Comparative Film Review: The Dig and The Mummy 1999

A brief preface: This essay was written for my class ANTH 195, Archaeology in Popular Culture, exploring how films portray archeologists, ancient artifacts, excavations, etc. I have been struggling to find motivation to write lately (for fun/things outside of school/work) so I thought I’d share one of the things I’ve been working on for my classes. This is rather long, but I thought the project was really interesting. Hope you enjoy!

Introduction

In this assignment we were asked to watch two archaeological themed full-length feature films and analyze them based on our background knowledge from this class, Archaeology in Popular Culture, paired with outside readings and film reviews to discover how accurate archeology is portrayed in this form of media. In class we watched The Dig as our primary film and for the second film I chose to watch The Mummy (1999).

Background

The Dig was released in 2021 and follows the story of Mrs. Pretty in the Sutton Ho, Suffolk, and the excavation of what was revealed to be an incredible Anglo-Saxon burial mound under the guidance of amateur archaeologist and excavator Basil Brown back in 1939. In this film the archaeologists are almost entirely older, cis-men who are white Europeans and I believe all British. Peggy Piggott is the one female archaeologist, but as Mr. Phillips, the head archaeologist from the British museum, made blatantly clear he allowed her to come not for her scientific papers (which he doubtably read) but for her size corresponding ‘lightness’ to aid in the excavation.

The main artifacts portrayed in the film were 7th century Anglo-Saxon relics found in a burial ship. Items included rivets, petrified wood, bits of iron and other metals, coins, and later on in the dig they discovered many golden pieces of armor and pottery. There were many similarities to what was dug up in the film to the episode of Time Team we watched in class, notably the rivets and layout of the ship.

The film did use several different techniques to draw on archaeo-appeal like various hypothesis on what could be buried beneath the mounds. (Were they Vikings? Norman? Anglo-Saxon?) There was a rather degenerative comment on the life of other ancient cultures by Mr. Phillips. When Mr. Brown found the gold coin and proved the ship was from the 7th century and did not belong to the Vikings, Mr. Philips exclaimed “these people were not just some bartering marauders, these people had culture!”.

A few other nationalistic trends did appear, mostly correlated to the British at war with Germany. There was also a complete lack of representation of people from any other race besides white, but that could be correlated to the time and location the film was set in (1939 England). There was what could be considered LGBTQ+ representation, as the film hinted Mr. Piggott could have been gay/queer and more romantically interested in one of the other male archeologists than his wife, Peggy. Otherwise the film had no diversity besides age range of the characters.

There were many gender stereotypes in The Dig, as few women were featured in the film and only one was a promising archeologist. Mrs. Pretty had the benefit of class and was respected, but she was portrayed primarily as a widow, mother, and an ill lady that needed to be protected. She did help save Mr. Brown from death by dirt and was generally respected by the archaeologists as they abided by all her wishes. Mrs. Pretty’s father didn’t allow her to go to secondary school so she wasn’t as educated as she’d like to bit, which made Peggy the most educated of the females in this film. Mrs. Brown made a few cameos but was treated as a mere housewife.

There were also many underlying plots that added to the sensationalism of the film and drew the viewer into the story. Some examples include the heart condition of Mrs. Pretty, her cute son Robert, possible romances between several characters, the war going on in the background, and Mr. Brown’s near death experience while on the dig. The structural elements of the film like the music, carefully placed pauses, heartfelt scenes, weather and generally (kind of gloomy) atmosphere all added to the experience. The main culture displayed was English life in 1939 as the war was just beginning. There were no past reenactments, besides the entire film, as the movie focused solely on the year 1939.

In a review of The Dig by Roberta Gilchrist, a Professor of Archeology at the University of Reading (UK), she explained how the film was based on a real-life discovery by Edith Pretty in Sutton Hoo, Suffolk (2021). It appears the film was primarily based on a book by John Preston with the same title, but I couldn’t find much about how much the writers, producers, or actors knew about archaeology. Mrs. Pretty, Mr. Brown, and Peggy Piggott are all real characters. Apparently the rivalry between Mr. Brown and the Cambridge archeologists was exaggerated in the film and Peggy was more meticulous and respected than what she was portrayed as. Peggy was a respected archaeologist and had already done field work by the time she worked on Sutton Hoo, but she was actually the first person to unearth the first gold artifact as The Dig portrayed (Gilchrist 2021).

