Amateur Attemps to Redate Gobekli Tepe.

            The beer glasses don't move                  

The weedy man-bunned Hungarian podcaster Károly Póka with the immobile Guiness-glass affectation sat down with Kyle Allen from the ‪@BrothersOfTheSerpent‬ Youtube channel (that he runs with his brother Russell, exploring ancient mysteries, megalithic sites, and the deep history of our civilization). In the episode "Göbekli Tepe: Older Than We’re Told? (Kyle Allen – Ancient Technology Podcast)", Allen pontificates for hours over "what the T-shaped pillars actually tell us, how reliable the current dating of the site really is, who the people behind these megaliths might have been, and why Göbekli Tepe continues to challenge the mainstream timeline of human history". The latter is a red flag, as in the specialist literature in several languages for 26 years Gobekli Tepe and the other Tas Tepeler sites have been writing the mainstream vies of the Natufian/Pre-potter Neolithic A transition and all that relates to that.

In the discussion of Göbekli Tepe, Allen presents a loosely assembled case for pushing the site’s origins further back in time than the dates established by archaeologists, but his argument ultimately rests less on evidence than on a generalized distrust of the field itself. Although the site has been excavated and studied intensively for over two decades following its identification by Klaus Schmidt, and dated to the Pre-Pottery Neolithic period, roughly the tenth millennium BCE, Allen suggests that the monumental T-shaped pillars may be older than the materials used to date them. He arrives at this conclusion despite openly acknowledging that he has not properly engaged with the archaeological literature and, at points, struggling to articulate basic concepts drawn from the small portion he has encountered.

His reasoning begins with the observation that the stratigraphy of the site appears complex and, in places, disturbed. From this he infers that the layering cannot be trusted, proposing that natural processes such as slope collapse or seismic activity repeatedly buried and re-exposed the structures, thereby scrambling the sequence of deposits. He extends this line of thought by referring to studies of earthquake damage, noting that some pillars fractured while partially buried, which he takes as evidence that they must predate the layers surrounding them. He also argues that the enclosing stone walls must be later additions because they obscure parts of the carved pillars and, in his view, represent an inferior structural design, leading him to conclude that the megaliths belong to an earlier, separate phase of construction. Further doubt is cast, in his account, on radiocarbon dating itself, which he treats as unreliable due to contamination, mixing of materials, or chemical alteration, suggesting that the dates obtained may reflect later activity rather than the original building phase. Finally, he points to the large accumulation of midden deposits as evidence for long-term, repeated use, including episodes of burial and re-excavation, from which he infers that the initial construction could be significantly older than currently believed.

Taken together, these claims amount to a speculative reinterpretation of the site that substitutes suspicion for method. The difficulties he highlights (disturbed stratigraphy, site formation processes, reuse of structures, and challenges in dating) are not overlooked problems but precisely the kinds of issues that archaeologists working at Göbekli Tepe have spent years documenting, analysing, and incorporating into a coherent chronological framework. The consistency of radiocarbon dates from secure contexts, the typology of stone tools, and the broader regional comparisons all converge on the same timeframe. Allen’s argument does not meaningfully engage with this body of evidence; instead, it relies on partial understanding, selective emphasis, and an underlying assumption that the specialists who have studied the site in detail are fundamentally mistaken. In that sense, his position is not an alternative interpretation grounded in new data, but a rejection of established conclusions without the methodological or evidentiary basis required to support it. Bits of it, he just invents, and persists in shieling his coneptions from question by claiming he "can't remember the details".

Who is 'Megalithic Mysteries': @Megalithic12000?

The social media account 'Megalithic Mysteries' ( @Megalithic12000 1,446 Followers) claims to specialise in " Ancient precision. Lost civilisations. Cataclysms that reset humanity" and wants us to believe that he knows what he is talking about when he says: "History is far older and stranger than you think". Following through the inter-links with his other online activity you see someone rather deperate for attention and online engagement. It turns out this is somebody who makes films elsewhere going by the name Francis Mobberley and he's from Kings Lynn, United Kingdom. Mr Mobberley seems never to have read an archaeology book, but is full of trite stereotypical statements about "what the archaeologists get wrong".

Some recent gems:

" The mysterious site of Sayhuite in Peru shows astonishing evidence of destruction. Can you even begin to imagine the forces required to break this piece in two? ... did something tremendously violent take place here?".... "
Gobekli Tepe alone should have rewritten the entire story of human origins....Yet rather than update the timeline, orthodoxy simply changed the definition of the term hunter gatherer so the theory could stay intact"....
"ANCIENT ENGINEERING MYSTERY I’m calling on archaeologists, engineers and anyone who thinks they can, to explain this mystery ONCE AND FOR ALL. Mainstream academia claims to understand how ancient precision-engineered stone was made...."
" Peruvian local tells me ALIENS built the megaliths. I’m currently in Peru. This clip is from an Uber ride today.... Some, like this gentleman here, believe beings from elsewhere helped humanity rebuild after a great cataclysm, when civilisation and infrastructure were lost".
"Early accounts in Egypt show temples buried, huge stones shifted, severe erosion, and widespread ruin long before restoration began. This is not gradual decay. It points to powerful ancient destruction. The clues remain, if you know how to read them".
"Many people fail to grasp the severity of the Younger Dryas cataclysm. ... Only the hardest stone survives a planetary disaster. Everything else is wiped clean".
"Ancient builders crafted stones with a precision that challenges modern machinery. Did you know that to this day, no one has provided an explanation for how this stone was shaped with such precision?"
"UNSOLVED MYSTERY: No one on the planet can explain this method of removing stone. From Peru to Egypt, ancient sites display the exact same anomalous precision and engineering approaches. This suggests a shared knowledge that no existing explanation fully accounts for."

