I have talked with a number of archaeologists on both sides of the Early and Middle Palaeolithic controversy and recent fabrication scandal. Those who have favored the material give the impression that they still feel most of the finds are valid and eventually will be validated. Those who have criticized the work seem 100% convinced that it is all now proven invalid. Both sides seem unwilling to concede any possibility that the other side might be right, if even only partially right, and neither side seems to understand that they need to produce some very good, concrete scientific evidence to support their arguments. Neither side presently has much such evidence backing their arguments.

The circumstantial evidence ^{note 1} (which is all we really have at the moment) is about 90% against the validity of the Early and Middle Palaeolithic finds of FUJIMURA Shin'ichi and the group of archaeologists in Miyagi Prefecture ^{note 2} that he worked with. But, if we ASSUME that some or all of these finds will eventually be shown to be valid, we need to ask how the fabrication of just two sites in the 2000 field season has come to cast a dark cloud of suspicion on all the other 31 excavated Early and Middle Palaeolithic sites, and on the previous several seasons' work on the two sites that were fabricated this year. That this confirmed fabrication of two sites has had such a bad effect on all the other Early and Middle Palaeolithic work is why Japanese archaeology as a whole has come to look so bad.

The Early and Middle Palaeolithic finds by themselves are important to Japan. They give evidence of ancient humans in the islands at the same time as Peking Man or the earlier Lantien Woman in North China. Such important finds needed to be validated by other archaeologists, and the archaeologists in Miyagi Prefecture needed government financial support and government pressure to do the studies that would answer their critics. ^{note 3} Instead of this, the government -- Cultural Affairs Agency, ^{note 4} Ministry of Education ^{note 5} -- the Japanese Archaeological Association ^{note 6} and leading Japanese archaeologists ^{note 7} did not provide support or ask for validation; they simply accepted the finds and put them in museum exhibits ^{note 8} and approved them for inclusion in school textbooks. That was careless to the point of being foolish.

But when the Early Palaeolithic sites started to produce cache pits with neatly arranged tools, bifacial points and evidence of socketted tools, ^{note 9} the government, the archaeology associations, and the leading archaeologists needed to take action. These finds suggested that Homo erectus in Japan had cognitive and mechanical skills far in advance of anything suggested for Homo erectus elsewhere in the world. These finds could have changed our understanding of human evolution. But even several years after the first of these highly significant finds, the leading archaeologists, archaeological organizations and government agencies were just accepting all of this without any validation or any request for validation. This inaction and unquestioning acceptance of such potentially significant finds is unbelievable behavior for academics and related government institutions in an advanced country like Japan. It calls into question their competence.

The primary focus for blame for the fabrication has been on Fujimura himself, because he is the one who got caught and he claims to have been alone. The media have given themselves some of the blame for their emphasis on "finds" and superlatives, such as "older." There is also criticism of the Miyagi archaeologists who worked with Fujimura and did not realize he was planting artifacts on the sites. But I think the real blame lies with the leading archaeologists and institutions that did not provide support for the research or require validation before accepting the finds, or pay attention to the criticisms that were being made by some archaeologists. ^{note 3} Focusing on one person, or on one group of archaeologists, will not explain how this scandal occurred or result in eventual validation, or invalidation, and a system that will prevent a similar scandal in the future. If the critics had been listened to instead of ignored 14 years ago, we might now have a validated Early and Middle Palaeolithic, and fabrication of two sites would not have any affects beyond those two sites.

Even if many of these finds prove to be valid in the end, the Japanese archaeology world has suffered hugely from this display of scientific incompetence. If these finds prove to be a 20-year-long, 33-site hoax, Japanese archaeology will have a long uphill battle trying to demonstrate that it belongs among the archaeologies of the advanced, educated world. For those people who do not have direct contact with, for example, the Jomon research here, how are they supposed to judge the quality of [Jomon] research by Japanese archaeologists? This wholly unacademic, incompetent work in the Early and Middle Palaeolithic research will suggest that that is possibly also the quality of work in all other areas of Japanese archaeological research. The rest of the world will (might or should?) cease to believe anything that comes out of Japanese archaeology, unless they have first-hand knowledge of it, or some other very good means of validating it.

My hope is that Japanese archaeologists will realize just how much damage this scandal has done (or could do) to them and then take the necessary measures to ensure the high quality of all future archaeological research here, and to provide validation for all past archaeological research, too. In fact, much of Japanese archaeology has been of very high quality, and it is unfortunate that this, too, is likely to suffer because so many leading archaeologists and institutions have been so careless about the Early and Middle Palaeolithic research.

