[HN Gopher] The pyramid of Gunung Padang began construction in t...
___________________________________________________________________
The pyramid of Gunung Padang began construction in the deep past,
study claims
Author : bcaulfield
Score : 35 points
Date : 2023-11-07 18:59 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.vice.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.vice.com)
| lawlessone wrote:
| 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.
| doublerabbit wrote:
| > didn't have the technology to stack stones.
|
| Obviously it's coded in a Python stack or something.
| lawlessone wrote:
| In 100 years I can guarantee someone will suggest Python was
| gifted to us by Aliens.
| feoren wrote:
| "We have intentionally trained them wrong. As a joke."
| ilrwbwrkhv wrote:
| > they say that the evidence from Gunung Padang indicates that
| advanced construction techniques existed before agriculture was
| adopted.
|
| wow if this is true, this is truly revolutionary.
| swader999 wrote:
| Didn't Gobekli Tepe already do this?
| mcguire wrote:
| Along with a stack of related sites nearby, yep.
| RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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.
| feoren wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| mcguire wrote:
| From the ones I've seen, they aren't terribly impressed.
|
| https://twitter.com/jens2go/status/1721625889585148297
| wolverine876 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| dougmwne wrote:
| 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?
| lawlessone wrote:
| Maybe they didn't.
|
| 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.
| ordu wrote:
| It seems it was not countinuous building. Some generations
| really worked on it while others slacked.
|
| Maybe there was an explanation why people need this pyramid.
| The explanation could outlive generations through a verbal
| tradition.
| dharmab wrote:
| Better article with link to paper:
| https://phys.org/news/2023-11-evidence-strongly-indonesia-gu...
| ZunarJ5 wrote:
| Wiki is sceptical: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunung_Padang
| driggs wrote:
| 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.
| mcguire wrote:
| 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.
| simbolit wrote:
| From Wikipedia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunung_Padang ):
|
| "Thirty-four Indonesian scientists signed a petition questioning
| the motives and methods of the Hilman-Arif team. Archaeologist
| Victor Perez 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"
| netsharc wrote:
| They found a way to get a steady research grant...
| wolverine876 wrote:
| 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.
|
| https://phys.org/news/2023-11-evidence-strongly-indonesia-gu...
| Hikikomori wrote:
| Was featured in the Ancient Apocalypse nonsense show on Netflix.
| civilitty wrote:
| Finally, evidence for my theory that the Goa'uld were not the
| first extra terrestrial species to visit Earth and build pyramids
| as landing platforms.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-11-07 23:01 UTC)