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@Megalithic12000
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61585609156961

Also here: 'What's the History?'

Is this the same Me Mobberley? 

"MortalsOfEarth", the Barefoot Wannabe-Saviour from Michigan Threatens and then Accuses Archaeologist

 

This guy (Frank Rogala) claims to have science cracked (see below), plus be able to "save civilization" and has a "new book coming out in June":

MortalsOfEarth @MortalsOfEarth
Writer, researcher and traveler exploring ancient civilizations. Insights shared http://MortalsOfEarth.com —interviewing scientists, researchers and truth seekers. Science and Technology Mackinaw City, MI Joined October 2024 (111 Following 218 Followers,  Not followed by anyone you’re following).

Here are his views on archaeology:

"[...] It's all just lazy guesswork dressed up as expertise. I can't wait until we finally crack the voids, shafts, and hidden structures inside the Great Pyramid, which clearly aligned to some advanced industrial or engineering role, so we can roast them for peddling fairy tales about the Queen's Chamber shafts being soul-ascension portals for the king. They literally pull this nonsense out of their asses and call it scholarship."

Here he is addressing Lee Clare, excavator of Gobekli Tepe on Jimmy Corsetti's Twitter account:

 MortalsOfEarth @MortalsOfEarth

"The dude has no idea that dealing with you [, Jimmy,] so far has been the easy part.

Someone like me is the one who asks for a lie-detector test.
I care about the story—the motivations, the main characters, and their actions. I care about whether it all makes sense.
So make it make sense, Lee.
Let’s talk about the contract that was signed with the entertainment company that took over the site—the same people who rolled in bulldozers and poured concrete over unexcavated ruins.
I want to know where the money goes.
Who’s involved in that agreement?
When was it signed?
Where did the money change hands?
And who’s getting paid now?
And while we’re at it—did he kill Klaus Schmidt with his own bare hands? Did he pay someone else to do it? Or did the fixers from the entertainment company handle that too?
I’m not playing.

7:28 PM · Dec 29, 2025 - 231 Views"

This is the soirt of thing that we have all too easily become accustomed to from pseudoscientific and populist harassment campaigns. The use here of conspiratorial framing, entitlement, accusatory language, and intimidation tactics, is not serious questioning or “holding someone to account”. It is nothing less than intimidation dressed up as concern. The post talks at a working archaeologist as if he’s a suspect, throws around lie-detector fantasies, and even hints at violence. That’s not how evidence-based criticism works, and it’s not how professionals should be addressed. Lee Clare is an archaeologist doing his job within normal legal and institutional frameworks, and nothing in this kind of rhetoric helps anyone understand what’s actually happening at the site. It’s conspiratorial, hostile, and can only be treated as harassment that needs to be highlighted and deplored rather than something that deserves engagement.

Some People Never Learn (I)

A graduate of the US's Samantha Fulnecky schooling system Jimmy Corsetti (@BrightInsight6 Dec 21), "Investigator of Lost Ancient History"* reckons:

Establishment (sic) Archaeologists are going to be BIG mad over my upcoming video. See all this dirt, stone and rubble? Excavating Gobekli Tepe is a literal rubble removal project 💯 Archaeologists have SO many things wrong about this site, I think their heads are gonna explode 😂"

Namely:

"My latest video is now LIVE on YouTube [fire emoticon] "What They FOUND at Gobekli Tepe MUST be Addressed..." There was a significant discovery made at Gobekli Tepe in involving a human Statue, which raises many serious questions about what is one of the world’s oldest, most mysterious, AND arguably the MOST important ancient archaeological site on earth.

 Here's this allegedly "explosive" video....

.

posted on YouTube by Bright Insight Dec 23, 2025

The crux of this revelation (Jimmy Corsetti @BrightInsight6 Dec 23):

"Ain’t no way whoever initially built Gobekli Tepe put this Statue here… Archaeologists absurdly claim this was a 12K yr old sacred offering to the Gods, deliberately placed under this sloppy wall of crude rubble as a gift… Give me a break. This was clearly REPURPOSED, and *not* a ‘votive offering’ worthy of the eminence of Gobekli Tepe and its sophisticated T-Pillars. SOURCE: Uh, just look at it and use your God given discernment, et al.

