US You Tuber: Just Smash it All Up!

Questions and answers:

Jimmy Corsetti @BrightInsight6 7:21 PM · Oct 22, 2025
The most debated aspect of ALL of Gobekli Tepe is without a doubt, T-Pillar 43, BUT, did you know that it’s never been *fully* seen or documented? 🤯

WHY won’t archaeologists simply remove it so the *entire* Pillar and its unseen imagery can be documented and studied???

The archaeological team investigating the site has already made clear the reason. The pillar is a structural part of another archaeological feature. Maybe in the near future we can have a way to reveal all the pillar's motifs without compromising the structure.

But a US YouTuber thinks he knows better:

"Jimmy Corsetti @BrightInsight6 8:40 PM · Oct 22, 2025

That’s trash 🗑️

There is ZERO reason to not excavate Pillar 43.

How you could be an archaeologist and be content with this highlights why this once great Field is self destructing 👎🏻"

·

Jimmy Corsetti @BrightInsight6 · Oct 22

Are you crazy?? We absolutely have the capability to safely remove this pillar before dinner tonight

An Amateur Looks at Old World/New World Copper Sources and Replies to a Critic of his Method (I)

One Ricardo Calvário who claims to be writing in the framework of something called the "Institute For Natural Philosophy"* has written a paper called "Ancient Copper Mines of the Old World" claimed to be a "120 minute read", that he boasts is in the top 1% of the "most read" papers on the whole of Academia.edu where he posted it recently (it has at the moment just 261 views).   The publication date is given as "2025". We are told by " Ricardo Calvário - History Myths and Legends [@RicardoCalvrio1]" that:

"In this paper you will find conclusive evidence, supported by more than 100 academic papers, that the Copper Age of the Old World could not have existed without the Trans-Atlantic trade of Copper from the UP [Upper Peninsula of Michigan PMB] area of the US. https://academia.edu/143773577/Ancient_Copper_Mines_of_the_Old_World

I decided to read this, but was disappointed. I found it difficult to navigate through, to get to the actual arguments. Two hours of frustration, with not a lot at the end to show for it. So I posted a couple of tweets commenting on it on Twitter, warning any of my followers who might try to do the same what I think they will encounter (which I think is a FAIR use of an archaeologist's social media). Remember we are talking about a 60-page long presentation of information from some 40 different - and widely scattered - sites that is expected to take you two hours to get through it:

Badly organised paper, could do with an abstract and a full summary list of the sites discussed. Scrolling through I see NO mention of newly-discovered evidence from Ukraine, little mention of sources in Russia or Scandinavia. The "New World" sources are only sketchily presented./ the evidence for dating is NOT presented. These however are not the only Cu sources in Americas, why not give details of the rest? It looks to me as if the conclusion was first formulated and "facts" gathered to match it. Should start with chemical analysis, not special pleading./ Layout of paper, maps and illustrations need more work. References appalling, simply numbered lists of random sources for each site, but no links in the text to them, showing which evidence has been taken from which source. This renders them pretty much meaningless.

I stand by all that. The layout and structure of the paper are not at all user-friendly. The manner the referencing is done is amateurish and ignores the whole purpose of citing support for particular statements. The author, in publishing on a site called "Academia.edu" needs to decide who the audience is and what his aim is, is he writing to present his case to people like my mum and Joe Scroggins who might decide to join a tour with his "Institute"? Or is he trying to persuade the academic world (Academia.edu) that there is important evidence they've missed?

Anyway, @RicardoCalvrio1, who obviously more time to devote to Twitter than I do, decided to reply... at some length (underlining is mine)...'Reply to my 1st critique on this platform':

" Reply to Paul Barford, Archaeologist, post: https://x.com/PortantIssues/status/1979531964647666063, present in this platform as @PortantIssues:

Thank you for not only reading my paper, but also for granting me with (sic) important advice and council. I assure you I took every word into consideration and thus here present my respectful reply. All things considered, I must first note your critical approach was not of an encouraging nature but dismissive and, dare I say it, beside the point. However, I have no issue on being wrong, for it means I can learn something new. Under such notion, I am grateful for that while addressing your critique, I was blessed with new facts that had escaped me thus far. For instance, the existence of Native Copper outside the UP, USA. Though, taken in consideration the novelty of this information, I believe I can be excused. Now for the facts, into your negative points:

The abstract absence:

