Re: Was there really a "Treaty for the Protection of Rare Antiquities?"

Posted by Steve from ppp-92.COL.cableone.net on July 20, 1999 at 09:21:15:

In Reply to: Was there really a "Treaty for the Protection of Rare Antiquities?" posted by ROB T. on July 20, 1999 at 03:23:14:

: We've touched on this subject a little in the past but I wanted to ask if there was really a treaty in the thirties and if there was has anyone from this forum ever read it. Does Indy really adhere to the treaty?
: Indy's methods seem questionable and his theory for what constitutes ownership seems dicey. He appears to believe that a piece of antiquity belongs to whomever is smart enough to take it and strong enough to hold it.
: For example, the fertility idol at the beginning of "Raiders." It clearly belongs to the Hovitos and yet Brody claims that stealing it is not against the rules.
: Even with the Ark it could be argued that the Nazis have more right to it than Indy. They have, it seems, implied permission from the Egyptian government to dig for it. I base that assumption only on the fact that a dig of that size could not have escaped notice.
: So Indy, in effect, comes onto private property and steals it and even kills some people in the process. In a court of law I don't think he could use the excuse that he's the good guy and they're the bad guys.
: Of course, for that one he has the permission of the American Army.
: But what about the Cross of Coronado? The men at the beginning who dug up the cross are no different than Indy really. Someone has paid them to retrieve it just like someone later pays Indy to get the ashes of that guy at the beginning of "Temple of Doom." So does Indy really have a right to go back and steal the Cross later?
: I seriously doubt that Indy's actions would be sanctioned by the Treaty for the Protection of Rare Antiquities and I think he would be unwelcome in the circle of serious archeologists.

: Comments???

I don't really know about the treaty that is mentioned. Personally I don't ever remenber reading about it many years ago while in college, but that doesn't mean it didn't exist. As far as Indy not being accepted in the circle of archeologists, well maybe he wouldn't be today, but perhaps in the 30's it would be a different matter. I do know that this field has changed a bit over the years. Personally I have always felt that Indy operated outside of the accepted behavior expected of archeologists. I can personally attest to the fact that he is unlike anyone I have ever met, with the exception of one fellow. While in college we had the pleasure of listening to an archeologist who had just returned from a site some where in the jungles of Mexico. He seemed so different from our professors-he was actually interesting! Now in retrospect I have the feeling he was a bit of a rogue. I vividly remember another professor telling us not to emulate this guy. So I think Indy probaly walked a tight rope in his acquisitions of artifacts, and probaly crossed the line many times, but heck this is what appeals to me. One thing is for certain-he is not a typical archeologist. Steve

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup:

Name:    
E-Mail:  
Subject: 
Comments:

: : We've touched on this subject a little in the past but I wanted to ask if there was really a treaty in the thirties and if there was has anyone from this forum ever read it. Does Indy really adhere to the treaty?
: : Indy's methods seem questionable and his theory for what constitutes ownership seems dicey. He appears to believe that a piece of antiquity belongs to whomever is smart enough to take it and strong enough to hold it.
: : For example, the fertility idol at the beginning of "Raiders." It clearly belongs to the Hovitos and yet Brody claims that stealing it is not against the rules.
: : Even with the Ark it could be argued that the Nazis have more right to it than Indy. They have, it seems, implied permission from the Egyptian government to dig for it. I base that assumption only on the fact that a dig of that size could not have escaped notice.
: : So Indy, in effect, comes onto private property and steals it and even kills some people in the process. In a court of law I don't think he could use the excuse that he's the good guy and they're the bad guys. 
: : Of course, for that one he has the permission of the American Army.
: : But what about the Cross of Coronado? The men at the beginning who dug up the cross are no different than Indy really. Someone has paid them to retrieve it just like someone later pays Indy to get the ashes of that guy at the beginning of "Temple of Doom." So does Indy really have a right to go back and steal the Cross later?
: : I seriously doubt that Indy's actions would be sanctioned by the Treaty for the Protection of Rare Antiquities and I think he would be unwelcome in the circle of serious archeologists.

: : Comments???

:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               I don't really know about the treaty that is mentioned. Personally I don't ever remenber reading about it many years ago while in college, but that doesn't mean it didn't exist. As far as Indy not being accepted in the circle of archeologists, well maybe he wouldn't be today, but perhaps in the 30's it would be a different matter. I do know that this field has changed a bit over the years. Personally I have always felt that Indy operated outside of the accepted behavior expected of archeologists. I can personally attest to the fact that he is unlike anyone I have ever met, with the exception of one fellow. While in college we had the pleasure of listening to an archeologist who had just returned from a site some where in the jungles of Mexico. He seemed so different from our professors-he was actually interesting! Now in retrospect I have the feeling he was a bit of a rogue. I vividly remember another professor telling us not to emulate this guy. So I think Indy probaly walked a tight rope in his acquisitions of artifacts, and probaly crossed the line many times, but heck this is what appeals to me. One thing is for certain-he is not a typical archeologist.      Steve

Optional:

Link URL:   
Link Title: 
Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Indyfan Forum ] [ FAQ ]