Archaeology and the Search for an Exclusive!

Richard III 'King in the Car Park' Image source: Wikimedia Commons.

This morning, I saw a television advert for the rather crudely named upcoming programme, 'Richard III: The King in the Car Park'. In this advert it is proudly exclaimed that 'the result' of investigations into the possible remains of Richard III will be announced on their channel, like a Big Brother, Pop Idol or X Factor final!

Initially, this sparked excitement. Finally, I (we) will get an answer to the question which has been bubbling away in the archaeological community since human remains were announced in August 2012... "Are these the remains of King Richard III, buried in Greyfriars Church in Leicester and re-discovered under a car park?"

However within seconds I remembered the implications of this on-going question. The progress and results of the DNA analysis, testing the link between the supposed king's remains and a blood relative living in Canada, have been kept extremely quiet. Publicly, this is because the test was set to take a 'minimum of twelve weeks'. However, I cannot help but suspect that it has more to do with exclusivity deals and media buzz than scientific techniques.

Surely, a DNA test of such 'history changing' significance could be completed sooner? Afterall, similar tests are done in a matter of hours on Jeremy Kyle, The Jerry Springer Show and the like! Of-course I am over-simplifying the situation, I am certain that there are any number of complications entailed in analyzing such ancient DNA.

Alarm bells ring further-still though when one reads an article in the Telegraph which states:

A source told the Telegraph: "Unfortunately, an awful lot of stuff is being kept from the public. I am told that circumstantial evidence of the find which is not going to be broadcast until this programme (on Channel Four) is brought out in January will confirm the body is Richard III's, even if the DNA does not."

This begs the question, 'Who is running the show?' (pun intended). 

After all, the archaeological team from Leicester University was brought on-board to dig the car park following research done for a Channel 4 documentary. Whatsmore when one reads the words "If all the other tests come back as positive but the DNA does not match, we may still make a decision to name the skeleton as Richard based on the evidence." coming from the lips of Richard Taylor of the University of Leicester; one has to ask who is wearing the trousers in this investigation? and... Is this good for archaeology?

It is a central tenant of, certainly, post-processual archaeology that if you commence a dig looking for something in particular you will probably find it, or rather you will not 'see' anything else. The Greyfriars dig in Leicester appears to be at risk of becoming an excellent case-in-point... We have essentially been told what 'the result' will be! And all before the results of excavations and analyses have even been shared with the broader archaeological community, enabling debate, discussion and an interpretation tempered by skeptical minds.

Has this project dragged on to satisfy a television production investment? What does this mean for the integrity of archaeological research?

David Cundall in Burma. Image courtesy of WarGaming.net

The lustre of 'big' headlines


Of-course, this story is just the latest in a line of 'big' archaeological headlines over the past few years.

This month has seen the culmination of the Spitfires in Burma saga which saw the British government moving heaven and earth, thawing it's relationship with Myanmar in order to afford an excavation team a license to dig in the country.

In the frenzy of the media and blogger-sphere this story ballooned from the potential resting place of twenty pristine Spitfires, sealed and buried in the ground to up to one hundred and sixty Spitfires! However, there were no spitfires, the world's press have gorged on this story and, if we're not careful, archaeology may come out of this looking (to the casual observer) like an easily-led and fickle profession!

Elements of the Staffordshire Hoard. Image Source: Wikimedia Commons

In the years since 2009, the Staffordshire hoard has become another world-famous archaeological find. Analysis is on-going and the full significance of this hoard will, most likely, not be understood for years to come. Comparisons with the cultural significance of the Lindisfarne Gospels and the Book of Kells, are certainly valid however! It is little wonder that Birmingham Museum & Art Gallery were eager to show-case them.

Though, once again, the hunt for the exclusive quickly took hold. The National Geographic gained 'exclusive' rights to make a documentary about the find and have show-cased elements from hoard in The National Geographic Museum in Washington DC. Following conversations with archaeologists linked to the Staffordshire hoard, one suspects that the Birmingham Museum were, essentially, flattered by the attention and signed on the dotted line before the full implications of the hoard were/ are understood.

And, as if to underline the point, the Leicester University Unit are now being linked with the hunt for more Spitfires, this time in Birmingham! With a headline exclaiming 'Richard III hunters ready to hunt for buried Spitfires in Brum'.

The integrity of archaeology, the future of our past

So, where does this leave us? Is this simply the future of archaeology? Is this even new?

Arguably, archaeologists have always relied upon the press to disseminate news of their research and to attract sponsors for archaeological expeditions. I am thinking, now, of the search for Tutankhamun, the sensational newspaper reports and the sponsorship of Lord Caernarvon. Howard Carter relied upon all of these elements to get his work done!

In an age of austerity, it is increasingly likely that privately sponsored projects will be the life-blood of archaeology. Ironically such endeavours will come with the 'baggage' of publicity and with public attention comes the desire to hold the rights to exclusively tell 'the story' to the public. However, I fear that what we are increasingly seeing is a tendency to get the horse before the cart - To sell the story before the end is known.

It is difficult to think of another scientific process (of which excavation and interpretation is, in so much as it is the gathering of data, observations and feelings for analysis) which allows media access at the point of 'doing'. Even the public 'faces of science', for example everyone's favourite physicist Prof. Brian Cox, keep the process of research separate from their tele-visual endeavors. Research, analysis, the publication of papers and peer review is a separate sphere from their popular books and television series. Facts and some speculation may be presented on TV, but the messy working-out is a considered affair, not subject to the whims of the media. The process is therefore respected and not seen as something one merely dabbles in.

As Otto Von Bismark is frequently credited as saying 'laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made'. While I believe passionately in open access to archaeology, process, theory and publication; perhaps 'we' are at risk of letting folk assume that our sausages are a free-for-all? The argument that any increase in public awareness of archaeology is good is now out-dated. I scarcely know of anyone who hasn't replied 'Oh, I wish I'd been an archaeologist' when I tell them what I 'do'. 

Perhaps now is the time to be refining the message we put out about archaeology, highlighting the need for good archaeology and the fact that interpretations cannot and should not be rushed, delayed or made to fit the requirements of a head-line? Perhaps we need to have more confidence that the topic we love is loved for a reason, that it is inherently exciting and already asks big, charismatic questions? Archaeology doesn't need 'sexing up' with over-the-top, eye-grabbing claims!

Back in May, 2012 - Sir Keith Thomas, chairman of the judging panel for the Wolfson History Prize, expressed his concern that young historians are damaging the legitimacy of historical inquiry. In an article in the Telegraph stated, "Young history academics are too eager to convert their research into books (and television series) that have only a slim chance of success in an increasingly crowded market."

It is precisely this sentiment which I fear may be increasingly applicable to archaeology.

However, where historians can legitimately trace various paths through their sources, drawing out new 'truths' from the opinions and accounts of others; archaeologists are intimately involved in the creation of the evidence recorded... Excavations are processes of interpretation 'at the trowel's edge' and in order to be useful to others data must be gathered as objectively and comprehensively as possible.

Is such best-practice possible when a TV producer is on your back and local Mayor is already picking out locations for a 'Richard III' museum?

Whither archaeology? Only time will tell!

Despite this stream of consciousness, I am looking forward immensely to hearing the results of the 'hunt for Richard III', Monday 4th of Feb, 9m, on Channel 4!