Once Again, With Feeling

( because the world needs more salt && complications. feel free to change up the context or pronouns! )

In reality, technologies are frequently discovered, lost and rediscovered, often multiple times, and frequently in parallel. A Dark Age in one region may be a time of rapid technological development in another region, and it’s not uncommon to encounter evidence of ancient civlisations using technologies a thousand years out of whack with the “proper” order of discovery… where “proper” is defined in terms of the order in which those technologies were discovered in Western Europe - there’s that Eurocentrism again.

I mean, just to give you an idea of how flexible the order in which technologies are developed can be and how ultimately wrong-headed the notion of linear technological progress is, there are Central American civilisations that had indoor plumbing, central heating and hot and cold running water before inventing the wheel. Some of the First Nations in what is now Eastern Canada had sophisticated climate models and reliable weather prediction - including functioning barometers and other simple meteorological instruments - before they figured out metallurgy.

The Inca are often accused of “not knowing about wheels.”

Except, they did have wheels. They just didn’t use wheels for long distance transportation. They had a huge road system. On which everything was moved by pack animals and people. The Inca road is an incredible feat of engineering.

So, why didn’t they use wheels?

Because their land was so freaking mountainous that the road would repeatedly turn into this:

Tell me what earthly use a wheel is when your road keeps having to have steps and narrow bridges because you live on top of a mountain.

But that image shows us what they did have.

That’s a suspension bridge. Europeans didn’t invent those until centuries after the Inca did.

Because when the most efficient route through your home hits chasms, guess what?

You get real good at making bridges!

And when the best way to move goods through your desert homeland is a big river?

You get real good at making boats.

Minoan Greece was also a sea power. They had huge fleets of ships, which meant they did a lot of exploration. They also built one of the biggest trade networks in the world, reaching as far as Egypt, Cyprus, Canaan, Syria,  the Iberian Peninsula (modern-day Spain and Portugal), the Levantine coast, Anatolia and Mesopotamia (modern-day Turkey, Israel and Iraq).

A volcano eruption on a nearby island, which caused a tsunami, possibly destroyed their sea power and left them vulnerable, which is why most of their technology was lost.

The Late Bronze Age Collapse a few centuries later led to the simultaneous destruction of advanced civilisations in Greece, Egypt, the Near East, Asia Minor, North Africa, Caucasus, Balkans and the Eastern Mediterranean. This caused a dark age across two continents which created isolated village cultures, and is the reason most of their advancements were lost.

But on the flip side…they came up with a way to use water to basically hydroplane those giant stone blocks in their buildings across the desert. Which is a hell of a lot more useful in an unpaved sandy region.

Likewise let’s not forget the Aztecs, who came up with a farming system so efficient (chinampas) that parts of it are still used today and really ought to be revived on a wider scale as part of sustainable farming. And also Native Americans, and I’m using that term BECAUSE it’s so broad: look at tribes across the country and you’ll see something interesting. Iroquois, living in a cold, well-forested, and often icy land, built immovable longhouses—which would survive the bitter northeastern winters. Plains tribes developed the tipi/teepee—while they also faced long, even dangerous winters, they also lived in a place where travel was far easier and the worst of winter could be weathered by heading south. Or down where I live, the Sinagua (later assimilated into the Hopi) built their homes IN CLIFFS. And by that I mean “off the ground, built into the cliff face with adobe.” Aka, some of the best pre-refrigeration insulation against the heat that you could possibly hope for. We still don’t know how they did it, incidentally. “With ladders, dumbass” is an obvious answer in some of their dwellings, but in others it’s not clear how they just….hung over a sinkhole, a quarter of a mile or so above the water, and chipped out the front doors so they had a place to sit while they made the rest. Scaffolds? Very well-balanced rope ladders? Smaller cliffs they chipped off afterward to prevent enemy incursion? We don’t know, but we do know they found a way to make the extreme heat survivable and even sort of a nonissue. They never bothered with stuff like modern central AC because they found a way to let the stone and clay do the job for them.

Technology isn’t always a race. Sometimes it’s just an evolution.

Someone was talking at me yesterday about this movie and I was getting riled so I decided to go full rant. Specifically in regards to the feminist podcast that slammed it.

I don't even remember which podcast it was, but I am still rankled and baffled that any "feminism in movies" podcast could jump to anything but "this movie is phenomenal."

