Mike Collins' "Shocking Film" on Alleged Archaeological Malpractice at Gobekli Tepe (II): What Jimmy Corsetti sees (and misses)

Jimmy Corsetti introduces this film with the words: "A detailed analysis of the dire circumstances occurring at Gobekli Tepe, and some awesome behind the scenes shots of when I “snuck” into Gobekli Tepe with him. It's worse than I thought"... Wandering Wolf Productions (@WWolfProd) "Gobekli Tepe: Olive Trees Removed! Shocking Footage! (2025 Update) w/‪@BrightInsight‬ and ‪@NikkianaJones‬ @WWolfProd"

I am going to discuss this in several parts, this is the second of several. This is the first part of what Jimmy Corsetti (on site apparently hungover, unshaven with dark glasses and a wide-brimmed hat to shield his eyes) has to say about how he understands the site (the second part will follow). 

This video is a perfect example of Brandolini's law (or the bullshit asymmetry principle) in action. This states there is an asymmetry between the considerable effort of debunking misinformation and the relative ease of maliciously or negligently creating it in the first place.  Given the constant barrage of this sort of crap from under-informed but mouthy internet know-it-alls like Mr Corsetti, it is not surprising that the excavation team has not the time to keep up with it all.  

This part of the video in particular is distressing watching. I have always said that archaeology is not rocket science" and the mouthy US YouTubers in this video clearly think they understand everything about the discipline and as such are uniquely entitled to trash the work of the DAI archaeological team, the Turkish heritage management officers and any other archaeologist attempting to engage with them. This disregard comes out very well in this video. What also comes over in this video is that all three of these "content producers" understand about as much of what they are looking at as one of the goats in the fields outside the fence. Zero. That is despite them writing pages and pages of rant about how "only they" "know" what's what here. What a total eyeopener, on watching this, it seems I might have severely overestimated the understanding of members of the public. 

Although the film editor Mike Collins drops some real howlers in the first part and at the end, I propose in this post concentrating on the central part of the video. Jimmy Corsetti explaining what he thinks he sees when on the walkway looking directly down onto the site. A site he's been reading and writing about now for at least eight years. Let me remind everyone what the site looks like, what he is looking at. What do you see here? 

And what does Jimmy Corsetti see? (he was standing overlooking the area in the bottom right hand side of this vertical shot)   Here's the video (transcript below)

Posted on You Tube by Wandering Wolf​ 3rd April 2025.

Here's an edited transcript of what he had to say:

"So, I’ve been out here and just got back—been walking around for about 30 minutes. A few things stand out, one of which is, this is worse than I thot. Look at all this debris. These stones—there’s so much that could stand to be removed. Are you telling me they couldn’t have cleared more than this by now?(1)

If you really stop and study the site, it’s hard to understand how they haven’t cleared more of it. All the photos I’ve seen online didn’t truly convey the reality. They didn’t paint a full picture of just how much more of this could’ve already been excavated. That’s number one..

Number two, this infrastructure they’ve put in—the viewing platforms, the steel frames stabbing directly into the archaeological site itself (2). That tells me there’s no real intention to fully excavate the area. They’d have to dismantle those platforms to do it, end of.  

Number three — this whole debate about whether the site was purposely buried or just covered by natural landslides (3). What archaeologists are now saying is, “No, no, it was a result of landslides from the hill above.” But I’m looking at that hill right now, and I’m sorry—it just doesn’t add up. The hill is right there, and yet the pillars are still standing upright, surrounded by these stones. If this was a landslide, those pillars would’ve been knocked over or destroyed. But they weren’t. This gives every reason to believe that the stones were intentionally stacked and that the site was purposely buried, just like Klaus Schmidt—the original archaeologist here—originally thought. I’m just not seeing how that little hill could explain all of this. It’s not big enough to justify saying it slid down in multiple landslides over time. No. Like that, I don't.. do they buy that? I’ve got extensive video and photos from up there. I’ve looked. It just doesn’t make sense to me. In my mind, everything here validates the idea of intentional burial.

But honestly, man, my big takeaway, my gut reaction, is just this: treally? hey could’ve removed more by now. Look at all these stones. Look at all this, how much is still buried. Why haven’t they done it ? It’s either that they won’t—or at least, they haven’t—and that’s inexcusable (4). From an archaeological excavation standpoint, this is actually worse than I thot. [...] There’s more to see, sure, but from what I’ve already seen?  I am disappointed. The excavation is worse than I thought. I don’t know what else to say.  Are you seeing what I’m seeing? Even just removing a few more feet of earth would make a difference. So why haven’t they done it? There are still plenty of pillars buried in the earth all the way around here. Why won’t they excavate those? Why won’t they expose what’s depicted on them?  Because as it stands now, most of the pillars are still so deeply buried that you can’t even see what’s carved into them. And if they’re not going to uncover that — man, get out of here."

