"It belongs in a museum!"

I was watching LC and I started wondering whether Indy's whole "belongs in a museum" thing is actually valid. Although I'm all for giving to intellectual causes, he can't very well just go around stealing artifacts from their owners because it has some cultural value.

It's an interesting progression from Temple of Doom when he gives the Stone back to the village instead of taking it to a museum. So what do you guys think about Indy's artifact policy?

It depends on the artifact to be honest. What really confuses me is that TE Lawrence taught him to value educuation and history and to preserve it. So why did he go through the 20s and 30s going by the theory of fortune and glory?

As we learned from the village elder, he'd seen the evil it had caused and the fact that the Myapoor village was in ruins, so he had to help them, even though he could have taken the sankara stones back with him to America and ade a fortune selling them to museums. After that, it seems he went back to his old way of thinking and securing artifacts for a price, but for the benefit of others, so they can learn about the past...such as the Fertility Idol and the Cross.

Ajax the Great said:

I was watching LC and I started wondering whether Indy's whole "belongs in a museum" thing is actually valid. Although I'm all for giving to intellectual causes, he can't very well just go around stealing artifacts from their owners because it has some cultural value.

Click to expand...

You could in the 30's!

In the case of the Cross, though, we know there are no legitimate owners anymore (Coronado and all his relatives being dead and all), so far better for a historically significant artifact to be in a museum where everyone can enjoy it than in the possession of thieves and scoundrels.

Like all of you, I agree. His policy was very 1930's.

In one of my anthropology classes, the instructor flashed up two pictures on a power point presentation, a poster Temple of Doom and a poster of Lara Croft: Tomb Raider. The she explained how archaeologists are not "treasure hunters" or "fortune seekers" at least not modern day archaeologists.

Even though I feel Indiana Jones is a protector of ancient antiquities, I kept my mouth shut as she explained the inaccuracies of Hollywood's portrayal of archeologists.

Indy has never been any more than a grave robber, or a 'tomb raider'. His adage that "It belongs in a museum" is the same cover that imperialists used to explain their appropriations from countries who were at the time showing little interest in protecting their historical artifacts.

If the imperialists had been serious about simply preserving the items, then they would willingly offer to return them for a reasonable price when the country in question was able to preserve and display the items for themselves. Indy acts like a mercenary on the payroll of museums, a bounty hunter sent out to acquire hard merchandise.

His only saving factor is that his acquisitions do go to a museum, and not underground into a private collections, or in the case of intrinsically precious artifacts, melted down or broken up for their valuable components.

The first adventure we see Indy on, in Peru 1936, is a mission to steal the Chachapoyan Idol from a now non-existant culture. Yet, the Idol isn't ownerless, as such, since the Hovitos revere the temple and are sworn to protect it.

This was similar to Egypt, where the dominant Arab culture lays claim to artifacts that were created by a lost ancient Egyptian culture.

It's a tangled moral dilemma, but above all Indy is a rogue in the hunt for fortune and glory.

In the case of the Ark, the Cross of Coronado, and the Grail (at least until he meets the Grail Knight), Indy is looking for lost artifacts that have no connection to anyone. Fair game. The Sankara stone is the centerpiece of the village, and so Indy gives up his fortune and glory to return it to the villagers.

The biggest debate regarding his idea that "It belongs in a museum" is his acquisition of the Fertility Idol, which was closely connected to the Hovitos tribe. Indy was perhaps a step beneath Belloq, who at least spoke the language and had a connection to the tribe, even if his ultimate goal was to get the Idol for himself.

I was thinking about that too goodeknight. A real archaeologist would probably be more receptive to the culture surrounding the idol and wouldn't take it the way Indy did. I think it might be useful to list the treasures and motivations behind them:

Fertility Idol: Stolen from Hovitos for the museum
Ark of the Covenant: Found for the museum
Nurhachi's Remains: "found?" for a private collector in exchange for a diamond - this is probably the most morally depraved adventure, and I think it's fitting that it is the first adventure in the Indy flicks.
Sankara: Found for fortune and glory but returned to the people - there's a big moral progression in Temple of Doom if you compare the Nurhachi thing with the Sankara stones.
Cross of Coronado: "stolen?" from a private collector for a museum
Holy Grail: to keep the Nazis from getting it
Crystal Skull: to find Oxley and then return the Skull where it belongs

If you arrange them chronologically, there's a huge moral shift in his motivations and the outcomes. I wonder if that was intentional. In Temple he's an uber-rogue, acting as a mercenary for Lao Che. Then he tries to get Fortune and Glory but decides to return the stone to the villagers. Then in Raiders, he attempts to steal a culturally significant artifact at first, but then goes to find the Ark for intellectual purposes and to stop the Nazis from getting it. In LC, he's starts off with that same intellectual thing with the Cross. Then with the Holy Grail he decides that nobody should have it, and is content to leave it in the temple as long as the Nazis can't get at it. And then in CS he actually goes out of his way to return the Skull back to its owners, showing incredible humility before the artifacts and culture.

Do you think Lucas and Spielberg ever realized that this was a little more than a cartoon? That their characters were actually changing over time?

Ajax the Great said:

I was thinking about that too goodeknight. A real archaeologist would probably be more receptive to the culture surrounding the idol and wouldn't take it the way Indy did.

Click to expand...

Obviously he's after the idol because he thinks Forrestal and possibly others of an unsavory nature like Belloq will defile it and for their own purposes. Like stealing the Declaration of Independence before Ian.

