Controversies on Gunung Padang

THE cancellation of the publication of a scientific paper about Gunung Padang in a prestigious world archaeological journal is the latest addition to the long list of controversies surrounding that prehistoric site in Cianjur, West Java. International research collaboration is needed to uncover the mystery behind that largest terraced mound complex in Southeast Asia.

The paper, entitled Geo-archaeological prospecting of Gunung Padang buried prehistoric pyramid in West Java, Indonesia written by Danny Hilman Natawidjaja and associates, originally appeared in the journal Archaeological Prospection on October 20, 2023. However, on December 1, 2023, John Wiley & Sons Inc., the journal’s publisher, retracted the article.

We can say that the management of the Archaeological Prospection journal was careless, because the publication of that article should have gone through a strict review process. The work of Danny et al was not plagiarism or the result of data theft. Their research is original. Journal curators usually try to keep the richness of science away from the world of fantasy.

Danny et al concluded that the Gunung Padang megalithic site is a pyramid that is older than the Giza Pyramids in Egypt. The Gunung Padang pyramid, according to them, is around 20,000 years old. Meanwhile, the Egyptian pyramids are estimated to be around 4,000 years old.

Their conclusions were based on the results of geoelectric scanning, georadar and geological drilling. They claim that there are man-made structures inside Gunung Padang hill, in the form of large cavities with roofs, walls, and rooms.

Danny’s colleague, archaeologist Ali Akbar, in his book, The Gunung Padang Site, tells of a strange incident that occurred when Andang Bachtiar, a colleague of Danny’s, was drilling at Gunung Padang in August 2013. At that time, 32,000 liters of water used in the drilling were suddenly sucked up into a cavity eight meters below the surface. This, according to Ali, indicates that there is empty space inside Gunung Padang.

Despite their research being supported by advanced technology, it is important to remember that any scientist’s interpretation of the data could be erroneous. The conclusion that there is a man-made space in the bowels of Gunung Padang has not been tested. Moreover, to date, no artifacts have been found inside Gunung Padang.

A number of volcanologists have even concluded that Gunung Padang is the youngest lava plug or dome that has formed in an ancient volcanic crater over thousands of years. They also argue that the cavity inside the former ancient volcano is something natural.

Harry Truman Simanjuntak, a prehistoric archaeologist, also rejected the idea of a man-made space inside Gunung Padang. He argued that the ancestors of the Indonesian archipelago did not make underground buildings for daily life or for sacred rituals. They used natural caves when they need a closed space.

Whatever the theory, the controversy surrounding Gunung Padang has now gone global. Institutions such as the National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN) should invite those foreign researchers who have refuted the views of Danny Hilman et al, and call on them to collaborate with Indonesian scientists. In this way, efforts to find the truth about Gunung Padang will be more productive.