As these notes make clear, I saw a number of serious problems in the Early and Middle Palaeolithic materials. But these materials were widely accepted by leading archaeologists. And the causes of doubt were circumstantial evidence -- red flags -- but not scientific evidence aganst them. It would be unscientific to simply ignore these materials because of my own reservations. Therefore, I presented them as accurately as possible and concluded with a discussion of my own reservations.

In fact, some of these materials seemed to have possibilities for validation, IF the problems about them could be cleared up either by (1) good explanations for the problems, or (2) by a new paradigm of Early and Middle Palaeolithic human lifeways in Japan and the world.

I am critical of those people who had serious doubts about these Early and Middle Palaeolithic materials but said nothing. I am equally critical of those who simply ignored these materials because they had doubts.

Early & Middle Palaeolithic Chronology

• Early Palaeolithic (600-134 Ka) (A group)
  • Takamori
  • Kami-Takamori
  • Babadan A 20, 32-33
  • Sodehara 3 #2 Layers 2-8
  • Harase Kasahari Layers 2-5
  • Takenomori Lower
  • Nagaone group
  • Ogasaka
• Middle Palaeolithic (134-45 Ka) (B group)
  • Zazaragi 15
  • Babadan A 10, 19
  • Kashiwagi 7
  • Shibiki 8, 9
  • Sodehara 3 Layer 1
  • Ohira
  • Takenomori Upper
  • Harase Kasahari Layer 1
  • Nakajimiayama
• Middle Palaeolithic (45-35/30 Ka) (C group)
  • Zazaragi 12, 13
  • Babadan A 7, 9
  • Shibiki 7

Early Palaeolithic (600-134 Ka)

• Miyagi-ken, Tsukidate
• dating -- not clear, but ca. 500-700 ka
• artifacts -- bifaces, flakes
• refits (str. 19, ca. 600 ka+)
• cache pits -- interpretations (Str. 16, ca. 600 ka+)
  • special holy places
  • aesthetic sense
  • rational thought
  • useful to the study of the origins of language
  • shows common understanding among H. erectus groups
• origin
  • no older culture in Japan
  • could be related to Acheulian
  • China has nothing similar at this date

• Saitama-ken, Chichibu
• dating
  • Nagaone Minami & Nagaone (>300-350 ka)
  • Nagaone Kita (>380-410 ka)
  • Ogasaka (>Nagaone Kita)
• artifacts
  • flakes, flake tools
  • rhyolite, shale, agate
• features
  • pits with flakes in bottom -- caches?
  • very low mounds, surrounded by postholes -- shelters?

• Yamagata-ken, Obanazawa
• Str. 26 surface
• artifacts -- N=8
  • spatulas -- 5
  • scraper -- 1
  • convergent scraper -- 1
• significant find
  • one spatula had evidence of having been in a SOCKET
  • broken while in use
    • socket & haft brought back to site and discarded
    • new spatula put into socket

• Yamagata-ken, Obanazawa
• Str. 21 surface
• artifacts -- N=36
  • spatulas -- 8
  • scrapers -- 6
  • small points -- 6

Middle Palaeolithic (134-45 ka)

• Yamagata-ken, Obanazawa
• Str. 12 surface
• dating
  • Str. 7 = ca. 70-80 ka
  • Str. 8 = ca. 100 ka
• artifacts
  • bifaces -- 3
  • scrapers -- 5
  • bevelled point -- 1
  • drill -- 1
  • etc.
  • flakes -- 19
• stone materials
  • shale -- 29
  • agate -- 1
  • other -- 2
  • most local
• no refits, but a few same nodule

• Miyagi-ken, Shikama-cho
• date -- ca. 100 ka (Str. 10)
• artifacts
  • spatulas
  • points
  • scrapers
  • bifacial points
  • willow-leaf bifacial point
• refits across 30 km
  • flakes removed at Nakajimayama
  • flake taken to Sodehara 3 site in Yamagata-ken 30 km across mountains
• features
  • cache pits
  • meaning
    • some kind of ritual behavior
    • oldest ones in world
      • Nakajimayama
      • Kami-Takamori
      • Nagaone sites
      • Ogasaka

