Martin Pate Presentation

For this weeks class, I read "Archaeology in Two Dimensions: The Artist's Perspective", an excerpt from artist Martin Pate's book "Ancient Muses: Archaeology and the Arts", and created a short presentation to describe two of its major themes: (1) artistry and (2) education. Alas, we ran out of class time, so I'll have to present it next week. But, for those of you who just can't wait to see it, here are the slides accompanied by an approximation of what I plan to say.

Pate is an artist. He has standards and he can't work if his creativity is stifled. I mean, you can see here that he was worried about working with scientists at first, just like some of you anthro people are probably worried about working with the compsci people - nah, we're all friends here. ;-)

But working with the archaeologists was a success! They told Pate: Hey, that's just how I imagined it.

However, this brings up an issue that cannot be separated from art: There are various ways in which art can be interpreted.

Keep this in mind as we go through some of Pate's work...

Okay, if you look at these quotes...I don't know, looks like Pate is calling most of us historically illiterate. Well yeah, it's true.

Pate set out to try and fix that. Many of the paintings he worked on were used in brochures, textbooks, and on posters.

Of course, it's tough to get people to want to educate themselves, especially with the video games and the reality TV, etc, etc.

So, Pate had to figure out how to catch people's attention. And this desire, in addition to his standards as an artist, contributed to his paintings.

Unfortunately, he leaves the job of explaining the image to the writer, which...isn't so good from an accuracy standpoint. Remember - there are various ways in which art can be interpreted; if Pate leaves it up to someone else to explain his scenes, then what do we get if we look at his pictures without the text?

We might get an interpretation that isn't correct...

In general, Pate's creative process consisted of thinking about the time and place that he wanted to portray and imagining himself in the scene, living among its inhabitants. So here's something else to keep in mind: Pate's work is from his "general public" P.O.V. Are there subconscious stereotypes at work?

Okay, let's look at some of his paintings.

This painting showed up on a poster, so it had to attract people's attention.

This is where Pate's role as a commercial illustrator AND member of the general public comes into play.

He knows artistic methods of attracting an audience's attention, both because he can say "what would attract me?" and also based on his previous experience with ads.

So how did he make this painting (and others) attractive? What draws us in?

We've got an exciting atmosphere going on here. The picture is dynamic and engaging. A lot of activities are going on at once. We've got some smoke blowing in the wind. You can just feel the wind and smell the fire radiating out from the image, right?

Also, we have characters looking into the eyes of the viewer, which might be creepy, but it does work. In fact, this is always what I see first. In his book, Pate says that he wanted this lady's look to say: "Don't you have anything better to do?"

But again, we run into the issue of artistic interpretation. Is this what you think she's saying?

Likewise, maybe some other methods are at work here. I can't help but try and relate my experiences to this image; that's how we process images, right? We can't help it. So, I mean. You've got you're shirtless women. Butts sticking out over here. Poor Pate probably didn't want his paintings viewed like that, but it's going to happen.

For these paintings, like the other one, there's definitely a sense of dynamic atmosphere that draws you in. Diagonal lines creating motion might make this image catch our eye. This guy cheering; even though he's not looking directly out of the painting, I feel like he's almost looking back at me, expecting me to cheer with him. See? Pate was a clever advertiser.

Beautiful colors in this one. More diagonal lines too. Hey look! A cat in the window! Again, we're given a lot of different stuff to look at so our little ADD minds can be appeased.

This one...okay, kind of boring. But at least he stuck some people in there doing stuff, which is better than just looking at some structure all on its own. Interior designers and architects use this same line of thought when trying to sell their ideas: they put people in their scenes, interacting with their environment. It's a method of attracting people's attention because it makes an image more relatable: we’re all people too.


Check this out. Oh man, I mean...talk about action-packed. You got people shooting...looks like they were cooking down there. People running for their lives. I thought this guy's head had fallen into his lap at first, haha. And this guy with his face all up in the frame sounding the alarm. I don't know about you, but this grabs my attention right off the bat.

Same idea here. KABOOM! And this guy is all, "Oh my god that's loud!" This kind of looks like a whip, even though it probably isn't. I think I let Pate down again with my inaccurate interpretation, but again...it's going to happen.

Another one of Pate's tricks for drawing in viewers involves making his paintings as relatable to modern society as possible. For this one, it's hard not to see the connections between a scene like this and, oh say...sitting around a campfire at Summer Camp, telling ghost stories. Except for the spear part, anyway. The point is the image contains some degree of "relatability" for contemporary Americans.

Here, you've got another character looking into the invisible camera. Dog here, action going on here, here, and here. Atmosphere... Bright colors. It draws you in.

Beautiful colors here. Atmosphere. Cardinal, chicken. After the main action grabs your attention, tiny details like this are what keep it.

Atmosphere...people interacting with their environment.

