[size=18pt] Is Indiana Jones bad for archaeology? [/size]

Anybody that has watched the movie would have some points on this topic

No

by Kristopher Oppegaard



Stating that Indiana Jones is bad for archaeology implies that archaeology is suffering because of the existence of the character, as if there are thousands of starving archaeologists out there, and the movie series is desensitizing the public to their terrible struggle. I am not even sure that anyone really views the fictional Jones as an archaeologist. It's not exactly the most exciting part about what he does.

In fact, when I think of archaeology, I picture paleontologists. Perhaps paleontology is bad for archaeology, with their exciting dinosaur skeletons and all. The point I am getting at is that the idea of Indiana Jones having a negative influence on the field of archaeology whatsoever is completely irrational.

I would say, at best, the only impact Indiana Jones had on the field of archaeology is, and I'm estimating here, a couple dozen deluded fanboys or so decided that they wanted to be archaeologists, only due to the fact that being a Jedi is currently impossible.

They started attending college, majoring in Archaeology, and soon found out that it is literally nothing like the movie and promptly switched to Film so they could emulate it later on. Keep in mind that this is all entirely hypothetical. But if Indiana Jones managed to have a negative impact at all, that is what happened.

If anything, the Indiana Jones franchise has probably helped archaeology. Perhaps more students, with a new-found love of history, took archaeology; and I'm sure any male professor now enjoyed his students' notion that he could possibly be like Indiana Jones and they would never know.

Perhaps more people in general, with a new-found love of history, flocked to their nearest history museum, which is largely responsible for keeping those starving archaeologists fed.

I just hope that they did not confuse the history museum with the natural history museum. Those paleontologists are always stealing the thunder.

To be frank, Indiana Jones is a wholly unrealistic movie. Someone who does not already have pangs of delusion will not be taken in so far as to believe that the world of archaeology is actually like this. And even if someone did, what harm is that to the field itself?

Indiana Jones does not do any damage to the field as it is still just as respected a field as it was prior to movie and the character. There is no evidence to support otherwise.

Yes


by Morton Mcinvale


As avid an Indiana Jones fan as they come (I still wear his brown fedora- courtesy of Disney world -, and listen to the John Williams theme song whenever my cell phone rings), nevertheless, I must reluctantly admit: Indiana Jones is bad for archaeology. As a historian, I have worked closely with a number of archaeologists and based on what I have learned, Indiana Jones gives a skewed perception of the practice if not entirely the philosophy of archaeology.

Our State Archaeologist once commented to me that any archaeologist worth his salt would actually seek to prevent archaeological excavation of a site. Why? No matter what it may unearth, excavation destroys the site. In the future technology may permit non-invasive excavation, preserving rather than destroying the resource.

BUT . . .Said State Archaeologist once confessed to me that HE himself had conducted a number of personal excavations on Native American sites on the Southeastern coast!. Is there an Indiana Jones complex among archaeologists? A Jekyll and Hyde dilemma of "to dig or not to dig, that is the question.'?

Then again, physical digging is what archaeologists seldom do. Perhaps 95% of archaeology takes place in the library where archaeologists dig through records and research to identify every shred of possible information before ever setting a spade into the earth. Why? Of course, there is the concern to preserve the site for future generations. More practically, it is a matter of money. Like everything else in this country except opinions, archaeology costs. Actual excavation - even philanthropically and copiously funded, which most is not is limited severely by time and money.

But Heaven forbid that we should ever take the mystery and adventure out of archaeology! No Howard Carter and the supposed mummy's curse? No Troy and Mycenae without the better than life adventures of Heinrich Schliemann? No Agatha Christie's archaeology-based mysteries? No Michael Crichton's Timeline? No more of Clive Cussler's archaeologist adventurers wandering from the sands of Sahara to sunset searching for. . .Or does it matter what they are seeking - or what we are seeking - just so long as we are?

Let's be honest. As a young college student, would you rather take Archaeology 101 under Indiana Jones or his academically-correct father (never mind that it's Sean Connery inside the tweed suit)? I suspected so. Sorry. Students entering the profession expecting Nazi/Soviet/terrorist villains,

http://www.helium.com/items/1492403-indiana-jonesgoodbad-for-archaeology