Is Indiana Jones 'just' an archaeologist?

Here's one to ponder (and maybe even discuss):

Can Indiana Jones be described as simply an 'archaeologist'? Or in his academic life is he more a combination of archaeologist, cultural anthropologist, and Professor of Ancient History?

Really, when you boil archaeology down to its roots, it can be quite a boring science.

OK, I'll expect some heat for that last comment, but really, spending days......months.......years digging in one particular hole just to determine that a particular segment of Roman society used forks when they ate breakfast.........just isn't all that exciting.

With Indiana Jones' extensive knowledge of ancient languages, cultures, myths, and legends......isn't he more than just simply an archaeologist?

Please, any archaeologists out there, please don't take this the wrong way, as I am sure most of you are more than 'just' an archaeologist yourselves.

Or are all of those things previously mentioned....knowledge of ancient languages, cultures, myths and legends.......part of 'being' an archaeologist?

I'd definitely say he's part anthropologist as well, although in the States, anthropology and archaeology are much more closely related than in Europe.

He's also a bit of a historian. Some would say that history and archaeology go hand in hand (it's even been said that archaeology is the 'handmaiden' of history), but the archaeologists I've known (particularly the academics) would disagree. Occassionally the two areas overlap, but they are quite distinct disciplines.

Indy's a real inter-disciplinarian (if there's such a word!) which could be frowned upon by some specialists, but it'd be a useful trait in the field.

Indy can handle a great deal of things that would on any usual major research dealing with the past would be separated to several duties and handed over to several people of certain expertise.

First of all, Dr. Jones is an archaeologist. He digs up things that are hidden by the time, that is what an archaeologist does. He is also a bit of both a cultural anthropologist plus an usual anthropologist since he seems to know a lot about the core history of objects and their linkings to the society, plus the behavior of different societies as well, like shown in the village scenes of ToD. When Indy greets the shaman and knows that refusing the meal would be an insult towards the hosts, he is not acting like an archaeologist, but like an anthropologist.

Our good Doc Jones knows a great deal about the past and its legends, so that makes him a historian, and a pretty renowned one. He can recall a great bunch of legends without having to provide to the help provided by a printed source, so that makes him pretty well versed on that field too.

Finally, Indy is also a linguist. He knows several languages, living and dead, a skill an archaeologist does not specifically need. When an archaeologist finds a piece, like a stone tablet, he does not have to know what it says, only to recognize the writing (or even just to make out some general facts about its outlook), date it somehow and just leave the rest to historians, CAs and linguists (and possibly conservators).

It is kinda shame that Indy is named nothing but an archaeologist in the films. I bet many youngsters have gone to study archaeology after getting an inspiration from the films, only to figure out that it's actually nothing like the films indicate and has no connections to the things Indy has done on screen.

And that is simply because it's left unmentioned that the thing Doc Jones currently does is not actually associated with archaeology, but some other past-dealing science that is at least as fascinating as archaeology, in some cases even more.

'Really, when you boil archaeology down to its roots, it can be quite a boring science.'


Don't worry,I'm not going to flame you I might disagree with your definition of archaeology however.


When an archaeologist finds a piece, like a stone tablet, he does not have to know what it says,...'


Now this statement I will strongly disagree with.You cannot(and I cannot stress this enough) be a good archaeologist unless you are able to work with primary sources,in this case,the language in question.


'Or are all of those things previously mentioned....knowledge of ancient languages, cultures, myths and legends.......part of 'being' an archaeologist?'

Bingo.Archaeology(as well as linguistics)are sub-fields of anthropology.

OldawanKenobi said:

Now this statement I will strongly disagree with.You cannot(and I cannot stress this enough) be a good archaeologist unless you are able to work with primary sources,in this case,the language in question.

Click to expand...

Again, read it again. All of it. There are two different things... to get to know <i>what it says</i> and to get to know <i>what it is</i>. You can't blame an archaeologist if s/he stumbles up on a piece s/he can't completely translate/figure out its meaning/etc, but a capable one should be able to come up with a <i>function</i> for it nevertheless. See?

If an archaeologist says "It's a stone tablet with some kind of message on it," he's closing in the core idea you mentioned. But it does not prevent him/her from being a good one, if s/he is not able to bring out the message (because there are people specialized in that).

If s/he however says "It's a flat stone thingy, ancient people probably used to bang each others' heads with things like that", then... you get it now, I believe.

Oh,I read what you wrote...and I still disagree.Sometimes you don't know the function of an item unless you can read the inscription.

But it's still a <i>stone tablet</i>... and a good archaeologist can also say if it's an old one and worth anything. And that <i>is</i> all you need to know to get the ball rolling. I repeat, again, when I speak of a function, you need to know <i>what it is</i>, not <i>what it says</i>. That's when you move out of material world to the world of ideas. And an archaeologist does not necessary have to go that far.

But it's still a <i>stone tablet</i>... and a good archaeologist can also say if it's an old one and worth anything...

I'm not aware of the archaeologist as an appaiser of monetary value,but then again,our definitions of archaeology do seem to differ.


I repeat, again, when I speak of a function, you need to know <i>what it is</i>, not <i>what it says</i>...

And I'll repeat that sometimes you need to know what it says in order to know what it is...and what it does.


That's when you move out of material world to the world of ideas.

Not necessarily.Defining what an object does(by whatever means)does not always assign the object a place within a society,nor does it define that society.Determining an object's function is not the same as determining its place within a group.

OldawanKenobi said:

I'm not aware of the archaeologist as an appaiser of monetary value,but then again,our definitions of archaeology do seem to differ.

