Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 13:32:25 +0100 Subject: Re: AEL English translation into Hieroglyphics From: Paula Veiga To: Ancient Egyptian Language List To all, I agree with Katherine. If they have a production team, they should consider fees for this work. People usually find very attractive to work for TV (I do, in my country but ONLY if they pay me), and therefore contribute without asking anything in return. Not even credits? No way... Paula Veiga Health and Medicine in Ancient Egypt http://orienteantigo.blogspot.com/ "Libraries: The medicine chest of the soul." Inscription over the door of the library at Thebes, ancient Egypt ============================================================================== From: Burk Sauls To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL English translation into Hieroglyphics Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 08:30:24 -0700 In defense of the person asking for the favor recently: From my experience, I'd guess that the person who asked for the help on this list was probably working for pretty cheap, with a very limited production budget to get the work done (the US economy has impacted the entertainment industry, too), and under some heavy deadlines. It's also likely they don't get screen credit on the show, either. I've worked in special effects, props and graphics for TV shows for over 20 years (including the show in question). I've done intensive creative and visual work that you'd probably recognize if you watch any of about 25 shows over that period of time, and I rarely get screen credit for the work I've done. Screen credits are hard to come by. They're valuable. That's just the way it goes in TV production - which usually only credits department heads and a few select others on screen. I've worked on several shows over the years that have needed AE elements, and I've done my best to learn these things myself (despite my limited brain power), which is nice since I have an interest in the subject already. But that's not always the case with everyone, and there's often no time or budget to do it right. I actually think it's pretty impressive of the person who wrote to the list asking for a favor. It shows that he/she cares enough to try and get it right. So remember, if you see TV shows that feature AE and it's not accurate and you wonder how the idiots who make the graphics or the props for the shows could be so incredibly stupid (and we do get letters from folks who are appalled! and shocked! and horrified! that we don't get our props and graphics right every time), and why we don't get help from the pros, it's often because the pros imagine that we're all wealthy and have control over who gets their names in lights. Someone I asked a few years back for a favor demanded about three times what I was getting paid for that particular job, so I spent an unpaid weekend with some books - and apparently still got it wrong. We do our best with what we've got, and we occasionally need to ask for favors. But these are the reasons why I'm reluctant to even ask. I guess my point is: if you watch TV dramas and you spot an inaccuracy in the props or graphics, it might not be because the designer didn't try. - Burk Sauls 7:44 AM Pacific Monday, August 24, 2009 CE Los Angeles, CA ============================================================================== From: "A.K. Eyma" To: "Ancient Egyptian Language List" Subject: Re: AEL English translation into Hieroglyphics Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 19:56:34 +0200 Bob wrote: >Even though we can't make the deadline for the forensic drama show, > I think it would be fun to try, especially if several members would >contribute. **Seeing Katherine's warning, it seems not a good idea to have a go at their phrase on AEL. But you are right that it is time that some exercises were done here. And if a longer AE text tends to come to a premature halt, then shorter things could be done -- stelae, but also such reversed translations. Perhaps a famous (short) English poem translated into hieroglyphs? Aayko ============================================================================== Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 18:07:00 +0800 (WST) From: gilbert To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL English translation into Hieroglyphics Thanks for the little bit of insight in TV show productions, Burk. Even if the show did not get the correct AE, just the fact that a tip of the veil was lifted on how things work behind the scene was worth this thread. G. ============================================================================== From: Pascal Leah Memishian To: , Subject: RE: AEL English translation into Hieroglyphics Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 07:39:08 -0400 I am sadly more of a neophyte with all of this...but I would help if I could...credit or not. I certainly understand everyone's point but I also understand the comments regarding shows/ films etc...aiming to "get it right." They look to those with knowledge... In an effort to keep AE alive, and as accurate as possible (we all know it's not SO easy to come by!)...credit sort of falls to the not-so-important list.... Blessings to all, *Pascal* ============================================================================== From: "Katherine Griffis" To: "'Ancient Egyptian Language List'" Subject: RE: AEL English translation into Hieroglyphics Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 16:41:26 +0100 Burk Sauls wrote: > In defense of the person asking for the favor recently: > > From my experience, I'd guess that the person who asked for the help > on this list was probably working for pretty cheap, with a very > limited production budget to get the work done (the US economy has > impacted the entertainment industry, too), and under some heavy > deadlines. It's also likely they don't get screen credit on the show, > either. The show making the request is one of the most successful TV shows in the US and worldwide at the moment, and the production company is one of the most successful in the business, so a "limited production budget" is not the issue. Also recall that no compensation was asked for in the incident I related. Also, the researcher who asked the question in the previous forum works as a researcher for another very successful US television show as well. In both shows, IMDB shows they do list their technical consultants and advisors in screen credits. > I've worked in special