In the Camera's Lens: An Interview with Brian Fagan and Francis Pryor more

CLACK_CH_05.qxd 5/18/2007 2:42 PM Page 125 5 IN THE CAMERA’S LENS An Interview with Brian Fagan and Francis Pryor Interviewed by Marcus Brittain and Timothy Clack Each with over thirty years experience with the media, Brian Fagan and Francis Pryor have broadcast their message of archaeology through many different media and in their own individual ways to audiences around the world. Having written extensively on many archaeological themes for academic and public audiences, public archaeology in the United States and the UK has grown and matured through their combined experience and would be much the poorer today if not for their continued passion and energy. When placed together in the following interview (carried out via email correspondence in the summer and early winter 2005), their views regarding current themes from ‘archaeology and the media’ offer insightful glimpses into the connections and distinctions between British and American perspectives. Could you briefly outline your experience in communicating archaeology via television and radio broadcasting? Pryor: In the days before ‘client confidentiality’ became such a big issue (i.e., after PPG16 in 1989), people who sponsored archaeology were always keen to get good publicity. So I started CLACK_CH_05.qxd 5/18/2007 2:42 PM Page 126 126 Marcus Brittain and Timothy Clack phoning press and broadcast journalists as soon as I began directing my own digs in 1971. I’ve no idea how many news stories I have dreamed up, but it must be hundreds – ranging from Radio Cambridgeshire to Radio 4’s Today programme (‘Bronze Age Cowboys of the Fens’). I’m the proud possessor of two Blue Peter badges. My first big opportunity was in 1988 when I presented my first documentary, a half-hour programme for BBC2, directed by David Mitchell. Then, in 1989 and 1990 (I think!), I presented two series for Anglia TV, one on the Bronze Age and one on connections between England and Holland; both were directed by Paul Jordan. In 1990. I presented Now Then, a series of six 25-minute programmes for BBC1 Children’s Television. Then things went quiet as I withdrew to spend five years writing up my two major digs at Etton and Flag Fen in north Cambridgeshire. I came out of self-imposed purdah in 1996 (I think!) when Mick Aston and Tim Taylor asked me to do my first Time Team, which I loved. I’ve done two or three Time Teams each year ever since, including the first special (they are now referred to as TT Documentaries) on Seahenge (1999) – an idea that Tim Taylor and I hatched up together. In 2002 and 2004 I presented two series for Channel 4 based around my books Britain BC and Britain AD; both were directed by Tim Copestake for Diverse Productions. This year, I took part in the Big Roman Dig for a week and another ‘live’ two-day show on ‘Foamhenge’ [a full-scale polystyrene reconstruction of Stonehenge] for Channel 5. I also do the occasional short film for BBC South’s contributions to the regional show Inside Out. I’m currently in the final throes of a three-part series – The Real Dad’s Army – for Diverse and Channel 4 based around the CBA’s [Council for British Archaeology] award-winning Defence of Britain Project. After that, Heaven knows what, but something will turn up: Roy Ackerman, who is in charge of programme development at Diverse, still seems to think I’m okay. So my fingers remain optimistically crossed. With luck, I’ll still be doing the occasional Time Team. I honestly don’t know – which is all part of being freelance. Meanwhile, I’m writing a big book for Penguin, which won’t appear for three years and may well have some sort of TV spin-off. If pressed, I think (in fact I know) that I’d rather write books than make films – the reason being that one can establish a more intimate and altogether closer relationship with a reader than with a viewer. This becomes very apparent when one talks to readers, as opposed to viewers: the readers seem to know one as a friend or family member, whereas viewers only see what the programme makers want them to CLACK_CH_05.qxd 5/18/2007 2:42 PM Page 127 In the Camera’s Lens 127 see – which is often something approaching a caricature of reality. At least, I hope it is. If not, I shall shortly be seeking a high cliff above a rocky foreshore. Fagan: Unlike Francis, I have never hosted a television series or even a program. But I have been interviewed for numerous programs on PBS [Public Broadcasting Service] and the Discovery Channel. TV channels over here insist on celebrity hosts, which is the way they want it. My main role over the years has been as an advisor behind the scenes. I was senior adviser on the Time/Life Lost Civilizations series some years ago, a very successful project, and have been involved with other series on early humans. I spend a great deal of time fielding questions about potential TV programs and series – which is time consuming – and almost invariably hear nothing more. I wish TV researchers (and the BBC are naughty about this) would