11–20 of 41 posts
The authors don't mention having done any core samples away from the pyramid as a control group.
It seems like they have, at best, proved that Gunung Padang contains old soil, without proving anything about the age of the pyramid itself.
The dating of this site is so strange. Why would there be continuous pyramid building at this site for 25k years? How could a culture maintain some kind of cohesive activity over such a long time?
IF the spot was human occupied for 25k years a lot of rubbish would build up. Maybe it's just a succession of cultures paving over the previous cultures garbage.
"Thirty-four Indonesian scientists signed a petition questioning the motives and methods of the Hilman-Arif team. Archaeologist Víctor Pérez described Natawidjaja's conclusions as pseudoarchaeology. (...) they 'found' something, carbon-dated it, then it looks like they created a civilisation around the period to explain their finding"
The dating of this site is so strange. Why would there be continuous pyramid building at this site for 25k years? How could a culture maintain some kind of cohesive activity over such a long time?
Maybe there was an explanation why people need this pyramid. The explanation could outlive generations through a verbal tradition.
This is one of those things that feels like “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Just going by Bayesian priors, I would say that the chances of the dating being wrong are higher than this pyramid actually having been constructed as a masonry pyramid in 25,000 BCE.
> Over the years 2011 to 2015, they studied the structure using seismic tomography, electrical resistivity tomography and ground-penetrating radar. They also drilled down into the hill and collected core samples that allowed them to use radiocarbon dating techniques to learn the ages of the layers that make up the hill. Here's the full paper: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/arp.1912
This has absolutely nothing to do with assessing the age of the site. I believe them that it's a complex structure with likely underground sites. I do not believe them that it's 25,000 years old.
The age claim is based entirely on radiocarbon dating of organic soils found at the site. The idea seems to be that the humans dug up topsoil containing living roots and recently-dead plant matter (all with atmospheric C14) and used that to build the pyramid, therefore the pyramid must be as old as the organic matter in the soil. There are numerous problems with this.
First, they're assuming the organic matter must be contemporary with the human activities. But if you're building a massive pyramid, surely it's reasonable to dig down to get your soil? The further down they dig, the older the organic matter in the soil would be. They discuss how they handle the possibility of contamination with newer organics, but never seem to discuss how they controlled for contamination from older organics.
Second, they're assuming that all human activity in the area must have been related to the building of the pyramid. It's certainly possible that the pyramid was built on a site that had human activity since 25,000. That is not the same as the structure itself dating back to that time. They do not seem to consider this possibility.
> Organic soil samples obtained from the drill cores and the trenching walls were meticulously selected for 14C dating analysis. These organic samples were believed to contain traces of bio-organic activities during and after the construction phases. However, it is essential to consider potential sources of contamination, such as older carbon sources or recent bio-organism activities, which could impact the dating results.
Their entire argument for the age of the pyramid rests entirely on the sentence "These organic samples were believed to contain traces of bio-organic activities during and after the construction phases." -- they were believed to? Why?
This is one of those things that feels like “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Just going by Bayesian priors, I would say that the chances of the dating being wrong are higher than this pyramid actually having been constructed as a masonry pyramid in 25,000 BCE.
> they say that the evidence from Gunung Padang indicates that advanced construction techniques existed before agriculture was adopted. wow if this is true, this is truly revolutionary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Over the years 2011 to 2015, they studied the structure using seismic tomography, electrical resistivity tomography and ground-penetrating radar. They also drilled down into the hill and collected core samples that allowed them to use radiocarbon dating techniques to learn the ages of the layers that make up the hill. Here's the full paper: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/arp.1912
> Over the years 2011 to 2015, they studied the structure using seismic tomography, electrical resistivity tomography and ground-penetrating radar. This has absolutely nothing to do with assessing the age of the site. I believe them that it's a complex structure with likely underground sites. I do not believe them that it's 25,000 years old. The age claim is based entirely on radiocarbon dating of organic soils found…
Having no expertise myself, I know it's still easy to shoot down anything. That's why I always look to people with expertise, who know what's significant and what's not, because everything in the world is flawed.
It looks like all 7 of their C14 dated samples were simply "organic soil", no artifacts or charcoal. If you're going to build a pyramid by piling soil and rocks, then the soil will be older than the pyramid. The authors don't mention having done any core samples away from the pyramid as a control group. It seems like they have, at best, proved that Gunung Padang contains old soil, without proving anything about the a…