Archaeology's allies
Does public interest in archaeology get in the way of the work
Archaeology is becoming more popular year on year. But some say the public gets in the way of serious and very long term research
aArchaeology needs public support to justify its work, which most of the time doesn't find a headline-grabbing treasure-filled tomb. It also needs to ensure that it can justify the public money that is spent on its activities, again despite what many would see as humdrum discoveries punctuated only occasionally by spectacular finds. But with metal detectors remaining highly popular and archaeology documentaries attracting audiences in their millions, any dig anywhere in the world is highly likely to attract more than just useful interest. It will also attract crowds of people who, however keen, are not professional archaeologists, and that could lead to possible interference with the serious work of the diggers and scholars.
Now archaeology is slow, painfully slow. If you had turned up at the beginning of Howard Carter's now legendary dig in the Valley of the Kings which eventually discovered King Tut, you would have spent many years being disappointed, as indeed he did, before the dedication finally paid off and the greatest archaeological find of the century slowly emerged.
But driving people off in case they get in the way is not going to endear archaeologists to the public, or to the public purse. It's all very well waiting until the work is done and the finds are documented and properly recorded before opening some kind of visitor centre, but the interest that will fill the centre with people begins as the first finds are uncovered, and must somehow be maintained while the often very long drawn out process of work goes on.
Metal detectors are fine as part of that work provided they are either only operated by the archaeologists themselves or by individuals licensed or otherwise supervised by the professionals. Electronics play a major role in modern archaeology and anyone with appropriate electronic knowledge would be useful, but in a supervised manner.
This is where the documentaries themselves can help. Take one, the weekly TV programme Time Team on the UK's Channel Four in which a group of archaeologists, most of them leaders in their field, have three days to make initial excavations of a site the public has called its attention to and to draw initial conclusions.
The public is encouraged to take an interest and come and watch the excavations, but the tapes around the site clearly tell them that the place is off limits while the work goes on. At the end of the three days the public - and the viewers - are taken through the finds and the conclusions. No-one gets in the way and no-one is disappointed.
Now the programme and its spin-offs have expert and scholarly critics who think that a three day "celebrity" dig is beneath them and demeans archaeology. I can see their point, but the result of this kind of "celebrity" archaeology is that the discipline has attracted more interest than a standard dig and report would have done. That support could justify the spending of further public money and maybe, just maybe, a young viewer would be attracted to the work of an archaeologist and train to be one. And in most cases, local archaelogists continue the work the Time Team operation has opened up.
