Posted by Indy Magnoli on September 04, 1997 at 22:20:21:
In Reply to: Re: Grave robbing posted by Bryan on September 04, 1997 at 17:58:20:
: Yes, but Indy is NOT the only one in search for the Lost Covenant. He must also go up against Belloq and the Nazi's who are also "raiders".
That was my only hope, Deirdre, darling. ;)
: Yes, but without "grave-robbing" we would never know about such great civilizations that came before us. I mean, when workers are putting in a dam or road, they don't care if they destroy an ancient burial ground. There just doing their jobs. And who knows how many artifacts are lost. I know... I've seen one destoryed, because some people wanted the land to be flooded so that they could have a new dam put in.
When I use the term "grave robber", "pot hunter", or "looter", I refer to those people who deliberately find archaeological site and steal from them for a profit, not construction workers, kids picking up arrowpoint in their backyard, etc...
: I'd have to go with Deirdre, besides "grave robber" is just a term used by people who don't appreciate archaeology.
Sorry Aaron, I use the term, as well as all the archaeologists I work with. (Actually "looter" is our most common term). And I came upon many of them this summer in Belize (that's why it's a touchy subject with me).
: Indy wasn't always a "It belongs in a museum" fellow. if you recall, in Temple of Doom he was searching for 'fortune and glory'. Remember, he recovered Nurachi (sp??) for lao Che for a sizeable diamond.
I'm glad you bring this up. I think that the "fortune and glory" he refers to is the dicotomy between the Westerner's views of artifacts as prizes (even in archaeology for purposes of knowledge) versus the villages religious views of the stones. Also, I like to think of the diamond in Temple as the "Peacock's Eye" from the Young Indy Chronicles, and Indy plans to retrieve it as a token of his friendship with Remy. Do you think it's only coincident that they chose a diamond (that I think is about the right size) for the centerpiece of the "Peacock" film? Just a thought.
: I think that makes him somewhat of a graverobber. Archeology in the 30s was a very different science than what it is today. For the most part, Indy did think that important artifacts belonged in a museum. But he didn't abide by this rule 100% as seen in TOD. There's also the chance that he had a change of heart sometime after TOD and Raiders as well.
I agree, but we can't judge the archaeologists of the past by our standards (I had a heated debate about this exact point over a bottle of rum in Belize). I wouldn't doubt that in forty years, future archaeologists will look back at us archaeologists, and scoff.
Phew! Sorry, but you all hit a soft spot. ;)
Post a Followup