Some time ago, the media reported about "the largest and most ancient pyramid" found in the western part of Java. Here is the mound-like structure Gunung Padang, covered with stone blocks. Now a team of researchers has excavated the site and presented a poster presentation on the sensational results at a scientific conference in Washington. It turns out that the complex consists of 3 parts, which were built one on top of the other. Of greatest interest is the lowest layer, consisting of stone blocks mixed with soil. This soil was dated by radiocarbon and received incredible dates: 9.5-28 thousand years ago! The age of those above the first and second layers, respectively, is 3000 - 3500 and 7500 - 8300 years.
Confused only that among the authors of the report there is not a single archaeologist. The conference itself is also far from archeology in terms of topics.
We turned for a comment to the geologist Pavel Selivanov, who got acquainted with the poster materials of the researchers from Java.
Here's what he writes:
First, it is alarming and a little annoying that this structure was called a pyramid. Yes, of course, it looks like a pyramid, but with the same success a pyramid, it seems to me, can be called any hill or mound. Pyramid sounds beautiful and contributes to the buzz in the media. However, as the authors of the poster themselves say, the mountain is originally a tertiary volcano (the Tertiary period is officially an outdated and abolished name for the Paleogene and Neogene, nevertheless, often used by foreign geologists) on which megalithic structures were erected. No one doubts the man-madeness of the upper part - the terraces and the stone blocks located on them, but the authors of the work argue that under them and the accompanying cultural layer there are two more layers of the same anthropogenic origin.
Material evidence
As indicated in the poster, the megaliths are composed of columns of basalt and andesite composition, formed as a result of their natural separation. Layer-2 consists of the same columns, only laid horizontally.
Promotional video:
In the photo we are shown trenches and pits, where layer 2 was opened.
The fragment in the first photo can be either a product of natural platy or parallelepipedal detachment, or artificial masonry. The formations in the second photo (and others) strongly resemble a columnar joint, with the only difference that the columnar joint is most often oriented vertically, but here the columns are horizontal. But this is by no means a law; the pillars of separateness are oriented across the cooling front, which can be oriented both horizontally (in lava lakes and gentle flows) and obliquely, up to vertical, in dike bodies. So horizontal stacking of columns is exotic, but by no means forbidden for natural formations (here are examples).
As for the loose material between the pillars and slabs, it can be either a product of their weathering, or brought in from higher horizons. The drilling results also do not clarify the picture.
Thus, it is rather problematic to draw an unambiguous conclusion about man-madeness from the presented photos. Now, if the pillars were laid there in some way impossible for natural objects, for example, in the form of "woodpiles" as on the Nan Madol archipelago, then, undoubtedly, the answer would be positive. Otherwise, I would rather bet on the option of natural origin, as a simpler one.
Geophysical research
I must make a reservation right away that I am not a geophysicist and not an expert in the interpretation of geophysical data. But still, being a geologist, I have more or less adequate ideas. "I'm not a doctor, but I can see."
Any interpretation of geophysical data is probabilistic, but here we see an example of very bold and, at times, contradictory interpretations.
The area with a resistance of more than 50 KΩ / m (apparently, this is the instrumental limit for the used device) is highlighted by a dotted line and is interpreted by the authors as a kind of cavity. At the same time, it must be said that this value lies within the limits of variations in the resistance of natural rocks, for example, basalts. In addition, on the profile, we see that this area is part of some kind of "layer", generally characterized by increased resistance, i.e. it fits into a general, apparently natural trend. On the same profile, the low resistivity areas are interpreted as flooded. It is quite plausible, but the authors did not think this was enough and they suggested that one of them is a man-made reservoir. Why would it suddenly? After all, no other evidence of the reservoir has been provided. And why the reservoir is not another, larger area than it is worse?
But on the other profile, the area with reduced resistances is already interpreted as a tunnel / chamber! Bearing in mind that the mountain is a long extinct volcano, it seems most logical that it was there that the mouth of the volcano and the central depression were located. In such dips, water often accumulates and lakes are formed. If this was the case, the rocks under the influence of water in the central part should be moistened and subjected to chemical weathering, which will lead to a decrease in their resistance and the speed of passage of elastic waves through them. But for some reason the authors want to see a camera in this.
The most important thing is that all these areas are not certified by drilling, so there can be a lot of options for what they are, because by itself, any geophysical data does not have an unambiguous interpretation.
It is useful to recall the story when the media trumpeted the discovery of a new camera in the Cheops pyramid, while the authors of the study themselves, even after numerous filming and rechecking, spoke out very cautiously, bearing in mind the alternative options. Here we see an overly bold approach and a desire to see a specific scenario.
It should be added that the presence of emptiness, if it were proved, is not a guarantee of its man-made nature.
Here is what the radiocarbon dating specialist, Ph. D. Yaroslav Kuzmin:
Little can be said for now, including - I'm not sure that layers 2 and 3 are artificial. This requires more data, which is not in the poster. As for the age of layer 3, the soil material is not very reliable. The reference date should be taken not 22,750 years ago, but the latest - 8700 years ago, or about 9670 calendar years ago. You need to be very careful with such "sensational" materials until you get a complete picture, including what layers 2 and 3 are made of and how they work.
Typically, soil material (ie humus) penetrates the underlying sediments and mixes with the "old" humus, rejuvenating the date. Confused by this phrase: "assuming they were derived from bio-organic activities after constructions" ("provided that they were obtained as a result of bio-organic activity after construction"). What are these activities, and who are their carriers? It is clear that the stones themselves cannot be dated to 14C, which means something else. And how is this different connected with the time of construction, and why are the stones of artificial origin? There are no answers to these questions yet, which means that the data is very raw, and you cannot completely trust them.
