Talk:Gunung Padang

Unclear

Apart from the initial description of the site in the introduction this article has either been written with someone with poor English or who has used an automated translation tool without correcting the output. It is very difficult to understand and does not seem to have a clear narrative. Lumos3 (talk) 18:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Fixed style. Fascinating article. Don't hold the "Atlantis" mention in the recently linked article against it, it cites scientific researches. Chris Rodgers (talk) 02:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Just a note Gunung Padang, I think this is bullshit while John Sinclair remains in prison..... while impressive, is much much smaller than Angkor Wat, by far and away the largest megalithic ruin in SE Asia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.166.220.16 (talk) 13:32, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

recent unsourced critical information

While I applaud his or her work and am grateful for the serious skepticism brought to bear on this subject, Hiyabulldog's recent additions are completely unsourced and read like personal assessments. It would be great if they could be sourced properly. - Metalello ^talk 04:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

@Metalello: True. This is serious fringe stuff, with claims it is Atlantis (from the geologist working on it) or Mu. However, I've found a couple of useful sources. Jason Colavito[1], The Australian and this. Doug Weller (talk) 11:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

@Doug Weller Looks good, though the theaustralian.com link is subscriber only. Want to put them in? - Metalello ^talk 13:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Hm, I read the Australian.com one. Weird. I don't have time right now to edit the article, feel free. Doug Weller (talk) 15:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

It's unclear why "non-mainstream" assessments of this site are being referred to as "fringe," especially in light of discoveries in Turkey, i.e, Gobekli Tepi, as well as underwater discoveries on the now-submerged continent Sundaland. There was megalithic construction taking place as early as 10,000 BP in other regions, why not here? The impartiality of the scientists claiming this site to be a volcanic basin is also seriously in question, especially considering the internat political environment of the government and academic communities in Malaysia. The critical academics seem very very opposed to even considering investigation, which leads me to question what they are concerned about. Why not let the physical evidence speak for itself? The evidence unearthed so far clear warrants further investigation if nothing else. (talk) 26 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.36.82.9 (talk)

I came here because of nonsense about this being "Atlantis" in the "alternative media. However, I have to share concerns about the criticism section which is, while not illogical, still original research. Unless someone can come up with some sources that substantiate, the section I can see little choice but to remove it. By the way, I think you are being a bit unfair on Danny Hilman Natawidjaja. As far as I can see he has made no claims that this site is "Atlantis". These claims have been proposed by people with far greater imaginations. --Reallynot (talk) 07:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Ignore that last bit. Sorry. Just found his book. --Reallynot (talk) 07:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Reallynot, I was just checking to see if we mention Atlantis in the article - which of course we don't. We do make some statements about carbon dating using an almost 2 year old article from this fringe site which I'm not sure belong. The article really needs work. Doug Weller (talk) 08:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

On communication between scientific fields (offtopic)

I as a scientist feel that very little communication exists between the so called experts in archeology and people who are real experts in fields like genetics, geology, physics and chemistry. These are the real sciences and archeology is pseudo science. Anyone dare to dispute me, then we can take the argument further. Venkatesh Ramakrishnan, USA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.45.117.129 (talk) 17:37, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Such a discussion would be out of place here. If there are specific sources that you wish to query, probably the best place is WP:RSN. I will note that you don't seem to understand what archaeologists do, as they use all of those sciences and more, either by bringing in consultants or through their own training. I know this from practical experience, and our article on Archaeology states that "archaeology relies on cross-disciplinary research. It draws upon anthropology, history, art history, classics, ethnology, geography, geology, linguistics, semiology, physics, information sciences, chemistry, statistics, paleoecology, paleontology, paleozoology, paleoethnobotany, and paleobotany." If you wish to discuss this further I'll do that either at my talk page or yours. Doug Weller (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Archeology is not a pseudo-science, not as horoscope. Indonesia is not a rich country, so fund for archeological activities is very less, may be some rich countries do the same thing due to they are not so concern about archeological activities. Many archeologists in rich countries hunt artefacts and dinosaurus fossils after a storm occur and the top soil is disclosed, because it is the cheapest way. In Gunung Padang, Indonesia do structural excavation, make many rectangular pits and analyze layer per layer of the soil and the structure. It is expensive way, but accurate. Indonesia has advantage due to qualified workers under intact supervision got only low wages, although still high compare to other kind job of workers due to structural excavation needs time and patience. For example, other dicipline such as geology is used for supporting only to know the Gunung Padang structure is a massive structure or build only on the surface of the hill, to know if there are any chamber(s) in the structure and how roughly size and shape of the structure.Gsarwa (talk) 13:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

