Live data from Hacker News

New evidence strongly suggests Indonesia's Gunung Padang is oldest known pyramid

phys.org

21–30 of 43 posts

Re: New evidence strongly suggests Indonesia's Gunung Padang is oldest known pyramid

#21
The lead author on this paper first surfaced these claims in 2013, and later that year published a book called “ Plato Never Lied: Atlantis Is In Indonesia”.

Reading the actual paper, I’m having a tough time visualizing the “sculpted” aspects of Unit 4. This is supposedly the volcanic core that was carved bw 20k and 15k BC. Based on the dating of the other layers, it seems much more likely that a volcano erupted there like 50k years ago and slowly eroded, right? Hilman’s got that diagram of the site labeled with “tunnel” and maybe that’s a translation thing, but the tunnel is right where you’d expect a volcanic conduit to be. He also uses the suggestive term “chamber” elsewhere. There’s no debate that this is an old volcano btw, and no debate that there is an interesting ancient structure (500 AD) on top of the hill. It’s the “carved” internal structure that seems like a big big stretch.

Re: New evidence strongly suggests Indonesia's Gunung Padang is oldest known pyramid

#22
post #13

Wikipedia has information about this. Essentially the topic of the age, as put forth by the author of this article, is considered "fringe". Doesn't mean this is outright untrue but it seems that, aside from the authors of this piece, the age of Gunung Padang is very much not a settled matter and the information contained in the above link is the fringe theory that is in doubt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunung_Pad…

It looks like this wikipedia article has not been updated since the publication of their work. The wikipedia article mentions the work is unpublished multiple times. Potentially, it has changed the view on this dating.

Its funny how people take Wikipedia at face value. Happened in a local newspaper the other day, it said something slightly wonky and referenced a Wikipedia article as the source, which in turn referenced a wonky Youtube video as it's source for that info.

Re: New evidence strongly suggests Indonesia's Gunung Padang is oldest known pyramid

#23

Graham Hancock will be pleased.

Right, as noted in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38186510 , this is not news. This writeup is covering activity from 2011 - 2015... “The integrated surveys at Gunung Padang were conducted for 3 years, from November 2011 to October 2014...” ... completed so long ago it served as an episode in last year's Netflix documentary “Ancient Apocalypse”, aka “the most dangerous show on Netflix”: https://www.theguardian.…

Hilarious. Why is it the most dangerous show on Netflix? I clump it together with light entertainment shows like Ancient Astronauts or whatever it was called. Surely not dangerous by any means.

Re: New evidence strongly suggests Indonesia's Gunung Padang is oldest known pyramid

#24

Graham Hancock will be pleased.

Right, as noted in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38186510 , this is not news. This writeup is covering activity from 2011 - 2015... “The integrated surveys at Gunung Padang were conducted for 3 years, from November 2011 to October 2014...” ... completed so long ago it served as an episode in last year's Netflix documentary “Ancient Apocalypse”, aka “the most dangerous show on Netflix”: https://www.theguardian.…

I think conspiracy stuff is fine on Netflix if presented as entertainment, but I wish they would label it as such in some manner. I'm not sure how one best goes about doing that though outside of hiring some actual anthropologists and archaeologists to do an episode at the end of the series that points out what I assume to be a lengthy list of flaws and assumptions (probably too expensive).

I once watched one of the Ancient Aliens episodes for fun (it was entertaining) and found some pretty poor logic being used to try to fit their conclusions (no surprise there). It is a little sad that a certain portion of the population eats it up though.

I will say the title of the linked article is also jumping pretty hard when asking "how has this been allowed".

Re: New evidence strongly suggests Indonesia's Gunung Padang is oldest known pyramid

#25
post #12

If this finding is accurate, this pyramid is 27,000 years old. 20,000 years older than pyramids of Egypt. Older than Göpekli Tepe.

We have 8,000 years of continuous history, and just barely. We pretend this is linear improvements of human coordination where we just got around to being cognitive enough for anything we do sometime over the last 700 years. I reject this idea completely. I’m personally not surprised if there are other 8,000 year periods of human coordination and stability to pursue complex ideas. Across, what, now 200,000 years? I c…

A hypothesis of HN (and similar) comments:

We each are welcome to our beliefs, of course, but unless we provide some basis for them - especially evidence - what value do they provide to others? That basis is the value; its strength is the strength of the comment. The opinion itself has no real substance; it's directions for how the author might navigate the substance (the basis); it's a sign that points out what we perceive as valuable.

Re: New evidence strongly suggests Indonesia's Gunung Padang is oldest known pyramid

#27
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, as noted in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38186510 , this is not news. This writeup is covering activity from 2011 - 2015... “The integrated surveys at Gunung Padang were conducted for 3 years, from November 2011 to October 2014...” ... completed so long ago it served as an episode in last year's Netflix documentary “Ancient Apocalypse”, aka “the most dangerous show on Netflix”: https://www.theguardian.…

Hilarious. Why is it the most dangerous show on Netflix? I clump it together with light entertainment shows like Ancient Astronauts or whatever it was called. Surely not dangerous by any means.

It spent, what, eight episodes attacking archaeology for not taking Hancock seriously. (And really, why not? Who doesn't believe there was a global civilization roughly like the Victorians built on telepathy and sonic vibration technology about 20,000 years ago?)

It's dangerous because it represents the popularization of anti-intellectualism in the modern world.

Re: New evidence strongly suggests Indonesia's Gunung Padang is oldest known pyramid

#28
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, as noted in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38186510 , this is not news. This writeup is covering activity from 2011 - 2015... “The integrated surveys at Gunung Padang were conducted for 3 years, from November 2011 to October 2014...” ... completed so long ago it served as an episode in last year's Netflix documentary “Ancient Apocalypse”, aka “the most dangerous show on Netflix”: https://www.theguardian.…

Hilarious. Why is it the most dangerous show on Netflix? I clump it together with light entertainment shows like Ancient Astronauts or whatever it was called. Surely not dangerous by any means.

except for the people who watch the show and seriously believe the stuff, and then go out and live their lives and the rest of us have to live with them spouting that nonsense

Re: New evidence strongly suggests Indonesia's Gunung Padang is oldest known pyramid

#29
Someone on twitter pointed out that their dating methodology is faulty. Carbon dating makes sense only if used on organic materials in human context. For example, dating charred remains in a hearth with human artifacts in its vicinity. It seems like the authors in the paper just took a sample from the ground and dated the organic material in it, which doesn’t make much sense. I can’t find the original tweet atm but I hope I’ve been clear enough.

Re: New evidence strongly suggests Indonesia's Gunung Padang is oldest known pyramid

#30
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It looks like this wikipedia article has not been updated since the publication of their work. The wikipedia article mentions the work is unpublished multiple times. Potentially, it has changed the view on this dating.

Its funny how people take Wikipedia at face value. Happened in a local newspaper the other day, it said something slightly wonky and referenced a Wikipedia article as the source, which in turn referenced a wonky Youtube video as it's source for that info.

It’s not funny, it’s scary as hell.
Post reply on HN