Hollywood isn't known for its accuracy (Leonidas was Scottish-voiced sure), but they really took the p**s when it comes to our old friend Indiana Jones. Pretty much everything the guy does or stands for is nothing like the soul-crushing boredom of how a real archaeologist lives and works. They swash no buckle, they save no damsels they put their heads down and get the admin done. Does Indiana? No he does not far from it. Over here in the UK our equivalent of the super-action-fun-time-archaeologist is probably faithful old Tony Robinson that realisation my make your soul die a little bit, but stay with me here. Think about it, Tony's the bad-boy of British archaeology: he swans into research trenches and excavations with pretty much no qualifications and tells everyone what's what, he smiles for the camera to make those archaeology groupies at home (all over 60) swoon like so many Robert Pattinson fans, and he uses his twenty-odd year acting swag to charm in any Blackadder fans that just want to see Baldrick's face one more time. But at least Tony does it properly, follows protocol; you know for damned sure that all the risk assessments were done on that Roman site or that Late Medieval castle. Tony would have it no other way; but would Indy? I'm not so sure. Here are eight reasons why Indiana Jones is one of the most unconvincing archaeological "academics" ever.