effects, props and graphics for TV shows for > over 20 years (including the show in question). I've done intensive > creative and visual work that you'd probably recognize if you watch > any of about 25 shows over that period of time, and I rarely get > screen credit for the work I've done. Screen credits are hard to come > by. They're valuable. That's just the way it goes in TV production - > which usually only credits department heads and a few select others on > screen. However, based upon what you say, you were being paid as an employee at the time by the production company, so understanding that means that, no, you were not getting screen credit as any work you did for them was part of your work as an employee. However, if you ask a professional in a certain field outside of television production for assistance in rendering glyph translations, which does takes time and research, and you are NOT paying them for their services, then the very least one can do is give a screen credit, or in lieu of that, professional acknowledgment by letter of that assistance, from the production company. In the case I mentioned, the issue of screen credits and acknowledgement had been negotiated between the researcher for the show and the person doing the glyph research before the person rendered the glyphs. However, once the glyphs were done and rendered, and submitted to the researcher, the research requesting the glyphs did not carry through on the agreement in getting the person screen credits or even a letter of acknowledgement. > So remember, if you see TV shows that feature AE and it's not accurate > and you wonder how the idiots who make the graphics or the props for > the shows could be so incredibly stupid (and we do get letters from > folks who are appalled! and shocked! and horrified! that we don't get > our props and graphics right every time), and why we don't get help > from the pros, it's often because the pros imagine that we're all > wealthy and have control over who gets their names in lights. Many of us wish to have the most accurate information on ancient Egypt and translations there can be, but the production companies are not willing to acknowledge our contributions, even when we submit it to them for free, asking only for acknowledgement, and screen credit is acknowledgement. Recall that every Egyptologist does have to have evidence of what he places on his or her resume in this day and age, or be accused of "padding" their CV. This was the case in the previous example I noted, which was why credit and acknowledgement was part of the negotiated agreement between the researcher and the person rendering the glyphs. This is also a problem that many professional Egyptologists have, according to Nigel Hetherington at Past Preservers. Often production companies will ask for long interviews with professionals in the field of Egyptology, which most are happy to do, only to find their work used without any acknowledgement whatsoever, and, even worse, mangled in such a way by the production company to say something the Egyptologists did not say. This is why you find many professional Egyptologists are less than helpful in making of some television documentaries and even fictional shows these days - because they find no acknowledgement for their work, nor is the information even used properly. In this day of limited job prospects for Egyptologists, any work they can get, even as rendering transcriptions of glyphs for television shows, is something they will pursue, but only with the understanding that their work is acknowledged as a means of adding the experience to their CV. However, most universities and other organizations which hire Egyptologists have learned by sad examples of falsification of resumes to require evidence you have actually done the work you claim to have done. > Someone I asked a few years back for a favor demanded about three times what I > was getting paid for that particular job, so I spent an unpaid weekend > with some books - and apparently still got it wrong. We do our best > with what we've got, and we occasionally need to ask for favors. But > these are the reasons why I'm reluctant to even ask. No compensation was asked for in the incident I related. Please note that compensation was not the issue. > I guess my point is: if you watch TV dramas and you spot an > inaccuracy in the props or graphics, it might not be because the > designer didn't try. I know of several Egyptologists who have rendered glyphs for television shows in Canada and the United Kingdom, and received acknowledgement for that work both in the form of screen credit and letters of acknowledgement from the production companies, although no compensation was rendered. This also appears to be true in most European television production companies as well. Are you saying that US show production companies, especially those with great success rates in terms of number of shows, and very popular shows at that, are incapable of doing this? If so, why? Regards - Katherine Griffis-Greenberg, M. A. (Lon) Oriental Institute Oriental Studies Doctoral Program [Egyptology] Oxford University Oxford, United Kingdom http://www.griffis-consulting.com ============================================================================== From: "A.K. Eyma" To: "Ancient Egyptian Language List" Subject: Re: AEL English translation into Hieroglyphics Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 13:53:52 +0200 Just for your curiosity: The Bones episode that needed the glyphs is (provisionally?) called "A Night at the Bones Museum." No idea when (if?) it will air -- but in case you happen to see it in a year(?) or so, in the USA firstly no doubt, do tell us what they did brew of it. Aayko ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 03:19:31 +0100 From: Paul Tatum To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Advice for an Egyptian grammar Hi all, my first post, and it is to comment what someone else has said :-(. And it's an old thread.... my apologies. msore@albawaba.com wrote: > > Yes. most of the pedagogical works in egyptology are about how to get > students to use egyptological jargon and translate according to the > traditions established by the big names in the field. > > Linguistics is not a focus found in egyptology. > > Sorry. Loprieno's book is not linguistics. No linguist reading it would > recognize any standard linguistic treatment. It may be described as taking > established egyptological language issues and throwing various linguistics > terms at them. But the terms are thrown inconsistently, outside of any > coherence or theory, and without respect for linguistic levels and > principles. Loprieno does not treat phonology with phonological tools, > does not treat morphology with morphological tools, does not treat syntax > with syntactic tools and does not treat diachronic or comparative issues > with the principles linguists provide. He also ignores semantics and > issues about the lexicon. > I think that this criticism of Loprieno is a bit harsh. I found that his book is very dense, and I had to read him sentence by sentence, and think about what he was saying and implying, but that his book rewards such close study. I did a linguistics degree in the mid-1980's, and while I had to research the paradigm in which Loprieno describes Egyptian syntax, I don't think that it isn't linguistic. Topic, focus and pre-supposition have long been tools used to describe the motivations for the use of different sentence and clause structures, and I believe that they are becoming more important with some traditions of lingustics (including the (many) phrase structure based theories). They are not inconsistent with generative analyses, but complementary in that they provide motivation for the use of structures. It had not occurred to me that Loprieno was inconsistent with his use of terms, nor that he mixes levels, nor that he was unaware of diachronic issues. Indeed, he explicitly discusses diachronic developments in many places. Can you provide examples of inconsistency or level mixing? I don't necessarily agree with Loprieno's analyses, but my disagreements would be based on linguistic arguments in order to counter his linguistic arguments. In the end, I think my appreciation of Egyptian was enhanced by reading Loprieno's book, and I now look at texts with a broader insight. > How would an analyst decide WHICH explanation of any particular language > pattern should be preferred? That is a central question to anyone doing > linguistics. And it is a question that is not addressed in the various > books suggested as textbooks on the Egyptian language. > In general, I was taught, one grammatical explanation should be preferred to another if (a) it describes _what_ is an acceptable sentence and what is not (b) it can say _why_ acceptable structures are acceptable, and unacceptable structures aren't. and (c) it is more concise in its explanation than a competing explanation. Points (a) and (b) mean that a grammar has to have descriptive and explanatory adequacy, while (c) decides between grammars which are equally descriptively and explanatorily adequate, by using Occam's razor. Yours, Paul Tatum. ============================================================================== From: Burk Sauls To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL English translation into Hieroglyphics Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 08:26:42 -0700 On Aug 25, 2009, at 8:41 AM, Katherine Griffis wrote: > > Burk Sauls wrote: >> In defense of the person asking for the favor recently: >> >> From my experience, I'd guess that the person who asked for the help >> on this list was probably working for pretty cheap, with a very >> limited production budget to get the work done (the US economy has >> impacted the entertainment industry, too), and under some heavy >> deadlines. It's also likely they don't get screen credit on the show, >> either. > > The show making the request is one of the most successful TV shows > in the US > and worldwide at the moment, and the production company is one of > the most > successful in the business, so a "limited production budget" is not > the > issue. Also recall that no compensation was asked for in the > incident I > related. Also, the researcher who asked the question in the > previous forum > works as a researcher for another very successful US television show > as > well. In both shows, IMDB shows they do list their technical > consultants > and advisors in screen credits. That's a bit like assuming that the guy running the gas pumps at a Chevron station has a stake in Big Oil. I've worked on almost all of the biggest TV shows in the US in recent years either as a prop/ graphics designer or designing the promotion/motion graphics for them (including a recent campaign for LOST involving AE hieroglyphs), and unless you're "above the line" you're probably not getting rich. I can personally assure you of the "not getting rich" part. :) The limited production budget is often VERY limited even on the shows that you might think are hugely popular. They certainly bring in money for the creators and producers but various departments can still be found scrambling and clawing at the dregs of their per-episode budgets at the last minute to cover a scene that one of the writers added last night - and to whom it didn't occur that adding the line, "Then Bob opens the garage door to reveal an alien spaceship parked next to his Jaguar," might involve some extra effort on the part of the prop makers, production designer, set dressers, set decorators, transportation department, special effects, post effects department, locations department, and even the legal department to clear the name "Jaguar." Prop departments often have to reuse props and good set dressers/ decorators are known for their intimate knowledge of local thrift shops, flea markets and Goodwill stores which they rely on to help fill out a set. Like any industry that makes a lot of money, there are those who get rich, and those who work very, very hard making these other people rich. It's not pretty, but that's how it works across the board just about everywhere. And IMDB doesn't list SCREEN credits. That site has the FULL credits for the show, and anyone can plug their name in if they worked on the show or episode in question. If it's approved that they actually did work on the show it goes onto the site. So if a listing on IMDB is the issue, then getting your name there is easy, if you did actually do time on the project and someone on the crew in the department you worked for will vouch. And yes, often technical advisors do get screen credit. These are the people who are employed by the production and are on set at call time and work daily with the cast and crew on every aspect of the show to insure the accuracy of their area of expertise. An ex-cop for instance, who might instruct the actors and background extras on how to properly hold a pistol or how police officers enter a room, or a