Are there peer-reviewed studies challenging natural or human-made origins of specific artifacts?

1. What the search results actually cover — lots of “artifacts,” few peer‑reviewed refutations

Many of the returned links are about artifact evaluation tracks at computing conferences (ICSE, CASCON, POPL, FSE, ICFP) where “artifact” means software, data, or reproducible bundles; those pages explain reproducibility badges and evaluation procedures, not debates over the provenance of ancient objects ^{[4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]}. By contrast, the cultural/archaeological items in the results come from popular websites (Ancient Origins, ParaRational) that catalogue “out‑of‑place” artifacts and controversies rather than peer‑reviewed journal articles that overturn mainstream origin attributions ^{[1] [10] [11] [2] [3]}.

2. Popular sources document controversies but are not the same as peer‑reviewed challenges

Ancient Origins and ParaRational repackage claims about items like Dashka Stone, Roman dodecahedra, the “17 OOPArts” list, and similar mysteries; they often present enthusiasts’ assertions, speculative readings, and occasional critical notes ^{[1] [10] [11] [2] [3]}. These sites can be informative about the existence of controversies, but they do not substitute for journal publications that apply established methods (typology, radiometric dating, stratigraphy, materials analyses) and get vetted through peer review ^{[1] [10] [2]}.

3. Where peer‑reviewed scientific pushback does appear — example from paleontology

One result explicitly frames a scientific rebuttal in a peer‑review style context: a blog post summarizing work by paleontologists (including Derek Briggs) that refutes an “artifact hypothesis” in Ediacaran/Cambrian research — showing how stratigraphy and preservation studies can dismiss alternative interpretations — and that writeup references formal studies ^[12]. That item shows the pattern: methodical, peer‑reviewed work that compares processes and evidence can and has been used to challenge nonstandard claims about origins, but that particular source is a commentary summarizing scientific literature rather than a direct repository of multiple artifact‑by‑artifact peer‑reviewed refutations ^[12].

4. Why many high‑profile “challenges” remain in popular literature

Out‑of‑place artifact claims tend to persist in forums and popular sites because they are emotionally compelling and often rely on selective readings of evidence; Ancient Origins’ articles and ParaRational’s summaries collect these claims and sometimes note contradictory analyses, but they rarely produce new peer‑reviewed data that would shift consensus ^{[1] [2] [3]}. The search results show more of this pattern than solid examples of archaeological or materials‑science studies that overturn mainstream attributions.

5. How mainstream science typically responds — reproducible evidence and methods

Where science disputes origins, it does so by publishing empirical work—dating, material characterization, contextual excavation reports, taphonomic studies—that is then critiqued and replicated. The paleontology example in the results (refuting the artifact hypothesis for certain Precambrian occurrences) is illustrative: teams compare preservation windows and strata to rule out supposed “missing” fossils, and such work is communicated through peer‑reviewed channels and summarized in venues that cite those studies ^[12]. The computing‑conference “artifact evaluation” model shown in several results highlights analogous norms: reproducibility, third‑party checks, and badges or reviews that back claims — though that model concerns software artifacts, not ancient objects ^{[4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]}.

6. Bottom line and practical next steps for your query

If you want a catalogue of peer‑reviewed studies that explicitly challenge natural or human origins for specific physical artifacts, available sources do not mention a compiled list of such papers in this search set; most items here are popular treatments of controversial artifacts or conference pages about reproducible “artifacts” in computing ^{[1] [2] [4]}. To move forward, seek: (a) archaeological journals (Journal of Archaeological Science, Antiquity), (b) materials‑analysis papers in journals like Geoarchaeology or Archaeometry, and (c) taphonomy and stratigraphy studies (as in the paleontology example) — then check whether those papers explicitly rebut specific origin claims the way Derek Briggs’ team addressed the “artifact hypothesis” in Ediacaran/Cambrian contexts ^[12].

Limitations: the provided search results do not include direct links to peer‑reviewed archaeological papers that overturn artifact provenance beyond the paleontology commentary; they emphasize popular reporting and reproducibility guidelines in computing instead ^{[1] [4] [5] [6] [7] [2] [8] [12] [3]}.