Where to begin? 

(1) "All this debris", "These stones", "look at all these stones" , "a few more feet of earth". Look at the vertical view of the site above. [Rightly or wrongly], the archaeologists have just removed the infill of several sunken oval structures with stone T-shaped pillars together with parts of the upper layers of adjacent areas. They have stopped when they hit structures - such as walls which are left in situ. We can see there are many phases of intercutting and abutting walls, in several areas many forming concentric vertical layers around a central open space like a section through an onion. In among them are the pillars, some are standing free within the enclosed space, others are embedded in the outermost (innermost in terms of the internal space) wall rebuild, but others are embedded in the walls behind them. [I do not know what the excavators make of this, I would guess that one possible interpretation is that this site was been used seasonally and between phases of use the oval structures became a bit dilapidated and had to be repaired, and instead of dismantling them and rebuilding them to save time this was done by adding another layer of wall on the face of the previous one where necessary]. But Mr Corsetti sees here just "pillars with the pictures on them covered by stones".

In excavation, the diggers have only exposed the minimum required by the research programme, to begin dismantling the sequence of the walls that we see preserved would be an extremely complicated task [and to my eye impossible without applying single-context recording which I am pretty sure looking at the trenches was not the method used to excavate this so far - more like an adaption of a Kenyon-type technique?]. And wisely, the excavators have not attempted this. Perhaps in fact they are forbidden by the conservation authorities who want to to preserve (rather than dismantle) the site. [But they do need to record the exposed surface and amalgamate that with the data on what was removed and what was in that fill (I'd suggest - if that's not what they've done - reverse engineering the record as far as possible into a single-context record)].

It seems Jimmy Corsetti sees here a "pile of stones" (elsewhere he speaks of "stacked stones") that could easily be removed (in one of his rants on X he speaks of his puzzlement that it's enough just to get a "water jet" on the site to reveal the pillars and the pictures on them). He simply cannot see (even standing on a walkway looking down directly onto them with an explanatory table by the side) the complex stratigraphy. The many phases of the wall rebuilds with separate phases of pillar placement are invisible to him. 

What he also seems not to understand is (b) these "microphases" of wall replacement are situated within several distinct periods of building. In earlier reports the excavators confusingly labelled them "layers 1, 2 and 3" [which I would say unequivocally is a methodological mistake]. There are however untouched deposits under some of them - where not dug away by the construction of the oval sunken structures. These occupy a depression in the side of the hill (or are they cut into the side of the tell?). On the rim of the depression are a series of smaller oval and rectangular structures (possibly some are houses or stores) built at a higher level than the sunken buildings. Some of them are contemporary with the sunken ones, some a later period of construction.  

Its all in the interim reports. I bet Corsetti has not read a word of them. 

(2) The roofing: Basically after excavation and recording, two things could happen to this site. The You Tuber haters are morons and they don't know anything about this. This is despite the fact that there is a very copious literature on the topic (some of it indeed published in the USA, by the Getty Institute for example), there is even a whole journal series published by Taylor and Francis (Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites, now in its 27th volume). There are whole specialist university course units on the issues, and literature reviews. The issue is treated as integral in other general considerations of archaeological heritage conservation and management (for example, among others, in the thought-provoking book by Brian J. Egloff  2019). A lot of information produced by experienced specialists in teh field is available online. But these know-it-alls are too arrogant to even think of turning to it to learn something about these issues. Part of the problem is that they do not have anything much at home in the US to compare it with, though right across Europe such in situ displays (York, St Albans, Kraków, Wrocław, Warsaw) are relatively common. Most of them really excellent educational resources. In the USA there is nothing much.  

A) The most preferable would be to smooth the contours of the excavation by gently shovelling in inert coarse grained sand or fine grit, overlay that with porous polythene netting or geotextile and then backfilling the trenches to the original ground surface. That's what we did, for example on the baths Basilica site at Wroxeter (also only excavated down to the basilica floor - leaving underlying layers of the town and fort unexplored). And as was done at Wroxeter, a layer of stones (preferably a distinctively non-local type) could be used to outline (or imitate) the layout of the ruins buried far below as something for visitors to see. They could mark the position of the pillars preserved below, and exhibit casts of the most interesting. That's the low-maintenance and preservation-oriented variant. It's also earthquake proof, an deters looters. The backfill can always be removed should the excavation be continued if a generation from now it was decided to do this. But is is rather disneylandish and not always a good solution. 

