The role of TV documentaries to disseminate osteoarchaeology more widely: The good, the bad, and the ugly

Abstract

There is clearly merit in undertaking quality osteoarchaeological research and then publishing it in a peer reviewed scientific journal. This is a tried and tested method that results in an academic resource that is generally regarded as more trustworthy than forms of publication that have not passed through the peer review process (Alberts et al., 2008). However, if such articles are to only be read by other experts in the field, then the breadth of audience who can appreciate the work will be restricted to a select number. As universities in different parts of the world are commonly funded by governments using taxes, by students paying fees, and by donations and sponsorship (Johnstone & Marcucci, 2010), it is only fair that we share the science undertaken in those universities with the general public who are the ultimate source of that finance. That way, they will benefit educationally from the research and also understand that their taxes or fees are well spent.

One option available to us to disseminate our discoveries to a wider audience is a press release. If the research is a topic with a clear public interest, putting out a press release through a university media office to coincide with the publication of the journal article is a very efficient approach (Bartram, 2006). This is because it can result in journalists publishing their stories online, in print media, and sometimes interviews on the radio and TV news. It can lead to the number of people hearing about our discoveries being numbered in the hundreds of thousands or even in the millions. However, not all universities have a media office and only a proportion of osteoarchaeologists work in universities. Therefore, it will not be a viable approach for everyone.

Another option to disseminate osteoarchaeology more widely is for researchers to invite a TV company to film a documentary about their research project (Hollyn, 2009). The osteoarchaeologist can browse the websites of TV documentary companies that have previously worked on archaeological and historical topics and contact those who have made good quality programs in the past. If the excavation site is of sufficient public interest to make a promising documentary whatever is found during the dig, then the actual excavation might be filmed. However, often, it is only during the laboratory analysis that the significant discoveries are made that would make the topic worthy of a documentary. In such a scenario, the documentary team may need to focus their filming on the laboratory stage of the research process. Timing the first broadcast of documentaries to match the date of peer reviewed publication, or for broadcast to be after the academic publication, can greatly increase the confidence academics and other viewers will have regarding the accuracy of the content of that program. The way in which TV documentaries can be sold on to a range of networks so they are broadcast in many different countries, and then broadcast repeatedly over time, means that it can be a highly successful approach to bring the field of osteoarchaeology into the homes of ordinary people across the world. This not only educates the public about their ancestors but also inspires the next generation of students keen to learn about human remains.

We have all watched great documentaries about osteoarchaeology that make us feel proud of our field. They can present the positive image of osteoarchaeology, showing how we can carefully excavate human remains with respect, analyze them using a range of scientific methods, interpret our findings in an evidence-based and balanced manner, and convey what we have learned in a way that all those watching can be culturally enriched by the process. However, it is also likely that we have watched programs that are not quite so impressive or even leave us shouting at the TV screen with our disappointment as to the content. A number of news stories and TV documentaries about past civilizations have been highlighted by journalists as causing concern, sitting on a spectrum of poor evidence base at one end of the spectrum to unsubstantiated conspiracy theory at other end (see, e.g., Fitzpatrick-Matthews, 2011; Heritage, 2022).

Recently, a paper was published in the International Journal of Osteoarchaeology (Landol, 2024) discussing a TV documentary which had been made arguing that the remains of a member of race of giants had been discovered in the jungles of Ecuador. Entitled A Critical Assessment of the Julcuy “Giant”, the article explains how the program “Lost Race of Giants” (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11478678/) presented to viewers that a 7-ft high individual had been found at excavation. The height had been determined from measuring the length of the remains from head to toe in the ground. However, when an anthropologist subsequently went to assess the remains with the consent of the local population, height estimation using Trotter and Gleser's more evidence-based approach of measuring long bone length (Trotter & Gleser, 1958) showed the likely height during life to be between 5 and 5.5 ft (153–162 cm), which is normal for that region. With the decomposition of the soft tissues after death, the skeletal remains appear to have spread apart in the soil leading to the initial overestimation by those filmed for the program. The mistake in height estimation disseminated to the TV audience occurred because the producer and director of the program did not ensure that a specialist osteoarchaeologist was involved with examining the remains for the filming or even consult them later for their opinion to ensure the quality of their documentary prior to its being broadcast. This highlights how a lack of peer review process in making documentaries, coupled with the maker's enthusiasm to find an angle that would attract higher viewing numbers, led to a less than ideal piece of journalism. We can imagine the producer thinking: Who wants to watch a documentary entitled “Lost Race of Normal Sized People”?

The author of this editorial has been filmed for over 20 documentaries on topics such as crucifixion, crusader battles, the Black Death, spread of infectious diseases along the Silk Road, and the remains of King Richard III of England. After having made mistakes himself, he has learned to be careful to choose to work only with producers and directors who are looking to create an evidence-based, well-balanced piece of journalism. If a documentary is already planned and the company are looking for experts to interview in the program, a production team member will typically contact those with most expertise in the topic to find out what we might be able to contribute. At that point, we can look up the TV company's website and check over the titles and content of recent documentaries they have made. If they appear sensational in their approach, this is the right time to decline to work on the project. If past programs appear of good quality, we may then choose to proceed. When discussing the plans for the documentary with the producer, if we feel pushed to overstretch the evidence to meet a sensationalist conclusion, we can explain why we feel their interpretation would be unwise to broadcast, and so educate and guide them towards a safer interpretation. If they continue with their view, then we can politely decline to work with the project further. Similarly, those companies that want to squeeze academics for free information without paying an appropriate fee are often the less ethical end of the market. If they try to abuse our generosity and expertise beyond the initial 15-min chat where they learn what we can contribute to their program, then we can excuse ourselves by explaining that we need to go to another meeting, and if they would like our further help with their project, then it would be for an agreed fee. Most serious documentaries that value our expertise will be in a position to agree to this, with the fee being for acting as a consultant or appearance in the documentary itself. This way, we can maintain our academic integrity and minimize the risk of our scholarly reputation becoming tarnished by association with a documentary that is later regarded as poor-quality journalism, even when our own contribution might be factual and well reasoned.

We will never be able to prevent all poor-quality documentaries about osteoarchaeology from being made. However, if we can optimize the quality of those where we choose to be involved, then we can be proud of our contribution to the education and cultural enrichment of the wider public.

There are no conflicts of interest.