• Fukushima-ken
• dating -- 45-50 ka
• culture
  • flakes
  • biface spatulas/points
  • quite similar to West European Mousterian
• origin
  • possibly evolved from Sodehara 3
  • only possible continental culture is Mousterian
    • expansion from SW Asia
    • into Mongolia
    • and beyond?
• several similar sites of the same age

Middle Palaeolithic (45-35/30 ka)

• sites
  • Zazaragi 12, 13
  • Babadan A 7, 9
  • Shibiki 7
• probably all mixed
• but said to be transitional to Late Palaeolithic

Early & Middle Palaeolithic Lifeways

• cache pits from about 600 ka
  • Kami-Takamori 16 (ca. 600 ka+)
  • Ogasaka (poss. 500 ka)
  • Nagaone (300-400 ka)
  • Nakajimayama 10 (ca. 100 ka)
    • interpreted as ritual or mobility
• refits -- rare
  • Kami-Takamori 16 (ca. 600 ka+)
  • Nakajimayama 10 (ca. 100 ka)
    • across mountains 30 km to Sodehara 3
  • a few other sites, including Takamori (ca. 500 ka)
  • meaning of refits --
    • tool manufacturing on site
    • tool resharpening on site
• socketed or hafted tools
  • Sodehara 3, Str. 6 (>300 ka, poss. 400 ka)
• features -- possible structures
  • Nagaone & Ogasaka (300-500 ka)
• mobility -- highly mobile
  • refits rare
  • most stone local
• other
  • lithic sources not clear, not specific
  • topography near sites not clear
    • bluff?
    • water sources?
  • tool use not clear
    • mostly guesses based on the names of artifacts
    • edge-ware analysis has problems
    • butchering suggested for Babadan A 20 (ca. 135-140 ka)
  • environment not clear at individual sites
    • climate?
    • vegetation?
    • animals?

Early & Middle Palaeolithic Problems

1. geological processes in site formation not studied -- taphonomy
   • tephras are studied
   • but no explanation of --
     • "on suface" of strata for Early & Middle Pal. finds but "in middle" for Late Pal.
     • no vertical displacement of artifacts, very unlike the Late Pal.
     • lack of evidence of disturbance in thin layers that span 10,000 years or more, very unlike the Late Pal.
2. scarcity of refits
   • but Late Pal. has lots of refits at all sites
   • why does lifeway change so suddenly in Late Palaeolithic?
   • is this lack of Early & Middle Pal. refits a worldwide phenomenum?
3. almost no cultural evolution in Early Palaeolithic
4. seems that early excavations generally found no spatulas, but more recent excavations all find them
   • makes two parallel cultures
   • Babadan A & Takamori vs. Kami-Takamori & Ogasaka-Nagaone
   • Babadan A and early excavations all suggest different cultural stream from Kami-Takamori & Nagaone and Ogasaka
5. all eastern Japan sites found by Fujimura
   • other archaeologists do not (cannot?) find Early & Middle Pal. sites independently
   • western Japan sites not certanly human -- Sozudai
6. rather sloppy work & publications
7. accept as human artifacts because they fit the parameters, but context says geofacts
   • example -- Sozudai
8. compilations of the Early & Middle Pal. materials are very superficial
   • no detailed, complete work summarizing the whole Early & Middle Palaeolithic
9. dates are in fact widely scattered for the same stratum
   • wide range for same method
   • wide range among methods
   • ± factors >10% are common
   • many ± factors are >20-30%
   • this could mean badly disturbed deposits
10. sociological problems in Early & Middle Palaeolithic research
    • members of a group must all agree
    • to maintain open contacts, most archaeologists do not openly express disagreement
    • won't discuss the subject with people who disagree
    • some archaeologists disagree by ignoring
    • some archaeologists (Sato 1992) write as if they agree, but give very little detail or space to the Early & Middle Palaeolithic in a book on the Japanese Palaeolithic
      • total 321 pages of text
      • 47 pages for Early & Middle Pal.
      • 199 pages for Late Pal.
      • remainder for other related topics
11. many archaeologists dig only as deep as their interest
    • hence the Late Palaeolithic is often missed or ignored
    • the Early & Middle Palaeolithic get even less general attention

Sato, Hiroyuki. 1992.

Nihon Kyusekki Bunka no Kozo to Shinka (Structure and Evolution of the Japanese Palaeolithic Culture). Tokyo: Kashiwa Shobo.

Back to Index