Comments on: National Geographic’s Diggers: is it better? http://www.sha.org/blog/index.php/2013/02/national-geographics-diggers-is-it-better/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=national-geographics-diggers-is-it-better Society for Historical Archaeology Fri, 13 Sep 2013 15:12:31 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.1 By: James Brown http://www.sha.org/blog/index.php/2013/02/national-geographics-diggers-is-it-better/#comment-362 James Brown Tue, 06 Aug 2013 03:46:00 +0000 http://www.sha.org/blog/?p=2699#comment-362 Worst show ever. Worst show ever.

]]> By: Chris Espenshade http://www.sha.org/blog/index.php/2013/02/national-geographics-diggers-is-it-better/#comment-294 Chris Espenshade Mon, 11 Feb 2013 17:14:00 +0000 http://www.sha.org/blog/?p=2699#comment-294 Paul: We went to DC in a position of power.  National Geographic was concerned that professional archaeologists were in such an uproar.  I am not convinced that shows will go on, at least not on the National Geographic Network, if the professional outcry were to continue.  I think it is too early to shrug and say it is going to happen with or without us.  Please recall that National Geographic pulled their show the first time.  I think, as a discipline, we have given up much too easily on a key ethical point. I recognize how hard it is to get things done in any volunteer organization, but a six-month delay is unfortunate.  During that span, how many viewers will walk away with the wrong impression that professional archaeologists condone the dollar valuation of artifacts?  How many professionals will be left in a fog of not knowing whether or not the participation of the series archaeologist and any guest archaeologists is unethical per SHA guidelines?   There is room on TV for a program that teams avocational detectorists and professional archaeologists.  Diggers, in its present form, is not that show.  We should not be giving them a pass on the key ethical issues because they made some minor concessions elsewhere.  There is no imperative that says we must continue to work with or support Diggers.   I encourage the SHA leadership to address this promptly, rather than waiting six months to even define a course of action.   Thanks, Chris Paul:

We went to DC in a position of power.  National Geographic was concerned that professional archaeologists were in such an uproar.  I am not convinced that shows will go on, at least not on the National Geographic Network, if the professional outcry were to continue.  I think it is too early to shrug and say it is going to happen with or without us.  Please recall that National Geographic pulled their show the first time.  I think, as a discipline, we have given up much too easily on a key ethical point.

I recognize how hard it is to get things done in any volunteer organization, but a six-month delay is unfortunate.  During that span, how many viewers will walk away with the wrong impression that professional archaeologists condone the dollar valuation of artifacts?  How many professionals will be left in a fog of not knowing whether or not the participation of the series archaeologist and any guest archaeologists is unethical per SHA guidelines?  

There is room on TV for a program that teams avocational detectorists and professional archaeologists.  Diggers, in its present form, is not that show.  We should not be giving them a pass on the key ethical issues because they made some minor concessions elsewhere.  There is no imperative that says we must continue to work with or support Diggers.  

I encourage the SHA leadership to address this promptly, rather than waiting six months to even define a course of action.  

