The invention of photography gave a great impetus to the study of archaeology, as of other sciences. The camera is one of the first things which the exploring archaeologist thinks of when he prepares for an expedition. The resulting photographs and lantern slides are indispensable to him in the printed and oral reports of his work. Indeed, his reports necessarily are very often merely explanations of his pictures. 

For the scholar whose research is done in the museum or the library, for the teacher who reports the work of others, photographs are just as indispensable. 

Just as the invention of still photography has proved to be the beginning of a new era in archaeology, just so, in my opinion, the invention of motion pictures is destined to mark another era. We have been slow to recognize that fact, if, as I hold, it is a fact. It seems that in the many years that I have held this belief, there has been little indication of an appreciation of the situation. Many persons still have the impression that there is a great fire hazard in the use of all types of machines and that elaborate booths have to be provided and various preparations made to comply with the law and with ordinary rules of safety. There are, however, types of machines as portable as stereopticons which can be set up and operated simply in any room. 

My aim in this paper is to call attention to several phases of archaeological work in which the use of motion pictures seems desirable and valuable.  I do not plan to exhaust the possibilities, by any means. 

In the work of actual excavation motion pictures may often prove useful. There will be times when they alone can decide a seemingly small but vital point about the finding of some important object. The testimony of eye-witnesses may be conflicting or doubtful, the still photographs, numerous though they be, may tantalizingly fail to include a view at the crucial moment. It is true, perhaps, that an accurate record and a few still pictures taken at the time of the finding of the Venus de Milo would have solved, or rather prevented the mystery of that celebrated statue. Yet motion pictures would have settled the matter beyond question. One is inclined to wish that some of the archaeological finds and even excavations had not been made before the advent of the fully equipped archaeologist. On the other hand, to mention the Venus de Milo again by way of example, the world would have been deprived for a century of a very important artistic and therefore civilizing influence. 

Another illustration of the usefulness of motion pictures at the time of exploration: Professor Robinson relates his experience in opening a tomb and seeing for one fleeting instant the body of a young woman apparently perfectly preserved, together with all the accessories found in ancient tombs, but in a moment the whole crumbled to dust. The modern atmosphere was apparently too much for the ancient lady. It is perhaps possible that if motion pictures could be taken by artificial light on such an occasion they could reproduce for all of us this rare and wonderful sight and restore the credibility of its witnesses in the eyes of such sceptics as my ten-year-old son, who flatly denied the possibility of such a miracle. 

A beginning has indeed been made in the use of motion pictures at the time of excavation. Count de Prorok has been showing motion pictures of the work being done at Carthage. Archaeology has found its way to the front page of the newspaper as a result of the discovery of the tomb of King Tut-ankh-amen. What an opportunity to follow up the interest thus aroused by showing motion pictures of every stage of the excavations in every theatre in the world! 

There are certain things which can be shown much better with motion than with still pictures. A number of still photographs of a statue, taken from different points of view, give a fair idea of it, but would it not be much more satisfactory in some cases to have moving pictures taken while the statue was slowly revolved on a turntable? 

One of my own intense joys is the interior of the Pantheon at Rome, with its simple and majestic coffered ceiling. No photograph, no drawing can do it justice. Perhaps motion pictures could not do much better, but I should like to see a trial made. Many other impressive monuments can be shown to much better advantage in this way. In many cases it is difficult, even with the careful use of plans, to make clear with still pictures the actual arrangement of a group of rooms or buildings. I have in mind a group of  ruins such as Hadrian's villa, or the palace at Cnossus. A skillfully executed series of motion pictures might make such buildings more comprehensible and hence more interesting. Moving pictures taken from airplanes would be especially useful. 

Plans are now under way for making available films showing various scenes of archaeological interest. We can hardly say, however, that the very best way of taking such scenes has as yet been worked out. 1 look forward to the time when we can select for a lecture a film showing, for example, the Forum, just as we now select a lantern slide or a photograph. Not that the moving picture will supersede the lantern slide--rather, the two will be used most effectively together. 

But my chief interest in moving pictures in their relation to archaeology lies along another line. Archaeology is more than the excavation of ancient sites, than the comparative study of museum specimens, than the multitudinous other activities covered by the programs of the Archaeological Institute. All these are in a sense but means to an end. That end is the faithful reproduction of the life of the past. The older archaeologists and artists who "restored" alas too often wrongly, the broken statues found in their time, had the right end in view, but they used the wrong means. The modern archaeologist, on the other hand, perhaps occasionally forgets the end which he should keep in view.  Restorations of plaster casts of statues, restorations of buildings in the form of drawings, paintings, or models are very desirable. The new plan of excavation adopted at Pompeii, that of leaving all finds in situ and of attempting to give as faithful a representation as possible of the ancient city is highly commendable. One could wish that it had been begun much sooner. I should myself gladly prefer a Pompeii excavated to only half its present extent, provided it were all excavated according to the latest plan. The Pompeii at Saratoga, with its charming restoration of the House of Pansa, was most valuable. It is now unfortunately closed to the general public and is not being kept in its former condition. But all this is not enough. We need to restore scenes from ancient life with actual people. The Greek and Roman plays which have often been given with great attention to archaeological accuracy are among the finest expressions of the effort to recreate antiquity--the real aim of archaeology. Yet these plays represent but a small phase of the ancient civilization, and besides they last but a few hours after weeks and months of preparation--and are seen by relatively few people. Such plays should be perpetuated in moving pictures. But we need much more than plays. We need all sorts of scenes depicting older civilizations. just as we now make use of restored drawings of the Roman Forum or the Acropolis at Athens, a Pompeian house or a Greek temple, so we ought to have moving pictures showing restored views of these and hundreds of other places, with the ancient inhabitants, so to speak, going about their daily business. While the production of such films would be expensive, I am confident that they would eventually pay for themselves and even prove profitable. The limit to the number of such scenes would be set only by our knowledge of the facts and--the creative imagination without which archaeology cannot reach its highest expression.

We have, indeed, some such scenes already available. The producers of moving picture plays have at times used what may be called archaeological materials as settings for their plays. Notable among these are the Roman plays produced in Italy and distributed in this country by Mr. George Kleine. Some slight idea of the wealth of archaeological detail and its fidelity may be obtained from the accompanying illustrations. I understand that competent archaeologists were employed to work out the details. It is stated that two professors of archaeology supervised the production of "Julius Caesar." Several hundred bust figures and herms of solid marble were used and great care was taken to avoid anachronisms in their use. Archaeological accuracy in such details as furniture, wall decorations, and writing materials was sought and substantially attained. 

Motion pictures give actual life to dead scenes. The furniture, the houses suddenly become real and intimate. The layman feels that he is witnessing phases of a genuine civilization, not one which after all has seemed to him the semi-mythical concoction of imaginative poets and historians. 

When archaeologists can take the lead in the production of such material as I have suggested they will be able to do much toward extending the influence of archaeological study. It remains for some one, or rather some group, to seize the great opportunity before us. The formation of the Sacred Films Corporation with its plan to film Bible stories, and especially the employment of so competent an archaeologist as Edgar J. Banks, is a move in the right direction. The outcome of his more recent activity in filming historical and archaeological subjects, as described by him in ART AND ARCHAEOLOGY, January, 1923, will be watched with interest by all.

Ullman, B. L. "Archaeology and Motion Pictures." Art and Archaeology 15, April 1923:177-183.