Indonesian Pyramid Is 20,000 Years Old Claims Geologist, Discovery May Rewrite History

Is the oldest pyramid in the world in Indonesia?

Gunung Padang is a megalithic site located in Karyamukti village, Cianjur regency, West Java Province of Indonesia, 50 km south-west of the city of Cianjur or 6 kilometers from Lampegan station. It is the largest megalithic site in South-Eastern Asia. 

The existence of the site is mentioned in Rapporten van de Oudheidkundige Dienst (ROD, “Report of the Department of Antiquities”) in 1914. The Dutch historian N. J. Krom also mentioned it in 1949. Employees of National Archeology Research Centre visited the site in 1979 for a study of archaeology, history and geology.
Located at 885 metres above sea level, the site covers a hill in a series of terraces bordered by retaining walls of stone that are accessed by successive steps (about 400 andesit steps = 95 metres). It is covered with massive rectangular stones of volcanic origin. Local people consider the place as sacred and believe the site as a result of King Siliwangi attempt to build a palace in one night. The asymmetric Punden Berundak is facing up to northwest, to Mount Gede,  meaned constructed for the purpose of worship and built in a position that has been noticed geomantic and astromantic factors. Based on megalith shape the site is built in 1,500 years Before Christ.

The villages closest to the site are Cimanggu, Ciwangun and Cipanggulakan. Two routes are possible to get there:
One of many megalithic monuments on Gunung Padang  If geologist Dr Danny Hilman is correct,  buried beneath the megalithic jumble is an ancient pyramid. According to Hilman, the structure is “older than 9000 [years] and could be up to 20,000 old.
Credit: Mohammad Fadli, Wikipedia

Gunung Padang (Indonesia)  wasrediscovered in 1914 by Dutch colonialists, the megalithic ruins of almost covered hills Gunung Padang is known as the place with the most megalithic buildings in Indonesia. Currently, geologists and archaeologists are keen to test theories, according to which the hill  is supposed to be artificial in origin despite its vegetated surface and is among the oldest pyramids in the world today

 Danny Hilman from the Indonesian Centre for Geotechnical Research has a  theory that has so far at least convinced the Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.  Other archaeologists have shown interest but so far are still reluctant to accept the age.  No wonder because if his theory on age is proven then the 100 meters high pyramid predates all other early civilizations by millennia. “The Pyramid” say the researchers’  show radiocarbon dating  older than 9,000 years, and could be up to 20,000 years old.  As crazy as it sounds this is what the data shows according to Hilman’s research.
 As the “Sydney Morning Herald“ reported,  Hilman suspects that the pyramid was built in three phases over millennia by  three different cultures 
Should he be so right, this fact would rewrite the previous archaeological history.
Supported by government agencies and even by the labor and equipment from the Indonesian army, Hilman’s work was declared by that nation’s President to be an issue of national importance.  .

 Reconstruction of the alleged pyramid of Gunung Padang.