An interesting discussion about this alleged discovery

See [2] Can't use it as a source of course. Doug Weller talk 19:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Pseudoarchaeology

The current article bases itself a lot on sources that are notoriously unreliable (pseudoarchaeology advocates). Reverting to the previous revision Special:Permalink/968682294 before their insertion may be a solution... —PaleoNeonate – 15:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I would certainly support this and see it as an improvement to the article. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 16:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Go for it. I was thinking about that myself. Doug Weller talk 17:02, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Quality of the article

I don't know how to do this, but this page needs a box flagging that it is of sub-acceptable quality and needs fixing. Two examples: First, in the first sentence of the article, it mentions controversial carbon-dating which if substantiated would place construction at 20,000 years BCE. But nowhere in the rest of the page does it discuss who did this dating, the details of that analysis, and what the pros and cons of that analysis are. Second, under the heading "Criticism", "Hilman-Arif" is mentioned, and addressed -- but there is no mention of these individuals in the preceding discussion. Who are they, and what is this reference about? Markcymru (talk) 21:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

- I, too, was wondering who Hilman and Arif (or a single person, Hilman-Arif?) were. 86.27.101.124 (talk) 09:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Atlantis claim by geologist Danny Hilman Natawidjaja

See [3] His self-published book.[4] Book by Graham Hancock discussing it with him.[5] This might be useful even if not as a source.[6] Doug Weller talk 16:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Additional citations for article

A paper that discusses the history of the various claims / interpretations of the Gunung Padang Site is:

Kaharudin, H.A. and Asyrafi, M., 2019. Archaeology in the making of nations: The juxtaposition of postcolonial archaeological study. Amerta, 37(1), pp.55-69.

This paper provides addition published citations for sources about this site.

It can be found at:

Researchgate copy

Hendri A. F. Kaharudin, senior coauthor, Researchgate Profile

AcademiaEdu copy

Sematic Scholar copy Paul H. (talk) 22:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 12:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Also Indonesian Geologist says region is perfect match for Plato’s Atlantis and RI was home to Atlantis, says geologist. Love the quote in that last one from Hilman's book:"'€œThe story of Atlantis in Plato'€™s dialogue was based on facts, not fiction. This claim has been confirmed by Solon, a well respected Greek legislator who lived 150 years before Plato,'€ Danny says in the book." Of course Plato made up the Solon dialogue.[7] Doug Weller talk 20:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

A Review of The Missing Lands: Uncovering Earth’s Pre-Flood Civilization

National Geographic Indonesia 2012 National Archaeological Center: No Pyramids and Atlantean Civilization in the Archipelago

2013 The Megalithic Site Polemic Still Continues\ Indonesian Megaliths: A Forgotten Cultural Heritage By Tara Steimer-Herbet · 2018 pdf at [8].

[9] not an rs, might have something useful as is [10] Doug Weller talk 14:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Heading Pseudoarcheology

I've restored the heading Age estimates. There are both archeological and pseudo-archeological views described in the section, so the text is where to say which is which, not an inaccurate heading. The section should in fact be expanded with any additional views which might have been suggested by other parties. Skyerise (talk) 17:27, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, this strikes me as giving undue weight to the pseudoarchaeological claims of great antiquity. The fact that there is one pre contra view expressed at the end does not, to me, require this change, and in fact makes the article worse. Dumuzid (talk) 17:30, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