The present work was composed with a deliberate departure from certain rigid academic conventions>, among them the inclusion of a formal abstract. This decision was neither accidental nor negligent, but the result of careful consideration of the work’s intended reach and function. The study is addressed not solely to the academic archaeometallurgist, but also to the wider circle of readers who, though perhaps untrained in the technical idiom of the sciences, seek to understand the origins and enigmas of ancient metallurgy with clarity and intellectual honesty.
The traditional abstract, while useful for the specialist who approaches a paper with pre-established conceptual frames, often reduces complex ideas to a sequence of technical shorthand - an entrance that narrows rather than opens the reader’s field of perception. To begin this study in such a compressed and coded form would have risked distancing those very readers for whom the broader implications of the argument - the imbalance between known Old World copper sources and the archaeological evidence of its vast distribution - are of genuine and universal interest.
Instead, the work commences with an expanded introduction, wherein the problem is stated in its historical and logical dimensions, and where the reader, regardless of discipline, may apprehend the full horizon of the question before entering the technical detail. This method, I believe, achieves a clearer balance between accessibility and precision, and aligns with the humanistic purpose of archaeology: to communicate knowledge, not to conceal it behind the walls of professional jargon.
It should also be made clear that such structural choices - whether or not an abstract precedes the argument - bear no relevance to the evidentiary strength of the data herein presented, nor to the logical coherence of the conclusions derived from it. To question the validity of a study on the basis of its layout rather than its evidence is to mistake form for substance. The argument stands, not by virtue of its adherence to editorial convention, but upon the empirical record it brings forth and the analytical reasoning it sustains.

The omission of new Ukraine data:

It is true that, at the time of writing, the recent Ukrainian studies concerning early metallurgy and native copper occurrences were not yet integrated into this work. I am grateful for the reference, for every new piece of research contributes to the greater mosaic of human history. However, even with their inclusion, the overall pattern that emerges remains consistent with the conclusions here presented.
The discovery of native copper occurrences and the suggestion of local exploitation in parts of Ukraine indeed raise the recorded purity of Old World copper to remarkable levels- approaching 99.74% in some artefacts. Yet, as the very authors of these studies acknowledge, this body of research is still in its infancy, and its results, though promising, are fragmentary and often speculative. The evidence of prehistoric mining and smelting, while intriguing, remains unevenly distributed and inconclusive in determining the scale of production or its capacity to sustain regional demand.
The Ukrainian data, when taken at their strongest, indicate that certain communities might have mined a portion of their copper requirements locally. However, they do not overturn the fundamental imbalance observed across the Old World: the sheer volume of copper artefacts, tools, and trade goods far exceeds the output that these newly identified sites could have produced. The quantitative disparity remains. Local activity could supplement, but not supplant, broader supply systems.
Moreover, the interpretive stance adopted in some of these studies - casting doubt on the possibility of long-distance trade networks in the fourth and third millennia BC - is itself symptomatic of a persistent underestimation of prehistoric societies. To argue that ancient peoples were incapable of sustaining transregional exchange simply because “the wheel was not yet invented” is to reduce the ingenuity of early civilizations to the limitations of our own imagination. The archaeological record from the Near East to the Indus, from the Caucasus to North Africa, abounds with evidence of trade routes that spanned thousands of kilometres long before the rise of formal states or wheeled transport.
The view that local resources must explain all finds in the absence of nearby ore is a methodological reflex of modern scepticism, not a reflection of prehistoric reality. Cultures of the Chalcolithic and Bronze Ages were not isolated enclaves of subsistence but dynamic participants in expansive networks of exchange, knowledge, and material culture. To dismiss their ability to trade across great distances is to dismiss the very record that archaeology itself has brought to light.
Therefore, the new Ukrainian material, while valuable and deserving of further study, does not alter the essential conclusion of this work: that Old World copper production, as presently evidenced, remains insufficient to account for the metallurgical abundance of prehistory, and that the paradox at the heart of this investigation stands unshaken.

Little mention of sources in Russia or Scandinavia:

I welcome the reminder to include the rich and growing literature on mining in the Ural and Scandinavian regions. Contemporary studies do indeed demonstrate prehistoric activity in the Urals and confirm the long-term economic significance of mining in Scandinavian Bergslagen - yet the chronological and quantitative picture matters. The Nordic Bronze Age, as recent syntheses make clear, relied heavily on imported copper and tin rather than on extensive local Bronze Age extraction; Falun and related Bergslagen deposits rise to prominence only in later periods. This supports, not weakens, my central paradox. Likewise, while the Urals can be added to the roster of Old World suppliers - and recent isotope work links some oxide ingots to South Ural sources - the published datasets do not yet demonstrate the sustained, high-magnitude production in the relevant Bronze-Age windows that would be required to erase the imbalance documented in this study. In short: these regions complicate the map of supply, but they do not resolve the quantitative shortfall. The conclusion of a structural Old World copper paradox therefore stands.

The "New World" sources are only sketchily” presented:

It must first be clarified that the central purpose of this work was not to offer a comprehensive metallurgical survey of the Western Hemisphere, but to expose and document the paradox that defines the Old World record: the profound disproportion between the copper we can demonstrably account for in mined tonnage and the vast mass of artefacts recovered from prehistoric contexts. The investigation was therefore constructed as an audit of absence - a quantitative and archaeological assessment of how the known mines and their measured outputs fall short, often by orders of magnitude, of explaining the material culture they are presumed to have supplied.

