Is the world’s oldest pyramid buried under West Java’s green hills, several millennia older than Egypt’s renowned Djoser Step Pyramid? The assertion is as bold as it is contentious, sparking a worldwide debate that now continues from remote Indonesian rice terraces to the corridors of scholarly journals and the TVs of Netflix subscribers.
At the center of the controversy is Gunung Padang, a megalithic complex situated on the top of an extinct volcano. For decades, its terraced peak littered with gigantic andesite lava blocks was regarded as a sacred natural feature, maybe decorated by previous hands. But recent studies conducted by geologist Danny Hilman Natawidjaja have turned the story on its head. Released in the journal Archaeological Prospection, the researchers’ conclusions are that Gunung Padang could be the oldest pyramid in the world, with the first phase of its construction being at least 25,000 BC when glaciers still held much of the earth in their grasp and agriculture was millennia from existing, according to conventional thinking.
The authors outline a multi-layered complex with a core made from sculpted andesite lava humungous volcanic rock blocks arranged with such intricacy that the team believes they showcase advanced masonry skills. The paper says, This study sheds light on advanced masonry skills dating back to the last glacial period. This finding challenges the conventional belief that human civilization and the development of advanced construction techniques emerged only with the advent of agriculture approximately 11,000 years ago Evidence from Gunung Padang and other sites, such as Gobekli Tepe, suggests that advanced construction practices were already present when agriculture had, perhaps, not yet been invented. The study also asserts that the monument was constructed in phases, radiocarbon dating of core samples reflecting layers as old as 27,000 years making it the oldest known pyramid in the world today.
But the proof has not satisfied everyone. Skeptics cite the lack of decisive evidence of human use no charcoal, no bone, no irrefutable tool marks. Bill Farley, an archaeologist at Southern Connecticut State University, said, “the 27,000-year-old soil samples from Gunung Padang, although accurately dated, do not carry hallmarks of human activity, such as charcoal or bone fragments.” Cardiff University’s Flint Dibble was even more succinct: “Material rolling down a hill is going to, on average, orient itself,” he said to Nature, there’s no evidence of ‘working or anything to indicate that it’s man-made questioning the actual origin of the lower layers of the site.
The controversy has also focused on the science behind the incredible timeline. Natawidjaja’s researchers used a battery of geophysical imaging technologies seismic tomography, electrical resistivity tomography, and ground-penetrating radar (GPR) to scan the hill’s interior. These technologies, commonly employed in Egyptian archaeology to expose hidden tombs and chambers without digging, can identify subsurface anomalies, image stratigraphy, and even suggest concealed voids. At Gunung Padang, such surveys have allegedly shown possible hollow parts inside the structure, suggesting possible hidden chambers. Once again, though, as with other ancient sites, understanding these anomalies is suspect. As illustrated at Saqqara, only the combination of several imaging modalities each with their own capabilities and limitations is capable of beginning to sort out natural formations from human construction detailed subsurface images are necessary to map burial patterns and site organization.
Dating ancient megalithic structures also poses another technical problem. While organic remains are best dated with radiocarbon, this is also used indirectly on megalithic sites based on the associated material and not upon the stones themselves. Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL) dating, determining the sediments’ last exposure to sunlight, has been utilized to define Southeast Asia’s Plain of Jars chronology and, in theory, define the stages of construction at Gunung Padang. OSL dating indicates the jars occupied the locations possibly as far back as the late second millennium BC. But as critics point out, neither method can, on its own, verify a building is the result of intentional human engineering.
Spurring public interest and academic pushback is the impact of mass media. Graham Hancock, whose Netflix documentary series Ancient Apocalypse had millions watching, has promoted Gunung Padang as proof of a lost Ice Age civilization. Hancock’s participation, including his editing of the problematic paper, has elicited stinging criticism from archaeologists who charge him with damaging their profession and of exhibiting racist attitudes towards Indigenous peoples. The Society for American Archaeology stated, After more than a century of professional archaeological investigations, we find no archaeological evidence to support the existence of an ‘advanced, global ice age civilization’ of the kind Hancock suggests. Hancock’s account emboldens extremist voices that distort archaeological knowledge.
In the midst of the controversy, editors at Archaeological Prospection have opened an official inquiry into claims made in the paper, reporting, “The editors, including me, and Wiley ethics team are currently investigating this paper in accordance with Committee on Publication Ethics guidelines.” Natawidjaja, meanwhile, has invited further scrutiny: “We are really open to researchers around the world who would like to come to Indonesia and do some research programme on Gunung Padang.”
For the moment, Gunung Padang is both a tantalizing enigma and a lightning rod for controversy a testament to the long-lasting power of ancient rocks to provoke, inspire, and polarize.