Note 1:

KAJIWARA Hiroshi (an archaeologist at Tohoku Fukushi University), KAMADA Toshiaki (a college-trained archaeologist and Buddhist priest), FUJIMURA Shin'ichi (an amateur archaeologist), several other archaeologists who have not gained as much fame, and, until 1987, OKAMURA Michio (presently an archaeologist with the national Cultural Affairs Agency). These people are all members of the Sekki Bunka Danwakai, which is now called the Tohoku Kyusekki Bunka Kenkyujo (Tohoku Palaeolithic Laboratory).

Note 2:

The main criticisms and/or sources of doubt are:

1. lack of vertical displacement of artifacts in the soil, when there is always some vertical displacement in Late Palaeolithic sites, caused by moles, tree roots and other natural agents;
2. dates with extremely large plus-minus error factors, suggesting possibly great disturbance of the strata;
3. extreme scarcity of refittable pieces or other evidence of stone tool production on the site, when there is always such evidence in Late Palaeolithic sites; but despite this scarcity in the Early and Middle Palaeolitic sites, there is one example of a refit between two sites that are 30 km apart and on opposite sides of a mountain range;
4. cache pits with neatly arranged stone tools, and other evidence suggesting cognitive abilities and mechanical skills for humans in Japan several hundred-thousand years before such abilities and skills are generally thought to have evolved in humans;
5. one person, Fujimura, is responsible for finding most of the sites and a majority of the artifacts, and his "god hand" seems to go far beyond the expectable even for an unusual combination of skill and luck;
6. no evidence of cultural evolution over a period of several hundred-thousand years;
7. Early Palaeolithic artifacts that appear to be the same as Jomon artifacts dating several hundred-thousand years later; and
8. new finds getting older by a 100,000 years almost every year.
9. lack of Early and Middle Palaeolithic finds in rich Palaeolithic regions, such as the plains of South Kanto, and no more than a few uncertain claims for pre-35,000-year finds elsewhere in the country (that is, effectively ALL Early and Middle Palaeolithic finds involve a single group of archaeologists).

Note 3:

Oda, Shizuo, and Charles T. Keally. 1986. A Critical Look at the Palaeolithic and "Lower Palaeolithic" Research in Miyagi Prefecture, Japan. Jinruigaku Zasshi (Journal of the Anthropological Society of Nippon), 94: 325-361.

Note 4:

Okamura Michio, an archaeologist with the national Cultural Affairs Agency, recently published a book that includes the Kami-Takamori and other sites as if there were no questions about their validity (Okamura, Michio. 2000. Jomon no Seikatsu Shi [The Story of Jomon Life]. Nihon-no Rekishi [Japanese History], vol. 1. Tokyo: Kodansha).

Note 5:

The MOE approved the inclusion of the Kami-Takamori cache pits into the school textbooks, but that same MOE will not approve inclusion of the World War II "Rape of Nanking" and Japanese military's "comfort women" for what they say is lack of concrete evidence.

Note 6:

Kami-Takamori and other Early and Middle Palaeolithic sites are being presented at the annual JAA meetings without any questioning of their validity. And the annual reports of the JAA (Nihon Kokogaku Nempo [Archaeologica Japanoica]) also discuss these sites, again without any hint of doubt about their validity. The Kami-Takamori cache pit is reported fully in the 1995 edition, Nihon Kokogaku Nempo no. 48, pp. 472-476.

Note 7:

Many leading Japanese archaeologists have commented favorably on the finds over the years, in the press, on TV and in other interviews and publications. I will not use their names here in order to keep my criticisms as close to impersonal as possible.

Note 8:

The National Museum of Japanese History in Sakura City, Chiba Prefecture, had the Kami-Takamori site in its exhibits.

Note 9:

Specifically, these significant finds are:

• Cache pits with neatly arranged stone tools found at the Kami-Takamori site in Stratum 16, which is dated between 570,000 and 600,000 years ago (Fujimura et al. 1995, 1999a, 1999c).

• A small, bifacially worked willow leaf point found at the Nakajimayama site in Stratum 10, which is estimated to date around 100,000 years ago (Fujimura et al. 1999d). Small bifacial points are also reported at the Kami-Takamori site in Stratum 19, dated 600,000 years ago, and in Stratum 37, dated greater than 630,000 years ago (Fujimura et al. 1999c).

