The Volokh Conspiracy - Indiana Jones and the Image of Academics in Pop Culture:

In this Washington Post op ed, real-life archeologist Neil Asher Silberman complains that the Indiana Jones movies give an inaccurate portrayal of archeologists to the public:

As someone who's been involved in archaeology for the past 35 years, I can tell you that Indiana Jones is not the world's most famous fictional archaeologist; he's the world's most famous archaeologist, period. How many people can name another? Whether I'm sitting on a plane, waiting in an office or milling around at a cocktail party, the casual mention that I'm an archaeologist inevitably brings up Indiana Jones. People conjure up images of gold, adventure and narrow escapes from hostile natives. And while "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" will almost certainly break worldwide box office records, it will also spread another wave of viral disinformation about what archaeologists actually do.

I know that the Indiana Jones series is just a campy tribute to the Saturday afternoon serials of the 1930s and the B-movies of the 1950s, but believe me, it totally misrepresents who archaeologists are and what goals we pursue....

...[T]he picture of the vine-swinging, revolver-toting archaeological treasure hunter is all wrong. Gone are the days when all that mattered was museum-quality treasure, and the "natives" didn't matter at all.....

[T]oday, the rules are different, and the professional attitude of archaeologists has changed. In place of loners acting on hunches have come teams of specialists in anthropology and the natural sciences who work closely with local scholars and administrators to excavate and painstakingly document their sites centimeter by centimeter. Individual objects are now less important than contexts; the goal is not to collect exotic or mystical artworks but to fit pieces together to form new ideas about history.

I'm sure that Silberman is right to claim that Indiana Jones misrepresents archeology (though it's worth keeping in mind that three of the four movies are set more than 70 years ago, when professional norms may have been different). But it's hard for me to muster much sympathy for his position. To the extent that the Indiana Jones movies really do determine the public's perception of archeologists, it's a much more positive portrayal than the pop culture image of academics from virtually any other discipline. Most academics would be happy to associated with a discipline whose visible symbol is a professor who saves valuable artifacts from pillage and destruction and bravely fights the Nazis. Consider, by contrast, the pop culture portrayal of law professors in movies such as The Paper Chase (unfeeling classroom tyrant), and Legally Blonde (sexual harrasser of female students).

Ultimately, however, I'm not too worried if academics (including law professors) are portrayed inaccurately in the movies. Almost anyone who has gone to college knows that real academics bear little resemblance to those on the big screen. There's a good reason for that: most real academics' lives simply aren't exciting enough to make for a good Hollywood script. I suspect that film-goers realize this, and therefore don't expect real archeology professors to be much like Indiana Jones.

Still, if I have to belong to a discipline whose public image is determined by a movie character, I'd much rather it be Indiana Jones than Professor Charles Kingsfield.

UPDATE: Silberman somewhat undercuts his main thesis by pointing out that some real-world archeologists have been deliberately imitating Indiana Jones:

Many archaeologists have enthusiastically embraced the Hollywood fantasy, borrowing a bit of Indiana Jones's mystique for themselves. Zahi Hawass, secretary general of Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities and archaeological czar of the relics and tombs of ancient Egypt, recently raised funds for charity on a U.S. tour by selling autographed copies of his trademark Indiana Jones hat. The National Science Foundation has just put up an Indiana Jones-themed home page, complete with bullwhip and fedora, and the Archaeological Institute of America, a venerable academic organization of classical archaeologists and art historians, has elected Harrison Ford to its board of directors, in tribute to his "significant role in stimulating the public's interest in archaeological exploration." And professor Cornelius Holtorf of the University of Kalmar in Sweden has offered the opinion that "Indiana Jones is no bad thing for science," suggesting that the film series has attracted many students and supporters to real-life archaeological work.

If "many" archeologists are indeed embracing the Jones image, it's an interesting example of Hollywood shaping reality even when it (initially) reflects it inaccurately. It reminds me of how real-life Mafiosi began to imitate the mannerisms of the fictional ones depicted in The Godfather.