Paramedic or former Navy SEAL who might oversee a scene involving a traffic accident or a military operation. And shows like the idea that the viewing public knows that they had an actual former NFL Pro advising on their show about football, or Professor Somebody of the Institute of Exceptional Information as their technical advisor on an episode about such stuff. It's rare for someone who provides a single service or favor to the prop department or the playback graphics department to get a screen credit. Of course, if the show or film needs a lot of Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs or other ancient artifacts created because that's what the show is ABOUT, they will definitely hire advisors and artists who specialize in that to work on the project, but for a show like BONES or CROSSING JORDAN or CSI, when a single scene calls for a brief shot of an inscription seen on a computer monitor, it's often done by the prop/playback graphics department using whatever resources are available. All that said, I do appreciate the idea of being compensated for the work that you do, and if you're a professional you should be paid as a professional when you do the thing you do, but when these requests are an occasional favor, it seems a bit excessive to expect things that even seasoned crew members don't expect. Sorry to go so far off topic here, but since TV shows and movies do seem to be using the ancient world a bit more in recent years I figure it's something worth discussing a little... I'll stop, now. ; ) - Burk Sauls 7:42 AM Pacific Wednesday, August 26, 2009 CE Los Angeles, CA= ============================================================================== Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 13:48:46 -0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: AEL English translation into Hieroglyphics From: msore@albawaba.com To: "Ancient Egyptian Language List" The people who actually built the pyramids (and designed them) did not get their names recorded in history. The few elite at the apex of the complex system, with life and death power over insignificant workers, these are the names we read. Television is one more monumental form of exploitation for the purpose of accumulating glitz and bragging rights at the top. m ============================================================================== Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 09:48:08 -0500 From: Robert Myers To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL English translation into Hieroglyphics Thanks for this. When I think of getting credit to where it is due, my first thought is for the ancient men of learning who have inspired me. I want to add to their legacy of enrichment, not take the pleasure out of it. Sincerely, Bob ============================================================================== From: Ahatnakht@aol.com Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 18:50:40 EDT Subject: AEL Egyptian grammar To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.org.uk Hi Paul Thank you for your very interesting response to the criticism of Loprieno's book. I, too, find Loprieno's book extremely useful in my studies and it has on more than one occasion provided me with what I found a more plausible translation model of a particular text passage then the Standard Theory examples I had come across (expecially when we get down to the "circumstancial" sDm=f, second tenses and relative forms). Your definition of how to distinguish between grammars is wonderfully concise and to the point - just like that ideal grammar! The purpose of a paedagogical grammar is to equip the student with the tools to acquire a new language and to this end it is necessary that the beginner is at first taught in a somewhat standardised way (and not so very standardised at all in Egyptology anyway - even the "jargon" is different in every single grammar!!), until the student has reached the level where he or she can choose one of the available models or argue for a new model! Otherwise it would be putting the cart before the horse! There is then, of course, a lot of linguistic discussion going on in Egyptology which can, inter alia, be found in periodicals like Lingua Agyptia, and which is far too fluid to be eternally formalised in whole books. I totally agree with Matthew's later post >Note that this view precludes there being ONE final grammar. This is particularly true where we can only ever approximate what an Egyptian might have understood (and often not even that), for we are, after all, reading the skeleton of a language where not only the grammatical inflections provided by the vowels, but also most of the rich idiomatic nuances and wonderful idiosyncrasies of everyday speech - which stem from the whole experience of live and which inevitably have shaped the formal written language as well - are as lost to us as the sound of Ancient Egyptian. We don't know what the language "feels" like in any of its known stages! Normally, if you learn a foreign language fluently, you internalise it to such a degree that you feel what is right or wrong without having to think about grammar (and that goes beyond grammar, anyway, because you can easily construct grammatical sentences in any language that "feel" wrong). I would suspect that formal linguistics arose from the desire to find out why something "feels" right in the language being analysed. So whatever linguistic theory we apply, the resulting translation of Ancient Egyptian is often no more than someone's best guess - and I haven't seen any translation (or grammar and dictionary) yet that has tried to claim otherwise. And that, of course, is all the fun! regards Tilly (currently struggling with plenty of guesswork in the Eloquent Peasant!) Mechthild Burton ahatnakht@aol.com ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 14:06:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Grant Hicks To: Ancient Egyptian Language List , Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Advice for an Egyptian grammar No need to apologize. It's a good post, and it put into words, better than I could have, some of my own reactions to the post you're replying to. Thanks. - Grant Hicks -----Original Message----- >From: Paul Tatum >Sent: Aug 26, 2009 10:19 PM >To: Ancient Egyptian Language List >Subject: Re: AEL Advice for an Egyptian grammar > >Hi all, my first post, and it is to comment what someone else has said >:-(. And it's an old thread.... my apologies. > ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 10:52:55 -0700 From: Kim Ghobrial To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL English translation into Hieroglyphics Hi Aayko, No, it is a TV Series called Bones (this is on the back side of the Season I DVD's): >>David Boreanaz stars as F.B.I. Agent Seeley Booth, who teams up with Forensic Anthropologist, Dr. Temperance "Bones" Brennan (Emily Deschanel) to solve some of the most baffling and bizarre crimes ever. Booth depends on clues from the living, witnesses and suspects, while Brennan gathers evidence from the dead, relying on her uncanny ability to read clues left behind in the bones of the victims. Their different investigative styles cause the two to frequently clash, creating an undeniable chemistry and just the right touch of dark humor. Inspired by real-life Forensic Anthropologist Kathy Reichs and state-of-the-art criminal investigation procedures, Bones is compelling, cutting-edge television.