The Unjust Retraction of Groundbreaking Research: A Call for Academic Integrity

Dear Dr. Paalman,

I hope this message finds you well. Thank you for reaching out to us regarding the concerns raised about our article titled “Geo-archaeological Prospecting of Gunung Padang Buried Prehistoric Pyramid” recently published in Archaeological Prospection.

We appreciate the opportunity to address the concerns that have been forwarded by third- party experts. However, after a careful review of the inquiry, we would like to seek clarification on the nature of the investigation as it pertains to the Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines.

It is our understanding that the concerns raised appear to reflect a scientific discourse regarding the interpretation of our findings, rather than ethical misconduct or issues related to the publication process. The discourse seems to revolve around differences in scientific opinion and interpretations of the data presented in the study, which is a common aspect of scholarly research and scientific debate.

In light of this, we kindly inquire whether this case might be categorized as ‘Post-Publication Critiques’ or a scientific disagreement, rather than an issue of ethical misconduct in publication. This distinction is crucial in understanding the appropriate course of action required.

We are committed to academic integrity and the pursuit of scientific accuracy. We are prepared to provide necessary responses addressing the concerns raised by the third-party experts. We aim to clarify the methodologies employed, the rationale behind our interpretations, and any additional information that could assist in the clarification of our study’s findings.

We value the scientific discourse and welcome an open discussion on the interpretation of our research findings. Therefore, we look forward to providing detailed comments by the stipulated deadline of Tuesday, December 12, 2023.

We are grateful for your understanding and would appreciate any guidance or clarification regarding the nature of this investigation. Please do not hesitate to reach out should you require any further information from our end.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely,

Danny Hilman Natawidjaja (On behalf of the Authors)

‌5 December 5, 2023- Authors Response

Dear Dr. Paalman,

Thank you for confirming that the investigations do not pertain to ethical misconduct or publication issues. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify scientific points raised by the third-party experts’ concerns regarding our paper.

Our study underwent rigorous scientific review processes before acceptance. We employed an integrated approach, utilizing geological, archaeological, and geophysical methods, within a multidisciplinary team to analyze Gunung Padang’s structures thoroughly.

Through meticulous surface exposure analysis, trenching, core drilling, and geophysical surveys, we unveiled a multi-layered structure atop an ancient volcanic hill. Features such as the orientation and arrangement of columnar rocks strongly suggest deliberate human interventions in constructing these layers, distinct from natural geological formations.

While acknowledging the concerns raised, we believe they may lack a comprehensive understanding of our detailed evidence, analyses, and interpretations. Our aim is to provide a more accessible explanation for non-specialists to grasp our findings.

Our observations suggest Gunung Padang initially existed as an extinct volcano or hill formed millions of years ago by ancient lava intrusions. Human modifications are evident in the sequential layered constructions—Unit-3, Unit-2, and Unit-1—superimposed on the natural volcanic rock.

Surface observations and excavations revealed distinct characteristics of Unit-2 and Unit-3, signifying human craftsmanship and deliberate burial by ancient soil fills. Geophysical surveys and carbon dating analyses validate our findings. Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR),

Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT), and seismic tomography (ST) consistently delineate man-made constructions. Carbon dating aligns with observed weathering, supporting the credibility of our dating methodology.

Our study provides compelling evidence for Gunung Padang’s man-made constructions and invites further scholarly exploration. We are available to provide detailed explanations if necessary.

Sincerely,

Danny Hilman Natawidjaja (On behalf of the Authors)

‌6 December 6, 2023 – Authors Reply:

Dear Dr. Paalman,

Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely,

Danny Hilman Natawidjaja (On behalf of the Authors)

‌14 December, 2023 – Authors response:

Dear Dr. Paalman,

Thank you for your swift response. We appreciate your diligence in seeking clarification on the concerns raised by third-party experts regarding our paper on Gunung Padang.

Addressing the key points highlighted in the statement:

1. Visual Observations: Our visual observations were conducted meticulously by a diverse multidisciplinary team consisting of geologists, petrologists, geophysicists, archaeologists, architects, geographers, and civil engineers. These observations form the cornerstone of our study and are supported by thorough exposure analysis, trenching-wall loggings, core drilling studies, and integrated-comprehensive geophysical surveys (GPR, ERT, and ST). These aspects are extensively explained and visually depicted in our published paper.
   • Figure 2 succinctly summarizes the visual observations made on surface exposures, specifically highlighting the discernible construction layers, specifically Units 1 & 2. Notably, this figure emphasizes the remarkable characteristics of Unit 2, forming a steep terracing wall between Terrace 1 and 2 and continuing beneath Terrace 1. The deliberate arrangement of columnar rocks aligned parallel to the layering and interspersed with mortar unequivocally suggests intentional man-made construction, distinguishing it from natural columnar-joint rock formations.
   • Figure 3 Displays a cliff exhibiting the characteristics of Unit 2 overlying Unit 3, delineating their sharp boundary and horizontal layering aligned with the ground surface. Notably, Unit 3 exhibits a considerably higher degree of weathering, featuring columnar rocks with extensive exfoliations, indicative of prolonged exposure to open air before being covered by Unit 2.
   • Figure 4 summarizes trenching observation results, outlining salient characteristics indicative of man-made constructions. In-depth details for each trench are provided in Supplementary Figure B. Trenching reveals Unit 2 below the ground, with Echo-2 trench presenting Unit 3 forming an artificial steep wall exhibiting a similar columnar-rock arrangement like Unit 2 but significantly weathered displaying spheroidal weathering (Figure 4c, Sup Figs. B.3), suggesting extended exposure before being covered by ancient soil fill.
   • Figures 5 and 6 depict the outcome of core drilling studies, complemented by site- specific details available in Supplementary Figures C, highlighting the top of the massive basaltic andesite at depths of approximately 20 to 30 meters.
   • Table 3 and Figure 9 exhibit the results of the GPR survey, supplemented by comprehensive illustrations in Supplementary Figures E.
   • Figures 10 &11 summarize findings from the ERT studies, with detailed supplementary results available in Supplementary Figures E, showcasing parallel layering of Units 1 – 2 – 3 faithfully mirroring ground surfaces.
   • Figure 12 highlights the analysis from the ST, detailed in Supplementary Figures G, excellently scanning the smooth top of the massive basaltic andesite. ST, in conjunction with ERT, strongly indicates a significant void by a low-seismic-velocity zone and an extremely high-resistive anomaly.
   • Figure 13 provides a condensed integration of the comprehensive analysis, supported by additional results in Supplementary Figures H.Furthermore, to effectively address concerns about any perceived “imaginative and conjectural aspects,” we kindly request specific points highlighted by the experts. This would enable us to furnish a more detailed and comprehensive response underpinned by the substantial data and analysis available in our paper.
2. Radiocarbon Dates: Specific reasons cited for considering the radiocarbon dates as misappropriated would assist us in responding more effectively. We stand by the methodology outlined in our paper, which includes sample selection, laboratory analysis, calibration techniques, and alignment with observed weathering, supporting the credibility of our results. The underlying data supporting the radiocarbon analysis are provided in Figures 4 and 5 (locations of sampling), Table 2 (Result of radiocarbon analysis), Figure 7 (Result of the Oxcal Analysis), and Supplementary Figures D (more illustrations, original lab results, and detailed calibration graphs using the OxCal method).Any specific points or discrepancies raised regarding the radiocarbon dates would be helpful for our detailed response.
3. Soil Samples and Cultural Materials: As detailed in our paper, the soil samples containing organic remains were carefully selected from trenching walls and full-cored sections within specific contexts of the multi-layered constructions (Units 1, 2, and 3) and associated ancient soil fill. While these samples do not contain direct portable archaeological artifacts, they were chosen to date the materials composing these man-made layers (archaeological features) based on their stratigraphic contexts and preservation conditions. The Bayesian statistical analysis (OxCal method) presented in the paper rigorously aligns the dates with observed weathering, strengthening the credibility of our results. Furthermore, the absence of samples directly related to portable artifacts underscores the potential for future, more extensive excavations by qualified experts in archaeology, geology, and geochronology.
4. Radiocarbon Dating Challenges: Acknowledging the challenges and complexities associated with radiocarbon dating of soil samples. Our paper has addressed these

