ANTHROPOLOGICAL SCIENCE Vol. 113, 131–139, 2005

For the people, by the people: postwar Japanese archaeology and the Early hoax MARK J. HUDSON1†*

1Department of Northern Cultures and Slavic Research Center, University, N9 W7, Kita-ku, Sapporo, 060-0809

Received 4 August 2004; accepted 6 December 2004

Abstract From at least 1976 until his exposure by the media in November 2000, amateur archaeol- ogist Shinichi Fujimura planted artifacts at over 180 Paleolithic ‘sites’ in and other parts of eastern Japan. As a result of this hoax, the existence of an Early Paleolithic stretching back more than half a million years became widely accepted in Japan. Fujimura perpetrated one of the big- gest archaeological hoaxes of the 20th century and his actions have important implications for the way archaeological research is conducted in Japan and beyond. This article explores the sociopolitical back- ground to the hoax and argues that the emphasis on archaeology as ‘people’s history’ in postwar Japan was one important factor in the favorable evaluations given to Fujimura’s discoveries. It is suggested that the lessons of the Fujimura hoax support the need for a stronger and more reflexive relationship between archaeology and anthropology in Japan.

Key words: archaeological practice, postwar Japanese society, Marxism, Paleolithic, applied archaeology

Introduction ago, thus giving Japan an ‘Early Paleolithic’ period – which is here defined following Ikawa-Smith (1978) as referring to With over 80% of its land mass covered by mountains, flat the whole period prior to the Late (or Upper) Paleolithic. A land has always been hard to come by in Japan. Since prehis- cache of bifaces found by Fujimura at Kamitakamori forced toric times, people have tended to live in the same narrow a complete re-evaluation of the mental abilities of Homo coastal plains and mountain basins, with the result that erectus and was included in the third edition of the archaeol- archaeological sites are very common even within the brash, ogy textbook written by Renfrew and Bahn (2000). sprawling cities of the modern nation. There was thus noth- Fujimura’s hoax continued until he was filmed burying tools ing remarkable when, in the early 1960s, a schoolboy named by two journalists from the Mainichi Shimbun newspaper Shinichi Fujimura found some prehistoric pottery in his gar- who published their exposé on November 5, 2000. den and took it to show his teacher in a small town near Sen- The repercussions of Fujimura’s activities were not only dai. What was remarkable, however, was that the same scientific. In a country where big-budget archaeology is the schoolboy, now in his mid-fifties, went on as an amateur norm, the equivalent of millions of dollars of tax-payer’s archaeologist to perpetrate one of the biggest archaeological money was wasted on activities related to the hoax: excava- frauds of the 20th century. tion, publication, public symposia, exhibits and museums, From at least 1976, and perhaps a few years earlier, and government research grants to various scholars and Fujimura (born in 1950) planted stone tools at about 186 organizations. Based on the promise of archaeological sites ‘sites’ in eastern Japan during excavations organized by of national importance in their vicinity, local governments local governments and by two non-profit organizations, the and business people also invested large sums in tourism- Sekki Danwakai (‘ Research Group’) and related facilities and souvenir ventures. The professional the Tohoku Kyusekki Bunka Kenkyujo (‘Tohoku Paleolithic archaeologists who worked with Fujimura can at best be said Research Institute’) (Harunari, 2003: p. 593; Yajima, 2004). to have wasted over twenty years of research; at worst their These tools were mostly Jomon artifacts that Fujimura had careers and credibility have been destroyed by Fujimura’s collected from surface deposits at real sites. Planted and then actions. ‘discovered’ by Fujimura, they were used as evidence that How could Fujimura have got away with this hoax for so the human began not 30,000 years ago long? And for that matter, why bother in the first place? The as was believed in the 1970s, but over half a million years answers are complex but go to the very heart of archaeology in postwar Japan with its major themes of democracy, nationalism, the mass media, and bureaucratization. In this † Present address: Institute of History and Anthropology, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba Science City, 305-8571 Japan essay I explore the background to the Early Paleolithic hoax * Corresponding author. e-mail: [email protected] in the broad context of postwar Japanese archaeology. This phone: 81-11-706-2388; fax: 81-11-706- work derives from an interest in the history and social con- Published online 28 February 2005 text of Japanese archaeology (e.g. Hudson, 2003, in prepara- in J-STAGE (www.jstage.jst.go.jp) DOI: 10.1537/ase.040804 tion) and from the broader recognition that the production

