Last November, a study published in the journal “Archaeological Prospection” shook the world of archaeology with the claim that the Gunung Padang pyramid, located in Indonesia, could have been built by an unknown human civilization approximately 25,000 years ago. With this publication they had implied that the pyramid is even older than iconic constructions such as the Egyptian Pyramids or Göbekli Tepe in Turkey. However, recent developments have led the journal to retract the original publication due to an error they made in the interpretation of the data. The long-hidden enormous pyramid structure might represent the remains of an ancient temple hid underground for thousands of years.
The Gunung Padang pyramid, whose name roughly translates as “mountain of enlightenment” has been the subject of interest and debate in the archaeological community for years. Led by geologist Danny Hilman Natawidjaja of the Indonesian Institute of Science, the study employed advanced techniques such as tomography and radiocarbon analysis to examine the archaeological site without damaging it, revealing subway structures and hidden chambers as yet unexplored. The research team has 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.
The original study suggested that soil samples taken from the deeper layers of the mound indicated an age of approximately 27,000 years. These samples, according to the study, showed evidence of multiple phases of construction giving indications that they were built near the Paleolithic era. However, although the geological data collected is reliable, the conclusions drawn from the study have been the subject of scrutiny and scepticism by other experts in the field who took the opportunity to review the article.
Flint Dibble, an archaeologist at Cardiff University, said that while the data collected by the study was “legitimate,” the conclusions they reached were difficult to justify, as he emphasized that the soil samples did not show evidence of human activity, they were looking for something like skeletal remains or tools, but simply indicated the age of the soil. Furthermore, he pointed out that the pyramid formation was not unusual, as the material seen downhill is already self-oriented. According to the researchers, preliminary radiocarbon dating suggests the first layer could be up to approximately 3,500 old years old, the second layer somewhere around 8,000 years old, and the third layer in the vicinity of 9,500 to 28,000 years old.
After careful analysis of the criticisms and concerns raised by the archaeological community, the journal “Archaeological Prospection” decided to retract the original study. According to the journal, the biggest mistake they made was that the radiocarbon dating was applied to soil samples that were not associated with any artifacts or features that could be reliably interpreted as the result of any human activity, and they are correct how could they take an artifact without first studying possible human manipulation? Therefore, the claim that the Gunung Padang pyramid was built more than 9,000 years ago is incorrect and the study has been withdrawn from the journal in which it was published.
However, in response to the retraction, the authors of the study defended their findings, boasting that it was unfair what they had done and made it public in a Facebook post, stating that the structures had been shown to be man-made constructions and not natural geological formations. They made it clear that these layers were accompanied by very small and portable artifacts, providing tangible evidence that the hand of man had an intervention and that it is perfectly demonstrable.
Despite the appeals of the research group, the mystery of the Gunung Padang pyramid and what its origin really remains a mystery. Although the recent study and its subsequent retraction have generated a great stir and discussions in the archaeological community, more research and analysis are required to determine precisely the history and purpose of this well-known structure.