Credit:  unbek


Modern equipment has detected rooms, steps and terraces beneath the ground. To researchers and scientists that is evidence of the artificial nature of the hill and planning indicating intelligent human design.
The Indonesian pyramid stirs controversy  comparable to the controversy surrounding the alleged Bosnian pyramids in Visoko.  There is fierce resistance to Hilman’s theory and activism of the President: 34 Indonesian archaeologists and geologists have turned in a petition to Yudhoyono in which they indeed ascribe Gunung Padang, the rank of the most important megalithic site of Indonesia and probably all of South Asia, but they are no more convinced of a pyramid as assume that normal volunteers are involved in the work. Instead, the undersigned urge the observance of appropriate scientific standards and methods so as not to endanger the cultural heritage. Instead of a prehistoric pyramid some geologists believe rather that it is the remnants of a nearby volcano at Gunung Padang.
Another critic of  Hilman’s theory points out that recently found bone tools found in a close lying cave were dated to an age of 9,500 years, . The critical arguement is if people were there 7,000 BC. and were only able to make bone tools, then “how should a culture that should be up to 20,000 years old, have built such a pyramid?”
The structure beyond the Mount Padang structure is older than the upper structure. In depth of 1-4.5 meters by Beta Analytic Radiocarbon Dating (BETA) the older (below) structure is built in 4,500 BC, whether the upper structure in 500 BC. At 4.5 meter depth there are stones with specie which consist of 45 percent ferrum, 15 percent clay and the rest silica. The surveyor found a 10 centimeter steel fraction
The Independent Research Integrated Mount Padang Team, facilitated by the Special Staff of President for Social Assistance and Disaster, found man-made stone structures beneath the ancient site of Mount Padang, at Karyamukti Village, the District of Campaka, Cianjur Regency. According to the result of survey of team who did an archaeological excavation and geoelectric surveys on the eastern slopes of the hill in March 2013, the structure of colum andesite stone was found with near horizontal position elongated east-west. {fact
 “From the horizontal position of the column andesite rocks and its line direction, we can conclude with certainty that the column stones or” columnar joints “is not in a natural condition,” said Danny H. Natawidjaja, Coordinator of The Independent Research Integrated Mount Padang Team in Jakarta, Tuesday (2/4). In excavation, the archaeological team which is led by Ali Akbar from the University of Indonesia found the evidence to confirm the hypothesis of team that there are man-made structures in the basement of Mount Padang. The building structure is the same as with the structure of the stone terrace which has been revealed and become cultural sites on the hill
The excavation also found a filler material among the stones columns, also a stone column that had been shattered but styled and put together again by the filler material as ancient cement
The ancient cement has also been found on canyon railroads between the porch steps one and two, and also on drill core samples from a depth of 1 to 15 meters of drilling conducted by the team in 2012 and then on the site.
The geologist team and also the center coaches of Indonesian Association of Geologists center, Andang Bachtiar discovered previously unknown facts about the composition of the site. The cement material has a primary composition of 45% of iron mineral and 41% of mineral silica. The rest is 14% clay minerals and there is also a carbon element. “This is a good composition for strong cement adhesive, perhaps combining between the concepts of resin or modern strong adhesive made from silica materials and the use of concentration of the iron element which become as brick amplifiers,” said Danny H. Natawidjaja.
 The high content of silica indicates that the cement is not the result of weathering of column andesite rocks which is surrounded by a poor of silica. Then, the levels of iron in nature, even in the rocks at the ore mineral mining, generally the content of iron is not more than 5%, so iron levels in “Gunung Padang cement” is many times higher than natural conditions. Therefore it can be concluded that material which is lied between the columns andesite stones are man-made grout. So the technology of that time seems to have known metallurgy. One common technique to obtain a high concentration of iron is to carry out the combustion process from the broken rocks with very high temperatures. Similar to the making of bricks, which burn caolinite and illite clays to produce a high concentration of iron on the brick, explain Andang.
Indications of ancient metallurgical technology is more strengthened by the findings of a lump of metal materials sized 10 inches by the team of Ali Akbar at the depth of 1 meter on the eastern slopes of Mount Padang. The rusty metal material possessed a rough surface with a hollow-small cavity on the surface. Presumably this material is a metal dough residue (“slug”) that mixed with carbon material from the combustion of wood, coal or other. Cavities are likely to occur due to the release of CO2 when burning. The team will conduct further laboratorium analysis to investigate.
 The results of radiometric analysis of the content of the carbon element in some samples of cement in drill core from the depth of 5–15 meters which was conducted in 2012 at the prestigious Laboratory, BETALAB, Miami, USA in the mid-2012 shows its age with a range between 13,000 and 23,000 years BP. Previously, the results of carbon dating which carried out in the BATAN laboratory, the dominant quartz sand that fills the voids between the columns of andesite at the depth of 8–10 meters below the terrace of five also showed the same age range is about 13,000 years ago.
 Data from drilling conducted by Andang Bachtiar and microscopic analyzes of rocks from drill core samples were carried out by Andri Subandrio, geologist of volcanic rocks of the Petrology laboratory ITB. it can be assured that the high resistivity body rock is andesite lava rock, the same rock type as the column of the site of mount Padang.
Another thing discovered from the petrological analysis is the finding of many microscopic cracks in the thin section of andesite stone columns that are allegedly non-natural because the cracks cut its constituent mineral crystals.
Danny H. Natawidjaja stated that mount Padang has same potency with Borobudur, even it is more meaningful because it can be a breakthrough of knowledge about “the cradle of civilizations” in this century, as a proof of the great monuments of the oldest civilizations in the glorious world that destroyed because of catastrophe thousands of years ago in the pre-history of Indonesia.
“It is not impossible anymore if Indonesia as archipelago nation has civilization as advanced as the ancient Egyptian civilization, even in the much older”, said Danny H. Natawidjaja. 
The latest research found that the site consists of 4 layers, first layer age was 600 years BC, the second layer age was 4,900 years BC, and the third and the fourth layers are still being researched by Terpadu Mandiri (Indonesian Unified) Research Team


