Re: THE MORALITY OF BEING AN INTERNATIONAL TREASURE HUNTER / ARCHAEOLOGIST

Posted by Stephen from pm3-126.dial.qual.net on December 13, 1998 at 11:43:55:

In Reply to: Re: THE MORALITY OF BEING AN INTERNATIONAL TREASURE HUNTER / ARCHAEOLOGIST posted by belloq on December 12, 1998 at 00:53:50:

: : Hey, how are you all doing?
: : Recently is Scotland there was a case in the newspapers of a legal fight to have a cultural artefact returned to it's origins. In the Kelvingrove Art Galleries in Glasgow (about 30 miles from where I stay), there was housed a Sioux Ghost shirt which was reputedly taken from a dead Sioux brave after the Wounded Knee massacre. This shirt was brought to Scotland by Bufallo Bill's Wild West show and presented to the people of Glasgow as a gift. However, whilst over on vacation an American lawyer (who just happened to be native American) saw the shirt and thus began the long process which, quite rightly, resulted in the return of the shirt. I followed this case with interest and it started an interesting thought process. Does Indy have any moral justification in removing these artefacts from their place of origin. Sure, it's different with the Ark of the Covenant and the Holy Grail because as Henry Sr. puts it . . . "It's a race against evil". The Nazi's couldn't have been allowed to get hold of these artefacts.

: : However, I am more concerned with the Fertility god at the beginning of Raiders. Indy risks life and limb to obtain this idol and then tells Belloq : "It's a pity the Hovito's don't know you the way I do Belloq". But what was Belloq doing that was fundamentally different to what Indy was doing? I mean this idol was obviously very precious and important to the Hovitos and if Indy had succeeded it would be housed in a museum thousands of miles away. Being looked at by largely disinterested people.

: : Yet a year earlier he gave up the remaining Sankara stone and presented it to the villagers. Why? What was the difference between the Hovitos and the Indian villagers.

: : I'd like to hear some differing viewpoints on this matter. Does Indy have any rights to remove precious relics from living cultures (no matter how nasty they get with their blowpipes)?.

: : Seeya, Hannibal.

: : The motivation of the character Indiana Jones is driven by the fundamental nature of competition. You cannot compete alone. One has to assume that Indy knows there are others less scrupulous than he seeking treasure. These opportunistic raiders motivations are personal gain either for oneself or by contract with someone else. The character belloq is such a person. On the other hand, Indy represents those who appreciate the historical, anthropological or artistic values of archeological finds. In this fictional account the competition may be summed: if Indiana Jones does not retrieve these artifacts first, the raiders will and then sell to the highest bidder, rendering the world ignorant of the knowledge or beauty of the particular object or site. This is the main difference: Indy MUST aggressively compete as long as the raiders search for important artifacts, or they will be lost. A real example: Egypt's treasures are spread out all over the world, especially in New York and the UK. Considering all the tomb robbing in Egypt, who was going to save these artifacts in that era? The British and American archeologists of the late 1800's/early 1900's and their sponsors. belloq

I would agree with the above, but would add that some part (perhaps
just a small part) of Indy's motivation is the admiration that would
accmpany the discovery of a lost treasure. Remember he is an "academic
scholar" and such discoveries would be written and published under his
name, adding to his prestige in the academic community. In addition,
he wants them for "Marcus's" museum, not anyone else's (again, I think
it's human nature to want the artifacts in your 'home' museum rather
than a competitors - even an academic competitor). He's in a fight
against evil, but has some personal gain as well (and, happily, a
conscience as well... he did, after all, return the Shankara stone
and gave up his 'fortune and glory' in that instance - the right thing
to do).

Regards,
Stephen

Follow Ups:

Re: THE MORALITY OF BEING AN INTERNATIONAL TREASURE HUNTER / ARCHAEOLOGIST gary 21:06:01 12/14/98 (0)

Post a Followup:

Name:    
E-Mail:  
Subject: 
Comments:

: : : Hey, how are you all doing?
: : :               Recently is Scotland there was a case in the newspapers of a legal fight to have a cultural artefact returned to it's origins.  In the Kelvingrove Art Galleries in Glasgow (about 30 miles from where I stay), there was housed a Sioux Ghost shirt which was reputedly taken from a dead Sioux brave after the Wounded Knee massacre.  This shirt was brought to Scotland by Bufallo Bill's Wild West show and presented to the people of Glasgow as a gift.  However, whilst over on vacation an American lawyer (who just happened to be native American) saw the shirt and thus began the long process which, quite rightly, resulted in the return of the shirt.  I followed this case with interest and it started an interesting thought process.  Does Indy have any moral justification in removing these artefacts from their place of origin.  Sure, it's different with the Ark of the Covenant and the Holy Grail because as Henry Sr. puts it . . . "It's a race against evil".  The Nazi's couldn't have been allowed to get hold of these artefacts.

: : :     However, I am more concerned with the Fertility god at the beginning of Raiders.  Indy risks life and limb to obtain this idol and then tells Belloq : "It's a pity the Hovito's don't know you the way I do Belloq".  But what was Belloq doing that was fundamentally different to what Indy was doing?  I mean this idol was obviously very precious and important to the Hovitos and if Indy had succeeded it would be housed in a museum thousands of miles away.  Being looked at by largely disinterested people.

: : :    Yet a year earlier he gave up the remaining Sankara stone and presented it to the villagers.  Why?  What was the difference between the Hovitos and the Indian villagers.

: : :    I'd like to hear some differing viewpoints on this matter.  Does Indy have any rights to remove precious relics from living cultures (no matter how nasty they get with their blowpipes)?.

: : : Seeya, Hannibal.

: : : The motivation of the character Indiana Jones is driven by the fundamental nature of competition.  You cannot compete alone.  One has to assume that Indy knows there are others less scrupulous than he seeking treasure.  These opportunistic raiders motivations are personal gain either for oneself or by contract with someone else.  The character belloq is such a person.  On the other hand, Indy represents those who appreciate the historical, anthropological or artistic values of archeological finds.  In this fictional account the competition may be summed: if Indiana Jones does not retrieve these artifacts first, the raiders will and then sell to the highest bidder, rendering the world ignorant of the knowledge or beauty of the particular object or site.  This is the main difference: Indy MUST aggressively compete as long as the raiders search for important artifacts, or they will be lost.  A real example: Egypt's treasures are spread out all over the world, especially in New York and the UK.  Considering all the tomb robbing in Egypt, who was going to save these artifacts in that era?  The British and American archeologists of the late 1800's/early 1900's and their sponsors.  belloq

: 
: I would agree with the above, but would add that some part (perhaps
: just a small part) of Indy's motivation is the admiration that would
: accmpany the discovery of a lost treasure.  Remember he is an "academic
: scholar" and such discoveries would be written and published under his
: name, adding to his prestige in the academic community.  In addition,
: he wants them for "Marcus's" museum, not anyone else's (again, I think
: it's human nature to want the artifacts in your 'home' museum rather
: than a competitors - even an academic competitor).  He's in a fight
: against evil, but has some personal gain as well (and, happily, a
: conscience as well... he did, after all, return the Shankara stone
: and gave up his 'fortune and glory' in that instance - the right thing
: to do).

: Regards,
: Stephen

Optional:

Link URL:   
Link Title: 
Image URL:

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