Again, very action-packed. Bright colors. And the facial expressions attract us too. I mean, if the horse looks that scared, it must be a pretty intense battle.

Intense expression, looking right into the viewer's eyes. That's the one that always gets me.

To conclude:

By using his knowledge of what attracts the general public and by implementing this knowledge using a medium of high-standard artistic realism, Pate was able to make attractive "ads" for learning about the past.

I think they work pretty well. :-)

(Most of the) Readings for week of 9/21 (long notes)

"Responsible Archaeology is Applied Anthropology", Pyburn & Wilk
- archaeology needs to be both relevant and responsible if it hopes to maintain research opportunities and popularity
- excavation records cannot be considered private possessions, even though releasing some of this information could be dangerous to the archaeological record (locations of unlooted sites)
- but, if all information was protected and the preservation of all artifacts was put above all else, then many current excavations would be terminated; so there are obviously trade-offs
- collections of artifacts without accompanying documentation (i.e. looted) are still useful for archaeological research
- consequently, the archaeologist-looter relationship should be less critical and more objective (since looters have artifacts that could benefit research)
- there is a difference between genuine stewardship & collaboration with commercial interests (archaeologists should try not to collaborate with "sport diver" collectors)
- they should communicate: collected/looted artifacts leads to loss of information; we need to preserve this info!
- "salvage principle": some data are better than none (but this condemns archaeologists to "some")
- 2 groups that archaeologists must reach if they intend to get their message of preservation across:

1. hard core collectors: collectors like to invoke the "salvage principle" and they consider themselves "stewards of high culture"; archaeologists need to help associate artifact collecting with greed/selfishness; also need to show collectors that there is use for archaeological resource outside professional circles.
   
2. native peoples: keep in mind that an archaeologist's salary is more than that of the native people whose culture they are studying; archaeologists should stress the economic and cultural value of their work to local groups; archaeology can be used to reconstruct lost heritage, or to develop jobs, industry, self-respect, education, and public awareness; the desire to do something "nice" for the natives is not appropriate.
   

- ideas like "give them back their history" are actually colored by western values (I did not know that)
- archaeologists must not force western values on natives under the guise of "good deeds"
- archaeologists should not be passive about letting their research follow the agendas of the powerful
- they have more of an impact on the present than they might think, especially on the locals
- 3 ways archaeologists can affect locals/natives:

1. with their numbers: the more archaeologists (and students) are brought to a site, the more the local host community finds itself having to deal with people with an alien value system; outsiders are often seen (based on previous experience) as exploitative and patronizing, while the locals are branded as stupid and uncivilized (hippie vs. hick); local people do have an interest in archaeology, even if they see it in a different way from archaeologists.
   
2. with their money: an archaeologist's impact on local political economy can be profound; they can easily upset the local balance of power with unfair hiring practices.
   
3. with their interpretations: the native people must be the ones to decide what history they will reclaim (archaeologists shouldn't force it on them); archaeologists need to let local people teach them about their interest in the past; archaeologists also should be aware that things at the community level (like important archaeological/reclamation decisions) take a very long time; unfortunately, governments and foundations that fund archaeologists' work aren't very patient and aren't willing to give genuine control to the locals (but both of these are essential); cultural differences can prevent cooperation.
   

- Pyburn's 1990 trip to northern Belize for archaeological study was a success both in terms of research (locals showed her an undocumented Maya city) and in terms of archaeologist-native relations. Here are the "steps" she took to try and promote cooperation among the 2 cultures/classes:

1. lived in the village (her students did too)
2. worked with public school kids
3. gave constant lectures to anyone who was interested
4. used language that nonprofessionals could understand and relate to
5. spent many hours in village council meetings
6. worked and partied with the locals

- archaeologists can stop looting if they can change people's values in an ethical way
- applied anthropology: specifically geared to integrating positive cultural change and preventing the deterioration of cultural institutions (i.e. how to appropriately muck around in other cultures)
- archaeologists should advocate the inclusion of an applied anthropologist consultant at the start of their project; research should be done before, not after (no cleaning up messes)
- unfortunately, many "centers of power" (foundations, institutions, etc that fund archaeology) feel that an emphasis on ethical issues will distract from the scientific cause of an archaeological project ("it cannot be a principal goal of an archaeological institution")