Related links
Controversy recently discovered pyramid complex in Egypt: Archaeologists have found evidence of want artificial structures 18 July 2013
Former. Egyptian chief archaeologist Zahi Hawass is convinced: “Pharaoh Cheops Pyramid harbors secret chamber and treasures” 
Bosnian pyramids? – Court allows further excavations in 2012 
Giant pyramid discovered in Indonesia? 
“From Lampegan to Mount Padang”. Pikiran-rakyat.com. Retrieved 2013-07-19.
 “Situs Megalitik Gunung Padang, Cianjur: Harmoni Bumi dan Langit”. February 22, 2011.
“Laporan Resmi: Situs Gunung Padang Punya 100 Undakan dan Luasnya 25 Hektar”. June 27, 2012.
 “Tim Terpadu Riset Mandiri: Gunung Padang Truly Extraordinary”. June 28, 2012.
  “Andi Arief Tak Kecewa Hasil Penelitian Tim Katastropik Purba Diabaikan”. November 11, 2012.
  “US Lab Validates Cianjur Ancient Structure Theory”. November 5, 2012.
 “Teknologi Bangunan Gunung Padang Lebih Maju”. April 3, 2013.
 “The Site of Mount Padang is the Evidence of Architectural Masterpieces of Ancient”. April 3, 2013.
 “Andi Arief: Dua Level Kebudayaan di Gunung Padang 100 Persen Terbukti!”. July 18, 2013.
Situs Gunung Padang di Cianjur.go.id
Artikel mengenai kemungkinan alat musik purba di situs Gunung Padang

Read More

Latest News From The Excavations At Gunung Padang, The Mysterious Ancient Pyramid In Indonesia That Is Rewriting History

Artist's impression of Gunung Padang as it would have looked in antiquity by and courtesy of architect Pon S Purajatnika. ©
Click for full size image.

