Monuments Sites and all that Bollocks

 

>
I tend not to watch videos about ancient sites produced by the guy calling himself "Wandering Wolf" from Texas USA (Mike Collins - 61.2K subscribers). The guy is a bit of an idiot and in his search for sensation to attract viewer clicks, apparently cannot tell the difference between cut stones and natursal jointing, so he'll travel to exotic places to some American "megalithic site" that is nothing of the kind. Like the so-called "Megalitos de Capuli" in northern Peru (columnar jointing) and the "Sage Wall" and other "Montana Megaliths" and again and again and again (eroded igneous intrusive dyke with jointing) and others. What a waste of time, but the punters like it (68k and 10k, 472k, 56k, 171k, views respectively), so they are just as confused/misled as he is.

But as a byproduct of his hostile muckraking trip to Turkey in March 2025 with Corsetti and another blogger, he has made a video attacking imaginary "archaeologists" that requires a response.

Wandering Wolf Exposing Archaeology's Darkside - Is Ancient History for Sale?

44K views published on YouTube 4 days ago

The blurb reads:

"I've traveled to hundreds of ancient sites around the world and what I've found after 10 years of documenting is shocking and disappointing. From Gobekli Tepe's tree controversy, Angkor Wats cutting up of modern stones, the complete covering of Teotihuacan in concrete, encasing the Sphinx in modern stone or the amount of fake plaster and concrete recreations found everywhere, there is a lot going on with archaeology that no longer lines up. Archaeologists are either complicit or ignorant. Either way, it may be past time to take things back down to the studs and rebuild all over again.

Once again one wonders where these people get their idea about "archaeologists" from. Archaeologists study the past from the material remains using a particular range of methodologies, tools and techniques. It is not they that take over the conservation, restoration and management of ancient monuments. That's conservators. An site, such as an ancient monument (ruin, earthwork, standing stones etc.) may be one of the places of their work (the other being the place where they write up, archive and prepare their work for publication). This is what is going on after they have left the site. 

The site could be built on (roads, sewage farms, houses, factories supermarkets etc) if the excavation was - and the majority of them are - a rescue dig, salvaging the information prior to a site being destroyed by planned development (as many unavoidably are, Mr Collins - in the USA too). After a research excavation, the site may be backfilled and restored to the original state - like a meadow, or car park, or a site in parkland or woodland (or desert). Or it may be a field under cultivation, ploughed each year (yes, kick up a fuss about that Mr Collins, that IS damaging, but it is the farmer's land and livelihood). Again, that's what happens to the most of the sites excavated for research, part of the interior of a hillfort, or settlement, the agger of a Roman road segment, an industrial complex. A barrow or section of a boundary dyke will be restored after excavation (and its form will have been carefully documented to allow that).

To be honest, I REALLY do not see this guy's point. Some places for various reasons are tourist destinations, an old mill by a roaring mill-leat, a church with the grave of a famous poet, a rich family's stately home that now is open to the public and you can see the owner's vintage car collection in a converted barn, or a zoo in the park. Hadrian's Wall has a path along most of it that is a popular hiking destination, Mount Rushmore is visited by patriots and gawpers alike, Niagara Falls is another tourist destination, no?. What is the problem? Tourism has existed since the Grand Tour and Cook's Trips to Egypt. English towns once were infested by loud American tourists shouting their mouths off about how "cute" it all was, rudely making fun of the lifeguards outside Buckingham Palace and taking loads of photos.

I do not see why the fact that some of the places tourists go are archaeological sites or monuments is a problem for Mr Collins. In the UK alone, we have many such places, like Wroxeter Roman City, St Albans, Silchester, Housesteads Fort, Stonehenge, Avebury, West Kennet, The Yorvik Centre, Sutton Hoo) or museums both on site and off containing finds and informative displays about those and other sites in the region. I see that as a positive thing. Not only because "archaeology/history"...., but yes they DO create jobs in the areas, especially in rural areas. People travelling to these sites need shops nearby (they've run out of fags, the kids are moaning they want an ice cream, wife needs an emergency sanitary pad, there's no cat food when we get home, I need a newspaper). A restaurant or two fairly near would be a good thing - at least a chippie and a pub. Somewhere like that, a vegetarian or posh slow food restaurant might find custom. Some Bed and Breakfast accommodation or a motel nearby would be good. A petrol station would be welcome. Then there are people needed to run the ticket office. /bookstall, maybe a site museum, to collect the fees for commercial photo permits, Mr Collins. People are employed to cut the grass and keep bushes trimmed and paint the fences, if that's not outsourced. A security guard at night maybe. Why on earth Mr Collins would see these real world considerations as some kind of evil archaeological plot beats me.