Oh, and Noah was real, and he and his three sons (Shem, Ham, and Japheth of the foundation myth) built this site as their post-Flood "altar" (where they heard the Lord's Testament) on the slopes of Ararat (the mountains of Urartu), including excavating out all the sunken special buildings and cutting, hauling and erecting all those "pillars" that gets Corsetti so orgasmic. I am sure there is a way this makes sense to him and his slackjaw followers among his Biblical-literal countrymen. Personally, I'm not so impressed by a self-professed "investigator of lost ancient history" who's not gone into the background of the book of Genesis and the stories, fables and made-up nonsense that it contains. I see no link with the (actual) Biblical narrative and the Sanli Urfa region. Corsetti does not enlarge on why he does, but he's several timres in the past referred to the "pillars with the pictures of animals on them" to Noah's Ararat-altar. So I do not know why "establishment archaeologists" are going to be "head-explodingly mad" over his repeated unsupported statements about what HE believes. Of the few archaeologists that pay attention, bemused maybe. Corsetti has no credibility because it is clear he does not know or understand what he's looking at. 

This is despite people telling him what the site consists of. Repeatedly. Including by people who actually dig there. Corsetti's latest provocatively arrogant response to that?

"Jimmy Corsetti @BrightInsight6 Dec 21
The walls are not original. I understand you think they are, but despite your credentials, you’re wrong and simply don’t understand what you’re looking at!"/ The T-Pillars are original. The sloppy crude walls are not.

He's been to the site, in his "danger mouse disguise", but was too busy posing to look all that closely at the stratigraphic relationships between the walls and the adjacent pillars, some of which are so clearly built INTO the walls that their bases stand on the lower courses. What a buffoon.

* 1.7M subscribers on YouTube, Veteran 🇺🇸 | MBA | JRE Podcasts: 1742/1928/2231

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.

A British YouTuber Discusses the Gobekli Tepe Statue in a Wall

Jimmy Corsetti's shrill shouty video with its entitled attacks on Turkish and German excavators of Gobekli Tepe is an embarrassment for the amatuer community. Not all videos in the genre are as bad. Matt Stibson's Ancient Architects YouTube channel (629K subscribers) is another level entirely. The author is typically very well-informed, well-read, articulate, and clearly thinks through the implications of the material. I recommend his works for those who want a less sensationalised, less superficial, less shouty approach to trying to understand the past. He deserves more followers, drop him a "subscribe", you'll not regret it. He uses the same (kinds of) monuments as the demented pseudoarchaeologists at the other end of the amateur archaeology content creators arc but the effects and information value are of quite a different quality. He often quotes sources which is more than most YouTubers do. (This is not to say I always agree with his conclusions, but he always draws them based on the evidence, the way he sees it.)

So his presentation three months ago of the same statue as Corsetti was ranting about tells you where it was found, gives its context in relationship to a second one found earlier (which Corsetti seems unaware of and confuses pictures of the two) and generally thoughtfully discusses its significance and function [but in a totally different way to the MAGAmerican].

. 

Posted on You Tube by Ancient Architects Sep 23, 2025.

. 

So far it has only 125K views (Corsetti in a few days has already accumulated 401,932 views - it seems there are more haters than knowledge seekers in [GobekliTepe-focussed] archaeo-YouTube).

Archaix: "Archaeology's Lies About the Age of Gobekli Tepe"

 Archaix   

The Ongoing Gobekli tepe Psyop

The 'experts' claim Gobekli and other tepe sites are dated circa 8000 BCE, but they completely ignore that effigies, architectural styles and pillars at Gobekli perfectly match other site around the world dated precisely at 2500-1800 BCE. In fact, further excavation has been halted because more and more they are uncovering evidence that Gobekli tepe isn't anywhere near as old as they claimed. Gobekli Tepe was same culture as Catal Huyuk, all the tepes and huyuk sites, with Jericho and the similarities to Easter Island can not be ignored. 3800-2300 BCE. The Sumerian E.DINs were places man was banished from. That history began in 3895 BCE with the Adam and Eve Genesis reset, a worldwide destruction that sent mankind back to Year One. The tepes, like Gobekli tepe, are located where the story began. The academic claim that the builders suddenly buried their own sites is ridiculous. Gobekli Tepe, all the Tepe and Huyuk sites were buried in a Phoenix catastrophe.

His video "Gobekli Tepe: A 70 Year Old Lie Became a 12,000 Year Old Truth" ( Archaix Jan 30, 2023)

and the dating? Here's what he claims: 

"We are told that Gobekli Tepe in Turkey dates to about 9500 BC to 8200 BC. We’re told that it’s old because it was underground and that it dates to the Pre-Pottery Neolithic. That sounds really impressive.

Now, for those who don’t know, the Pre-Pottery Neolithic is a term invented by Kathleen Kenyon. She believed she came from a monkey, so Kathleen Kenyon, when she found that the earliest levels of Jericho did not have pottery shards (she found this out around 1952 to 1954), coined the term “Pre-Pottery Neolithic” for what she found at Jericho’s ruins.

And then the scientific establishment overlaid her new system and description over the entire world, from one little excavation at Jericho. So the new dating assumption over the entire topography of the world was established by the established scientific community. Now that they did that, any archaeological sites that do not yield pottery shards are to be dated at 9500 BC to 8200 BC. My friends, that’s how simple it is. That is exactly how they got the Pre-Pottery Neolithic model. It’s just weird".

