The comments by leading archaeologists on the new "Middle Palaeolithic" finds that are being published in the news media reflect a lot of unstated assumptions and stereotypes, most of which are unsupported, unfounded or clearly wrong. Unfortunately, even the "scientific" discussions are riddled with implicit assumptions and stereotypes and personal biases. To be valid, an hypothesis (or statement) must meet three criteria: (1) all assumptions must be made explicit, (2) all personal biases must be made explicit, and (3) the hypothesis must be testable.

The following list tries to summarize the assumptions and stereotypes that are being used in discussions of the first human settlement of Japan, and in the discussions of a Japanese Middle Palaeolithic. Those with links are discussed further on separate pages.

• Because humans definitely were in northern China and Korea long before 35,000 years ago, humans must have been in Japan about that time too. [ Discussion ]

• The Early and Middle Palaeolithic artifacts reported from sites on the continent are all unquestionably human products, and of the ages generally assigned to them.

• These new finds in Japan are large and crude, and therefore old, because old artifacts are always large and crude, and large and crude artifacts are always old.

• Prior to about 35,000 years ago, humans did not make stone tools of standardized forms.

• The Middle Palaeolithic humans in Japan were Archaic Homo sapiens, similar to the European Neandertals (kyuujin in Japanese).

• Well made, refined stone artifacts, watercraft and all other important cultural advancements must have developed on the continent before they appeared in Japan.

• All broken stones are human artifacts (as opposed to naturally made geofacts).

• Charcoal in ancient geological strata derives from human hearths.

Back to Middle Palaeolithic Index