High def, big screen TV docs vs archeo site visits?

[caesar novus]

I've been knocked out by the visual quality of high def TV documentaries on a big screen for covering Roman Empire sites and monuments. I have thought to myself that it can seem better than when I have actually visited in person, and recently have even heard others mention that. Maybe because in person you have glare and noisy people pushing in the way, etc... let alone the fact you may be mentally and financially exhausted getting to Ephesus or where ever.

 

It's remarkable that even documentaries that are mostly junk can have bewitching moments in HD, and now with a digital signal you can often back up and freeze on bits and pieces still in the decode buffer where they caught the coolest thing in just half a second of broadcast. Examples are History channel shows (caution, just their mention may induce projectile vomiting) Cities of the Underworld or Naked Archeologist. At least they have a sense of humor about exaggeration and innuendo so you know it is with a wink to bring in the bill paying demographic.

 

If not content to mine the channels of TV documentaries over years, you can sometimes target big pools of photos with appropriate keywords, and start a machine gun slideshow. Try it on someplace you have been - sometimes they do justice to a place that took pretty miserable logistics for you to experience in person. Like flicker.com or google image search or ?

 

Is it crazy to switch one's focus to new media rather than personal experience for Roman sites and monuments? I would never consider this for older (ntsc) TV, even with big screens, which just show a cartoon-like image that can't really spring to life. Maybe makes more sense for someone who has initial experience, especially of the more convenient sites. Then they can sort of "translate" media to reality for the harder to get to places (will save wear and tear on the sites also).

Edited February 17, 2009 by caesar novus

[Northern Neil]

I understand exactly what you mean, and often documentaries/slideshows can show an aerial view which is impossible for the average tourist. The downside is that documentaries often focus on the most visible part of a site, missing out less visible but often more interesting things. A prime example is Hadrian's Wall. The fort at Greatchesters hardly gets a mention in documentaries and only scrapes in on guidebooks simply because it is there. It also has the misfortune to be next fort along from housesteads. But a personal visit can be very rewarding, and it has a set of visible defenses which are as good as any at the other forts.

[Klingan]

I prefer to see the sites in person and then remind myself by looking at the details in photos.

[Kosmo]

When your at the site you can smell the air, see the sky, touch the stone. This give me the feeling that I like as I'm not very interested in the technical details of the site.

[Maladict]

In person, without a doubt. One well prepared visit and the site will stay with you forever in all its details.

That said, the other options certainly have their merits, especially when it comes to preparations.

[Nephele]

While I've only ever had the opportunity to visit some Roman sites in Great Britain, I'm still hoping to someday manage a trip to the Eternal City. I guess television documentaries will have to suffice for now, but my preference will always be to experience these wonderful sites first-hand.

 

Having said that, I want to mention one teevee documentary-type series which has given me quite a few ideas about places to visit, which I wouldn't ordinarily have considered.

 

The series is called Cities of the Underworld, and I've watched Season One on DVD (it aired here in the States on The History Channel). The series shows the often-missed archeological sites that exist beneath the cities of the world -- many of these sites being places that aren't normally open to tourists at all because of the danger involved underground.

 

So, not only has this incredible series given me some ideas about mysterious realms to someday visit (at least, those that the public can legally access), but this series is also valuable for showing those mysterious underground sites that require special permission to see -- permission which the ordinary tourist might not be able to get.

 

-- Nephele

[Northern Neil]

Nephele, did Edinburgh in Scotland feature in this? I believe there is a whole underground system of 16th/17th century streets under the modern city, which you can visit - with special arrangement.

[Nephele]

Nephele, did Edinburgh in Scotland feature in this? I believe there is a whole underground system of 16th/17th century streets under the modern city, which you can visit - with special arrangement.

 

Yes! There was an entire episode devoted to underground Edinburgh! It was fascinating! If only I'd known about this, when I visited Edinburgh a few years ago. *sigh*

 

-- Nephele

[caesar novus]

Well, thank you all for being so honest. Some might have sensed that I had blown my travel budget on a big TV, and patronized me with white lies. Actually it's worse, as I probably have to skip a month long trip to Italy with painful cancellation fees. Arrgh... hope you all will continue to post nice Roman photos online.

 

Anyway, just a reminder of some computer simulated experiences. Besides the free http://earth.google.com/rome/index.html , the very expensive http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/CourseDescLong2.aspx?cid=3430 (Experiencing Rome: A Visual Exploration of Antiquity's Greatest Empire) sometimes goes on sale for 75% off, esp with coupons you can google up. I can't get the latter to show terribly clear simulations, (maybe it is my equipment) but the audio is clear, if that professor can be believed.