The reference to the Upper Great Lakes and related New World deposits was made not to shift the focus of the study, but to indicate a possible reservoir that might reconcile this imbalance. The mention of those sources is sufficient for that purpose: to show that elsewhere on the planet, vast and demonstrably ancient extractions of native copper existed, temporally compatible with the Old World deficit. The detailed geological and cultural analysis of those American deposits constitutes a research field of its own - immense in scope and literature - and lies beyond the operational limits of this specific argument.

What mattered here was not to reproduce the extensive American mining bibliography, but to demonstrate, beyond reasonable doubt, that the Old World mines - however generously their output may be estimated - could not, in aggregate, have furnished the millions of artefacts extant in the archaeological record. That task, which was the primary objective of this paper, has been fully and rigorously achieved.

Thus, the observation that the New World evidence was only “sketchily” presented, while rather inelegant, is at best, a comment on scope, not on substance. The logical structure of the argument remains intact: whether one accepts or rejects the New World hypothesis, the Old World shortfall stands as an empirical fact, unaltered by stylistic preference or by the distribution of attention within the text.

Appalling References:

The observation that the references of this paper are “appalling” deserves clarification, for it misrepresents both the method and the scope of the work. The present study contains, not a casual list of names, but an extensive and carefully curated corpus of sources, gathered from the major academic databases, journals, and archaeological reports available at the time of writing. Each mining site discussed is supported by its respective primary literature, and the closing bibliography compiles, in one place, an unprecedented concentration of metallurgical, archaeological, and geochemical documentation on the subject. The referencing system was chosen deliberately. To include continuous parenthetical citations within the text - as if this were a purely technical report - would have disrupted the rhythm and accessibility of a work intended equally for academic and non-academic readers. The decision follows the same rationale that guided the omission of a formal abstract: clarity and inclusivity were placed above rigid conformity to disciplinary style. The evidential substance remains fully traceable; each claim corresponds to a source explicitly named and included in the bibliography.
To dismiss this corpus as “appalling” suggests either you, Paul Barford, Archaeologist, did not consult the bibliography in its entirety or that you expect quotations to substitute for comprehension. The presence or absence of in-text markers does not affect the veracity of data; it merely alters the aesthetic of presentation. Verification, in scholarly practice, requires the reading of sources, not the counting of parentheses.
Indeed, it is precisely because the subject is vast and interdisciplinary that a synthetic work of this nature was required. Until now, the data pertaining to Old World copper production have remained dispersed across hundreds of local studies. What has been done here is not a repetition of those findings but their unification - a panoramic view demonstrating that, when taken together, the outputs of all known Old World mines fall drastically short of the metallurgical evidence in the archaeological record. The so-called “Copper Paradox” thus ceases to be an academic rumour and stands revealed as a measurable historical fact. This paper, the result of independent yet rigorous research, has already been read and discussed with other scholars who did not find its referencing “appalling” but rather admired its breadth and synthesis. That such a comprehensive bibliographic foundation should be dismissed with a single adjective is therefore not an evaluation of the work itself, but a reflection of the superficial manner in which it was read.

On the Layout, Maps, and Illustrations:

Your observation concerning the visual presentation of the paper - specifically the maps, charts, and illustrative elements - is both fair and appreciated. Indeed, visual aids serve not merely as embellishments but as integral components of comprehension, allowing readers to grasp at once the geographical and quantitative relationships that text alone can only describe sequentially. I am grateful for this reminder, and I fully concur that such additions will enrich the clarity and pedagogical strength of the work. It may be noted, however, that the absence of such figures in the first edition was not due to neglect, but to the constraints of format and the preliminary nature of the document’s publication. The maps, graphs, and comparative charts have since been completed, and their inclusion in the forthcoming revision will render the visual framework of the study commensurate with the depth of its data. This enhancement, therefore, stands not as a correction to a flaw, but as a natural evolution of a work whose primary concern was - and remains - the integrity of its empirical foundation.

On the References and the Charge of “Meaninglessness”:

The remark that the references are “pretty much meaningless” demands a firmer response. Such a statement, though perhaps born of haste, misrepresents both the method and the substance of this research. The bibliographic corpus compiled in Ancient Copper Mines of the Old World is neither arbitrary nor decorative; it constitutes the very scaffolding upon which the entire analytical structure rests. Each cited work corresponds to a verifiable datum - be it archaeological, geochemical, or historical - drawn from the authoritative literature of the field.
It is true that the references are presented as numbered lists appended to each section rather than embedded as parenthetical interruptions in the text. This stylistic choice, as previously explained, was deliberate. The goal was to preserve the rhythm and readability of a work addressed not solely to specialists, but to all readers who seek to understand the origins of early metallurgy without being forced to navigate a thicket of academic shorthand. To conflate stylistic economy with evidentiary weakness is to confuse form with substance - a methodological error unworthy of serious scholarship.
To declare that such references are “meaningless” is, therefore, inaccurate and unjust. It disregards the hundreds of primary and secondary sources that were read, cross-examined, and integrated into a coherent synthesis - one that, for the first time, quantifies the cumulative copper output of forty major Old World mines and demonstrates the resulting imbalance with archaeological abundance. The data are explicit, the sources transparent, and the conclusions empirically grounded.
Indeed, this very critique reveals a paradox within itself: a dismissal of the work’s method on grounds of presentation while ignoring the substance that presentation conveys. Such bias, whether conscious or not, stands as a mirror to the intellectual complacency that this study seeks to challenge - the habit of rejecting new interpretations not on evidential grounds, but because they unsettle long-held assumptions. Thus, I must respectfully reject the assertion that its references or evidential apparatus are meaningless. On the contrary, they form one of the most extensive and meticulously cross-verified bibliographies ever assembled on the subject of Old World copper mining. The argument remains unbroken: the data are sound, the method transparent, and the conclusion empirical.

