The role of TV documentaries to disseminate osteoarchaeology more widely: The good, the bad, and the ugly

IF 1.1 3区 历史学 Q2 ANTHROPOLOGY International Journal of Osteoarchaeology Pub Date : 2024-09-20 DOI:10.1002/oa.3339
Piers D. Mitchell
{"title":"The role of TV documentaries to disseminate osteoarchaeology more widely: The good, the bad, and the ugly","authors":"Piers D. Mitchell","doi":"10.1002/oa.3339","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>There is clearly merit in undertaking quality osteoarchaeological research and then publishing it in a peer reviewed scientific journal. This is a tried and tested method that results in an academic resource that is generally regarded as more trustworthy than forms of publication that have not passed through the peer review process (Alberts et al., <span>2008</span>). However, if such articles are to only be read by other experts in the field, then the breadth of audience who can appreciate the work will be restricted to a select number. As universities in different parts of the world are commonly funded by governments using taxes, by students paying fees, and by donations and sponsorship (Johnstone &amp; Marcucci, <span>2010</span>), it is only fair that we share the science undertaken in those universities with the general public who are the ultimate source of that finance. That way, they will benefit educationally from the research and also understand that their taxes or fees are well spent.</p><p>One option available to us to disseminate our discoveries to a wider audience is a press release. If the research is a topic with a clear public interest, putting out a press release through a university media office to coincide with the publication of the journal article is a very efficient approach (Bartram, <span>2006</span>). This is because it can result in journalists publishing their stories online, in print media, and sometimes interviews on the radio and TV news. It can lead to the number of people hearing about our discoveries being numbered in the hundreds of thousands or even in the millions. However, not all universities have a media office and only a proportion of osteoarchaeologists work in universities. Therefore, it will not be a viable approach for everyone.</p><p>Another option to disseminate osteoarchaeology more widely is for researchers to invite a TV company to film a documentary about their research project (Hollyn, <span>2009</span>). The osteoarchaeologist can browse the websites of TV documentary companies that have previously worked on archaeological and historical topics and contact those who have made good quality programs in the past. If the excavation site is of sufficient public interest to make a promising documentary whatever is found during the dig, then the actual excavation might be filmed. However, often, it is only during the laboratory analysis that the significant discoveries are made that would make the topic worthy of a documentary. In such a scenario, the documentary team may need to focus their filming on the laboratory stage of the research process. Timing the first broadcast of documentaries to match the date of peer reviewed publication, or for broadcast to be after the academic publication, can greatly increase the confidence academics and other viewers will have regarding the accuracy of the content of that program. The way in which TV documentaries can be sold on to a range of networks so they are broadcast in many different countries, and then broadcast repeatedly over time, means that it can be a highly successful approach to bring the field of osteoarchaeology into the homes of ordinary people across the world. This not only educates the public about their ancestors but also inspires the next generation of students keen to learn about human remains.</p><p>We have all watched great documentaries about osteoarchaeology that make us feel proud of our field. They can present the positive image of osteoarchaeology, showing how we can carefully excavate human remains with respect, analyze them using a range of scientific methods, interpret our findings in an evidence-based and balanced manner, and convey what we have learned in a way that all those watching can be culturally enriched by the process. However, it is also likely that we have watched programs that are not quite so impressive or even leave us shouting at the TV screen with our disappointment as to the content. A number of news stories and TV documentaries about past civilizations have been highlighted by journalists as causing concern, sitting on a spectrum of poor evidence base at one end of the spectrum to unsubstantiated conspiracy theory at other end (see, e.g., Fitzpatrick-Matthews, <span>2011</span>; Heritage, <span>2022</span>).</p><p>Recently, a paper was published in the <i>International Journal of Osteoarchaeology</i> (Landol, <span>2024</span>) discussing a TV documentary which had been made arguing that the remains of a member of race of giants had been discovered in the jungles of Ecuador. Entitled <i>A Critical Assessment of the Julcuy “Giant”</i>, the article explains how the program “Lost Race of Giants” (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11478678/) presented to viewers that a 7-ft high individual had been found at excavation. The height had been determined from measuring the length of the remains from head to toe in the ground. However, when an anthropologist subsequently went to assess the remains with the consent of the local population, height estimation using Trotter and Gleser's more evidence-based approach of measuring long bone length (Trotter &amp; Gleser, <span>1958</span>) showed the likely height during life to be between 5 and 5.5 ft (153–162 cm), which is normal for that region. With the decomposition of the soft tissues after death, the skeletal remains appear to have spread apart in the soil leading to the initial overestimation by those filmed for the program. The mistake in height estimation disseminated to the TV audience occurred because the producer and director of the program did not ensure that a specialist osteoarchaeologist was involved with examining the remains for the filming or even consult them later for their opinion to ensure the quality of their documentary prior to its being broadcast. This highlights how a lack of peer review process in making documentaries, coupled with the maker's enthusiasm to find an angle that would attract higher viewing numbers, led to a less than ideal piece of journalism. We can imagine the producer thinking: Who wants to watch a documentary entitled “Lost Race of Normal Sized People”?</p><p>The author of this editorial has been filmed for over 20 documentaries on topics such as crucifixion, crusader battles, the Black Death, spread of infectious diseases along the Silk Road, and the remains of King Richard III of England. After having made mistakes himself, he has learned to be careful to choose to work only with producers and directors who are looking to create an evidence-based, well-balanced piece of journalism. If a documentary is already planned and the company are looking for experts to interview in the program, a production team member will typically contact those with most expertise in the topic to find out what we might be able to contribute. At that point, we can look up the TV company's website and check over the titles and content of recent documentaries they have made. If they appear sensational in their approach, this is the right time to decline to work on the project. If past programs appear of good quality, we may then choose to proceed. When discussing the plans for the documentary with the producer, if we feel pushed to overstretch the evidence to meet a sensationalist conclusion, we can explain why we feel their interpretation would be unwise to broadcast, and so educate and guide them towards a safer interpretation. If they continue with their view, then we can politely decline to work with the project further. Similarly, those companies that want to squeeze academics for free information without paying an appropriate fee are often the less ethical end of the market. If they try to abuse our generosity and expertise beyond the initial 15-min chat where they learn what we can contribute to their program, then we can excuse ourselves by explaining that we need to go to another meeting, and if they would like our further help with their project, then it would be for an agreed fee. Most serious documentaries that value our expertise will be in a position to agree to this, with the fee being for acting as a consultant or appearance in the documentary itself. This way, we can maintain our academic integrity and minimize the risk of our scholarly reputation becoming tarnished by association with a documentary that is later regarded as poor-quality journalism, even when our own contribution might be factual and well reasoned.</p><p>We will never be able to prevent all poor-quality documentaries about osteoarchaeology from being made. However, if we can optimize the quality of those where we choose to be involved, then we can be proud of our contribution to the education and cultural enrichment of the wider public.</p><p>There are no conflicts of interest.</p>","PeriodicalId":14179,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Osteoarchaeology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/oa.3339","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Osteoarchaeology","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oa.3339","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