The film gets is script mostly from a book by John Preston from 2007 by the same name. The major discovery of what lay within the largest of the funereal mounds was a decayed oak ship around 27 meters long that had over 250 artifacts from East Anglia from the 7th century (Gilchrist 2021). The warrior king’s sword, shield, and a ceremonial helmet were all recovered and are currently still on display at the British Museum along with many other artifacts from the dig (British Museum 2021). Mrs. Pretty did indeed donate all the artifacts to the museum as a gift, leaving a wealthy history for all to see. Amazingly, the helmet from Sutton Ho is only one of four complete Anglo-Saxon helmets that have survived time (British Museum 2021). Using the coins to date the time period, archeologists believe the burial mound to be for King Raedwald who reigned from 610-685 CE (Gilchrist 2021). Other excavations at Sutton Hoo showed burial mounds of women and children as well.

In the second film, The Mummy (1999), a terrible curse has been put on Imhotep, a priest from Ancient Egypt who had a love affair with the Pharaoh’s mistress. Centuries later, his tomb is unearthed by a gang of archaeologists and he is brought to life. The main characters Evelyn, a female Egyptologist, and O’Connell, a dashing military man and her escort, must figure out how to save the world from Imhotep’s curse.

In this film the archaeologists are primarily white, European men with academic backgrounds, mostly hailing form Britain. There is an older archeologist in Egypt besides the four younger British men. Evelyn, the female lead, is portrayed more as a “librarian” than a true archaeologist in the film, even though she is very knowledgeable about ancient Egypt and can read hieroglyphics better than any of the men. Evelyn had never been out in the field until this expedition and later in the show she is gifted an archeologist’s excavation toolkit by O’Connell who took it form one of the other male archaeologists.

The film draws on archeo-appeal by using many sensationalist themes with exotic landscapes, foreign languages, great ruins, myths and magic, the hunt for rare (golden) artifacts, and a lot of action-adventure scenes. There is little to no scientific methods or modeling laid out in the film. The movie’s structural compacts portray the film as mainly action adventure (with a healthy dose of fantasy) based off of Egyptian mythology as ancient artifacts were discovered by archeologists and a mummy was accidentally brought back to life. The movie uses effects such as dramatic music and narration, fight scenes, romance, CGI effects, exotic landscapes, and intricate costumes to move the plot along.

The film is based in Egypt, which is the primary culture displayed. Artifacts such as mummies, sarcophagi, warriors, rocks carved with hieroglyphs, and sacred texts are all portrayed in the film. The re-enactment set in ancient Egypt depicted various priests, the Pharaoh Seti, and the princess Anck Su Namun. There was a lot of gold, body paint, and golden accessories. The princess was clad in scandalous clothes, body paint, and kohl lined eyes; likely to appeal to the male gaze.

There were several racial trends in the later portion of the film. During the excavation of Hamunaptra most of the laborers were local Egyptians. These people were often the first ones to die after the British archaeologists sent them to do their dirty work. Some of the Egyptians were portrayed as majestic warriors, like the Mejah men wearing black, riding on horse or camel back, protecting the deadly site. Other Egyptians were shown as scoundrels, notably Beni. There was also a slightly racist comment against Hebrews when Beni started chanting while clutching the Star of David and Imhotep called it the language of the slaves... There were also several points in the film where the local Egyptians were turned into mindless slaves by Imhotep’s curse.

The clothing of the local Egyptians were typically linen robes, Arab headdresses or a fez, etc. There was also a point in the film where Evie changed into black “exotic” Egyptian robes with jewelry and sheer face mask as a ‘costume’…which was likely for sex appeal as was evident by O’Connell’s double take when he saw Evie after she had changed garments.

There were a lot of gender stereotypes within this film, as there were only two women prominently featured in the film and most were near naked at multiple points where the men stayed clothed. The princess was mostly in the film as the scantly dressed love interest for Imhotep. While Evelyn played a more important role in the film, a large portion of the story was directed at her being the love interest for the daring adventurer O’Connell and she was often portrayed as the damsel in distress. (Don’t even get me started on the whole drunk scene where she nearly kissed O’Connell and passed out instead….sigh.)

In a review by Raven Tood DaSilva, on her YouTube Channel “Dig it with Raven” during the episode Two Archaeologists React to the Mummy she and her partner noted many inaccuracies in the film. First of all, the city of Hamunaptra is not real. Even if it was, it would have been in a completely different area. In Egyptian religion, Nut the Sky goddess gave birth to Ra the sun god in the East. Egyptians believed the East was connected with life and the West was correlated with death, so Hamnuaptra should have been located in the west and would not have been revealed by the rising sun. Also, there were no pyramids or sphinx in Thebes. Both are in Giza, and were constructed about a thousand years before Seti was a ruler so they shouldn’t have been shown as being built it in the film if the timeline was accurate (Dig it with Raven 2019).

