JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for BRITARCH Archives


BRITARCH Archives

BRITARCH Archives


BRITARCH@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

BRITARCH Home

BRITARCH Home

BRITARCH  October 2012

BRITARCH October 2012

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Time Team

From:

Malcolm J Watkins <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

British archaeology discussion list <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 29 Oct 2012 08:32:40 -0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (224 lines)

I have to agree with Anastasia.
I initially put Catherine's comments down to robust academic argument, 
but....
Whatever Catherine's experience, mine was (at a reasonable level in the 
worlds of museum-, planning- and field- archaeology) that many very senior 
members of local authority staff, politicians and developers or their teams 
of architects, etc., were convinced by the three-day concept as a means of 
'evaluating' or even 'mitigating' the archaeological impact of proposals. It 
probably tailed off after a few years, but by then my role had changed.
Nobody wants to deny, or can deny, that TT was seminal and opened up 
archaeology to a wide audience that in many cases continued an interest 
beyond the lounge.
I suspect that one reason why I was fascinated by archaeology may have been 
a predecessor hit TV programme with such characters as Glyn Daniel, 
Jacquetta Hawkes, Stuart Piggott and Mortimer Wheeler (who make the 
eccentricities of the current crop of TV personalities pale into 
insignificance).
But TV has a different role from that of the professional or even dedicated 
archaeologist. In many ways the archaeology could have been delivering goods 
by lorries, or looking at people's bodily disorders, or any of a thousand 
other quirky subjects. It may have been important to the originators of the 
programmes, but to those chasing ratings, the subject is largely irrelevant. 
If they can't sell advertising on the back of it, or maintain their share of 
audience figures, it becomes dead weight.
We need programmes like TT, no matter how much some of us may have been 
unhappy, because they enable small-scale local questions to be addressed, if 
not always answered and because they give the uncommitted an insight into 
our very strange world.
Malcolm

-----Original Message----- 
From: AnastasiaT
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2012 9:01 PM Subject: Re: Time Team

/"I am sorry but I find all this waffling on about Time Team misleading 
people
into thinking that archaeology can be done in three days and they don't not
know about all the preparatory work silly"/

Your huge generalisations about who is watching TT,  and other
documentaries for that matter, are rather self-centric.
Also, I find it very rude in this list, that people call other people's
views "silly" or "pathetic" without hesitation, just because they happen
to disagree. Where has common courtesy gone? In any case, from the
discussions online I got the feeling that most people agree that TT was
a pioneering programme with a great impact on community archaeology and
the public. One of the problems was that the programme failed to
progress through the years, or, as its creator Tim Taylor said in his
formal comment, it progressed in the wrong way, the way of  tv
economics, losing momentum. Reading his comment I felt that he was
disappointed as well, this is why he wants to take this experience and
try again with a new archaeology programme. So, let's wait and see.

Anastasia

-------- Original Message --------

-----------------------------

Date:    Thu, 25 Oct 2012 19:27:25 +0100
From:    Catherine Petts<[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Fwd: BRITARCH Digest - 23 Oct 2012 to 24 Oct 2012 (#2012-258)

I am sorry but I find all this waffling on about Time Team misleading people
into thinking that archaeology can be done in three days and they don't not
know about all the preparatory work silly

Firstly it insults the intelligence of the people watching the show. They
are not stupid and know darn well that an incredible amount of work on each
subject that goes on before hand and after.

Secondly, one of the reasons they know that is that this applies to any
programme on television. Whether you watch gardening programmes, cookery
programmes, or house renovation programmes, all the casual, oh look we have
a project behaviour of the presenters is backed up by months of preparation,
research, and rehearsal.  I really cannot believe that any contributor to
Britarch, let alone the tens of millions of non-Britarchers, who watches
television programmes aren't aware of all the before, after and during the
show, but not shown, work that takes place around any factual programme..

What people need to realise is that Time Team is first and foremost a
television programme, and as with all television programmes it manipulates
its subject to achieve its aim of getting as many people as possible to
watch it. If viewers fall - and Time Team's have, the programme is pulled.

20 years is a heck of a along run for any television show let alone one on
archaeology and it has done an inestimable amount of good for the public
knowledge and understanding of archaeology. I knew it was a winner when
about a year after it was first broadcast there was a pocket cartoon in the
Daily Mirror, I cannot remember the joke but the person in it had lots of
fuzzy hair and a striped sweater and that was enough for the ordinary Mirror
reader to know, without being told, that the man in the cartoon was an
archaeologist.

