to
>> conduct such
>> a fieldwork programme but I suppose that when you have a story this
>> big and
>> this potentially important, the public don't need to see all the
>> minutiae of
>> Britain's cultural heritage).
>> All in all then, I must say that despite the surprise, this innovative
>> programme really got me thinking and the conclusions were so
>> persuasive that I can't think of any alternative hypothesis. I'm off to
>> Google the team involved immediately so that I can find their email
>> and congratulate them on solving one of the great mysteries of Roman
>> Britain. Fantastic stuff. Why is no other university / unit involved
>> in such
>> ground-breaking research? I hope this was entered in the 2008 RAE.