There is clearly merit in undertaking quality osteoarchaeological research and then publishing it in a peer reviewed scientific journal. This is a tried and tested method that results in an academic resource that is generally regarded as more trustworthy than forms of publication that have not passed through the peer review process (Alberts et al., 2008). However, if such articles are to only be read by other experts in the field, then the breadth of audience who can appreciate the work will be restricted to a select number. As universities in different parts of the world are commonly funded by governments using taxes, by students paying fees, and by donations and sponsorship (Johnstone & Marcucci, 2010), it is only fair that we share the science undertaken in those universities with the general public who are the ultimate source of that finance. That way, they will benefit educationally from the research and also understand that their taxes or fees are well spent.

One option available to us to disseminate our discoveries to a wider audience is a press release. If the research is a topic with a clear public interest, putting out a press release through a university media office to coincide with the publication of the journal article is a very efficient approach (Bartram, 2006). This is because it can result in journalists publishing their stories online, in print media, and sometimes interviews on the radio and TV news. It can lead to the number of people hearing about our discoveries being numbered in the hundreds of thousands or even in the millions. However, not all universities have a media office and only a proportion of osteoarchaeologists work in universities. Therefore, it will not be a viable approach for everyone.

Another option to disseminate osteoarchaeology more widely is for researchers to invite a TV company to film a documentary about their research project (Hollyn, 2009). The osteoarchaeologist can browse the websites of TV documentary companies that have previously worked on archaeological and historical topics and contact those who have made good quality programs in the past. If the excavation site is of sufficient public interest to make a promising documentary whatever is found during the dig, then the actual excavation might be filmed. However, often, it is only during the laboratory analysis that the significant discoveries are made that would make the topic worthy of a documentary. In such a scenario, the documentary team may need to focus their filming on the laboratory stage of the research process. Timing the first broadcast of documentaries to match the date of peer reviewed publication, or for broadcast to be after the academic publication, can greatly increase the confidence academics and other viewers will have regarding the accuracy of the content of that program. The way in which TV documentaries can be sold on to a range of networks so they are broadcast in many different countries, and then broadcast repeatedly over time, means that it can be a highly successful approach to bring the field of osteoarchaeology into the homes of ordinary people across the world. This not only educates the public about their ancestors but also inspires the next generation of students keen to learn about human remains.