"Archaeology Matters", Sabloff
- the good: people are intrigued in what archaeologists do
- the bad: most people don't understand the practice of archaeology and see it more as a form of entertainment
- the field is still failing to effectively tell the public about how modern archaeology functions and the huge gains associated with it
- archaeologists must find ways to make their research relevant to the modern world (this was proposed back in 1970, and still holds true)
- on the other hand, archaeology appears to be thriving: there has been a considerable increase in jobs, money spent, publications, and public fascination
- but, archaeology is failing to serve the public in a productive and reasonable fashion; getting the public interested is not enough
- the gap between amateurs and professionals keeps growing (ex: American Antiquity journal is incomprehensible to nonprofessionals)
- this "professionalization/academization of archaeology" has its benefits: advances in method, theory, cultural/historical knowledge (fewer inaccurate statements about cultural development/adaptation)
- but the rapid expansion of the field resulted in competition for university jobs and pressures to publish in quantity; this in turn led to the devaluation of writing/communicating with the general public; and here we are today, with archaeologists having little incentive to write for general audiences
- it's not good that the role models for archaeology are looters like Indiana Jones & Lara Croft
- professional archaeologists should be helping to write/host archaeology shows on TV
- the technical jargon has gotten so bad that scholars in different disciplines cannot read each others' work
- so why blame the general public for watching non-professional sources or off-the-wall publications; these sources of "information" are more frequent and easier to understand
- thus, archaeologists should help readers to become aware of standards of scientific research; they need to try and compete in the free market!
- how can archaeologists demonstrate that their research can help the contemporary and future world?

1. by applying lessons from the past to modern concerns
2. by helping communities around the globe ("action archaeology")

- action archaeology is difficult, though: the field has generally been conservative and slow (lots of unresolved debates), academic institutions do not reward outreach, applied work is seen by many scholars as less worthy than academic work, and many archaeologists are suspicious of natives causing problems if they were to be involved in the study of their own heritage
- action archaeology is also political
- but, action archaeology is necessary!


"Mixed Messages: Archaeology and the media", Finn
- archaeology in the media is usually classified under one of these extremes:

1. dull, with limited non-academic significance
2. blatantly sensational

- archaeologists should pay more attention to how they tell stories
- tabloid treatment of archaeological finds is usually based on truth-bending
- on the one hand, tabloids are entertaining (and funny to good-humored archaeologists)
- on the other, even a simple piece of news that's missing vital information or that conforms to a stereotype gives the public the wrong impression (for example, the "archaeologist as a hero" stereotype is damaging to the public's understanding of what archaeologists do)
- journalists and archaeologists are different in that the former has to work quickly and laterally to obtain components of a story (inevitably having to let go of the original story and take on another), while the latter works slowly and in depth (and are rarely disturbed or asked to change what they're doing)
- it's no wonder why the general public prefers the tabloid version over the scholarly report; reports aren't usually intended to be accessible outside the discipline!
- archaeologists have a moral duty to try and distinguish sensible interpretations of their data from irrational ones; otherwise, irrational interpretations can be used to justify injustice on other people
- journalism can afford to be less concerned with what is past; it focuses on the "new"
- this is why journalists tend to discard follow-ups on archaeological finds, in which interpretations of the evidence are clarified and corrected
- archaeologists can take advantage of this tendency by trying to find different ways to present their data
- new and innovative ways exist for presenting archaeology (computer animation, especially), but these "bells and whistles" don't necessarily lead to a good/understandable/relevant story
- another reason why newspaper journalists write inaccurate articles is due to the fact that journalists are on the scene of a find right away, when a lot of information still has not been recovered by the archaeologists (a lot of research and time is involved in the release of new evidence)
- not only are journalists provided with only the initial (often inconclusive) details of a find, but site security often prevents them from getting too close physically; as a result, journalists make due with any tidbit of information (accurate and not) until more information is released
- but, journalists aren't all bad: archeologists can learn how to reach the general public more efficiently by looking at how journalists convey it (for example, who? when? why? where? how? when? are much easier to convey and understand than scholarly jargon about trading networks)
- other topics that attract the general public: scandal, gender relationships
- needless to say, impatience rubs up against the slow pace of archaeological excavation
- a good story involves balance between jargon-free reporting and jargon-free archaeology (a good example is the old BBC show "Animal, Vegetable, or Mineral?", in which educational archaeology was also entertaining)
- advances in computer graphics (and the Internet) are actually making it harder to meet the expectations of TV viewers (oh no!)
- even documentaries (which you think would be better at handling facts) pay more attention to the mass entertainment aspect of archaeology than to accuracy and scholarly standards (especially those broadcast at prime-time)
- even if an archaeological excavation is unsuccessful, it should still be shared with the public (failure is part of the narrative); in this case, switch the focus of the story from findings to the personalities involved in the search
- news journalists should look at the big picture
- archaeologists should update regularly and give bright, yet succinct answers to journalists' questions

Messin' with SketchUp

In the spirit of the documentary that we watched two weeks ago ("The Mystery of Chaco Canyon"), I tried to model the ruins of a generic Chaco kiva in SketchUp. Not too bad for my first try at the program. :-D


Despite the program's simplicity (when compared to more advanced 3d modeling software packages, like Maya), learning how to create a desired look in SketchUp is no easy task! For example, I didn't quite know how to create jagged edges for the kiva's dilapidated circular rim (hence it looks like the rim has steps). I tried to draw a squiggly line along the kiva's curved interior and then extrude out the resulting "split" in the faces. But, it's difficult to draw on curved surfaces in SketchUp, and I had to try a different approach instead. All the popping to axes and edges resulted in drawing planes on top of planes instead of planes inside planes (which is what I wanted). In general, snapping to axes can either be very helpful or very annoying, so I'd recommend building objects such that straight edges (like walls) line up with SketchUp's major axes. I didn't do this when modeling the kiva, so...I had a little trouble making rectangular objects.

