Digging for Britain

This "magazine" style show about archaeology and history in the UK is excellent.

Alice Roberts does a good job of introducing the various locations/digs and allows the local experts to take over and fill in the gaps.

It reveals so many interesting sites and finds that i knew nothing about, covering British history going back to prehistory. It also introduces some interesting new scientific techniques for analysing the finds and learning more about the people in early history.

It's well shot and well put together so that it all seems seamless as we move from one location to another. I think, actually, that we could do with more than six episodes in a season!

The first eight episodes (two series) were brilliant. The digs were interesting, the conclusions neither sensationalized nor presented as fact with too little evidence. Alice Roberts guides the audience through it clearly and enjoyably.

But then, starting with the third series, it looks like the producers decided they didn't want to make anything so staid as perhaps the best archaeology series on English-speaking television ever. No, they wanted a talk show. Now tell me, what does that gifted young presenter need with a co-host? Is he there just to titillate the androphiles? Feh. I am one, and I couldn't get through the first episode.

When I skipped to the fourth series to see if they later got their heads back on straight, I discovered that they did change course, but not to their original format. Now they wanted to be a reality show, having the archaeologists at the digs record videos of the "moments of discovery" and send them in so that the "best" (in whose opinion? what are the criteria?) could be shown to the audience. Sure, there's a lab portion, but the videos looked so pointless and merely sensational that I couldn't bring myself to go any further.

I'm sure it's cheaper to send Professor Roberts to fewer locations, but if I wanted to watch a talk show or a reality show, I would have selected one of those to watch. I wanted to see a documentary. And after giving me episodes that I'd easily rate an 8 or a 9, they give me talk shows and reality shows, neither of which I watch because I consider them to be zeroes.

My advice is to watch the first eight episodes, and then give the third series onward a miss. Find yourself another actual documentary and watch that.

I think each episode could be half as long. There is more filler just using up time than I think I have ever seen before in a BBC documentary style production. Many of the images used as filler are just silly - waves rolling on a beach when we're told someone roved the seas, or a dog running about when we're told he was an explorer. I sort of expect any production associated with the BBC to be much better in terms of style and content. The host does have that distinctive British TV presenter accent and cadence down just right, though, if she does talk rather slowly. I don't think it's worth setting the PVR. I watched two episodes to give it a try, but there's not enough there.

Loved this series and would have given it a ten but I would have enjoyed it a great deal more if there had been subtitles. Being rather deaf I miss so much unless there are subtitles.

I find it incomprehensible that making the programmes available for the deaf has been ignored. Playing music while people are speaking makes things even more difficult to follow to any degree and I have to turn my tv up to maximum to make out any speech but I still miss so much.

I hope that this aspect will be addressed in any future series. I do feel a bit mean posting a complaint because, as previously mentioned, I have really enjoyed the series and feel it opens archeology to complete novices in an interesting and easily understood format.

As an archaeologist and historic interpreter myself, it is so heartening to see a public history/science program done right for a change - just the right amount of conjecture, and no sensationalized pseudo-science so common in American-produced "documentaries". I like the model- the notion of a series traveling around the country, reporting on the latest excavations and making some attempt to explain not only the process of the science, but the historical and environmental contexts of the sites as well.

Full disclosure: I might be a *bit* enamored of Alice Roberts. She, like Neil Oliver, have exactly what it takes to get across science while at the same time really helping the viewer use what they are seeing at the excavation to imagine what life was like for the ancient people there. There are some "artist's conception" type stills and few if any, 3-D renderings (which might help a bit in some cases) but Roberts does an amazing job of firing the imagination without much aid from graphics. The sites and artifacts are almost always visual enough on their own to get the point across.

Also, having watched hundreds of hours of documentaries in this vein, it's clear Dr. Roberts is very personable. The people she interviews are excited to see her and obviously like her. Which makes the viewing so much more enjoyable. I've seen a few that where just as entertaining because it was so amusing watching just the opposite interaction play out... interviewees practically curling lips and rolling eyes at the host. Not so here.

For anyone looking online if you can't access BBC iPlayer, as of 2015, there are 3 series. The first two have 4 episodes; the third, at least so far, only has 3.

The series was engaging, and held my attention quite well even though I was already familiar with many of the sites. This would be a wonderful show for families and schools to use a "career day" introduction to the field. While some viewers may tend to perceive the field as glamorous based on only one or two episodes, if you watch them all, it ends up realistically portraying working in all sorts of weather, the physical labor involved, and the painstaking nature (some might say drudgery) of lab work.

I found this series to be well worth my time.