This series of texts considers a video that is a continuation of the onslaught of US "content creators" on the site of Gobekli Tepe and the activities of those involved in its investigation and preservation. Masquerading as an expression of "concern", this video is instead a further example of clickbait-seeking divisive hate-prose that characterises their output.
In the text "What Jimmy Corsetti sees (and misses)", although it can easily be seen that the excavation site reveals a complex stratigraphy with multiple building phases, and episodes of wall rebuilds, Jimnmy Corsetti's onsite rant reveals he understands virtually nothing of this. He clearly cannot see how the site has been excavated and has no idea whatsoever of what is involved in digging and recording such a sequence or the measures imposed due to conservation policies. Jimmy Corsetti in his ignorance, merely misrepresents the site as simply "a pile of stones" and seems unaware of the excavation methods or stratified context documented in the reports he likely hasn't read.
In the next section, the roofing of the site, a carefully considered conservation solution, it is heavily misrepresented by uninformed critics online. There are established practices in archaeological site protection and the roofing at Göbekli Tepe sits firmly in among them and represents a thoughtful compromise between preservation and visibility. It protects the site from environmental damage, avoids deep intrusive anchoring, and maintains a minimal visual and physical footprint. Critics, especially from the U.S., often fail to understand these issues due to a lack of comparable heritage displays at home and their obvious ignorance of the well-established body of specialist literature.
The frustration Corsetti expresses here about not having more pillars dug up stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of what archaeology actually involves. To him and others with a collector’s mindset, sites like Göbekli Tepe are just treasure troves of mysterious objects, particularly the T-shaped pillars, which they believe should be rapidly uncovered for display. They disregard the importance of stratigraphy, context, and meticulous documentation, seeing the remaining unexcavated areas as a wasted opportunity rather than preserved heritage. In contrast, archaeologists are focused on interpreting complex layers of earth and construction over time—work that requires patience, precision, and deep contextual analysis, not brute-force methods like water jets.
The third text "Jimmy Corsetti Knows Eff-All About this Site (part two - "no landslide here")" shows how Corsetti once again oversimplifies a complex archaeological issue—this time, the question of whether the depression beside the tell was deliberately filled or the result of natural slope processes. Despite limited published data and missing contextual evidence, Corsetti scornfully claims with unwarranted certainty to see what trained archaeologists working there for many seasons allegedly cannot. His approach is marked by arrogance and a lack of understanding of stratigraphy, dismissing expert interpretations in favour of his own untrained "common sense" conclusions. Corsetti’s confidence is completely misplaced. He misinterprets a complex, multi-phase stratigraphy as a single event, assuming all visible features date to the same phase. He fails to recognize that the site shows evidence of at least three distinct phases of activity. The "stacked stones" he focuses on belong to later structures that post-date the filled-in sunken enclosures with the T-pillars—explaining why they remain intact. He mistakenly sees this as a "gotcha" moment, but in fact, it just exposes his ignorance. Even when shown a trench edge with clear signs of hillwash in the section, Corsetti and his fellow YouTubers completely miss its significance, fixating instead on the "damage" they think they’re exposing.
The fourth text "Mike Collins Decries Lack of Altruism and Excavation". He criticizes the site’s development for tourism—gift shops, shuttle buses, and walkways—seeing it as a troubling shift toward profit over preservation. But this view ignores a long history of cultural tourism, which has long been a key driver not only of public interest, but above all incentives for funding, and preservation in archaeology. I find Collins’s dismay on this count misplaced.
I suggest the real issue for him, is that further excavation beneath the walkway might not happen—meaning fewer pillar carvings for YouTube content. This is a narrowly-blinkered view. Looking outside that box, in reality, archaeological research may already have gathered sufficient data about the site as a whole, and continuing to dig might not be justified in the light of broader regional and national research aims.
Collins also fails to understand the practical and archaeological reasoning behind the placement of the walkway: it was positioned over already-excavated areas to avoid damaging unexcavated parts of the tell, which itself is archaeologically sensitive. His suggestions reveal a fundamental lack of understanding of how archaeological sites are managed and presented and again derive from a lack of proper reading.
The fifth text "The Lady Content-Maker's Reaction" , the remarks of U.S. blogger Nikkiana Jones, a self-described “truth seeker” reveal that it is not only Corsetti and Collins who came to the site ill-prepared to comprehend what there was there to see. Jones expresses confusion about basic aspects of the site—uncertain if it was buried, how it was discovered, or what the surrounding area might contain—despite being accompanied by two men claiming to be well-informed critics of the excavation. The speaker points out the irony that Collins and Corsetti, so intent on accusing archaeologists of errors and cover-ups, apparently failed to explain even the basic context of the site to their guest. Jones’s vague impressions—like puzzlement over “weird plaster” and the presence of sheep—highlight the missed educational opportunity. The site’s interpretive centre is intended to provide such context, especially about the significant transition from foraging to farming, but in this case, it seems little meaningful learning took place.
The sixth text examines the claims of the U.S.-based pseudoarchaeologist YouTubers—especially Jimmy Corsetti—that only they raised concerns about olive trees planted on the unexcavated areas of Göbekli Tepe, while Turkish authorities, archaeologists, and conservationists supposedly ignored the issue. It seems to me (given the degree of damage actually being done) that these concerns were exaggerated for clickbait and revenue, relying on sensationalism and a layman's perspective rather than informed analysis.
When the trees were eventually removed, Corsetti claimed credit for prompting the change. The subsequent video (ostensibly documenting this), however, offered little actual information about the trees, their cultural significance in the region, or how their removal was handled. Crucially, no Turkish voices were included to explain the context or confirm Corsetti’s supposed impact. The piece concludes that the YouTubers’ true aim in making this video wasn’t documentation or insight, but to manufacture controversy now that the original issue—olive trees—could no longer generate outrage or views.
Yet this turned out to be an exercise in throwing stones into the Void of Ignorance as the spoken texts of this video reveal how much this party, Jimmy Corsetti, Mike Collins and Nikiana Jones, is basing their imagined entitlement, loud, insulting and disrespectful criticism and judgemental disregard of archaeologists, academia and the Turkish people and authorities on fundamental misconceptions. Plus outright ignorance. Dunning-Kruger in action.
To access the introduction to this series and the links to the other posts in it please go here (for other posts on this blog about Gobekli Tepe see here)
