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 age of the pyramid itself.
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.
This is actually one of the major criticisms I've seen from archaeologists and geologists. The dating is from core samples (and apparently poorly done ones) with no related context showing actual human activity.
"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"
You can't carbon date human activity, you can carbon date the point that organic material stopped growing. If you carbon date some partially burned wood found in the remains of a fireplace, then you can be pretty confident the fireplace was built around the time the tree the wood came from was cut down. And the better you can prove that what you found was actually a fireplace and that the sample actually came from inside it, the more confident you can be that the date you got relates to human activity.
If you just dig a hole in the ground, find some organic material, and carbon date it, you can be pretty confident that there were plants growing in the area in the past, but that's all you've discovered.
Guess which approach to carbon dating was followed here?
There's basically zero evidence presented that the pyramid was constructed 16k years ago, but they have made a strong case that there were plants growing in Indonesia 16k years ago. ...not that this was ever in any doubt, mind you.
The Phys.org article paints a much more clear picture:
> More specifically, the researchers found evidence of several efforts that together over time, added up to a completed structure. The first consisted of sculpted lava—where builders had carved shapes onto the top of a small, dead volcano. Then, several thousand years later, sometime between 7900 to 6100 BCE, another group added a layer of bricks and rock columns. Some unknown time later, another group added a dirt layer to part of the hill, covering some of the earlier work. Then sometime between 2000 and 1100 BCE yet another group added more top soil, stone terracing, and other elements.
> The research team has also found some evidence suggesting there might be some hollow parts inside the structure, suggesting possible hidden chambers. They plan to drill down to them and then lower a camera to see what might be in these areas.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
> 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 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?
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.
You're right of course, and I certainly don't have that expertise. I am literally just some rando on the internet. But they are points I'd like to see addressed before we start rewriting our understanding of human history.
Fair enough, but I don't think anyone is leaping to the rewriting; it's just one paper.
FWIW, I've seen archeologists use soil samples in similar ways and I've had the same questions. At least at times, it's seen as legimate; that's all I know.
Right. We never get to extraordinary discoveries without taking this first step. I don't know about you, but I have never taken such a step, putting my name and reputation out there, dedicating my life to an extraordinary, possibly unlikely chance at significant new knowledge for the world.
What is the extraordinary claim? If we look at the evidence from a neutral perspective with no preconceived notions, the evidence for a newer construction date doesn't seem particularly stronger than an older one. Modern Homo sapiens has been around at least 160,000 years so they could have potentially been building structures at any time after that. We really don't know how long it took humans to develop basic masonry and only a tiny fraction of the artifacts from the deep past have ever been found.
I fail to see how Bayesian priors have any relevance here. And numbers were assign are going to be largely guesses not based on real hard evidence.
It's going to rewrite every pyramid conspiracy theory. Someone is probably already recording a video about how stone age people didn't have the technology to stack stones.
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.