Er … OK… No he wasn’t, though contemplating myself in the bath this morning, there is a certain similarity!   No, the real reason for the headline is, of course, to draw you in.  To make you read the text.  Am I being sensationalist?  Yes, and sensationalism seems to be a theme which is increasingly evident in, what we might refer to as, ‘media archaeology’.

Take, for example, the coverage of the excavations which have been occurring at Stonehenge over the past couple of weeks.  For the most part, the press coverage has been balanced and even.  However, one headline from an article filed on the BBC website on 9th April, did stand out: “’Breakthrough’ at Stonehenge dig”.  Wow, I thought, when I saw this on the front page of the BBC News section.  They must have discovered something special.  Well, no.  In fact what had happened was that the dig had merely ‘broken-through’ to the previously un-excavated levels.  Was this deliberate sensationalism aimed at spicing up an otherwise bland story?  Probably, and I’m pretty sure that the journalist knew exactly what she was doing, though at least she had the courtesy to put ‘breakthrough’ in inverted commas. 

I guess that to many of us, trained in academic archaeology, such extravagant use of language is difficult to reconcile with the traditionally staid and understated approach we’re used to.  

Another example of this kind of exaggeration came earlier this week, with a programme broadcast on Channel Four entitled “The Quest for the Lost Ark”.  This covered the work of Tudor Parfitt, Professor of Modern Jewish Studies at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.  So, a respectable academic, with an intriguing remit.  The thesis was scoped out at the start of the programme; this was to be a quest for the Ark of the Covenant (so not jumping on the Indiana Jones bandwagon then?).  As the programme progressed, we travelled from Jerusalem, to the Yemen and on to South Africa, variously dismissing biblical accounts and relying on them depending on whether it reinforced the thesis or not.

Of course, the Ark was never found.  We all know that it’s really in a huge warehouse in America!.  But that wasn’t the point of the story.  The true revelation was that Professor Parfitt and his colleagues were able to prove through genetic analysis that the Lemba,  a black South African tribe numbering about 70,000 people were, as their oral history had always claimed, one of the lost tribes of Israel.  Not only was the genetic evidence able to prove their semitic origins, but it was also able to show that they had dwelt in the Yemen, and then migrated to South Africa.  Even more amazing, the evidence showed that a relatively small group had been involved in the migration – just seven or eight adult males.  Precisely what the Lemba’s own tradition asserted when it claimed that fourteen people had left, but that their boat had split and only half made it to South Africa.  As if that wasn’t incredible enough, the geneticists were able to identify a sub-group in the tribe who were descendants of the priestly pharisees – presumably the leaders of the expedition.

This could, and should, have been ample material for a fascinated documentary in its own right.  But sadly, Parfitt insisted that the tribe were the bearers of the true Ark of the Covenant, in the form of a artifact called the ngoma lungundu, a drum-like object.  Quite why this should be the Ark of the Covenant was never convincing argued; many cultures when embarking on migrations will take something of their motherland with them – witness the story of Aeneas and his bringing of the Palladium to Rome.  However, Parfitt scored another success in that he was able to track down this artifact, which had been lost for most of the last century, to a museum storeroom in Harrare.  Another great story which could have made a documentary of its own.  Where the whole programme was let down was by Parfitt’s insistence that this artifact was the lost Ark.  And when scientific dating showed that the object was only six hundred years old, he continued undaunted to assert that it was the Ark’s replacement!  A bit like Trigger’s insistence in Only Fools and Horses, that his broom was fifty years old – and in that time it had only had six new heads and eight new handles!  Clearly this part of the thesis was tosh. 

Parfitt’s programme could, and should, have been a fascinating documentary which could have raised the profile of ‘world archaeology’.  It contained tremendous discoveries and could have been used to demonstrate the value of genetic archaeology and the incredible contributions it can make.  Instead, by hanging on to the Ark hypothesis, the programme became sensationalised, and a transparent attempt to capitalize on the forthcoming Indiana Jones movie.

Archaeology, is in many respects, a fragile subject, and one which is often at the whim of broadcasters and journalists.  But sensationalising news stories like these does little to promote the discipline.  As with the Lost Ark programme, it can obscure truly fascinating stories, but at worst it can lead to archaeologists being accused of crying wolf and eventually losing the interest of their audience altogether.  

 

Thus wrote the 2nd century AD Greek orator Aelius Aristides in his ‘Sacred Tales’ (Hieroi Logoi).  The place he was describing was a town in Western Turkey, called Allianoi, which was rediscovered just ten years ago.  This settlement was a centre of the healing cult established and personified by the demi-god Asklepios (Aesculapius to the Romans), and as such is comparable to the religious complex at Epidauros, another Asklepion.