"opened my eyes to an unsettling truth "
"I've realized archaeology as we know it is not what it seems" (eh?)
"the discovery and preservation of ancient sites are being sold to us piece by piece" (what?) "and it leaves me wondering, is archaeology truly about the pursuit of knowledge, or has it shifted focus towards spectacle, narratives and profits?" (huh?)
"has this field of study sold its soul and become part of a greater worldwide system focused on profitability through tourism?" (excuse me?)

I wonder how Mr Collins thinks his imagined "Archaeology" would function in a real-world country like "austerity Britain" and "DOGE-America" without funds. Or where he thinks unlimited funds would come from. He seems to share Corsetti's "You should Dig till you Drop" model, and that no research project should be considered finished until the site is EMPTIED.

Below is a list of the archaeological sites mentioned in the text, their respective countries, and a brief summary of the problems reported by the author at each site:

• Teotihuacán - Mexico
• Problems: Extensive use of concrete to recreate structures, altering the site's authenticity. The author questions how much concrete has been used and highlights the focus on tourism-driven reconstruction over genuine preservation.
• Baalbek - Lebanon
• Problems: Ancient stones are cut and manipulated to fit into reconstructed walls, with concrete bags shoved into spaces to brace them. The author notes uncertainty about which stones remain in their original positions, indicating a loss of authenticity due to profit-driven reconstruction.
• Angkor Wat - Cambodia
• Problems: Ancient blocks are cut to force them into walls, and the site is reconstructed with modern materials like concrete, plaster, and steel. The author emphasizes that these alterations prioritize tourism revenue over historical accuracy.
• Caracol - Belize
• Problems: Only 5-10% of over 3,000 structures have been excavated, leaving 95% untouched. The author suggests this limited excavation is sufficient to turn the site into a profitable tourist attraction, with reconstruction overshadowing further research.
• Machu Picchu - Peru
• Problems: Reconstructed with modern materials such as concrete, plaster, steel beams, and rebar, which obscures the site's original state. The author criticizes these changes as marketing for tourism rather than preservation.
• Stonehenge - United Kingdom
• Problems: Reconstructed with concrete and other modern materials, hiding the site's true condition. The author suggests that these alterations are designed to enhance its appeal as a tourist destination.
• Chichén Itzá - Mexico
• Problems: Reconstructed with concrete, plaster, and steel, with infrastructure like a restaurant, parking lots, and souvenir shops built on-site. The author highlights the high entry fees and complex ticketing system, emphasizing the site's commercialization for tourism profit.
• Chaco Canyon - United States
• Problems: Reconstructed with concrete, altering its original state. The author notes that these changes are part of a broader pattern of prioritizing tourism revenue over authentic preservation.
• Göbekli Tepe - Turkey
• Problems: Installation of a roofing system supported on steel beams that reach bedrock in some areas of the tell. Collins criticizes the focus on tourism infrastructure, including a visitor centre and shops, "over archaeological integrity".
• Karahan Tepe - Turkey
• Problems: Construction of a roofing system with supports dug into the site. Collins sees this as a major construction project prioritizing tourism over preservation.
• Sacsayhuamán - Peru
• Problems: While the author praises its authenticity as a megalithic site that remains untouched, the broader context suggests that even such sites are at risk of future manipulation if subjected to tourism-driven reconstruction.
• Easter Island (Rapa Nui) - Chile
• Problems: Noted as an authentic megalithic site, but the author implies that it could face similar issues as other sites if subjected to modern reconstruction practices for tourism.
• Yangshan Quarry - China
• Problems: Mentioned as an authentic megalithic site, but the author’s concern about the global trend of reconstructing sites for profit suggests potential future risks of alteration.
• Malta (likely referring to sites like Ġgantija or Ħaġar Qim) - Malta
• Problems: Praised for its megalithic authenticity, but the author’s broader critique implies that even these sites could be compromised if tourism-driven reconstruction occurs.
• Pyramids in Egypt (e.g., Giza) - Egypt
• Problems: Reconstructed with modern materials like concrete and steel, obscuring their original state. The author specifically mentions the Great Sphinx being encased in modern stone, suggesting that this artificial preservation prioritizes tourism revenue over historical value.
• Longyou Caves - China
• Problems: Modern images carved into the walls, which the author questions as unnecessary and detrimental to the site’s historical integrity, likely done to enhance its appeal for tourists.
• Chinese Pyramids (unspecified, possibly Mausoleum of the First Qin Emperor or similar) - China
• Problems: Trees planted on pyramids and parts covered up, despite being uncovered decades ago. The author questions why these sites are hidden, suggesting a deliberate effort to control access or presentation for tourism or other motives.
• Great Sphinx - Egypt
• Problems: Encased in modern stone, described as a “mask of artificial preservation.” The author argues this indicates a belief that the site has no further historical value beyond generating tourism revenue.

