Real Archaeologists' opinions of Indiana Jones

DanRO

Member
The father of a friend of mine is an archeologist and he likes the movies. Apart from the action, he always has to shake his head about how Indy often manages to tear the whole sites apart. Even if unvoluntarily :p
 

MattJones

New member
So, does this mean that I shouldn't wear my Indiana Jones costume to my first Arch lecture when the Spring Quarter arrives?
 

RelicHunter

New member
Hey everybody! New to the thread here, but not to Indy. I thought this would be a great topic for my first post. I am a Geology/Archaeology major. And it seems a lot of you that are in the field have had Proffs that have semi negative things to say about Indy. I have had the reverse experience. My Proff for Archaeology always starts his classes with the Indy theme music, and was very positive about the attention that the movies brought to the field. I tend to agree that the movies have brought a lot of interest to the field in general. I find the influence of the movies to be one of the leading reasons I became interested in the field.
 

IndyFan

New member
Real Archy here.

He's a film character. I don't take it too seriously.

I hear it all the time: "Oh, so you're like Indiana Jones?"

"No, I'm not. I'm not that good looking and I work a lot harder and it's tedious work sometimes." (at least 3 months a year that is, that's the time I spend in the field)

Anything that brings attention to the cause is good in my eyes.
 

Raiders of Clay

New member
Why not be like Indy!!!

Many Archaeologist are just boring professors who hate the fact that this movie brought action into the archaelogical world. These professors need to know that X sometimes does mark the spot.;)
 

IndyKate

Member
I am almost a professional archaeologist (a grad student, actually), and I LOVE Indy. So do all my fellow grad students - we're going en masse to see the movie at midnight. In fedoras.

I will say that most of my profs don't like Indy as an archaeologist because the movies are not an accurate portrayal of archaeology. And basically what Indy does is not archaeology. There's no evidence for him participating in surveys, excavation (except in Raiders, at the Well of Souls), or analysis - all very important parts of the archaeological process. The only part of the movies that shows he has a PhD in archaeology is that he teaches at a University and people occasionally refer to him as "Dr. Jones."

But we need to realize that archaeology has changed since the time period portrayed in the Indy movies. Collector-archaeology and "grave robbing" are no longer part of the scientific field that archaeology has become, though that is where its roots lie. And we also need to realize that the Indy movies were made in the spirit of the serials shown at the movie theaters through the early and mid twentieth century - meant as entertainment. *

I have had profs that love Indy for his adventures and for the movies' ability to bring archaeology into the public eye.

* By we, I meant the profs, and the academic and professional communities.
 

crowmagnumman

New member
"The quest for the grail... is not archaeology. It's a race against evil."

I like archaeology, and Indiana Jones likes archaeology. But the movies are more about the spirit of adventure and good vs. evil than anything. They aren't trying to say that archaeology in general is like that. They're just trying to say that life for Indiana Jones is like that. Unfortunately, as a child, I figured archaeology and adventure just went hand in hand. I was disappointed to learn what real life was like, but you can't blame the movies for that. They were always meant as an escape from the drabness of real life. Most of the best movies are. Don't hate them for it. They still gave me a great appreciation for real archaeology. Just like the Jurassic Park movies gave me an appreciation for paleontology. Star Trek made me want to go to space. If we didn't have these movies then I might never have been as inspired.
 

The_Raiders

Well-known member
Hhhmm, I read this in an archeology kit I got, it said something like "Is archeology Indiana Jones complete with snakes and a bull whip, NO!" Hahaha, when I learned that real archeology was just digging and brushing stuff in the dirt I was very disapointed, all those years ago :( *goes to cry* :p
 

Snakes

Member
I think it's possible that Indy does more conventional archeology in between his "races against evil". It could be that the only exploits of Dr. Jones that are shown on film and in print are the particularly exiting ones.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
IndyKate said:
But we need to realize that archaeology has changed since the time period portrayed in the Indy movies. Collector-archaeology and "grave robbing" are no longer part of the scientific field that archaeology has become, though that is where its roots lie.
Welcome to The Raven, IndyKate.:hat:
The history of archaeologists in the late 1800's fascinates me. Is there a period/person that
is generally accepted as the turning point from "grave robbing" to methodical documentation?
Or did its evolution stretch over too large a timespan to pinpoint any defining moment?
Snakes said:
I think it's possible that Indy does more conventional archeology in between his "races against evil". It could be that the only exploits of Dr. Jones that are shown on film and in print are the particularly exiting ones.
BRAVO, Snakes! I tried to make this point a few years ago after joining but it fell on deaf ears.
I totally subscribe to this line of thinking and not the "a guy like Indy never stops" philosophy.

