Enticing Titles

It has become common for news companies to publish very similar articles about the same subjects. A week ago, a story was released about stone spear tips that are “surprisingly old.” It suggests that the early human ancestors may have been smarter than we give them credit for.

- New York Times

The titles of three different news sources are all similar yet different. For once, they actually tried to get readers hooked by discussing different aspects of the discovery. The New York Times discusses how the stone spear made work easier for hunters. The National Geographic approaches the subject by emphasizing the age of the stone spear tips by comparing this new discovery to finding an iPod in Ancient Rome, which shows how crazy this is since iPods have only been around for a decade and could never be found there. Finally the Huffington Post attacks the subject by saying that weapons were created earlier than scientists had believed.

- National Geographic

The angles for these stories varies a little although, in the end, they are all about the same subject and have content that is even more similar. The Huffington Post and The New York Times have articles that are almost identical, even in length. The National Geographic article is longer and goes more in-depth, touching on the subjects of efficient hunting, increased brain size, proof that they were indeed spear tips, and more. The other two articles do not even try to share that much knowledge. This could be because the authors of the other two articles are not as concerned with archaeological discoveries, they report on all that goes on in the world, not on just nature, animals, and science, whereas National Geographic is completely dedicated to it.

 

- Huffington Post

Archaeology in the Afternoon

Think back to your childhood and I'd bet most readers were a fan of the Magic Tree House book series. You know, the books about Jack and Annie, the world's coolest kids who traveled through time and space to visit exotic lands and eras. Probably the first historical fiction any of us read, the books took us on an adventure and taught us a lot along the way about history and cultures.

With a range of topics from battles to animals to empires, the Magic Tree House series served to fascinate kids with the past of all kinds. For kids, the ability to capture attention spans with something as simple as a fantasy trip to the pyramids is huge. It sets the stage for interest in history, archaeology and nature that allows them to imagine the scenes for themselves.

I can't really remember how accurate the series was, but I do remember being in love with the books as a kid. After talking to friends, I can affirm that I was not the only one. Truly, that kind of enthusiasm for learning and reading is what is most important in preserving knowledge of the ancient world. I know that many people don't care about reading today, much less reading about old and foreign civilizations, but I'd bet for most people, there was a time in their past when they were all about the Magic Tree House, or some similar series.

Even if books like this don't give the most unbiased or factual information, kids see learning as a cool adventure! Maybe that leads into the archaeologist-as-an-adventurer stereotype, but so what? As long as people are interested and learning, it doesn't really matter.

Oohh... I think I'll read that!

Looking at the effectiveness of titles.

National Geographic Magazine

“Thracian Gold Treasure Discovered in Bulgaria”

Ker Than, November 10, 2012

           
GOLD?! Ok, I gotta read this! This title is immediately eye catching as it pulls readers in by the allure of treasure. It appears that National Geographic feels the need to continuously perpetuate the stereotype of archaeology as a treasure hunt, taking away from the legitimacy of this scientific profession. Use of the words “gold and treasure,” immediately pull readers in as many are fascinated with treasure and this title appears to satisfy readers’ inherent need to treasure hunt. The title is written in plane black lettering, juxtaposed against a white background, making the words stand out. Additionally, without reading the article, this title appears a bit vague as it could imply to some readers that the article will discuss the multitude of treasure that was found. Yet, upon reading the article, only a few gold pieces were discussed. Therefore, while this is clearly a biased title and perhaps misleading, it effectively pulls readers in. 

Smithsonian Magazine

“Diving for the Secrets of the Battle of the Atlantic”

 Jim Morrison, January 18, 2012

           
SECRETS, battles, adventure...oh my! This title was initially interesting as it caught my attention without emphasizing any archaeological stereotype like National Geographic did. Use of the word “secrets,” was powerful and will likely pull readers in by the intrigue of mystery. However, this title makes no assertions or assumptions, simply states what the article will discuss in an interesting, non-biased way. Additionally, many readers may not know what the “Battle of the Atlantic” means, adding to the mystery of this article, making it likely that many will read it. This title is therefore effective and very well crafted.

The Boston Globe

“Ancient rock carvings stolen in Sierra Nevada”

         
WHO done it?! This article is captivating as it plays on the “excitement” of archaeology. Many who read this title will most likely immediately imagine Indian Jones running through Sierra Nevada retrieving the stolen artifacts. Ancient artifacts, thievery and mystery are all perpetuated stereotypes of archaeology. There is also a certain level of drama that this title creates, pulling readers in. However, I have to give the author credit because this is certainly an eye-catching title. It is hard to find the balance between objectivity and intrigue in crafting a title. Additionally, the lettering is thicker than that of National Geographic, which made this title stand out. 