We have all watched great documentaries about osteoarchaeology that make us feel proud of our field. They can present the positive image of osteoarchaeology, showing how we can carefully excavate human remains with respect, analyze them using a range of scientific methods, interpret our findings in an evidence-based and balanced manner, and convey what we have learned in a way that all those watching can be culturally enriched by the process. However, it is also likely that we have watched programs that are not quite so impressive or even leave us shouting at the TV screen with our disappointment as to the content. A number of news stories and TV documentaries about past civilizations have been highlighted by journalists as causing concern, sitting on a spectrum of poor evidence base at one end of the spectrum to unsubstantiated conspiracy theory at other end (see, e.g., Fitzpatrick-Matthews, 2011; Heritage, 2022).

Recently, a paper was published in the International Journal of Osteoarchaeology (Landol, 2024) discussing a TV documentary which had been made arguing that the remains of a member of race of giants had been discovered in the jungles of Ecuador. Entitled A Critical Assessment of the Julcuy “Giant”, the article explains how the program “Lost Race of Giants” (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11478678/) presented to viewers that a 7-ft high individual had been found at excavation. The height had been determined from measuring the length of the remains from head to toe in the ground. However, when an anthropologist subsequently went to assess the remains with the consent of the local population, height estimation using Trotter and Gleser's more evidence-based approach of measuring long bone length (Trotter & Gleser, 1958) showed the likely height during life to be between 5 and 5.5 ft (153–162 cm), which is normal for that region. With the decomposition of the soft tissues after death, the skeletal remains appear to have spread apart in the soil leading to the initial overestimation by those filmed for the program. The mistake in height estimation disseminated to the TV audience occurred because the producer and director of the program did not ensure that a specialist osteoarchaeologist was involved with examining the remains for the filming or even consult them later for their opinion to ensure the quality of their documentary prior to its being broadcast. This highlights how a lack of peer review process in making documentaries, coupled with the maker's enthusiasm to find an angle that would attract higher viewing numbers, led to a less than ideal piece of journalism. We can imagine the producer thinking: Who wants to watch a documentary entitled “Lost Race of Normal Sized People”?

The author of this editorial has been filmed for over 20 documentaries on topics such as crucifixion, crusader battles, the Black Death, spread of infectious diseases along the Silk Road, and the remains of King Richard III of England. After having made mistakes himself, he has learned to be careful to choose to work only with producers and directors who are looking to create an evidence-based, well-balanced piece of journalism. If a documentary is already planned and the company are looking for experts to interview in the program, a production team member will typically contact those with most expertise in the topic to find out what we might be able to contribute. At that point, we can look up the TV company's website and check over the titles and content of recent documentaries they have made. If they appear sensational in their approach, this is the right time to decline to work on the project. If past programs appear of good quality, we may then choose to proceed. When discussing the plans for the documentary with the producer, if we feel pushed to overstretch the evidence to meet a sensationalist conclusion, we can explain why we feel their interpretation would be unwise to broadcast, and so educate and guide them towards a safer interpretation. If they continue with their view, then we can politely decline to work with the project further. Similarly, those companies that want to squeeze academics for free information without paying an appropriate fee are often the less ethical end of the market. If they try to abuse our generosity and expertise beyond the initial 15-min chat where they learn what we can contribute to their program, then we can excuse ourselves by explaining that we need to go to another meeting, and if they would like our further help with their project, then it would be for an agreed fee. Most serious documentaries that value our expertise will be in a position to agree to this, with the fee being for acting as a consultant or appearance in the documentary itself. This way, we can maintain our academic integrity and minimize the risk of our scholarly reputation becoming tarnished by association with a documentary that is later regarded as poor-quality journalism, even when our own contribution might be factual and well reasoned.

We will never be able to prevent all poor-quality documentaries about osteoarchaeology from being made. However, if we can optimize the quality of those where we choose to be involved, then we can be proud of our contribution to the education and cultural enrichment of the wider public.