The archaeological establishment is scrambling to find some reason to reject and pour scorn on the extraordinary consequences of the excavations now taking place at Gunung Padang in Indonesia.
Since its first exploration by archaeologists in 1914 the site was thought to be a natural hill with 2500 year-old megalithic structures on top of it. But in 2010 geologist Dr Danny Hilman Natawidjaja (who earned his doctorate at Cal Tech) recognized this “hill” as a possible man-made pyramid and began to explore it using ground penetrating radar, seismic tomography, resistivity survey and other remote sensing techniques, as well as some direct excavations and deep core drilling.
The results were immediately intriguing (see this article I wrote in January for background: http://www.grahamhancock.com/forum/HancockG9-Mystery-Lost-Civilization.php) producing evidence of deeply buried man-made chambers and yielding carbon dates going back as far as 26,000 years. This was the last Ice Age when our ancestors are supposed (according to the orthodox archaeological model) to be have been nothing more than primitive hunter gatherers incapable of large-scale construction and engineering feats. Was it possible that geologist Natawidjaja was unearthing the proof of a lost advanced civilization of prehistoric antiquity? Such ideas are heresy to mainstream archaeologists and sure enough the archaeological establishment in Indonesia banded together against Dr Natawidjaja and his team, lobbied the political authorities, agitated locally and succeeded in slowing down, though not completely stopping, the further exploration of Gunung Padang.
Dr Natawidjaja fought back, doing some high-level lobbying of his own, taking the matter to the President of Indonesia himself. There were further delays to do with elections in Indonesia but just a couple of months ago, in mid-August 2014, the final obstacles were lifted and Dr Natawidjaja and his team moved back onto the Gunung Padang site with full approval to go ahead with their work, including permission to excavate the concealed chambers.
Archaeologists were furious and immediately began lobbying to get the work stopped – fortunately to no avail as preliminary excavations have produced results that prove beyond doubt that Gunung Padang in indeed a man-made pyramid of great antiquity as Dr Natawidjaja had long ago proposed. Even the relatively young layer so far excavated (the second artificial columnar rock-layer beneath the megalithic site visible on the surface) has yielded dates of 5200 BC (nearly 3000 years older than the orthodox dating for the Pyramids of Giza in Egypt) and there are firm indications from the original remote sensing and core drilling work of much older layers below. In short, it is now evident to all that the site is vastly older than the 2500 years that archaeologists had insisted upon for decades. Even the most hostile amongst them are therefore now reframing their assessment of the site and referring to it as “a gigantic terraced tomb, which was part of the biggest megalithic culture in the archipelago.”
For a flavor of the sour grapes the archaeological establishment feel towards Dr Natawidjaja and his team see this recent article from the Jakarta Post: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2014/09/24/archaeologists-slam-excavation-gunung-padang-site.html
I asked Dr Natawidjaja for his response to the Jakarta Post article and he replied as follows:
“The article has got the story all wrong.  All excavations were supervised by archeologists from Agency for Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites (BPCB) and University of Indonesia.  The excavation sites have also recently been inspected by the Director for Conservation of Archeological Sites (who is the boss of Miss Desril Shanti ), by the head of the BPCB, and by the Minister of Education and Culture himself.  Afterward, they gave a press conference confirming that all excavations are good and proper.  For information, the head of the National Archeological Center, which is the main office above local Archeological Centers including Bandung Archeological Center, is also a member of the National Team for Gunung Padang. The Jakarta Post article is also wrong about the funding.  The Minister of Education and Culture did indeed announce in the press conference that he would allocate about Rp 3 billion for the research but it has not begun to be disbursed yet.  So far, I and my team are still working willingly on our own funding with the help of the soldiers (TNI) who have been working alongside us.  Of course the TNI have their own funding – but not from that Endowment Fund.”
As to the progress of the work at Gunung Padang, Dr Natawidjaja writes as follows:
“The research progress has been being great.  We have excavated three more spots right on top of the megalithic site in the past couple weeks, which give more evidence and details about the buried structures.  We have uncovered lots more stone artifacts from the excavations.  The existence of the pyramid-like structure beneath the megalithic site is now loud and clear; even for non-specialists, it is not too difficult  to understand if they come and see for themselves.    We have found some kind of open hall buried by soil 5-7 meters thick; however we have not yet got into the main chamber.  We are now drilling to the suspected location of the chamber (based on subsurface geophysic) in the middle of the megalithic site.”
Stay tuned for more news from the front line!

Read More

Inikah Bukti Adanya Piramida di Perut Gunung Padang

Erik Rizki Tim peneliti Gunung Padang menemukan struktur yang diklaim sebagai bagian dari sebuah ruangan bawah tanah di situs tersebut.