<< Kim Ghobrial ============================================================================== From: STEVE CROSS To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: RE: AEL English translation into Hieroglyphics Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 20:11:07 +0000 Hello M, Sorry, but that is not quite true. I agree that people at the top are sometimes hungry for the limelight, but we do know the names of several architects for pyramids. Djozer's Step Pyramid, Saqqara, Imhotep. Sneferu's Medium pyrmaid, Nefermaat. Sneferu's Dashur Bent and Red pyrmaids, Rahotep. Khufu's Great Pyramid Giza, Nefermaat's son Hemiunu. Interestingly, all of the above were also High Priest (Greatest of Seers) at the Temple of Ra at Heliopolis. It appears that sun worship and pyrmids were intimately linked. Best Regards, Steve > Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 13:48:46 +0000 > Subject: Re: AEL English translation into Hieroglyphics > From: msore@albawaba.com > To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.org.uk > > > The people who actually built the pyramids (and designed them) did not get > their names recorded in history. The few elite at the apex of the complex > system, with life and death power over insignificant workers, these are > the names we read. Television is one more monumental form of exploitation > for the purpose of accumulating glitz and bragging rights at the top. > ============================================================================== Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 18:31:20 -0000 (GMT) Subject: AEL linguistics or not From: msore@albawaba.com To: "Ancient Egyptian Language List" Paul. Thanks for your comments, late or not. What is late, anyway, when dealing with dead languages? You defended Loprieno, clearly and generously. I would love it if there were more discussion (with argumentation) on questions like how much linguistics is used by egyptologists. Using better tools should lead (shouldn't it?) to better translations, better teaching, better history, better science? You listed points A, B and C as criteria for making decisions. They are great and central to the question. In the readings I have done through Loprieno, I found he was NOT using such criteria in presenting what he considered to be facts, or in presenting descriptions of patterns in the language. You may have seen more than I could see. As a single question that might reveal something important, let me ask you this. Does Loprieno have a notion (formal or systematic) of what a 'linguistic rule' would be? Related, subsequent questions would include these. Can any description of any observation constitute a 'rule'? Are there different sorts of rules for different sorts of phenomena (phonological, morphological, syntactic, etc). How are such rules ordered, or what interdependence is there between them? Are the rules posited consistent with what has been found for related languages; are they learnable; are they explanatory? How would a set of rules add up to something we might call a 'grammar' with linguistic significance? Thanks for taking the issue seriously. matthew ============================================================================== From: "Katherine Griffis" To: "'Ancient Egyptian Language List'" Subject: RE: AEL English translation into Hieroglyphics Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 20:50:12 +0100 Saul Burks wrote: > All that said, I do appreciate the idea of being compensated for the > work that you do, and if you're a professional you should be paid as a > professional when you do the thing you do, but when these requests are > an occasional favor, it seems a bit excessive to expect things that > even seasoned crew members don't expect. Yet, credits and acknowledgement _are_ what had been negotiated between the show's researcher and the person doing the glyph research, which was _my_ point. Let's look at it this way: - If a television production company tells a professional/expert they will provide X, if the professional/expert does the requested work, - If the professional/expert does the work because they said they _would_ provide X, and then - The TV production company does not provide X as agreed, then Ergo, I see no reason for _any_ professional/expert to keep doing work for the show, which obviously breaks its promises to other professionals/experts who had performed previous work. > Sorry to go so far off topic here, but since TV shows and movies do > seem to be using the ancient world a bit more in recent years I figure > it's something worth discussing a little... I'll stop, now. ; ) As I noted before, Nigel Hetherington's business, Past Preservers, is a response for most Egyptological (and other) archaeology experts who no longer wish to directly provide services to TV shows and documentaries because they have been so badly burned by such companies about the issue of credit and acknowledgement, which is, for a professional and experts in the field(s), part of the lifeblood of his/her CV. As Hetherington explained to me, recently: "Firstly, we wanted to assist our clients (the producers) find the right expert but we also realised that our other clients (the experts) needed assistance when it comes to dealing with the media. I can not begin to tell you the number of people who have been .providing free research, script writing and even ideas for shows with no formal acknowledgment in the end product either. Past Preservers always insists on remuneration and credit for our experts, we deal with the financial and logistical