Anyway, this is very good thread and it's not my intention to hijack it in another direction. Carry on!
 

Vance

New member
IndyKate said:
There's no evidence for him participating in surveys, excavation (except in Raiders, at the Well of Souls), or analysis - all very important parts of the archaeological process.

There's no evidence, except for the evidence? :)

Indiana Jones is a pulp view of the world of archeology, and that, in turn, is based on a world of archeology that isn't even with us today. The 1920s and 1930s period was about 'national treasures' and 'fortune and glory' far far more than it was about legitimate historical study.

That's not to say that there weren't champions of it (indeed, Henry Jones Sr. would be such a champion), but we're dealing with a much different view of science and history than we are now, and, from that point, making it into a pulp adventure.
 

IndyKate

Member
And now a really generalized lesson in the history of archaeology

Hahaha I suppose I could have phrased that better. :whip: (y)

Even during the 20s and 30s archaeology was becoming a more scientific/structured discipline, due to the development of anthropology departments in universities across America and archaeology's incorporation as a subfield of anthropology, though it wasn't until the mid-twentieth century that archaeology was revamped by such schools of thought as processualism and the field began to change into what we know archaeology as today.

Despite this, the collector mentality still pervaded in museums and universities during the early half of the twentieth century - I might have previously mentioned the collector mentality in an earlier post. This was the idea that artifacts should be acquired and used to expand museum collections. Often archaeologists were backed financially by people who had no concept of the application of scientific archaeology, and therefore they were encouraged to dig and collect, not to analyze or publish their finds. This changed as archaeology moved into the academic sector, though. Archaeology, archaeological theory or lack of depending on who you talk to, and its development as a scientific field is mostly attributable to its place on university campuses.

But you are exactly right, Vance.(y) The Indy movies were based on movie serials and on a period of archaeology that was nothing like what we practice now. And if one's being an archaeologist keeps them from enjoying these movies, because Indy isn't a "real" archaeologist, then it is because they are either unable or unwilling to acknowledge that Indy is not supposed to be an accurate representation of an archaeologist today.
 

IndyKate

Member
Vance said:
That's not to say that there weren't champions of it (indeed, Henry Jones Sr. would be such a champion), but we're dealing with a much different view of science and history than we are now, and, from that point, making it into a pulp adventure.

Don't you love how they juxtapose Jones Sr, with his careful analysis of the Ming Vase, and Indy, crashing through the window?
 

Vance

New member
IndyKate said:
Don't you love how they juxtapose Jones Sr, with his careful analysis of the Ming Vase, and Indy, crashing through the window?

There's actually a few layers of interaction/comparison there. I wonder if it was intentional, but it's interesting. "Look what you did!"

I also like that Henry's reaction there is mirrored in Marcus much later when Henry blows away the jeep. "Look what you did!"
 

WillKill4Food

New member
Vance said:
There's actually a few layers of interaction/comparison there. I wonder if it was intentional, but it's interesting. "Look what you did!"

I also like that Henry's reaction there is mirrored in Marcus much later when Henry blows away the jeep. "Look what you did!"
Ah. "The pen is mightier than the sword."
 

Nurhachi1991

Well-known member
well because if indy acted like a real archeologist the movie would be boring as hell..................


remember the films took place in the 1930s back when alot of discoveries were still hidden from the world and the technology was really lacking so Indy was a ruff and tumble archeologist he made things up as he went along and half the time he got forced into looking for the object

like with the ark the goverment hired him

the stones he stumbled upon the village by accident

the grail he was trying to save his father


the real expeditions he went on like when he found the idol were carefully planned he had guides and proper equipment just like a real archeologist
 

Lord_glavin

Active member
Reviews of: Indiana Jones and the real archaelogists

"Discovering the world, one speck of dust at a time!"

"More toothbrushes than you could possibly ever need!"

"Learn ancient Summarian! The hard way!"
 

indyflys_solo

New member
I think I'm going to go to school for archaeology, thanks to Indy. My mom, however, is worried that I'm only interested in the adventure. She's pretty right, but I love history (especially Egyptology) a whole lot too... but I'm just cruious: are there really still things out there to find? I think so, but a real archaeologist's perspective on the matter would be good... :D
Thanks!
 

Vance

New member
indyflys_solo said:
I think I'm going to go to school for archaeology, thanks to Indy. My mom, however, is worried that I'm only interested in the adventure. She's pretty right, but I love history (especially Egyptology) a whole lot too... but I'm just cruious: are there really still things out there to find? I think so, but a real archaeologist's perspective on the matter would be good... :D

Oh, I think there is plenty to be found, to be sure... Troy, after all, was only found and confirmed a few years ago. Sodom and Gammohra were only documented last year.
 
Top