Analysis Summary:

The article's accuracy is mixed due to the limited information provided in the snippet and the lack of direct verification sources addressing the specific claim of retracing a 30,000-year-old ocean voyage in a hollowed-out log. The snippet itself is factual, but the broader claim requires more evidence. The bias appears minimal, presenting the information in a straightforward manner.

Detailed Analysis:

• Claim:** Japanese researchers turned to “experimental archaeology” to study how ancient humans navigated powerful ocean currents and migrated offshore.
  • Verification Source #1: Fails to cover this claim.
  • Verification Source #2: Fails to cover this claim.
  • Verification Source #3: Fails to cover this claim.
  • Verification Source #4: Mentions a hollowed-out log being used as a sluice box, but not in the context of ocean voyages or experimental archaeology.
  • Verification Source #5: Fails to cover this claim.
  • Internal Knowledge: While "experimental archaeology" is a recognized field, the specific claim about Japanese researchers and the 30,000-year-old voyage requires further verification. Without more context or specific details, it's difficult to assess the accuracy.

Supporting Evidence/Contradictions:

• Verification Source #4: Provides an example of a hollowed-out log being used for a different purpose (sluice box), which indirectly supports the possibility of using logs for various purposes. However, it does not support the specific claim of a 30,000-year-old ocean voyage.
• All other sources fail to cover the specific claim.
• Lack of coverage from the provided sources makes it difficult to definitively assess the factual accuracy of the article's claim.