realise just how much time this takes when one is busy and fighting deadlines oneself. But it’s important to provide accurate information and insights, of course, which is why we all do it – but sometimes one feels somewhat exploited, as if one is a convenient resource rather than a human being. I have been interviewed on radio many, many times, and, in many respects prefer it to TV as it’s more spontaneous. Back in the 1980s, I wrote a three-year radio series called Patterns of the Past, supported for National Public Radio [NPR] by the National Endowment for the Humanities [NEH]. It consisted of one five-minute and one twominute spot a week, aired on the NPR satellite. It was apparently very well received and is certainly something worth pursuing as a format in the future. We failed to get long-term sponsorship, unfortunately, and the idea died. What makes a good archaeological television program? Pryor: That’s easy. Both good books and good radio/television programmes must tell a good story. A bright idea is not the same as a good story. Nor is a big discovery. Stories, like good solos in jazz, must have a beginning, a middle, and an end. They must be disciplined and not self-indulgent. They can have a twist at the end, but not predictably like a Somerset Maugham short story. They can also wander from the point to increase the tension. But everything that happens must ultimately advance the story. David Collison, one of the best directors with whom I ever had the pleasure to work, would always ask, ‘Does that advance the story?’ If it failed that simple test, it was out – even if the delivery was brilliant and the photography superb. It had to be relevant. Julian Richards’s Meet the Ancestors had CLACK_CH_05.qxd 5/18/2007 2:42 PM Page 128 128 Marcus Brittain and Timothy Clack a format, but it didn’t dominate the show and Julian was able to do what he does naturally and with such warmth, which is to tell a good story. Time Team also works well because the format, which is vastly more elaborate and perhaps slightly better thought out, does not dictate the content. Each programme must tell a story, which is why Time Team can be good and not so good. Even the poorer ones are vastly superior to some of the lamentable clones that have been produced with TV license payers’ money; the clones failed because they allowed (or worse, were encouraged to allow) style to dominate content and narrative. As a result, they patronised the viewer. Archaeological programmes must rise above considerations of mere format. We owe that to our great subject – and to our viewers who are growing increasingly discerning. Fagan: An ideal TV program is one that takes the viewer along with a scientist as he or she makes discoveries, and above all shows how scientists reach the conclusions they do. I’ve found that people are far more interested in archaeological detective work than they are in travelogues or sensationalism. American TV tends to be more superficial and sensation loving, which is why there are so many programs on Egypt and mummies and such things as mysteries of the pyramids. Is American TV missing out, then, on a format that could result with potentially higher viewing figures and a much more lucrative market – one that is also presumably more attuned to the process of archaeological interpretation? Fagan: American TV is a highly fractured marketplace, with so many cable channels. Many people seem to think that it’s only PBS and the Discovery Channel, but there’s much more – even the Archaeology Channel, which broadcasts nothing else. No one here does what the BBC or Channel 4 does, there being an emphasis on celebrities, sensational discoveries, and docudramas. We are long overdue for a firstrate series on archaeology that reaches the standards set by the BBC and Channel 4. Raising the money will, however, be very difficult. Remember that archaeology is not a very popular TV subject here compared with Europe, partly because much of it is concerned with native Americans, who are not considered by many people to be ‘our’ history. More recently, Brian, you have suggested that radio is an untapped forum for archaeological communication. Could you explain further how and why you foresee radio as a useful communication device for archaeology? CLACK_CH_05.qxd 5/18/2007 2:42 PM Page 129 In the Camera’s Lens 129 Fagan: I think radio is an untapped resource for archaeology in the United States, especially through satellite radio and other outlets that have not yet been harnessed for such programming. Radio has the advantage of being cheap to produce, easy to disseminate, and very immediate. It is far more cost-effective than television or film. Short radio spots can be produced quickly, reflect very recent discoveries indeed, and are easily copied and used in the classroom. I regard them as an ideal, and little used, way of reaching a very broad audience with up-to-date archaeology. Radio does not have the prestige or cachet of TV, but how else can you get a discovery literally from the ground out to a broad