Challenging Depositional Integrity and Taphonomic Bias: A Geoarchaeological Empirical Reassessment of Anthropogenic Occupation vs Geological Formation Chronologies at Gunung Padang

This study presents a critical geoarchaeological reassessment of Gunung Padang, Indonesia’s widely debated megalithic site, through comprehensive stratigraphic analysis, sedimentology, and taphonomic evaluation of depositional layers. Challenging previous interpretations that propose an early Pleistocene-age pyramid (∼20,000 BP), the research employs a comprehensive interdisciplinary approach integrating micromorphology, radiocarbon dating, and geophysical surveys to systematically differentiate natural geological formations from anthropogenic modifications. The results demonstrate that the site’s structural elements, including columnar basalt arrangements previously interpreted as architectural features, are primarily the product of volcanic processes rather than human construction. Stratigraphic and micromorphological analyses reveal localized anthropogenic interventions within a predominantly geogenic context, supporting a multi-phase Holocene occupation (∼5,000–2,500 BP) consistent with regional megalithic traditions. Taphonomic biases in earlier studies are addressed through detailed sedimentological assessment, highlighting the challenges of distinguishing cultural deposits in dynamic volcanic environments. The findings underscore the necessity of rigorous geoarchaeological methodologies when evaluating megalithic sites in geologically complex settings. By reconciling Gunung Padang’s chronology with broader archaeological patterns in Island Southeast Asia, this study refutes claims of an anomalously early human occupation while emphasizing the site’s significance as a later Holocene ceremonial complex. The results urge caution in interpreting megalithic sites without robust stratigraphic and geophysical verification, particularly in regions prone to natural rock formations that may mimic cultural features. This research contributes to ongoing debates on early monumentality and the interplay between geological and anthropogenic processes in shaping archaeological landscapes.