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 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.
"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.
> 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.
https://phys.org/news/2023-11-evidence-strongly-indonesia-gu...
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.
Maybe there was an explanation why people need this pyramid. The explanation could outlive generations through a verbal tradition.
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.
wow if this is true, this is truly revolutionary.
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.
Obviously it's coded in a Python stack or something.
Here's the full paper: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/arp.1912
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?
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.
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.
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.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/arp.1912
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/page/journal/10990763/homepa...
Do you happen to be in that field (because you seem to know a lot)?
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.
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.