Indiana Jones and the wrath of the archaeologists

Warning: this article contains plot spoilers

He is the most famous archaeologist in the world, and yet Colonel Dr. Henry Walton Jones Jr. (better known as Indiana Jones) is by no means universally loved by his real-life counterparts. ‘In pursuit of “fortune and glory” Jones ignores international treaties, treats human remains as weapons, and destroys archaeological sites in a bid to escape from potential entombment and other worrisome possibilities,’ comments Professor Claire Smith of Australia's Newcastle University.[1] Most audiences see all these activities as part of the excitement and fun of the film, recognizing that two hours of watching Dr. Jones researching in the library and meticulously documenting the excavation of a post hole might not make for the most engrossing of cinematic experiences. However, some archaeologists seem to get quite upset about the way their profession is portrayed by the Indiana Jones franchise, and will be particularly disturbed by some of what they see in the latest installment of the series. This is more than just a trivial issue for scholars to mutter about in their ivory towers; the discontent of these archaeologists reflects fundamental clashes between the direction of modern academic thought and the populist Hollywood worldview.

The first conflict arising between professional archaeologists and their popular culture equivalents comes from a different view of the purpose of the discipline. The debate which this sparks is one which is relevant to anyone who has wondered about the ultimate purpose of life. In an earlier adventure, Dr. Jones teaches his students that ‘Archaeology is the search for fact . . . not truth. If it’s truth you're looking for, Dr. Tyree’s philosophy class is right down the hall.’ However, whether we call it a search for fact or truth, the traditional concern of archaeologists has been with finding facts and testing hypotheses with the aim of knowing the truth about the past. At first glance, it seems that this latest film and the archaeological community ought to be in agreement on that point. In the film, it is at first the power-hungry Irina Spalko who seeks knowledge, but later we find that the treasure of a lost and incredibly advanced civilisation was knowledge rather than gold. However, while the characters in this film express an interest in learning and facts, the film itself is quite clearly not particularly concerned with portraying the archaeological details of its subject matter with any great accuracy. And indeed this is not something which most audiences would worry about in a Hollywood blockbuster. While many archaeologists dedicate their lives to expanding the boundaries of human knowledge and understanding, the purpose of most films is to entertain rather than educate. It is perhaps for this reason that some academics find the Indiana Jones franchise irritating, and feel that it trivialises their profession. The debate raises the interesting question, perhaps better suited to Professor Tyree’s classes, of what human life really is all about. Many people find meaning in acquiring knowledge, learning more about where we come from and the universe in which we find ourselves. Others attempt to enjoy life as much as possible, seeking entertainment and pleasure as a means of fulfilment. One book of the Bible, Ecclesiastes, explores the search for meaning and purpose in great depth. The author tries making first knowledge, then pleasure, the purpose of his life. However, he finds that neither pursuit brings lasting satisfaction:

I said to myself, 'Look, I am wiser than any of the kings who ruled in Jerusalem before me. I have greater wisdom and knowledge than any of them.' So I set out to learn everything from wisdom to madness and folly. But I learned firsthand that pursuing all this is like chasing the wind.

The greater my wisdom, the greater my grief.
To increase knowledge only increases sorrow.

I said to myself, 'Come on, let’s try pleasure. Let’s look for the "good things" in life.' But I found that this, too, was meaningless. (Ecclesiastes 1:16-2:1, NLT)

The author then tries many other things - wealth, fame, family - but finds them all to be ultimately meaningless. In the end, he concludes that nothing makes sense in the world if we exclude God from the big picture.

Perhaps a more obvious problem for archaeologists watching Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is the kind of ‘history’ and knowledge that is being portrayed. Crystal skulls, lost civilizations, artifacts with paranormal attributes, and extraterrestrial beings all come firmly under the category of pseudo-archaeology. This is defined by mainstream archaeologists as: ‘A broad spectrum of largely unconnected topics and approaches which misapply, misinterpret, and misrepresent archaeological material in a non-scientific and often speculative way.’[2] These theories provoke such intense feelings in some archaeologists that they have even been described as ‘heresies’.[3] The reason for such a strong reaction against such ideas is rooted in a clash of worldviews about the nature and importance of truth. One archaeologist writes:

I do find the lunatic fringe of archaeology highly distasteful. Distortion of the truth or even the suppression of it is the antithesis of all I believe in, and directly counter to my own aims in doing and teaching archaeology.[4]