Thanks,

Chris

]]> By: Paul Mullins http://www.sha.org/blog/index.php/2013/02/national-geographics-diggers-is-it-better/#comment-293 Paul Mullins Mon, 11 Feb 2013 16:46:00 +0000 http://www.sha.org/blog/?p=2699#comment-293 SHA is at the moment trying to be fair and firm partners with National Geographic Television without sacrificing our ethics or science, and we are not at all committed as individual scholars or as SHA to accept whatever representations of artifact recovery made in this or any other television show.  Both the SHA Board and the Advisory Council on Underwater Archaeology discussed some of these issues during the January meetings in Leicester, including the complications of what precisely constitutes "commercial exploitation": we need some clarity on whether providing a dollar value is an ethical violation in the same way as hawking an artifact online.  I do believe National Geographic has partnered with a range of archaeologists in good faith, but I also acknowledge that even the best intentions may not ultimately measure up to our professional standards, and the SHA Board agreed to revisit this at our mid-year meeting and provide systematic feedback to National Geographic about the changes they have made since the May, 2012 meeting, identifying areas they may have improved as where as places where we would like to see more change.  Dan Sivilich's posting agrees that he has seen little substantive change since last May, and he is also fundamentally offended as a responsible detectorist who has worked extensively with archaeologists and wants to encourage archaeologists to resist facile caricatures of detectorists as "treasure hunters."  I remain convinced that we can do responsible partnering around these sorts of programs focused on detectorists working in the US because we are simply compelled to do so (internationally, metal detecting law creates somewhat different issues because local laws differ quite a lot from place to place, and some of the discussions here about artifact recovery and ethics are not really good parallels to many other places).  These shows will press on with or without us, so I personally think the effort now is well-placed even if it does result in some frustrations along the way. SHA is at the moment trying to be fair and firm partners with National Geographic Television without sacrificing our ethics or science, and we are not at all committed as individual scholars or as SHA to accept whatever representations of artifact recovery made in this or any other television show.  Both the SHA Board and the Advisory Council on Underwater Archaeology discussed some of these issues during the January meetings in Leicester, including the complications of what precisely constitutes “commercial exploitation”: we need some clarity on whether providing a dollar value is an ethical violation in the same way as hawking an artifact online.  I do believe National Geographic has partnered with a range of archaeologists in good faith, but I also acknowledge that even the best intentions may not ultimately measure up to our professional standards, and the SHA Board agreed to revisit this at our mid-year meeting and provide systematic feedback to National Geographic about the changes they have made since the May, 2012 meeting, identifying areas they may have improved as where as places where we would like to see more change.  Dan Sivilich’s posting agrees that he has seen little substantive change since last May, and he is also fundamentally offended as a responsible detectorist who has worked extensively with archaeologists and wants to encourage archaeologists to resist facile caricatures of detectorists as “treasure hunters.”  I remain convinced that we can do responsible partnering around these sorts of programs focused on detectorists working in the US because we are simply compelled to do so (internationally, metal detecting law creates somewhat different issues because local laws differ quite a lot from place to place, and some of the discussions here about artifact recovery and ethics are not really good parallels to many other places).  These shows will press on with or without us, so I personally think the effort now is well-placed even if it does result in some frustrations along the way.