But, all challenges aside, if I was able to model these kiva ruins in the space of an hour, think of what our class will be able to churn out for the final project!

Trying to catch up

Well, as could probably be extrapolated from my lack of participation in yesterday's discussion of the class readings, I did not come to class prepared...I still need to finish the readings for this week. I feel especially bad about it because Clark tried to stimulate some kind of collective discussion, but (maybe because it was the end of class) participation was minimal. If I had read the articles, I would have had something to contribute. At least I was able to complete my film review (barely)! It might need to re-write it...we'll see how it comes back. In the meantime, expect the notes for this weeks readings, in addition to some sketch-up screen shots, sometime tomorrow. I think Norm should teach us all Maya (the program...but hey, I wouldn't mind learning about the Maya); then I would have an excuse to model people and costumes for the final project in an environment that I'm already familiar with. ;-)

Excerpt from Assignment #1

As depicted in my previous post, I decided to review Timeline. First, some narrated stills from the film:

(Marek ["hairy-chested"], Kate, and Chris crowd around a computer in the lab to verify the Professor's handwriting. Ugh, Chris, get your hand off of Kate!)

(Fighting for the take-over of LaRoque in the dead of night! PEW PEW PEW!)

(Right before Francois is killed for being French...but look, [supposedly-accurate] chainmail! I was surprised that no one tried to give Kate a hard time in this scene.)

And now, the excerpt:

The first thing I focused on in my analysis of the film was its portrayal of archaeologists. Of course, being born from Hollywood, I expected Timeline to associate some kind of popular culture theme with its archaeologist characters. What caught me off guard was the number of themes it employed; several different kinds of “celluloid archaeologists” co-exist in this film.

First in line, you have your “hairy-chinned” (literally) academic, Edward Johnston. In fact, for a good portion of the film, his full name is dropped in favor of the title, “the Professor”. Edward Johnston fits into his spectacle-toting archaeologist-as-a-scholar niche well. It was difficult not to see parallels between his character and that of “the Professor” from The Last Crusade (1989). Like Henry Jones, Edward Johnston lets his passion for the past take over his life to the point where his misplaced attention destroys his marriage and fractures the relationship he has with his son. In the case of Timeline, this kink in the father-son dynamic is less pronounced, but the resentment still exists, as made clear by Chris Johnston's distaste for his father's line of work - “You know what the past is to me? The past is why my parents split up. The past is what I've been force-fed since I was little.”

Next in line you have the Professor's handsome, or should I say handsome and beautiful, young assistants - the “hairy-chested” (literally) Scotsman, Andre Marek, and Chris' only reason for tagging along with his dad, love interest number one, Kate Ericson. Marek and Kate's passion for the past and the artifacts they find is intense, if not, at times, nauseating. “It's the past that's where it's at, you know,” says Marek in response to Chris' scathing criticism, “People then, they cared about each other. Men had honor, you know?” With statements like these, Marek clearly falls within the popular archaeologist-as-a-romantic category. At the same time, however, he spouts a stereotypical archaeologist-as-a-detective perspective. When the “romantic warrior crap” has no effect on Chris' scathing criticism of the field, Marek shows the boss' son an incredibly unusual artifact in the hopes that it will peak his interest, which it does (and why wouldn't it?). “I'm intrigued, all right?” Chris admits, to which Marek replies, “We're all intrigued by this. That's why we're all here.” That being said, one aspect of the film that I do congratulate is its inclusion of a character with which the non-archaeologists in the audience can empathize; despite my distaste for Chris' quixotic behavior, I too was only mildly interested in the archaeological goings-on at the French site until Marek revealed his mysterious find. Kate's character also adheres to popular culture's image of the archaeologist. Like the Professor, her work takes precedence over her relationships. “You and Kate are from different worlds,” Professor Johnston tells his love-struck son, “Trust me, if it's between archeology and you, you'll lose.” While the majority of Marek's passion for archaeology seems to stem from his romantic, idealized vision of 14th century France, Kate's passion for the job can be linked to the excitement of discovery. When she is the first to be lowered down into what remains of a 14th century monastery chamber, her excitement overwhelms her - “No way. This is too much. Oh, my God. Look at the condition of this thing!” She is indeed the embodiment of the archaeologist-making-profound-revelations; somewhat of an archaeology “fan girl”. At the same time, I found it refreshing to see an empowered and intelligent example of a female “celluloid archaeologist” [3].