What is weird is that he should think (and presume to misinform his readers) that this is how the site is dated.  

This really needs to be seen together with this video: 'A Total Dismantling of Hancock's 9600 BCE Atlantis Dating' (Jul 21, 2023):

This really takes the cake, views of how to read the King Lists (and whether one COULD expect them to tally with the Hebrew Scriptures) have really moved on since the eighteenth century "sources" he cites. As has our understanding of the Egyptians' understanding of the calendar. The video is excruciatingly repetetive. 

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

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?

Conspiracy-Karen Corsetti Attempts to Provoke

Dunning Kruger in full view

Jimmy Corsetti @BrightInsight6 (1.6 million followers) · 1h
Here is the cold hard truth that Archaeologists will HATE me for saying:
Physically excavating Gobekli Tepe is EASY
It’s a literal RUBBLE REMOVAL PROJECT
Nobody cares about preserving a million pot shards
DIG UP THE REMAINING 128 T-PILLARS!
Archaeologists just want to milk funding as long as possible 🤑💯
They’ll rag on me for “reckless”excavation.
Shut up already. You people have utterly failed to do your jobs. You’re not scientists. You’re more or less construction workers hired to DIG UP dirt and rubble 🪏 

"Nobody cares about preserving a million pot shards" he seems not to have grasped what the term pre-pottery Neolithic means in practical terms. As for the "rubble"....

The Public Discusses Archaeology

(Lee Clare)

Archaeologist Lee Clare from the Gobekli Tepe archaeology team had had a huge amount on nastiness and hate directed to him from the Hancockian pseudoarchaeologists on social media, and so decided to withdraw from public discussion with them. Recently, after break of over a year, he decided to attempt to rejoin social media discussions with people curious about the site. No sooner had he done so and the Hancockians jump on him. I was interested in these two, both from accounts that have no other posts. Odd.

Then there are the self-proclaimed 'experts' (this on VetteBoy2002 @BulldogDad2024, Connecticut: "Bulldog Lover, Weightlifter, Astronaut, Corvette Racer, 2A Marksman, WWII Historian, 1/35 Model Assembler, Cornstar") :

and a whole lot of others: 

What kind of discussion and outreach should the excavation team be doing here?

"The Last Natufian" Cosplayer from California and his Gobeklymaps

 Herman Lewis, Archaeological Services, California (YouTube channel Herman Lewis 491 subscribers 32 videos; Twitter: @TheLastNatufian 5,678 Followers) reckons that he has "discovered that Göbeklitepe Tablets map the entire “Fertile Crescent”, Mesopotamia/Egypt/Greek/Roman gods are caricature maps, Lascaux maps Atlantis/Europe, + more!". Here is a pinned tweet:

Herman Lewis @TheLastNatufian Jun 13, 2024

The Daily Göbeklitepe- What it is!
After much thought, I understand why Göbeklitepe is not a settlement. It was a governing body with representatives from the Nations. The Kings, Titans, and “Gods” of old. Not Allah. Names of rulers, their families, and lands…which are the same in many cases (example: Washington).
For the Ancients to hunt, farm, trade, and flourish far and wide…there had to be an understanding: rules, teamwork, expectations, and accountability… Civics!
History is missing the stories of ancient cooperation between the ancient nations and focuses primarily on the turmoil.
The lands have changed hands many times but their shapes have remained much the same since the Ice Age. [...]

His ideas piqued my interest only when he recklessly decided to answer my question: "where exactly did Graham Hancock's imagined "survivors" of a cosmic cataclysm 12900BP hide out, nurturing their "advanced knowledge" and "idea of agriculture" until they got around to passing them on three millennia or more later?" ·

Herman Lewis @TheLastNatufian Aug 19
It’s right there on the map and in the stories…Turkiye and other highlands. The “Vulture Stone” at Göbeklitepe alone maps the dark red area. Farming moved north with the climate. Cheers.

Uh-oh. Another vulture-stone devotee. This was rather a stupid answer to an observation based on a map, the WHOLE POINT OF WHICH was that there was nothing of the 10th to 13th millennia shown on it! In response to his brash assertion,  I pointed out the fact that the blobs on the map begin 9600-8500BCE (so quite a bit later than the "catastrophe" of 12900BP) and that Göbekli Tepe was built between 11.6 and 10.2 KYA, leaving open the question I raised about where this postulated ("post-catastrophe") "Survivor Civilization" was functioning in the one-and-a-half MILLENNIA between 12.9KYA ("YD Impact") and the beginning of PPNB c. 11.5 and 7.0 KYA?

As for his explanation about the answer being "in the stories", I asked what specific "stories" he was referring to? I also asked if he thought the "vulture stone" (Pillar 43 in Enclosure D) at Göbekli Tepe is a map? Why? I pointed out that it would be methodologically incorrect to just interpret a few pictures on one stone in isolation from their surroundings, how does that interpretation relate to the other 12 enclosure D pillars? How do they support the interpretation that this one stone is a map? 

