[RcouF1uZ4gsC]

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.

[dharmab]

> 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

[feoren]

> 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?

[wolverine876]

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.

[defrost]

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.

[sampo]

> 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...

[wolverine876]

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)?

[defrost]

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.

[mcguire]

From the ones I've seen, they aren't terribly impressed.

https://twitter.com/jens2go/status/1721625889585148297

[feoren]

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.

[wolverine876]

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.

[wolverine876]

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.

[nradov]

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.