Unfortunately, there were many inaccuracies related to the mummification process. For starters, there are four canopic jars not five as the heart remained in the body. The heart was not removed from the mummy as Egyptians believe the heart was needed for entrance to the afterlife as it was weighed against the feather of Maat (truth and righteousness) which decided if the person could be admitted into the afterlife. Mummification was a sacred act, so no one would have been mummified alive as a punishment, they probably would have just had their head chopped of (Dig it with Raven 2019). Mummies were considered vessels for the spirits of the dead to travel between the afterlife and the current world (Smith 2007). During mummification, the brain with would have been removed not with a red hot poker, but a hook (some were plant based!) or a solution to liquify brain and drip out of sinuses would have been used. Smith noted that most mummies did not have their viscera removed, as only the privileged few could afford the procedure. Thus, it should not have been a surprise to Evie and her companies that no markings from an embalmers knife were found on Imhotep’s mummy ( Smith 2007).

The architecture and symbolism in The Mummy (1999) had several inaccuracies as well. In the underground chamber, the mirrors would have been bronze, smaller, and were not super reflective so they could not have lit up whole underground chamber alone (Dig it wit hRaven 2019). Also, scarab beetles are not flesh eaters! They are dung beetles and the sight of them rolling dung around reminded the Egyptians of the sun rolling around the world, which is why they are a symbol of Ra (Dig it with Raven 2019). Scarabs were considered sacred and were a symbol of rebirth, not death. Speaking of Ra, the Book of Amun-Ra does not exist. If it did, it should have been a SCROLL not a book, as book binding wasn’t invented until much later on. The book of the dead does exist, but its’ purpose is to help lead the dead through the afterlife, not for curses.

Other true things in the film include the fact that Seti was a real person and ruler of Egypt, he was actually the father of Rameses (Dig it with Raven 2019). The Mejah are also real people. They were nomadic tribe who served as mercenaries in ancient Egypt, kind of like an elite police force, but they disappeared after the 20th dynasty so they would not have lasted to the 1930s when the movie was set (Dig it with Raven 2019).The wrapping of mummy was correct and there is some truth behind mummy’s curses, as sometimes diseases do come out of ancient tombs when a jar or old sarcophagi lid is opened band a virus or bacteria that has lingered (small pox, etc) is released and can infect the unsuspecting archaeologist or tomb raider. Smith was consulted on the film and the spoken Egyptian was pretty accurate (2007). However, the producer appears to have ignored a lot of the other pieces of advice Smith gave him as even basic artifacts like the canopic jars were incorrect.

Analysis

The two films did several things well. Both movies were very engaging with their various structural elements, had a good cast of characters, interrupting underlying plots of romantic interest, great costumes, and solid soundtracks. Even if not everything in the films was entirely accurate, both were centered around archaeological finds and depicted archaeologists, which could help bring awareness to the field and get people involved in the field or at least excited about the past and how it ties into our present and future.

The Dig is the winner for accuracy, as the film is based off of real-world events and the entire film pretty much follows what actually happens with a few dramatical adaptations. One of the things I really like about The Dig was while many of the objects were gold and classified as “treasure”, unlike many other archeology dramas, this film focused more on the search of discovery of the past rather than the hunt for treasure. The Mummy (1999) was much more fantastical and may win the more exciting story of the two, it certainly had the most jump-scares. The film did tie in some pieces of truth, but often twisted things to make the story more engaging for the view.

One of the (many) things The Mummy (1999) did poorly was treating archeology like a treasure hunt. While there was a brief mention of learning more from pottery and ancient relics, a major aspect of the film was finding the ‘golden book of Amun-Ra’. This treasure-hunter mindset is very similar to what Gero and Root found in National Geographic articles. They stated ‘the hint of treasure is always gleaming behind the edge of the archaeologists' shovel or trowel, as National Geographic systematically blurs the distinction between 'treasures of scientific value and items that would bring huge prices on the international art and antiquities market” (Gero and Root 1990). These mindsets allow white, western archeologists to validate their actions and “exploration of exotic landscapes in the name of scientific enterprise” while hiding behind archaeological discoveries to force their ways into indigenous land and remove historical artifacts in the name of science (Gero and Root 1990). There were also many underlying racist, or euro-centric trends in the films as none of the main characters were BIPOC identifying.