Conclusion

In reviewing the totality of these critiques, one cannot help but notice that they dwell less upon the substance of the work than upon its surface. The argument itself - the quantitative and archaeological case for a structural imbalance in Old World copper production - was left largely untouched. Instead, attention was diverted to matters of form, style, and personal preference. Such preoccupations, though common in our time, do not constitute scientific criticism; they are symptoms of a scholarly culture that too often mistakes orthodoxy for rigour.
To criticize a work’s appearance without engaging its evidence is not analysis but avoidance. The facts, figures, and sources presented in Ancient Copper Mines of the Old World remain open to examination by any who care to test them. That is how science proceeds: by confrontation with data, not by adherence to convention. The true task of scholarship is not to defend inherited narratives, but to question them - repeatedly, and without fear of discomfort.
Regrettably, the tone and substance of this particular review fall short of that standard. To dismiss other’s research on the grounds of layout or stylistic presentation, while ignoring the data that could confirm or contradict its conclusions, betrays not critical thinking but its absence. The refusal to engage with evidence is not scepticism - it is belief masquerading as science.
If these words are read with fairness, they will be understood not as reproach, but as an appeal: that archaeology, and indeed all science, recover the humility of its method - the willingness to doubt itself. Every new piece of evidence, however inconvenient, enlarges our understanding of the human story. To reject inquiry in favour of dogma is to abandon the very principle that once made discovery possible.
For my part, I remain open to all correction founded upon data, experiment, and verifiable reasoning. What I cannot accept - and what no true scholar should accept - is dismissal in place of debate, prejudice in place of proof, and silence in the face of evidence.

Ufff. That was a bit wordy as a reply to three short tweets. I think that deserves a reply to clarify what the author cannot see for the trees.

Sadly, unlike my main blog, this one cannot (?) do text breaks, so I'll end this here. I'll contine on a second one that (too) might well turn out to be longer than this discussion merits (Doubling Down on Method: Old World/New World Copper Sources (II))


* Institute For Natural Philosophy (no physical address or funding details/affiliations given): "Our objectives: Research - Provide a platform for the sharing of cutting edge research. / Community - Build a community of independent researchers for a common cause. / Content - Publish videos, podcasts, papers that benefit the alternative community. / Tours - Provide tours all around the world for ancient history enthusiasts [...]". Of course, the ever-present money spinning 'touring with an expert'. Here's their Twitter page, make of that what you will.

Doubling Down on Method: Old World/New World Copper Sources (II)

            Old Copper Complex Artefacts (from Reddit)           
 

This continues the post above ( An Amateur Looks at Old World/New World Copper Sources and Replies to a Critic of his Method(I) [Sunday, 19 October 2025]). The author's response, basically, is a very good illustration of the issue I raised on my reading of his original text, the huge amount of verbiage does nothing to answer the main core point. I expressed my view that the original paper does not present the case the author is trying to examine in a way that helps a reader - faced with a dump of facts - to understand the points being made and the way the argument is constructed. That is my point, it is not enough to have a good idea, but what matters in any academic endeavour (i.e., in getting that idea considered, debated and accepted by the thought community such as that of Academia.edu) is the ability to argue it and present it. This is why journals and academic books have editors. Learning how to write is part of the process of learning to be part of the academic world. I pointed out this author really needs to work on his presentation if he wants to take part in discussion with the academic (archaeometllurgical and archaeological) milieu.

The term 'pseudoarcheology' is often treated by those who produce this kind of material (often in the form of mere 'content') as some kind of perjorative slur. It is not. Archaeology, basically, is (I would hold) "the study of the past through its material remains by the application of archaeological methodology(ies)". So metal detecdting abnd hoilking a coin of Coinstantine the Great out of the ground is NOT (I say) "archaeology". It is relic hunting. What would make it archaeoplogy is noting the context and associations of that find with the surrounding evidence - not as an isolated trophy of the past known from the written recoreds and Wikipedia. The key word there is METHOD. Has Ricardo Calvário done that? I say the structure of his paper and what he includes, but what he omits, means he has not.