issues, particularly concerning potential contaminations. While our current results are valid and reasonable, we suggested in the paper that future comprehensive dating efforts could enhance accuracy and further strengthen the evidence.

Should specific details or further information be required from our end to address these concerns more effectively, we are more than willing to assist. Your guidance and assistance are invaluable, and we are committed to providing the necessary information for a comprehensive evaluation.

Sincerely,

Danny Hilman Natawidjaja (On behalf of the Authors)

‌26 December, 2023 – Authors Response:

Dear Dr. Paalman,

We appreciate your email and the detailed critiques provided by the experts regarding our article in Archaeological Prospection. To further address these concerns effectively, we kindly seek further clarification on the ongoing investigation:

1. Investigation Procedure and Outcomes: As this investigation constitutes post-publication expert critiques, please clarify where we stand within the outlined procedure (https://publicationethics.org/node/50816)? Understanding the potential outcomes— whether it involves rejecting the critiques, publishing the critiques and replies in the same journal, making corrections to the published paper, or considering retractions—would help us gauge the progression and appropriately respond.
2. Investigator Composition and Assembly: You mentioned submitting our response to the editors and investigators. Could you elaborate on whether the editors assembled these investigators or if they are independent experts designated for this investigation?
3. Expert Identities and Expertise Disclosure: Regarding the four experts who raised concerns encompassing archaeology, geology, geophysics, and carbon dating, could you provide clarity on which expert corresponds to Expert A, B, C, and D? Understanding their backgrounds and expertise would assist us in comprehending their opinions in line with their respective fields. Additionally, could their identities be disclosed to facilitate a more informed understanding of their perspectives?
4. Supporting Evidence in Expert Concerns: In adherence to COPE guidelines, accepted critiques should be supported by evidence or data. While we acknowledge the concerns expressed by the experts (A, B, C, D) outlined in the attachment, some of these concerns lack detailed scientific explanations related to the content of our paper. For instance, Expert A presents subjective statements without elucidating further. Expert B outlines concerns but without specific references to our paper’s content. Expert C provides statements of disagreement but lacks evidence or explanations linked to our paper’s specifics. Expert D offers some explanations yet lacks substantial evidence to support fundamental concerns, such as the existence of archaeological phenomena.

We eagerly await your response so we can proceed with our replies to the concerns raised. Your prompt assistance in this matter is deeply appreciated.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely,

Danny Hilman Natawidjaja (On behalf of the Authors)

‌6 January, 2024 – Author’s responses:

Dear Dr. Paalman,

Thank you for your recent email and the comprehensive explanation regarding the ongoing investigation into our article. We appreciate the effort to clarify the situation. From your email, it appears that the investigation was prompted by concerns raised by several third parties and subsequently agreed upon by the Co-Editors, indicating a major scientific error in our paper. This assertion is indeed alarming, particularly considering the extensive duration undergone in the peer-review process. Managed by Executive Co-Editor-in-Chief Professor G. Tsokas, the review lasted approximately nine months, from the submission on December 14, 2022, to its acceptance notification on September 15, 2023. As explained, in alignment with the COPE Retraction Guidelines, our responses by the deadline on January 8, 2024, will determine the Co-Editors’ decision—to reject concerns deemed invalid, implement necessary corrections, or proceed with retractions should there be a fundamental uncorrectable error. Could you kindly confirm if our interpretation aligns with the outlined course of action?

We sincerely regret any potential confusion or misinterpretation arising from our previous responses. Committed to addressing these concerns with the utmost comprehensiveness, we are bewildered that an investigation has been initiated without specific evidence or clear scientific rationale from the Co-Editors.

Another disconcerting aspect is the premature leak of this investigation to the public via an article in Nature by Dyani Lewis, dated November 28. This early disclosure has propelled this investigation to the forefront, leading to extensive coverage in major news media fueling negative comments from experts on our paper. Could you kindly elucidate on this matter and its alignment with COPE procedures?

To provide an effective and substantiated response, we humbly request detailed information outlining the specific concerns raised by the third-party experts or the precise findings on major scientific errors put forth by the Co-Editors. This crucial information has not been provided thus far, significantly limiting our capacity to comprehensively address the raised concerns or findings.

Nevertheless, based on our current understanding, it appears that the primary criticisms are centered around two fundamental aspects: the evidence substantiating the existence of man-made structures and the reliability of the radiocarbon dating analysis. Below, we endeavor to address the issues within the scope of the information available to us.

Regarding the Man-made Structures:

While meticulous visual observations of surficial exposures in section 3.1.1 and Figure 2 are crucial, our study employed diverse methodologies beyond surface observations. As delineated in previous responses, it involved a multidisciplinary team, detailed trenching, core drilling, and comprehensive geophysical data (GPT, ERT, ST).

The paper clearly delineates that the man-made construction layers (i.e., Unit 1, Unit 2, and Unit 3) encapsulate the basaltic-andesite rock formation. The detailed visual observations atop the hill, highlighted in section 3.1.1, vividly illustrate two distinct phases of man-made construction layers, Unit 1 & 2, supplemented by substantial evidence (Figure 2, 3, 4, Sup. Figures B). While Unit 1 is universally acknowledged as man-made, the distinct characteristics of Unit 2 support its artificial nature. Unit 2, including its evident outer geometry, forming flat floors and a 9-meter-high wall between T-1 (Terrace 1) and T-2, alongside distinct internal structures, such as columnar-rock alignment parallel to layer, affirm human construction activities (Figure 2, Sup. Figs B1&B2). Additional observations, such as the presence of mortars or fillers between columnar rocks (Figure 2-3-4, Sup. Figs B2 & B4), flat-rock fragment emplacements (Figure 3d), aligned blocky-rock fragments (Figure 4e), and other pertinent observations, such as an artificial hole (Sup Figs B.7B-C) corroborate our interpretation.