So let's tally up what we have so far - the “hairy-chinned” archaeologist-as-a-scholar, the “hairy-chested” archaeologist-as-an-adventurer, the archaeologist-as-a-romantic, the archaeologist-as-a-detective, and the archaeologist-making-profound-revelations. I suppose it's also worth mentioning that the Professor and his assistants are seen enjoying some beers at the beginning of the film. One thing's for sure - Timeline certainly has its bases covered in terms of popular archaeologist themes. At least the film seems to avoid the highly-inaccurate archaeologist-who-knows-more-than-the-natives stereotype. In fact, as the 21st century group struggles to assimilate to 14th century French and English culture, it becomes clear that, despite the archaeologists' knowledge of and love for the past, it is the natives who have the upper hand.

Potential movies to discuss in 1st paper

- "The Fifth Element" *
- "Stargate" *+
- "300" *
- "Apocalypto" +
- "The Ruins"
- "The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc"
- "The Golden Child"
- "Troy" +
- "Dances With Wolves" +
- "Shanghai Noon"
- "The Emperor's New Groove" (<-- lol)
- "The Rundown" ?
- "Spriggan" (<-- anime) *?
- "The Body" *+?
- "Timeline" *?
- "The Awakening" *+?

* = wanna watch
+ = probably easy to analyze
? = never heard of it before

Trying to steer clear from "Indiana Jones", "Lara Croft", and "The Mummy"...

Readings for week of 9/14 (notes)

"Metaphors We Dig By", Warren R. DeBoer
- archaeologist drawings depict stereotypes
- male-dominated
- covered in hair
- glasses
- hats, boots, "jungle suits"
- hairy-chested vs. hairy-chinned
- these stereotypes have been around for a long time, popular media didn't create them out of the blue
- tools
- digging
- alcohol
- looking for: bones, pots, artifacts, fossils
- archaeology (studying artifacts, not necessarily human remains) is not synonymous with anthropology, though the 2 are related
- exotic lands: Egypt, Near East, Africa
- journey back in time
- discovery
- lost civilizations
- "oedipal & castration anxieties" (?) <-- don't know if I agree - a sexual idiom


"Popular Culture and Archaeology", Cornelius Holtorf
- academic interest in portrayal of archaeology has increased
- four main themes:

1. A: Archaeologist as Adventurer
* hairy-chested
* scientific discovery is the adventure
* exotic locations
* simple living in the field
* discoveries, treasure
* successful return home
* Indiana Jones fits under this theme
* colonial and imperial undertones (that's a problem) - "Legends of Hidden Temple" involves bribery
* a real-life epitome: Heinrich Schliermann (1822-1890): thought he was poking around in Troy
* "Schliemann Effect"
* author who pushed the theme: Kurt Marek (1915-1972), a.k.a. CW Ceram
* other real people who influenced this theme: Heinrich Schliemann, Arthur Evans, Howard Carter, Leonard Woolley
* new literary genre: fact-based archaeological novel
* Lara Croft (the one female exception to the usually male-dominated genre)
* (I wonder if Pixar researched any of these popular stereotypes when writing Up...)
* DYK: Heinrich Schliemann fabricated his autobiography
* gender issues

2. D: Archaeologist as Detective
* professional detectives of the past
* handsome young assistant
* Sherlock Holmes-type figure
* there are indeed parallels between archaeology, forensic science, and criminology
* reconstructions of the past
* many TV documentaries adopt detective-style narratives
* subcategory of this theme: Antiquarian Scholar (elderly): examples: father in Tarzan, Mortimer Wheeler on British TV, Indiana Jones's father
* detective/scholar + the adventurer (D + A) = classic team
* popular culture sometimes makes fun of how boring archaeologists are (examples found within Indiana Jones's class lecture and Star Trek episodes with the Archaeology Council)
* detective/scholars are considered benevolent & harmless
* their undying dedication is more sad than funny (look at how Indy's dad never paid attention to him)
* these archaeologists are often the "bad guys" too (Lara's competitors, for example); OBSESSED BEYOND SANITY, BWAHAHA!