The New York Times

“Disease Diagnosed in a 500-Year-Old Mummy”

 HOW, what disease, I gotta read more! After reading the article, I found this title to be completely appropriate. A lung infection was diagnosed in a 500-year-old mummy using DNA analysis. This title therefore appears unbiased and also does not emphasize any archaeological stereotypes or use drama to pull readers in. The intrigue of this title is simply the surprise factor – who would have guessed we could diagnose a 500-year-old person? 

Vikings? In Canada?

Most people know about the Viking settlements on the East coast of Canada and Northern US, and some people also believe that this occupation extended as far west as Minnesota. Though this has been proven a hoax, the idea of Vikings in North America before what is usually considered European contact still fascinates many.

Archaeologists digging... typical.

A recent article in National Geographic reports about new evidence suggesting not only more Viking settlements than those previously found, but more contact than though occurred between Native Americans and Vikings. The evidence cites various furs, metallurgic products, ivories, and other trade goods in the archaeological record linking the two groups. The discovery is not wholly shocking, but it certainly puts more weight behind Viking occupation of the so-called New World.

While reading the article, one sentence really stood out to me: "The cords turned out to be expertly woven Viking yarn, identical in technique to yarn produced by Viking women living in Greenland in the 14th century." Maybe this is just a bias from my academic focus, but this seemed to me like possibly a misinterpretation of data. I'm not saying the discovery isn't authentic. I just have a problem with the question of craftsmanship and the evolution of production. The cords may be similar or even the same as those made in Greenland, but I don't like how it is assumed to be a Viking tradition, rather than Native American.

The find is not too groundbreaking, since nothing is conclusive yet, but it's still exciting in the archaeological world. If proven true, it not only contradicts with the idea that the Vikings were here for a short time then abandoned it, but challenges the model of contact as well. Since the Vikings were settled here and in many other places of the Northern Hemisphere, they were avid traders, therefore dispersing new European goods throughout the continent earlier than thought. I don't know how much of an effect this had on North America, but it could certainly prove with a little more investigation that many goods or inventions thought to be native to this continent are actually imported.

I guess it's nice, if you want a dirty scarf

The article itself is well written enough, though certainly not targeted to a younger audience. Interestingly, National Geographic posted coverage of the same discovery in their magazine as well as this article online. Printed in the November 2012 issue, the other article focuses much more on the human aspect of the discovery, rather than the technicalities discussed online. It is also told more like a story, following the chronology of the discovery, the history of Viking occupation, and the implications of the little piece of yarn.

Both pieces discuss the discovery and put it in context, but their focus is tailored to the media and audience. When one sits down to read a magazine, they do so fully aware that it is a time commitment and are prepared to peruse as much as they have time for, soaking it in leisurely. Magazines are often used to relax and provoke thought while doing so. On the contrary, the internet is scattered with webpage after webpage, therefore the attention span is much shorter. The article must get to the technicalities of the discovery first and the readers who stay attune get the less important news at the end. Inherently, these media function in their specific way. National Geographic simply figured out an effective way to present the same discovery to magazine readers and internet users.

Looking at Length Part II

Contrasting the shorter article, I decided to examine a longer article to compare its effectiveness. In August 2012, Archaeology magazine published the article “Tomb of the Chantress”.  It was the cover story and therefore given a 5 page spread in the middle of the magazine. Starting at the beginning is a large photograph of the chantresses sarcophagus covered in dust, surrounded by rocks as if it was just discovered. The photograph spans two pages and is therefore very powerful. The size of the photograph emphasizes the crumbling rocks and dusty wooden casket, pulling the readers into the story. Imagery is extremely influential in magazines, and as this is a larger article, the author, Julian Smith, was able to use a larger photograph, increasing the effectiveness of the article.

Another “tool” that longer articles are able to use to pull readers in that shorter articles are note able to is the use of a caption underneath the title. In this article the caption reads, “a newly discovered burial chamber in the valley of the Kings provides a rare glimpse into the life of an ancient Egyptian singer” (Smith, 29). The caption is interesting as it summarizes what the article is going to be about, this allows readers to learn something without having to read the whole article to gather information, as many would have to do with a shorter article. This also allows readers to decide if they want to read the article at all, something shorter articles lack. However, readers may flip through to see how long the article is, and many may be deterred by the length, which is where shorter article appear to be advantageous. 

Another advantage of longer articles is detail. In this article Smith gives extensive background information on where the Chantress was found, how archaeologist Susanne Bickel and her team found her and what they did to excavate her. Smith explains in detail that at “eight feet down, they came upon the upper edge of a door blocked by large stones” (28). Smith continues to explain, in detail, how Bickel and her team began the long process of extracting the Chantress. Although some may find such detail to be trivial and unnecessary, I believe it adds depth to this article and provides evidence of the scientific method of archaeology, which many who read this magazine (usually archaeology buffs) will probably appreciate.

