[driggs]

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.

[npcompl33t]

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.

[mcguire]

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.