Mr Calvário (like most of the "misunderstood" pseudoarchaeologists playing the victim), sees the issue as something else:

That is how science proceeds: by confrontation with data, not by adherence to convention. The true task of scholarship is not to defend inherited narratives, but to question them - repeatedly, and without fear of discomfort.  [...] The refusal to engage with evidence is not scepticism - it is belief masquerading as science. [...] an appeal: that archaeology, and indeed all science, recover the humility of its method - the willingness to doubt itself. Every new piece of evidence, however inconvenient, enlarges our understanding of the human story. To reject inquiry in favour of dogma is to abandon the very principle that once made discovery possible.

There is no "dogma", "belief" or "inherited narratives" here. Neither is what he has churned out any real presentation of "evidence". I do not see here any "discovery" in what is simply a literature-bound presentation of one principle that boils down (if I read through the verbiage to two propositions and a "what if?" speculation:

1) There is a(n unquantified) "lot of" metalwork in the Old World in what the author calls "the copper age" and yet there is not a lot of evidence from the identified ore-production sites in the Old World for the degree (unquantified) of output that would have supplied the required amounts (unquantified) of raw material to make it all. This produces for him a "mystery" (or paradox)
2) In a group of sites in North America there are signs of native copper production on such a scale (in one place he claims 500,000 tonnes) throughout what he calls the Copper Age and yet so few native copper artefacts from excavated contexts and surface finds in the USA (Amircas as a whole?) - which produces for him a "mystery" (or paradox).|
3) "What if" there were big boats plying the Atlantic in the "Copper Age" taking North American native copper back to "the Old World" (where? who pioneered, who organized it?) (was it a Native American initiative, or the ["more sophisticated"?] White Men from Europe and the Mediterranean who were running this hypothetical show?).

That's it, isn't it?

Right, so "evidence".

1) I said (and stand by the view that), before engaging in any "what if?", the first point is to look at the chemical content (and variabilities in) the Michigan copper sources. A sampling programme should be the starting point.And of course "99% pure" is not the kind of analysis needed, it's trace elements, some kind of signature that would allow North American copper to be identified if it turns up in the prehistoric "Old World". Ricardo Calvário has not started with that.

2) How many of the European (say) and Old World copper alloy items of the "Copper Age" (which Mr Calvário dates to "1000BC) have the specific form of items made from hammered native copper? There are some of course, but (since he takes his "Copper Age" well into the European and Nordic Bronze Age) the vast majority of Bronze Age copper alloy items found are cast - so why not from smelted ores?

4) [proposition 1a] There is a(n unquantified) "lot of" metalwork in the Old World in what the author calls "the copper age" 

[proposition 1b] and yet there is not a lot of evidence from the identified ore-production sites in the Old World for the degree (unquantified) of output that would have supplied the required amounts (unquantified) of raw material to make it all.

 
The impression that there is a "lot of metal" (which he really needs to actually quantify) is due to teh fact that over most of Europe and the adjacent areas, the archaeological study of the Bronze Age is (over, in my opinion)- focussed on hoards, hoard recovery (those "good old metal detectorists", but they were also very visible to pre-1914 ploughmen and labourers), hoard typology and hoard display ("wottalotta-stuff-we've-got") in museums. There are a LOT of them. But that is the point, these metal objects were (for whatever reason- let's not go there) deliberately PUT INTO the ground, perhaps as a marker, sign, coimmunication - but a communication of material 'wealth'. So that's what we notice.

In the entire continent of North America were the 'Archaic' communities deliberately burying hoards? Mr Calvário does not tell his readers. So if the dead were disposed of (as some were) in raised platform burials out in the open, in some remote place, any copper put onto the corpse would be lying loose today in the ploughsoil or subsoil somewhere in a forest or field and very difficult for the modern archaeologist or amateur to find - by metal detectorists or arrowhead collectors or arechaeological fieldwealkers for example.

The point is that the archaeological record is rarely like that at Pompeii, where tonnes of ash fell fronm the sky in a short time burying everything that was not hastily removed as some people fled leaving a 'frozen' record of life-as-lived. The "pompeii premise" cannot be applied here, we have socially-conditioned deposition on different sides of the Atlantic. So Mr Calvário is comparing unlike with unlike - pears and apples. Yet does not seem to want to be aware of that (or if he is, he's not accounting for it in his reasoning).

As for the mines. Mr Calvário selectively "presents" some 40 of them. But the presentation is rather brief. Neither does he consider which sites may have been in use that we do not yet know about (hence my point about the recent introduction of the possible Ukrainian sources into the discussion). The problem with copper sources (both the rare native and not-so-common ore) on this side of the Atlantic is they are often "point" (usually formed on the margins of discrete intrusions) rather than massive widespread and continuous deposits like iron ore. This means that if three thousand years ago someone stumbled across one in the Ur-forest and his community exploited it and the pits the dug silted up, modern geological survey could have missed some of them (the same problem exists in sorting out minor lithic sources). More to the point, many of these sites contaiuned more ore, that was acxcessible to deeper and deeper digging with new techniques. A lot of the prehistoric mines (like some of the British ones) are today poorly preserved in the edges of more modern - medieval and post-medieval/early industrial workings. This is why I think Mr Calvário needed to include more details and a PLAN of each of the sites he discusses. His covereage is not enough for the reader to use what he has written as a guide to "how much" was extracted in his "Copper Age" from each of them.