B) The site can be displayed in situ in the open air. This is a problem, there will be damage to some elements by capillary action from below pulling water out of the damp subsoil (then this creates salt efflorescence, mould growth, staining). Delicate elements will be exposed to weathering. Rainfall will also move sediment, washing soil from raised areas and depositing it in lower areas. Also small material such as seeds and charcoal may move around by bioturbation of the soil layers if the site is left open. Also if the site is left open, weeds and then other plants will grow unless the site is sprayed (but chemical spraying may affect buried materials. As long ago as the 1950s, archaeologists were being urged by international conventions to backfill sites after excavation to avoid these problems.  

Schematic, showing approx outline |
of roofed area and anchor struts (PMB)

An alternative that is a form of compromise is to build a structure over the site to protect it from the elements (and also to allow the soil underneath to dry out - reducing the capillary effect). That does not always happen and some site covering buildings are notorious condensation traps. 

The idea of a cover building is the one adopted at Gobekli Tepe, but in a very specific way. 

As noted above, the haters discussed here seem not to be the brightest knives in the drawer when it comes to appreciating things.  The roof at Gobekli Tepe is actually very well designed, both in terms of its purpose as well as aesthetically. It blends in with the landscape much better than the clunky and ugly American ones of my other post. It is light, airy (allows the wind to pass through and air circulate avoiding the condensation problem. 

Above all, and despite what the US blind-with-hatred YouTubers say, has a pretty minimal footprint. Take a look. There is a rigid steel-framed aerial walkway going round the site (it is not round but meanders to give the best possible view of the ruins displayed underneath). On one side it rests on the ground surface at the excavation edge (in part supported by sandbags) but on two sides it is supported by anchor struts. From the documentation these tourists made to show how "scandalous" that is, one can see there are two pairs in a V-shape anchored to one cement foundation and four single ones. the posts therefore enter the site in six places. In several it seems the points chosen had already been excavated to bedrock level, in at least two there were holes excavated for this (in one of the reports published - the stone vessels on I think, there is a record of some of these holes, they were excavated and recorded like the rest of the site). What's the problem? 

Above all, let us note the whole area is spanned by a lightweight (and easily replaceable) cover of some form of (I presume) heavy-duty textile - like a sports stadium. This means the entire centre of the site is totally free of any vertical supports allowing the ruins to be seen without any encumbrance. 

But look further. What is the roof standing on? It is standing on and anchored to the walkway, not dug into the site. It seems to me that a really good compromise has been reached here and the architects of this design need praise, not the slanderous and ignorant clickbait attacks of some hate-filled and supercilious people who have not got the first idea about what they are ranting about. Shame on them.  

 

(3) Site purposely buried or just covered by natural slope processes?  

I am going to cover this in the next post. The pseudoarchaeologists love the interpretation that the original excavator suggested of the deliberate burial because it gives the site a greater "mystery", it was deliberately buried... why? They say its because it is a "hidden message for future generations" a "warning". Modern observers fail to credit the degree to which catastrophism plays in pseudoarchaeological interpretations.  So Corsetti wants to hang onto this notion.  

(4) Buried Pillar frustrations underlying all of this is a total misunderstanding of why archaeological sites are excavated and what they consist of. For Corsetti and all the rest, archaeologists dig holes to find and uncover "old things" or "mysteries". This is the same model (of the collectors, museums staff , dealers and trade lobbyists) that sees artefacts as "ancient art" with a "message" independent of an archaeological context.  It is the same model applied to the arkies that want to collaborate with artefact hunters, to get their hands on the "artefacts-as-data" (again ignoring context and site preservation issues).  For Corsetti, this site is nothing but a collection of intriguing pillars (with a "message") with "some stones around them" and the tragedy is that "90% remains buried. An estimated 128 T-Pillars await excavation". So the stratigraphy is of no interest at all (just as long as you can say from it that the site was intentionally backfilled, eh?). 

Needless to say the team excavating the site see the issue quite differently. Indeed at this moment they are probably sitting going through all those plans, context sheets/notebooks, sections looking at those myriad layers of earth and stones, trying to read that stratigraphy in more detail.

This is work that Corsetti, Collins and Jones have no concept of at all. They just rant that it is taking so long, time when the diggers could be digging out MORE..... Corsetti even suggests in one of his posts that it would go faster if they used "water jets" to shift the soil. 

To access the introduction and the links to the other posts in this series please go here (for other posts on this blog about Gobekli Tepe see here)