Sciences >
Archaeology
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedIs Indiana Jones bad for archaeology?
Results so far:
| Yes | 17% | 79 votes | Total: 463 votes | |
| No | 83% | 384 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesIndiana Jones is bad for archeology in the respect that he represents an era when rampant thievery, destruction of delicate artifacts and archeological sites, along with a complete lack of respect for the governments and peoples of many nations resulted in nothing less than looting that went on during the entire time of British and other countries occupations of third world countries.
There was a bottomless greed, not just for the monetary gain from the looted artifacts, but for the benefits of claiming ownership and of those artifacts. Great Britain was overcome during the era represented in the Indiana Jones series, with an additional greed: to take, protect, horrifically waste, and to properly study the great works of other men and women.
In one art class, there was an urban myth about a beautiful watercolor called "Mummy Green". Sales dropped precipituously when the word went out that the pigment came from real, ground up mummies. It is not known whether this was true or not.
There was racial confusion in the Indiana Jones films in that no significant number of Black people are represented in countries where they were quite plentiful at the time. If Nubians occupied part of Egypt at one point, and Louis Gossett, Jr. could portray Anwar Sadat, the president of Egypt, then don't we think that there would have been more dark skinned people at least doing hard labor at archeological digs, or in the streets of major cities?
While the Indiana Jones films inspired a generation of students to explore the field, the inspiration was based on a cartoon character's approach to adventure and heroic accomplishments. Of course, high school and college students are smart enough to realize that the "real thing" in archeology is far less exciting and definitely no where near as glamorous as depicted in the films, but smaller children have trouble separating the facts from the fiction. They have no idea of the vast majority of hours spent in back rooms and laboratories, or of studying the driest of details about the artifacts of mankind and how they relate to the nature of human interactions throughout history.
As a result, the fictional character, Indiana Jones, represented the good, the bad, and the downright ugly about past activities and conduct by the archeological community, but did not present a realistic and encouraging set of truths about the importance of archeological finds that are not possessed of mythical powers, brilliant value, or incredible rarity. The films did not pay respect to the advancements that have been made in protecting archeological sites, and in being forced to respect the rights of other countries to keep, study, store and maintain their own historical treasures. Granted, at the time, most historical treasures were not well preserved or even well treated, but as countries of origin developed, so did their institutions for conserving and protecting natural and cultural resources.
Learn more about this author, Elizabeth M. Young.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
A question appeared in cyberspace asking whether or not fantasy is unhealthy for children. This controversy is more than a little similar. Indiana Jones was a professor who became obsessed with a particular relic - at least that is how it all began. It is pure fantasy, but is as delightful as can be. This is a bit like saying is Batman bad for policemen.
If one knows anything at all about archaeology, he knows that it is tedious work that often produces minimal results, if any. Nevertheless, archaeologists nearly go ballistic when they actually do find something.
There is a large group of both professional and amateur archaeologists in the United States and across the globe who are working to prove Biblical historical accuracy. Some of them are in Glen Rose, Texas now digging to verify that dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time. They work in the hot sun for long hours sometimes with tools no larger than a teaspoon. Until there is a "find", there is nothing very dramatic about it. Even so, some of the people in the group have mentioned that the Indiana Jones movies have drawn attention to their work. Their writings are finding more opportunities for publishing and funding for digs is a little easier to come by.
There is occasionally danger in archaeology, but to a much lesser degree than Dr. Jones meets up with. One small example is the findings concerning what could possibly be Noah's Ark. Mid-East governments do not enjoy hoardes of curiosity seekers around possible historical sites in their lands. They fear thefts and destruction, not to mention corruption and territorialism run rampant. There is often reason for concern. Think of how the pyramids were robbed in years past. The mummies themselves were taken, along with other relics and valuables.
"National Treasure" was a movie of the same genre, and I've not heard anyone question whether or not it damages the quest for knowledge and documents from America's young history.
Indiana Jones is a wonderful character who appeals to young and old alike. The first one came out when my children were young. They loved it, and now their children love it, as well as numbers two and three. (We haven't seen the new one yet.) It has peaked our interest in real archaeoligical finds, and we're watching the Discovery Channel and the History Channel more.
Most people can separate fact from fiction, even when there is an element of truth in the fiction. Isn't that essentially what fiction and fantasy are - just enough believability to pique your curiosity and fascination?
Learn more about this author, Linda Burleson.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
