MAGAmerican Archaeology Grabfest Concept for Gobekli Tepe on YouTube (Some People Never Learn II)

    No flowery shirt today, but just as apodictically Karenish and squeaky.    

Arizonan ex-store detective Jimmy Corsetti has never read an archaeology book in his life. But he's confident he knows "all about" the discipline. So here in his shouty video "What They FOUND at Gobekli Tepe MUST be Addressed..." (Bright Insight, Dec 23, 2025) he shares his wisdom with his 1.7 million followers, based on the rather simplistic and ill-informed principle that "the truth as to what this ancient site actually was is written (sic) on the pillars themselves":

"I tell you that there's been an egregiously unacceptable lack of excavations at Göbekli Tepe. I usually point out that approximately 128 pillars of the 200 they know exist are still completely buried in the earth, and again, many of which have only been partially excavated and haven't been fully seen or documented as they've been left partially buried, which if you ask me is insane considering that they could physically do it in a single day if they actually wanted to. In fact, just look at the vast portions of dirt and rubble that have been left "in situ" (which means they've been left exactly as archaeologists originally found it during their initial excavations). And notice that so much of this one confined area of Göbekli Tepe is still totally consumed (sic, he means 'concealed') with dirt, stone, and rubble that is yet to be removed. What are archaeologists even doing out here? Seriously, take a look and notice that there is an enormous amount of debris still covering the entire site and ask yourself how this is all they've managed to dig and excavate over the last 30 years since excavations began in 1995. Just look at it, as pictures are worth a thousand words.

And you know what? I'll take it a step further. Archaeologists will hate me for what I'm about to say, but I'm going to say it anyway because it is the truth.

Excavating Gobecée is easy. It is a literal rubble removal project, and I'm not joking.

So much of this site could easily be excavated if they got a few dozen archaeologists to work as a human chain and physically remove one stone after the other, and they could easily do this all while taking safe care of the archaeology itself, and while thoroughly documenting every bit of the archaeological fragments they find as they go, with the use of numerous cameras, LIDAR (sic!) scanning, and including 360° filming while simultaneously removing all this debris. They could record every bit of it for their own archaeological documentation purposes and get this dirt and rubble the hell out of there in a remarkably short period of time if they actually wanted to."

What is galling about this is that Corsetti has been told several times when he's said the exact same things where he is misrepresenting the nature of the stratigraphy of the site, and the complexity of dissection and recording them, while leaving a site to be visited, displayed and interpreted.

Archaeologically, the "pictures" (not writing) on the pillarss, and the other scupltures do not tell anything like the full truth/story about the site. They are a single component of the archaeological record there (and the other Tas Tepeler sites). So Corsetti's wrong from the outset, as well as demonstrating his total incapacity to learn from what people havce taken the time to try to explain to him..

The claim that Göbekli Tepe could be excavated in a single day—or even a very short time—by simply removing “dirt and rubble” reflects a profound misunderstanding of what the site consists of, how archaeological knowledge is produced, and what excavation actually destroys. Far from being a straightforward clearance operation, Göbekli Tepe is an exceptionally complex archaeological palimpsest in which context, not a heap of dugup objects, is the primary source of information.

First, the material described dismissively by Corsetti as “dirt” is in fact highly structured stratigraphy. At Göbekli Tepe, the fill is neither random nor accidental. Much of it represents accumulation of material from downslope slippage, but also probably dumping and levelling operations during the use, and later abandonmenbt of the area. These deposits contain patterned distributions of lithics, faunal remains, architectural debris, and sediments that record distinct episodes of use, modification, and intentional burial. Removing this material wholesale would permanently erase the very evidence that allows archaeologists to reconstruct chronology, ritual practice, construction sequences, and site function. Once a stratigraphic layer is removed without controlled excavation, its information is irretrievably lost, no amount of video recording or post hoc digital modelling can restore it. The same principles apply if the excavation is in the USA or here in the Middle east.

Second, what is characterised by the YouTuber as “rubble” frequently consists of architectural elements, including dry-stone walls, sockets for T-pillars, prepared floors, and collapsed or dismantled structural components. These are not interchangeable stones but parts of engineered systems whose meaning lies in their precise spatial relationships. Excavation therefore proceeds at the scale of centimetres, not truckloads, because understanding how stones relate to one another is more important than removing them quickly. Treating the remains of architecture as bothersome "debris" obscuring the decorative scheme utterly misunderstands the difference between construction waste and construction evidence and how that evidence is read.

Third, the suggestion that comprehensive documentation could be achieved through cameras, LiDAR, and 360° filming conflates recording mere appearance with recording archaeological relationships. Archaeological documentation is not a matter of visual capture alone. It involves interpreting interfaces between layers, identifying subtle soil changes, recognising negative features such as cuts and fills, and continuously revising hypotheses as new relationships emerge. These decisions are made during excavation and depend on slow, iterative and expert human judgment. Technologies like photogrammetry and laser scanning are valuable supplements, but they do not replace stratigraphic reasoning; nor do they permit excavation to be “sped up” without sacrificing analytical resolution.

Fourth, it cannot be stressed enough that excavation is inherently destructive. To excavate a site is to dismantle it permanently. For a site as unique as Göbekli Tepe this imposes a strong ethical obligation to proceed cautiously, selectively, and reversibly where possible. The evidence can be sampled, removing the bare minimum to answer specific previously carefully-formulated research questions. Leaving large portions unexcavated is not evidence of neglect or incompetence; it is a deliberate strategy that preserves parts of the site for future research questions, improved methods, and future generations. Rapid excavation would exhaust this non-renewable resource in the service of spectacle and sensation rather than understanding.

Finally, Göbekli Tepe is not a single structure but a multi-layered tell spanning centuries of activity, erosion, reuse, and disuse. Excavating “everything” quickly would collapse these temporal distinctions into an undifferentiated mass, undermining the very reason the site matters scientifically. The slow pace of excavation is not a logistical failure but a reflection of the site’s density, fragility, and interpretive importance.

Why does Corsetti have such a difficuly grasping what seems to me to be a pretty simple concept?

In short, Göbekli Tepe cannot be excavated quickly because it is not an obstacle to be cleared but a record to be read—one written in fragile layers, spatial relationships, and intentional acts of construction and concealment. The idea that it could be stripped in a day rests on a category error: mistaking archaeology for earthmoving, and documentation for understanding.