There are no conflicts of interest.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
电视纪录片在广泛传播骨质考古学方面的作用:好、坏、丑
开展高质量的骨质考古研究,然后在同行评审的科学杂志上发表,显然是有好处的。这是一种久经考验的方法,它所产生的学术资源被普遍认为比未经同行评审的出版形式更值得信赖(Alberts et al.)然而,如果这些文章只能由该领域的其他专家阅读,那么能够欣赏作品的受众范围就会受到限制。由于世界各地的大学通常由政府税收、学生缴费、捐款和赞助提供资金(Johnstone &amp; Marcucci, 2010),因此,我们应该与作为资金最终来源的公众分享这些大学的科学成果。这样,他们就能从研究中受益,同时也会明白他们的税费花得很值。如果研究课题具有明显的公共利益,那么在期刊论文发表的同时,通过大学媒体办公室发布新闻稿是一种非常有效的方法(Bartram, 2006)。因为这样做可以使记者在网上、印刷媒体上发表他们的报道,有时还可以在广播和电视新闻中进行采访。这可以让成千上万甚至上百万的人了解到我们的发现。然而,并非所有大学都设有媒体办公室,而且只有一部分骨考古学家在大学工作。要想更广泛地传播骨质考古学,另一种方法是研究人员邀请电视公司拍摄有关其研究项目的纪录片(Hollyn,2009 年)。骨质考古学家可以浏览那些曾经做过考古和历史题材工作的电视纪录片公司的网站,并与那些曾经制作过高质量节目的公司取得联系。如果发掘现场有足够的公众关注度,无论发掘过程中发现了什么,都有希望制作成纪录片,那么实际发掘过程就有可能被拍摄下来。然而,往往只有在实验室分析期间才会有重大发现,从而使该主题值得制作成纪录片。在这种情况下,纪录片摄制组可能需要把拍摄重点放在研究过程的实验室阶段。将纪录片的首播时间与同行评议出版物的发表日期相吻合,或在学术出版物发表之后播出,可以大大增强学术界和其他观众对节目内容准确性的信心。电视纪录片可以出售给各种网络,在许多不同的国家播出,然后在一段时间内反复播出,这意味着它可以成为将骨考古学带入世界各地普通人家的一个非常成功的方法。这不仅能让公众了解他们的祖先,还能激发下一代学生学习人类遗骸知识的热情。它们可以展现骨质考古学的正面形象,展示我们如何以尊重的态度仔细发掘人类遗骸,如何使用一系列科学方法对其进行分析,如何以循证和平衡的方式解释我们的发现,以及如何将我们所学到的知识传达给所有观看者,让他们从这一过程中获得文化熏陶。不过,我们也可能看过一些不那么令人印象深刻的节目,甚至让我们对着电视屏幕大呼失望。一些关于过去文明的新闻报道和电视纪录片引起了记者们的关注,这些报道和纪录片既有证据不足的一面,也有未经证实的阴谋论的另一面(见,例如,Fitzpatrick-Matthews、最近,《国际骨考古学杂志》上发表了一篇论文(Landol, 2024 年),讨论了一部电视纪录片,该纪录片称在厄瓜多尔丛林中发现了巨人种族成员的遗骸。这篇文章的标题是《对胡尔库伊 "巨人 "的批判性评估》,文章介绍了 "失落的巨人种族 "节目(https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11478678/)是如何向观众展示在挖掘过程中发现了一具 7 英尺高的巨人遗骸的。这个高度是通过测量遗骸从头到脚在地面上的长度确定的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
10.00%
发文量
105
期刊介绍: The aim of the International Journal of Osteoarchaeology is to provide a forum for the publication of papers dealing with all aspects of the study of human and animal bones from archaeological contexts. The journal will publish original papers dealing with human or animal bone research from any area of the world. It will also publish short papers which give important preliminary observations from work in progress and it will publish book reviews. All papers will be subject to peer review. The journal will be aimed principally towards all those with a professional interest in the study of human and animal bones. This includes archaeologists, anthropologists, human and animal bone specialists, palaeopathologists and medical historians.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information The role of TV documentaries to disseminate osteoarchaeology more widely: The good, the bad, and the ugly Reading between the lines: A study of Harris lines in Middle Holocene foragers of the Cis-Baikal A skeletal dysplasia leading to a perinatal death in 17th–19th century Lisbon, Portugal An Upper Paleolithic horse mandible with an embedded lithic projectile: Insights into 16,500 cal BP hunting strategies through a unique case of bone injury from Cantabrian Spain
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1