First of all, even just discussing the overall quality: sure, it might not have been groundbreaking with its cgi or plot twists. But back in the 90s, that wasn't the standard of measure like it is now (and even now is a shitty standard that needs to die). This movie was light and funny and yet hit all the right beats to maintain the dire stakes needed to make it a compelling action flick.

Its characters are fully realized and entirely distinct from each other. Even those treated with a broader brush, such as the Americans, were charismatic enough that we were fully invested in their fate. The entire cast of characters were real people with real impact and real agency.

The script is quotable and fucking hilarious. There are gems from literally every single character. Rick and Evie have actual chemistry, aided by Rachel Weisz's natural magnetism and Brendan Frasier's career-long knack for acting utterly charmed with his female costars.

Actually, let's talk about Rick O'Connell for a second. This is peak 90s Brendan Frasier. He is absolutely GORGEOUS, suave, and cool, rugged and handsome. He is the epitome of the 1920s adventure hero. Dear god I want to kiss those casting directors. But for all his general peak masculinity? He's feminist as fuck. He is equally dumbstruck by Evie as she is by him, and it's wholly evident that it's more than a "oh no she's hot" thing.

How do we know?

He steals her some tools to dig with. This gift demonstrates that he a) has identified her passion for archaeology, b) has recognized her proficiency in the field, despite it not being explicitly stated on screen, and c) sees a chance to restore her full and active participation in the discovery of Hamunaptra.

There is never a moment where Rick assumes to be the leader of the expedition. He is the weapons expert, the muscle--and he knows it. Better than that, he's totally okay with it. He follows Evie's lead in all things.

Another favorite moment of mine is when they're facing off with the American team on Day 1, and Evie realizes there's a chamber underneath Anubis they could use to excavate the statue. She puts her hand on Rick's arm, looks him in the eye, and says very deliberately "there are other places to dig." And he yields, instantly.

By comparison, see the way the Americans treat their workers and guide.

Does he groan about his work being made exponentially harder as a result? Nope. And that's a recurring theme in his behavior the entire goddamn movie. The only time he is in charge is when a situation is in his wheelhouse-- namely, combat and rescue. And it deserves mentioning that the majority of the time that he's in charge, Evie is not present.

Meanwhile, Evie-- her adventurer's spirit chafing in an academia that dismisses her for her gender-- is an absolute marvel. She is visually coded as being very feminine (she's in dresses and long hair most of the film), but that fact in no way detracts from her competence and agency.

She is consistently protrayed as a fully capable expert in egyptology and there is never a single moment where she waffles on what to do. Even when she's the damsel in distress, she actively makes the choice to be so because she weighs the potential outcomes and decides doing so provides their best chance of success.

Evie is never the passive victim. She is constantly brash, constantly scheming, and saves the lives of her would-be rescuers mid-abduction. And when her brother (who is the failure of the family, against type) needs help with translation, she correctly translates for him while being throttled by a mummified priestess.

When I first saw this film, I was too young to realize how novel it was. Back then, all I knew was that it was just a good time. But now as an adult-- an adult acutely aware of the treatment female characters have gotten in the twenty years since-- I marvel at the respect with which the writers and directors treated Evie.

I marvel at how tender Rick was allowed to be, despite his rugged adventurer archetype.

The Mummy (1999) is peak storytelling. It doesn't try to outsmart the audience, but rather lays out a consistent, coherent narrative that gives the characters and viewers room to breathe. It invests the audience enough to care whether the characters succeed in their goals.

The Mummy (1999) does it right. It's the reason that any talk of the Tom Cruise version gets an immediate eyeroll from me, because whatever modern grimdark grit they shove into a story about a mummy cannot compare to the reliable and timeless entertainment of the 1999 adaptation.

The “failure” of the family, in a movie set in the 1920s, who is either explicitly or heavily implied (i can’t recall off the top of my head) to be a veteran of WWI?  Who has so much more depth to him under the surface than the initial “comic relief” typing would suggest?  Who is played as a drunk idiot who is still clearly both highly knowledgeable about egyptology and archaeology (just not as much of a genius at it as Evie) AND a frankly excellent marksman?  Who i’ve seen people very successfully argue is clearly struggling with PTSD (which would explain the “failure of the family” stuff quite handily btw, back then), yet here he is.  Sure he came along wanting treasure, but he sticks around when shit gets super bad for the love of his sister.

All these characters are fucking amazing, I cannot handle.

May your fingers dance along the letters upon your device with ease, may the devil of distraction stay far from you, and may your work not need much editing.