About  Intentional  Falsifications

About the  Intentional  Falsifications

of Majes Rock Art

*

Published in 2020 by

Prof. Scaffidi and Prof. Tung

Academic Bio-archaeologists

*

Please check my webpage for updates and new publications.

*

Introduction

In November 2020 I published a paper in which I criticised a "photograph" published in January 2020 by Prof. Scaffidi and Prof. Tung (2020: Fig. 3). In my 2020-paper I clearly demonstrated that I was - scientifically justifiable - not at all happy with their "photograph", which in fact showed factually incorrect "tracings" of two petroglyphs from the Majes Valley, southern Peru. I also criticised their absurd rock art related conclusions that are based on their Fig. 3. Immediately after my publication I alerted the two authors via email, but I never received any reaction (explained below; see also TUNG). A PDF of my original 2020-paper can be downloaded at the end of this webpage. My original 2020-publication is no longer available at TRACCE or at ResearchGate, while the updated Revised Version was uploaded by me onto TRACCE in November 2023.

After 2020 several events ultimately "forced" me - in November 2023 - to publish this Revised Version of my earlier published 2020-paper (not only the events are telling, also the chronology of the events is crucial; note the dates). First of all, in a paper by Prof. Scaffidi et al. (2022), it proved that Scaffidi had read my 2020-paper, as she referred to my 2020-paper and in Note 3 she (incorrectly) commented on a text fragment that I wrote in my 2020-paper. Importantly, Scaffidi never refuted my criticisms of my original 2020-paper and neither did she (or Prof. Tung for that matter) defend herself against the criticisms in my original 2020-paper. So there seemed not to be any problem regarding my 2020-criticism. My criticisms seemed to have been accepted by them. But they never admitted that their Fig. 3 illustrations are false and represent intentional falsifications.

However, the following issue is enlightening in this context. It now seems as if their only "defence" against my criticism, was lying to their colleague - Justin Jennings - about me. Justin - my "colleague" for about five years - emailed me that Tung and Scaffidi informed him that I had bullied Tung and Scaffidi in my 2012 email-communication with them. This definitely is a blatant lie and I can prove it (see the three PDFs available at my other personal webpage). Finally, in August 2023 I emailed Scaffidi personally and asked the following: I now would appreciate it very much if you could honestly tell me how I bullied (especially) you, and - please - provide any of my 2012-email(s) with lines highlighted, which would prove you right. If you decide not to answer me, I take it that you have no proof and that I never bullied you and that I can tell that everybody. Again, no answer. Her (their) silence is proof that they are liars.

Within the context of this awkward situation it was to be expected that I never would receive any reaction, which also proves that Scaffidi and Tung are liars, only capable of discreditably discrediting me in front of Justin Jennings and Trudy Turner and Michael Streeter (and probably others).

*

More Detailed Evidence

After 2020 I published several more papers and books in which it was inevitable not to discuss or not to repeat my 2020-criticisms. Finally, in July 2023 I published a paper about Boulder AP3-098 at the rock art site of Alto de Pitis, Majes Valley, in which I - justifiable in the context of my paper - again criticised Fig. 3 published by Scaffidi and Tung. But in my July-2023-paper I presented more detailed evidence about the falsified illustrations published by Scaffidi and Tung and - based on my July-2023-paper - I concluded that they intentionally published false illustrations and false information (explained below).

Because in 2012 Scaffidi and Tung simultaneously and abruptly ended the constructive email-communication (without any explanation) and rudely never answered any of my further emails, I did not know of any other way to inform them about their misleading rock art illustrations and my conclusion than via my emails and publications. If they had had the decency not to lie about me and to correctly react to my 2020-email and had admitted their error in a proper "Erratum", none of my subsequent actions / publications would have been necessary.

However, the way I (naively) quoted fragments of Scaffidi's text and used some of her illustrations in a few of my publications proved to be incorrect. Therefore, Scaffidi correctly demanded - in August 2023 - those errors of mine to be corrected. Moreover, having read my July-2023 paper, Scaffidi strongly objected against me using specific terms (such as liars and cheaters) and demanded (also in August 2023) that those terms would be deleted. After consulting a few people, I understood that the advice they then gave me was correct and I started to re-phrase my published works (hence you will often see the addition: Revised Version in several of my newly uploaded publications, for instance in my July-2023 paper).

I emailed Scaffidi in August 2023 asking for her permission to use and publish some of her illustrative material, but she never answered my email. Therefore I cannot publish her copyrighted material, but instead I started to provide hyperlinks leading to her material.

However, I find it completely incomprehensible why now - in August 2023, after almost three years of not reacting to the several publications in which I criticise Scaffidi's and Tung's publications, not refuting my criticism and not defending themselves - Scaffidi found it necessary to react. The past three years she (they) seemed not to have any problem with my publications. And Tiffiny Tung never reacted (apparently leaving it to Scaffidi to "clean-up their own mess").

But I know why my July-2023-paper was not tolerated by Scaffidi (and Tung?). It offered more explicit evidence - published by Scaffidi after 2020 - that demonstrated that I was right about my criticism. They intentionally published false illustrations (Fig. 3) and false information (only regarding rock art!). Why am I 100% convinced?

