Digging TV

The many factual formats populating modern TV, including the dizzying forms of Reality TV, shape the viewing experience of Wild Archaeology.[13]  Within Realty TV many variations have come and gone—e.g., Accident and Emergency, Docu-soaps, Reality games. But overall, it’s a field of hybrids and some tropes have now influenced more sober sub-genres of science and nature docs. As anthropologist Jaime Ginter from Sheridan College, near Toronto, considers archeology documentary now, he comments:

“There seems to be a range of ‘authentic’ archaeology programming on TV. Time Team and Bone Detectives, for example, are putting in an honest effort to remain true to the method and theory of the discipline while bringing in some cool shiny stuff that will entice and engage viewers.”[14] [open endnotes in new page]

However, even with Time Team the lead archaeologist quit in 2012 “citing a change in the program format where there was ‘a lot less archaeological content and a lot more pratting about…’[15] Audiences for these programs can be huge, especially on the National Geographic channels.

“Between June and September 2014, more than 9.5 million viewers tuned in to an episode of Time Team America. And in 2014, Diggers pulled in more than 31 million viewers.”

Nevertheless, archaeology on TV abounds in stories of ancient aliens, giants, and massive stones with healing powers, what archaeologist David S Anderson, of Radford University calls pseudoarchaeology.[16] Furthermore, in the United States, scientists describe several of these reality metal-detecting shows as nothing more than “glorified looting.”

U.S. shows include

• Time Team America. (PBS, 2009-2014)
• Diggers. (National Geographic Channel, 2013-15). (The channel is co-owned with Fox Cable Networks.)
• American Digger. (Spike TV, 2012-13). Hosted by former wrestler Ric Savage.
• Savage Family Diggers. (Spike TV, 2013) “Every episode moves towards a finale of selling the artifacts found, the archaeological record be damned.”
• Dig Wars. (Travel Channel, 2013).
• Dig Fellas. (Travel Channel, 2013).
• Nazi War Diggers. (National Geographic, 2014). Cancelled after a groundswell of viewer and scientist protest.
• Legends of the Lost, (Travel Channel, 2018), including an episode where ancient giants roam the U.S., hosted by Hollywood celebrity Megan Fox.
• America from the Ground Up (PBS, 2014/2018).

U.K. shows include

• Time Team. (Channel 4, 1994-2014)
• Digging for Britain. (BBC, 2011-2019)
• Bone Detectives. (Channel 4, 2019-present)
• Great British Dig: History in Your Back Garden (Channel 4, 2020-present)

One archaeologist who had worked with a number of TV channels and shows in the U.S. and U.K. summed up her experience:

“I was hopeful that each program would showcase great archaeology, but always disappointed (and in one particular instance, horrified) with the final products.”[18]

The worst shows, adored by white nationalists and the Christian right in Europe and North America, consciously work to de-couple Indigenous peoples from the archaeological record. Fantasies of Atlantis, ancient aliens, Caucasian first peoples, and the like serve to undercut Indigenous beliefs that they are the America’s first inhabitants. Anybody but Indigenous peoples and any route other than the land bridge or coastal migration route from Asia. Even the respected Canadian series, The Nature of Things, hosted by the usually reliable and often radical environmentalist David Suzuki, is not immune to this bogus science. In 2018 it aired Ice Bridge, a documentary which argued that Caucasians from Europe were the first settlers in North America, 20,000 years ago. These theories have been roundly debunked by all serious scientists. But they make for sensational TV.

Archaeologists have not been shy in their critiques of TV’s ‘entertainment archaeology.’ Some object to eccentric and exaggerated portrayals of archaeologists and many critique the unrealistically rapid processes of analysis. Scientists also raise eyebrows at the ‘beat the clock’ element as a staple of the television format.[19] The range of archaeologists on TV go from bad to good.  Here’s my way to evaluate these programs:

• Bogus—No archaeologists involved on camera or as writers or consultants.
• Poor—Occasional use of archaeologists on-screen or as script advisors, but without substantial control over the final program. Programs use the science selectively and mix hard science with pseudo-archaeology.
• Good—Archaeologists involved on-screen and with some control over program content, but not the principle host or narrator. Time Team, Time Team America.
• Excellent—Archaeologists involved at all levels of the program, including design, script, on-screen presentation. Archaeologist as host and on-screen presenter.