arrangements. Regarding the matter of editorial control, even the biggest names in the business do not get this, so in that light we only work with producers we trust and we also advise our experts never to discuss issues they feel uncomfortable with and to make their feelings known to the producers from the beginning on what they will and will not cover. Or we can also deal with this directly as well." I should think that if an organisation such as Past Preservers and publications such as Near Eastern Archaeology http://www.asor.org/pubs/nea/back-issues/71_3.html question the efficacy, benefits, and ethics of directly working for television programmes and documentaries which _don't_ adequately listen to, or acknowledge or compensate the experts they use/abuse in their shows, then it's only right that these experts have expressed the belief they now have the _right_ to make such issues part and parcel of any future dealings in such shows _before any further work is performed_. If the show agrees to acknowledgement in the show (credit) or even a formal letter of acknowledgement from the production company for such work performed, and then does not deliver, this failure to deliver on what was negotiated should always be noted in any future attempts these shows make for the same type of services. This is why I noted as I have what dealings have occurred with the BONES show in the past by one such expert and why I do not suggest delivering any further work to them. Regards - Katherine Griffis-Greenberg, M. A. (Lon) Oriental Institute Oriental Studies Doctoral Program [Egyptology] Oxford University Oxford, United Kingdom http://www.griffis-consulting.com A man who limits his interests, limits his life. Vincent Price ============================================================================== From: Burk Sauls To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL English translation into Hieroglyphics Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2009 09:47:05 -0700 Apparently we're talking about two different things here. You seem to be talking about an expert who was HIRED by a show to provide ongoing consultation and other services who was a victim of blatant criminal misrepresentation and fraud on the part of the production company. If the production company is guilty of not fulfilling the obligations of a contract, then OF COURSE they should be taken to court. The entertainment industry is very specific about work, and the unions will back you up if you have a legitimate claim against even the biggest production company. If an expert is contracted to provide a service [X] for a production and the production company then refuses to pay the agreed rate then then you've got a very easy-to-win court case on your hands. Obviously if you want to be compensated by a large company you must sign a contract with them. That's just common sense. It not only insures that you're treated fairly, but it insures the company that you will make good on your agreement to provide the expert service [X]. The details of entertainment industry contracts are very carefully negotiated, and blatantly violating these contracts is a big deal in this industry. It's taken very seriously. And when you read the contract, if there's something in it that you don't agree with... Do Not Sign It. People enjoy slamming "Hollywood" about ripping them off and being shallow and heartless, etc..., but honestly it's just like any other industry. Of course they'd love to pay you less if they could, but if you've made a legal agreement, then they're obligated to make good on it or suffer the consequences. If they decide to rip you off, they do it at their own very real risk. I guess that kind of thing happens, I just don't see it much, because flat-out refusing to pay someone for a contracted service is rare on legitimate productions, especially, (as you said before) on a show that's internationally successful and well-known. I have no idea why this production company would risk a potentially damaging trial (and likely negative international press) just to avoid paying a hired historical consultant. Personally I've never heard of a specific member of the crew being refused payment. When I wrote the post you're responding to I was writing it as a response to a note on this list asking for a favor and a response from someone suggesting that they'd need to be paid and to receive an on- screen credit for helping this person by translating a line of text into Ancient Egyptian within the next day or so for a scene in a TV show. My point was: expecting payment or an on-screen credit for a favor like this one is a bit much. Hiring someone as a full-time historical consultant on a television series is a totally different thing. If you're hired to provide historical consultation for a show and you're on the crew providing this service [X] and the production refuses to cut you a paycheck at the rate that was agreed upon or if they refuse to grant you the on- screen credit that they agreed to in the contract you signed, then YES, you do have a case, and YES is it criminal of them to do that. If someone has a genuine grievance against a production company that has violated a contract or purposefully broken union rules, then I'd be surprised if they didn't pursue it in court. - Burk Sauls 9:14 AM Pacific Saturday, August 29, 2009 CE Los Angeles, CA ============================================================================== From: Joanna Kyffin To: Subject: RE: AEL English translation into Hieroglyphics Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2009 13:00:09 +0000 > Katherine Griffis wrote: > As I noted before, Nigel Hetherington's business, Past Preservers, is a > response for most Egyptological (and other) archaeology experts who no > longer wish to directly provide services to TV shows and documentaries > because they have been so badly burned by such companies about the issue of > credit and acknowledgement, which is, for a professional and experts in the > field(s), part of the lifeblood of his/her CV. > I'm a little confused here - are you saying that working for tv shows as a consultant is part and parcel of an academic cv? That's not my understanding. As I understand it (and I'm no expert!) publications, teaching experience and fieldwork are the 'lifeblood' of an academic cv. Consultancy work for tv/films isn't. Also, whilst I'm sure your warnings were well intentioned, you haven't been compelled to do this work for BONES, and if others chose to do so, perhaps