Tim peneliti situs Gunung Padang menyatakan bahwa mereka baru saja menemukan struktur dinding bangunan di bawah permukaan teras 5., area tertinggi dari situs itu.

Menurut sekretaris tim riset, Erik Rizki, struktur dinding itu menerus pada lubang galian hingga kedalaman 3,3 meter.

Struktur dinding dinyatakan tersusun atas batuan andesit. Bantuan direkatkan oleh semacam semen purba.

Dalam keterangan yang diterima Kompas.com, Jumat (26/9/2014), Erika mengklaim bahwa struktur itu menjadi bukti adanya ruangan di bawah teras lima.

Struktur itu diduga buatan manusia, sebagaimana sejumlah artefak yang dinyatakan ditemukan pada kedalaman 1-2 meter di teras tersebut.

Ekskavasi Gunung padang berlangsung sejak 14 September 2014 lalu. Sejumlah artefak ditemukan, mulai koin hingga batuan serupa dolmen.

Temuan menuai sejumlah kontroversi. Soal koin misalnya. Sejumlah arkeolog meragukan koin yang ditemukan memang berasal dari masa 5.200 SM seperti yang diklaim tim riset.

Erik mengatakan, ekskavasi masih akan dilanjutkan hingga mencapai dasar dari struktur dinding yang ditemukan hari ini.

Ekskavasi Gunung Padang menggunakan dana abadi dari Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. Dana yang dialokasikan untuk tahap ini adalah Rp 3 miliar.

---

Ikuti perkembangan berita ini dalam topik:

• Kontroversi Riset Gunung Padang

 

 

Read More

World's only lungless frog leaves scientists gasping

The Bornean flat-headed frog lives in fast-flowing streams and is the only known lungless frog (Image: D. Bickford)

An unassuming little frog from Borneo has been found to have an exceedingly rare anatomical feature - introducing Barbourula kalimantanensis, the only known frog with no lungs.

The Bornean flat-headed frog gets all of its oxygen through its skin. Local gold-mining operations, however, are fast polluting the streams where the frog lives.

A single specimen of Barbourula was described in the 1970s, but biologists had no idea, until now, that the frog had no lungs.

"I was just going to be happy if we simply rediscovered the frogs," says David Bickford of the National University of Singapore. "Most of what we presume is the frog's original range is completely uninhabitable due to illegal gold mining and land conversion."

Rare adaptation

Lunglessness is extremely rare in amphibians because, although the animals breathe through their skin, the method delivers only a fraction of the oxygen provided by lungs. It is only practical for cold-blooded animals, which use far less energy than mammals.

One family of salamanders and one species of caecilians are the only other lungless amphibians. There are no known lungless reptiles.

Bickford and his colleagues think that air-filled lungs may have made it difficult for Barbourula's ancestors to sink to the riverbed through fast-flowing water, so it evolved towards a lungless existence.

The clear, cold, fast-flowing streams they live in made this change possible. In the same way cold carbonated drinks hold more "fizz", cold water can hold more dissolved oxygen. And the rapidly flowing streams send a plentiful supply of the oxygen-rich water over the frog's body.

Collector threat

But deforestation and illegal gold mining is making the streams warm and sluggish - hostile habitat for the Bornean flat-headed frog.

"We should do all we can to conserve this novel species," says James Collins, co-chair of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature's Amphibian Specialist Group. "These rare biological insights have the capacity to give us a much deeper and richer understanding of the evolution of life on Earth."

"This is an endangered frog that we know practically nothing about with an amazing ability to breathe entirely through its skin, whose future is being destroyed by illegal gold mining by people who are marginalised and have no other means of supporting themselves," says Bickford. "There are no simple answers to this problem."

Bickford's team have no idea how many frogs remain and are not revealing where the two known populations are to be found, fearing that collectors might poach them.