Unit 3, brought to light through cliff exposures (Figure 3) and detailed trenching (Figure 4c, 4d, Sup. Fig. B3 & B9), showcases compelling characteristics suggesting human construction. These features notably include the presence of a similar columnar rock alignment parallel to its layering, a distinct artificial steeply dipping rock wall, evidence of prolonged aerial exposure preceding intentional burial beneath ancient soil fill, followed by Unit 2’s emplacement. The presence of nearby rounded-andesite-boulder rocks further affirms their unnatural state.

Unit 4 comprises intrusive basaltic andesite rocks predating human occupation in Gunung Padang. However, it has been enveloped by artificial rock layers (Units 3, 2, and 1). Notably, while Units 2 and 3 cover the upper part of the hill to about 30 meters below the top, Gunung Padang’s height extends to about 200 meters from its hill base, affirming that the majority of Gunung Padang comprises a natural hill.

Hence, experts contesting the notion of the layers of Units 1, 2, and Unit 3 being artificial constructions must provide compelling explanations to substantiate their reservations.

Interpreting Unit 2 and Unit 3 as naturally occurring geological formations necessitates aligning their assertions with comprehensive evidence and reasoned perspectives. We also observe Expert D’s comment (No.4), stating, “The only human modification seems to have occurred near-surface, in Stratum 2 or above,” likely referring to Unit 2 and Unit 1.

Regarding Radiocarbon Dating Analysis:

In consideration of concerns about the accuracy of radiocarbon dates from soil samples, our methodology adhered to established laboratory protocols for sample selection, analysis, and calibration. Moreover, it meticulously considered observed weathering patterns and stratigraphic contexts, detailed in Table 2, Figure 7, and Supplementary Figures D. The dating study comprehensively involved organic remains extracted from layers within Unit 1, Unit 2, and Unit 3, encompassing both the soil foundation and the ancient soil fill, which were deduced to be associated with man-made constructions or human activities (Table 2, Figure 7a). Criticisms that overlook this foundational premise result in an inaccurate interpretation of the carbon dating analysis

Acknowledging the study’s inherent limitations—such as constraints related to sample quantities, potential uncertainties stemming from contaminants, and methodological challenges—we advocate for future extensive radiometric dating studies, as suggested in section 4.2

We genuinely hope that a more detailed disclosure of the specific concerns will facilitate our ability to offer a comprehensive and focused response. Specifically, we request that the concerns be explicitly directed toward specific segments of our paper that are deemed to contain major errors. We believe that a two-way dialogue will ensure a fair assessment.

Therefore, should further clarifications and explanations be required, we respectfully request an extension of the deadline for discussions. Constructive criticism, substantiated by clear evidence, is pivotal for scientific advancement, and we are dedicated to actively participating in this critical process.

Thank you for your understanding and patience during this process. We eagerly await further information regarding the investigation’s progress.

Sincerely,

Danny Hilman Natawidjaja (On behalf of the Authors)

‌7 January, 2024 – Authors most detailed responses to the Critiques from the A-B-C-D Experts:

Dear Dr. Paalman,

We respectfully disagree that the comments from the four experts offer clear scientific rationales for initiating this investigation. Hence, we aim to address each expert comment with the specificity and scientific rigor to provide clarity on the matter at hand.

Response to Expert A (7 Nov 2023):

While acknowledging the quality of our geophysical survey data, Expert A questions its correlation to the identification of Gunung Padang as a pyramid-like structure, particularly contesting the dating of the structure. The expert raises scepticism, suggesting that the dating relies predominantly on organic soils rather than direct evidence of human constructions or modifications from that era. However, the expert’s concerns lack substantiated reasoning supported by clear and detailed arguments directly addressing the contentions presented in our paper.

Contrary to these doubts, our geophysical data extensively supports the assertion that Gunung Padang is a substantial pyramid-like structure, not merely natural hills with surficial stone terraces (Unit 1). Furthermore, our in-depth geophysical assessments, incorporating Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR), Electric Resistivity Tomography (ERT), and Seismic Tomography (ST), are cross-referenced with comprehensive data derived from surface exposures, trenching, and core drilling.

Our meticulous analyses on these fronts provided a wealth of evidence supporting our conclusions: the upper section of Gunung Padang Hill is capped by artificial rock layers, Units 1, 2, and 3, spanning approximately 20 to 30 meters in thickness. These artificial layers envelop Unit 4, comprising natural massive basaltic andesite rocks (Tertiary volcanic formation). Experts contesting the artificial nature of Units 1, 2, and 3 must substantiate their claims with tangible evidence and comprehensive descriptions to refute our findings.

The role of geophysical data was pivotal in exploring underground structures correlating with the geometrical layout of Units 1, 2, 3, and 4. The results vividly demonstrate that the artificial layers’ (Units 1, 2, and 3) orientations roughly parallel the ground surface. These layers exhibit horizontal orientation around the flat top ground and dip parallel to the slope beneath the hill and the high-slope terrace between Terrace 1 and Terrace 2. Additionally, the geophysical data strongly indicates that the top of Unit 4 mimics the layers above and the ground surface, signifying previous carving before envelopment by Unit 3. This is particularly highlighted in Seismic Tomography (ST) images (Figure 12, Sup. Figures G).

The 2D and 3D ERT unveiled Extremely High-Resistive Anomaly (EHRA) zones (Figures 10a, 11, Sup. Figs F2, F4, F5, F6, and F8), indicating substantial underground voids near the structure’s center, corroborated by Low-Velocity seismic Anomaly (LVA) seen in the ST image (Figure 12c, Sup. Figure G4), confirming the existence of a significant cavity. Furthermore, the ST sections revealed distinct straight vertical structures situated at the northern face of the LVA (Figure 12b, Sup. Fig. G3). This section indicates a suspected large cavity located above the massive basaltic andesite, suggesting a non-natural (lava) cavity. Thus, with its position and apparent shape, we confidently conclude that this EHRA-LVA zone represents an artificial chamber. The existence of large cavities beneath the ground was further supported by core drilling at the GP-4 site, encountering a substantial void, evident by a significant loss of drilling water (32,000 liters) (Figure 5c).

Our conclusion that Gunung Padang is a pre-historic pyramid stands on a comprehensive foundation of evidence drawn from meticulous surface examinations, trenching, core drilling, and extensive analysis of geophysical data. Consequently, the concern expressed by Expert A does not seem to align with the robust scientific evidence presented.