audience within hours? (I have done it.) Radio is a wonderful way of getting short snippets about archaeology out to very broad audiences. This works very well with audiences that listen to the radio in their cars. The approach has been used successfully with astronomy by the University of Texas for years. In Patterns of the Past, the NEH-sponsored series I was involved in during the 1980s, we did two- and five-minute spots that were heard by millions of people. With careful writing, you can produce vivid images in the listener’s mind without using pictures. We focused on ideas, discoveries, methods. Pryor: I think Brian’s right and largely because – to use an old cliche – the pictures are better. Julian Richards has done some splendid stuff for Radio 4. I tend to work with programmes, such as Radio 4’s Open Country, which are not specifically geared towards archaeology but integrate it with other aspects of rural Britain. Incidentally, Maisie [Taylor] and I are recording something tomorrow for them to do with the history and exploitation of oak trees. I think that’s what I like about archaeology on radio – somehow the medium is less inclined to force our subject into a narrowly defined pigeonhole. Archaeology is, after all, about the totality of the past. It’s more than a speciality interest – or should be. Do you think it is becoming more acceptable, specifically in academic circles, to write general – yet serious – archaeological works that explore and communicate a wider picture to a ‘discerning’ public? Pryor: I wish it was; instead, I think that the Research Assessment Exercise [RAE] is having precisely the opposite effect. None of the last six books I’ve written (two for Tempus and four for HarperCollins) would have counted towards the RAE. Now, I gather that journals are to be graded so that some are better than others. This would mean that the best and most original piece of scholarly/academic work I ever CLACK_CH_05.qxd 5/18/2007 2:42 PM Page 130 130 Marcus Brittain and Timothy Clack wrote – the Fengate Third Report [Northamptonshire Archaeology Monograph 1/Royal Ontario Museum Monograph 6, 1980] – would have scored lower than, say, a short note in Antiquity. This is the sort of thing that happens when cretins – themselves incapable of original research (because otherwise they’d be doing it) – take charge of ‘standards’ in higher education. Incidentally, I don’t see why, as your question implies, one should necessarily write for a ‘discerning public’. Surely, it’s just as valid – maybe more so – to write for an undiscerning public; these, after all, are the people we need to win round to our cause. Fagan: In a world over here in the United States where the publishor-perish system is intensifying in the face of increasing competition for fewer academic jobs, I would say that writing any general book for the public or a broader audience is unlikely to do you much good in the research university environment. Conventional wisdom argues that it’s better to do it once you have achieved tenure. The language of publish or perish culture is ‘peer reviewed articles in established journals’ and peer-reviewed books published by university presses. The fact that most general books get far more scrutiny than peerreviewed publications seems to have escaped notice. Another factor that comes into play is the increasing specialisation within archaeology, which makes it harder for people to contemplate writing a book, say, on the archaeology of Alberta or New Jersey. The near frenetic insistence on publication credit is one reason for the proliferation of specialised edited volumes, which to my mind are one of the curses of modern-day academia. Although many archaeologists recognise the importance of communicating with the wider audience, it is often still considered (for all the denials) to be ‘lightweight’ and marginal – which is, of course, arrogant nonsense. Writing for general audiences, including textbooks, is the hardest thing I’ve ever done archaeologically. How well equipped are archaeologists for dealing with the media in its varying formats? Pryor: By and large, archaeologists in the UK get precious little training for dealing with the media. In fact, I think it’s getting worse. Certainly, I find interviewees are becoming less and less willing to speak succinctly, which is the entire secret of good broadcasting. The less you say, the more will be transmitted. Having said that, I now do lectures for Mike Parker Pearson at Sheffield University and these seem to go down quite well with the students. But then you can’t pack a lifetime’s experience into an hour a year. CLACK_CH_05.qxd 5/18/2007 2:42 PM Page 131 In the Camera’s Lens 131 Fagan: American archaeologists are generally poorly equipped to write for general audiences and for dealing with the media. Generally (and this is of course a gross generalisation), they receive specialised graduate training that exposes them to the formulae for writing academic papers and reports. Add to this the generally appalling standard of writing in high schools