I have been watching the American "Pre-Clovis" controversy rather closely for the past 15 years or so. There is much about it that makes it similar to the Japanese "Early Palaeolithic" controversy, and I feel it is very helpful for getting ideas about how to conduct the research in Japan.

The National Geographic magazine recently published an article on the "Hunt for the First Americans" (Parfit 2000), which gives a good overview and introduction to the Pre-Clovis controversy. It is very much worth reading for comparison to the Japanese Early Palaeolithic controversy.

The level of academic and sceintific research going into the Pre-Clovis controversy makes the Early Palaeolithic controversy look like the work of novices playing at grown-up archaeology. If it were baseball, it would be the major leagues compared to the neighborhood kids in the sandlot. This National Geographic article makes clear that the Japanese Early Palaeolithic research and controversy have a long ways to go to reach international standards.

The Pre-Clovis research is extremely interdisciplinary. It is also extremely scientific and academic. Both publications and conferences purposefully include contributors from both (all?) sides of the controversy. Many independent archaeologists and groups are working on both/all sides, too. Criticism is common and public, and often heated, and sometimes nasty. But criticisms are answered directly, and a large amount of time, labor and money often go into seeking answers for the criticisms. All of these characteristics of the Pre-Clovis controversy seem to be largely missing from the Japanese Early Palaeolithic controversy.

Quotations from the National Geographic article will help make clear some of the differences. These quotations express the ideas that the archaeologists involved in the Clovis vs Pre-Clovis controversy feel that (1) controversy is exciting and useful, (2) most ideas are speculation, (3) questioning is and should be common, (4) solid scientific evidence is required, (5) vigorous and public debate is normal, (6) people can, do and should change their minds with new evidence or arguments, and (7) people should enjoy having their ideas criticized. Most of these ideas and quotations cannot be applied to a description of the way Japan's Early Palaeolithic controversy is being conducted (the emphases in red are mine).

CONTROVERSY IS EXCITING & USEFUL
• A flood of new data has thrown the study of early Americans into exciting disarray. (p. 41)
• "It's chaos." But it is a fertile kind of chaos, with new ideas brewing everywhere in the mix. (p. 53)
• So the evidence...remains exciting but inconclusive. (p. 60)
• Today the study of early Americans stands at a moment of scientific turmoil.... (p. 67)

  MOST IDEAS ARE SPECULATION

• Of course this is all speculation. There is absolutely no solid evidence that the first human beings to come to the Americas passed anywhere near this [southeastern Alsakan] coastline. (p. 44)
• This is a bad time if you want certainty.... (p. 44)
• ...cast old concepts in doubt, while others haven't fully developed to take their place. (p. 44)

  QUESTIONING IS COMMON

• We have entered a period of widespread questioning. (p. 44)
• In a very controversial debate of shapes of skulls.... (p. 45)
• ...one argument for a controversial theory.... (p. 46)
• But other archaeologists disagree. (p. 53)
• These varied opinions.... (p. 53)
• "We are a discipline, not an exact science. We shouldn't pretend we are. Everything is subject to interpretation." [comment by an unnamed female Canadian archaeologist] (p. 53)
• ...consensus on some critical issues appears to be far off. (p. 53)

  SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE IS REQUIRED

• For decades attempts to find proof of earlier [than Clovis] people failed the rigorous tests of archaeological science. (p. 48)
• "You begin to see how easy it is to misinterpret things." [quoting C. Vance Haynes] (p. 52)
• ...statistically analyzed thousands of skeletal measurements to find links between populations. (p. 58)
• Specualtion is abundant, but the basic raw materials of science -- real, conclusive evidence itself -- is very hard to find. (p. 67)
• ...another tantalizing -- but untested -- theory.... (p. 60)
• "One of the great failings of archaeology," he [Lawrence Guy Straus] told me, "is a continuous falling back on the notion that if a couple of things resemble one another, they have to have the same source. But these similarities appear and reappear time and again in different places." (p. 61)
• ...very loud conclusions based on very slender evidence. (p. 61)

  VIGOROUS DEBATE IS NORMAL

• Disagreement on all these theories [including DNA and linguistics theories] is vorciferous. (p. 49)
• Arguments over these uncertainties [association of artifacts and dated materials, contamination of dates, stratification, etc.] can be public and fierce. (p. 51)
• ...a scathing critique of the Monte Verde findings.... (p. 51)
• The critique was immediately attacked by some archaeologists and supported by others. (p. 51)
• Some of the archaeologists...scoff at [this theory]. Loudly. (p. 61)

  PEOPLE CHANGE THEIR MINDS

• One of those who had endorsed the Monte Verde findings...a geologist preeminant...was backing away from his endorsement.... (p. 51)
• ...some archaeologists seemed so cautious about dynamic new ideas.... (pp. 51-52)

  PEOPLE ENJOY BEING CRITICIZED

• "We're [Dennis Stanford, Smithosonian, and Bruce Bradley, archaeologist] going to have a lot of bright graduate students trying to prove we're wrong." (p. 61)