Regarding the dating, our carbon dating analysis is indeed based on meticulous extraction of organic soil samples sourced from layers within Units 1, 2, and 3, conclusively established as artificial construction layers, providing tangible evidence of human interventions and alterations. Additionally, the organic soil samples were sourced from ancient soil fills burying Unit 3 beneath Terrace 5 (Figure 4c and 4d, Figure 5 b-d, Sup. Figure B.3). Notably, the profile of the ancient soil fills distinctly lacks in situ weathering, which should typically exhibit gradual weathering upward from the underlying rock mass. The abrupt boundary between the soil fills and the underlying rock mass (Unit 3) serves as clear evidence of human activities in burying Unit 3 before constructing Unit 2. The carbon-date ages of the ancient soil thus represent the minimum age of Unit 3 and the maximum age of Unit 2.

The comprehensive results of our carbon dating analysis are summarized in Table 2. According to the OxCal analysis, factoring in carbon dates and stratigraphical analysis, the ages of the multi-layer constructions at Gunung Padang are depicted in Figure 7 as follows: Unit 1 dates back to 2023 – 1132 BCE, Unit 2 ranges from 6071 – 5483 BCE, Ancient Soil fills burying Unit 3 span from 7939 – 6103 BCE, and Unit 3 itself dates back to 25353 – 14162 BCE.

Hence, Expert A’s concerns regarding the reliability of our dating methods lack substantive support and fail to align with the empirical evidence presented in our thorough analysis.

Response to Expert B (7 Nov 2023):

In response to the observations made by Expert B, it is apparent that although the expert is professionally trained in geophysics, their critiques predominantly focus on our paper’s geological and archaeological aspects, echoing similarities to the points raised by Expert A. However, we seek to address these specific criticisms with added detail and precision.

Expert B contests our assertion that Gunung Padang represents a human-made pyramid, suggesting that Section 3.1.1 with Figure 2 lacks irrefutable evidence supporting anything beyond a natural origin for the mound.

Contrary to this assertion, Section 3.1.1 with Figure 2 extensively portrays the meticulous visual observations of stone-terrace structures. These observations not only unequivocally support the recognition of the widely accepted man-made ancient ‘megalithic’ site, Unit 1, but also bring to light the previously overlooked Unit 2. This finding serves as a pivotal piece of evidence in our paper, as numerous past studies conducted by Indonesian archaeologists failed to identify it as a man-made construction. The external geometry of Unit 2 corresponds to the layout of the megalithic rock terraces. It is enveloped by thin soil fills and adorned with Unit 1’s surface rock arrangements on its top and sides. Thus, categorizing Unit 2 as natural columnar-joint rocks does not dismiss the existence of human modifications, as these rocks must have undergone carving before being enveloped by soil fills and adorned with Unit 1’s rock arrangements. Cutting and shaping these ‘natural columnar-joint rocks’ might indeed entail challenges surpassing those posed by the artificial arrangement of columnar-rock blocks.

Moreover, the abrupt change in orientation of the columnar-rock alignments within Unit 2, shifting from an orientation of N70°E (Figure 2a&d) on the ramp between T1 (Terrace 1) and T2 to N55°E on T2-T3 (Figure 2h&g), further bolsters the argument for the artificial nature of Unit 2.”

Alongside the abundant evidence indicating unmistakable artificial characteristics within Unit 2 and Unit 3, our research has unveiled numerous suspected stone artifacts intricately associated with these layers. These artifacts are visually depicted in Figures 4d, Supplementary Figure B.3D1-3, Figure B.6D&E, Figure B.3.7E&F, and Supplementary Figure-I, offering further corroboration of the human involvement and cultural significance embedded within these stratigraphic units.

Expert B further criticizes our reliance on radiocarbon dating based on organic soils within Units 1, 2, and 3, echoing similar sentiments expressed by Expert A. However, it is essential to clarify that these critiques regarding the absence of specific anthropogenic features linked to carbon dates constitute a misinterpretation. The organic matter containing C-14 found within the man-made layers (Units 1, 2, and 3) likely represents remnants of bio- organic activities during or after the construction of each layer. Therefore, the carbon dates obtained from these organic soils offer approximate age ranges for these artificial layers.

In conclusion, Expert B’s ultimate critique claiming that ‘our article, presenting archaeological interpretations that are not supported by the data, is not living up to the basic scientific standards…’ lacks a substantiated scientific rationale when thoroughly examined against the breadth of evidence presented in our paper.

Response to Expert C (29 Nov 2023):

In response to the commentary provided by Expert C (29 Nov 2023), who possesses a background in physics and experience studying radiocarbon dating, we seek to address their

observations on our radiocarbon dating section and its correlation to the anthropogenic activities associated with Gunung Padang.

Expert C contends that our presented dates are excessively old for the supposed structure, implying that the organic soil materials we dated have no connection to anthropogenic activities, therefore producing random dates irrelevant to the structure under study. This assertion appears aligned with the perspectives shared by Experts A and B, suggesting that Units 1, 2, and 3 at Gunung Padang are not artificial constructions. Thus, under this premise, they dismiss the associations between our carbon dates and anthropogenic activities.

We find it perplexing that Expert C refrains from leveraging their expertise to discuss the reliability of our radiocarbon dating methodology, which inherently relies on the premise articulated in our paper—that Units 1, 2, and 3 constitute artificial layers. Instead, they critique the validity of our carbon dates, assuming Units 1, 2, and 3 as natural geological formations without substantiating their assumptions. Their lack of commentary on our carbon dating method and analysis, as elaborated in sections 2.4 and 3.4, suggests an absence of objections to these aspects.

Contrary to Expert C’s assertion that our carbon dates yield random results, our analysis of organic soils from Units 1, 2, and 3 remains remarkably consistent. Section 3.4, supported by Table 2 and Figure 7, meticulously elucidates the uniformity in age ranges derived from organic soils within the same Units. Notably, the ages obtained from the organic soils of the Ancient soil fills align with the stratigraphic context, presenting ages younger than Unit 3 but older than Unit 2, thereby substantiating our interpretations.

Expert C’s assertion that our carbon dates are excessively old for ‘such a structure’ raises additional confusion. Gunung Padang sits upon the Tertiary Volcanic Complex, signifying an age of millions of years, not thousands. If ‘such a structure’ refers to a natural geological formation, our carbon dating analysis would, in fact, yield dates that are too young, as radiocarbon dating is restricted to maximum ages of 50 – 60,000 years.

In conclusion, with the utmost respect, the critiques posited by Expert C lack a substantiated scientific rationale, particularly in light of our detailed explanations and evidence-based analysis provided in the paper.

Response to Expert D (30 Nov 2023):

Regarding the comprehensive observations made by Expert D, who is presumably well- versed in archaeology, we aim to address their critical evaluation of our paper’s geological context and the application of the radiocarbon dating method.

Expert D contends that our study misreads the geological context and misuses the radiocarbon dating methodology by failing to present evidence of archaeological phenomena beyond those situated at the hill’s crest before engaging in carbon dating analysis. They suggest that the observed rocks largely stem from volcanic remnants subjected to erosion and weathering, except for what they identify as ‘archaeological phenomena’ atop the hill (implying Unit 1 & 2?). Contrary to other experts, Expert D possibly only questions the artificial nature of Unit 3 as a rock construction.