Journal reference: Current Biology (vol 18, p 7)

Endangered species - Learn more about the conservation battle in our comprehensive special report.

Read More

KOMODO DRAGON AN ENDANGERED SPECIES

Imagine being shipwrecked on a remote island and finding yourself face-to-face with the world’s largest living lizard — a meat-eating monster up to 12 feet (3.6 m) long, weighing 300 pounds (136 kg)! The first visitors to Komodo Island probably were terrified by these prehistoric-looking beasts.

The Komodo dragon, or komodo monitor lizard, is thought to be the source of Chinese legends of great scaly man-eating monsters, the dragons that are still featured prominently in Chinese folklore and religion.

Species Description and Range

The Komodo dragon occurs only on Komodo and its few smaller outlying islands north of Australia (see Spotlight on Island Biogeography). It probably never was more widely distributed, although maps of ancient mariners had notations of “here be dragons” dotted throughout the islands of what is now Malaysia and Indonesia. It was not until the early 1900s that scientists confirmed the existence of these incredible giant lizards.

Natural History of Komodo Dragons

Komodo dragons are carnivores (meat eaters) and will devour any animal they are capable of dismembering and gulping down. Although they are for the most part scavengers, they do capture live prey, including deer, pigs, birds, even young dragons.

The young can escape by climbing trees, because the much-heavier adults cannot climb. Komodo dragons are good swimmers and have been reported hunting in the surf for fish and birds.

Komodo dragons are formidable predators, since even one bite can be lethal. The bacteria that live in the dragon’s saliva are so virulent that wounds often will not heal. Even if the victim gets away, it usually dies from infection in a few days. The dragon’s reputation as a human eater is well deserved; it does not seem to fear humans and many attacks and deaths have been reported.

Causes of Endangerment of the Komodo Dragon

Hunting and Habitat Loss

The current population of Komodo dragons seems relatively stable at about 5,000 animals, yet scientists are concerned that only 350 of them are breeding females. This may be a normal sex ratio; little is known about the species. The dragon’s limited distribution makes them highly susceptible to natural or human-caused events, such as storms, fire, or disease.

The primary threats to the dragon’s survival include illegal hunting and loss of habitat to human settlement. As was the case with most large, spectacular animals the world over, Komodo dragons were sought as trophies by big-game hunters. They also are killed for skins and feet to make novelties. Early in this century, many Komodo dragons were trapped for sale to zoos and private collectors.

Conservation Actions to Protect the Komodo Dragon

Regulation of Trade and Habitat Protection

Trade in Komodo dragons is prohibited under CITES. Protection from poaching is made easier by the dragon’s limited distribution; there is little human habitation on the islands where it occurs, and Komodo Island, the dragon’s stronghold, has been made a national park.

Tourism

Komodo dragons now are the center of a burgeoning tourist industry and the local people increasingly are recognizing the advantage of living near this potentially dangerous animal. Because of Komodo Island’s remoteness, visitors to the island must stay in local hotels and hire local guides.

In some areas, the komodo dragons are so well fed that they simply lie around waiting for the next group of tourists to bring the next meal of goat or sheep.

Question for Thought

Do you think the rise in ecotourism is good or bad for the survival of the Komodo dragon? What negative impacts might island tourists have on the Komodo dragon and its habitat?

Read More

Brahminy Blind Snake, Flower Pot Snake

NON-VENOMOUS

 

Scientific name: Ramphotyphlops braminus (DAUDIN 1803)
* Currently accepted name
Synonym:* scientific names used through time