they take a different view of it than yours... Besides, I never thought that Egyptology would make me rich OR famous (; Jo Joanna Kyffin PhD Candidate School of Archaeology, Classics and Egyptology, University of Liverpool. J.A.Kyffin@liv.ac.uk ============================================================================== From: "Katherine Griffis" To: "'Ancient Egyptian Language List'" Subject: RE: AEL English translation into Hieroglyphics Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2009 21:07:46 +0100 Joanna Kyffin wrote: > > Katherine Griffis wrote: > > As I noted before, Nigel Hetherington's business, Past Preservers, is a > > response for most Egyptological (and other) archaeology experts who no > > longer wish to directly provide services to TV shows and documentaries > > because they have been so badly burned by such companies about the issue of > > credit and acknowledgement, which is, for a professional and experts in the > > field(s), part of the lifeblood of his/her CV. > > I'm a little confused here - are you saying that working for tv shows as a > consultant is part and parcel of an academic cv? > That's not my understanding. As I understand it (and I'm no expert!) > publications, teaching experience and fieldwork are the 'lifeblood' of an > academic cv. Consultancy work for tv/films isn't. I agree that working for TV/films isn't the lifeblood of an academic CV: _recognition of one's efforts_ on any project _IS_, and if you do research for a documentary or a television show _as a technical consultant_, then that recognition is part and parcel of the various forms of work you include on a CV. In the case of young Egyptologists, these days being asked to technical research work as a consultant on a documentary or other show is sometimes one of their first jobs they get after university. I even know a few who worked on such shows during their university time as well. Yes, these young professionals may be writing for journals, or working on a longer book, and searching for work at a university, museum, etc. But for many, being asked to work on a documentary is also something that is acknowledged as 'consultant work' for purposes of their CV. I know that my supervisor at Oxford, for example, has told me that consultation work has its own separate space on a CV, and should be shown on a CV as 'work performed in consultation.' Since the forms of consultation can be very varied (providing assistance to a popular journal, such as National Geographic, or research for a documentary, providing attendant research on a publication to another author, and so on), _evidence of this work_ should be available for future employers who see it listed on the CV (letters of acknowledgement, copies of the documentary in some cases). I, for example, get letters of acknowledgement for any work I've done for National Geographic, and include copies of publications for which I provided research, and these are available for any potential employer to view. However, as I noted in my first post, if one is approached to work as a technical consultant by a television production company's staff (in this case, to render glyphs), and one accepts the work request, then _if acknowledgement or credit is negotiated_ (as it was in the case I recounted), then it's because of _the need for a professional's work to be acknowledged_. In the case I noted, such negotiations had taken place, had been agreed, and then the production company reneged on those negotiations to the person who did the research, which is why I thought it worth noting on this list, when the _same company made a similar request_. > Also, whilst I'm sure your warnings were well intentioned, you haven't been > compelled to do this work for BONES, and if others chose to do so, perhaps > they take a different view of it than yours... I don't think the issue is about "being compelled" to work for the BONES show (or me, as this is not about me). Obviously, this was not the case in the situation I recounted. The issue is about the fact that if certain agreements through negotiations are made by television production companies to do work for _any_ show, and a professional does the work _based upon those agreements_, then if the agreement is breached, then it seems very reasonable to recount the incident as evidence of a bad past practice by such a television production company, as a warning to others about how this company has treated persons doing such work in the past. Whether or not other members of this list want to heed that warning is quite another matter, but if someone on this list _IS_ searching for recognition though consultation work, then perhaps they would want to heed the warning and expend their efforts elsewhere. > Besides, I never thought that Egyptology would make me rich OR famous (; Heavens knows, it usually doesn't. Thank goodness we just really love the subject. ;) Saul Burks wrote: > but if you've made a legal agreement, then they're obligated to make good on it or suffer the consequences. If they decide to rip you off, they do it at their own very real risk.< This is what occurred in the case I recounted: negotiations about the glyph rendering were made between the show researcher, representing the television production company, and the person doing the glyphs, which were agreed upon, that credit and acknowledgement to the person would be provided by the production company for the glyph work performed. Only _after_ such an agreement was reached did the person perform the glyph work requested. After the glyphs were submitted to the production company, then the production company reneged upon the agreement with the person who did the glyphs. That's the sum of it - there was no "favor" being asked, no friendly "Could you do this for me on the side?" kind of discussion, but an actual back and forth negotiation, and _in writing_. No other form of compensation was discussed or even envisioned, as I understand it. The only thing person performing the glyph work asked for in the negotiations was credit and acknowledgement, which they were promised in writing _before_ doing the work. So, yes, they do feel 'ripped off,' and I thought they were as well. I'm glad you appear to agree that what occurred is a serious matter, which is why I recounted it when the same company approached another list for similar work. I'm not sure what action the person who did the glyphs will pursue. However, I thought the incident worth noting, as I know a number of people in the field were shocked when