![\"\"](\"https:\/\/4.bp.blogspot.com\/_MwnH1kpbPRM\/SC-aiydLpnI\/AAAAAAAABis\/fj5CveDJMA0\/s1600-h\/raiders-archaeology4.jpg\")
<\/a>I haven\u2019t gotten around to re-watching the entire Indiana Jones<\/i> trilogy yet, but I am<\/i> seeing the new film<\/a> tomorrow, so I figured I might as well get around to posting some of the Indy<\/i>-themed things that I\u2019ve been sitting on.<\/span><\/p>\n
First and foremost: The character\u2019s ambivalent relationship with real-world archaeologists. One of the reasons my wife and I like Raiders of the Lost Ark<\/a><\/i> (1981) better than the other two films is that it is the only film in which we see Indiana Jones doing real archaeology, with surveying equipment and picks and shovels and whatnot. True, he may be just a treasure hunter, and he may be neglecting some of the more finely-detailed work that modern archaeologists are supposed to do \u2014 noting where coins and bits of broken pottery were found on carefully plotted grids, etc. \u2014 but at least he\u2019s not just running around like a spy. He\u2019s actually doing the work<\/i>. And I actually get a kick from sequences like the one below, where we see the archaelogical dig from Indy\u2019s perspective, and we see how following the calculations leads him past a few other spots before it takes him to the actual spot where he needs to start digging:<\/p>\n Anyway, I bring this all up now<\/i> because a few news stories have popped up that address the question of what real<\/i> archaeologists think of Indy. First, there was this bit from the Associated Press<\/a>:<\/p>\n Though he preaches research and good science in the classroom, the world\u2019s most famous archaeologist often is an acquisitive tomb raider in the field with a scorched-earth policy about what he leaves behind. While actual archaeologists like the guy and his movies, they wouldn\u2019t necessarily want to work alongside him on a dig.<\/p>\n Indy\u2019s bull-in-a-china-shop approach to archaeology will be on display again May 22 with \u201cIndiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull,\u201d in which he\u2019s sure to rain destruction down on more historic sites and priceless artifacts. <\/p>\n Real experts in antiquities acknowledge that the movies are pure fiction that present archaeology as blockbuster adventure, yet they cannot help but cringe at the way Indy manhandles the ancient world.<\/p>\n \u201cThere are codes of ethics in archaeology, and I don\u2019t think he would be a member. Not in good standing, anyway,\u201d said Mark Rose, online editorial director for the Archaeological Institute of America<\/a>. . . .<\/p>\n The reality of archaeological field work is not a lone hero dashing into hidden chambers with a bullwhip and a pistol and coming away with a priceless relic. It\u2019s large groups of academics and students painstakingly sifting through grids to retrieve artifacts as mundane as pottery fragments.<\/p>\n \u201cIt is rather adventurous in a way, because for the most part, you\u2019re going to some exotic country and delving into their past. But it\u2019s not an adventure with a whip and chasing bad guys and looking for treasure,\u201d said Bryant Wood, an archaeologist with Associates for Biblical Research<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u201cYou\u2019re working at one site tediously, probably for many, many years and spending more time processing the finds and writing reports than you do actually digging at the site. But that wouldn\u2019t make for a very good story, spending 70 percent of the time in a library.\u201d . . .<\/p>\n Other than Indy\u2019s brief classroom scenes, the closest thing to authentic archaeology in the \u201cIndiana Jones\u201d flicks is done by the bad guys, whose elaborate, systematic digs in \u201cRaiders\u201d resemble actual excavations.<\/p>\n \u201cNot a whole lot of what we know as archaeology goes on in these movies, except what the Nazis do. They seem to be doing some real archaeological work,\u201d said Walsh, who wrote the cover story<\/a> in the May-June issue of Archaeology magazine examining the real history of crystal skulls featured in the new \u201cIndiana Jones\u201d movie. . . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The final paragraphs of the AP piece raise an interesting point that might actually be redressed by the new film:<\/p>\n \u201cIndiana Jones\u201d and other productions such as \u201cThe Mummy<\/a>\u201d and \u201cLara Croft: Tomb Raider\u201d flicks benefit archaeology by getting general audiences thinking and talking about the ancient world, said Bob Murowchick, associate professor of archaeology at Boston University<\/a>.<\/p>\n But the movies emphasize the tomb-raiding aspect, leaving the impression that artifacts are there for the taking by whoever stumbles on them first, he said.<\/p>\n \u201cThe one thing we do worry quite a bit about is the looting aspect, because archaeological looting is really a serious issue,\u201d Murowchick said. \u201cThis kind of glorifying of breaking into a tomb and snagging a crystal this or golden that feeds into the notion that these are valuable objects, and we should all get it while we can.