Note that as far as I know, the excavation team at Gobekli Tepe has not yet produced even a preliminary atlas showing photos of the faces of each of the pillars at this site from which one could glean even a preliminary picture of the full repertoire of images in each of the oval enclosed areas. This is a major fail on their part, even the pictures alone (without their considered interpretations) would be of wider interest, to the public as a whole (these excavations have been going on for 25 years and there is a major deficit in proper published information about this site which is beginning to get disquieting).

Mr Lewis failed to answer the question about those "stories" to which he referred that resolve the issue where these "survivors" found their home after the cataclysm.

He did though rather defensively respond about the maps.

       click for higher resolution (Herman Lewis)      

Herman Lewis@TheLastNatufian Aug 19: It’s not “just a few”, I can read them all…but your condescension is noted. There are three sides to D43 and combined map the Levant. The other stones add to it for the entire Fertile Crescent. It’s about resource management and trade, nothing mystical or heavenly. It’s the “Table of Nations” and “all of the animals of the world” come to rest at the top of the Ararat Mountains. Take care.

As far as I am concerned, if someone presents an interpretation of the past based on material remains (as here), there is no "condescension" in asking a perfectly reasonable question about the methodology behind Herman Lewis' assertively-stated interpretation. The single illustration he supplied to elaborate on his idea leaves it still unclear on what he bases this, it is too bad that in addition, the guy simply cannot draw. The bird on the stone looks up, his  looks down and is scrawnier, the scorpion's been rotated by 20 degrees, positioned totally differently from what's on the stone and in relation to the bird, on his drawing, the bird's tail has been distorted relative to the original, etc. etc. In my opinion, what the juxtaposition of these two images shows is that Lewis has not analysed and respected the image (or set out to test his theory) as much as tried to fit it onto a preconception (that it is a map) and tried to force its elements onto a modern map. In addition (leaving aside Ararat!!) to have a "table of nations" he needs to be able to show there were "nations" between 11.6 to 10.2 KYA, where is the evidence? Again, perfectly reasonable points to make on the presentation of evidence. 

Herman Lewis @TheLastNatufian 17h
The Nations are the animal regions like the Scorpion…and they are Tablets of Nations. Like I said, I can’t understand map reading for you. Besides, you seem to have all the answers to your own questions so I’ve wasted time replying to you. Won’t happen again.

Attached to this was a photo montage showing the scorpion overlaid on a region of hilly land where if you squint and ignore the other features, several converging tributary valleys "look like" the bent right legs of the creature and parallel valleys running off a scarp "look like" the left legs anbd a row of hills like the tail.

Also attached was a map with an unexplained mishmash of geometric shapes drawn over it. What it is supposed to "prove" is anyone's guess.

In the lack of their author supplying any alternative explanation, it seems that the author has picked out features of the image of the stone and (what he sees as) individual elements are represented by ovals and squares drawn "somewhere" on a modern relief map. It seems it is these that the author then for some reason calls "nations". On this basis, he says that the slabs he used as the single source for the shapes on the map ARE therefore "tables of nations". If that is a correct interpretation of what this guy is saying (and feel free to check out his YouTube channel where there are hours of videos on this) that'd just be plain bonkers, however one wants to look at it. It is not a matter of my "not being able to read a map" (as Lewis intimates), it is his [undefined] methodology that raises questions. Especially as, as I pointed out, the positions of the ovals on the map do NOT correspond in detail to the position of the figures on the stones. In order to even begin to assess this, we need to see a detailed correspondence analysis. We also need him to lay out the archaeological correlates of his postulated "nations". By what means are they definable?

One very obvious pointer to the flaws in teh argumentation is that the scorpion [32°45'30.36"N 36°40'36.84"E according to Mr Lewis] is inexplicably shown a different SIZE and a different POSITION on the two maps he posted in the same thread on the same day AS WELL AS being in a different relation to the projecting bit of the bird symbol. 

Mr Lewis: 

I guess it is easier than answering real questions about his pseudoarchaeological fantasies.


./

Martinez Lectures (I), "What is Archaeology"?

 

            Punishing with self-righteous religiosity          

In the USA, another guy without a clue attempts to lecture us on what archaeology is. Mark Martinez (@xprofe1) says he is a "Spanish teacher, historian, and philosopher" and claims to have a B.S. in Philosophy and M.A. in History (now working on Ph.D. in History)" - website https://xprofe.com/ [inactive] There are several teachers by this name on LinkdIn. On Twitter he critiques "leftist ideologies" and champions speedy justice (pro capital punishment) "from a Christian perspective", debates archaeology and "critiques D.E.I. as a cultural weapon" (Grok profile summary). Here's what he says about (his idea of) archaeology:

Mark Martinez @xprofe1 · Apr 30

The problem with archaeology.