]]> By: Chris Espenshade http://www.sha.org/blog/index.php/2013/02/national-geographics-diggers-is-it-better/#comment-292 Chris Espenshade Mon, 11 Feb 2013 14:31:00 +0000 http://www.sha.org/blog/?p=2699#comment-292 I must respectfully disagree with the positions being taken by the SHA, RPA, and SAA on Diggers.  The ethical guidelines are being allowed to slip, simply because National Geographic has made certain small concessions to appease the archaeologist.  However, the key ethical problem with the program -- the posting of dollar values for the artifacts -- remains.  Dr. Ewen dismisses these concerns based on two points: 1) the Digger folks are not actually selling the artifacts; and 2) all the other reality shows are doing it.  On the first point, the intent of ethical guidelines against valuation does not come with the provision that such valuation is discouraged only if items are to be sold.  Any public presentation of dollar values runs the risk of promoting looting.  SHA is not supposed to be condoning programs that encourage looting.  On the second point, ethics are not designed as a popularity contest, and should not shift at the whim of public opinion.  Yes, there are a lot of reality shows that place dollar values on items, some excavated.  However, that does not mean it is right to condone such behavior.  The bedrock ethical guidelines were established for a reason, and we should not be eroding those guidelines just because popular culture has another opinion. I was at the DC meeting where changes to Diggers were discussed.  The network has made only the least changes they could and still hope to appease the archaeologists.  Most of the changes do not even appear in the program; instead, you have to dive into their website to find the additions.   If the RPA, SHA, and SAA have changed their ethical guidelines, they should share that information with their membership.  As it now stands, it is a very confusing situation.  I am ethically prohibited from offering a dollar valuation for a projectile point that somebody's grandfather collected 30 years ago, but professional archaeologists can be party to a program that broadcasts artifact values to a large audience.  I understand the desire to work with National Geographic and to use Diggers to educate people on proper archaeology.  However, the small changes the network has made are very minor compared with the major ethical concession being made by SHA, RPA, and SAA.  The average viewer is receiving the message that professional archaeologists have no problem with the valuation of artifacts (and by extension, with their sale.  Why else put a dollar value on an artifact?).  I do not think that this is image of archaeology that we want to spread. I encourage SAA, SHA, and RPA to revisit their tacit support of Diggers.  I also ask these organizations to clarify their ethical positions relative to participation by a professional archaeologist on a program that offers dollar values.  Thank you for considering these arguments. Chris Espenshade    I must respectfully disagree with the positions being taken by the SHA, RPA, and SAA on Diggers.  The ethical guidelines are being allowed to slip, simply because National Geographic has made certain small concessions to appease the archaeologist.  However, the key ethical problem with the program — the posting of dollar values for the artifacts — remains.  Dr. Ewen dismisses these concerns based on two points: 1) the Digger folks are not actually selling the artifacts; and 2) all the other reality shows are doing it.  On the first point, the intent of ethical guidelines against valuation does not come with the provision that such valuation is discouraged only if items are to be sold.  Any public presentation of dollar values runs the risk of promoting looting.  SHA is not supposed to be condoning programs that encourage looting.  On the second point, ethics are not designed as a popularity contest, and should not shift at the whim of public opinion.  Yes, there are a lot of reality shows that place dollar values on items, some excavated.  However, that does not mean it is right to condone such behavior.  The bedrock ethical guidelines were established for a reason, and we should not be eroding those guidelines just because popular culture has another opinion.

I was at the DC meeting where changes to Diggers were discussed.  The network has made only the least changes they could and still hope to appease the archaeologists.  Most of the changes do not even appear in the program; instead, you have to dive into their website to find the additions.  

If the RPA, SHA, and SAA have changed their ethical guidelines, they should share that information with their membership.  As it now stands, it is a very confusing situation.  I am ethically prohibited from offering a dollar valuation for a projectile point that somebody’s grandfather collected 30 years ago, but professional archaeologists can be party to a program that broadcasts artifact values to a large audience.  I understand the desire to work with National Geographic and to use Diggers to educate people on proper archaeology.  However, the small changes the network has made are very minor compared with the major ethical concession being made by SHA, RPA, and SAA.  The average viewer is receiving the message that professional archaeologists have no problem with the valuation of artifacts (and by extension, with their sale.  Why else put a dollar value on an artifact?).  I do not think that this is image of archaeology that we want to spread.

I encourage SAA, SHA, and RPA to revisit their tacit support of Diggers.  I also ask these organizations to clarify their ethical positions relative to participation by a professional archaeologist on a program that offers dollar values. 

Thank you for considering these arguments.

Chris Espenshade   

]]> By: Scott Clark http://www.sha.org/blog/index.php/2013/02/national-geographics-diggers-is-it-better/#comment-290 Scott Clark Fri, 01 Feb 2013 20:26:00 +0000 http://www.sha.org/blog/?p=2699#comment-290 This is the kind of response that keeps us in the detecting hobby held back.  Nice. This is the kind of response that keeps us in the detecting hobby held back.  Nice.

]]> By: Ticker_shuffle http://www.sha.org/blog/index.php/2013/02/national-geographics-diggers-is-it-better/#comment-289 Ticker_shuffle Fri, 01 Feb 2013 17:57:00 +0000 http://www.sha.org/blog/?p=2699#comment-289 Archaeologist - okay...whatever it takes for them to feel important.  They are upset about the value of the items found?  Clearly they aren't worried about money too much, since they decided to major in archaeology.  Let it go, already. Archaeologist – okay…whatever it takes for them to feel important.  They are upset about the value of the items found?  Clearly they aren’t worried about money too much, since they decided to major in archaeology.  Let it go, already.