Even in the ‘Excellent’ category the lure of celebrity performance over real archaeology can skew the results. Some British shows feature hosts with real, accomplished scientists but the media training they have received (or the demands of executive producers) pushes them into a celebrity presenter mold, which distorts the reality of archaeology. In Digging for Britain Professor Alice Roberts, a widely respected scientist, uses a type of diction and line reading that can only be described as ‘over-the-top.’ Every noun becomes the excuse for ecstatic delivery. Every archaeological fact becomes monumental. In addition, the camera never loses an opportunity to create close-up glamor shots of Roberts. The regular site workers and other scientists actually doing the work never seem to get this royal treatment.

In 2015 the Society for American Archaeology (SAA) set out guidelines for their support of TV programs.

“We preconditioned our involvement on the following: (1) no monetary value of artifacts would be shown or discussed; (2) the show’s protagonists would work under the direction of an on-screen archaeologist; (3) the show in no way would glorify or encourage looting of archaeological sites. In addition, we asked that each show focus on a research question, include discussions of heritage values, incorporate descendant and local communities, and promote conservation of the archaeological record.”

It especially cautioned against shows that promote “object-oriented metal detecting”—the much-despised looting shows.

An Indigenous archaeology

It starts with this, says Reimer: Indigenous archaeology is practiced with, by, and for Indigenous communities. [20] This takes us well beyond the best practices outlined above in the SAA guidelines. In general terms it places oral history and traditions on par with other sources of Western scientific knowledge. It also aims to make the work more valuable to the descendent and local communities, says Anishinabe scholar Sonya Atalay.[21] “I keep finding more and more synergies between cultural knowledge and science,” says Reimer in his introduction to the series in Wild Anthropology’s episode one.

Short animation sequences—hand-drawn, stop motion, computer assisted—begin many episodes.

“The integration of Indigenous perspectives into academia is new to many disciplines but it has a long history in Archaeology.” From its start in the 1990s, says Reimer, Indigenous Archaeology, has now “become central to how the ancient past is investigated and interpreted.”[22] Wild Archaeology clearly rejects the tropes of pseudo-archaeology. In fact, as a lay-person, I’m constantly amazed at how these scientists get excited by the smallest of finds in their digs. A tiny, broken arrowhead or battered sherd of pottery can carry great significance; we’ll have no jewel-encrusted daggers or mummified queens here. Although the series looks closely at how cultural knowledge can shape archaeology it does not neglect the new and rapidly developing science. So, various episodes highlight techniques of radio-carbon analysis, chemical analysis, sonar scanning, and Laser Ablation. Some of this is new even to Dr. Reimer.

Viewers of the series can have no doubt that Reimer maintains professional control over the archaeological content and its interpretation. He is not simply a talking head or consultant used by the filmmakers as a nod to authenticity. And unlike many popular archaeology shows, it’s Reimer who is the lead presenter and narrator. Soft-spoken, and in the first episodes perhaps a tad nervous, his presentation is decidedly un-glamourous—the opposite of slick—contra Digging for Britain. “I don’t see myself as a celebrity, says Reimer. “Maybe it’s how I was taught to be humble and respectful and not ask for much.”[23] When I asked Tracy German to describe her approach to the series it became obvious why she had chosen Reimer. “Most archaeology shows are far too scripted with actors playing the hosts,” said German.[24]

In viewing both seasons of the series I am struck by several basic principles that run through each episode.

• First, Indigenous archaeology strongly declares its difference from standard Western practice. It is much less destructive and respectful of the digging sites.
• Second, this occurs largely because the scientists work hard to create links and relationships with the local communities.
• Third, the Indigenous scientists feel a dual responsibility to both the discipline and to the communities.
• Fourth, each episode reminds us of both the similarities and differences among Indigenous groups across the country.
• Fifth, Indigenous peoples can trace at least 10,000 years of occupation in North America.
• Sixth, everywhere across Canada there are living communities with links to the ancient past.

