AP: REAL ARCHAEOLOGISTS QUESTION INDIANA JONES' M.O.

[MichaelDoran]

by DAVID GERMAIN, AP Movie Writer

LOS ANGELES (AP) _ Indiana Jones managed to retrieve the trinket he was after in the opening moments of ``Raiders of the Lost Ark.'' He pretty much wrecked everything else in the ancient South American temple where the little gold idol had rested for millennia.

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.

``It wouldn't be quite as much fun if you followed protocol, I think,'' said Karen Allen, who is reprising her ``Raiders'' role as Indy's old flame Marion Ravenwood. ``Crystal Skull'' reunites Allen with Harrison Ford as Indy, director Steven Spielberg and executive producer George Lucas.

In a career spanning 27 years and three previous films, Indy has been both a blessing and curse for the musty world of archaeology, fanning interest in the field beyond academic circles but doing a Hollywood number on how the job actually works.

In 1989's ``Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade,'' nerdy Professor Henry Jones Jr. tells students that 70 percent of archaeology is done in the library and advises them to ``forget any ideas you've got about lost cities, exotic travel and digging up the world. We do not follow maps to buried treasure, and `X' never, ever marks the spot.''

Trading his classroom tweeds for his leather jacket and fedora hat, his alter-ego Indiana Jones then proceeds to smash through crypts, kill scores of Nazis and desecrate a grave by using a human leg bone as a torch. And, in one scene, ``X'' literally does mark the spot.

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.''

The most exciting thing that happens to many archaeologists in the field might be battling dysentery or coping with a lemon of a Land Rover.

``I spent a lot of time walking in cornfields and soy bean fields in the Midwest, and nothing very dramatic ever happened while I was out looking for artifacts,'' said Rose of the Archaeological Institute, whose trustees include Indy star Ford.

``To be honest, it's a lot of drudge work. You can end up producing a 600-page Ph.D dissertation, and it's important and useful and it's good that someone has done it. But it's not going to be made into a major motion picture anytime soon.''

Paul Zimansky, an archaeology professor at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, once had an adventure reminiscent of Indy's fear of snakes. Zimansky had to drive at breakneck speed to get a colleague to a doctor after he was bitten by a viper in Iran.

On a dig in Iraq, one student dressed like Indy, minus the whip, and whenever the team made a notable find, they would play the ``Indiana Jones'' fanfare, Zimansky said.

Indy's main value in the academic world has been as an inspiration to aspiring archaeologists, said Zimansky, who noticed a spike in new students in the early 1990s while teaching at Boston University.

``If you asked these people why they were becoming archaeologists, it always starts off with Indiana Jones. It actually converted a number of people. They got their initial interest in archaeology from Indiana Jones,'' Zimansky said.

The students certainly knew they were studying to be scholars, not treasure hunters, though Zimansky would have liked Indy to be a more realistic role model.

``I wish he'd take more notes and things. What's his publication record?'' Zimansky said. ``But I don't think anybody ever bought the ethos of Indiana Jones as a real career track.''

Adds Jane MacLaren Walsh, an anthropologist for the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History: ``Some people would like to think of themselves as Indiana Jones, but nobody I know really fits the bill at all.''

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.

Jaime Awe, director of the Institute of Archaeology in Belize, is a big fan of the ``Indiana Jones'' movies but shows them to students as ``examples of what not to do,'' he said.

``I tell them the only difference between Indiana Jones and myself is he always gets the goodies and gets the beautiful women and gets paid a lot of money, and I don't get any of that,'' Awe said.

``But I have a hell of a lot of fun just like he does, and it's just as much an adventure. Most of us do archaeology because we love the opportunity to explore, to discover, to search for clues,'' said Awe, who appears on the Sci-Fi Channel documentary ``Mystery of the Crystal Skulls,'' premiering May 18. ``It's like having a big sandbox. Like Indiana Jones, we keep being kids at heart.''

``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 whomever 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.''