]]> By: Amanda Morrow http://www.sha.org/blog/index.php/2013/02/national-geographics-diggers-is-it-better/#comment-288 Amanda Morrow Fri, 01 Feb 2013 16:25:00 +0000 http://www.sha.org/blog/?p=2699#comment-288 The new season of Time Team America is aiming to be more exciting to viewers without compromising scientific integrity. Hopefully it works out! Thanks for this insightful review of the revamped Diggers show, it certainly seems like a step in the right direction. The new season of Time Team America is aiming to be more exciting to viewers without compromising scientific integrity. Hopefully it works out! Thanks for this insightful review of the revamped Diggers show, it certainly seems like a step in the right direction.

]]> By: Scott Clark http://www.sha.org/blog/index.php/2013/02/national-geographics-diggers-is-it-better/#comment-287 Scott Clark Fri, 01 Feb 2013 15:45:00 +0000 http://www.sha.org/blog/?p=2699#comment-287 I feel, as an responsible detectorists, that we are finally getting somewhere with the National Geographic Show.  I think that, if your tone down their silliness, the guys on the show are a much more realistic representation of our hobby's majority.  The Spike "American Diggers" show is offensive to our hobby. We all morn the damage it's caused. Most of the detectorists I know are lovers of history, interested in adding to the dataset, and willing to increase the level of rigor used in our hunting.  Most have never sold anything they've found, and return most identified objects to owners (I returned 3 valuable rings in 2012 to owners.) I would happily work with local archaeologists with my hobby - but the respect must be bi-directional.  My last 4 emails to regional academics about ideas have gone unanswered.  Our historical society's 2012 annual report referred to the detecting community as "treasure hunters and looters" ...And in recent legislative sessions in Kentucky, there was a lot of unwarranted name calling and falsehoods taking the place of civilized discussion.  My respect for the discipline was shaken, but not broken. I'll be going to Montpelier in March to earn my MACP certification and gain a clearer understanding of the methodology and motivations of professionals.  I hope that this will clarify my ideas for working together in the future.  I think that someday permits should be issued for detecting on public lands with accountability and a protocol.   Could digital archives with detectorist credit be a good idea? I'd happily (and patriotically) surrender the odd artifact I find during coin hunting from public lands for academia if I could point my website to the finds and research around them online. I'm filled with hope. I feel, as an responsible detectorists, that we are finally getting somewhere with the National Geographic Show.  I think that, if your tone down their silliness, the guys on the show are a much more realistic representation of our hobby’s majority.  The Spike “American Diggers” show is offensive to our hobby. We all morn the damage it’s caused.

Most of the detectorists I know are lovers of history, interested in adding to the dataset, and willing to increase the level of rigor used in our hunting.  Most have never sold anything they’ve found, and return most identified objects to owners (I returned 3 valuable rings in 2012 to owners.)

I would happily work with local archaeologists with my hobby – but the respect must be bi-directional.  My last 4 emails to regional academics about ideas have gone unanswered.  Our historical society’s 2012 annual report referred to the detecting community as “treasure hunters and looters” …And in recent legislative sessions in Kentucky, there was a lot of unwarranted name calling and falsehoods taking the place of civilized discussion.  My respect for the discipline was shaken, but not broken.

I’ll be going to Montpelier in March to earn my MACP certification and gain a clearer understanding of the methodology and motivations of professionals.  I hope that this will clarify my ideas for working together in the future.  I think that someday permits should be issued for detecting on public lands with accountability and a protocol.   Could digital archives with detectorist credit be a good idea? I’d happily (and patriotically) surrender the odd artifact I find during coin hunting from public lands for academia if I could point my website to the finds and research around them online. I’m filled with hope.

]]>