By the way - with regard some other pseudoarchaeological guff, he mentions actual evidence from some of these sites of cutting through rocks like conglomerate and basalt by pounding with hammerstones. The "Ancient Architectural Mysteries - Must-be-a-Lost-Technology" crowd of pseudoarchaeological sensationalism would have it that you "cannot do this".

5) [Proposition 2a] In a group of sites in North America there are signs of native copper production on such a scale (in one place he claims 500,000 tonnes) throughout what he calls the Copper Age [Proposition 2b]and yet so few native copper artefacts from excavated contexts and surface finds in the USA (Americas as a whole?) that is a paradox [where did all that copper go?] This paper is about (playing down?) the Old World sites, so that'd be his excuse for writing little over a page presenting the Michigan sites (2025, unnumbered pages in the text somewhere between the beginning and the end, near the end). No location map, site plan, no real details. As an example of the pathetic referencing citesd as sources, here we have the ones for this complex of sites:

"References
1. Archaeological History of Isle Royale and Ancient Copper Mining. (2024). U.S. National Park Service.
2. Michigan Back Roads Copper Country Mystery. michiganbackroads.com. [incomplete link]
3. Pompeani, D. P., et al. (2014). Miners Left a Pollution Trail in the Great Lakes 6000 Years Ago. Eos, 95. [no page numbers]
4. Martin, S. R. (1995). Wonderful Power: The Story of Ancient Copper Working in the Lake Superior Basin. Wayne State University Press.
5. Whittlesey, C. (1863). "Ancient Mining on Lake Superior." Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge, 13, 1–29.
6. Timeline of Michigan Copper Mining Prehistory to 1850. (2025). Keweenaw National Historical Park. [fails to reveal this is a website: https://www.nps.gov/kewe/learn/historyculture/copper-mining-timeline.htm]
7. Pompeani, D. P., et al. (2023). "Native Americans Conducted Large-Scale Copper Mining 6000 Years Ago." Scientific American. [volume number, full list of authors? page numbers?]
8. Pompeani, D. P., et al. (2021). "On the Timing of the Old Copper Complex in North America." Radiocarbon. [volume number, full list of authors? page numbers? What is dated, the mines, or the "complex"? ]
9. Pompeani, D. P., et al. (2022). "Refining the chronology of North America's copper using traditions." PLOS ONE. [volume number, full list of authors? page numbers? What is dated, the mines, or the "complex"? ]
10. Pompeani, D. P., et al. (2024). "Lead isotope analysis of native copper deposits in the Lake Superior Basin." Archaeometry. " [no volume number, page numbers or full list of authors - lead isotopes are nowhere mentioned in the text about these mines]"

None of these references is linked in any way as supporting evidence to any specific statement in the text. This is what I mean by calling this style of reference useless. Mr Clavario misunderstands how to actually make it so that the "evidence" he adduces is in any way "supported by more than 100 academic papers" as he naively claims. That's not "dogma", it is called "putting your money where your mouth is". He should show his reader on Academia.edu where he gets the information he has selected from.

The text here concentrates on just one mine complex, and from it, there is no way to assess what is being said about the scale of production. Some numbers are cited, but there is no way to form a picture of their basis.

How did Native American Old Copper Complex communities use and deposit used copper items? Mr Calvário does not say (I'd like to know about the scale of deposition in 'wet' conditions - rivers, streams, springs and lakes), he does not say - but it would have an influence on moderrn retrieval rates (crucial for his "argument"). Context.

6) ["What if" speculation]: "perhaps" there were big boats plying the Atlantic in the "Copper Age" taking North American native copper back to "the Old World"

Not a lot is said in Mr Calvário's text about this. "The mine activity peaked around 2500 BC, declining abruptly by 1000 BC". So what actual CONCRETE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE is there for transatlantic voyages in 2500BC? What boats were used (construction? Docking?), howe many crew? Were the miners on the boats or were they just metal-middlemen buying at distant source from local miners? What were the products exchanged for all that metal (what archaeological traces of this exchange are there at both ends of the route)? Or was the metal taken by force (any traces of this, for example fortifications in Michigan in 2500BC)? Where did the transatlantic voyagers dock in the Old World, and what traces are there of the commodities market and distribution of the foreign metal? Who pioneered this trade/exchange/exploitation (what traces are there it even existed)? Who organized it? Some kind of an elite? Was this transatlantic connection a Native American initiative, or was it some ["more sophisticated"?] White Men from Europe and the Mediterranean who were running this hypothetical show (as was believed in America in the 19th century when the Old Copper Complex was first discovered)? How far has Mr Calvário's model come from this one.