Archaeology is the study of human history and prehistory through the excavation and analysis of material remains such as artifacts, architecture, biofacts, and cultural landscapes. The problem with this field of study hides in plain sight: interpretative bias. Interpretative bias refers to the influence of an archaeologist’s own cultural background, worldview, training, philosophy, and even political leanings on how they understand and explain the past. Because archaeology often involves reconstructing long-lost cultures from limited evidence, interpretation plays a central role; this monumental weakness in the processes opens the door to subjective influence and biased interpretations. Interpretative bias does not delegitimize archaeology as a study, but it is an important factor to consider when evaluating the ideas, theories, conclusions, and interpretations put forth by archaeologists. We must always remember that nothing is ever according to archaeology. It is always according to the interpretations of archaeologists. Interpretations are always influenced by personal or professional biases. There is no such thing as a perfectly unbiased archaeologist. This applies to any individual or group of individuals engaging in archaeology, from amateurs to professionals, from individual researchers to teams and universities. All are influenced by their own personal, collective, and/or professional biases. This does not mean that we cannot trust archaeologists, it just means that we must always be vigilant that what we are being told has not been overly influenced to the point that it misrepresents facts and/or the truth. The controversy surrounding the trees at Gobekli Tepe is a prime example of interpretative bias at its worst. Go check out @BrightInsight6 for all the information regarding that controversy. It is just unbelievable.

Where to begin? "The problem with this field of study hides in plain sight" and of course that means that nobody engaged in teh field has EVER even had an inkling of this, only the non-archaeologist Martinez (with his lil' old "philosophy" degree) has any sensible thoughts about (checks notes): "interpretative bias". Where does one even start to engage with such arrogance and attempts tp "redicover the wheel" coupled with elementary school level of description of the "problem"? I encourage Mr Martinez to find a good library and immerse himself for three weeks with the works of the Post-Processual movement in real (not imaginary) archaeology. Three weeks will be enough (for anyone normal - a lot of it is difficult reading), but will only have scratched the surface of the ruminations on that topic from our Post-Processual brethren. Part of the problem is a lot of pseudo-archaeology is US-focussed, and so the "archaeology" it engages with tends to be the US variety. Let us just say that, even if Processual/New Archaeology and CRM had in its prime its followers in the west (and east) of Europe, not everybody sees our dicipline in the way the Americans have done. Three weeks Mr Martinez and we'll come back to the subject. One wonders if Martinesz sees (or not) that exactly the same "interpretive biases" apply to the "alternative" views of the past he seems to be promoting here. I would ask him to consider (honestly - in as unbiassed a fashion as he can) whether the checks and restraints on the discipline-archaeology's interpretations and conclusions are the SAME as or different from those in pseudo-archaeology? Do they operate in the same way? An honest answer would be that they do not. But the same underlying biases are there. Let Martinez try to say they are not.

There is no such thing as a perfectly unbiased pseudo-archaeologist. All are influenced by their own personal and collective biases, icluding identity-forming (tribal) ones. This means that in looking at what pseudo-archaeologists claim, write and say, we must always be vigilant that what we are being told has not been overly influenced to the point that it represents misidentification and dismissal of evidence and/or the truth. Yep. The shoe fits on both feet Mr Martinez. And that is PRECISELY the reason when we see claims made by the pseudo-archaeological milieu, we assess it in terms of the evidence cited supporting it in the context of the evidence and thought proceses they dimissed through their interpretive biases, and challenge their conclusions (often wealkly framed as "hypotheses" still needing testing/ "just asking questions"). 

The next bit is entirely off topic.

The controversy surrounding the trees at Gobekli Tepe is a prime example of interpretative bias at its worst. Go check out @BrightInsight6 for all the information regarding that controversy. It is just unbelievable.

WTF? The trees were planted by the LANDOWNER, as Mr Martinez should know, the archaeologists (still less the foreign ones) are not the landowners of the site. The site is managed by the TURKISH AUTHORITIES, as Mr Martinez should know, the archaeologists (still less the foreign ones) are not the authorities managing the site. Urged by the rantings of "concerned (about their clickbait)" pseudoarchaeologists some archaeologists gave their thoughts on the trees. Maybe they were right, maybe they were wron, maybe on one side of the hoill the situation was different than on the other side of the hill. Maybe they were wrong to enter into discussion with scandal-seeking clickbait miners, in a conflict which was between them (the YouTubers and their followers) and the TURKISH AUTHORITIES. I suspect that avenue of dialogue has been definitively shut down by the pseudoarchaeological response. Nota Bene, there is no evidence that even once were the scandal mongers - notably the same Jimmy Corsetti (@BrightInsight6) mentioned so lovingly by Martinez) in direct contact with the TURKISH AUTHORITIES on this matter (or any other) - despite their professed "concern" stateside.

.

Martinez Lectures (II), "What is Pseudoarchaeology"?

 In the USA, Mark Martinez (@xprofe1) a supporter of Graham Hancock, Jimmy Corsetti and their brand of making money by reinterpreting the past for a lay audience presumes to lecture us all on what (he, with his lil'old US "philosophy" degree, thinks) pseudoarcheology is (see above).  

Mark Martinez@xprofe1 May 1

Pseudo-archaeologist: the ultimate ad hominem.

In sports we have professional athletes and amateur athletes. The primary difference between both (sic) is whether they get paid to play their sport. There are also sponsorships, levels of training, and contracts, but this dichotomy is one that most all of us are familiar with and can agree on for the most part.