	[Ilya Somin, May 27, 2008 at 7:34pm] Trackbacks Indiana Jones and the Image of Academics in Pop Culture: In this Washington Post op ed, real-life archeologist Neil Asher Silberman complains that the Indiana Jones movies give an inaccurate portrayal of archeologists to the public: As someone who's been involved in archaeology for the past 35 years, I can tell you that Indiana Jones is not the world's most famous fictional archaeologist; he's the world's most famous archaeologist, period. How many people can name another? Whether I'm sitting on a plane, waiting in an office or milling around at a cocktail party, the casual mention that I'm an archaeologist inevitably brings up Indiana Jones. People conjure up images of gold, adventure and narrow escapes from hostile natives. And while "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" will almost certainly break worldwide box office records, it will also spread another wave of viral disinformation about what archaeologists actually do. I know that the Indiana Jones series is just a campy tribute to the Saturday afternoon serials of the 1930s and the B-movies of the 1950s, but believe me, it totally misrepresents who archaeologists are and what goals we pursue.... ...[T]he picture of the vine-swinging, revolver-toting archaeological treasure hunter is all wrong. Gone are the days when all that mattered was museum-quality treasure, and the "natives" didn't matter at all..... [T]oday, the rules are different, and the professional attitude of archaeologists has changed. In place of loners acting on hunches have come teams of specialists in anthropology and the natural sciences who work closely with local scholars and administrators to excavate and painstakingly document their sites centimeter by centimeter. Individual objects are now less important than contexts; the goal is not to collect exotic or mystical artworks but to fit pieces together to form new ideas about history. I'm sure that Silberman is right to claim that Indiana Jones misrepresents archeology (though it's worth keeping in mind that three of the four movies are set more than 70 years ago, when professional norms may have been different). But it's hard for me to muster much sympathy for his position. To the extent that the Indiana Jones movies really do determine the public's perception of archeologists, it's a much more positive portrayal than the pop culture image of academics from virtually any other discipline. Most academics would be happy to associated with a discipline whose visible symbol is a professor who saves valuable artifacts from pillage and destruction and bravely fights the Nazis. Consider, by contrast, the pop culture portrayal of law professors in movies such as The Paper Chase (unfeeling classroom tyrant), and Legally Blonde (sexual harrasser of female students). Ultimately, however, I'm not too worried if academics (including law professors) are portrayed inaccurately in the movies. Almost anyone who has gone to college knows that real academics bear little resemblance to those on the big screen. There's a good reason for that: most real academics' lives simply aren't exciting enough to make for a good Hollywood script. I suspect that film-goers realize this, and therefore don't expect real archeology professors to be much like Indiana Jones. Still, if I have to belong to a discipline whose public image is determined by a movie character, I'd much rather it be Indiana Jones than Professor Charles Kingsfield. UPDATE: Silberman somewhat undercuts his main thesis by pointing out that some real-world archeologists have been deliberately imitating Indiana Jones: Many archaeologists have enthusiastically embraced the Hollywood fantasy, borrowing a bit of Indiana Jones's mystique for themselves. Zahi Hawass, secretary general of Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities and archaeological czar of the relics and tombs of ancient Egypt, recently raised funds for charity on a U.S. tour by selling autographed copies of his trademark Indiana Jones hat. The National Science Foundation has just put up an Indiana Jones-themed home page, complete with bullwhip and fedora, and the Archaeological Institute of America, a venerable academic organization of classical archaeologists and art historians, has elected Harrison Ford to its board of directors, in tribute to his "significant role in stimulating the public's interest in archaeological exploration." And professor Cornelius Holtorf of the University of Kalmar in Sweden has offered the opinion that "Indiana Jones is no bad thing for science," suggesting that the film series has attracted many students and supporters to real-life archaeological work. If "many" archeologists are indeed embracing the Jones image, it's an interesting example of Hollywood shaping reality even when it (initially) reflects it inaccurately. It reminds me of how real-life Mafiosi began to imitate the mannerisms of the fictional ones depicted in The Godfather.