Okay, so first topic up for Discussion the critically claimed film drama, The Dig, which reimagines the events surrounding, and the main excavation event, of course, the 1939 Sutton Hoo discovery. This is one of the most significant archaeological discoveries, certainly relating to the Early Medieval period, ever made, so this production had a lot to live up to, particularly for the archaeologist viewership. Why particularly the archaeology crowd, well, we haven’t exactly got a precedent of accurate representation for what we do, but then again what most of us do is spend hours clearing layer after layer of sediment and finding nothing, in all weathers, climates, and seasons, others of us spend our lives dedicated to studying fragments of beige pottery, shards of disintegrating animal bone, tiny black specks which turn out to be carbonised seeds or even the sediments themselves. What point am I trying to make, well, that I completely understand that a certain degree of romanticisation is required to make archaeology palatable for media aimed at the general public, I, like many of my colleagues did enjoy The Dig but that is not the point, I’ve been considering this a lot, its hard to ignore, my timeline has been full of the minutia of analysis but so far as I can see there are two main issues. The first I would argue is forgivable the second quite frankly makes my blood boil, but first some positives.
Basically, the cinematography and costume design are in some senses exceptional, certainly in terms of emoting mood and displaying the brilliance of the landscape, Suffolk, in which the excavation is situated. As a human I can appreciate these and the painstaking attention to detail which is undertaken to create a ‘fairytale’ from a literal spoil heap. Whilst I don’t believe Peggy Piggott herself would have been overjoyed at some of the costumes she is portrayed in, such as skirts, delicate fabrics, white and a lack of jumpers, as these are on the whole impractical for real-life archaeology, the show designs do at least play at being contemporary to the excavation period. I get it, it’s a film, art unbound by reality and perhaps it’s the romanticism that people need right now. I’ll leave the finicky positives and negatives here in favour of ranting about the real, potentially damaging issue surrounding this film. But first another minor complaint, that the piece completely ignored perhaps the best small story, which is so typical of the archaeology team camaraderie and brilliance I encounter. During the first excavation the son of Edith Pretty (Landowner), Robert, hid, read buried, a pair of his skates within the structure of Mound 2 during the back-filling process. Then when the site was excavated again in the 1980s what did those unsuspecting archaeologists find but a pair of early 1900s child’s skates and being archaeologists good and true what did they do, well the only responsible thing, officially catalogued them. This is what archaeology is a place where with hard work, you can still find with childlike awe the treasures, whatever they may now be, that you once dreamed of, a place where, whilst there is still work to do, there is respect and a unique relationship with some past archaeologists who did close to what we do now, regardless of gender, colour, disability, age or creed, boundary breakers all of them. This is archaeology and more, sometimes its draining and looks like the worst kind of muddy, freezing, windy, midge-infested hell, you have to be a little mad to be an archaeologist, other times its bizarre, confounding and ridiculous but every single moment is worth it.
Peggy Piggott, a hero, distinctly not wearing a skirt and simpering at the edge of the trench, excavating an Urn at Latch Farm. Photograph from a 1937 newspaper. Unfortunately, the assistant archaeologist she’s working with is unnamed, let me know if you know!
Second… Where on earth were all the strong FEMALE archaeologists who in 1939 were a major constituent of the team undertaking the Sutton Hoo excavation, did the production team decide an actual fact wasn’t believable enough in terms of modern pre-conceived notions of the time or is it just lazy researching… I’m not sure which is worse one reflects badly upon our society the other on the priorities of individual researchers. In all truth I don’t/cannot believe that this omission was intentional, but I suppose examples are required so here goes, one of the few Female Archaeologists presented in the production was one Peggy Piggott. Peggy is a bit of a hero of mine, I can’t imagine any colleagues of mine thinking of her differently, she was a pioneer and at the time, woman or not, one of the best trained excavators in Britain. But this production made her inexperienced, clumsy even and actually reduced this strong leader and career-driven woman into little more than a ‘love interest’ and for a completely fictional character too. Peggy Piggott in actuality, before the Sutton Hoo excavation had already excavated at Verulamium with Mortimer and Tessa Wheeler, both also Superstars of Archaeology, whom both praised her work, she also had a degree (diploma), her First degree (diploma) mind, from the University of Cambridge (1934). But let’s keep going shall we, she also had a postgraduate degree (diploma) in Western European Prehistory awarded by the London Institute of Archaeology, had worked at the flagship excavation of The Prehistoric Society at Little Woodbury (Wiltshire) which is also an important and influential site, apart from this she had managed to publish not one, not two but three well-received papers. So yes, I’m annoyed about how Peggy Piggott was portrayed, it isn’t even necessarily an acting issue but more endemic, it’s a writing issue, but I suppose at least Peggy was well, actually portrayed when so many others were not. Like for example the two WOMEN we have to thank for most if not all official photographs of the Sutton Hoo excavation, Mercie Lack and Barbara Wagstaff, they literally recorded the entire escapade, curated the iconic images which optimise Sutton Hoo and they are not included. Not only were they not included but were replaced by a Man. This is why I cannot suggest people see the film, cinema is an artistic medium and with that comes a certain degree of freedom to create, perhaps that means I am hypocritical when I say in this case, I cannot abide it. Because beneath all the haze of wonderous landscape representation, the poignancy of expressed emotion and my own delight at the concept of a film which portrayed true archaeology, all I can see is Peggy Piggott side-lined from a vocation she owned, dedicated her lifetime too, and Mercie Lack and Barbara Wagstaff erased.