While acknowledging that Unit 3 might not overtly exhibit characteristics akin to Unit 2, we stress that, from available data, Unit 3 does not conform to natural geological formations, as extensively explained in our paper and also described earlier.

Several authors are senior geologists, including a petrologist with expertise in natural columnar-joint rocks. Given their considerable geological experience, identifying Unit 3 as not a natural columnar formation should be evident, as elaborated in our manuscript.

Additionally, our determination of Units 2 and 3 as artificial constructions is not solely based on the appearance of ‘parallel-lying ‘columnar rocks, as suggested by Expert D. It results from a meticulous analysis of the orientation of the columnar-rock alignment relative to their bedding attitudes, various internal structures that differentiate between natural and artificial columnar-rock arrangements, and their geographical positions.

Upon close examination, we observed minimal erosive impacts on the upper section of Gunung Padang Hill, which is enveloped by artificial layers, evident from its comparatively smooth surfaces. This stark contrast is notable when juxtaposed with the extensively eroded landscapes of the surrounding hills, as illustrated in Section 3.1 (Figure 1, Sup. Fig. A).

Discussing weathering patterns, the layers comprising Units 1, 2, and 3 exhibit distinct degrees of weathering. Contrary to the expected natural weathering process that typically displays reduced weathering in deeper sections, Unit 2 displays more weathering than Unit

1. Notably, Unit 3, positioned as the deepest layer, exhibits the most pronounced weathering (Figure 3). These variations can be attributed to prolonged exposures before the subsequent younger units covered them. This compelling evidence further reinforces the artificial nature of these layers, challenging the notion of their natural origin.

We acknowledge and support Expert D’s insightful perspective regarding the role of roots in carbon dating, particularly emphasizing the potential significance of organic soils containing ancient roots that might penetrate rocks. In our view, these ancient roots could serve as valuable constraints for dating the artificial layers. Therefore, we deliberately sought evidence of ancient roots within Units 2 and 3, presuming they existed before being subsequently covered or buried.

Regrettably, our attempts to ascertain the presence of these ancient roots were inconclusive, possibly due to decomposition dispersing remnants within the soils. Our cautious approach during the organic soil sampling process aimed to mitigate the risk of modern root contamination, as discussed in our paper. This precaution was essential to prevent any skewing of carbon dates towards younger ages that might occur if modern roots were inadvertently included in the samples.

As for the OxCal analysis, the standard methodology utilized inherent Bayesian principles available in the online OxCal tool. This approach not only calibrates carbon dates individually but also considers their uncertainty and stratigraphic positions. The results of this analysis are evident in Figure 7, showcasing the value of Bayesian techniques, especially with larger datasets.

Expert D keenly observes the visible features at Gunung Padang, such as rock alignments, stairways, and terraces. While a ‘pyramid’ is not immediately apparent without specialized glasses akin to possessing X-ray vision to peer through the buried structure, this metaphorical ‘X-ray vision’ is reflected in the outcomes of our exhaustive and all- encompassing geophysical surveys detailed within our paper.

In conclusion, despite acknowledging Expert D’s valuable insights, notably regarding roots and rootlets, their assertion that our study lacks a scientific foundation seems to overlook our paper’s comprehensive evidence and detailed analyses. Therefore, their concerns ought to be reconsidered within the context of our work’s detailed information and conclusions.

CONCLUSIONS

After an exhaustive examination and thorough response to the critiques posited by Experts A, B, C, and D, meticulously aligning with the comprehensive data and analysis presented in our paper, it is resoundingly evident that their criticisms lack the fundamental support of clear scientific rationales and empirical evidence meticulously detailed within our extensive study.

Throughout our comprehensive rebuttal, we have painstakingly clarified each critique, substantiating our stance with substantial evidence and robust arguments derived from our comprehensive research. Therefore, upon revisiting their concerns in light of our detailed explanations and conclusive evidence, it becomes apparent that our study firmly stands on a bedrock of meticulous research and rigorous analysis. We extend our gratitude for your time and attention to this matter and eagerly welcome any further inquiries or discussions.

Sincerely,

Danny Hilman Natawidjaja (On behalf of the Authors)

‌January 9, 2024 – Authors additional responses :

Dear Dr. Paalman,

Thank you for promptly acknowledging and ensuring further communication. We greatly appreciate your guidance and stewardship as the chair of Wiley’s Integrity Assurance and Case Resolution. Additionally, we hold the Co-Editors of the esteemed Journal in high regard.

We extend our heartfelt appreciation to Wiley, a renowned scientific publisher, and the Editorial Board of the Archaeological Prospection Journal. Their commitment to rigorous peer review and the insightful comments of the reviewers have played an instrumental role in refining our manuscript. These critiques have motivated us to significantly enhance the quality of our work.

Our manuscript presents an extensive compilation of data derived from diverse scientific methodologies, analyzed and synthesized by a multidisciplinary team. Condensing this breadth of information within the constraints of limited word counts and figures was challenging. Consequently, we have provided supplementary material to offer additional depth and context to interested scholars.

Our aim is not to undermine established beliefs but to inspire fresh perspectives and encourage collaborative exploration in the pursuit of scientific advancement. While acknowledging that our findings are not flawless, constrained by time, resources, equipment, and expertise, we have strived to present our best work.

We strongly suggest that the critiques from the third parties and our responses be published together as a Letter to the Editor or Commentary. This will foster a balanced scientific discourse, contributing to scientific progress. Considering the widespread attention this investigation has garnered worldwide through mass media, it would undoubtedly pique the interest of many.

We are committed to continually improving scientific discourse and are grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this noble pursuit.

We eagerly await any further guidance or input you may have.

Sincerely,

Danny Hilman Natawidjaja (On behalf of the Authors)

5 February 2024

Dear Dr. Paalman,

I hope this email finds you well. Firstly, I would like to express our gratitude for your team’s efforts to evaluate the concerns raised about our paper. Nonetheless, we are writing to express our dissatisfaction with the conclusion reached by The Co-Editors, yourself, and others within Wiley’s Integrity Assurance & Case Resolution office, regarding the proposed retraction of our paper.

First, allow us to reiterate here that the reasons for the proposed retraction do not pertain to ethical misconduct, fabrication or falsification of data, plagiarism, or unethical research practices. Rather, they stem from concerns raised by third parties who hold differing

opinions to ours regarding the interpretation of our data. Despite our extensive correspondence, your team has concluded that our paper contains “major errors,” thus aligning itself with the viewpoints of the third parties who raised this matter with you in the first place while wholly disregarding the arguments, scientific evidence, and rationales that vitiate those concerns.

The stated reason for the proposed retraction, as outlined in the drafted retraction notice, alleges that the radiocarbon dating was applied to soil samples lacking association with any artifacts or features reliably interpreted as anthropogenic or ‘man-made.’

