There is an interesting editorial from the editors of the Archaeological Journal, on the matter of interpretative inflation, as described by Gordon Barclay and Kenny Brophy and as attacked with much venom by Madgwick and his colleagues involved in the Stonehenge and Durrington isotope analyses.
The editors make several interesting points, including this one:
Criticism of our work is never easy to read but is a necessary part of being a researcher and academic, and this debate has certainly made me reflect on the research process and how we interact with the media. We hope that this debate gives readers of the journal something to think about, not only for our understanding of the Neolithic of Britain, but the wider influence that archaeology can have in society.I hope that point is read and understood by MPP, Rob Ixer and Richard Bevins, who refuse steadfastly to accept criticism or even to accept that it exists in the peer-reviewed literature. Because they exist in a state of denial, they deserve little respect from the academic community.
Another very interesting feature of the article is that the Editors seem to think that the “spin” put on archaeological research by the media is the responsibility of the media alone — with researchers and article authors absolved of any involvement in the process, let alone any blame. That is disingenuous in the extreme — indeed it is complete nonsense. The authors of journal articles MUST take full responsibility for how they are represented in the media — they after all are the ones who write the abstracts, and who sign off the press releases.
So get real, editors — rubbish in rubbish out. Archaeologists are not as innocent as you make out. It’s about time that academic archaeologistrs — and their geologist colleagues — started to take their academic duties and responsibilities seriously by presenting hard evidence (and admitting to controversy where it exists) instead of peddling myths.
Editorial:
Lisa-Marie Shillito & Andrew Valdez-Tullett (2021) Editorial, Archaeological Journal,178:1, i-iii, DOI: 10.1080/00665983.2021.1934256
The final papers in issue two present an important debate that is of relevance to all of us working in archaeology, whatever time period. The first paper by Barclay and Brophy presents a critique of the way isotope and other data has been used in the construction of what they term the British ‘late Neolithic mythos’, emphasising a national role for Stonehenge and related monuments such as Durrington Walls. The paper questions the interpretation of isotope data from these sites, but also discusses extensively the way the research has been subsequently emphasised in the media, and how it has been linked to contemporary politics, including Brexit. They note a ‘trajectory of interpretative inflation’ regarding Stonehenge, going from possible to probable to certain, to sensational, which they trace through academic and media sources over the past decade.
One of the key papers that Barclay and Brophy discuss is Madgwick et al. (2019), the most recent in a series of scientific papers on isotope and related analyses from Stonehenge and Durrington Walls. In the final paper presented in this volume of the Archaeological Journal, Madgwick et al challenge some of the criticisms presented by Barclay and Brophy, and reaffirm their original interpretation of the isotope data. The paper focuses largely on this aspect of the criticism, and less so on the way the research has been presented in the media.
The idea of ‘interpretative inflation’ that Barclay and Brophy refer to is one which many of us will be familiar with. This type of media hype is not limited to Stonehenge, though that particular monument does seem prone to it. It seems almost inevitable that archaeological research ends up being sensationalised when it moves from the academic to popular sphere. What responsibility do we as archaeologists and researchers have in making sure that popular narratives of our research are accurate? In many cases these headlines are frustrating but harmless (archaeologists appear to be perpetually baffled by the latest discovery), nevertheless it is the popular headlines that are ultimately where a lay audience gets their information. Another question is, how much do these popular sensationalised versions of archaeology then start to influence our academic research? These are not questions that can be answered easily, but I hope that the debate presented here is an important starting point in making us all consider these issues in future.
As an editor this was a challenging set of papers to deal with. The high-profile nature of the case study, but also the range and complexity of the material under discussion necessitated an incredibly rigorous review process for both papers, from the perspective of British Neolithic archaeology, public engagement and archaeological isotope analysis. The topic was perhaps even more challenging, as I myself was involved in some of the earlier Stonehenge work, and indeed one of the papers that Barclay and Brophy critique was the main output from a postdoctoral research post I held from 2010 to 2012 (Craig et al. 2015). I worked specifically on analysing lipid residues in the Grooved Ware pottery from Durrington Walls. The press release for Craig et al. (2015) was my first encounter with the media as an early career academic, and I remember the sensationalism of the headlines. These headlines referred to ‘prehistoric barbecues’ and ‘food of the gods’ and were less controversial or political than ‘prehistoric Brexit’ but nevertheless presented the scientific research from a particular angle rather than opting to be more cautious. Criticism of our work is never easy to read but is a necessary part of being a researcher and academic, and this debate has certainly made me reflect on the research process and how we interact with the media. We hope that this debate gives readers of the journal something to think about, not only for our understanding of the Neolithic of Britain, but the wider influence that archaeology can have in society.