It would take a lot of time to address each of these comments in the case of each of these sites. First we notice that there is only one site here from the USA (Chaco Canyon). Secndly Mr Collins clearly has not domne ANY reading on this topic. He does not show any familiarity with the terms used (anastylosis would be a good one)or techniques employed (both now and historically - Stonehenge), or present his own altenartive vision based in the realitiies of each site (merely giving a moany Karen-negative picture of what was 'not done"). Thirdly, and most tellingly, he does not know that "archaeologists" are not the people doing ANY of this work!

He seems to be unaware that some of this work is done to preserve the site, if there was not modern stonework on the Sphinx, salts dissolved in groundwater wicking up would continue to crystallise on the place where the original stone comes in contact with the air and the damage would continue. Now the spalling is of the face of the modern stonework, which can be and parts of it recently have been replaced. Some of the stones of Stonehenge were re-erected and their bases reinforced as they were in danger of falling which was a danger (at that time the interior was accessible to viewers).

I do not see why Collins thinks it is some problem making the remains of a site more legible for visitors (for example anastylosis of some of the fallen Stonehenge orthostats after full study and recording). Collins does not mention the Parthenon - or indeed what was sone to teh Acropolis. He's not been to our Malbork Castle (recommended) or Gdańsk and Elbląg, two different approaches - which would he prefer?

To my mnd, there is a right way and a wrong way to use modern materials (concrete, plaster, glass and steel) to reconstruct sites. We can all see examples of both (except Mr Collins who seems to be a purist not wanting to see any at all). In some cases, it is necessary to replace missing prarts of a structure (Malbork, ?Mr Collinsd) to give other extant parts structural integrity, or support, or to keep the weather out - for example if there are wall paintings or fragile floor surfaces. There is no place for (woefully underinformed) dogmastism from non-experts.

As for the alleged "prioritization of tourism profit over authentic preservation", it is difficult to see what is meant. Since it is applied to Gobekli Tepe, I do not think there is ANYTHING wrong with making the site accessible to viewers - at least having a walkway and roof prevents entitled foreign thrill-seekers from BREAKING INTO an excavation site not open to the public and trampling all over it. In what way is Gobekli Tepe "not" "authentically preserved"? I doubt Mr Collins could formulate a proper definition of that.

The claim about "limited excavation (often only 20% or less)" and "the removal of valuable artifacts to museums", I wonder whether Collins has the foggiest idea about this. Does he want the "Valuable artefacts" to be left lying loose all over the site where people can tramp over to them and pick them up? What is wrong with material going into museumns to be properly looked after,m researched, made accessible and perhaps diisplayed in a way that helps understand the region's past? It'd be great if the museum was on -site, but then that limits what can be done with them (thinking: British Museum here).

As for excavation... it seems not to have occurred to Collins that maybe the archaeologists cannot excavate the other 80% of the site - where would the money come from? Who would pay for the post-excavtion study conservation, archiving and storage of the additional mass of excavated material? The archaeologists have excavated enough of the site to answer the research questions they have. Excavating more with the same reseach aims is an exercise in deiminishing returns. If in 300 years time the area of an average Nebraska township was going to be quarried away and had to be excavated, would every single house, backyard and every inch of teh roadways and trenchess holding the sewage pipes need to be excavated to understand "everything" about that site? Or would in be enogh=ght to dig what is hoped to be a representative sample of it because the data would start to get repetative (" the complicity of archaeologists in prioritizing revenue over historical truth"?).