However, we have presented scientific evidence and reasoning in previous correspondence that comprehensively refute this assertion, demonstrating its lack of validity and support in evidence or scientific rationale. It is widely adopted practise in the scientific community to employ radiocarbon dating on soil samples, especially when these samples are linked to archaeological features or man-made rock structures, such as those denoted as Unit 1, Unit 2, and Unit 3 in the paper.

Therefore, we contend that the stated reason for retraction is invalid and cannot serve as a basis for retracting the article. In other words, we respectfully request sufficient explanations to better understand the basis of your conclusions. We request clear evidence and explanations as to why Units 1, 2, 3 are deemed to be natural rock or geological rock formations by the third parties. These explanations must address all the evidence of Unit 1, Unit 2 and Unit 3 that we have discovered. As far as our understanding goes, the third parties have expressed their opinions without substantiating proven facts.

Furthermore, you mentioned that the painstaking nine-month peer review process did not catch the alleged ‘major errors’ related to archaeological interpretation or radiocarbon dating. If that were indeed the case then this oversight reflects an editorial mistake on the part of the journal, for which the Co-Editors should bear responsibility. However, we see no evidence for any such oversight in the journal’s peer-review process. On the contrary, our responses to the concerns raised by third parties have been robust and meticulously crafted to address each point comprehensively, drawing directly from the content of our paper. We have concluded that all the concerns lack foundations in scientific evidence and rationales. To date, our rigorous explanations, specifically tailored to address each third-party critique, have not been disproved, but merely disagreed with by others who hold contrary opinions. Therefore, to the best of our knowledge, while undoubtedly serving as a stimulus for debate, our paper remains free of any major proven errors.

It’s worth noting that while the peer reviewers primarily focused on the geophysical aspects, we continuously refined all sections of our paper, including archaeological, geological, and radiocarbon-dating analyses, throughout the peer review process. In fact, the OxCal analysis we applied to the radiocarbon age data was prompted by a reviewer’s comment. This underscores our unwavering commitment to improving the scientific content and presentation of our work.

It is crucial to emphasize that the content of our paper is firmly grounded in extensive geological knowledge of the site and our expertise in the field. We assert with confidence

that every columnar-joint rock layer at Gunung Padang has undergone deliberate extraction, transportation, cutting, and arrangement by human activity, unequivocally establishing them as man-made constructions. Notably, natural columnar-joint rock formations are absent in Gunung Padang and its vicinity, spanning a radius of at least 5 kilometres. We welcome any expert who wishes to present evidence to the contrary.

The anonymous third parties whose backgrounds, qualifications, and experiences remain undisclosed, seem to lack a comprehensive understanding of the site and the multidisciplinary methods we employed, especially in geological aspects. Furthermore, a significant concern regarding this scientific discourse and your investigation is that the third parties whose concerns you support do not appear to have conducted their own on-site investigations. If it turns out to be the case that all, or even a majority, of these third parties have failed to visit Gunung Padang, or even Indonesia, then this should surely raise questions about the depth of their understanding of the context and methodologies involved.

Please take into consideration that if our paper had been rejected during the peer review process, it would have been understandable, as journal editors have the prerogative to accept or reject papers based on their judgment. However, once a paper has been accepted and published, it signifies an agreement between the publisher and the authors. Retracting the paper post-publication, with reasoning based only on the opinions of third parties, not only undermines the authors’ credibility but also tarnishes their reputations as well as the reputation of the journal itself. Retracting our paper will also have the effect of discrediting the extensive effort and dedication we have invested over the years, and could impede, rather than galvanize, future studies in the field.

The paper has been published as open access (OA), enabling global access for readers to freely read and download, including all our research data. Consequently, our data has already become public. To date, numerous mass media worldwide have utilized them.

Retracting the paper will not retract our data from the public domain, thus disadvantaging us as the owners of the data.

Furthermore, this ongoing investigation has been leaked to the mass media, resulting in the scientific community and the public demanding sufficient explanations regarding the alleged major errors and our responses. Hence, we deem the proposed text for the retraction to be woefully insufficient. Despite your team’s ex post facto judgment that our paper contains a major error, readers and the public deserve to hear our scientific explanations defending the content of our paper. Thus, if our paper is retracted, we will be left with no alternative but to make our correspondence and the detailed process of the retraction open to the public in our own manner and in a time and place of our own choosing.

To further substantiate our position, we kindly request the opportunity to respond to your team’s conclusions and the drafted retraction notice. Our additional scientific reasons center around two primary points, as previously discussed: 1. The existence of man-made structures (Units 1-2-3) at Gunung Padang, and 2. The reliability of carbon dating analysis.

We have prepared new figures to illustrate and provide evidences supporting our explanations, in addition to the content of our paper.

We adhere to a key principle of archaeology, which we believe should be in harmony with fundamental principles of geology, forming the cornerstone of our geo-archaeological method. The rock layers (Units 2 & 3) defy explanation as natural geological formations, as previously expounded upon.

Extra-Figure 1 contrasts the distinctions between natural columnar-joint rocks and the artificial columnar rocks found in Gunung Padang. In nature, columnar rocks are typically perpendicular to their flow directions, mostly aligned with the geological layer (A1). These natural formations exhibit tightly bound and interlocking columns with no matrices present between them (A2-4). Additionally, their shapes and sizes tend to be homogeneous.

However, the physical characteristics of the columnar rocks in Gunung Padang deviate from these natural features (Extra-Figure 1 B1–B10). In other word, Unit’s 1, 2, 3 do not exhibit the characteristics of a natural columnar-joint rock formation and interpreting it as such would necessitate a considerable leap of imagination. Moreover, they defy interpretation as the result of natural erosions, sedimentary depositions, or products of landslides.

Consequently, Units 1, 2, 3 are undoubtedly of anthropogenic origin or man-made structures, a conclusion supported by ample evidence derived from their detailed geometry and internal structures. Furthermore, Unit 2 plays a defining role in shaping the walls and floors between Terraces (T) 1 & 2, as well as the floors of T2 & T3—a factual observation, not open to interpretation (see Extra-Figure 1-B2, Extra Figure 2A & 2B).

Previous archaeological studies misinterpreted Unit 2 as a natural rock formation without specifying the rock type. Such an assertion would imply an extraordinary level of skill from the builders in sculpting these ‘natural rocks.’ However, such a notion defies geological plausibility.

Additionally, Extra-Figure 3A&B has been included to distinguish between the natural and artificial components of Gunung Padang Hill comprehensively. The artificial rock layers are highlighted as high-resistivity anomalies, adorning the upper portion of the natural hill (Extra-Figure 3B), while the remainder of the hill comprises natural formations.

Unit 3 exhibits significantly more weathering than Unit 2, and their interface is distinct, which contradicts the typical natural weathering pattern where rocks gradually become more weathered towards the ground surface. This reverse weathering suggests that Unit 3 had prolonged exposure over thousands of years before it was covered by Unit 2 or buried by soil fills as evidenced in Trenching Echo 2 and Delta -1, and the drill cores (GP-2, GP-4, and GP-5). The andesite boulders of Unit 3, located near the Unit 3’s columnar rocks, both buried under the same soil fills, supports the artificial nature of Unit 3. The boulders are on top of the hill, while the stream is more than 100-m lower. It follows, therefore, that these rock boulders must have been transported by human, not natural agency. Further evidence of Unit 3’s anthropogenic origin includes its flat top and smooth steep wall, as observed in Trenching Echo 2.