this happened. Regards - Katherine Griffis-Greenberg, M. A. (Lon) Oriental Institute Oriental Studies Doctoral Program [Egyptology] Oxford University Oxford, United Kingdom http://www.griffis-consulting.com ============================================================================== Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2009 15:54:25 -0500 From: Robert Myers To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL English translation into Hieroglyphics Hi; If someone has better information, please be forthcoming, but; it is my impression of Egyptology that it has pretty much been headed up by an elite of people with independent means, doing most of their work _pro bono publico_, with the help of less fortunate people doing the same thing. Yes, a lot of money has to flow to keep the Tutankhamun show on the road or books, magazines, and videos in production. But, this idea of cash on the barrel head is a completely new one, to me. It seems to me that it is mostly about respect and about having fun with the human heritage. I did listen to cryptic and a few explicit comments over the years by scholars that the scarcity of real positions at the higher levels of academia make for some hotly contested issues, but these are related to prestige rather than cash flow. I do think that if _Bones_ defaulted on an agreement, the word should make its way into public knowledge. But, I think calling for a boycott may be premature. Every person and organization his a certain standard of conduct, and one rarely succeeds in holding another to ones own. And, a lot of good professional relationships begin with a "freebie". Best wishes, Bob ============================================================================== From: Burk Sauls To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL English translation into Hieroglyphics Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 13:34:45 -0700 On Aug 29, 2009, at 1:07 PM, Katherine Griffis wrote: > Saul Burks wrote: > >> but if you've made a legal agreement, then they're obligated to >> make good on > it or suffer the consequences. If they decide to rip you off, they do > it at their own very real risk.< > > This is what occurred in the case I recounted: negotiations about > the glyph > rendering were made between the show researcher, representing the > television > production company, and the person doing the glyphs, which were > agreed upon, > that credit and acknowledgement to the person would be provided by the > production company for the glyph work performed. Only _after_ such an > agreement was reached did the person perform the glyph work requested. > After the glyphs were submitted to the production company, then the > production company reneged upon the agreement with the person who > did the > glyphs. If the deal was made between the show's researcher and the person asked to do the glyphs, it sounds like the production company (the entity commonly referred to negatively as "Hollywood") had nothing = to do with the negotiation. A researcher working on a TV series doesn't "represent" the production company they're working for unless there's an agreement with the company to hire an additional crew member - if the agreement was with the production company it would be an agreement with the production company - not the researcher. Hiring an independent contractor to provide services for a production is between the production company and the individual being hired. The show's researcher might be their supervisor, but they wouldn't be the hiring/paying entity. If, however, the researcher requested a service independent of any agreement with the production company then it's not the production company that's at fault here. It's the researcher. If the researcher personally asked someone to do something for them and said, "I'll pay you $100 and get your name in the credits..." then used the work, without paying for it or following through with the credit promise, then it's a simple case of one person ripping off another person. Similarly if a propmaster were to walk out of a shop with something they intended to use as a prop without paying for it, the production company would not be responsible. It appears that what you're talking about here is an unscrupulous individual who took advantage of someone by making false promises (pretty bad practice in a business where relationships and reputations are vitally important due to the impermanence of the work - I can tell you that you always want to surround yourself with trusted creatives) - and it doesn't have anything to do with the production company at all. It's very unlikely that Fox Broadcasting would endanger their status and risk legal action over paying for having some glyphs translated. I can also assure anyone considering doing favors Again, if you require payment and credit for doing a single job on a show - first realize that you probably won't achieve fame and fortune - then realize that you need a contract just the same as you would with any other industry. And if someone then violates this legal agreement you should pursue it in court. There's really not much more to it than that. - Burk Sauls 12:30 PM Pacific Sunday, August 30, 2009 CE Los Angeles, CA ============================================================================== From: Subject: Re: AEL English translation into Hieroglyphics To: "Ancient Egyptian Language List" Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 19:40:48 -0500 (CDT) Bob said: >Hi; > >If someone has better information, please be forthcoming, but; it is my >impression of Egyptology that it has pretty much been headed up by an >elite of people with independent means, doing most of their work _pro >bono publico_, with the help of less fortunate people doing the same >thing. This was the case in the 19th to early 20th centuries, when most Egyptologists were wealthy independent scholars (or less wealthy individuals with rich or aristocratic backers). Modern Egyptologists, however, like other academics, rely on grants for their research and salaries for their living. Institutions such as museums and universities sometimes receive donations from wealthy private individuals who are interested in the cause, but I'm not sure that this is what you're talking about. The lack of jobs in Egyptology is a problem for the same reason that a lack of jobs is a problem in any field -- we need to eat. -Megaera Lorenz University of Chicago ==============================================================================