Catherine Petts
--------------------------------------------------
From: "AnastasiaT"<[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 7:02 PM
To:<[log in to unmask]>
Subject: [BRITARCH] Fwd: BRITARCH Digest - 23 Oct 2012 to 24 Oct 2012
(#2012-258)

>  Very well said.
>
>  My elderly relatives who watched the series kept asking me if I could do
>  this or that because they watched it on TT and there they were oh, so
>  clever!
>  I've had enough. On the one hand it was great to make archaeology more
>  public and make so many people enthusiastic over it, but on the other,
>  like every tv production, it was also misleading people into thinking 
> that
>  you get great results in 3 days (without mentioning all the survey and
>  research work that it was obvious to the professional eye that had
>  preceded), that archaeologists just grab a common sherd and immediately
>  can date it with accuracy - ...and even tell you who made it and who 
> broke
>  it, I might add - and my pet hate: making the public think that all
>  archaeologists are eccentric, wear mismatched clothes and are a funny lot
>  in general; that is, the exact opposite of CSIs who are portrayed always
>  on tv as cool and handsome.
>
>  Having participated in 3 documentaries produced in different countries, I
>  was very surprised by the conventions that take place during shooting and
>  editing, which are undetectable to the viewer, and by how difficult it is
>  to do proper science on tv. The bigger the channel, the more
>  sensationalistic the result had to be.
>
>  All the best
>
>  Anastasia
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
>  Date:    Wed, 24 Oct 2012 08:53:17 +0100
>  From:    Malcolm J Watkins<[log in to unmask]>
>  Subject: Re: Time Team axed
>
>  Time Team was both good and bad. The issue that nobody seems to have
>  addressed is precisely this 3-day format.
>  When I was fighting hard to raise the profile of local archaeology, and 
> to
>  improve the way in which it was integrated into the planning process (a
>  golden age that may now have slipped past, I note) one of my biggest
>  problems was in trying to convince (often unsuccessfully) the
>  powers-that-be
>  that it was unrealistic to expect the archaeologists to go into a site
>  over
>  a 3-day period and work miracles. The facility with which geophysical
>  surveyors were found, illustrators worked and all the other 'add-ons' to
>  the
>  holes was misleading to my bosses and developers.
>  So, although TT undoubtedly made 'good' TV, and brought to life our
>  discipline for many more than might otherwise have discovered it, I view
>  its
>  demise with mixed feelings.
>  The need to find an alternative to show how even small, insignificant,
>  details can help build a picture about our past is clear.
>  I would like to see something which could develop the idea of bringing
>  together the different elements in a more structured and (dare I suggest)
>  honest time frame and story. People understand the time it takes to
>  conduct
>  research projects in the real world, so why not on TV?
>  I envisage something which identifies an historical
>  event/mystery/story/whatever, and tries to interpret it and get to the
>  bottom. Recent work on such things as Bosworth, combining historic
>  research,
>  intelligent detecting, fieldwork often but not necessarily including
>  excavation, landscape archaeology and study, and then the conclusions is
>  an
>  example of the sort of thing I have in mind. It isn't quick, and it may
>  not
>  always provide the answers expected, but it is real research on a large
>  scale, and ought to show how different aspects join together to reach a
>  probable answer.
>  TT was almost there, but the sexing-up by imposing an artificial deadline
>  (as if we don't have enough real ones) undermined it in my view.
>  I am (sort of) enjoying the current series (Prehistoric Autopsy) with the
>  mesmeric Alice Roberts, but would dearly like a little more openness 
> about
>  the expense in such programmes. The creation of superb life-sized mosels
>  is
>  something which the average museum can only dream of, simply because of
>  the
>  cost. And that was nother problem with TT. I don't know how true it was,
>  but
>  I was told early on that the budget of a single programme was enough to
>  have
>  covered the entire archaeology costs to the City Council for more than 
> two
>  years, at a time when we had a decently-sized team.
>  Compare TT with Julian Richards' 'Meet the Ancestors' and my vote would
>  almost invariably go to the latter.
>  As for Neil Oliver? Please, no! Some of us see more than enough of him
>  already.
>
>  Malcolm
>
>  -- 
>
>
>  ---->--@ --->---@
>  Anastasia Tsaliki PhD
>  Biological - Funerary Archaeology, Anthropology&   Palaeopathology
>  http://bioarchaeology-palaeopathology.blogspot.com/
>
>  WEB PROJECTS:
>  http://www.paleopathology.org/links
>  https://www.facebook.com/groups/208521802515969/
>  http://environmentalarchaeology.wordpress.com
>
>  ************************************
>  CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
>  This e-mail and any attached files are confidential.
>  If you are not a named recipient, any disclosure, reproduction, copying,
>  distribution or other dissemination or use of this communication is
>  strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error,
>  please notify the sender and delete this e-mail.
>   ************************************
>
>  Save a tree! Please, do not print this email unless you really have to.
>
> 

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager