[civilitty]

This is the third time an article about this pyramid has made it to the front page in several weeks. It’s almost certainly BS.

The authors used the SHCal20 radiocarbon dating calibration curve but tested volcanic soil samples. C14 depleted CO2 and carbonate minerals dissolved in groundwater coming from Mount Gede a few miles away will make the samples look significantly older than they actually are.

SHCal20 is meant to be used with drilled samples from bulk material like bone and fossilized plants, not soil samples that are exposed to the elements for thousands of years. C14 concentrations in the atmosphere vary significantly, over time, especially around volcanically active regions so they need to make their own calibration curve for that specific area to get any kind of accuracy.

[edgyquant]

It doesn’t sound like carbon dating was the only, or based on their words even the main, method used. The claim to have used stratigraphy as well and say they need follow ups with carbon dating to be certain.

[AStrangeMorrow]

I think where I have seen people take issue is that there seems to be a push for "10000 year old pyramid". In short the measurements are correct the conclusions wrong.

They split things into 4 big layers, unit 1,2, ancient soil fills and unit 3. With unit 1 the most recent, also split into more find layers. Unit 1 goes to 2000 BCE roughly, 2 to 6000 BCE and then ancient soil 7000-8000 BCE and unit 3 13000 BCE+.

Unit 1 has clear megalithic structures and masonry work.

Unit 2 is more debatable, with stones and possible mortar remnants showing possible masonry work. But it is mostly some long stones and gravel, all with shapes that can occur totally naturally.

After that, ancient soil and Unit 3, from what I could read evidence of proper construction work seems more tenuous, if existant at all. Basically stones and soil.

Basically what the paper finds is some surface level masonry work and some deeper level stones they interpret as masonry while it is VERY debatable. Then they take a deep drill, date it to the paleolithic, and frame it as "paleolithic construction". But what most archeologists are reading is "recent construction with possible traces of humans in the area before"

[civilitty]

From the paper [1]:

> For example, this study demonstrates that the geophysical layers do not necessarily align with the lithological stratigraphy as depicted from borehole data. The discrepancies highlight the need for caution when interpreting the results and emphasize the importance of considering multiple factors and approaches in the analysis.

Which makes sense, since it's a jungle on a volcanically active island. That's a perfect recipe for a very active and varied geology, the kind that would bring up ancient carbon. The errors are likely correlated.

I think it's all just a bunch of wishful thinking - the interpretations they make are very tenuous.

[1] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/arp.1912

[AStrangeMorrow]

Miniminuteman goes over "10000 year old Indonesian pyramid" too in his 4h or so debunking of Graham Hancock ancient civilization Netflix series (the usual "big archeology doesn't want you to know about this prediluvian ancient Atlantean civilization").

Link to the relevant section of the video of this debunking series: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iCIZQX9i1A&list=PLXtMIzD-Y-...

[Qwertious]

>(the usual "big archeology doesn't want you to know about this prediluvian ancient Atlantean civilization").

Which is cartoonishly absurd. Imagine how much easier applying for grants would be if you could write "we may find a 10 000 year old civilization with computers and tech rivaling, possibly even surpassing our own". That's so much better than "we're trying to discover whether 3000-year-old copper picks were usually curved at 5 degrees, or closer to 10 degrees. We suspect it's 7ish".

It's so dumb.

[AStrangeMorrow]

Yes. Archeologists are often frustrated they can't get funding or enough time at specific locations, not a huge cabal thathas access to the world history abd hides it from everyone. And most discoveries are much more mundane (even though still exciting IMHO) that what people would expect, as you said.