Reflection on the archaeological knowledge held by part of the population. Survey conducted among people over 54 years old.
The discipline of archaeology emerged as a mere recreational activity in which aristocrats and patrons sought to expand their rich collections; and contributed, additionally, to the exhibitions of national museums. Inevitably, these actions and novels from the 19th century and early 20th century (with literary genres "Lost World" and "Pulp") have generated a romantic vision that has been inherited by major film producers. During the decades of the 80s and 90s, they began to project films about adventurous and intrepid archaeologists. With this, a symbiotic projection was carried out between the romanticism and idealism of the first great archaeological discoveries and the action, without restraint, of men and women who sought objects that would save the world. Amidst all these, society has gradually acquired a dystopian perception of what Archaeology is and how an archaeologist truly works (Quixal, 2019: 17-18; Folgarait, 2018: 6).
For this reason, a survey was conducted with a series of general and global questions about the archaeological activity. The age range of participants is from 54 to 81 years old. Throughout the following article we will break down the responses and highlight the most relevant ones.
This brief analysis begins with the following question: What is the first thing you think of when you hear the word "Archaeology"? Cinema and mass media have disseminated the idea (consciously and unconsciously) that Archaeology deals with searching for significant objects from History, whether by their beauty, importance, or the myths and legends surrounding them, as well as their antiquity (Tejerizo, 2011: 393). Our survey respondents gave answers such as "study of civilizations that preceded us," "research and ancient discoveries," or "ancient historical buildings and other elements." However, most agree on the word "antiquity." This leads to the point that any archaeological activity developed in more modern and contemporary periods is not considered by society. This may be due to these being more recent periods with a large volume of documentary sources where speculation and theorization do not have as much freedom compared to more distant chronological stages, where Archaeology has a significant documentary weight relative to other sources.
Regarding the methodology followed by an archaeologist, films also do not reflect reality. Fieldwork is very important, but it should be noted that most of the time is spent on bureaucratic procedures, administrative issues, and laboratory work. The big screen shows excavations based on what is called "search and retrieve," meaning to search for and recover objects that respond to personal, economic, or recreational interests of the archaeologist-excavator. An Archaeology in which ends justify means and it does not matter how catastrophic it can be; the relevant thing is obtaining the artifact (Tejerizo, 2011: 395-398; Quixal, 2019: 26).
Returning to the survey, several questions were formulated. One of them was whether they knew the methodology of an archaeologist, which yielded 6 YESes, 16 NOs and 2 WITHOUT RESPONSE. Another question asked if Archaeology is a scientific discipline. In this case, 17 participants answered YES, 6 NO and 1 WITHOUT RESPONSE. We inquired about the use of the Harris Matrix (Figure 2), obtaining the following results: 2 participants responded that they knew it, 21 did not know and 1 WITHOUT RESPONSE. Finally, we asked if the activity of an archaeologist was to excavate dinosaur fossils. This question received 17 YESes, 6 NOs and 1 WITHOUT RESPONSE. The most notable aspect of these results is the lack of knowledge about archaeological work in general. This lack of knowledge ranges from how it works and what tools are used (such as the Harris Matrix) to what type of remains an archaeologist studies, confusing this with the work of a paleontologist. Positively, it should be noted that there was a high number of YESes for the question about the scientific nature of the discipline.
Regarding the profile of an archaeologist, the image given is stereotyped and idealized. Cinema has projected a figure more adventurous than professional. The most famous treasure hunter, Indiana Jones (Figure 1), fits the prototype of middle-aged man (30-45 years old), single, without responsibilities, with high masculinity, heterosexual, belonging to an Occidental society, with dubious academic training but great combat skills. On the other hand, the role of the female archaeologist in film is secondary and dependent, acting as an appendage of the "true male archaeologist." Additionally, highlighting her sensuality, her function as a flower vase and false feminine independence, such as in Lara Croft's case. That is to say, films show a woman supposedly empowered and with all the capabilities to find great historical pieces. However, this presumed emancipation happens from the patriarchal perspective of women as sexy objects without objectivity and needing positive male validation (Tejerizo, 2011: 400-402; Quixal, 2019: 27).
To our survey participants, we asked if they thought figures like Indiana Jones and Lara Croft reflect the reality of an archaeologist. Among our participants, we obtained 8 YESes, 15 NOs and 1 WITHOUT RESPONSE. These responses show that part of society recognizes that films project a panorama more characteristic of fiction than reality (Figure 3). However, no matter how much one tries to separate both concepts, it remains difficult for the viewer.
Regarding the contribution of society and its role in promoting Archaeology and common heritage, a series of questions were asked. We asked what should be done if one finds a possible archaeological object. Three options were offered: "excavate to verify if it is an archaeological object and call the competent authorities once sure"; "call the competent authorities and do not intervene until their arrival"; or "I can excavate because I am an archaeologist and keep it at home until the competent authorities arrive." The majority of participants selected the second option, 23 survey respondents to be exact. We asked about knowledge and usefulness of Municipal Archaeological Maps. In this case, we obtained 3 YESes, 20 NOs and 1 WITHOUT RESPONSE. Another question dealt with the management of heritage by Autonomous Communities. 14 participants responded that there is a General Plan at the national level to which all archaeological sites are subject. 8 of them answered that these enclaves are managed under an Autonomous Community's own plan. And only 2 respondents answered WITHOUT RESPONSE.
These data reveal that society, to a certain extent, knows how it should act upon finding something. This changes when questions about the administrative and management aspects of archaeological sites and remains are asked.
Conclusions
To conclude this brief presentation and analysis of the survey results, it must be mentioned that the profession is marked by political interest affecting economic investment. To combat all this and previously mentioned stereotypes about the profession, a "militant" Archaeology emerges in search of a committed discipline with thorough self-criticism (Tejerizo, 2011: 403-405).
After conducting and reading these data, the archaeologist must ask themselves: What can we do to promote real archaeological knowledge? And how can we do it? One cannot blame this stereotypical view of Archaeology on cinema and media. Part of this lack of knowledge stems from the discipline itself, which has become increasingly focused on its methodology, research, discoveries, etc. However, leaving aside the social aspect that Archaeology possesses, this discipline has a wide range of purposes. Nevertheless, one cannot dismiss the idea that heritage is not only property of universities, institutions and historical-scientific entities researching and studying our remains, but also samples of our society's idiosyncrasy, past and present, which should be disseminated in the best possible way to form part of our future. A society that does not know its heritage cannot claim for it.
Bibliography
Folgarait, A. (2018): ‘Archaeology of the 21st century: the heirs of Indiana Jones’. Doi: https://www.lanacion.com.ar/sociedad/arqueologia-del-siglo-xxi-los-herederos-de-indiana-jones-nid2111961/
Quixal, D. (2019): ‘Formula and Glory: A Historical and Archaeological Reading of the Indiana Jones Universe’. In Saitabi. Revista de la Facultat de Geografia i Història, 69, pp. 15-31. Universitat de València.
Tejerizo, C. (2011): ‘Archaeology and Cinema: distortions of a science and profession’. El Futuro del Pasado, 2, pp. 389-406. Universidad del País Vasco.
Comments