Is Indiana Jones 'just' an archaeologist?

Indyologist

Well-known member
TombReader said:
'The question is: what are his areas of specialization within archeology?'

Good question.I've wondered that myself,and I don't think the films make that very clear.


'We know a major one is lingustics, since that was his original field of choice.'

I didn't know that,Indyologist.Is that from one of the novels?

Yes, it is. When I first starting buying the Indy novelizations, I just devoured them greedily. Now I'm reading them again, only this time more carefully. I believe it's in the novel "Peril at Delphi" where a couple of people convince Indy to stop trying to follow in his father's footsteps to please him and make his own career choices, ie- archeology. Who those people are, I'll cite later when I can look them up.

Also, in "Dance of the Giants" and "Seven Veils" Indy asserts his distaste for linguistics, saying that he feels it would be boring. Indy's dad wanted Indy to become a linguist, where Indy wanted to be an archeologist. Needless to say, Henry Sr. disapproved of this and even disapproved of Indy's choice of university as well. Just like some parents, huh? God forbid your child should -- gasp!-- think for themselves!


Sometime tonight when I get home, I'll go through the novels and find the specific areas where this is mentions so I can cite my sources.

After all, I wouldn't be an "indyologist" if I couldn't, could I?
 

Indyologist

Well-known member
TombReader said:
Thanks for the info.I've never read any of the Indy novels,but I am very interested in reading those now. :)

Oh YES, you've got to read them. I loved them all except for Sky Pirates, personally.

I wasn't able to get to look at my Indy novels to confirm that information, folks. I'll have to look at them this weekend. I won't be back until Tuesday, so maybe some of you can do a little "research" in the books as well.
 

Sir_Winston

New member
As for Indiana's connection to Lingustics he did graduate study at the Sorbonne (Paris University) in Lingustics. Also he spoke 27 languages so yeah... languages were good and covered...

He did undergrad study at UChicago.
 

Sir_Winston

New member
IndyJohan said:
Good to see someone know's thier stuff...or Indy stuff anyway.

Ha ha thanks.

Actually his dad wanted him to go to Princeton for undergrad, but let's say "extraordinary events" stopped that.

In reality he ran away to mexican got involved with Pancho Villa somehow got into the Belgian Army in ww1 and only after all that went to chicago. What a time and all before college...
 

Aino

New member
Archaeology

Archaeology is technically a humanity that relies very heavily on just about every branch of science known to man. It is through the use of these scientific methods and procedures and standards etc that we uncover the past.

There are many branches of Archaeology. There are the diggers. There are the anthropologist interpretive ones so to speak, the linguists, the hard core science kiddies who play with the funky toys that help us to know where to even dig, and who tell us what is residue of what etc, and there are also quite a number of other branches. But as someone specified a question about languages and archaeologists who read them. I will adress that for a moment instead of giving everyone in the industry full mention though i would like to thank them all they know who they are and their contributions are fundimental to our understanding. But back to the language question....

An archaeologist who reads the ancient texts is known as an epigrapher. Most do read more than one ancient language. In ancient egypt there are atleast 3 written languages for example. First we could read hieratic and then eventually hieroglyphs. (I am sure everyone knows that story.) Anyway, most epigraphers can also read linear B a form of pre ancient greek ancient greek among other languages. Most epigraphers are also adequate in several modern languages as well. Including french and german as well as english. Many atleast those focused in and around Egypt are also quite versed in coptic too. But this epigraphy is sort of it's own field within archaeology. It is the one i am studying asi study egyptology it is one of the corner stones of egyptology which is in itself not exactly archaeology but heavily reliant of archaeology as well as the ancient texts and some other things too. I hope this gives some information to the one who wanted it.
 

Archaeologist

New member
I think it is safe to say that he is 'just' an archaeologist. As mentioned before, archaeology is a sub-discipline of anthropology. Broadly speaking anthropology is the holistic study of mankind, while archaeology is the holistic study of mankind through material remains.

It is the 'material remains' addition that really broadens archaeology. Text, such as books or the familiar hieroglyphs all constitute material remains. When these remains (text) are used, the field is narrowed slightly more into Historical Archaeology, which is not defined by location or time, simply by text by or describing a culture. I think Indy was definitely more of a historical archaeologist.

On the subject of language for the archaeologist, I find that it is rather silly for a general archaeologist to know (to the extent to be considered and expert) an ancient language. In Germany, I have worked with those of the "Old School" who studied Latin and Greek that was forced upon them when studying archaeology. Great, good for them. BUT, it never helped them in the field, that is to say excavating in Germany! Latin did come up when we excavated Queen Editha from Magdeburg, however, the translation of the text was confirmed by experts even though the chief could read it. It always is better in reports when you have an expert opinion if you do not have a speciality in that field.

I am at the post-graduate level of archaeology and have excavated around the world, but I have yet to find one language that would have been useful on every dig (with regards to interpreting the past). However, I do have an expertise on human remains, specifically human osteology (bones). I have excavated thousands of them and found that from a majority of them you can essentially "read" a history of that person. This history, generally known as a osteobiography, can tell age, sex, stature, ancestry, occupation, and pathologies. From a single site with enough human remains you can create a rather detailed palaeodemography of past society. This skill of "reading" bones is one of the few that can be applied to every (minus a few exceptions where human remains have not been discovered for a culture) archaeological society. Some would say I am an archaeologist, physical anthropologist and osteologist. I would disagree. I am just an archaeologist with a specialized set of skills.

An archaeologist must also understand the history and culture of a past society. Sometimes that includes studying modern 'primitive' societies to apply cultural model on past societies. The archaeologist who does this does not transform or change fields to an ethnologist or cultural anthropologist. They apply theories, methods and models, of these fields TO archaeology, just as I apply physical and forensic anthropology TO archaeology. It does no good to be pigeonholed in science. You must build on what others have done and if it relates to your field, use it! I have had to take medical courses and read journals meant for dentists because I can use their expertise for archaeology.

Knowledge of ancient cultures and myths applies a lot to burials. For example, are they buried with grave goods? Are they facing the East? Fetal position? Sacrificed? Were there skeletal modifications for beauty (foot binding, etc) or for social status (removal of the frontal incisors, West Africa)? Without knowledge of these cultural traditions and mythologies, I would be at a loss as to one would bind their infants forehead or purposefully cripple themselves. Before going to a site, I make sure I know the culture, know the site, the mythology, the history, and the medical practices.

On a personal note, I was upset with the transformation of Indy (in terms of linguistics) from Raiders to Present. Look at Raiders from an objective point of view and see if you get the impression he studied linguistics. Doesn't speak Hovitos, doesn't know the writing on the Headpiece, knows only a LITTLE German it would seem (the man asking for water at Tanis, Indy looks a little confused; but when approached at the submarine bay he knows to comb his hair). Come on, there is no reason Belloque could have learned Hovitos and Indy couldn't. I think the whole language thing (from books, Young Indy, etc) really differs from the Raiders Indy, although I do believe language is an important tool.

I hope this clears up my general point that archaeology is a multifaceted field that borrows from many disciplines, but I contend that it is still 'just' archaeology, just as Indy is just an archaeologist.
 
Top