ABSTRACT
‘Archaeology’ and ‘the media’ are each worth considering as entities, as concepts even, before we discuss their relationship. Each is bedded in its own culture, each exists in its own matrix, and both would happily exist without the other. The media, however, are far more important to archaeology than archaeology is to them. Indeed, despite some contemporary indicators to the contrary, the past is of relatively little interest to current media (or politicians) as a whole. On the other hand, if we extend our initial rather limited definition of the media (below) into the more abstract concept of ‘communication’, communication is the lifeblood of archaeology. Conferences, meetings, and lectures are crucial, archaeology’s lifeblood, because we are communicating about shared interests, ideas, knowledge, and experiences – about ‘worthwhilenesses’. We are signalling to each other and perhaps to a wider audience that we think it worthwhile to support the existence of learned archaeological societies that publish regularly, and that it is worth our while to spend our time in reasonably earnest public consideration of matters of more than specialist interest.