Finally, the series reminds us of the high stakes surrounding this activity. Good Indigenous archaeology leads to stronger communities and contributes to victories around land-rights.

“He welcomed us in his language to the territory, which is really important.”

“I’d like to thank you in my language, in Squamish, we’re neighbours.”

Indigenous cinema

Wild Archaeology uses a variety of standard documentary scenes and situations. Each episode follows the same pattern. Dr Rudy explains where they will be travelling and provides a brief introduction to the specific Indigenous community. In each location the team meets the lead archaeologist and key members of the community, who are often Elders. The archaeologist outlines the work being undertaken at this location and its significance. In many cases the site has proven to be thousands of years old.

Setting up a shot at Shishalh First Nation, coastal B.C.

These are for the most part single-site programs; each episode takes us to one place. It’s a familiar sub-genre. Jacob and Jenifer then get teamed up with archaeology students who set them to work digging, brushing, picking, sorting, cleaning, tagging and bagging. The photography, featuring many tight close-ups, puts viewers right “in the hole” learning with the team how this work gets done. Some of the tasks can be heavy but mostly its fine-grained and minutely detailed labour. Any casual viewer of archaeology shows will recognize the techniques.

A few of the programs feature other Indigenous archaeologists, people with links to current or ancient groups associated with the site. For example, in Series 1, Episodes 8 and 9 we meet Elroy White, of Heiltsuk Nation in the central coast of B.C. White is another professor from Simon Fraser University. Like Reimer he emphasizes his Indigenous approach, which he calls an “Internalist archaeology,” specifically as a “systematic research on Heiltsuk stone fish traps.” This type of fishing is poorly understood in academia, he argues:

“My research objective is unique in that I de-emphasize empirical data such as length, width, and height in favour of the view that these stone fish traps are products of my ancestors’ labour.”

“My main goal was to work with the Heiltsuk political and cultural entities and twelve Heiltsuk oral historians to employ an Internalist archaeology investigation of a selective fishery system that began in antiquity.”[25]

At most of the sites across Canada featured in the series the scientists are non-Indigenous, however in many episodes at least one of the technicians or students come from the community, clan, or First Nation linked to the dig. In Series 2, Episode 7 Jacob is put to work with Dawn Wambold, a Metis graduate student working with the Metis archaeologist Kisha Supernant.

As they kneel together beside a small excavation, Jacob asks, “Since you’re Metis did you choose this particular place for your work?”

“Yes, she answers, this site gives me a chance to learn on my own what the lives of my ancestors would have been like.”

In each episode at regular intervals we jump ahead to the end of the teams’ visit and see direct-to-camera comments from Reimer, Jacob, and Jenifer. This allows the team members to summarize their experience and to add more context. This too is a standard device in most archaeology TV, such as Time Team.

However, these TV presenters see themselves differently. In Series 2, Episode 3 the site archaeologist informs Jenifer Brousseau (while she is deep in a pit sorting through ancient fish bones) that this layer of sediment near the surface reminds us that the community was wiped out in a smallpox epidemic in 1935. We immediately cut to a shot recorded later where Brousseau reflects on what she has heard. “In that moment that he told me, it was a sobering moment.”

“In that moment that he told me—it was a sobering moment.”

The ‘reflective’ scenes where Jenifer and Jacob speak of what they have learned, or felt, or worried about bring us into contact with a different sort of knowledge. These differ as well from Dr. Rudy’s summing up straight-to-camera scenes. Although Jenifer and Jacob always look slightly off-camera, as to an out-of-frame interviewer, there is a sense that we the audience are getting a more intimate moment with the real Jenifer—speaking frankly to us, not to Jacob or Dr. Rudy. In one instance, for example, Jenifer speaks about her anxiety, even dislike of walking through spaces on the Prairies once occupied by the Northwest Mounted Police or a 19th century church school for Indigenous youth in Montreal.

Here, I think, we can feel the influence of Tracy German’s direction. She states,

 “My first goal as a director is to make people comfortable.” [26] “Filmmaking has been a journey for me to understand where I come from and overcome some of the trauma of our people. I had to learn to trust my interior voice. I had to learn that a small voice can be powerful.”[27]