• Eryx braminus – DAUDIN 1803
• Tortrix russelii – MERREM 1820
• Typhlops russeli – SCHLEGEL 1839
• Typhlops braminus – DUMÉRIL & BIBRON 1844
• Argyrophis truncatus – GRAY 1845
• Onychocephalus capensis – SMITH 1846
• Argyrophis bramicus [sic] – KELAART 1854
• Ophthalmidium tenue – HALLOWELL 1861
• Typhlops (Typhlops) inconspicuus – JAN 1863
• Typhlops (Typhlops) euproctus – BOETTGER 1882
• Typhlops limbrickii – ANNANDALE 1906
• Glauconia braueri – STERNFELD 1910
• Typhlops pseudosaurus – DRYDEN & TAYLOR 1969
• Typhlina braminus – MCDOWELL 1974
• Ramphotyphlops braminus – NUSSBAUM 1980

Description: Average adult size is 2.5-6.5 inches (6.35-16.5 cm). Adults are small, thin, and shiny silver gray, charcoal gray, or purple. The head and tail-tip are indistinct, the neck is not narrow and the eyes are only small dot-like remnants under the scales. The tail is tipped with a tiny pointed spur. The head scales are small and similar to body scales. The belly is grayish to brown. The scales are smooth and shiny, there are 14 dorsal scale rows along the entire body. Juvenile coloration is similar to that of adults.

A. Top of the head
B. Side of the head
C. Underside of the head (chin and throat)
D. Tail
Range: The Brahminy Blind Snake is a non-native species from southeastern Asia. It was first reported in Florida in 1983, and has now been found from Key West in the Florida Keys, north throughout most of the peninsula, and west in Leon County in the panhandle. Outside of Florida, it has been widely introduced to many tropical localities and is considered the most widespread snake species in the world.
Habitat: Commonly found in urban and agricultural areas.

 

Comments: HARMLESS (Non-Venomous). The Brahminy Blind Snake burrows in the soil and leaflitter, and is found under rotting logs, leaves, and trash. Most often it is found in flower beds while gardening, and on sidewalks after rain. It is believed that it was introduced into Florida in the soil of imported plants. Being moved around this way in some parts of the world has earned it the name "Flower Pot Snake." The Brahminy Blind Snake often turns up in leaflitter or garden mulch. It feeds on the eggs, larvae, and pupae of ants and termites. It lays eggs or may be live-bearing. All individuals are female and reproduce unisexually, where the eggs begin cell division without sperm from a male. Up to 8 genetically identical female offspring are produced.
Comparison with other species: None, but it is frequently mistaken for earthworms. Although both are shiny, if you look carefully you will see that earthworms are segmented (i.e., they have rings around the body) and the Brahminy Blind Snake is not segmented. Neither can the Brahminy Blind Snake stretch itself out or contract like an earthworm. Also, if you look closely you can see the Brahminy Blind Snake stick out its tongue while it is being held.

 

Read More

Ular Kawat (Ramphotyphlops braminus) Ular Terkecil di Dunia

Ular Kawat atau Ramphotyphlops braminus adalah salah satu ular terkecil di dunia yang mendiami Indonesia. Saking kecilnya, panjang tubuh Ular Kawat hanya sekitar 10 cm. Karena ukurannya yang kecil, Ular Kawat atau Ramphotyphlops braminus kerap disangka sebagai jenis cacing tanah.

Nama latin hewan berukuran terkecil ini adalah Ramphotyphlops braminus (Daudin, 1803). Dalam bahasa Inggris, reptil yang menjadi salah satu jenis ular terkecil ini disebut sebagai Bootlace Snake, Brahmanen-Wurmschlange, Brahminy blindsnake, atau Flowerpot Snake. Sedangkan di Indonesia, selain disebut Ular Kawat juga kerap dinamai sebagai Ular Cacing, Ular Duwel, Ular Besi, Ular Kisi, dan Ular Pot.