Mercie Lack and Barbara Wagstaff doing their thing, photography, their thing is photography, near the completion of the 1939 Sutton Hoo excavation.
On another note because I’m sure we’ve all heard enough of that particular rant of mine, what about Stonehenge: The Lost Circle Revealed, which stated categorically that a number of the Stonehenge monoliths were in fact sourced from the pre-existing monument of Waun Mawn in Wales… the primary issue here is the certainty with which the BBC broadcast this message, when in fact the ACTUAL RESEARCH this programme is based on, published in Antiquity no less, is a lot more tentative about the existence of a so-called ‘Lost Circle’ at Waun Mawn. The research has been massively obscured and reduced, an unfortunate expectation now in the media, but worse it has been subjected to hyperbole, so that everyone who doesn’t check their facts, go back to the original research, because most people don’t have time, unfortunately believes it to be undisputable FACT that bluestone Stonehenge monoliths originated from a Stone Circle at Waun Mawn… I hate to break it to you but none of that is fact, it is theory. This is why it is one of my nightmares as an archaeologist that the media get involved in my work, don’t get me wrong I love public outreach and I recognise the value of such an opportunity, but I also know of too many good archaeologists brought down or annoyed by media misrepresentation, or misinterpretation. What we do is interesting, we don’t need inflated claims, and archaeologists don’t need the extra task of damage control.
On another note, the documentary was well produced, and it was all-round beneficial to see some more obscure, in terms of public attention, aspects of archaeology be dusted off and placed in the limelight. For example, some Experimental Archaeology in regard to how the monoliths could have potentially been transported, although this particular ‘Question?’ is a favourite of archaeologists and has been explored many times before. It was also great to see a programme which didn’t even attempt to clean-up archaeology, most of those there for discussion are actual experts in their field and obviously weren’t for example, as has been known to happen before, disregarded by militant content producers for non-expert ‘presenters’.
But honestly, like a great many archaeologists I’m over Stonehenge… referred to by a great many Profs. I know as ‘the archaeologist’s midlife crisis’. The best thing to come from yet another programme on Stonehenge was the brilliant #NotStonehenge counterculture formed by thousands of irate archaeologists and experts. You see its easy-to-get publicity when you write about Stonehenge, the media laps it up, but its less easy for example to get publicity for research on Lochbuie Stone Circle or Athgreany Stone Circle, even Avebury or the Ring of Brodgar, or Arbor Low or Carneddau or Stenness or, or, or…. On and on and on. Why? Because even archaeology has a North-South divide. With most research funds and grants being for research based on Southern sites because still that is where the primary economic centres of certainly England are, it's also the country's main focus of development, and that’s what prompts excavation these days, land development. Stonehenge because of this factor, and many more all associated with the North-South divide has quite simply become the poster-site for archaeology in the UK, so when something happens no matter how minimal and it has to do with Stonehenge, it gets airtime. I could go on about this for an age, and if you have questions feel free to contact me, but I think I’ve put you through enough of a ranting raving article for this month so…
#NotStonehenge Long Meg and her Daughters Attributed: Simon Ledingham
Stay safe in the big wide world.
Signing off,
Leia Tilley
References
Pearson, M., Pollard, J., Richards, C., Welham, K., Kinnaird, T., Shaw, D., Edinborough, K. (2021). The original Stonehenge? A dismantled stone circle in the Preseli Hills of West Wales. Antiquity, 95(379), 85-103.
BBC 2, Producer: Peter Chinn. Stonehenge: The Lost Circle Revealed. BBC Two - Stonehenge: The Lost Circle Revealed.
Trowelblazers - Articles | TrowelBlazers
Netflix, Producers: Gabrielle Tana, Ellie Wood, Carolyn Marks Blackwood, Murray Ferguson. The Dig. The Dig | Netflix Official Site
Commentaires