As the first post on this blog, it makes sense to explain what my main PhD research involves and why I think that it is worth spending 3+ years of my life on it...
Archaeology is a part of pop culture and a person's understanding of the past can be a very strong part of their identity. Due to this, and the many examples that we have of belief in heritage leading to false beliefs in superiority, I believe that we have a responsibility to make sure that our research is being accurately communicated to the world, especially through news outlets as they have the potential to reach exponentially more people than direct forms of outreach. Alongside this, we must consider that with the explosion of online news media in recent years, the public’s relationship with the news has changed dramatically. In general, people read more and trust less.
Often, news stories can become sensationalised or exaggerated; at best to grab the reader’s attention in an online market saturated with content and at worst to promote the ideology of the organisation. It is important to note that this may not be an active decision, journalists writing these stories have their own biases which can be transferred onto studies that they may have no background in. The audience ends up reading an interpretation of a press release or interview and then draws their own conclusions guided by this information. In some cases people naturally agree if the narrative suits their world-view; but they are likely to disagree with something that challenges their opinions rather than be convinced of an opposing argument as evidence is presented to them.
My research will look into how bioarchaeological studies are used by the media, especially when the study is ‘controversial’, and how this impacts the general public. ‘Controversial’ studies can cover a range of topics, however my research will focus on bioarchaeological studies that can be appropriated in relation to modern, political notions of identity. For example; Cheddar Man being called the ‘First Briton’ and having the genetic signatures of dark skin, or the migration of past groups being set in a modern context of ‘Britain vs Europe’. Archaeology is a discipline that can provide evidence to counteract the bigotry that stems from manipulation of the past and the colonial education system that persists to this day. However, it can also be used to further justify these ideas and the way it is presented to the public is key in determining the impact these studies have.
One thing that I’m conscious of avoiding is glorifying the news sites that I enjoy and vilifying those that I don’t. I think that the Daily Mail is a hateful news outlet that promotes racism and xenophobia, but I have to admit that they report archaeology in an informative and generally appropriate way in the first instance. This often descends into its usual nationalist racism in subsequent stories, and commentators usually situate even the most accurate reporting against the Mail’s other hateful content, but they do occasionally offer some decent reporting. In the same way, The Guardian relies on clickbait as much as any other outlet, and came up with the anti-European ‘Dutch Hordes’ headline shown above.
As academics there is a responsibility to use our work to improve society and help educate and empower members of the public. Personally, I feel that it is as harmful to be passive as it is to promote the improper dissemination of stories that can provoke extreme reactions and reinforce dangerous ideologies. Archaeology is as political as it is interesting to the public, and we cannot allow it to be misused on the vast platform of the mainstream media.
Daily Mail comment advocating violence towards museum workers due to ideological differences.
There are plenty of examples of where this extremism is related to archaeology and heritage, and I hope to explore them more in my research. For now, I will end this blog with a recent example of the dangers of the mainstream media taken from this Daily Mail article criticising museums for being too ‘woke’ and ‘ashamed of our culture’. This has been allowed to stay up for 2 weeks, with 20 shows of support and no public condemnation of the threat of violence. How long before such threats are taken seriously? Are we in danger, simply for expanding our knowledge of the past and working towards an anti-racist practice? Is the inflammatory press to blame for stoking such hatred, or is there a responsibility for archaeologists and heritage professionals to engage with those who "hate" us and find a peaceful strategy? If nothing else, it highlights the dangerous culture that is developing as we move towards decolonisation and inclusivity. This will impact the entire sector, but as a white researcher I am conscious that we need to be mindful that such anger will be directed at our colleagues of colour first, regardless of who is actually undertaking such work. In building allyship through heritage we need to be prepared to experience the abuse that global majority scholars have faced for years (whilst theirs inevitably also increases). At the moment, we are producing research and changing practises that, with the best intentions, are angering the alt-right. This work is absolutely necessary, but we are naively underestimating the anger that is being stirred up in a public led by the mainstream press. We need better systems to tackle this, and we need them soon.