Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The pyramid of Gunung Padang began construction in the deep past, study claims

vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 41 posts

Re: The pyramid of Gunung Padang began construction in the deep past, study claims

#31

Post by defrost »

wolverine876 wrote: post #19
feoren wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

What have independent experts said about it? I see it passed peer review. 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.

Can you link to a certificate of "passing peer review".

The link is to an online Version of Record before inclusion in an issue that's dated October 2023 .. it's rather early to be claiming this is an article widely accepted by the archaelogical community.

Danny Hilman Natawidjaja writes articles such as this every few years, they aren't highly regarded but they are on record, the fact of being published in no way translates to "having passed peer review" beyond the bar of lacking obvious typos.

His past speculations about hidden chambers as evidence of human activity are generally considered as possible evidence of voids most likely related to chambers and tubes in an ancient volcanic site - which a great many remnant volcanoes have.

Re: The pyramid of Gunung Padang began construction in the deep past, study claims

#32

Post by wolverine876 »

defrost wrote: post #31
wolverine876 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What have independent experts said about it? I see it passed peer review. 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.

Can you link to a certificate of "passing peer review". The link is to an online Version of Record before inclusion in an issue that's dated October 2023 .. it's rather early to be claiming this is an article widely accepted by the archaelogical community. Danny Hilman Natawidjaja writes articles such as this every few years, they aren't highly regarded but they are on record, the fact of being published in no way tr…

The OP (or another article) says the journal was peer-reviewed.

Do you happen to be in that field (because you seem to know a lot)?

Re: The pyramid of Gunung Padang began construction in the deep past, study claims

#34

Post by defrost »

wolverine876 wrote: post #32
defrost wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you link to a certificate of "passing peer review". The link is to an online Version of Record before inclusion in an issue that's dated October 2023 .. it's rather early to be claiming this is an article widely accepted by the archaelogical community. Danny Hilman Natawidjaja writes articles such as this every few years, they aren't highly regarded but they are on record, the fact of being published in no way tr…

The OP (or another article) says the journal was peer-reviewed. Do you happen to be in that field (because you seem to know a lot)?

Top of the line journals only publish articles that have been deemed credible and plausible by top of the line experts in the field - this is not a leading publication.

Peer reviewed here means that articles get a once over for gross errors and that conclusions or interpretations that many people in a field might deem to be far fetched still get published and peers can write in and raise issues in review letters, etc.

This is an article that's in an online free for all advance viewing queie - I'd have to check again to see if it even makes the print copy.

I've worked in geophysical exploration and mapping so I understand the data, the instruments, and the way that cooling volcanic flows create large amounts of what appears to be "machined" rocks that fractures in line with internal crystal stucture.

eg: https://askanearthspacescientist.asu.edu/top-question/column...

The site in question here has been worked by humans for sure - but it's unlikely humans crafted a vast pyramid like complex here, and there's no reason to assume humans created any voids, chambers, or deep tunnels that show up on various scans.

Re: The pyramid of Gunung Padang began construction in the deep past, study claims

#35

Post by wolverine876 »

defrost wrote: post #34
wolverine876 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The OP (or another article) says the journal was peer-reviewed. Do you happen to be in that field (because you seem to know a lot)?

Top of the line journals only publish articles that have been deemed credible and plausible by top of the line experts in the field - this is not a leading publication. Peer reviewed here means that articles get a once over for gross errors and that conclusions or interpretations that many people in a field might deem to be far fetched still get published and peers can write in and raise issues in review letters, etc…

Thanks for contributing a little expertise. But otherwise you're responding to someone besides me. I know what peer review means and I never said (or thought) the paper was "widely accepted by the archaelogical community".

Re: The pyramid of Gunung Padang began construction in the deep past, study claims

#36

Post by ZeroGravitas »

A video delving into the background on this when it featured in episode 1 of Hancock's Ancient Apocalypse on Netflix.

https://youtu.be/zU-wQVAqQnk?si=WNb0Ht0Q647WfYub

tl;dw The lead investigator who published this new paper has books about Indonesia being Atlantis.

Apart from the bleating from Hancock about how mainstream archeologists are all useless, and the fake reality show drama, the drone visuals of the sites in the Netflix show are nice.

Re: The pyramid of Gunung Padang began construction in the deep past, study claims

#37

Post by npcompl33t »

driggs wrote: post #11

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…

The soil samples were taken above / below / in between layers that are clearly artificial.

The controversial 24-14,000BC dates are from soil in Unit 3.

Directly above this layer, is a layer of soil that is much younger -- yielding radiocarbon dates of 8000-6000BC

On top of this layer of soil fill, are stacked/cut pieces of columnar basalt, aligned parallel to the ground which does not occur naturally and indicates it is an artificial construction. Dates from soil in this layer yield 6,000-5,000BC

So the age of the soil in this case does indicate ages in which portions of the structure was assembled. You can argue that the soil is "old", but given the time gap, and the fact that it is completely covered by younger soil yielding dates from 8,000BC-7000BC, it seems hard to argue that it was not constructed sometime before at least 8000BCE.

Re: The pyramid of Gunung Padang began construction in the deep past, study claims

#38

Post by wuliwong »

dougmwne wrote: post #7

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?

There are other sites that have continuous occupation and construction over thousands of years. It is really fascinating and I'm not really sure if there's any solid understanding of it but Göbekli Tepe and Jericho seemed to have been inhabited and underwent several different stages of construction over thousands of years.

Re: The pyramid of Gunung Padang began construction in the deep past, study claims

#39

Post by sampo »

defrost wrote: post #31
wolverine876 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What have independent experts said about it? I see it passed peer review. 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.

Can you link to a certificate of "passing peer review". The link is to an online Version of Record before inclusion in an issue that's dated October 2023 .. it's rather early to be claiming this is an article widely accepted by the archaelogical community. Danny Hilman Natawidjaja writes articles such as this every few years, they aren't highly regarded but they are on record, the fact of being published in no way tr…

> Can you link to a certificate of "passing peer review".

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/arp.1912

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/page/journal/10990763/homepa...

Re: The pyramid of Gunung Padang began construction in the deep past, study claims

#40

Post by wuliwong »

swader999 wrote: post #18
ilrwbwrkhv wrote: post #5

> 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.

Didn't Gobekli Tepe already do this?

I've recently been learning about a bunch of sites near Göbekli Tepe and over towards Jericho. It's really fascinating to see the picture that is starting to form regarding the development during those times. I wonder if they did find Gunung Padang to be 20,000 years old if it would even be as impactful in altering the our understanding of timeline of human history as Göbekli Tepe and the other sites of the era have already been. I'm just an archeology fan boy, so maybe I'm completely off base but pushing back the dawn of civilization back 5,000 years before Sumeria was quite the change!
Post reply on HN