Alongside the compelling evidence supporting the artificial nature of Units 2 & 3 layers, we have also discovered a number of small artifacts both in Unit 2 and Unit 3. While some of these artifacts are depicted in the main and supplementary figures of our paper, we refrained from discussing them in detail as our paper primarily focuses on the geological and geophysical aspects of the site. Therefore, the exploration of the ‘artefactual aspects’ of Gunung Padang will be the focus of an upcoming paper.

The most noteworthy stone artifact is the Kujang Stone (Extra-Figure 4) (Figure 4D and Sup. Figure-1.1 in our paper). The Kujang stone exhibits unique and distinctive geometry and size with sharp edges, characteristics that cannot reasonably be interpreted as the result of geological processes. For instance, rocks transported by water tend to develop rounded edges rather than sharp ones. Moreover, the type of rock comprising the Kujang stone differs from any other rocks found in Gunung Padang. Its position atop Unit 3’s rock boulders and burial by soil fills (at Delta Trench – T-5) further affirms its human-made origin. In essence, the discovery of the Kujang stone underscores the anthropogenic aspects of Unit 3.

There is a larger ‘Kujang’ stone displaying an overall shape resembling columnar rocks but with a distinctive sharp bend and discernible tool marks (Extra-Figure 5a-d). Additionally, numerous columnar rocks bearing unusual marks/symbols are evident (Extra-Figure 6 A-B). These marks are unlikely to have resulted from escaping gases during the cooling of rocks, as they typically occur in thin, porous lava rocks rather than in fine-grained massive solid andesites (Extra-Figure 6A). There is also abundant evidence of sharp-tool marks (Extra- Figure 5 d-e-f). Furthermore, abundant columnar rocks with ‘bowl’ marks (Extra-Figure 6C)) are discovered, often found underground in Unit 2 columnar rocks filled with mortars, possibly indicating their use in locking or reinforcing the bond between columnar rocks.

Considering that Units 2 and 3 have not been falsely interpreted as man-made features, our carbon dating method and results should not be deemed problematic. While carbon dating analysis comes with uncertainties, particularly in organic soil samples, it is widely accepted in the scientific community, and we must utilize the available samples and methods.

Our paper not only aims to present the findings of our investigations but also introduces innovative and comprehensive geo-archaeological methods, a rarity particularly within Indonesia. In essence, while conventional archaeological methods focus on dating artifacts or substances directly connected to human activities, such as charcoals and bones, geo- archaeological methods extend to substances containing C-14 resulting from natural processes related to the targeted archaeological artifacts or features (see Extra-Figure 7). For instance, we can date paleosols associated with the construction of ancient structures or soils that have buried these structures, providing minimum age estimates. Additionally, it’s worth noting that archaeologists often date suitable artifacts, yet their stratigraphic positions may not align with the targeted artifacts or features.

Contrary to the perceptions of your team and the third-party critics, our carbon dating analysis targeted organic samples extracted from man-made rock constructions (Units 1, 2, and 3), including their soil foundations and fills, to date carbon remnants from decomposed ancient roots, rootlets, and other bio-organisms as depicted in Extra-Figure 8.

After the construction of Unit 3, it remained exposed to the air for thousands of years, during which ancient roots, rootlets, and other organisms inhabited the layer, leaving behind carbon remains upon death. Subsequently, it was buried and covered by Unit 2 constructions. In later periods, Unit 2 underwent similar exposure and burial processes.

Moreover, modern grass and trees predominantly penetrate the near-surface soils and seldom penetrate the Unit 2 layer. Thus, the carbon dates of organic soils from Units 1, 2, and 3 indicate a specific range of ages for each unit.

Please note that the stratigraphy around the summit of Gunung Padang Hill primarily comprises fragmented pieces of columnar and boulder basaltic-andesite rocks interspersed with matrix or soils, extending from the hilltop to depths of 20-30 meters, underground.

These fragmented-rock formations rest upon massive volcanic-basaltic rocks, all of which are tens of millions of years old. In contrast, soil samples taken from between fragmented rocks have been dated to only a few thousand to a few tens of thousands of years old, which presents an enigma in natural geological processes.

Third-party critics suggested that these ages could result from dating carbons from multiple generations of root systems and rootlets. However, as explained above, modern tree roots and rootlets primarily penetrate the uppermost soil layers and seldom extend into the Unit 2 layer, let alone penetrate Unit 3. Therefore, even if multiple generations of roots and rootlets were considered, their impact would likely be limited to Unit 2 at most.

Consequently, the presence of relatively young-age soils found at deeper depths amidst very old rocks remains inexplicable.

The geological principle dictates that soils cannot migrate from the near-surface layers to deeper depths over time. Hence, the juxtaposition of relatively young soils between ancient rock layers poses a significant geological challenge.

Based on the natural-rock arguments put forth by the third-party critics, it is suggested that the carbon dates of the layers would produce random ages. However, our study findings contradict these assertions, as outlined previously.

We’ve noticed that your investigation has concluded that interpreting the site as an ancient pyramid built 9,000 or more years ago represents a major error. We wonder if this conclusion is specific to Unit 3 (dated 14,000 – 25,000 BCE), or if it extends to Unit 2 (dated 5,500 – 6,000 BCE) as well. It’s important to note that Unit 3 is buried under soil fills dated to 6,000 – 8,000 BCE, which serves as a minimum age for Unit 3.

In conclusion, we stand by the integrity of our paper and find no major errors warranting retraction. Therefore, the concerns raised by third parties should not be grounds for retracting our paper.

Additionally, we have consulted with colleagues and mentors within our diverse fields, all of whom share our conviction that the journal and Wiley have treated our paper unfairly. Their insights have provided invaluable perspectives on the matter, further bolstering our confidence in the integrity of our work.

Based on the aforementioned points, we respectfully implore Wiley to reconsider its decision to retract our paper. We firmly stand behind the significance of our findings and believe they warrant publication.

Retracting the paper without conducting a thorough investigation, or if the reasons for retraction are not based on sufficient evidence, can lead to several consequences, including damage to the authors’ reputation, loss of trust and confidence in the journal, ethical concerns, and potential legal implications.

We propose that publishing the critiques by third-party critics along with our responses, following the established procedures of Post-Publication Critiques, would be more appropriate. This approach would provide valuable insights to many readers and foster constructive dialogue within the scientific community.

Alternatively, we are open to exploring other avenues, such as issuing a correction or publishing an erratum, to rectify any proved inaccuracies, if such proofs exist, while allowing our paper to remain in the journal.