[youbastards]

Who gives a ____? They are movies for entertainment purposes...

[Simon DelMonte]

It's quite interesting, now that Newsarama is an AP subscriber, to see just how many fluff stories the AP generates in a given day. Which isn't to say that they aren't covering the world. Look at any website for a newspaper or TV station, and the bulk of the news is taken from the AP. But if they have to cover entertainment, it would be nice to see them cover it with less stories like this one.

Which isn't news. Archaeologists have complained about Indy for years now.

[asutton1]

In his defense, however, isn't Dr. Jones usually trying to get the golden-crystally trinket to put in a museum because some other scum-bag (usually a Nazi of some stripe) is trying to get it and use it for his own personal pleasure?

[Ben543250]

Originally Posted by youbastards

Who gives a ____? They are movies for entertainment purposes...

People who are interested in archeology probably give a ____. Things can be for entertainment purposes, but it's nice to know how much was changed from reality for the sake of entertainment.

[von Doom, M.D.]

Any romantic notions about archaeology Spielberg created with in me with Indiana Jones, he killed with the first 20 minutes of Jurassic Park.

[Statham]

What a dumb argument.

Indy's approach is always motivated - In Raiders, he destroys the wall and column of a tomb because f**king Nazis are escaping the with Ark of the f**king Covenant which would inevitably tip the eventual war in their favour.

Obviously, if they were in Indy's position, we'd all be goosesteppers because they just sat there.

On a more serious note - They're movies. If we suddenly got a whole bunch of assholes who went tromping through sites in a manner Eddie Izzard jokingly describes as speed archeology, then yes, Indy would be creating a problem. But until his character inspires a whole legion of yob archeologists, I could care less.

[BinMan]

Indiana Jones isn't how real archaeologists work?!?!?!?!?!?!!??!?!!!!!!?!?!?!!?

[mrdestructo]

i understand all the arguments in the above article but what nobody mentioned was that back in the early days of archaeology that is how a lot of it was done. a large portion of the archaeology done back then would be considered grave robbing or looting nowadays. heinrich schliemann (and before you say anything he was around about 60 years before the nazis) discovered troy and basically ruined most of the archaeological evidence. the most important thing about archaeology is not the artifacts, it's the context of said artifacts. the ones who cared only about the artifacts were basically treasure hunters, not archaeologists. so, based on his methods, indiana jones is more a treasure hunter than an archaeologist, even if his goal is to put the artifact in a museum.

but, yeah, i have to agree to an extent, who the hell cares? it's a movie, anyone above the age of nine who thinks that's how archaeology is really done is an idiot and those unable to suspend their disbelief for an hour and twenty should go rent a nova video.

[Peasily]

Originally Posted by mrdestructo

i understand all the arguments in the above article but what nobody mentioned was that back in the early days of archaeology that is how a lot of it was done. a large portion of the archaeology done back then would be considered grave robbing or looting nowadays. heinrich schliemann (and before you say anything he was around about 60 years before the nazis) discovered troy and basically ruined most of the archaeological evidence. the most important thing about archaeology is not the artifacts, it's the context of said artifacts. the ones who cared only about the artifacts were basically treasure hunters, not archaeologists. so, based on his methods, indiana jones is more a treasure hunter than an archaeologist, even if his goal is to put the artifact in a museum.

but, yeah, i have to agree to an extent, who the hell cares? it's a movie, anyone above the age of nine who thinks that's how archaeology is really done is an idiot and those unable to suspend their disbelief for an hour and twenty should go rent a nova video.

Yep. Dynamite was often used for excavating.

They are also ignoring the fact that Indy is madly escaping deadly traps that are self-destructing. Who cares what happens to the ruins when the original crafters were such vicious bastards?

[G Dog]

Indiana Jones to real archeologists: "____ off, I'm a ____ing FICTIONAL CHARACTER"

[G Dog]

Originally Posted by Ben543250

People who are interested in archeology probably give a ____. Things can be for entertainment purposes, but it's nice to know how much was changed from reality for the sake of entertainment.

