Hacker News Reader

Comment by romanhn | Hacker News Reader

According to Wikipedia, the accepted dating is much more recent (~2kyo).

> Thirty-four Indonesian scientists signed a petition questioning the motives and methods of the Hilman-Arif team. Archaeologist Víctor Pérez described Natawidjaja's conclusions as pseudoarchaeology.

View on HN

Wikipedia is singularly unreliable on prehistory, being curated largely by retired history professors out to defend whatever they argued back in grad school.

What matters more than petitions is actual surface luminescence measurements.

They've taken subsequent radiocarbon dates and they're much more recent. OSL is a newer, more expensive technique that performs poorly in wet, volcanic rock, much less in an area that probably doesn't have highly refined curves. It's likely that no one has taken any samples.

> retired history professors

I would still rate this group as more reliable than pseudo archeologists with a political agenda.

A former (or current) history professor who blocks reporting of current measurements is a psuedo-what-have-you.

A very current example is Younger Dryas Impact deniers. (Note that doubting the Impact actually caused the Younger Dryas cold spell does not by itself make one such a denier.)

You're right. That does not make the absurd claims about that site being 20k year old any less absurd though.

> Younger Dryas Impact

Is a hypothesis a not somehow proven fact. Barely even a theory.

As of 2019 it is fact. You would need to come up with something else to account for all the evidence. The only remotely plausible alternative would be volcanism, but without sulfur.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com