Digging for the Truth: An Interview with Josh Bernstein
Sunday February 11, 2007
A few weeks ago, I received some PR materials from a group working for JWM Productions, the company that produces Digging for the Truth, a massively popular series broadcast by the History Channel, in which an intrepid fellow, Josh Bernstein, travels the world exploring archaeological sites and mysteries.
In some archaeology circles, Digging for the Truth has raised some eyebrows, because of its glossy image, and the emphasis on exciting frames of reference such as 'extreme archaeology'. As a rule, I'm too busy to watch too much television, but I'd heard of Digging for the Truth, and they were willing to send me a copy of the premiere of Season 3, called "Atlantis: New Revelations". I was very pleasantly surprised, and although the host Josh Bernstein is currently on location, through some long distance finagling, I was able to send along a few fairly nosy questions about his end of the show's production.
"Atlantis: New Revelations" describes four current theories concerning Plato's legendary civilization of Atlantis, including Edgar Cayce's Bimini Road, the Minoan civilization and the explosion of Thera/Santorini (my personal favorite), and the recently promoted possible wall off the coast of Cyprus. The "New Revelations" program was based in science and dealt with each premise in a serious manner. The most attention is paid to Robert Sarmast's theory concerning some mysterious straight-line underwater formations off the coast of Cyprus, with Bernstein and crew going along for the ride to determine the strength of this claim.
The program was fun, I learned something and, perhaps surprisingly, I got a glimpse into the workings of the Beta Analytic laboratory in Florida. It seems like I'm simply going to have to find a way to not work on Monday nights, and warm up the TV for the History Channel, 8 pm EST.
In my opinion, I believe this is a central problem faced by all public archaeologists--in fact, faced by all public scientists and science writers, that to make science comprehensible to the general public you must omit the 'maybes' and commit most of the discussion to one explanation. The trick is to make the case that reasonable doubt exists without killing the narrative line. Not an easy thing to do in any medium.
"Atlantis: New Revelations" describes four current theories concerning Plato's legendary civilization of Atlantis, including Edgar Cayce's Bimini Road, the Minoan civilization and the explosion of Thera/Santorini (my personal favorite), and the recently promoted possible wall off the coast of Cyprus. The "New Revelations" program was based in science and dealt with each premise in a serious manner. The most attention is paid to Robert Sarmast's theory concerning some mysterious straight-line underwater formations off the coast of Cyprus, with Bernstein and crew going along for the ride to determine the strength of this claim.
The program was fun, I learned something and, perhaps surprisingly, I got a glimpse into the workings of the Beta Analytic laboratory in Florida. It seems like I'm simply going to have to find a way to not work on Monday nights, and warm up the TV for the History Channel, 8 pm EST.
- Read the interview called Digging for the Truth: An Interview with Josh Bernstein
- Digging for the Truth, the History Channel
- Atlantis, more on the legend
- Archaeology in Movies, Books and Television
- More Interviews
In my opinion, I believe this is a central problem faced by all public archaeologists--in fact, faced by all public scientists and science writers, that to make science comprehensible to the general public you must omit the 'maybes' and commit most of the discussion to one explanation. The trick is to make the case that reasonable doubt exists without killing the narrative line. Not an easy thing to do in any medium.
Comments
great article on this show, particularly about the interplay between narrative and resolutions….I think the best part of the show is that it does present all valued perspectives on a given exploration.
really looking forward to seeing what the new Mayan revelations episode is all about.
Thanks! I’m looking forward to tonight too–I think it’s going to include some stuff about Saturno’s work at San Bartolo, although I’m not exactly sure why I think that.
Bernstein talked about the Maya thing in the Jon Stewart interview. In general, that interview is worth looking at too, regarding the narrative/resolution problem, because Stewart (jokingly of course) presses Bernstein to give a straight answer about the Ark of the Covenant, supposedly stored at Aksum in Ethiopia.
The most likely candidate for Atlantis is not mentioned. IndoAustralia submerged just after the last ice age, just in time to produce the Indus Valley cultures and the Austral Sumerians - see DNA studies -Stephen Oppenheimer
I have tuned in for the show on Chavin de Huantar and 1 or two others. The Chavin episode really annoyed me because they didn’t really consider any serious models of the Chavin phenomona, only a simplistic leading question to the effect of: “Did Chavin extend their rule over Peru with drugs…”
I also wish they wouldn’t feel compelled to play into the Indian Jones image with the stereotypical hat, leather jacket and bag. Seriously, why?
I didn’t discover this series until last year; in fact, I didn’t realize that this is the third year until I read it here.
I watched six or eight episodes last year and found them to be quite entertaining and a bit less informational, although not enough less to make them not worth watching.
My only complaint was the apparent desire to jazz things up a bit by hang-gliding or that sort of thing. Ostensibly it is done to gather information, but usually the same information is already available or could be gotten in some other way.
Josh Bernstein is an appealing and articulate host. In regard to how he dresses for the show–lighten up! I own a brown leather bomber jacket, a brown leather backpack, and have four “guilty” hats (two fedoras in brown felt and two outback style hats–one in felt and one in leather). When I go to archaeological meetings and conferences, I find that I am not the only one wearing such items.
If we can’t have a bit of fun from our occupation/avocation/hobby, why do it at all? Remember why Jack was a dull boy?