Indiana Jones is no bad thing for science

[semillama]

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19826566.000-comment-indiana-jones-is-no-bad-thing-for-science.html

"FEW scientific disciplines have a hero as charismatic as Indiana Jones. The whip-wielding character is the most widely recognised image of an archaeologist and largely due to this, the field enjoys huge and untainted popularity. Yet many archaeologists still seem desperate to distance themselves from the phenomenon. Since the height of the last Indy fever in the 1980s I have given up counting the number of exhibitions, educational events and publications that shout: "The real archaeologist practically never works like Indiana Jones." Now, Indy is back. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is released on 22 May, and there is every sign that it will be just as popular as its predecessors. So should archaeologists again rush to point out the gaping chasm between fiction and fact?"

"What weighs far more seriously is the criticism that elements of the film scripts communicate highly objectionable values. The adventures of Indiana Jones are premised on an imperial world in which western archaeologists routinely travel to the far corners of the globe in order to retrieve precious artefacts and save the world from Evil, giving the impression that the world is dependent on intervention from the west. Moreover, the films draw on a long cinematic tradition of portraying archaeology as the domain of white, heterosexual, able-bodied and comprehensively talented men who live though action-packed adventures in foreign countries.

This stereotype becomes part of the cultural baggage of very large audiences, and colours their perceptions of archaeology outside the cinema. It may even discourage individuals who do not think they conform to this apparent ideal from making archaeology their career choice. The discipline is the worse for any resulting loss of diversity."

As an archaeologist, I think that what most people take away from the character of Indiana Jones is that he is first an adventurer and second an archaeologist, and most folks I've talked with about the films are pretty aware that real archaeology has little in common with the movies.

[YOY]

1. He's a social scientist (by the "archaeologist" title alone.) not a physical scientist

Physical scientists are those under fire these days by the religious right.

Although the third episode had a nice explanation of fact vs truth.

[Posteritatis]

9. Social scientists are too

God help you if you're a psychologist, criminologist, sociologist, some brands of historian, etc., as far as the RR's concerned.

[HeresyLives]

2. Seems counterproductive

While I'm sure everyone knows the movies are fiction, it has brought archaeology to the forefront. Previously people thought of archaeologists as elderly British gentlemen in pith helmets pottering about with old jar shards in Egypt.

But in recent years archaeology news has exploded. All kinds of new things have been discovered all around the planet. Things that change the way we see our history, and development as a species.

And archaeology itself has developed many new disciplines. Other scientific professions should be this lucky!

[RaleighNCDUer]

3. "The real archaeologist practically never works like Indiana Jones."

I like that "practically".

Sure, there are dangers sometimes, but mostly from snakebites and insect stings, and not too uncommonly bandits. And anybody who spends a single semester in an archeology class knows that there is much more dusting off pottery shards than outrunning giant boulders.

"The adventures of Indiana Jones are premised on an imperial world in which western archaeologists routinely travel to the far corners of the globe in order to retrieve precious artefacts (sic).."

Of course, in the time period of the movies, that's pretty much what they did. Only in the past 50 years has there been any great movement to repatriate artifacts to their origins.

What Indiana Jones and Lara Croft and the Librarian HAVE done is create an awareness of the distant past, particularly when they bring in the search for artifacts that the audience has heard of in other settings, such as the arc, the grail, the spear of destiny which might prompt them to look into the myths themselves.

There really WAS a world before television.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

4. I agree with the last line.

Watching the old ones on cable the last week, the movies themselves contain throwaway lines about how this is not how archaeology is done.

The movies themselves are just based on old action serials and comic books from the thirties. Those were horribly naive, racist and sexist.

The Indiana Jones movies, I think, go out of their way to add a little authenticity.

There was that boring lecture Indy gave in the first one (don't tell me that's not 99% of archaeology).

I was surprised to mention they discussed the shiva linga in the Temple of Doom.

My daughter studied Sanksrit under a professor who was hired by the production of that sequel to write Sankscrit lyrics for a song on the soundtrack. That, I think, is a good enough effort.

[TlalocW]

5. Sheeesh, people take things too seriously

There are several jokes throughout the films about Indiana's methods like when a bad guy questions Indy, "Who are you?" and he replies, "I'm an archaeologist," and slugs the guy, or when his dad asks him in the third movie, "You call this archeology?" The humor is taking what is stereotypically considered a field populated by nebbish men in pith helmets dusting off pottery shards and make it into an action hero genre. You could do that with any number of fields - like physics, math, etc., but archeology lent itself better to it.

It's like the Monty Python skit, "The Bishop," which was supposed to be a show about a crime-fighting Roman-Catholic bishop with gadgets in his scepter.

TlalocW

[YankeyMCC]

6. Being an astronaugh involves much more

'desk flying' than space flight too. Seems to me if the movies are creating enough excitement for a few more kids to actually consider archeology or history then I see them as a good thing (although I have no desire to see the new movie as much as I loved the first couple)

Police officer and firefighter also involved a lot more 'boring' time than excitement usually depicted on film.

[Evoman]

7. Oh whatever. People that are stupid enough to think Indian Jones represents real archeology

are too stupid to get into archaelogy anyways. Even when I was a kid, I knew that archaelogy wasn't really like that. In the third movie, he even has a lecture where he says that "X never marks the spot".

Although, don't take my diatribe seriously. I'm a huge freaking hypocrite. I study Genetics and Evolution, and have been interested in doing forensics since before it was cool....and you should see my rants about CSI.

[and-justice-for-all]

8. real archaeology and Indiana Jones have nothing in common..

But the Indiana Jones films are very entertaining none-the-less.

[semillama]

10. Well, I do have rugged good looks like Indiana Jones, that's one thing

Although Marion's drinking ability in Raiders was probably the thing most in line with a lot of archaeology...

[HeresyLives]

11. How about Auriel Stein?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/3190360.stm