A journal has retracted, over the objections of the authors, a controversial 2023 paper claiming a dig site in Indonesia is home to the largest pyramid built by humans.
The work was led by the Indonesian geologist-cum-archeologist Danny Hilman Natawidjaja, of the Research Center for Natural Disasters in Bandung.
Hilman has been working at the site in Java for many years in his quest to prove it contains the ruins of a massive pyramid built by an advanced culture between 9,000 and 27,000 years ago. Hilman has also tried to link the site to the lost city of Atlantis.
But the notion that Gunung Padang is the mother of all pyramids – and, according to Hilman, the world’s oldest building – has been dismissed by some as “pseudoarchaeology,”
The paper, “Geo-Archaeological prospecting of Gunung Padang buried prehistoric pyramid in West Java, Indonesia”, attracted mounds of critical attention when it appeared last October in Archaeological Prospection, a Wiley title. Among the skeptics was Flint Dibble, an archeologist who reviewed the research on his YouTube channel in February.
According to the abstract of the article:
Radiocarbon dating of organic soils from the structures uncovered multiple construction stages dating back thousands of years BCE, with the initial phase dating to the Palaeolithic era. These findings offer valuable insights into the construction history of Gunung Padang, shedding light on the engineering capabilities of ancient civilizations during the Palaeolithic era.
As the retraction notice states, the dating appears to have been fatally flawed:
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.
News of the retraction was first reported earlier today by The New York Times.
Hilman, who posted a response to the retraction on Facebook – along with a Dropbox folder with materials he believes supports the validity of the work – told us he and his colleagues “are baffled” by the journal’s decision:
we disagree because they (the Wiley Team) did not even care to give us sufficient evidence and scientific rationale to support the alleged major error.
On Facebook, the researchers wrote:
Was the decision to retract our paper a severe form of censorship, blatantly disregarding the fundamental principles of scientific inquiry, transparency, and fairness in academic discourse?
We urge the academic community, scientific organizations, and concerned individuals to stand with us in challenging this decision and upholding the principles of integrity, transparency, and fairness in scientific research and publishing.
We caught up with Dibble in Greece. He told us the conclusion in particular doesn’t “really match any of the actual evidence presented in the body of the paper.” He also speculated that the peer reviewers may have been focused on their own areas of interest and not able to see the larger picture:
A wide range of methods were presented in the paper, so there wouldn’t really be many people who were familiar with all those methods in addition to the local archaeological context. It does seem likely that none of the reviewers were familiar with that archaeological context at all. And, that’s an issue for sure.
Dibble noted that he could think of only one similar retraction in the field of archeology, a 2022 article about an ancient airburst:
I’m guessing these two papers were retracted because the journal editors felt embarrassed for having published pieces whose conclusions were sorely lacking in evidence. But, that’s just a guess? It’s so uncommon. In both cases, authors on these teams were associated with more prominent pseudoarchaeological ideas. So, that might also have something to do with it.
On X, in a thread worth reading, Dibble also expressed annoyance at the journal (and the media coverage of the article and its aftermath) for focusing on what isn’t as opposed to what is known about Gunung Padang – knowledge generated by other archeologists:
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, subscribe to our free daily digest or paid weekly update, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, or add us to your RSS reader. If you find a retraction that’s not in The Retraction Watch Database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at [email protected].
“according to Hilman”
Isn’t his last name Natawidjaja?
Indonesians do not use family names /surnames/ last names, it’s a cultural thing. Any part of the name can be used. But it’s true in academia he is quoted more as Natawidjaja
In addition, the Wikipedia page which is given as a link at the beginning of the article styles him as Natawidjaja in the text. There is one reference to him as “Hilman” on the associated Talk page, but no discussion of the styling. The question would be why there would be any preference for Hilman in this context. There may be an answer, but we have not seen it. Absent that, I’d favor consistency with the linked page.
This is a cautionary tale (and hilarious case study) of the dangers of infecting science with nationalism. Natawidjaja and his team desperately wanted to believe that Indonesia was once ‘Atlantis’ (false), and an advanced ‘great’ civilization (whatever that means).
Unfortunately, this type of ideological thinking is common among so-called researchers like Natawidjaja, who prioritise the need for their nation to be SEEN as great, rather than actually BEING great (through exemplary science).
Embarrassing.
This retraction seems primarily to save face for the journal. The paper did a very good job arguing that the structure is not natural, and so stratigraphically dating soil makes perfect sense in this context, artifacts included or not. The authors correctly rebut these concerns and call them for what they are: disagreement in interpretation.
A full retraction seems completely unnecessary and seriously borders on dogmatic censorship, “it isn’t because it can’t be”.
Agreed. Remember the Tasaday Hoax of ’71 in the Philippines?