It's clearly mentioned in the text which view is pseudo. Putting it in the heading smears any legitimate archeologist also mentioned in the section. Are we assuming readers can't read now? Skyerise (talk) 17:32, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Your concern for the reputation of archaeologists is touching. We shall see where consensus lies. Dumuzid (talk) 17:33, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Overemphasis in a section heading falls under WP:UNDUE and against the guidance at Wikipedia:Criticism#"Controversy" section. Skyerise (talk) 17:37, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:FLAT does a good job of summing up what my position would be. As I say, consensus will decide. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Truman Simanjuntak's estimate was made in rebuttal of these wild claims, so it's not entirely besmirching to have him under such heading as long as we make clear that he belongs to the critics of baseless sensationalism. I have added a source with a proper scientific dating in the same section following Truman Simanjuntak's estimate. Maybe we should flip the structure to start with the "boring" but solid research results, and mention the wilder stuff after that. We don't have to follow the structure of earlier versions of the article that initially reflected the meta-topic (= the media hype surrounding the site) rather than the topic itself. –Austronesier (talk) 19:00, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I see "Pseudoarchaeology" sections as more akin to "In popular culture" than "Criticism" or "Controversy" sections. We follow due weight by not presenting fringe views alongside mainstream ones. The description "pseudoarchaeology" is generally not controversial to anyone except the proponents. – Joe (talk) 13:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Sutikno Bronto quote

I'm not sure if this is correct:

• Vulcanologist Sutikno Bronto has stated that the site is the neck of an ancient volcano and not a man-made structure,[7] despite the observed existence of man-made retaining walls.[3]

AFAICS, Sutikno Bronto only counters the claim that the entire elevation is man-made (which is implied by the term "pyramid"). I don't think that he considers the site built along the slopes of the summit not to be man-made. So it should better go:

• Vulcanologist Sutikno Bronto has stated that the elevation is the neck of an ancient volcano and not a man-made pyramid.

This is a clear rebuttal directed at Danny Hilman, but not calling basic consensus (mountain: natural; stone structures: man-made) into question . –Austronesier (talk) 13:29, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this conclusion. the "despite" clause above is a bit of a non-sequitur. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:47, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

@Austronesier:I translated all 43 pages of Garcia (2007) from Spanish to English by dropping a PDF of it into Google Translate and pressing "start." Footnote 29 on page 80 translated as:

"29 The Indonesian volcanologist Sutikno Bronto, for example, in his criticism of Danny Hilman for his ignorance of this field of geology in which he is not a specialist, categorically states that "Gunung Padang is simply the neck of a volcano, not a pyramid ancient...".

This collaborates User Austronesier's analysis of what Dr. Sutikno Bronto said. I will try Google Translation on some Indonesian PDFs when I have time.

References

García, L.C.P., 2017. Gunung Padang y el megalitismo indo-malayo: Arqueología y pseudoarqueología. Arqueoweb: Revista sobre Arqueología en Internet, 18(1), pp.62-104. Paul H. (talk) 04:14, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Paper about excavations at Gunung Padang

A paper, which has potentially useful information, that I came across:

Sulistyowati, D. and Foe, A.W., 2021. Indonesia's Own ‘pyramid’: The Imagined Past and Nationalism of Gunung Padang. International Review of Humanities Studies, 6(1). pp. 125-137. Paul H. (talk) 03:00, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@Paul H.: This is a good secondary source for the media attention surrounding the site, although I would not fully subscribe to its theoretical analysis. I have finally discovered the "ultimate" source for Gunung Padang, a 400-page book by Lutfi Yondri, an archaeologist at the West Java Bureau of Archaeology, based on his dissertation:

• Lufti Yondri (2017), Situs Gunung Padang: Kebudayaan, Manusia, dan Lingkungan, Bandung: CV. Semiotika.

Here's a short news report about the book release. I hope I can get hold of a copy. For the time being, we have to make do with this paper by the same author: doi:10.5614/sostek.itbj.2014.13.1.1. –Austronesier (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I have a PDF of that paper and an English translation of it. It and other PDFs of papers by Yondri are either available from or listed at Lutfi Yondri Academic.edu papers and Lutfi Yondri Researchgate papers. The academic.edu link has the most papers, which I have not fully explored. Your paper is:

Yondri, L., 2014. Punden Berundak Gunung Padang Refleksi Adaptasi Lingkungan dari Masyarakat Megalitik. Jurnal Sosioteknologi, 13(1), pp.1-14.