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n As it happens, the newest trailers<\/a> for Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull<\/i> make the point that one can control the power of the crystal skull only by taking it back<\/i> to the lost city or temple from whence it came. That suggests a somewhat different trajectory from, say, the opening scene<\/a> in Raiders<\/i>, where Indiana Jones essentially stole an idol from a South American altar. And come to think of it, the narrative thrust of Temple of Doom<\/i> (1984) is that Indy ultimately brings the Sankara Stone back to the village that needs it, while Last Crusade<\/a><\/i> (1989) makes the point that the Holy Grail really cannot be removed from the general place where Indy finds it; in both films, Indy ultimately discovers something better than \u201cfortune and glory\u201d.<\/p>\n Anyway, two days after running that story, the AP ran another one<\/a> in which they revealed that Harrison Ford<\/a>, the star of the Indiana Jones<\/i> series, has been elected to the board of directors for the Archaeological Institute of America \u2014 the same outfit that publishes the aforementioned Archaeology<\/i> magazine! And, as Christopher Campbell<\/a> notes, that is also the same outfit where Mark Rose works \u2014 Rose being the guy who said that Indy would not \u201cbe a member . . . in good standing, anyway\u201d of the archaeological community. Oh, the irony!<\/p>\n Turning to other matters, the Associated Press<\/a> reports that \u201cFew of today\u2019s crystal skulls can be documented any further back than the 1860s, when Europe was swept by a rage for pre-Hispanic \u2018relics'\u201d \u2014 interestingly, the Archaeology<\/i> magazine article linked above indicates that the gold idol stolen by Indy at the beginning of Raiders<\/i> is probably also<\/i> based on a 19th-century forgery \u2014 but some people believe in them very strongly anyway. Meanwhile, a real-life crystal skull has been stolen from a New Age store<\/a> in California.<\/p>\n The Daily Telegraph<\/a><\/i>, for its part, gives us a sense of just how \u201cwacky<\/a>\u201d the new movie could have been, if George Lucas had had his way:<\/p>\n If George Lucas had had his way the new Indiana Jones movie would be called \u201cIndiana Jones and the Saucer Men From Mars\u201d, and the iconic archaeologist adventurer would be battling space aliens instead of communists.<\/p>\n But both Harrison Ford and Steven Spielberg firmly rejected the idea. So Lucas went back to the drawing board, and the wrangling between these three powerful, opinionated men continued for the next 10 years or so.<\/p>\n \u201cThere was a point where I thought George and I would never agree on the story, and I was fine with that,\u201d recalls Spielberg. \u201cGeorge and I are best friends, and we always argue, and we always debate. That\u2019s been the nature of our relationship since we met in 1967.\u201d<\/p>\n Harrison Ford, who at the age of 65 has now donned Indiana Jones\u2019s fedora and leather jacket for the fourth time, says drily: \u201cIt takes time to get Steven, George and me on the same page. George is very stubborn with his ideas.\u201d . . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The Associated Press echoes that bit about the \u201csaucer men from Mars\u201d in its own story on the shroud of secrecy<\/a> surrounding this movie. So Lucas certainly wasn\u2019t kidding when he said he was going to go all Phantom Menace<\/a><\/i> on this movie. One key distinction, though, is that to get the new Indiana Jones<\/i> movie made, Lucas had to accommodate other people to some<\/i> degree. On the Star Wars<\/a><\/i> prequels<\/a> (1999-2005), Lucas was surrounded by nothing but yes-men, but on the Indiana Jones<\/i> franchise, Lucas has to contend with a fellow billionaire movie mogul, i.e. Spielberg, and with a strong leading man who is absolutely essential to the continuation of the franchise, i.e. Ford.<\/p>\n Then again, Fox News<\/a> and the MTV Movies Blog<\/a> report that Lucas is thinking of maybe continuing the franchise \u201cwith Shia LaBeouf\u2019s Mutt Williams as the main character\u201d and \u201cIndy [relegated] to sidekick status, a la Sean Connery in \u2018Last Crusade.'\u201d Eep.<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" I haven\u2019t gotten around to re-watching the entire Indiana Jones trilogy yet, but I am seeing the new film tomorrow, so I figured I might as well get around to posting some of the Indy-themed things that I\u2019ve been sitting on. First and foremost: The character\u2019s ambivalent relationship with real-world archaeologists. One of the reasons […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1116,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-868","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\n<\/a><\/a><\/a><\/p>\n