Edited March 9, 2009 by caesar novus

[Kosmo]

Sell the TV, go to Italy.

[caesar novus]

When your at the site you can smell the air, see the sky, touch the stone.

I remember a visit to Paestum (in Compania) where the site was choked with tall wildflowers baking in the sunshine and wafting their scent. Olive vendors lined the road, and visiting schoolchildren rang out in peals of laughter. But this had little to do with the site; it's a part of life that I could experience in other places; maybe even near home.

 

I could hardly see any detail of the main temples, because you are not allowed close, the columns are very wide, and there is no elevated point to look within. Contrast this to a rerun I saw of "Visions of Italy", now on Hi Def tv. They do a helicopter survey from Rome to south of Compania, including looking down on those mysterious Paestum temple floorplans.

 

Also Pompeii; it showed how common those weird narrow dead end passage ways were, and blocked up closets (to entomb a mother in law alive?). I remember some in person, but now get the big picture. Wow, what a documentary... look for on HDNET reruns.

 

Sell the TV, go to Italy.

It is a long itinerary affected by hotel prices. Their bloated online rates are still ignoring the recession, which I had hoped to negotiate way down in person. But now I may be in competition with earthquake refugees.

 

So meantime I expect to focus on virtual tourism, along with an excursion to the Roman Villa in Malibu CA (which is free if you arrive by public bus, with all the vagrants and bail jumpers). Good to see the collection before they give it all back to Italy, or before an earthquake catches it at either end. http://tuckerneel.wordpress.com/category/malibu-getty/

Edited April 7, 2009 by caesar novus

[Melvadius]

I prefer to see the sites in person and then remind myself by looking at the details in photos.

 

I would agree with most of the comments posted already. Yes there can be advantages in a convenient TV overview of a site but (and it is a very big but) going in person gives you the control to move your head half and inch or even turn through 180 degrees and reveal the relationship of one building to another. These are often relationships which would are ignored or possibly deliberately obfuscated in a TV documentary.

 

TV can not give you a true impression of the intertwinned views, sounds and smells of a visit to a site. It is often the personal images which I remember; wandering away from the guided tours in Pompeii and finding an small fresco detail which because of the overall incompleteness of the building never features on any itinery TV or otherwise. Moving further afield it was crawling through a cistern under excavation in Tunisia and running my hand across a small section of Roman grafitti which had been perfectly preserved. Thirdly (but not finally) standing in the middle of an amphitheatre with a small sand storm blowing maing sand on the arena floor swirl up around my feet and partially obscure the inclompleteness of the remains around me. Possibly the best image I didn't personally see but heard about immediately afterwards was when a piece of a leather tent was excavated out of the mud at Vindolanda. As it was opened it was seen to still contain the remnants of linen thread but these almost instantly evaporated/ dissolved as the air got to them.

 

These are all impressions that cannot be matched by TV.

 

Melvadius

Edited April 8, 2009 by Melvadius

[Bryaxis Hecatee]

I received this morning my copy of the french review "archeologia" in which there was an article on Volubilis : a city in Marocco which I've seen on TV, in pictures and with my own eyes. And I must say that had I only had the two first medias then my understanding of the article would have been much reduced : here I know how much space is occupied by the area described in the article, how big the presumed punic temple might have occupied, how steep the access to the city is and thus how good for defense, etc.

 

So I must say that for me nothing beats going on foot on the terrain. Of course the fact I'm european and with enough money allows me the privilege of visiting thoses places. But I know that my visits helped me during my cursus in Ancient History and opened new ways to think and put things in perspectives, making me better at my job.

 

Without those travels to Athens, Delphi, Corinth, Mycenae, Epidauros, Amphiaros, Egina, Sounio, Rome, Alba Fucens, Glanum, Olbia of France, Orange, Vaison la romaine, Trier, K

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

I can see both sides to the argument. The documentaries and 3D virtual tours we can get on TV and on the Internet these days are brilliant. You can see sites that you might never actually get the chance to visit as well as being educated on the history of it all in the comfort of your armchair with chips n dips and a beer by your side. But for me there's nothing better than seeing these sites with your own eyes, wandering around at your own leisure seeing everything first hand and thinking "maybe Julius Caesar or the emperor Hadrian stood in this exact spot???" OK you might not get the spectacular aerial shot (unless you hire an helicopter!! But I think this can be a bit pricey!) or the 3D image of what it looked like in it's full glory. But who care's? Your there, it's real, you can touch it!

 

This can not be beaten!

[sylla]

Apples and oranges are trying to be compared here. As Neil put it nicely, archaeological tourism and multimedia are not alternative, but complementary to each other.

BTW, the same applies to almost any personal experience; from animal observation (just check Aurelia's blog) to human sex.