© 2005 The Anthropological Society of Nippon 131 132 M.J. HUDSON ANTHROPOLOGICAL SCIENCE and interpretation of archaeological knowledge need to be odds, to search for Japan’s earliest . Kajiwara seen in their sociopolitical context (Patterson, 1995, 2001; (1999a: p. 23) notes that an article that “crowned” Hodder, 1999). My aim is not to present a full account of the Serizawa’s research up to that point (Serizawa, 1971) “also Paleolithic hoax in Japan and readers who wish to obtain fur- revealed the loneliness of [Serizawa’s] uniquely isolated ther details of this affair should consult Bleed (2000), Kaner research … carried on in spite of prejudice and general scep- (2002), Keally (2000), and Matsumoto (2002), in addition to ticism.” In reading many accounts of Japanese Paleolithic the two reports published by the Japanese Archaeological research since 1945, it is easy to see underlying themes such Association (2003, 2004). Rather, what follows here are as hard work, dedication, and success built from nothing some personal comments on the intellectual history of post- which mirror narratives of the postwar success story of war Japanese archaeology. At the very end of the essay, sug- Japan as a whole: the initial finds at Iwajuku by a “penni- gestions are made for further work which might look at other less” amateur (Kajiwara, 1999a: p. 21) led through persever- aspects of the hoax that have yet to be considered in the Jap- ance to the discovery of an Early Paleolithic of similar anese literature. antiquity and complexity to that in neighboring . Japanese archaeology has, of course, changed consider- Democracy and Skill: Amateur Archaeologists in ably since the heady days of the late 1940s and 50s. With the Postwar Japan tremendous expansion in salvage (CRM) archaeology from the late 1960s, archaeology in Japan has become an Postwar archaeology in Japan can be classified as extremely bureaucratic enterprise (Barnes, 1986–88; Koba- ‘national archaeology’ which is defined by Trigger (1989: p. yashi, 1986; Tsuboi, 1986, 1992). Many archaeologists have 174) as a “culture-historical approach, with [an] emphasis on become ‘managers’ rather than scientists (Mizoguchi, the prehistory of specific peoples.” National archaeologies 1997). In a 1990 conference paper, Keally described some of are not necessarily nationalist in origin; certainly in Japan, the changes in Japanese Paleolithic archaeology in the fol- the ‘nationalist’ elements of postwar archaeology have lowing terms: “Before 1969, excavations were small explor- developed in the context of the ‘democratization’ of Japa- atory digs. After 1969, excavations became large strip- nese history after the defeat of the fascist state in 1945. After mining operations. Perhaps as much as 90% of all the infor- the end of World War II, the Japanese people were finally mation we now have on the Japanese Palaeolithic has been free to question the mythological accounts of the imperial collected in the 20 years since [1969]” (Keally, 1991: p. 35). family that had previously been taught as history in schools, This phenomenal increase in the available data from prehis- and they quickly embraced archaeology as the proper scien- toric Japan has been achieved by growing specialization and tific approach to understanding their ancient past. Amateur standardization within the Japanese CRM industry. While it archaeologists grew in number and popular participation in is not my intention to criticize these developments per se, as digs became seen as part of the process of democracy. The argued by Paynter (1983) and Shanks and McGuire (1996) spirit of the late 1940s has been well captured by Walter the rise of bureaucratic CRM archaeology in the postwar era Edwards (1991) in his discussion of the excavations at the can be linked with the alienation of archaeological labor and Toro site in Shizuoka. The postwar democratic archaeology ensuing uncertainties over the aims of the discipline. Hodder reached its apogee with the 1953 excavation of the Tsuki- (1999: p • x) makes