There are more questions and considerations, suffiuce yto say I (still) find the presentation of this argument lacking in its methodology in almost every respect and falling far short of the author's aim to present "conclusive evidence, supported by more than 100 academic papers, that the Copper Age of the Old World could not have existed without the Trans-Atlantic trade of Copper from the UP area of the US".

YouTube's Massive Uncontrolled AI Plagiarism Problem

Source: History Dose

Content plagiarism on YouTube has been a problem for almost as long as the channel has been monetising (see for example: Jonathan Bailey, 'YouTube’s Plagiarism Problem Not everything that glitters is original...' Plagiarism Today April 27, 2018 ). This results in a situation that increases our difficulties in archaeological outreach to the public. See for example the excellent presentation of Andy Burgess [Faultline], 'Why All Educational Videos Are the Same', Oct 20, 2022; see also the video by veritas et caritas, "History Youtube has a James Somerton problem" Dec 10, 2023).

The issuer is that in 'edutainment', many creators (for example on YouTube) copy each other’s content. This is not always done word-for-word, but by following the same scripts, topics, and even visual styles. The reason for this is that the platform rewards familiar, high-performing formulas. The Algorithm favours videos that resemble already successful ones, so creators tend to imitate rather than innovate. As a result, much of YouTube 'edutainment' ends up feeling repetitive: the same subjects are presented in nearly identical ways, leading to a kind of algorithm-driven plagiarism where originality is discouraged.

For some time now, the problem has been taking on a new form, and one that is should be extremely worrying to those of us who want the past to get a reliably- informed view of the past. I came across this short text by Chris and Joe from the YouTube channel History Dose pointing out this worrying trend ( 7 hours ago - slightly edited)

A rant about YouTube's Massive AI Plagiarism Problem.
Virtually every semi-successful video on YouTube is being scanned by AI content farms, copied, and regurgitated en masse within days of the release of the original episode. Often, the titles, narration and images are AI-altered JUST enough to make it hard for the creator to issue a copyright claim.

Are these passionate fellow creators taking inspiration to transform or add something to videos on the same subjects? Nope. These are machine-run content mills that are spreading fake history, ripping off actual creators, and ruining your algorithm. Even the ones that don't get many views mess with recommendations.

I mean it when I say pretty much every creator is being affected. Swipe to see videos by my friends North02 and HistoryTime, also getting plagiarized. I encourage you to test it for yourself. Go search up the exact title of a reasonably popular video by any creator you watch (doesn't have to be history-related), and you're very likely to find several rip-off AI videos leeching views from them.

What can we do about it? Well, YouTube currently has zero guardrails to stop its platform from cannibalizing itself in this way. Two things come to mind in the meantime.

1.) SHARE THIS POST. I'm not even sure how much YouTube realizes it is undercutting the very creators that sustain its platform.

2.) SUPPORT REAL CREATORS. You can support our human-made history education, art, research, narration at our Patreon here: https://www.patreon.com/c/HistoryDose But I also encourage you to consider financially supporting any of your favorite creators on this platform.

This issue has not gone unnoticed. It is discussed in videos such as 'Established Context's "How AI Slop is Quietly Breaking YouTube" Jul 7, 2025.

Or another one: Vanessa Wingårdh, "The Internet is Dying: AI, Bots, and The End of Human Content" Aug 1, 2025.

"The internet was once a vast digital frontier of endless human created content. The World Wide Web connected us, until corporations decided their profit margins mattered more than Tim Berners-Lee's vision of an open web. Now we're trapped on the same few websites, force fed algorithmic content and AI generated slop. Anonymous users predicted this years ago with what they called Dead Internet Theory. From bot armies manipulating conversations to AI generated content flooding every platform, the internet we once knew is disappearing". *

See also another of her videos: Vanessa Wingårdh "Real or AI? The Internet Is Now Impossible to Trust", Jul 24, 2025.

It's concerning how rapidly AI is become a plagiarism machine used almost exclusively for deepfaking things. It is possible that, instead of the results of the work of human content-creators, soon there will be more AI content on YouTube, produced by "V-Tubers" (virtual creators), fabricating what is in effect just 20 minute spam generated to garner click ad revenue. The same seems to be happening to book authors on Amazon also. YouTube has announced that on July 15, 2025, it had updated its systems in a way that it hopes will better target “inauthentic” content, specifically mass-generated or repetitive videos. The mechanisms, effects, who it will impact and what the actual outcome will be is as yet unclear.

For now, there are a number of indicators of an AI-generated video that we can look out for (see also info online such as here):

1. The thumbnail contains sensational label like "THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING" etc.
2. The video itself tends to be about 20 minutes long
3. Right through the video, the images used are generic stock content that are only losely related to what is being presented (some human creators do this too),
4. Text to speech is often a dead giveaway. The generic voiceover often has inexplicable pauses (misreading a line-break in the script?) or weird mis-pronouncications.