Lisa-Marie Shillito & Andrew Valdez-Tullett (2021) Editorial, Archaeological Journal,178:1, i-iii, DOI: 10.1080/00665983.2021.1934256
====================
Editorial:
Lisa-Marie Shillito & Andrew Valdez-Tullett (2021) Editorial, Archaeological Journal,178:1, i-iii, DOI: 10.1080/00665983.2021.1934256
The final papers in issue two present an important debate that is of relevance to all of us working in archaeology, whatever time period. The first paper by Barclay and Brophy presents a critique of the way isotope and other data has been used in the construction of what they term the British ‘late Neolithic mythos’, emphasising a national role for Stonehenge and related monuments such as Durrington Walls. The paper questions the interpretation of isotope data from these sites, but also discusses extensively the way the research has been subsequently emphasised in the media, and how it has been linked to contemporary politics, including Brexit. They note a ‘trajectory of interpretative inflation’ regarding Stonehenge, going from possible to probable to certain, to sensational, which they trace through academic and media sources over the past decade.
One of the key papers that Barclay and Brophy discuss is Madgwick et al. (2019), the most recent in a series of scientific papers on isotope and related analyses from Stonehenge and Durrington Walls. In the final paper presented in this volume of the Archaeological Journal, Madgwick et al challenge some of the criticisms presented by Barclay and Brophy, and reaffirm their original interpretation of the isotope data. The paper focuses largely on this aspect of the criticism, and less so on the way the research has been presented in the media.
The idea of ‘interpretative inflation’ that Barclay and Brophy refer to is one which many of us will be familiar with. This type of media hype is not limited to Stonehenge, though that particular monument does seem prone to it. It seems almost inevitable that archaeological research ends up being sensationalised when it moves from the academic to popular sphere. What responsibility do we as archaeologists and researchers have in making sure that popular narratives of our research are accurate? In many cases these headlines are frustrating but harmless (archaeologists appear to be perpetually baffled by the latest discovery), nevertheless it is the popular headlines that are ultimately where a lay audience gets their information. Another question is, how much do these popular sensationalised versions of archaeology then start to influence our academic research? These are not questions that can be answered easily, but I hope that the debate presented here is an important starting point in making us all consider these issues in future.
As an editor this was a challenging set of papers to deal with. The high-profile nature of the case study, but also the range and complexity of the material under discussion necessitated an incredibly rigorous review process for both papers, from the perspective of British Neolithic archaeology, public engagement and archaeological isotope analysis. The topic was perhaps even more challenging, as I myself was involved in some of the earlier Stonehenge work, and indeed one of the papers that Barclay and Brophy critique was the main output from a postdoctoral research post I held from 2010 to 2012 (Craig et al. 2015). I worked specifically on analysing lipid residues in the Grooved Ware pottery from Durrington Walls. The press release for Craig et al. (2015) was my first encounter with the media as an early career academic, and I remember the sensationalism of the headlines. These headlines referred to ‘prehistoric barbecues’ and ‘food of the gods’ and were less controversial or political than ‘prehistoric Brexit’ but nevertheless presented the scientific research from a particular angle rather than opting to be more cautious. Criticism of our work is never easy to read but is a necessary part of being a researcher and academic, and this debate has certainly made me reflect on the research process and how we interact with the media. We hope that this debate gives readers of the journal something to think about, not only for our understanding of the Neolithic of Britain, but the wider influence that archaeology can have in society.
Lisa-Marie Shillito & Andrew Valdez-Tullett (2021) Editorial, Archaeological Journal,178:1, i-iii, DOI: 10.1080/00665983.2021.1934256
See also:
https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2020/06/the-origins-of-british-neolithic-mythos.html
https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2020/08/the-stonehenge-myth-machine-high-time.html
https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2020/07/bluestones-and-interpretative-inflation.html
Please put this into your Facebook site too.that will enable it to be shared beyond your own Blog, of course. There are so many Luddites who are virtually Flat Earth proponents when it comes to the Stonehenge Bluestones!
ReplyDeleteUniversity press offices have to accept responsibility for spin, too. Some are much better than others at reporting research results objectively and without resort to hype. Two of the worst, in my experience, are the press offices of UCL and, I'm sad to say, the Open University.
ReplyDeleteThanks Steve. Of course university press offices play a role in “selling” research results — real or imagined — to the world. But no academic should ever accept that a Press Office can issue a press release which is not first read by the lead author and formally approved for release. The buck stops with the author. They can’d wriggle out of it………..
ReplyDelete