Controversy and doubts surrounding the discovery of the ‘oldest pyramid in the world’ | Sciences

The scientific journal that published a study says that A Giant structure Of devastation in Indonesia Maybe ” pyramid Oldest in the World” has now launched an investigation into this extraordinary claim.

the magazine Archaeological excavation The research was published on October 20, but since then a large number of archaeologists have questioned the results.

The study made a “discovery” that the prehistoric pyramid on the island of Java is 27 thousand years old.

What did “discovery” say?

Recent analysis has led scientists to believe that the structure known as Gunung Padang, which means “Mountain of Enlightenment,” was built atop a dormant volcano on Java, Indonesia’s most populous island.

Scientists from Indonesia’s National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN) believe the structure could be much older than Stonehenge in England, or the Great Pyramids of Giza in Egypt, both of which are around 5,000 years old.

They said the pyramid is the oldest monolithic structure (a building or statue made from a single piece of material, usually rock) in the world.

According to them, the conclusion came as a result of research at the site between 2011 and 2015, using techniques such as drilling and ground-penetrating radar.

They believe the construction timeline was approximately as follows:

• Construction may have begun at some point during the last glacial period (the period in which the Earth becomes colder), at least 16,000 years ago and perhaps 27,000 years ago;
• The central part of the temple was probably built between 25,000 and 14,000 BC, but was abandoned for several thousand years;
• Construction may have begun again around 7900 to 6100 BC, at which time the builders appear to have intentionally buried parts of the site;
• The pyramid was likely completed around 2000 to 1100 BC, with the addition of the stone terraces that can be seen on the surface of the volcano today.

Gunung Padang is not a natural hill, but a multi-layered pyramid-shaped structure, says geologist Danny Hillman Natawijaga, a researcher at BRIN.

He and his team collected soil samples deep within the hill and are confident of the validity of the result, mainly due to the high content of organic matter present.

The discovery of what researchers say is a large, multi-level room in the center of the building led them to conclude that Gunung Padang is actually a pyramid.

The team believes that the building and cave paintings at this site have existed since the last ice age.

The geologist told the BBC: “This discovery challenges the traditional belief that human civilization and the development of advanced building techniques emerged during the early Holocene or early Neolithic era.”

“The builders of the second and third floors at Gunung Padang must have had extraordinary building skills – something not in keeping with traditional hunter-gatherer culture,” Natawijaga said.

However, several archaeologists disagree with the conclusions of Ntawijaja’s research – one of them is Indonesian Lutfi Yundari.

Yondry considers the conclusion that Gunung Padang is a buried pyramid to be wrong.

He says it is a “speculative conclusion” based on data that cannot be trusted.

Indonesia has no cultural tradition of building pyramids.

“The question is: Has anyone ever buried a pyramid in a mountain in the archipelago?” Yondry says. “When did people bury pyramids in mountains? How much material was needed to create a mountain?”

Yondry states that Gunung Padang is an example of the most typical Indonesian structure.

He told the BBC: “Did Indonesia have a hierarchical culture? No. The people of the archipelago had stone terraces.”

Stone terraces are table-shaped rock structures used in ancestor worship ceremonies.

It is believed that Gunung Padang was used for this type of ritual. Yondry states that this makes it likely that Gunung Padang is actually a set of stone terraces and not a pyramid.

Yondry also questioned the samples used in the research, saying it was not possible to guess about their origin without taking into account the cultural context.

The BBC made several attempts to contact the magazine Archaeological excavationbut she did not receive any response.

However, the co-editor of Archaeological excavation Eileen Ernnewen, an archaeological geophysicist at Tennessee State University in the US, said in an email to the academic journal: nature The investigation into the published article is still ongoing. It will follow the guidelines of the agreement with the Publications Ethics Committee.

Natawidjaja told the BBC that there was no need for an investigation because his research team adhered to all ethical standards and their findings were subjected to a rigorous nine-month review process by the scientific journal.