Ajax the Great said:

Do you think Lucas and Spielberg ever realized that this was a little more than a cartoon? That their characters were actually changing over time?

Click to expand...

While there may have been some vague intention, I don't think they ever thought it out as well as you have, Ajax. It's interesting that we're still discussing all of this 29 years after Raiders came out, and taking chronology, etc. into account. They took a few years to think up and make a great movie. We've done almost three decades of analysis after the fact.

Rocket Surgeon said:

Obviously he's after the idol because he thinks Forrestal and possibly others of an unsavory nature like Belloq will defile it and for their own purposes. Like stealing the Declaration of Independence before Ian.

Click to expand...

True, we don't ever know Belloq's or Forrestal's motivations for going after the Idol. Could have been for private collectors, or for museums.

Rocket Surgeon said:

Obviously he's after the idol because he thinks Forrestal and possibly others of an unsavory nature like Belloq will defile it and for their own purposes. Like stealing the Declaration of Independence before Ian.

Click to expand...

I'm assuming you're being tongue in cheek, but how are Indy's plans for the Idol less unsavory than Belloq's? He still wants to steal it and sell it to the museum.

Belloq wants to sell it, too, not use it as a urinal cake.

Lance Quazar said:

Belloq wants to sell it, too, not use it as a urinal cake.

Click to expand...

LOL I think I know what he was trying to say. Belloq would have been more likely to sell it off to the highest bidder, whereas Indy would only sell it to a place where it would be used for intellectual purposes. There is a fundamental difference between the two - that's why Belloq has no qualms about working for the Nazis but Indy restricts himself for working for academia.

Ajax the Great said:

There is a fundamental difference between the two -

Click to expand...

Not to the Hovitos.

Lance... If you are saying that Indy's character shows inconsistencies throughout the first 3 movies, I'd agree with you. Is he a roguish gravedigger for hire (a la Raiders/TOD), or is he really all about ensuring that objects of historic value are protected ("it belongs in a museum")?

The truth is that Spielberg and Lucas have simply shaped his motives/personality traits to suit the requirement of the given movie. We tend to imbue Indy with depth/development that perhaps isn't really there in the movies (other than the mild changes in his outlook between movies).

He was created as a roguish grave robber, and that's his instinctive nature. He was never supposed to be a typical hero, yet he does redeem himself against his better judgement, which is where he finally differs from Belloq.

Please drop in on this thread as well.

Lance Quazar said:

Not to the Hovitos.

Click to expand...

That's a good point. There is a moral ambiguity to the character. What kind of homage to the 30's were they trying to make? Were they more interested in noir or in globetrotting dogooders? Indy probably falls somewhere in between, although I'd like to think he was more noir.

Thats my least favorite line in the series.

Indy in the first two films is a rogue-ish, morally shady anti-hero. Someone who is more interested in the adventure of the hunt and his own "fortune and glory" than archaeological study. Someone who sells artifacts to chinese gangsters and goes after the Sankara stones for himself, not the villagers. Being an archaeology professor is just something to pay the bills. Then in Crusade we get Indy the high moralled idealistic good guy who goes after artifacts because "they belong in a museum".

tambourineman said:

Thats my least favorite line in the series.

Indy in the first two films is a rogue-ish, morally shady anti-hero. Someone who is more interested in the adventure of the hunt and his own "fortune and glory" than archaeological study. Someone who sells artifacts to chinese gangsters and goes after the Sankara stones for himself, not the villagers. Being an archaeology professor is just something to pay the bills. Then in Crusade we get Indy the high moralled idealistic good guy who goes after artifacts because "they belong in a museum".

Click to expand...

In The Last Crusade he was still breaking and entering (in the library), and in KOTCS he'd returned to grave robbing (the dagger). It was Mutt who shamed him into putting the dagger back. I don't think the rogue in Indy is ever far from his real nature.

tambourineman said:

Thats my least favorite line in the series.

Indy in the first two films is a rogue-ish, morally shady anti-hero. Someone who is more interested in the adventure of the hunt and his own "fortune and glory" than archaeological study. Someone who sells artifacts to chinese gangsters and goes after the Sankara stones for himself, not the villagers. Being an archaeology professor is just something to pay the bills. Then in Crusade we get Indy the high moralled idealistic good guy who goes after artifacts because "they belong in a museum".

Click to expand...

Yes, but that rogue-ish adventurer is juxtaposed with the almost bumbling/self conscious Doctor Jones of academia. The alter ego of Clark Kent and Bruce Wayne, for example, serve a purpose i.e. to deflect suspicion of the superhero's true identity within the context of the story. But which one is the real Indy and why did they try and give him two distinct persona's (certainly in Raiders)? As already mentioned, I'm pretty sure it suits Spielberg/Lucas to be able to fudge his personality a bit i.e. shades of depth without substance (hence character inconsistencies).

Darth Vile said:

Yes, but that rogue-ish adventurer is juxtaposed with the almost bumbling/self conscious Doctor Jones of academia. The alter ego of Clark Kent and Bruce Wayne, for example, serve a purpose i.e. to deflect suspicion of the superhero's true identity within the context of the story. But which one is the real Indy and why did they try and give him two distinct persona's (certainly in Raiders)? As already mentioned, I'm pretty sure it suits Spielberg/Lucas to be able to fudge his personality a bit i.e. shades of depth without substance (hence character inconsistencies).

Click to expand...

I don't really see his professor side as bumbling, except in CS when he starts talking about quicksand. I guess it comes down to a question of where Indy feels more at home - adventuring all over the world or teaching. That probably says more about his personality.