If people who are interested in archeology give a ____ then they should grow up and get a life.

And for the record, I have a friend who IS in archeology and he loves the movies, some of his favourite.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by Statham

Indy's approach is always motivated - In Raiders, he destroys the wall and column of a tomb because f**king Nazis are escaping the with Ark of the f**king Covenant which would inevitably tip the eventual war in their favour.

Obviously, if they were in Indy's position, we'd all be goosesteppers because they just sat there.

Go and rewatch the ending of RotLA again. I think you may have missed something with your use of the word "inevitable"

[Corpulent1]

Originally Posted by G Dog

If people who are interested in archeology give a ____ then they should grow up and get a life.

And for the record, I have a friend who IS in archeology and he loves the movies, some of his favourite.

Because it's horribly immature to be interested in what real people in the real field of archaeology think about Indiana Jones? No one has any illusions that this isn't a puff piece, but that doesn't mean it's not interesting to some. I always like hearing reactions from academics about bits of pop culture that venture into their field. Besides, you're on an entertainment news site, key word there being "entertainment."

[Ben543250]

Originally Posted by von Doom, M.D.

Any romantic notions about archaeology Spielberg created with in me with Indiana Jones, he killed with the first 20 minutes of Jurassic Park.

Jurassic Park didn't have any archeologists in it. Maybe you're confusing them with paleontologists, though the actual work isn't that different -- lots of digging and dirt.

[Ben543250]

Originally Posted by G Dog

If people who are interested in archeology give a ____ then they should grow up and get a life.

And for the record, I have a friend who IS in archeology and he loves the movies, some of his favourite.

I never said people who know how archeology is truly conducted can't enjoy an adventure movie where they take lots of creative liberties. I was just saying that a fluff piece like this isn't totally useless and a lot of people are interested in how the work is really done.

[Angael]

Ok, who cares what real archaeologists think? We know it's not done that way, hello it's a movie! Nobody really bases their lives around a movie do they? Ok sane people.. What's up Newsarama slow news day? j/k..

[Elshaneo]

I'm surprised people are getting so upset about this - the article is a fluff piece, a new Indiana Jones movie is coming out, they ask archeologists what they think of how archeology is depicted. That's all.

None of the academics here are criticizing the movies; they're not asking for it to be banned or changed, they're not protesting. They're just saying that it's not real archeology. I'm sure none of the professors who were interviewed talked about the movies with fury in their eyes. I'm sure most of them probably took a pretty humorous approach to this article. Only the fanboys are getting really upset.

[dwf]

Wow, there are some angry people here.

Real archaeology is fun, stimulating, and satisfying. Archaeology is about the people behind the artifacts and is a wonderful scientific tool. Historic sites often offer volunteer opportunities. Most don't require experience; if you're interested in archaeology, you may be able to participate!

[youbastards]

Originally Posted by Ben543250

People who are interested in archeology probably give a ____. Things can be for entertainment purposes, but it's nice to know how much was changed from reality for the sake of entertainment.

Using that arguement, you're going to tell me that a hooker's opinion of how Pretty Woman isn't a realistic portrayal of her profession should be worth posting on Newsarama as well...

or how MI6 agents are upset about the unrealistic gadgets that James Bond uses...

or how The Simpson's innacurately depicts the lifestyle of people with Jaundice...

[noncore-kid]

Originally Posted by youbastards

Using that arguement, you're going to tell me that a hooker's opinion of how Pretty Woman isn't a realistic portrayal of her profession should be worth posting on Newsarama as well...

or how MI6 agents are upset about the unrealistic gadgets that James Bond uses...

or how The Simpson's innacurately depicts the lifestyle of people with Jaundice...

Actually, yes, a Mythbuster type column focusing on popular fiction vs reality would be a worthwhile addition to any entertainment related news site.