I have been following the story of the Bosnian pyramid for a while (as a geologist and archaeologist, amongst many other things, I'm always interested in such claims) but had been reserving judgement and was general going with the idea that it'd be great if it was true and rooting for the discoverer Semir Osmanagic to pull something truly amazing out of the hillside (and plotting a trip to Bosnia a few years hence to marvel at the uncovered wonders).

Then the pictures and video (here and here) started to come out and I have to say what I've seen so far isn't yet convincing me there is anything other than some nice rock exposures:

I've done an awful lot of geological fieldwork and I've seen similarly impressive slopes like that (especially one in Tunisia) and all perfectly natural. I think I actually believed the claims more before the pictures came out).

Other statements he has made:

"We can see the surface is perfectly flat. This is the crucial material proof that we are talking pyramids," he said.

Not only is this untrue (see above) but it also actually goes against the idea that it is a pyramid which tend to be stepped. However, some of the Egyptian pyramids were given facing stones but such things are usually rapidly lost with the ravages of time (such sloping things are never structurally a good idea - that's why we build such box-like houses).

So some questions:

1. Where are the tools marks?


2. Where are the artefacts?


3. Where is the civilisation that made this? Central Europe has a long and excellent history of archaeology - the construction of such a pyramid would require infrastructure, there would be evidence of older simpler pyramids and other monumental buildings based on similar principles/technology/cultural underpinnings.


4. How does a pyramid get evenly covered in soil so it still looks pyramidal? Such a huge structure would tend to get buried from the base upwards resulting in a much more blurred and curved profile with erosion uncovering sharp edges and the like.

Not insurmountable problems but so far there is nothing to suggest this is artificial. I stand by with these words printed out on a plate next to a knife and fork just waiting for Semir Osmanagic to give me a good reason to eat them (to follow the title through - I could, like Nelson, be looking at things with my blind eye). It'd be such a fantastic find I'd be happy to do that if proved wrong but we dig first, analyse finds and then draw conclusions - he declared it a pyramid and then released a book and then started looking for evidence.

We'll be keeping a beady eye on the homepage and other news sources but its worth noting I'm not the only one with concerns and the Science & Politics blog is following this closely (follow the links at the bottom for updates - by update #4 they have already found some of his earlier claims and have suggested he is a "hack").

Other impressive (in the second case far more impressive) structural finds that are purely geological in nature:

• The Kaimanawa wall in New Zealand


• The "Yonaguni Monument" - the undersea 'pyramid' in Japan that got Graham Hancock so excited. As the article linked to is only a teaser (I'll see if Al will put the full article up now), Schoch (Hancock's favourite geologist let's not forget) says: "My current working hypothesis is that the Monument is primarily of natural origin", that is, its overall structure is the result of natural processes. I think it should be considered a natural structure until more evidence is found to the contrary." Update: Discussed in more detail later.


• The Stone Balls of Costa Rica - this is an example for this post.

And so on the mention of balls I'll sign off and direct you over to our ongoing discussion (and the FTMB has a good one going too if you have access).