In a similar fashion, we have professional archaeologists and amateur archaeologists.

Professional archaeologists usually get paid for their work, have received formal training, and customarily hold some type of credentials or responsibilities within the field. Whereas amateur archaeologists usually don’t get paid, lack formal training and do not hold credentials or responsibilities within the field. Though the distinction between professional and amateur is extremely important, they’re both still archaeologists.

A key component to this dichotomy is archaeological methodology, which when practiced, does not determine whether you’re a professional or amateur, it determines whether you’re good at your craft or not. A professional or amateur archaeologist who makes mistakes, exercises poor judgement, or practices bad methodology, is not a “fake” archaeologist, they’re just bad at what they do.

@FlintDibble is not a pseudo-archaeologist because he lied and misrepresented facts during his debate with @Graham__Hancock on the @joeroganhq , he just exercised poor judgment and practiced bad methodologies. Similarly, professional archaeologists do not suddenly become pseudo-archaeologists, simply because they were proven incorrect later in their careers; they’re just found to have practiced bad methodologies.

Fake athletes [pseudo-athletes] are neither professional nor amateur. A fake athlete is someone who lies about the sport they claim to practice, which is why we would call them a fake. No one would call a high school soccer player a fake athlete; we would call them an amateur athlete.

Likewise, a fake archaeologist [pseudo-archaeologist] is someone who lies about practicing archaeology. No one would call a high school archaeology student a fake archaeologist, we would call them an amateur archaeologist, regardless of how many mistakes or bad methodologies they practice.

Consequently, why do academics and scholars repeatedly label @Graham__Hancock, @randallwcarlson, @BrightInsight6, @DeDunkingPast, @WWolfProd, @chrispdunn, and @UnchartedX1, as pseudo-archaeologists? They are certainly not fake. They don’t lie about practicing archaeology. Some are journalists, geologists, scientists, researchers, and investigators, while others do in fact practice archaeology at an amateur level. In the case of @PastPaulitics , he is a bona fide professional archaeologist and historian but still finds himself thrown in the same basket of archaeological deplorables.

So, why the pejorative insult? Because it is a personal attack meant to undermine the person and their views, rather than addressing their arguments or theories; it is an ad hominem attack.

By labeling people as fake or pseudo, the goal is to showcase the person and their views in a negative, dismissive and illegitimate light while influencing any would-be listeners or viewers from being receptive to their ideas and theories.

Labeling someone as a pseudo-archaeologist, when they are not, is one of the truest forms of an ad hominem attack. The ultimate ad hominem.

This article is long enough, I’ll add more on archaeological methodologies later this week. Please be sure to check out and follow all the good folks I linked on here, they all provide amazing content and valuable information.

Cant wait for the rest of his exposition of what a Spanish teacher with a degree in history knows about "archaeological methodologies"... but for now, let's have a look at what he wrote.

I'm fine with equating (what I see as) amateur archaeology with professional archaeoplogy. Back in England I used to work with amateur groups and they were great. But then we come across a problem with what the Spanish teacher somewhere in deepest darkest Trumpland thinks amateur archaeology is.

A key component to this dichotomy is archaeological methodology, which when practiced, does not determine whether you’re a professional or amateur, it determines whether you’re good at your craft or not.

Well no. Whether or not what somebody is doing is archaeology or not is whether it is done by application of the methodology(ies) of achaeology - defined in a plethora of books (in the UK, including whole bookshelves full of 'how to' manuals written and published FOR amateur archaeologists). An individual who digs up (trashes) an archaeological site just to see what artefacts they can find is an artefqct hunter (most often a "metal detrectorist", in the US a "relic hunter" or "pot digger") THAT IS NOT 'ARCHAEOLOGY' (pace my British colleagues, it is certainly NOT "CITIZEN ARCHAEOLOOGY"). In the same way if in a amateur football match in the UK between the Hogwarts Wanderers and the team from Greyfrioars School, if a Greyfriars boy should actually pick up the football and run with it in his arms through the goalposts, it would be neither a goal nor football. It would be a foul. The boy is not acting at that moment as an "amateur footballer" and has added nothing to the School's sports record. Archaeology is the study of the past through the analysis of its material remains by the appropriate methodology.

 Dan Richards and his    
ad hominen teeshirt 

This is incredibly nasty, and certainly involves very severe interpretational biases (see above) - quite apart from being actionable.

@FlintDibble is not a pseudo-archaeologist because he lied and misrepresented facts during his debate with @Graham__Hancock on the @joeroganhq, he just exercised poor judgment and practiced bad methodologies.

Dan Richards, some mumbling comics enthusiast who looks like the man who empties my bins fancies himself, like Mr Martinez, as an expert on all things archaeological (despite reportedly being a construction worker and electrician by trade) is trying to make a career as a YouTube "influencer" and the theme he choses to concentrate on is "debunking" (which he somehow mispronounces as "DeDunking" [sic]) archaeology. Since Flint Dibble answered Hancock's stuff online, Dan Richards, that is the guy's name, has made Dr Dibble his prime target. He accuses Dr Dibble of "lying" (the word he actually used) on some made-up pretences, involving a single unintentionally (in my opinion) misquoted statistic and Mr Richards himself not understanding how lecture slides work. The damaging ill-will false accusation of deceit is one thing, the fact that it is being repeated after Richards' video by people who uncritically accept his reasoning and terminology used another (and is an example of just the same interpretive biases of the pseudoarchaeologists and their followers). One might question why this is happening. Why is it important to intimate that Dr Dibble's whole presentation was "lies"?   