Google translation has an option for translating papers and other multipage publications that works amazingly and acceptably well in translating Indonesian to English.Paul H. (talk) 01:29, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Paper about Local and Regional Geology of Gunung Padang

I obtained a PDF of published journal paper, Bronto and Langi (2017), about the local and regional geology of Gunung Padang and was able to translate all of this paper. It concluded:

Dengan demikian dapat dinyatakan bahwa Gunung Padang adalah bentukan alam gunung api, dan hanya di bagian permukaan balok-balok batunya ditata orang pada masa lalu sebagai tempatyang sakral atau pemujaan.

Google Translate translated this text as:

Thus it can be stated that Mount Padang is a natural formation of volcano, and only on the surface of the stones is arranged by people in the past as a sacred place or worship.

Reference cited:

Bronto, S. and Langi, B.B., 2017. Geologi Gunung Padang dan Sekitarnya, Kabupaten Cianjur–Jawa Barat. Jurnal Geologi dan Sumberdaya Mineral, 17(1), pp.37-49. Paul H. (talk) 20:09, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Google Translate almost got it right, but made a wrong parse with the string of nouns in the second part of the sentence. It should read:

Thus it can be stated that Gunung Padang is a natural volcanic formation, and only on its surface, stone slabs were arranged by people in the past as a sacred place or place of worship.

–Austronesier (talk) 21:12, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Again covering old dated science

Interesting how new findings are attacked with technisisms. Please change something to more NPOV. Thanks JKim (talk) 22:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@JKim How is it not NPOV? Although I see you wanted to use this proposal that aliens built pyramids in China[https://web.archive.org/web/20090823095054/http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/east/06/20/china.aliens/] so do you want us to take seriously the Atlantis claim? Doug Weller talk 17:02, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Series Ancient Apocalypse

Graham Hancock and Danny Hilman Natawidjaja are now saying up to 24,000 years old, not just 20,000. How can we reference this? 82.35.81.189 (talk) 12:51, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

We need a reliable source that formally publishes the not only all of the apparent C14 ages, but a descriptions of the type of carbon source that was dated, how the sample was pretreated, and standard deviation (sigma) on the ages. Because without this background data and methodology, it is impossible for thrid parties to interpret whether they are true C14 dates are just apparent C14 ages. Any claim for an actual date dating is meaningless without such supplemental data associated with an radiocarbon age being published. Also, all of the C14 ages need to be disclosed, instead of the one C14 age that support a theory. Interpreting C14 ages as actual dates requires full transparency as to what was dated, all of the dates obtained, supplementary data associated with an age, and so forth, which is now the standard practice. A simple interview does not meet the required complete transparency for using radiocarbon dates.

Also, detailed descriptions of the cores from which the carbon samples came are needed. Without them, there is no way that scientists can independently evaluate whether the carbon came from bedrock, fill, or translocated humic material and why one age (22,770 BP) was chosen over others (11,000 BP) as a valid date. Misinterpretations do happen. In the case of the Bosnian pseudopyramids, an apparent C14 age of at 29,200 BP from Miocene bedrock was misinterpreted as a real date that had chronological significance rather than indicating a diagenetic mixture of old and new carbon.

According to a lecture slide of Lutfi Yondri and M. Hum, a sample from Boring 2 that is "dated" to 11,000 BP lies 0.5 meter (-8.0 m depth) below a sample that is "dated" at 22,770 BP (-7.5 m depth). Also in Boring 2, another a sample that is "dated" to 19,410 BP lies 3.3 meters (-11.3 m depth) below the sample that is "dated" at 22,770 BP (-8.0 m). That there are two younger C14 ages lies stratigraphically beneath an older C14 age, one of which is 11,770 years younger than the overlying older date indicate that there has been either significant stratigraphic mixing of samples or diagenetic mixing of younger and older carbon as to scramble their chronologic order. Given the stratigraphic confusion of the C14 ages and lack of any context, descriptions of the cores, samples, and methodology need to be published and discussed before any chronological significance can be assigned to any of these ages. Paul H. (talk) 16:24, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