The representation of women in both films had several similarities to what Solometo and Moss’s found in their analysis of gender depictions in National Geographic. In the magazine, women were more often displayed in the nude than men and there appears to be “a correlation between the lightness of a woman’s skin, her degree of “civilization”, and her amount of sexual restraint”(2013). This trend is also apparent in The Mummy (1999), notably with the Egyptian princess Anck Su Namun, as she wears hardly any clothes while Evelyn, a British woman, is much more covered during (the majority of) the film.

If I only watched The Mummy(1999), I would believe that most archaeological artifacts were gold or treasure, or at least the ones worth looking for. (Even books!) Another theme was that a women’s place was in the library or interpreting writings, otherwise she had to be protected by men if she went out into the field (which I definitely do not agree with). Also be wary of curses when opening old boxes.

If I only watched The Dig, I would probably have a better idea about archaeology but may believe field work goes by very fast, as the film went through the excavation within a summer basically while it actually took several years. Another belief could be that some incredible finds can be made in your backyard if you look deep enough. However, this idea could cause someone to start digging up any mound in their backyard and not much scientific process was explained in the film so I doubt someone would be able to properly excavate and record something to the current archeological standards just by watching this movie.

Conclusion

Overall, both films were very enjoyable to watch. I would rank The Dig better for historical accuracy and The Mummy (1999) better for viewer engagement. This is personal preference, but the best romantic couple would probably be Evelyn and O’Connell for me and the best friendship duo would be Basil Brown and Mrs. Pretty, who would also win for best male and female characters. Overall best side character would probably be Robert Pretty. What surprised me the most about the films was probably all the extra CGI used in The Mummy (1999). They could have done a lot with just a wrapped body and negative space but instead used a lot of CGI. The repetitive jaw extension scenes were very unnecessary.

I was surprised that in The Dig they didn’t go more in depth with the discoveries at Sutton Hoo. I would’ve expected them to show some of the most noteworthy finds like the helmet, shield, or sword instead of mostly pieces of the armor and coins. Some lingering questions I have are what else was discovered at Sutton Hoo in the other mounds? Did any of the actors or film workers learn anything about archaeology when making the film? Did Evelyn (or the actress) understand what she was saying about the hieroglyphic translations or was is it just memorized lines?

To end this review, I’d like to draw attention to a line from The Dig that I really loved. When talking with Mrs. Pretty about the excavation and the meaning/less of life and death, Mr. Brown said “that’s life what’s revealed, that’s why we dig”. If nothing else is gleaned from the film, I hope whoever watches The Dig can understand the important work of archeologists as they go about trying to unearth the past to learn about life and use their findings to help make the future better.

Bibliography

Dig It With Raven. “Archaeologists React to THE MUMMY (1999).” YouTube, uploaded

on Dec 3, 2019. https://youtu.be/mrgX39c9g14

Gero, Joan and Dolores Root. “Public presentations and private concerns: archaeology in the

pages of National Geographic” The Politics of the Past. 1990

Gilchrist, Roberta. “The Dig on Netflix: a refreshingly accurate portrayal-according to an

archaeologist” The Conversation February 3, 2021. https://theconversation.com/the-dig- on-netflix-a-refreshingly-accurate-portrayal-according-to-an-archaeologist-154442

Smith, Stuart Tyson. “Unwrapping the Mummy: Hollywood Fantasies, Egyptian Realities”

Refining Hollywood’s Portrayals of the Past. Edited by Julie M. Schablitsky. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek California, 2007

Solometo, Julie and Joshua Moss. “Picturing the Past: Gender in National Geographic

Reconstructions of Prehistoric Life” American Antiquity. Vol. 78, No. 1 January 2013

The British Museum. “The Anglo-Saxon ship burial at Sutton Hoo” Updated 2021.

https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/death-and-memory/anglo-saxon-ship-burial- sutton-hoo

The Dig. Directed by Simon Stone, performances by Ralph Fiennes, Carey Mulligan, Johnny

Flynn, and Lily James. Marion Ali Mae Films, Clerkenwell Films, 2021.

The Mummy (1999), Directed by Stephen Sommers, performances by Brendan Fraser, Rachel

Weisz, and Arnold Vosloo, Alphaville Films 1999.