            
Finally, this article provides much more context, explaining the importance of the Chantress to society at the time, even discussing the role of music in Egyptian society during her time period. Music was “believed to soothe the gods and encourage them to provide for their worshippers” (Smith, 31). Such context shows the readers why this Chantress was so famous in her day, it also educates about an ancient world. Smith brings in many experts to discuss the role of music in society, the paintings on the sarcophagus and experts from the excavation team. With more space, the author is able to bring in more outside sources, something a shorter article cannot do.

            
Although a longer article seems to have many advantages to a shorter article, including more photographs, details and experts, shorter articles have their own advantages. Faster to read, less space and therefore less expensive to print, shorter articles are a necessary addition to any magazine or newspaper. I would not say that either is better than the other, rather they are both advantageous in different ways. Choosing which to read simply depends on how much time you have.

Smith, Julian. "Tomb of the Chantress." Archaeology Aug. 2012: 28-32. Print. 25 Nov. 2012.

Limits on Length

Recently, our blog group has focused on writing shorter reviews of archaeological articles. This made me think, how do real reporters do it? How do they fit all of their research and interviews into a limited amount of space? Editors give limits on word count and paragraph number as there is only so much space in a magazine. Therefore, I set out to find a shorter article to see how real reporters effectively write condensed articles. Skimming through today’s National Geographic, Smithsonian, or Archaeology Magazine, you will usually find long articles that span 3-4 pages. However, I think there is something to be said for a shorter article; quicker to read and it saves space, many are more likely to read a short article in its entirety than a long article. Therefore, when I found an article entitled “Mass Grave Mystery,” in Archaeology that only spanned half a page, I quickly read the whole thing and was quite impressed with the amount of information the author was able to get across in such a short amount of space.

The author, Matthew Brunwasser, immediately pulls readers in by setting the scene of this mass grave. He explains that this site was “the most thoroughly excavated ancient site in the country” (Brunwasser, 27).  It was then surprising to readers when the author explained that in fall 2011, archaeologists unearthed a massive unknown grave along the edge of the settlement of Scupi (an old Roman colony). The unlikelihood of such an event is captivating and Brunwasser successfully captures readers’ attention by beginning the article this way. Additionally, little detail has been given about this colony, yet enough background information has been given for readers to make sense of the article. Brunwasser continues to note that the bones all showed evidence of violence in cutting, breakage, and decapitation. Brunwasser then uses quotes from head archaeologist, Lence Jovana, to show her opinion on the find. Bringing in the head archaeologist on this project greatly strengthened the validity of this article and added depth to what could have been a rather brief overview of an archaeological find. Finally Brunwasser brings in another expert in the field of Roman battlefield archaeology, Phil Freeman, to speculate along with Jovana about the cause of such a mass grave. In one final paragraph the possibilities of a mass military execution, or an execution resulting from conflicts against the Roman Empire are suggested as causes for this mass grave. Brunwasser appears to make no speculations on his own, relying on the input from experts such as Jovana and Freeman as to the cause of this mass grave.

            
With limited space, this author wrote a compelling article about the findings of a mass grave in the Roman colony of Scupi. There appeared to be no bias in the article, which was strongly supported by experts. This was, in my opinion, a good example of how reporters today maximize the space they are given to write an article. 

Brunwasser, Matthew. "Mass Grave Mystery." Archaeology Oct. 2012: 27. Print. 25 Nov. 2012.

Who can you trust?

I've run into a lot of frustration with our final paper project, and not one bit of it has to do with writer's block. We trust magazines and newspapers for accurate information–but how well-documented is it really? While trying to find a primary source, I came across an awesome National Geographic article on gigantism. It was super interesting, but for the life of me I could not figure out what the primary source was. There was one link that brought me to a journal on endocrinology, but not the specific study the article was citing. Not being able to find any factual information on the topic, I was left to wonder, where does National Geographic get its information? Why isn't that outlet more accessible? I have to say, it left a rather sour taste in my mouth. Either way, the article is pretty interesting, ya'll should take a look at it. The photograph shows the difference between a normal Roman man's shinbone and the giant's shinbone (both lived during the same period). Crikey.

Being able to trust your sources is crucial, especially in the field of archaeology. People put up hoaxes and false discoveries over time. And while it's pretty safe to say that National Geographic's info can be trusted, I'd like to be sure. Magazines should proudly present their sources, not squirrel them away like embarrassing family photos.