• A spatula-shaped stone tool with evidence of having been in a socket handle, found at the Sodehara 3 site in Stratum 23, Cultural Layer 6, dated greater than 300,000 years ago (Fujimura et al. 1999e).

• Stone artifacts, dated about 100,000 years ago, from the Nakajimayama site in Miyagi Prefecture refitting with artifacts from the Sodehara 3 site in Yamagata Prefecture 30 km away across the mountain range (Fujimura et al. 1999b, 1999d). This is particularly interesting, since the report indicates that the Nakajimayama artifacts are from the 1997 surface collection that preceded the first excavation in 1998.

• The first clear evidence of toolmaking on an Early or Middle Palaeolithic site was found at the Kami-Takamori site during the 4th excavation in 1998, from Stratum 19, dated 600,000 years ago (Fujimura et al. 1999a).

Citations for these major finds are:

• Fujimura, Shin'ichi, Kamada Toshiaki, Yokoyama Yohei, and Kajiwara Hiroshi. 1995. Kami-Takamori Iseki Dai-3-ji Chosa ni Tsuite (On the 3rd Season's Excavation at the Kami-Takamori Site). Resumes from the Dai-9-kai Tohoku Nihon-no Kyusekki Bunka-o Kataru Kai (The 9th Meeting for Discussion of the Northeastern Japan Palaeolithic Culture), pp. 2-8. Aomori, December 16-17.

• Fujimura, Shin'ichi, Kamada Toshiaki, Yokoyama Yohei, and Kajiwara Hiroshi. 1999a. Kami-Takamori Iseki Dai-4-ji Chosa no Seika (Results from the 4th Season's Excavation at the Kami-Takamori Site). Resumes from the Dai-12-kai Tohoku Nihon-no Kyusekki Bunka-o Kataru Kai (The 12th Meeting for Discussion of the Northeastern Japan Palaeolithic Culture), pp. 67-71. Nagaoka, January 9-10.

• Fujimura, Shin'ichi, Kamada Toshiaki,, Kajiwara Hiroshi, Yokoyama Yohei, and Aisawa Masanobu. 1999b. Nakajimayama Iseki no Dai-1-ji Chosa Seika (Results from the 1st Season's Excavation at the Nakajimayama Site). Resumes from the Dai-12-kai Tohoku Nihon-no Kyusekki Bunka-o Kataru Kai (The 12th Meeting for Discussion of the Northeastern Japan Palaeolithic Culture), pp. 72-78. Nagaoka, January 9-10.

• Fujimura, Shin'ichi, Kamada Toshiaki, Yokoyama Yohei, and Kajiwara Hiroshi. 1999c. Miyagi-ken Tsukidate-cho Kami-Takamori Iseki Dai-5-ji Hakkutsu Chosa no Seika (Results f rom the 5th Season's Excavation at the Kami-Takamori Site, Tsukidate, Miyagi Prefecture). Resumes from the Dai-13-kai Tohoku Nihon-no Kyusekki Bunka-o Kataru Kai (The 13th Meeting for Discussion of the Northeastern Japan Palaeolithic Culture), pp. 78-82. Morioka, December 18-19.

• Fujimura, Shin'ichi, Kamada Toshiaki, Kajiwara Hiroshi, and Yokoyama Yohei. 1999d. Miyagi-ken Shikama-cho Nakajimayama Iseki Dai-2-ji Chosa no Seika to Sono Igi (The Results and Significance of the 2nd Season's Excavation at the Nakajimayama Site, Shikama, Miyagi Prefecture). Resumes from the Dai-13-kai Tohoku Nihon-no Kyusekki Bunka-o Kataru Kai (The 13th Meeting for Discussion of the Northeastern Japan Palaeolithic Culture), pp. 89-91. Morioka, December 18-19.

• Fujimura, Shin'ichi, Kamada Toshiaki, Kajiwara Hiroshi, and Yokoyama Yohei. 1999e. Yamagata-ken Obanazawa-shi Sodehara 3 Iseki Dai-5-ji Chosa no Seika (Results from the 5th Season's Excavation at the Sodahara 3 Site, Obanazawa, Yamagata Prefecture). Resumes from the Dai-13-kai Tohoku Nihon-no Kyusekki Bunka-o Kataru Kai (The 13th Meeting for Discussion of the Northeastern Japan Palaeolithic Culture), pp. 92-94. Morioka, December 18-19.

 

Back to Index