3 ms·

> Over the years 2011 to 2015, they studied the structure using seismic tomography, electrical resistivity tomography and ground-penetrating radar. They also dr

> 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 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/arp.1912

feoren 3y ago
> 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 3y ago
  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 3y ago
    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 3y ago
      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 3y ago
    From the ones I've seen, they aren't terribly impressed. https://twitter.com/jens2go/status/1721625889585148297 https://twitter.com/jens2go/status/1721625889585148297
  - defrost 3y ago
    Can you link to a certificate of "passing peer review". 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.

feoren 3y ago

> 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 3y ago
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 3y ago
  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 3y ago
    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 3y ago
  From the ones I've seen, they aren't terribly impressed. https://twitter.com/jens2go/status/1721625889585148297 https://twitter.com/jens2go/status/1721625889585148297
- defrost 3y ago
  Can you link to a certificate of "passing peer review". 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.