the point that, “The commercial pres- nowa burial mound by a total of 10,000 people under the sures of contract archaeology have … forced a standardiza- direction of Okayama University archaeologist Yoshiro tion and a routine” that have further “sheltered” Kondo. These people were from all classes and walks of life archaeologists “from outside criticism and … reflexive analysis.” ranging from local women’s groups to Prince Mikasa to Despite the huge expansion in CRM in Japan, however, members of Korean residents’ associations (Kondo, 1960, the idea of archaeology as ‘people’s history’ has retained a 1998). In complete contrast to the fascist indoctrination of strong symbolic importance. Although the term ‘people’s the war years, postwar archaeology and history were “to be history’ refers specifically to the Marxist movement of that created by and for the Japanese people; [they were] not to be name that ran from 1948 to 1952 (Fawcett, 1995: p. 235), controlled by Japan’s ruling political and business elites” given the symbolic importance of that movement for later (Fawcett, 1995: p. 236). Japanese archaeology, this article uses the term in a broader The importance of amateurs in postwar Japanese archae- sense. Against the background of the rise of the CRM indus- ology also extended to the Paleolithic after the first artifacts try, there is no doubt that many professional archaeologists dating to before the Jomon period were discovered in 1949 in Japan feel a strong nostalgia for the ‘good old days’ when at Iwajuku, Gunma Prefecture by Tadahiro Aizawa, a local scholars had more time to explore the history and landscape salesman of natto (fermented beans). Professional archaeol- of their region of residence, and it is this aspect of ogists were involved in Paleolithic research in Japan from Fujimura’s work that typically received the most apprecia- the outset but, particularly in the 1950s and 60s, many of tion. Hiroshi Kajiwara, a Paleolithic specialist at Tohoku these seem to have seen their work as a quest to find the ear- Fukushi University who worked with Fujimura, lamented liest sites in Japan. Chosuke Serizawa (born in 1919), an that “Nowadays, rescue archaeology determines research emeritus professor of Tohoku University in Sendai, is a sem- trends, where to dig, etc., but before its prominence sites inal figure here. By the late 1970s, most Japanese archaeol- were sought out by intrepid explorers” (Kajiwara, 1999a: ogists remained unconvinced by the ‘Early Paleolithic’ sites pp. 2–4, emphasis added). With salvage digs in Japan Serizawa had excavated (cf. Ikawa-Smith, 1978), but for his accounting for over 95% of total excavations since the late supporters he was a heroic figure continuing, against all 1970s, we should not underestimate the sense of freedom Vol. 113, 2005 EARLY PALEOLITHIC HOAX 133 engendered by these small-scale research projects. Before idealism G pragmatism. the hoax was uncovered, the Early Paleolithic fieldwork The contradictions between these oppositions were exac- with which Fujimura was associated was perceived as some erbated by the media (see below), and the inability of Japa- of the most successful and exciting research archaeology in nese archaeologists to resolve these contradictions was postwar Japan. perhaps the most fundamental reason why the Paleolithic The appreciation of the practical aspects of Fujimura’s hoax continued for so long. In other words, the opposition work also stemmed from the position of Japanese archaeol- between the early democratic ‘people’s archaeology’ and the ogy within the humanities. Japanese archaeology is not reality of bureaucratic and ‘objective’ site management regarded as a social science and it is certainly not anthropol- became increasingly incompatible from the 1970s – not, I ogy. In the late 19th century, Japanese universities were believe, because archaeology cannot be both ‘scientific’ and modeled primarily on their German counterparts and depart- ‘democratic’, but because of a growing lack of debate and ments of archaeology are usually located within history in reflexivity over the social aims of archaeology in Japan from the Faculty of Letters. The basic approach of Japanese the 1970s onwards. Immediately following the discovery of archaeology is perhaps closest to classical archaeology in the Fujimura hoax, the tensions between the above opposi- North America. Japanese archaeology does not aim to be a tions burst to the surface in a passionate essay by Hayashi generalizing social science