Click to expand...

Worth to give it more attention, or is it just a piece of scrap that should be forgotten. I did not speak about its value in cash.

OldawanKenobi said:

I'm not aware of the archaeologist as an appaiser of monetary value,but then again,our definitions of archaeology do seem to differ.

Click to expand...

I bring some piece I've found to an archaeologist. Let's say it's some sort of trinket. An archaeologist may recognize it right away and tell me what it is, or then s/he can say: "It's an old trinket," and then possibly tell me its age, about. And then say if we should find out more about it or not. <i>And that is all we need to know about it at this moment. The reason I need archaeologist for is to tell me if I've actually found something interesting or not.</i> Because, there are people who can go further on with it. But an archaeologist is needed to start the process. And a good archaeologist can do that by telling that simple thing if it's worth our time or not. <i>The work does not start by locating the right answers, but by locating the right questions.</i>

OldawanKenobi said:

Not necessarily. Defining what an object does(by whatever means)does not always assign the object a place within a society,nor does it define that society. Determining an object's function is not the same as determining its place within a group.

Click to expand...

If we think of a stone tablet again... I didn't say we need a CA. This is not a debate about the subject "CAs vs. archaeologists", but a discussion about what does an archaeologist actually do, and that is explained above. By finding out what the object actually does, we may need a lot of sources. A linguist. A CA. An engineer, possibly. But an archaeologist is the one who starts this process by telling us if it's worth our time or not and giving the first impression. And it does not have to be detailed.

'But an archaeologist is the one who starts this process by telling us if it's worth our time or not and giving the first impression...'

And that's exactly what it is...a first impression.What exactly does 'worth our time' mean,anyway?If we do not know the value of the object in question to the society which it belonged to(which you say an archaeologist alone cannot determne on his/her own),then how do we know if the object merits further study or if it does not?


'The reason I need archaeologist for is to tell me if I've actually found something interesting or not...'

Doesn't that call for interpretation by the archaeologist?You said previously that an archaeologist was not qualified to do that without help.

First of all, I guess I'll better leave from my shelter a little and admit a couple of things. I'm not just trying to claim that an archaeologist doesn't have to know a thing but the material side of the findings... many archaeologists specialized e.g. in ancient Roman objects are well versed in Latin, because it helps them in their work. They can also know a lot about the CA of their field of specializement. So when you talk about archaeologist's skill of translating ancient texts and etcetera, you are basically right. They do that too. Though they don't always have to do that. They can come upon a piece they're not familiar with and still be competent enough to start the process that, after visiting many other sources possibly, brings us to the final conclusion of the object in question.

When I said that an archaeologist can give us the first impression and spoke about questions and answers? Finding the correct questions about the thing and giving the first impression are practically the same thing. If an archaeologist finds that there is something about it... that means s/he has given us the confirmation that we've made a find and the first step have been taken.

Whenever we come to an archaeologist with something of possible interest, the main question we should have in mind is not "what it is?" or "what does it do?" or "what reads there?" but "<i>have we found something?</i>" and that's the thing we want an archaeologist to tell us. And if we have, then it's time to start spawning those other unanswered questions we may have, and we may not need just an archaeologist to give us answers, though I <I>do</i> admit that s/he can be able to do that too, at least to some of the questions.

And btw, this explanation of the function of an archaeologist was given to me by one. Of course, it's not an exact science so the interpretations about an archaeologist's dos-and-donots can vary.

We were working with a proffesional Israeli archaeologist in Jerusalem, in July of '03, and basically, he was there, he gave suggestions, when someone found pottery, they put it in a bin, and, later, he took ceartain pieces, and told their approx. age, and style. If they were real important, he would send them away for closer analysis.
I don't know if he was doing his job, but if he was, then that is the way an archaeologist preforms in a situation like that.


Does an archaeologist have to learn every language, to be ready for any inscription that he might un-earth?

Amen, Tenn, Amen. Always nice to get supportive views.

Still OWK posting here....having some trouble with my comp not letting me stay logged in,so I just re-registered.

Anyway...

Finn-Dude,I get what you're saying,I really do.In your post(and Tenn's example),the archaeologist is certainly qualified to make those kind of interpretations.However,my disagreement with you lies in the notion that you seem to think the archaeologist is ONLY able to do that much.My experience in dealing with archaeologists is that they tend to be 'jacks of all trades' and able to do and perform a wide variety of tasks beyond what your job description would seem to indicate.

Tenn-I never said that an archaeologist needed to learn every language...not sure where you got that from.What I said was that the arch. should be able to work with the primary source(in this case,the language).Feel free to disagree with that,but disagree with what I actually said.

OWK - many archaeologists are jacks-of-all-trades, I admit that. They're just not it by <i>standard</i>.

Dude,there is no such thing as a 'standard archaeologist' LOL

Not all archaeologists (even the good ones) can translate ancient languages. A knowledge of Latin, ancient Greek, or Aramaic won't get you very far on a prehistoric site...

I think the real question here isn't whether or not Indy is "just an archeologist." We KNOW Indy is an archeologist. The question is: what are his areas of specialization within archeology. Archeologists seem to have certain areas of archeology that they focus on, such as Egyptology, etc.

It's suggested in the novels that Indy's area of expertise is Celtic archeology.

Also, what special skills does Indy bring to archeology?

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

He also seems to have particular expertise in the occult and folklore. And uh, don't forget "folk dancing." You'll know what I mean if you've read the novelization of T of D! Another area of expertise is, um, "mating customs."

'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?

I think so. But Indyologist needs to confirm this.