"Why do academics and scholars repeatedly label @Graham__Hancock, @randallwcarlson , @BrightInsight6, @DeDunkingPast, @WWolfProd, @chrispdunn , and @UnchartedX1 , as pseudo-archaeologists? [...] why the pejorative insult? Because it is a personal attack meant to undermine the person and their views, rather than addressing their arguments or theories; it is an ad hominem attack. By labeling people as fake or pseudo, the goal is to showcase the person and their views in a negative, dismissive and illegitimate light while influencing any would-be listeners or viewers from being receptive to their ideas and theories. Labeling someone as a pseudo-archaeologist, when they are not, is one of the truest forms of an ad hominem attack. The ultimate ad hominem. 

    

 

                      Pseudoclassical decor                  
 

It is because they employ the methods they do (conveniently set out in 2006 in Garrett G. Fagan's chapter 'diagnosing pseudoarchaeology' pp23-46 in the same author's edited collection "Archaeological Fantasies: How Pseudoarchaeology misrepresents the past and misleads the public" - the whole volume worth reading) rather than those of real  (professional or amateur) archaeology. In the same way as a pseudomorph in geology, pseudopodia and pseudoscorpions in biology, a pseudocarp in botany, a pseudonym in literature criticism, pseudoclassical (like Donald Trump's laughably bad-taste redecoration of the 1902-1909 Oval Office), it is a term used to describe something that looks like something else without being the thing it looks like. 

I really do not see that observing that  Voltaire, Boz, Lewis Carroll, George Eliot, Mary Westmacott, George Orwell, Dr. Seuss, Mark Twain, Ayn Rand, Maya Angelou were all "pseudonymous writers" (which they were) is in any way a "pejorative insult", or "a personal attack meant to undermine the person and their views[..] by labeling [them] as fake or pseudo", depicting them somehow "in a negative, dismissive and illegitimate light while influencing any would-be listeners or viewers from being receptive to their ideas and theories". That's just nonsense. Calling a pseudonymous writer a pseudonymous writer is in no way a judgement on the motives they may have had for hiding their real names (which were various). It is a statement of fact. The same goes for somebody who see Gobekli Tepe and just sees "mysterious" T-pillars with pictures on them and disorderly piles of stones around them as opposed to someone who sees a highly-complex stratigraphical sequence. One is approaching the site in a pseudoarchaeological way, the other not. That is not a perjurpous observation, it is a statement of (verifiable) fact - in this case Jimmy Corsetti has amply demonstrated that (given every opportunity) he simply does not understand the princoples of archaeological stratigraphy. Not the foggiest.

And this is arrant nonsense too:

[this is] a personal attack meant to undermine the person and their views, rather than addressing their arguments or theories"

The whole problem for the pseudoarchaeologists is that their critics actually DO address their arguments and hypotheses (theirs are not structured theories). They show where, from the point of view of archaeological methodology, they are irreconcilably incompatible with these methods, their conclusions cannot be supported through applying the archaeological method to the same basic data from which they had selected theirs from. THAT is why what they are doing is not considered (let us say the same form of) archaeology as what we are doinfg. It therefore needs to be differentiated, and the proper term for that, like it or not, is pseudoarchaeology. (It is not an "alternative archaeology" any more than crudely cutting somebody's leg off with an axe and no anaesthetic is not "alternative surgery").

As an aside to his other considerations, Martinez refers to "@PastPaulitics [...] a bona fide professional archaeologist and historian" as someone who "still finds himself thrown in the same basket of archaeological deplorables". As a point of record, this person with extreme rightwing views first appeared on Twitter a little over a year ago claiming to be an "archaeologist and historian with an ax (sic) to grind about how the past is used and misused in contemporary politics". Yet the archaeological literature does not yield any texts written by a "Paul Hill" on anything at all, much less "how the past is used and misused in contemporary politics", which is a subject I used to write a bit about in its central European context. I tried to engage him in conversation, when it appeared he was unable to show he had any knowledge of the basic literature or concepts of the subject he claims as his specialism. The name "Paul Hill" is that of an author of several popular books on Anglo-Saxon military history, and on Twitter @PastPaulitics uses a fantasy-figure avatrar in early-medievalesque costume. It really is not at all clear from the evidence we have that this twitter account does indeed represent a person who actually is what they say they are. Privately suspicions have been expressed that at least part of their output is in fact AI generated. Nevertheless, though this account supports pseudoarchaeologists, and criticises archaeologists who criticise their output, @PastPaulitics has not themselves produced any outright pseudoarchaeological texts, and as far as I am aware, nobody has actually named "@PastPaulitics" a pseudoarchaeologist. So this is more nonsense from the biased Mr Martinez.

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"?).