An issue is that almost as soon as you click on one, it’s too late. It becomes part of your viewing history and as a result, the Algorithm keeps suggesting similar content. The only option is to constantly select “do not recommend this channel” (FYI, in case you don't know, click on the 3 dot menu next to a recommended video and you will see the option). It's not quite that bad, in fact, it takes at least 3 seconds of watching a video for it to register in your watch history, and you can delete your watch data, thus making YT forget you ever watched it.


By the way: History Dose ("Written and Illustrated by Humans")

Description
Just two brothers, Chris the history grad and Joe the artist, teaming up to capture the wonder, terror, and beauty of the past. Chris holds a B.A. with honors in history from Cornell University (2018). He writes and narrates each script and posts a bibliography of academic sources in each video description, more recently including fully footnoted scripts so that interested viewers may source specific claims and learn more. Joe is a digital artist who manually creates each piece with a stylus and pad, honing his craft in the medium since 2017. Together, we are History Dose®.

* Wikipedia: "The dead Internet theory is a conspiracy theory which asserts that since around 2016 the Internet has consisted mainly of bot activity and automatically generated content manipulated by algorithmic curation, as part of a coordinated and intentional effort to control the population and minimize organic human activity".

We collaborated with a [...] Russian, and the Retards....

2:19 Young Mr Young is childishly naïve if he thinks there is no connection between the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Putin regime, or that society and the government and imperialist ideology they support are in some way separate. In many developed countries, scholars take an ethical stance, as in culture and society in general, to show their unwillingness to collaborate with societies openly engaged in immoral (and illegal) activities. The Comet Research Group obviously has no such qualms and will apparently work with anyone. Who next?

Archaeologists "Squirming"

@alg678 1 day ago When I was at uni as an anthro major we learned Clovis Doctrine, and learned that modern humans were 100k years old. Now Clovis Doctrine has been totally overturned, and we know modern humans are AT LEAST 300k years old. Watching the conventional academics squirm as more and more evidence piles up for lost ancient technology and extended timelines is exhilarating.

@PortAntissues 19 hours ago

Can you actually show us this "squirming", or is that just hyperbole?
@alg678 17 hours ago
@PortAntissues Sure. Redefining the entire concept of "hunter-gatherer" in order to avoid the evidence at Gobekli Tepe is peak squirming.

Oh. First of all @alg678, there are no Egyptian stone vases from Gobekli Tepe (which is a single site in Turkey)… aside from that, please show me (with a quote from an archaeology book) "how hunter-gathering was defined” by archaeologists before the evidence from Gobekli Tepe and (with a quote from an archaeology book) how it “was defined” by “squirming” archaeologists after the evidence from Gobekli Tepe. Also, since there have been many studies of hunter-gathering economies since 1996 when the term came into more general use, how can you be sure that it was Gobekli Tepe that was the catalyst for any change you can demonstrate?

Guarding the Secrets

|"@rodoriouslive 1 day ago
Ancient civilizations constituted of several races of beings, who were telepathic, had superior organic tech with lasers and levitation and so much more. The true scale of the G8za pyramid complex is guarded by a military. They don't want you to dig too far.
The real history of this Earth has been systematically oppressed to keep the elite few at the top to control humanity for selfish gain."Zero evidence cited. Zero logic.

No Mystery about Hawara Labyrinth

The usual pseudoarchaeological grifters are currently trying to drum up interest in the "mysteries" of "The Labyrinth of Egypt'. This was a vast underground structure, or temple, built south of Amenemhat III's pyramid at Hawara in Fayum, Egypt. Amenemhat III was one of the most significant rulers of the 12th Dynasty, and these underground spaces were probably conceived as an extension of his tomb.

The complex at Hawarawas described by ancient Greek historians such as Herodotus, Strabo, and Pliny the Elder. Their accounts depicte a massive, intricate temple complex, a structure so grand that it rivalled the pyramids themselves. Herodotus claimed it contained some 3,000 chambers, while others spoke of halls, courtyards, and even libraries, suggesting it was not only a funerary monument but also a vast ceremonial complex. Its complex layout reminded visitors in classical times of the legendary labyrinth of Minos at Knossos in Crete. The site has produced artefacts from both Amenemhat's reign and the Roman era.

While the physical structure was long thought to be lost, ground-penetrating radar and satellite scans have revealed detgails. In 2008, ground-penetrating radar revealed a large underground network of chambers and halls beneath the Hawara site. Subsequent satellite scans carried out by the UK company Merlin Burrows confirmed the existence of an immense grid of structures hidden below the surface, and LIDAR technology revealed a central corridor flanked by organized features, strongly suggesting the presence of a deliberately structured complex. Despite these promising findings, large-scale archaeological excavations have not yet been undertaken to fully uncover and verify the site. Reports indicate that research was halted in 2008, and speculation persists that the significance of the labyrinth, along with its potential to challenge established historical narratives, may have contributed to the secrecy surrounding it. In reality, a high local water table may threaten the site's conservation and impede future research. Not much is known about its use, but it was probably a multifunctional building—with a palace, town and administrative centre.