3. R: Archaeologist Making Revelations
* for headlines, the stronger/more sensational the claim, the more worthwhile it is
* parodies of the above tendency
* R theme works well with both A and D
* secrets to be unlocked
* large issues involved: archaeologists might be able to find "the mechanisms that govern the rise and fall of civilizations"; that's pretty useful information
* can therefore develop successful strategies of survival
* potential savior
* this archaeology involves super-natural powers / true miracles
* large existential questions
* outer space!
* extraterrestrial origins
* past takes revenge
* archaeologists are tampering with forces they do not understand
* in actuality: archaeologists are reluctant to support speculation that has no scientific basis

4. C: Archaeologist Taking Care of Ancient Sites
* Heritage Police
* take care of scarce and nonrenewable resources
* for the benefit of society and humankind
* ethical principles
* more popular for close-to-home archaeology (local media, like newspapers, uses it more)
* a race against demolition/construction
* C and D themes are compatible, but DON'T mix them up
* C theme archaeologist wears suit/tie or protective clothing, while D theme archaeologist is a detective with a notebook & magnifying glass
* these archaeologists can be "bad guys" too because what's the point of all this attention to ancient remains, anyway?

Other Themes
* Cardcaptor Sakura's dad :3

- the above are 4 dimensions of "archaeo-appeal"
- archaeologists are NOT usually portrayed in relation to their actual ability to find out what happened (the means, not the ends)
- actual results of archaeological work aren't really important


"No more heroes any more: the dangerous world of the pop culture archaeologist", Miles Russell
- stock male and female characters in TV fiction (docu-soap genre uses a lot of these):

1. driven by a single goal, considered mad, unleash curse
2. driven by pure greed, unleash a monster
3. in it for the purist reasons (the "great discovery"), unleash something unpleasant
4. comical/boring/academic, unleash something bad

- "adventurer" vs. "mild eccentric" (hairy-chest vs. hairy-chin)
- tight-trousered popular hero vs. tweed-wearing Oxbridge type
- again, Heinrich Schliemann (he had hairy-chest AND hairy-chin, was single-minded & passionate about what he was working on)
- other real guys who shape the stereotype: Giovanni Belzoni, Howard Carter, Leonard Woolley
- author who employed it: Agatha Christie ("Murder in Mesopotamia" in 1936)
- other "adventurers": Jean Louis Burckhardt (1784-1817): lost cities/castles of North Africa & Arabia, John Seely (1788-1824): cave temples of Ellora, Karl Mauch (1837-1874): "Biblical" cities (outlandish, but explosive effect), Hiram Bingham (1878-1956)
- evidence of the literal truth of the bible
- unfortunately, increased legitimacy of Judeo-Christian colonial rule in Africa
- Nutty Professor: dull and totally dysfunctional guy
- conflict between academic & action hero (just can't seem to pull off both, even in Indiana Jones)
- but both extremes must work together in order to survive
- Howard Carter and his discovery of King Tut's tomb -> archaeologist as doom-bringer
- 21 fatalities attributed to the curse of King Tut
- also, pop culture archaeologist is often portrayed as "bad guy"
- tampering with forces they don't understand
- another misconception: archaeologists are only after artifacts (gold, jewels)
- National Lottery Syndrome
- minor discoveries (like those about commoners) don't attract popular media's attention
- thus, archaeology often does not live up to the high expectations of non-archaeologists
- by the way, Lara Croft is CRAZY (often is obsessed with one artifact over all other things, including lives)
- clothing of stereotypical archaeologist: pith helmet & khaki shorts -> imply adventure/exploration/excitement
- many pockets, retired military outfits, Middle-Eastern scarf, Soviet hat, clumpy boots, (piercings?)
- steel-rimmed spectacles
- funny how most pop culture archaeologists don't carry bags for their finds
- off lack of technology in these pop culture settings
- no cameras, planning frames, context sheets (even though that's what real archaeologists carry)
- weapons, yes!
- alcohol
- rifles, pistols, dynamite, magnifying glasses, shovel
- "geophys" (slang for "geophysical"; I guess archaeology is cool enough to have its own slang these days; at least interest is getting higher, but at what cost?)
- at least 98% of the population do not regularly encounter archaeologists, so it is more difficult to put these stereotypes at rest (vs. say, those describing a doctor or psychologist)


