via Archaeological Prospection, 18 March 2024: At last, the controversial Gunung Padang paper that claimed it was a 25,000-year-old pyramid has been retracted – by the journal’s editors and the publisher, but notably with the disagreement with all the paper’s authors. I was one of many people who raised concerns about the article, both to the editors and publicly, and I’m glad to see that the paper has been retracted – although, a significant amount of damage by way of misinformation has already been done.
A summary of the main flaws of the paper is as such: the radiocarbon dates that form the key claim to the supposed age of the “pyramid” does not come from material that can be reliably interpreted as human occupation layers. The paper also misrepresents itself by overstating the widespread acceptance of what is essentially a pseuodarchaeological theory. Other criticisms are outlined here, here and here.
Danny Hilman Natawidjaja, Andang Bachtiar, Bagus Endar B. Nurhandoko, Ali Akbar, Pon Purajatnika, Mudrik R. Daryono, Dadan D. Wardhana, Andri S. Subandriyo, Andi Krisyunianto, Tagyuddin, Budianto Ontowiryo, Yusuf Maulana. Archaeological Prospection, 2023 (https://doi.org/10.1002/arp.1912).
The above article, published online on 20 October 2023 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com), has been retracted by agreement between the journal Editors-in-Chief, Eileen Ernenwein and Gregory Tsokas, and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Following publication of this article, concerns were raised by third parties with expertise in geophysics, archaeology, and radiocarbon dating, about the conclusions drawn by the authors based on the evidence reported. The publisher and the Co-Editors-in-Chief have investigated these concerns and have concluded that the article contains a major error. This error, which was not identified during peer review, is that the radiocarbon dating was applied to soil samples that were not associated with any artifacts or features that could be reliably interpreted as anthropogenic or “man-made.” Therefore, the interpretation that the site is an ancient pyramid built 9000 or more years ago is incorrect, and the article must be retracted. Danny Hilman Natawidjaja responded on behalf of the authors, all of whom disagree with the retraction.
Source: Archaeological Prospection | Archaeological Journal | Wiley Online Library