and students study the subject by (2001) in which he compared the hoax with the controversy attempting to master the particular details of the material over Japan’s responsibility for World War II. record. The emphasis is thus on observation and skills that One way of imagining these oppositions is to return to the are to be learnt through a practical ‘apprenticeship’ rather question of labor and the ‘craft of archaeology’ proposed by than theory from a textbook. Japanese archaeology tradition- Shanks and McGuire (1996). Developing a Marxist critique ally has many aspects of the disciplinary ‘craft’ proposed by of the alienation of labor, Shanks and McGuire (1996: p. 76) Shanks and McGuire (1996). One deep irony that runs argue that “good archaeology has always been a craft: a through the Fujimura affair is thus that although the profes- socially engaged practice which is not alienating.” The ideal sional archaeologists working with Fujimura were ulti- of early postwar archaeology in Japan certainly came close mately found wanting in their observations of the artifacts, to this conception. The work at Tsukinowa in 1953 men- Fujimura’s ability to find objects was highly appreciated as a tioned above is probably the best example here. The excava- true archaeological ‘skill’. tions were instigated by a local community association Despite the different institutional status of Japanese under the following three guidelines that are worth quoting archaeology within universities, many aspects of amateur in full: “(1) The excavations will be conducted indepen- archaeology in Japan are similar to those in other countries. dently by the people of the village with the supervision of Fred Wendorf, for example, has written that in the United specialist researchers. Through these excavations we will States such amateurs “… shared a keen intellectual curiosity, learn not a fanatical, mythological (kamigakari) history but a the ability to observe, and the openness to interpret what correct history. (2) The excavations must not just be an they saw without depending on those preconceived notions investigation of old things or an attempt to bring attention to which so often blinded the more formally trained…. It seems our village (okuni jiman). Rather we want to employ the likely that these … archaeologists were able to make their excavations for the social education of the general village important contributions primarily because they lacked the population as well as school teachers and pupils. (3) The vil- rigidity which often accompanies formalized training” lage people, scholars, teachers and pupils will combine their (Wendorf, 1978: p. 8). efforts into one to excavate the kofun (burial mound)” Biological anthropologist Keiichi Omoto has similarly (Kondo, 1998: pp. 28–29). The type of excavations con- wryly commented that the association between amateur and ducted at Tsukinowa never, of course, became the norm in professional archaeologists that characterized the Early Japan. My argument here, however, is that the concept of Paleolithic work in Miyagi showed a flexibility that would popular participation in archaeology in order to study the not have been possible at the prestigious University of history of the common people was a very strong ideal – even Tokyo (Omoto and Kobayashi, 2000: p. 34). As noted, how- if it was not always realized in practice. ever, amateur archaeologists were also part of a broader The first real shock to this ideal of archaeological practice sociopolitical agenda in postwar Japan. When Kajiwara came with the student revolts of the late 1960s. Already by (1999a: p. 24) wrote that, “The procession of discoverers of the middle of that decade the Japanese government had pro- Early Palaeolithic sites from Aizawa Tadahiro to Fujimura duced an excavation manual that discussed, in addition to Shinichi includes Professor Serizawa,” one senses that he more traditional excavation techniques, the appropriate hier- was trying to gain extra respectability for Serizawa who, archy of excavation participants and how their labor should although an emeritus professor at a prestigious national uni- be managed and divided (Agency for Cultural Affairs, 1966: versity, was then perhaps the more controversial of the three pp. 9–13). Despite the apparent scientific tone of this man- figures. In linking these three archaeologists I believe Kaji- ual, however, it appeared precisely at a time when govern- wara clearly shows the connections between some of the ment standards for salvage