Bosnian Pyramid Summary

Author-researcher Filip Coppens has helpfully written a comprehensive summary of the history and current state-of-play of the controversial ‘Bosnian Pyramid’ discovery and excavation. Filip – who has visited the pyramid/hill, as well as having immersed himself in the literature concerning the site – concludes in favour of the ‘man-made’ hypothesis, and says that it will have an immense impact on the current historical paradigm:

So, all false perceptions and ego-trips aside, it is clear that the Bosnian Valley of the Pyramids has much validity and will rock the old pyramid paradigm in years to come. But the research project will continue to be controversial for some time longer. What the Foundation needs is more time — just as it took Howard Carter several years before he located Tutankhamen’s tomb. Progress is slow, but obvious.

In time, the Bosnian pyramids will not only be added to the new paradigm of pyramid structures that appear across the world, but they will also reveal a new dimension to the Vinca culture and show that the pyramids are European, rather than Egyptian, in nature. Either way, a new page is being added in the development of civilisation.

As I’ve mentioned previously, with due respect to Filip’s (more informed) view, I still haven’t seen anything which would convince me either way. The hill certainly looks geometric (though this seems to require one particular viewing of it, going by the photos I’ve seen – the southern and western aspects don’t look nearly as convincing), and viewing Google Earth the alignment of the north face looks rather accurate. On the other hand, the much-hyped ‘paths’ and ‘blocks’ often cited and photographed simply look like natural geological structures to me (and some I think appear to have been ‘enhanced’ during excavation).

I’d be more than happy to be convinced at a later point though – while I retain my skepticism on the ‘Bosnian Pyramid’, I look forward to being convinced by more evidence!

Previously on TDG:

  1. “Enhancements”

    What do you mean with “paths”? You mean the tunnels?

    Also, when you write: “some I think appear to have been ‘enhanced’ during excavation.”

    This is a fallacy. Top archaeologists, like Dr. Ala Shaheen, Ibrahim Aly, etc. have visited the sites you speak off on numerous occassions. The ONLY query they had was at the bottom of the pyramid of the Moon, which was why the trench there wasn’t perfectly rectangular. When it was pointed out to them why (to see whether an anomaly continued or not – it did), their query was satisfactorily answered.
    My apologies, but such criticism shouldn’t be aired at this stage of the debate. Let me note that none of the professional archaeologists present ever even dared to suggest your claim, which seems to have been proposed by someone not well-versed in archaeology to begin with.

    1. Top archaeologists…(?)
      Forgive my ignorance, you state “Top archaeologists” have visited the site and have suggested they subscribe to the theory this is a man-made “structure” and I would like to know what Dr. Ala Shaheen & Ibrahim Aly have achieved so that they would be considered as “Top” by their peers.

      Professor Anthony Harding, president of the European Association of Archaeologists, referred to Osmanagić’s theories (about the pyramid) as “wacky” and “absurd”.

      Perhaps one might first ask a geologist about the nature of the “pyramid” before sending in the archaeologists who are not geologists.

      By Robert M. Schoch – Boston University

      “Many non-geologists have been impressed by the “regularity” of certain features at Visoko, and from these regularities have argued that they cannot be natural, but rather must be manmade.”


      1. Ala Shaheen
        Uhm, from memory, but why do I need to answer this, when this information is available everywhere on the net, Ala Shaheen is the dean of Archaeology of the Faculty of Cairo, and Ibrahim Aly the same for Ain Shams. You can’t get much higher, I would think.

        Harding, meanwhile, works for a small university, and is the head of a minor European organisation. We can all make up organisations as much as we want, and then elect heads. The question is: do they mean anything? And Harding’s definitely not the best known archaeological group in Europe, despite its name.

        As to the debate between archaeologists and geologists: that’s a turf war, and has nothing to do with what Greg was writing. And if we’re talking about how trenches were dug, that’s an archaeological issue, nothing to do with geology.

        Finally, if you want to claim geologists should have first pick, why cite Harding, who is not a geologist?? That doesn’t make sense.

        1. Mine was a fair comment
          It was a fair comment that I made to yours that “Top archaeologists” visited the site.

          I did do a search on the net as you have now suggested and found that Dr Ala Shaheen has a face book account and the only other hits for Ibrahim Aly aside from being an associate professor in the Department of Accountancy at the John Molson School of Business and his facebook account were related to the Bosnian pyramid (one hit).

