Actually it is spelled "Indiana Jones"  although an interesting derivation
could be construed out of it "Diana Jones", a female version of the intrepid
1930's archaeologist would be entertaining...it was already attempted with
the character "Vasch" who was featured in several "Star Trek- Next
Generation" episodes and in one "DS-9" episode.

Anyway, I just wanted to remind the list, all humor aside, that science, like
all aspects of culture, is relative.  The Indiana Jones stories are set in
the 1930's, an era when archaeology was not the science which is pursued
today.  Back in that period archaeology was conducted as  "Expeditions",
usually sponsored by large Musuems and Universities (or wealthy patrons), to
acquire "Treasures" to build great collections and exhibitions.

One only has to remember the impact of Henrich Schleiman and his wife adorned
with the "Jewels of Troy", the  discovery of Machu Piccu and the lost
treasures of the Incas, or  Howard Carter's discovery of the "Treasures" of
Tututkamen's Tomb which all fired the popular imagination about archaeology,
even to this day.  The extent of scientific documentation and analysis ran
from bieng virtually nil to being exquisite (have you seen those wonderful
watercolours drawn by Carter?)

The unique difference about the Indiana Jones movies is that they meld the
danger, action, and romance genres of the seriel pulps with that of the "Lost
Treasures" appeal of archaeology.   Not only do we have a scholar/treasure
hunter, but he now shoots innumerable bad guys, escapes from impossible
situations, and gets the girl (with niffty special-effects too!)...a perfect
1980's formula for popular entertainment.

Real archaeology is not as boring as some say, nor is it as romantic as
others think (unless you really, really like bugs & dirt).  I like to think
of it as the delicate art of balancing  long stretches of hard work
interrupted by unanticipated discoveries which usually change the working
hypotheisis into tatters of it's former self.  (Excavators love to find
"meaning" from Day One! ;~)

On April 19, 1996 Linda Seguin wrote:

Regan Myriam Lee writes:
"...forgive me for my ignorance, but *why* is the Harrison Ford character
"Indianna Jones" considered a "bad" scientist?"

I remember going to see "Indianna Jones and the Last Crusade" with the rest
of the crew when I was in archaeological field school.  Don't get me wrong-
I love those movies, but we laughed through the whole thing.  If my memory
serves me correctly, didn't he stomp through a bunch of skeletons just before
setting their tomb on fire?  Or maybe it was the bad guys who started the
fire.
Anyway, *real* archaeologists carefully measure and map *every* object they
find; they don't just stomp through everything else to get to the "good
stuff."
I never saw Indy with a tape measure or a notebook.  I don't think I ever
even
saw him with a trowel!  Ostensibly, archaeologists are looking for the
information that objects can give them, they're not hunting for buried
treasure.  For a more accurate depiction of the archaeological method you
might check out the "Calvin and Hobbes" strip in which Calvin concludes that
"Archaeology is the most mind-numbingly boring job on the planet."  Sometimes
it is. :)

Linda Seguin
Science Library
University of Georgia