"The Celluloid Archaeologist - an X-rated expose", Steven Membury
- resolute character who challenges evil
- romances, exotic locations, terrifying encounters
- we find in these movies...racism, sexism, gangsters, flesh trade
- Egypt craze
- "The Lure of Egypt" (1921 film)
- drink and drug-crazed archaeologist
- marital problems ("Made for Love" in 1926, an archaeologist's wife feels alienated by her husband's preoccupation with his work...also, there's a curse)
- archaeologist's work (lack of interest in their wife) forces their spouse to pursue other guys outside the marriage (i.e. get into all kinds of shenanigans)
- "Borrowed Husbands" in 1923 is another example (and also has a curse involved!)
- Howard Carter: the archaeologist who excavated King Tut's tomb in 1922 -> Egypt craze
- his boss (Lord Carnarvon) died; public media blamed King Tut's curse (which was actually made up by some writer)
- prompted a lot of mummy movies!
* "The Mummy" (1932), directed by Karl Freud and starring Boris Karloff [has a similar storyline to the 2000 remake]
- the professor and the young assistant
- Oxbridge graduate and lover of obscure facts
- supernatural powers
- allure of the professor's daughter
- symbiotic relationship between the academic and the adventurer; brains behind the brawn
* "The Mummy's Hand" (1940), not directed by the same guy, is the next film installment
* "Mummy's Tomb" (1942), the mummy follows the old explorers back to their home town!
- both of these contain scenes lifted entirely from "Frankenstein"
- spliced flashbacks
- most of the mummy movies feature archaeologists who are messing with things better left untouched (mummies & their artifacts too)
- the ignorant Celluloid Archaeologist unleashes supernatural forces in the course of his quest for knowledge
- other Celluloid Archaeologist themes: preoccupation with treasure, contribution to taming the wild west, romantic endings, the belief that native people are unable to understand their own past as well as western academics
- Australia and its aboriginal cultures (prime example of archaeologists taking things without regarding the locals)
- archaeologist finding a lost tribe of ape people
- what role do women play? romantic one
- female Celluloid Archaeologist is marginal character with few lines
- archaeologists solely for purpose of explaining why/how they ended up in exotic location
- "honey trap" for the male adventurers
- exceptions: "Jurassic Park" (1993) and "Friends" (1993) (?)
- less so: 2000 remake of "The Mummy"
- back to the males; Indiana Jones mirrors real-life early 19th cen. collector Giovanni Belzoni
- during that period, commonplace for agents from different countries to fight over acquisition of artifacts (financial gain)
- a golden age in archaeology
- young adventurer and old professor
- recall: Schliemann Effect


"Romancing the Stones: Archaeology in Popular Cinema", Mark A. Hall
- "Archaeology is the search for fact, not (philosophic) truth" - Indy's dad
- popular film got its stereotypes from older forms of popular culture: narrative fictions in magazines/newspapers/cheap books
- these films overlook factual accuracy in favor of making the past familiar
- art vs. archaeology (as a science)
- favoring the imagined vs. favoring empirical truth
- "even the most authentic of films can have their authenticity vitiated by the political context in which they are made"
- distortion for the sake of narrative drama
- "cultural appropriation": the adoption of an element of one culture by another (usually in a negative way) [the dominant culture is the one that adopts]
- film portrayals of Egypt usually depict cultural appropriation & controlling non-European culture
- "Egyptomania" phenomenon
- horror possibilities of Egyptian archaeology -> mummy story
- archaeological wisdom as a foil for supernatural elements
- depiction of archaeology as colonial imposition
- colonial agenda creates a fake, imaginary past for these places
- legend and superstition
- view that only Europeans / Americans can truly understand Egyptian past
- western cultural imperialism, "unthinking Eurocentrism" (I've been culturally biased this whole time and didn't know it!)
- Egyptian archaeology fares better in scifi than in horror (yay for "Fifth Element" (1997)!)
- films often set in 1920s or 30s
- representation of the Oriental "Other"
- key mechanisms of colonial power: (1) map, (2) museum, (3) census
- Agatha Christie (remember her?) wrote several 20th century narratives set in Egypt
- natural progress of civilization from East to West
- Eurocentrism
- quest for treasure is central theme of cultural appropriation
- all 3 Indiana Jones films reflect western cultural imperialism
- are museums dead places where treasures are merely horded?
- again, the "bad guy" is usually an individual/group that desires the archaeological object to boost its own power
- this happened in real life too: during WWII, German archaeologists falsified/destroyed archaeological evidence / collected Jewish skulls in an attempt to support Germanic racial superiority
- film-makers thought Eurocentric treasure hunting as necessary to make their films successful
- other films support fight against social/economic exploitation of indigenous peoples
- in "The Golden Salamander" (1951), the West is shown as the natural inheritor of Mediterranean civilization
- "Al Mummia" (1969), on the other hand, shows rejection of treasure hunting
- protection and understanding of a nation's cultural heritage requires the consent/involvement of its own people
- "Rush Hour" (1998) stuck closer to this idea
- association of the collecting of archaeology with the "bad guy" (usually privileged aristocracy); this view is based on collectors during the Renaissance
- European cinema is less concerned with Hollywood-style genres
- rescue archaeology (struggle between archaeology and development)
- some of these films recognize archaeology's potential to be positive
- sometimes local communities hate archaeology because a find would cause unwanted visitors
- other communities (U.K.) are proud of archaeological finds and recognize tourism as economic stimuli
- is the saving of a couple houses really enough to make up for destroying a community/its culture?
- "A Month in the Country" (1988): homosexual archaeologist involved
- archaeologist as metaphor for anti-social strangeness
- again, all of the films (American & European) suggest male-dominated archaeological profession
- social change (gender roles) is reflected in many, though
- women as correctives to male archaeological obsession
- female archaeologists that are determined/independent/intelligent
- American Indian culture has been exploited for shock-horror potential too
- scientists meddling with what they do not understand / are not meant to know (sound familiar?)
- in "The Exorcist" (1973), a Catholic priest-archaeologist O_o
- faith vs. science (difficult/impossible to reconcile)
- science might be regarded as highly rational, but in actuality its history is not!
- DYK: progress of science came from acting against reason
- archaeology as handmaiden of history
- many films stress distinction of past morals vs. present ones
- distinguishing features of past vs. machines/gadgets/sameness of present
- archaeology isn't the only profession for which there are stereotypes in popular cinema
- BUT: 98% of British population had no regular contact with real archaeologist (hence, no basis of rejection of the stereotype)
- real archaeologists either reject cinema stereotypes or ignore them
- in a way, existence of these stereotypes infers a feeling of exclusion of the general public from the profession (we non-archaeologists feel left out!)
- portrayal of archaeologists/curators as holders of privileged knowledge
- unlike in popular cinema, real archaeologists frown upon unethical treatment of indigenous rights and black market antique trade


