I have read your blog posting and the President’s Corner in the recent SHA newsletter. I am concerned that you and leaders of the other professional organizations continue to miss the point. There is no reason to be mystified why some archaeologists feel that any involvement or support of Diggers is unethical. The ethic statements of all the major organizations state that professional archaeologists will not undertake activities that may promote site looting and the selling of artifacts. When a show such as Diggers presents the digging of artifacts and then immediately shows the market value for those items, there is no question that the show will prompt people to dig artifacts for their monetary value. Therefore, any participation in this show, whether as a guest archaeologist or the staff archaeologist is unethical.

This is not a gray area. That is the refuge of archaeologists who do not want to stand by their ethics. The whole point of establishing baseline ethical standards is to prevent gray areas, and to avoid attempts to redefine our ethics when a new situation comes along. SHA, SAA, and RPA should be condemning this show, and should be pushing the National Geographic Network to stop providing market values for the dug artifacts. As a profession, we should be clear that it is unethical for a professional archaeologist to be involved in such shows.

Please let me take a moment to address some possible counter-arguments. I was both amazed and disappointed when the RPA Grievance Coordinator said there were no ethical issues with an archaeologist participating on Diggers. In her counter-argument,she presented the valuation of collections donated to museums as a direct parallel. Her logic is faulty on three key points of comparison:

1. Such valuations for contributions are for tax purposes, and do not represent the actual value that the donor might achieve on the open market. The museum valuations apply only to the value if a collection is donated. The tax break is never equal to the full market value of the items. The cents on the dollar tax benefits are not considered by SAA, SHA, and RPA to encourage looting of sites to sell artifacts. In contrast, Diggers shows the act of digging the artifacts and slaps up a full market price. There can be little doubt that the flashing of dollar amounts for dug artifacts will encourage certain detectorists to follow the example on TV and loot sites to recover items for the market.

2. Museum valuations may occur without knowledge of where and how the collection was gathered. In contrast, on Diggers there is a direct and immediate valuation of dug artifacts. There is no ambiguity about where the Digger items originated,

3. Museum valuations are not shared with a huge TV viewing audience. They are usually
private arrangements between the donor and the museum. In contrast, Diggers flashes the dollar
valuation to all its viewers. By the network’s own admission, the provision of dollar values is a key element of the program.

So, there is no validity to the claim that museum valuation of contributed items (an acceptable practice) is analogous to a TV show where relics are first dug and then valued. The museum valuation counter-argument is not valid.

You offered another parallel, when you argued that Diggers was just doing what Antiques Roadshow does. Again, this is a faulty comparison. The Roadshow has a general policy not to include items that they know have been looted. The Roadshow certainly does not include footage of an item being ripped from the ground immediately before valuation. There is no realistic similarity.

Another worrisome counter-argument is that the National Geographic Network (NGN) concessions will help educate people about the archaeological process, and that fact somehow should over-ride the ethical concerns. This is a very twisted logic. Although there is some mention of research in Season 2, the overall show is at best confusing regarding what archaeologists do. Why would there be any need to show dollar valuations of artifacts if they were all going to a museum or curation
facility? Do we really want the public thinking that professional archaeologists sell what they find? If NGN overhauled their show a second time,removed all mentions of dollar values, and emphasized archaeology, context, and research design, then the show would be a good opportunity to teach the public about archaeology. Whether or not the show might have some redeeming value, we are not allowed to simply throw out a baseline ethical principle.

The most dangerous counter-argument is that we should be happy with the concessions made by the network. This implies that ethics are scored or rated on improvement. Ethics are an absolute. An action either abides by the baseline ethics – in this case, a professional archaeologist will not be involved in any activity that may promote the looting of sites and selling of artifacts – or it does not. There is no grey area in ethics. That is the whole point of ethics, so a group does not have to decide anew on a case by case basis where they stand on crucial issues. The baseline ethical statements should not be applied with an asterisk (*National Geographic Network made some concessions, so in this case we are going to abandon our baseline ethic on looting and selling artifacts).

Lastly, let’s consider the counter-argument of Kelly Britt (earlier blog on this post). Britt argues that not every viewer of Diggers is going to run into their backyard and start digging for treasure. Britt does not understand the ethical obligations of professional archaeologists. Our principles do not come with a measure. We do not say 1 percent of a TV audience looting sites is acceptable, but 50 percent would not be. Professional archaeologists are to avoid any activity that might prompt even one person to loot. By Britt’s own calculations, some viewers of Diggers are going to be prompted to loot. That some is all it takes to bring the ethical principle into play, and to say archaeologists should not have a role in this show.

To be clear, I am not saying that archaeologists cannot be involved in lobbying NGN to change the show. However, on-screen participation as a guest archaeologist or staff archaeologist on Diggers, in its current format, is an ethical violation. It is time that the SHA, SAA, and RPA stop hiding behind supposed gray areas and invalid counter-arguments. It is time for SHA, SAA, and RPA to tell their members and NGN that professional archaeologists should not be appearing on Diggers, and to do so will be considered an ethical breach. We are well beyond the point where your call to “continue to monitor” is enough. I ask our professional organizations to step up on this issue.

Thank you.

However, I think we also might need to give the viewers of
these shows more credit than we have been—not everyone who watches these shows
is going to run into their backyard and start digging for treasure. To
illustrate my point, as an end of year project for my Introduction to
Archaeology course last fall I had my students watch either National Geographic’s
Diggers or Spike TV’s American Digger and critique it. As
background—the class was made up of all levels-Freshman through Seniors, mainly
anthropology majors but none had a previous experience in archaeology or taken
any archaeology courses prior to this class. My first class questionnaire illustrated
the link popular culture and archaeology already have for I posed the
question-“What do you think of when you think of the word archaeologist?” It was
met with seven out of 33 students answering “Indiana Jones”. After watching the
shows we as a class had a great discussion about them. The theme that coming up
from multiple students is that they could watch these shows for what they were—entertainment and discern for themselves
the ridiculousness or over board antics that were done for “entertainment’s”
sake and diverged from the historic information being investigated. What was
also interesting is that many of them ended up looking up more information on the
topics that were presented in the show. While they knew a lot of the show was
filled with non-information, the show did provide a stepping stone into
subjects or areas they may not have otherwise been exposed to. While I realize
this is not the case for all viewers who watch this show or any other like this
on TV—it does show that many do not view it as “history” but rather
“entertainment” and discern the difference.

We also should remember there have been positive shows-or at
least more positive ones such as Time
Team and PBS specials that incorporate community archaeology projects into
a larger historical documentary such as Michael Wood’s Story of England. There have also been historical reality TV shows
such as 1900 House, 1940s House, Frontier House, and Colonial
House to name a few that brought living history to a whole new level. I
found many of these shows fascinating and intrigued that many of these
successful shows such as Time Team
and some of the living history series were designed “across the pond”. This
introduces a completely different subject on US versus Europe’s view of the
past and the idea of collective versus individual memory and the role of
popular culture in all of this, so before I digress too much, I would like to
pose that perhaps the wave of the future for archaeology is to look towards popular culture rather than away
from it. Archaeology and popular culture are here to stay and will evolve with
or without us—it’s really our decision to be included in the dialogue.

Mike Polk
Sagebrush Consultants, L.L.C.
Ogden, Utah