Nama latinnya yang Ramphotyphlops braminus (Daudin, 1803) mempunyai beberapa nama sinonim. Nama-nama sinonim Ular Kawat ini antara lain : Argyrophis bramicus Kelaart, Argyrophis truncatus Gray, Eryx braminus Daudin, Glauconia braueri Sternfeld, Indotyphlops braminus Daudin, Onychocephalus capensis Smith, Ophthalmidium tenue Hallowell, Tortrix russelii Merrem, Typhlina braminus Mcdowell, Typhlopidae braminus Roux, Typhlops accedens Jan, Typhlops braminus Jan, Typhlops euproctus Boettger, Typhlops inconspicuus Jan, Typhlops limbrickii Annandale, Typhlops pseudosaurus Dryden And Taylor, dan Typhlops russeli Schlegel.

Diskripsi Fisik dan Perilaku Ular Kawat

Ular Kawat (Ramphotyphlops braminus)

Ular Kawat bertubuh sangat kecil dan sekilas mirip dengan cacing tanah. Panjang tubuhnya sekitar 10-15 cm, meskipun diperkirakan dapat berukuran hingga 20 cm namun sangat jarang ditemukan. Tubuhnya berwarna hitam, kehitaman, kecoklatan, atau abu-abu kebiruan. Bagian kepala hampir sulit dibedakan dengan tubuhnya, sementara bagian ekor pendek dan meruncing seperti duri di ujungnya. Jika diamati, pada tubuhnya terdapat sisik-sisik yang sangat kecil, halus, agak berkilau, dan tidak berlendir. Ular Kawat (Ramphotyphlops braminus) memiliki mata yang sangat kecil, karena itu reptil ini dinamai sebagai ‘blindsnake‘, meskipun hewan ini tidak buta.

Selain bentuk tubuhnya, perilaku reptil dari famili Typhlopidae ini pun sekilas mirip cacing tanah. Kerap bersembunyi di bawah batu, sampah, dan kayu-kayu busuk, di balik pot tanaman ataupun perabot rumah tangga. Saat merasa terusik, Ular Kawat akan menggeliat-geliat layaknya cacing.

Makanan Ular Kawat adalah telur hewan-hewan kecil seperti telur semut, telur rayap, dan telur serangga lainnya. Tidak termasuk ular yang berbisa ataupun berbahaya bagi manusia. Bahkan dengan mulutnya yang sangat kecil, Ular Kawat tidak bisa menggigit manusia.

Persebaran dan Konservasi Ular Kawat

Ular Kawat (Ramphotyphlops braminus)

Ular Kawat (Ramphotyphlops braminus) merupakan hewan asli Indonesia yang mempunyai daerah sebaran yang luas termasuk di luar Indonesia. Persebaran globalnya meliputi Afrika, Madagaskar, daerah tropis Asia, hingga ke Meksiko, Guam, dan Hawaii. Sedangkan di Indonesia tersebar hampir di seluruh wilayah Indonesia mulai dari Sumatera, Jawa, Kalimantan, Sulawesi, Bali, Nusa Tenggara, Maluku, Papua, dan pulau-pulau di sekitarnya.

Populasinya tidak diketahui secara pasti, namun diduga kuat masih sangat umum ditemukan (tidak langka) di berbagai tempat. Karena itu, reptil ini tidak tercantum dalam Daftar Merah IUCN (IUCN Redlist). Pun tidak terdaftar dalam Appendix CITES. Di Indonesia pun Ular Kawat tidak termasuk hewan yang dilindungi.

Klasifikasi Ilmiah Ular Kawat : Kerajaan : Animalia. Filum : Chordata. Kelas : Reptilia. Ordo : Squamata. Famili : Typhlopidae. Genus : Ramphotyphlops. Spesies : Ramphotyphlops braminus (Daudin, 1803).

Referensi dan gambar :
www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_value=174341
id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ular_kawat
www.catalogueoflife.org/col/details/species/id/13209295
ecologyasia.com/verts/snakes/brahminy_blind_snake.htm
reptile-database.reptarium.cz/species?genus=Indotyphlops&species=braminus
srelherp.uga.edu/jd/jdweb/Herps/species/USsnakes/Rambra.htm (gambar)

Read More