"Unwrapping the Mummy: Hollywood Fantasies, Egyptian Realities", Stuart Smith
- Ancient Egypt: a cinematic genre in itself
- Hollywood Egyptomania goes all the way back to Napoleon Bonaparte's fascination with past glories (1798 military expedition to Egypt)
- wealthy collectors just had to have something from Egypt (if they wanted to be cool)
- mummy unwrapping parties: all the rage in affluent 19th cen. society
- Egypt-themed films fall into 3 basic genres:

1. biblical/costume epics
* "The Ten Commandments" (1923, 1956); even though it had a cast of academic advisors (Egyptologists too), it contains inaccuracies
* most Egyptians wore white linen, not gold stuff!
* "Raiders of the Lost Ark" (1981) had only a little historical accuracy to it

2. Cleopatra
* Egypt as an exotic/sensual backdrop
* "Stargate" draws on films centered on life of Cleopatra
* (joke's on them: she was more Hellenistic than Egyptian)
* image of exotic East comes from antiquity, i.e. Roman view of Cleopatra and Mediterranean civilizations in general
* how the Roman's characterized Orientalism
* resulted in a Western view of the Easter Other

3. mummies
* contains elements of other 2 genres
* archaeologist as adventurer
* propaganda surrounding Tut's tomb (and supposed curse)
* most draw inspiration from tales emphasizing mysterious/horrific (Orientalist stories)
* influential author: Arthur Conan Doyle: fascinated by the occult, put this fascination in context of Egyptology
* many of these stories and the films they inspired use Kharis and Imhotep as main characters
* DYK: a lot of mummy movies came out before discovery of Tut's tomb
* DYK: idea of mobile mummies used in some ancient Egyptian stories too (so this is a concept that has been around for a long time)
* "The Story of Setna Khaemwas and the Mummies" papyrus
* plot of "The Mummy" (Freund's) shares similarities with some real events in New Kingdom Egypt (like tales of an actual sacred book of spells)
* 4th revival of the original mummy movie ("Blood from the Mummy's Tomb" in 1972) by Hammer Studios draw on author Bram Stoker's novel "Jewel of the Seven Stars" (1903)
* Stoker was good about including a lot of correct historical/archaeological details
* "The Awakening" (1980): the most archaeologically accurate mummy movie

- quest for spectacular finds resulted in focusing on tombs of the elite, not of commoners
- a lot of real Egyptian spells were meant to revive the dead...but in the afterlife ;-)
- also, archaeological finds (real ones this time) imply that Egyptians did, in fact, believe that the dead could intervene in the current life (positively & negatively)
- in that papyrus, a spirit plagues Setna Khaemwas with horrific-erotic dreams
- a number of Egyptian tombs did, in fact, have curses placed on them (but not Tut's)
- Egyptians spent more energy on thinking about the afterlife rather than engaging in philosophical/scientific study (disappointing for early scholars)
- heart was left inside the mummified body (the 2000 remake makes the mistake of leaving it out)
- Egyptian priests invented the notion of back-up systems :3
- "Ushabti": mummy-shaped figurines that could be awakened with a spell to do the work of the deceased (so they could just sit back and enjoy the after-life); a lot of them (~400 for one person)
- some practices/items that Egyptologists typically regard as standard burial components were actually just for the elite
- film & Egyptology BOTH tend to emphasize elite culture (neglect the ordinary Egyptians)
- mummy genre still fascinates the public today
- for 2000 remake of "The Mummy", Universal Studios did make attempt for realism (tried to re-create spoken Egyptian, kept archaeological suggestions in mind)
- even to Hellenistic people, Egypt was mysterious/magic/sensual, so don't dismiss the cinematic view of Egypt right off the bat [other people had it too]
- films haven't created mummy myths; rather, they reflect pre-established notions that have survived over time