          Again what contributions have they made in their field which makes them “tops” in the eye of their peers? So yes, you need to answer this as it was you who threw out that statement they are “top archaeologists”. If this is a chore for you then I suggest you refrain from using such references you are not prepared to back up.

          Perhaps my definition of “Top” differs from yours. Someone who is Tops in their field would at least get a few hits from Google which are related to the field they are “top” in. That is unless they are more “top” in the fringes of their field say like the fencing around the field not squarely out standing in it.

          For example: Richard Hoagland who is is a former museum space science Curator; a former NASA Consultant; and, during the historic Apollo Missions to the Moon, was science advisor to Walter Cronkite and CBS News. And who is definitely beating his own drum with absurd “ground breaking revelations” about anomalies on Mars, the Moon and just about anything else in space.

          Setting this aside, both of your “top” archaeologists from Egypt seem to agree that the Bosnian “pyramid” is a pyramid while someone who is Top in their field such as Dr Zahi Hawass Secretary General of the Supreme Council of Antiquities and Director of the Giza Pyramids Excavation seems to disagree as well as other “top” archaeologists – should I reference them or shall you use the net?

          It’s not hard to find people to agree with both sides however it does seem that in this case there are more prominent people who are on one side of the debate and lets say not-so prominent people on the other.

          Ok lets agree that people disagree…

          Yes, while I did say that geologists should have first pick I cited Harding as you cited archaeologists – I was just following your lead.

          If a pyramid shaped hill in Bosnia is to be called a man-made pyramid of such a fantastic age that it now looks like a hill then wouldn’t it make sense to call in the geologists first so they can separate the natural formations from the man-made formations? I mean wouldn’t it be a waste of time for archaeologists, top or otherwise, to dig up a hill only to find out later, oh damn its really a hill…

          Egg on face maybe?

          Or would they admit it right away that they were wrong if given solid evidence that contradicts their own especially since they are not geologists and there is no face saving here, they not celebrities…they are academics, right? 😉


          1. Egyptian archaeologists
            With all due respect, Robert, but Ala Shaheen and Ibrahim Aly are household names in Egyptian archaeology. They sit on all top committees.
            If you do not know these, then it is clear to me you are no longer involved with the Sphinx story, or are exposed to an extremely limited of people/archaeologists.
            Again, those two people are household names, top of their field, and in many regards, much more influential and important than e.g. a Hawass. I am simply stunned you do not know, and I just assumed you knew them personally, seeing you’ve been involved much more prominently with Egyptian sphinxes and pyramids than I am!

            That Google doesn’t bring them up, I don’t know why that is the case, nor does it matter. Google still isn’t the totality of the Internet.
            Anyway, when I referred to the net, I was specifically referring for “normal readers” to go out there. Everyone involved in Egyptology knows who they are… and the position they hold. E.g. Shaheen is involved with the labyrinth excavations of Hawarra, recently present in Ghent when the University presented its findings there.
            Here, e.g. is the faculty’s website,, and a photograph of the man. It took me one Google search to find this information, and two clicks.

          2. Please do not confuse me with Dr Robert Schoch
            I’m sorry I am not Robert – I simply quoted him in italics. perhaps my choice of wording was misleading – I apologise as It was not my intention to mislead.

            As I have established that am not Robert therefore these two people are not household names in my home which is engineering. Thank you for your explanation.

            This debate of whether or not there is a fantastically old heretofore unknown man-made pyramid in Bosnia has gone tabloid with the promotion of pseudo-scientific notions.

            Based on still highly debatable evidence there’s not one but a collection of pyramids with names no less with the hope that a complete excavation is realised by 2012.

            As anyone would know this is of course to “break a cloud of negative energy, allowing the Earth to receive cosmic energy from the centre of the galaxy” according to Osmanagić.

            Again I apologise for misleading you (and others) that my comment was authored by Dr Robert Schoch.


          3. When is a pyramid Egyptian?
            Are Egyptologists qualified to study a possible European pyramid just because it is pyramid shaped?


  2. The piece of wood.
    They found a piece of wood potentially 35,000 years old? That’s amazing! I would have thought that this item alone would have raised quite a few eyebrows – I have not heard of any other wooden items of this age that were still wood and not fossilised.

    Or have I got it wrong?


      1. Thanks!
        Thanks for that link tihz_ho!

        As a furniture designer, I found those tables really interesting— I would prefer them with steel legs though 😉

        It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
        It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

        Red Pill Junkie

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.