Indiana Jones odds and ends.

Last updated on: May 17, 2008 at 7:52 pm by Peter T. Chattaway

Indiana Jones odds and ends. 2008-05-17T19:52:00-07:00 Peter T. Chattaway

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

I haven’t 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’ve been sitting on.

First and foremost: The character’s ambivalent relationship with real-world archaeologists. One of the reasons my wife and I like Raiders of the Lost Ark (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 — noting where coins and bits of broken pottery were found on carefully plotted grids, etc. — but at least he’s not just running around like a spy. He’s actually doing the work. And I actually get a kick from sequences like the one below, where we see the archaelogical dig from Indy’s 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:

Anyway, I bring this all up now because a few news stories have popped up that address the question of what real archaeologists think of Indy. First, there was this bit from the Associated Press:

Though he preaches research and good science in the classroom, the world’s 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’t necessarily want to work alongside him on a dig.

Indy’s bull-in-a-china-shop approach to archaeology will be on display again May 22 with “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull,” in which he’s sure to rain destruction down on more historic sites and priceless artifacts.

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.

“There are codes of ethics in archaeology, and I don’t think he would be a member. Not in good standing, anyway,” said Mark Rose, online editorial director for the Archaeological Institute of America. . . .

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’s large groups of academics and students painstakingly sifting through grids to retrieve artifacts as mundane as pottery fragments.

“It is rather adventurous in a way, because for the most part, you’re going to some exotic country and delving into their past. But it’s not an adventure with a whip and chasing bad guys and looking for treasure,” said Bryant Wood, an archaeologist with Associates for Biblical Research.

“You’re 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’t make for a very good story, spending 70 percent of the time in a library.” . . .

Other than Indy’s brief classroom scenes, the closest thing to authentic archaeology in the “Indiana Jones” flicks is done by the bad guys, whose elaborate, systematic digs in “Raiders” resemble actual excavations.

“Not 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,” said Walsh, who wrote the cover story in the May-June issue of Archaeology magazine examining the real history of crystal skulls featured in the new “Indiana Jones” movie. . . .

The final paragraphs of the AP piece raise an interesting point that might actually be redressed by the new film:

“Indiana Jones” and other productions such as “The Mummy” and “Lara Croft: Tomb Raider” flicks benefit archaeology by getting general audiences thinking and talking about the ancient world, said Bob Murowchick, associate professor of archaeology at Boston University.

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.

“The one thing we do worry quite a bit about is the looting aspect, because archaeological looting is really a serious issue,” Murowchick said. “This 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.”

As it happens, the newest trailers for Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull make the point that one can control the power of the crystal skull only by taking it back to the lost city or temple from whence it came. That suggests a somewhat different trajectory from, say, the opening scene in Raiders, 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 (1984) is that Indy ultimately brings the Sankara Stone back to the village that needs it, while Last Crusade (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 “fortune and glory”.

Anyway, two days after running that story, the AP ran another one in which they revealed that Harrison Ford, the star of the Indiana Jones series, has been elected to the board of directors for the Archaeological Institute of America — the same outfit that publishes the aforementioned Archaeology magazine! And, as Christopher Campbell notes, that is also the same outfit where Mark Rose works — Rose being the guy who said that Indy would not “be a member . . . in good standing, anyway” of the archaeological community. Oh, the irony!

Turning to other matters, the Associated Press reports that “Few of today’s crystal skulls can be documented any further back than the 1860s, when Europe was swept by a rage for pre-Hispanic ‘relics'” — interestingly, the Archaeology magazine article linked above indicates that the gold idol stolen by Indy at the beginning of Raiders is probably also based on a 19th-century forgery — but some people believe in them very strongly anyway. Meanwhile, a real-life crystal skull has been stolen from a New Age store in California.

The Daily Telegraph, for its part, gives us a sense of just how “wacky” the new movie could have been, if George Lucas had had his way:

If George Lucas had had his way the new Indiana Jones movie would be called “Indiana Jones and the Saucer Men From Mars”, and the iconic archaeologist adventurer would be battling space aliens instead of communists.

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.

“There was a point where I thought George and I would never agree on the story, and I was fine with that,” recalls Spielberg. “George and I are best friends, and we always argue, and we always debate. That’s been the nature of our relationship since we met in 1967.”

Harrison Ford, who at the age of 65 has now donned Indiana Jones’s fedora and leather jacket for the fourth time, says drily: “It takes time to get Steven, George and me on the same page. George is very stubborn with his ideas.” . . .

The Associated Press echoes that bit about the “saucer men from Mars” in its own story on the shroud of secrecy surrounding this movie. So Lucas certainly wasn’t kidding when he said he was going to go all Phantom Menace on this movie. One key distinction, though, is that to get the new Indiana Jones movie made, Lucas had to accommodate other people to some degree. On the Star Wars prequels (1999-2005), Lucas was surrounded by nothing but yes-men, but on the Indiana Jones 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.

Then again, Fox News and the MTV Movies Blog report that Lucas is thinking of maybe continuing the franchise “with Shia LaBeouf’s Mutt Williams as the main character” and “Indy [relegated] to sidekick status, a la Sean Connery in ‘Last Crusade.'” Eep.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

May 17, 2008

Nylons and lipsticks and invitations, oh my!

Next Post

May 17, 2008 Re-making movies on home video in the '80s.

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Anglican Planet Articles BC Christian News BC Report Bible Movies Bible Review Blog Books & Culture Campus Times CBC Radio Christianity Today ChristianWeek Essays Faith Today Festival Cinemas Guide Film Journals Georgia Straight Interviews MB Herald National Catholic Register Salvationist Today's Christian Two Chairs Ubyssey Uncategorized Vancouver Courier Vancouver Sun

Select a Month August 2025 April 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 May 2024 February 2024 December 2023 May 2023 March 2023 November 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 September 2019 July 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 April 2012 January 2012 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 November 2003 October 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 January 2003 December 2002 November 2002 August 2002 July 2002 June 2002 May 2002 March 2002 January 2002 December 2001 November 2001 September 2001 August 2001 July 2001 June 2001 April 2001 March 2001 February 2001 December 2000 November 2000 October 2000 September 2000 August 2000 July 2000 June 2000 May 2000 April 2000 March 2000 January 2000 October 1999 August 1999 May 1999 April 1999 February 1999 January 1999 December 1998 November 1998 October 1998 August 1998 July 1998 June 1998 April 1998 March 1998 January 1998 November 1997 September 1997 July 1997 June 1997 April 1997 March 1997 February 1997 January 1997 December 1996 October 1996 September 1996 June 1996 March 1996 February 1996 January 1996 April 1995 November 1994 September 1994 September 1991

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

True or False: David killed Goliath with a sword.

Select your answer to see how you score.

FALSE TRUE