and at the undergraduate level, and you have a lot of impenetrable writing about the past. I have on occasion been asked to rewrite a technical report for archaeologists! Although this is changing very slightly, American graduate students receive absolutely no training in dealing with the wider audience or the media. They learn this as they go along on their own. The great explosion of cultural resource management [CRM] is changing this somewhat, but major graduate research programs are not changing with the times. Remember that the Ph.D. is a specialised research degree, not a degree in how to live in the real archaeological world. I have no idea how this compares with Britain, although archaeology enjoys a much higher public consciousness in the UK thanks to TV and radio, also the press. We have the added complication over here that a great deal of archaeology is the anthropology and history of native Americans, the history of ‘them’ rather than ‘us’, although this issue has received little attention. For all the common methods and theoretical approaches between North America and Europe, they are two very different archaeological worlds – and I’m not talking about the archaeological record here. In Australia, ‘indigenous media’ is one of the fastest-growing sectors, having arisen from a growing discontent with mainstream media misrepresentation of indigenous affairs. How extensive is indigenous media in the United States and is it something that archaeologists should take note of, or indeed work with? Fagan: Archaeologists here generally take no notice of indigenous media. There is a great deal of interaction with Native Americans going on at the moment. Indeed, there are Native American archaeology units, like the one run by the Zuni nation, which are very successful. The overlay of private sector CRM – which takes up a great deal of energy, time, money, and attention – diverts a lot of archaeological attention as well. I wouldn’t say that indigenous concerns are all that high on the archaeological agenda here. But there is certainly concern about communicating with Native Americans. What I was talking about was the public perception of American history, which very much begins with Columbus. CLACK_CH_05.qxd 5/18/2007 2:42 PM Page 132 132 Marcus Brittain and Timothy Clack Do archaeologists fear the images created of them in the media? Fagan: No, they do not. And there is no reason to fear them, as the popular stereotype of the archaeologist as a treasure hunter is dead as the dodo over here. Most media here seem to do their best to communicate accurately, and if there is a problem, it’s usually a chasm of misunderstanding during an interview. I have found most journalists over here to be even handed, interested in doing a good job, and concerned to be accurate. But we do not have the tabloid interest you do in the UK (they are absurd here). And remember that archaeology is generally not an important story in the United States. We are very low on the totem pole. Pryor: For the UK? It’s hard to say. And besides, I’m not sure that the media does ‘create’ an image. Phil Harding [of Time Team], for example, is like that in the flesh. He is a larger-than-life character, which is one of the reasons he comes across so well on the screen. But he also has very firm views on what does and does not constitute good archaeological practice and woe betide anyone, media or non-media, who tries to make him do anything he isn’t happy about doing. My advice to anyone who seems a bit hesitant or fearful is to act yourself. Don’t pose because that always appears what it is – phoney. How challenging has it been to become literate in the language of the media? Is the media now becoming literate in the language of archaeology? Francis: As I’ve always been interested in photography and filming, I haven’t found it at all challenging, but then I’m not sure to what extent I have ‘mastered’ mediaspeak. Certainly, when we’re doing a ‘live’ broadcast, the stuff coming into my ear from the mixing truck is incomprehensible – involving strange things like ‘Astons’. Being interested in process – all process, be it archaeological or broadcasting – I’ll ask what these terms mean, not just because I’m curious but because it’s a good way of finding out about other people’s careers and lives. ‘Astons’ incidentally are those strap lines that appear on screen when one starts speaking: ‘Dr. Francis Pryor, Bronze Age expert’, or whatever. Fagan: There are two magical words when dealing with the media, or the public as a whole: common sense. I have found that if you are open, cooperative, and answer questions clearly, you will have no problems – but I am not dealing with English tabloids. I would not describe myself literate in the language of the media, although I work with them a lot. I don’t know what that means! I work with them, they have deadlines, it seems to work out fine. I have never had a problem. The media over CLACK_CH_05.qxd 5/18/2007 2:42 PM Page 133 In the Camera’s Lens 133 here are no more literate in archaeology than