Allianoi – General View

Sadly, as the BBC reports, the site of Allianoi is in the path of another Turkish dam construction project – the Yortanli irrigation dam.  Some may recall Turkey’s long and ignominious history of dam construction, most notably that of the Birecik dam and its subsequent destruction of much of the famous ancient city of Zeugma.  The Ilisu dam controversy also continues, and so it is desperately dispiriting to hear of another of these projects and the threat they pose to Turkey’s cultural heritage and the World’s patrimony.

Its not too late to save Allianoi, a vigorous campaign is underway to save the site, or at least to adequately study its remains, and the cause has been highlighted in the European Parliament (which Turkey is eager to join), but these objections are failing and time is running out for Allianoi.

The real question has to be: what of the role of international conservation organisations in cases like this?  Shouldn’t organisations like ICOMOS be more visible and proactive in pressing regional governments to meet their cultural obligations?  What about UNESCO?  A search for Allianoi on their website shows no interest in the site whatsoever. 

If governments continue to be allowed to destroy their cultural heritage in this way, the future is truly bleak for the world’s patrimony.

Sites such as Zeugma, Allianoi and others can be used, with a little imagination to kick-start economies and to encourage cultural and historical tourism to regions which otherwise might have little to offer. 

However, as the cases of Zeugma, Allianoi, and many other sites around the world, seem to demonstrate, regional governments cannot be relied upon to value their own historical resources.  We all need the international bodies like ICOMOS and UNESCO to be more active, not just in preserving the more famous sites like the Colosseum and the Pyramids, but also the smaller, more remote and less glamorous sites.  

If these organisations are not going to take a lead in cases like this, then what is the point in them existing at all?

Perhaps what we need is some kind of global listing, along the lines of that used to identify endangered animal species?

 

 

So, 2008 sees Stonehenge undergoing a new series of excavations.  A rare event indeed.  Professors Wainwright and Darvill have been granted the opportunity to investigate a small area within the stone circle to gain a better understanding of the role and date of the bluestones – the earliest of the megaliths at Stonehenge, and the ones which appear to have been sourced from the Preseli Hills in west Wales, 150 miles away.  The excavation is happening during the first two weeks of April, and is being filmed for BBC’s Timewatch programme, who are also keeping a nicely up-to-date website, and have broadcast several items on the regional and national news.

Visiting the site yesterday, the question that arose in my mind was less about the academic goals of the excavation, and more about the strength of the engagement with the visitors to the site.  Stonehenge was fairly busy yesterday, helped no doubt by the recent TV coverage, and what was especially heartening was the level of conversation that these visitors were having – at least 60% were discussing archaeology and many of these were displaying a pretty good knowledge of the subject.

Sad it is to record therefore, that on this day English Heritage (the government agency charged with the site’s care and interpretation) had signally failed to grasp the opportunity to engage with this audience.  Though a small interpretation ‘marquee’ had been erected to inform, this was poorly done and clearly an afterthought.  Most of the tent was taken up with yet another shop and the only indication of what was occurring on the site was a pair of plasma screens, one of which was showing a live feed of the dig.  Nowhere was there anyone around to interpret what was happening for visitors, and nowhere was there anyone from EH or the dig team engaging with their public.

The ‘Interpretation Centre’ at Stonehenge

Contrast this with the situation last year when EH were carrying out consolidation and conservation works on Silbury Hill, a Neolithic site about 25 miles north of Stonehenge.  On this occasion, a small portakabin was set-up to display the latest results of the work, and staffed with people who were actually part of the dig team, and who were excited, enthused and most importantly communicative about their work.

At Stonehenge yesterday, there was a distinct sense of ‘them and us’, the public were reduced to peering at the dig from a long way away or standing in front of a screen in the interpretation centre, with no idea what was happening.  The Stonehenge wardens didn’t seem to have much of an idea what was going on either.

As I sat down in the all-too-rare April sunshine to eat my lunch, it seemed a real shame that no EH staff were there to engage, inform and turn-on what would have been an already receptive audience.  What could a little imagination have done here?  What would have happened if this site was in America?  With a little more thought, we might have had dig team members sitting down with the public during their picnics, talking about the latest finds, or perhaps by bringing the barriers a little closer we might have been able to see the dig itself.  The wardens all seemed pretty miserable, and were clearly not in the loop – couldn’t it have been part of their role to inform the public?

There is a tremendous appetite for history and archaeology in this country.  Television viewing figures, attendances at historic sites, and on other learning opportunities have never been higher, and its vital that agencies such as EH engage effectively with this audience if they are to secure their own future.

What it seems to me was happening yesterday was that all the planning and resources dedicated for public engagement had been expended on producing TV slots, websites and other non-personal resources. What people really want is personal interaction, the opportunity to talk with experts, and understand the work of those whose privilege it is to dig at Stonehenge.

Digital and broadcast resources are great, but no substitute for true, physical engagement.