*

The Evidence: Chronologically Presented

Before July 2019 Scaffidi and/or Tung got hold of two photos of two Majes rock art panels (the original photos). That is a fact.

Before July 2019 Scaffidi and/or Tung found those original photos not legible enough, a fact that is admitted by Scaffidi herself, as is evidenced by the caption of her map in Scaffidi's 2022: Fig. 2. Her map and caption are also available in Van Hoek 2023 (read the Appendix and see Fig. 7).

Before July 2019 - in order to make the originals more legible - Scaffidi and/or Tung created two D-Stretch photos of the original photos, as explained by themselves in their - otherwise meaningless - 2022-Erratum. That is a fact.

Before July-2019 they invented two "tracings" (the white lines in their Fig. 3; as explained by them in their 2022-Erratum), based on their two D-Stretch photos, "tracings" that - most importantly - proved NOT to agree at all with the D-Stretch photos. Having done that, they realised that no weapons were to be seen on any of their D-Stretch photos. And as it seems that they desperately needed "evidence of weapons" being depicted in Majes rock art, they simply added those (non-existent) weapons onto their "tracings". That is a fact. Thus their "tracings" are completely incorrect and misleading. That is a fact. Justin Jennings once admitted to me that there NO weapons and that their Fig. 3 was incorrect.

Yet, before July-2019 a non-existent weapon was digitally added to the completely incorrect "tracing" of the anthropomorph shown in their Fig. 3a, while the completely incorrect anthropomorph shown in their Fig. 3b exhibited many errors, yet no weapons. These are facts. Any observant and unbiased witness could see that their "tracings" did not match the factual petroglyphs (especially the "tracings" of their Fig. 3a).

Still before July 2019, despite these facts, their incorrect "tracings" were digitally superimposed by them onto the original photos, and then their paper with their "photos" showing the falsified white "tracings", was submitted in July 2019 and ultimately published in January 2020. Scaffidi and Tung must have known that their "tracings" were incorrect. Their Fig. 3 is therefore an intentional falsification and consequently their rock art related conclusions are false as well. Thus Scaffidi and Tung (and the editor Dr. Turner) are knowingly deceiving their readers and therefore I called them liars (also for the other, personal reason, explained above) and cheaters, and I still do, especially because they NEVER admitted that their Fig. 3 is completely incorrect.

Finally, in August 2023 Scaffidi submitted a Notice of Defamation (surprising; after almost three years of silence, apparently accepting my criticisms), which forced me to revise all my publications in which I called Scaffidi and Tung cheaters and liars (Tung never did do anything to defend herself against my accusations [she left that job to Scaffidi]). Apparently Scaffidi feared being professionally damaged by my publications. However, she should have realised that publishing errors (see Van Hoek 2023) and falsifications (see Van Hoek 2020) in first instance would damage her professional reputation. IF Tung and Scaffidi had honourably acknowledged and admitted their falsifications to me immediately in 2020 (after having read my 2020-publication), the case would never have escalated so drastically. Then a Notice would not have been necessary; only an "Erratum" appropriately acknowledging their errors.

Anyhow, after having consulted a few people, I understood and agreed that such terms (cheaters; liars; intentionally) should not be used in official publications and therefore I created Revised Versions of my publications, in which I still criticise certain items in the publications by Scaffidi and Tung, yet correctly phrased (not labelling Scaffidi and Tung liars and cheaters; not stating that they intentionally falsified illustrations), only discussing their errors and inconsistencies regarding rock art matters.

However, in this private webpage I maintain that Scaffidi and Tung intentionally invented their misleading "tracings", added non-existent weapons and knowingly published two false illustrations (Fig. 3), and false information regarding Majes rock art. They must have known what they did. Therefore, personally I still regard Scaffidi and Tung to be cheaters and liars. When in 2022 I informed the Editor of the Journal (Dr. Trudy Turner, who accepted the 2020-paper by Scaffidi and Tung) about the falsifications, all my justifiable claims were completely ignored. Later, Mr. Michael Streeter of publishing company Wiley one-sidedly declared the "case closed", without accepting any dialogue. I simply had to accept that there was no question of falsifications and that the 2022-Erratum offered original photos (a lie!). The facts presented on this personal web page proves them all wrong. The "photo" of Fig. 3 - invented and published by Scaffidi and Tung - definitely IS an intentional falsification.

Finally, I will leave it to any hopefully unbiased reader to draw her or his own conclusions about the Majes Falsifications by Scaffidi and Tung, based on the available information above and on information accessible in several of my 2020-to-2023 publications about Majes rock art.

Thank you for your attention

(Mr) Maarten van Hoek

Autonomous Rock Art Researcher since 1975

Webpage: https://arte-rupestre3.webnode.nl/2020

See also: https://arte-rupestre3.webnode.nl/tung/

*

Below you will find a PDF offering a copy of the original paper about "False Information Concerning Majes Rock Art, Peru", once published in TRACCE in November 2020, but now NO LONGER available in TRACCE or at ResearchGate. In November 2023 the original 2020-paper was replaced by me by a Revised Version offering more detailed information. TRACCE and ResearchGate are no longer responsible for the original 2020-version.