We want to assure you that we approach this matter with the utmost professionalism and a steadfast commitment to scientific integrity. We hold the peer review process in high regard and recognize the importance of constructive dialogue in advancing scientific knowledge.

We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful consideration of our request. Should you require any additional information or clarification, please do not hesitate to reach out to us.

Thank you for your attention to this matter; we eagerly await your response.

Sincerely,

Danny Hilman Natawidjaja (On behalf of the Authors)

6 February 2024

Email to Prof G. Tsokas (Journal Co-Editor in Chief who directly communicated with us in Peer-Review Processes)

Subject: Request for Reconsideration of Paper Retraction Decision – “Geo-archaeological Prospecting of Gunung Padang Buried Prehistoric Pyramid in West Java, Indonesia”

Dear Prof. G. Tsokas,

I hope this email finds you well. I am writing to you regarding our paper titled “Geo- archaeological Prospecting of Gunung Padang Buried Prehistoric Pyramid in West Java, Indonesia,” which was accepted for publication in the Journal of Archaeological Prospections on September 16, 2023. Unfortunately, we have recently been informed that the Co-Editors and Wiley’s Integrity Assurance & Case Resolution office have decided to retract our paper.

Firstly, please forgive us for directly contacting you regarding this matter, as you were the Co- Editor who directly communicate with us throughout the peer review process. We were satisfied and grateful for the thorough review process, which greatly improved our manuscript. We learned a great deal from our interactions with you and the reviewers.

We are profoundly troubled by the decision to retract our paper and feel that it has been unjustly handled, as indicated in our comprehensive response to the decision (attached). The purported ‘major error’ cited for retracting the paper seems to stem solely from varying interpretations of data by third parties, lacking substantial evidence. These anonymous third parties seem to lack a thorough grasp of the site, the multidisciplinary methodologies we employed, and the meticulous datasets, particularly in geological aspects, as they have not conducted their own studies and may not have visited Gunung Padang. The evidence and arguments presented in our paper and correspondences have not been disproved but simply disregarded. We expect that the additional illustrations and scientific rationale provided in our last email, attached for your reference, can clarify any misunderstandings.

It is also crucial to reiterate that our paper has been published as Open Access, making it accessible to a wide audience. The content of our paper has been utilized by numerous mass media outlets, and retracting it will not retract the data, which are already in the public domain. Furthermore, retracting our paper will significantly impede research continuations at Gunung Padang and hinder our efforts to introduce and develop innovative and comprehensive geo-archaeological methods, particularly in Indonesia. Thus, the retraction may potentially hinder scientific progress rather than contribute to it.

We recognize the significance of upholding the integrity of academic publishing and maintaining the standards set by the Journal of Archaeological Prospections. However, we are concerned that the decision to retract our paper may have been reached without adequate consideration of the evidence and arguments presented in our paper and correspondences, potentially resulting in a retraction based on insufficient evidence. This could not only harm the reputation of the authors but also undermine the credibility of your team, erode trust and confidence in the journal, raise ethical concerns, and potentially lead to legal implications.

We strongly advocate for a more pragmatic approach where the criticisms raised by the third parties are considered as Post-Publication Critiques. This strategy would enable their critiques and our responses to be published as letters to the editors or commentary papers in the Journal. Such an approach would undoubtedly offer valuable insights to a wide range of readers and promote constructive dialogue within the scientific community.

We kindly request an opportunity to discuss this matter further with you and your team. We are confident that upon reviewing the relevant information and engaging in constructive dialogue, we can address any concerns or misunderstandings that may have led to the retraction decision.

We remain committed to the principles of academic integrity and scientific inquiry, and we are hopeful that you will reconsider your decision regarding the retraction of our paper.

Thank you for considering our request. We look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Danny Hilman Natawidjaja (On Behalf of the Authors) Note: Attached are

1. Document of Critiques by the Third Parties
2. Dr Mark Paalman’s last email
3. Our e-mail Reply.
4. Attachments of Figures accompanying our email

14 February

Dear Dr. Paalman,

We appreciate your understanding of our disappointment regarding your team’s decision to retract our paper based on what we perceive as unsubstantiated claims of ‘major errors.’ Despite our efforts to address and refute all critiques raised by third parties, as well as your team’s conclusions, we have not been presented with clear evidence or scientific rationale to support this retraction. Consequently, we find it impossible to agree with this decision.

We believe retracting our paper not only hampers the potential for new scientific discoveries but also impedes progress in scientific advancements, particularly within our field.

However, we acknowledge and respect the authority of the Journal Co-Editors and Wiley, the publisher, in reaching this decision. We appreciate that our disagreement will be acknowledged in the published retraction notice. In light of this, we kindly urge you to include clear reasons for our disagreement, as outlined above, to ensure transparency and clarity for all stakeholders involved.

We await the official letter from Wiley regarding the retraction of our paper and the cancellation of the signed agreement to publish it.

Danny Hilman Natawidjaja (On Behalf of The Authors)

19 February

Dear Dr. Paalman,

We trust this email finds you well.

Allow us to emphasize that, thus far, you have solely presented us with the expressions of differing opinions from third parties regarding our paper. You, Journal Co-Editors, and other team members have sided with these third parties to retract our paper based on an alleged major error, yet no evidence has been provided to support this claim. Despite our thorough efforts to address and refute all critiques and alleged errors, none of our explanations have been disproven or adequately acknowledged. Furthermore, the specific major error cited as the reason for retraction has not been conclusively defined to us. As authors, we expect transparent communication and clarification regarding such matters.

According to COPE guidelines, “if conclusive evidence regarding the reliability of a publication cannot be obtained within a significant period of time, retraction may not be appropriate, and an Expression of Concern may be considered instead.” Given the inconclusive evidence for retraction in this case, it is essential that the concerns raised by third parties are based on factual evidence and not biased opinions. We request that the third parties who raised concerns sign forms declaring their lack of conflict of interest to ensure the validity of their claims.

It seems that the proposed retraction of our paper is simply an act of censorship, possibly driven by the discomfort our findings have caused among certain archaeologists represented by these third parties.

Therefore, we earnestly request you to reconsider the decision to retract our paper. Alternatively, we anticipate receiving an official letter from Wiley regarding the retraction of our paper and the nullification of the signed publication agreement.

Please understand that we are steadfast in pursuing justice in this matter. Following the retraction of our paper, we will openly share this case with academic and scientific communities, institutions, and the general public. Additionally, we are contemplating discussing this issue with COPE.

We appreciate your understanding and apologize for speaking candidly. Sincerely,

Danny Hilman Natawidjaja (On Behalf of The Authors)

Dear Dr. Paalman,

Thank you for your response.

We acknowledge the final decision regarding the retraction of our paper. However, we kindly request confirmation regarding the receipt of an official letter from Wiley, the publisher, outlining the retraction of our paper and providing clarifications on any implications regarding the nullification of the signed publication agreement.

Your assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated. Sincerely,

Danny Hilman Natawidjaja (On Behalf of the Authors)