While all the Indiana Jones films are set long before the advent of postmodern thought, they reflect an attitude towards truth that is very current. In Raiders of the Lost Ark and The Last Crusade, Indiana Jones shows belief in the power of two Christian religious artifacts. In The Temple of Doom, he experiences supernatural forces from Hindu traditions. And now in The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, Dr Jones has no problem accepting the existence of psychic powers and alien life forms. The implication is that there is no one truth to be discovered, but that all myths and legends have some power and should be treated equally. Archaeology as seen in these films is not about uncovering fact, but about emphasizing the importance of belief and the power of stories. This view, however, is not as far from mainstream academic thought as some archaeologists might like to believe. There are now many academic archaeologists who align themselves with postmodern theories and relativist views of truth. Their view is that: ‘The goal of archaeology is not to reconstruct the one true past, but to develop rich and sensitive interpretations, in order to make the past intelligible in the present.’[5] While many archaeologists still cling to the idea of discovering facts and recreating a true representation of the past, it seems that both popular and academic ideas of truth are now leaning towards relativism and tolerance of all opinions. While this has its benefits (archaeologists might be slightly more relaxed towards the Indiana Jones films in the future), it also carries some dangers. When adopted into our worldview, postmodernism must necessarily have an impact on the way we understand spiritual realities. If we subscribe to relativist ideas about truth then we cannot believe that there is only one way to know God. We must give equal weight to all ideas about God and our relationship to him. However, this brings us into conflict with Christian beliefs which state that there is only one truth and one way to know God. ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me,’ says Jesus (John 14:6, NLT). Statements of this nature make relativism very problematic. When Christianity makes such a claim to exclusive truth, either the claim, or all other ideas of truth must be false. Either way, we cannot say that all ideas about God are equally valid.

The final point of conflict comes from the conclusion of The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, which echoes an old-fashioned archaeological theory that some modern academics find practically offensive in its modern-day form. Early in the film, Dr Jones refers one of his students to V. Gordon Childe, a notable archaeologist of the early twentieth century. Childe was an advocate for diffusionist theories of archaeology, which suggest that civilization and technology originate at a single point, and spread out from there to the rest of the world. Today this theory has been largely discredited, but taken up in a more extreme form by some pseudo-archaeologists. Hyper-diffusionists, like Graham Hancock, believe that all civilization comes from one highly advanced civilization which has now been lost under the sea. Even more extreme views hold that civilization originally came from outside our own world, and was spread to humanity by an alien race. Erich Von Daniken wrote an extremely popular series of books expressing these ideas, and asking intriguing questions like, ‘was God an astronaut?’ The popularity of these books is intensely irritating to many archaeologists, who struggle to raise any public interest in the serous archaeological research on which their careers are based. However, the main reason that archaeologists dislike these theories so much, is that they threaten our understanding of humanity and the story of our entire past: ‘all such theories trivialise the much more remarkable story which archaeology reveals - the history of humankind,’ write archaeological theorists Renfrew and Bahn.[6] When films like The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull imply that all humanity’s greatest accomplishments of the past were actually inspired, or even achieved, by aliens, this has the potential to upset not only archaeologists, but anyone who finds pride and self-worth in their identity as a human being.

The human race has achieved some remarkable things in our past, and indeed continues to do so today. The Bible asserts that we are made in the image of God, and thus share in his capacity for creativity and innovation. However, if we cling to our identity as human beings as a way of establishing our value in the world, then we may end up with some self-esteem issues. While humans are capable of greatness, it is quite clear that on many occasions we have fallen far short of that. The glory of monumental architecture like the Mayan stepped pyramids must be considered in light of the brutal human sacrifices which were carried out at these sites. Our recent technological advances include great leaps forward in medicine, alongside ever more efficient ways to kill people. When films like The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull postulate the existence of more advanced beings from ‘the space between spaces’, perhaps they echo our need for something or someone beyond our own species to come and guide our ‘civilisation’ towards a better way of living. Some archaeologists might get cross at this implication that the human race is incapable of creating a better future for itself. However, the Bible suggests that, though we were made in God’s image, our insistence on trying to live without him, and our rejection of his authority, has led to all the bad things we see in the world around us, both in our past and today. We can’t ultimately improve ourselves just with knowledge, and alien life forms can’t help us either. The Bible claims that we have to admit that, for all our impressive achievements, humanity can’t save itself. All goodness finally comes from God, and we need to submit to him if we want things to really change. While real archaeologists doggedly pursue the truth about our past, and Indy hurtles around exotic locations looking for treasure, anyone who seriously wants to know the truth about human nature and how it can rescued from its plight needs to be pursuing the truth about God.

Back