Television

If you can get past the obvious flaws in the archaeological technicalities of the programme (which I won't go into a great deal, although if I found any archaeologists who were as multi-skilled as that lot  - dendro in half an hour? C14 dates overnight? Wow - I would snap them up straight away) then you are left with  - well, not very much.

The introduction of the characters was very weak (by the end of the programme I couldn't even remember any of their names) and the acting was far too cliched. The bad guy should have been set up at the beginning with more clues and twists along the way rather than a rambling concoction of scenes which were inevitably predictable and (and I know this may sound odd given the actual plot) also a little far-fetched. What was that singing at the end? Whoever came up with that idea needs to get fired.

Now, I may watch it next week, as I do want to give it a chance. Yes, all 'dramas' about certain professions have their element of bullshit about them (CSI and Bones are probably as accurate a depiction of the excitement of forensic science as my cat is to a ferocious tiger) but that still leaves the credibility of the acting, script and plot.

A few sub-plots were started - who is the prof's mother and why is she so sensitive about it? And - well, that was it. I should have said one sub-plot. The only guy I really liked (and actually did remind me of a few archaeologists I know) was the big guy who had the best line at the end.

Hugh Bonneville - best character - last seen in tonnes of stuff where you remember his face but can't picture the when, where and who.

Sorry, BBC. Should have tried a bit harder. Hope it gets better. And the premise and the characters could do so well if it is used right. There is a wealth of possible plot lines they can use on this and any number of ways the characters can go. Make them a bit more likeable then please!!