they are in physics, global warming, or rugby football. It’s whatever crosses their desks, unless of course you are dealing with science journalists at publications like the New York Times or Time magazine, who often know more than you do. Have you ever felt that you have compromised your intellectual credibility in a dispute with a producer, and could you explain the best practice for negotiating conflicting ideas with media producers? Pryor: If in doubt, say no. A year or two ago, I was approached by a broadcaster as a possible presenter on a series. After several phone calls, it became clear to me that the series would approach the subject from – how can I put this without betraying the series that was eventually made – a (very) non-archaeological perspective. But I needed the work. So I was determined to have a nose-to-nose with the producer if I got the job, and if he or she didn’t satisfy my concerns, then I’d decline the offer. I don’t see what else I could have done. In the event, thank Heavens, they found someone very much more decorative than me. No, in my experience most producers are reasonable people and very rarely want to make their contributors feel uncomfortable – because it’ll show in the finished product. Fagan: My experience with TV has been very eclectic. I have generally had few problems with producers, indeed have had some excellent experiences. The best ones have a strong visual sense, are not interested in egos and tantrums, and are utterly professional. I live only two hours from Hollywood and know enough people that I can get a quiet lowdown on most individuals who approach me, which saves trouble. But most people I have dealt with have been cooperative and professional. How do you feel about the programmes with which you have been involved becoming material culture that will be interpreted by media archaeologists in the future? Pryor: Any work you do – be it written, radio, or television – becomes grist for the historian’s mill. If that worries you, then you shouldn’t publish in any form. I’ve always tried to speak the truth and sometimes, being human, I get things wrong. Even so, it doesn’t worry me too much because any historian worthy of the name will assess past work in the contexts of its time. I can’t say I share politicians’ obsession with their ‘legacy’ – something which seems to be bothering our respective leaders at present. Fagan: I think that ‘media archaeology’ is a completely frivolous idea and certainly not a worthy academic pursuit. There are far more important things to study. I doubt if any program with which I have CLACK_CH_05.qxd 5/18/2007 2:42 PM Page 134 134 Marcus Brittain and Timothy Clack been involved with over the past 40 years will ever yield any revealing information on ‘historically situated social patterns’, whatever they are. Most producers I have encountered are well aware of trends and past programmes. The less archaeology has to do with ‘media studies,’ the better in my view. In my experience, the best archaeology programmes and series are those made with passion by people who believe in what they are doing and care out it. Francis is a stellar example, so is Mick Aston [of Time Team]. You don’t need media archaeology to tell you that. To paraphrase the words of Noel Annan to Glyn Daniel in 1955, will archaeology survive the meretricious image of being a television star? Pryor: I remember that – it was unusually pompous for Noel Annan, who was actually a nice person. I also recall Cyril Fletcher’s better use of the word at a Pantomime in the Arts Theatre, Cambridge, in the 1960s: ‘Meretricious and a Happy New Year to you all!’ Where was I? Ah yes, improving relations with the media: personally I don’t think we should give it a moment’s thought. As soon as we start to think about and then manage our relations with the media, we’ll all relapse into PR babble and produce the sort of safe and dreary corporate ‘ideas’ that might please certain middle-of-the-road programme makers. Programmes assembled by committees (and I have taken part in one or two) are a yawn to make and even worse to watch. It seems to me that archaeology’s greatest strength lies in the individuals who practice it. We should cherish them and their individuality, and if this produces good programme ideas, then well and good. If it doesn’t, then too bad. The world won’t end if archaeology is off the television for a few years. Fagan: I suggest that archaeology continue doing what it is doing: use common sense when talking and dealing with the media. There will always be a few archaeologists who will become TV personalities, and they will deserve it. I find most media people are very professional and expect the people they deal with, whether archaeologists or frog experts, to be the same. But I think it’s important that we realise that the old stereotype of someone who deals with the public, writes popular works, or – horror of horrors – appears on TV is not a sound archaeologist is now dead as the proverbial dodo, and was never anything but arrogant nonsense anyhow.