With Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny, the fifth instalment of the popular film franchise, having arrived in UK cinemas in June, archaeologists are once again struggling with their love–hate relationship with the character. Its blockbuster-style storytelling and Harrison Ford’s charm and good looks undeniably secured archaeology a status in the popular imagination it might not otherwise have sustained over the last 40 years. Equally, the films are clearly intended to be pure entertainment, rather than striving for any documentary qualities. Even so, various aspects of the films, including the highly problematic depiction of the appropriation of material culture for personal gain and of some communities, have in the eyes of many archaeologists stained the image of their discipline.
While some archaeologists embrace the popularity of the character and tout themselves as a ‘real-life Indiana Jones’ to promote their lecture tours, others see any truths in the depiction of the profession in the films as relics of a past where such activities were more permissible. I believe this multifaceted legacy can be usefully employed to hold up a mirror to archaeologists. Taking a good hard look at ourselves and at our image in the public imagination can help us reflect on how the past continues to influence the present. Actively engaging with what audiences seem to find most fascinating about our work – whether reality or wishful thinking – can help us examine archaeology today. Problematic elements, such as the looting of archaeological sites, the dismissal of local communities’ contribution to excavations as unskilled labour, and the underrepresentation of women and minorities in the profession are as prevalent today in some parts of the world as they were in the 1930s.
Ever since the first Indiana Jones film, historians of archaeology have searched for ‘the real-life’ inspiration behind the character. The interwar period certainly had its fair share of larger-than-life personalities who might fit the bill. Of course, the character is an amalgamation of its creators’ own cultural influences and choices (Jones was initially conceived as a historian) and casting, rather than springing from a single source. The fact that the franchise nevertheless managed to capture the popular imagination so strongly, however, does speak to its grounding in perceptions of how archaeologists work (especially in South-west Asia and North Africa – SWANA – where two of the first three films are set), how they should look and dress, and how they interact with their local collaborators, government representatives, and philanthropists.
Who cares for places of worship?