"Additional note": There is a discussion of dating of Gunung Padang in “Pyramids Part 3: Radiocarbon at Gunung Padang” by Rebecca Bradley. Although good for background information, this is not considered a reliable source and cannot be used in Wikipedia. But is does show that a source more than a simple interview is needed as a source for the age of Gunung Padang. Paul H. (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

If we really want to have an update about Danny Hilman Natawidjaja's datings: instead of making reference to the current Hancock Netflix show, we can actually cite Sulistyowati & Foe (2021) here (first mentioned by Paul H. in an earlier section). Written mainly from a sociological perspective, it contains important insights about the way the research results of Danny Hilman Natawidjaja and his TTRM-team are produced and communicated:

The legacy of TTRM’s research at Gunung Padang is difficult to evaluate. Most of the discourse regarding the site’s interpretation occurred via the medium of television, newspapers, and social media, which bypass the traditional scientific check-and-balances system of peer-review. (Sulistyowati & Foe 2021, p. 133)

TTRM’s research, however, was focused on seeking evidence for a pyramid structure underneath the site. As such, TTRM was much more focused on vertical excavations and employed a more destructive excavation method. The lack of rigorous methodology meant that any data gathered by TTRM is unlikely to be useful for future studies, and the portion of the site TTRM excavated no longer has archaeological meaning. At the same time, however, TTRM’s focus on establishing a calendar date introduced C-14 dating, which was a novel approach at the site. Their C-14 dating produced wildly ranging dates of between 3000 years BP to 28,000 years BP (Natawidjaja et al. 2018). (Sulistyowati & Foe 2021, p. 133)

"Natawidjaja et al. (2018)" refers to a conference poster presentation, not a peer-reviewed research paper. So we have a reliable secondary source that adequately reports about the claims by Danny Hilman Natawidjaja and team, including their ante-antediluvian date estimate (28,000 BP). –Austronesier (talk) 17:09, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I'm pleased something has been found that we can use. Next question, shouldn't there be something in Danny Hilman Natawidjaja about this? Doug Weller talk 17:19, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I've added a sentence there mentioning the TTRM activities of DHN. –Austronesier (talk) 14:15, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

@Austronesier shouldn't we mention his dating and his revised dates? Doug Weller talk 15:34, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Dr. Danny Hilman Natawidjaja

Recently, an edit has been made adding the title "Dr." before Danny Hilman Natawidjaja. The edit has been reverted, and the revert reverted.

I think the title should not be included, since it is generally omitted in other Wikipedia articles. For example, the article Gravitational Waves mentions many physicists and mathematicians who hold PhD's, but does not introduce any of them as "Dr."

Moreover, other PhD's in the present article are not introduced as "Dr." (see Rogier Verbeek and Harry Truman Simanjuntak). What is so special about Danny Hilman Natawidjaja?

A relevant section in the Manual of Style is MOS:PHD which says:

Post-nominal letters for academic degrees following the subject's name (such as Steve Jones, PhD; Margaret Doe, JD) may occasionally be used within an article where the person with the degree is not the subject, to clarify that person's qualifications with regard to some part of the article, though this is usually better explained in descriptive wording. Avoid this practice otherwise.

Thus, we should prefer more descriptive qualifications such as "geologist", "archaeologist", or "expert in earthquake geology" (as is already done in the article). As for the the use of "Dr." as opposed to "PhD", the Manual of Style is quite explicit:

Per the guideline on titles of people, prefix titles such as Mr, Dr, and Prof. should not be used.

— MOS:CONTRACTION

Finally, any readers curious about his credentials can simply go to his page, where it is clear enough that he has a PhD.

To avoid an edit war, I'd like to have a discussion here and hopefully reach WP:Consensus. (User:Skyerise, User:Paul H.)

P.S.: I noticed "Dr." is used for one of the other people in this article: "Dr. Nicolaas Johannes Krom (Dutch archaeologist)". My view is that we should remove it from here too. Furthermore, "Dutch archaeologist" should definitely not be in parentheses as it is the main description for Dr. Krom. Burritok (talk) 02:49, 30 November 2022 (UTC)