The Naked Archaeologist (2005–2008)
User ReviewsReview this title
I don't believe Simka is trying to be a Harvard professor. He's trying to reach down to the average man/woman and allow them to enjoy the process of discovery -- thinking discovery - about biblical times. We all seek our roots. This gives the average layperson a chance to perhaps find some roots to trace. Once the bridge of discovery is crossed, doors open up to the possibility of looking deeper.
I say, thank you Simka for entertaining us while trying to encourage us to think. (OK, so the Jesus Tomb stuff was wrong.....maybe you should do a piece to follow up on that. :) ) To make the show more credible, it would be nice to see follow up on things that were well....obviously out of line.
Thanks, Simka for making me laugh - I enjoy your program.
I LOVE Simcha's take on archeology. Middle Eastern archeology was not my field but he has sure taught me a lot more about it than any dry textbook because I actually WATCH and LISTEN and LEARN from the Naked Archaeologist. I agree that his sense of humor is not for everyone but the ranting of the negative reviews of this show is a bit much. Really, this show presents history in a way that actually makes one want to know more about the subject presented, instead of falling asleep in class or tuning out, which is unfortunately the way history is generally taught in school.
Keep the faith, Simcha!
However, if you use it as a starting point, then investigate independent sources, you might come up with some balance. Some of the individuals interviewed are true scientists, who have good and thorough backgrounds. For example, Gabriel "Gabby" Barkay has a lengthy and trusted history in the science.
The show is entertaining. It blends in clips from other movies and does present a fresh perspective.
Personally I find most structured religions to be like politics - those in charge want you to believe in their interpretation and their interpretation only and if you don't your dammed to hell, no open minds their. At least he's giving you some facts to work with without trying to make you believe one way or another.
Maybe you don't like his conclusions about what he finds but at least he's trying to bring out some of the truths about the past through looking at the facts on the ground that are available and shows them to everyone that watches even if they contradict current beliefs that are commonly held.
Can you say the same of yourself.
Come back when you have something credible to say please.
as an academician -- though not an archeologist-- i'm deeply disturbed by the innumerable times this show mistakes coincidence as fact, seeming to string along "history" from pure conjecture and the host's entirely unsupported opinion. the experts seem to be heavily edited, and rarely agree with these conjectures, but in typical academic culture they don't flatly tell the guy he's wrong, they just understate how what he's saying isn't supported. and this the guy emerges from every conversation thinking there's a semblance of truth-- or, worse, confirmation of truth-- for his religiosity. he takes biblical accounts as historic fact which flies in the face of what we already know about the bible's historicity. he talks about exodus as though it really happened even though there is, quite ironically, no archeological record to support the idea that hebrews were ever enslaved in egypt (native egyptian societies didn't even have slavery at the time).
this series is infuriating to a serious scholar. it's like one of those sarah palin alaska shows, only set in the middle east.