Northern Illinois University archeology professor Winifred Creamer said "Indiana Jones is the worst thing to happen to archeology and walks a fine line between an archaeologist and professional looter." Who shares her opinion in each film?
Belloq has obviously spread this ugly rumour to the Hovitos and later objects to Indy giving mercenaries a bad name.
Major Eaton diplomatically questions and answers: "how does one say it? Obtainer of rare antiquities"
Indy himself describes the Shankara Stones as Fortune and Glory.
Willie accusingly asks Indy his motive for recovering the Shankara Stones and proposes Fortune and Glory which shorty confirms.
Chatter Lal mentions vicious rumours, Honduras and the Sultan of Madagascar's desire to cut off Indy's misunderstanding.
The small town Utah Sheriff promises the rightful owner [of the Cross of Coronado] wouldn't press charges if [Indy]gave it back.
Panama Hat declares: "this is the second time I've had to reclaim my property." and
Marion tells Mutt that Indy is some kind of grave robber and Indy nearly proves it over a Conquistador's knife.
Not great company, but let's hope Dr. Creamer's interpretations of past cultures are more insightful than her take on our pulp hero. The darkest movie shows Indy's adult motives begin to evolve from selfish to selfless. In her defence, Willie didn't see it either when she taunts, "you could have kept it, ...it would have given you your fortune and glory."