digs were “drastically lowered” main themes of postwar Japanese archaeology. These because such excavations had became so numerous they themes can be summarized by the following oppositions: could no longer be handled by university archaeologists democracy G fascism; alone (Kobayashi, 1986: p. 492). The radical student move- people’s history G elite history (myths); ment that developed after 1968 was strongly opposed to any independent amateurs G bureaucratic managers; sort of compromise on the part of university archaeologists 134 M.J. HUDSON ANTHROPOLOGICAL SCIENCE with respect to site destruction. For these students, “salvage in the sense that archaeology gained increased importance as archaeological projects conducted by the universities [were a means to understand the particular past of the Japanese seen] as acts of compliance with developers (qua capital- people. This particularistic nature of postwar Japanese ists)” (Tsuboi, 1986: p. 487). Anything less than complete archaeology is important because I believe it helps to excavation of an archaeological site was seen as an unforgiv- explain why so few Japanese archaeologists feel the need to able destruction of the people’s heritage – a view that was publish their research in an international context. widespread beyond the student movement and still remains Paleolithic archaeologists in Japan are, as a whole, more the norm in Japanese archaeology. For this reason I believe international in their outlook than their colleagues working Barnes and Okita (1999: p. 377) are incorrect when they on other periods of Japanese prehistory. This is because the argue that “continued reluctance … to introduce sampling nature of the Paleolithic record makes it harder to relate find- (as opposed to 100% excavation) highlights the Japanese ings to the ‘national history’ of Japan (Mizoguchi, 2002: p. archaeologists’ ongoing discomfort with statistics…”: the 49) and thus lends a more theoretical emphasis to Paleolithic real reason would seem to be political and ideological oppo- research. Many of the archaeologists involved in the Early sition to any destruction of the remains of the ‘people’s his- Paleolithic work in Miyagi specifically stressed their ‘inter- tory’. national’ perspective (e.g. Kajiwara, 1999a: p. 25; Sagawa, Although all senior archaeologists in Japan today experi- 1999). The findings were reported at the Society for Ameri- enced the student movement at first hand, little has yet been can Archaeology meetings in 1999 and a large international written about how it affected the practice of archaeology. conference was organized in Sendai in the same year (Kaji- Teshigawara’s (1988) history of Japanese archaeology, for wara, 1999b). It is extremely rare for Japanese archaeolo- example, only devotes a few lines to how students forced the gists to present their work at the annual meetings of the cancellation of the Japanese Archaeological Association American Anthropological Association (AAA) or the Soci- meetings in 1969 and 1970. As noted by Kobayashi (1986: ety for American Archaeology (SAA), but a panel on the p. 493) and Tsuboi (1986: p. 485), however, the radical stu- Fujimura hoax held at the 2004 SAA meetings shows the dent protests had the effect of forcing universities to with- seriousness with which the affair is regarded by the archaeo- draw from salvage archaeology, leaving the management of logical community in Japan. Despite these activities, how- buried cultural resources to increasingly bureaucratic gov- ever, the Early Paleolithic finds were in reality largely ernment bodies. The gap between the oppositions listed published and interpreted within the narrow context of Japa- above can thus be said to effectively date from this time. nese archaeology. Archaeological discourse in Japan emphasizes the presen- Debating the Finds tation of ‘facts’; explicit debate over the interpretation of those facts is rare at conferences and other public venues, Following the discovery of Fujimura’s hoax, many Japa- making it much easier to ignore published critiques than it is nese archaeologists have cited an obsession with archaeol- in North America. The major critique of the Early Pale- ogy as discovery (Tsurumaru, 2003: p. 10) and a lack of olithic work in Miyagi was that published by Oda and Keally sufficient discussion over the Early Paleolithic finds (Koba- (1986). This article appeared in English with a long Japanese yashi, 2003) as major causal factors. Certainly, in the 1980s summary in the pages of this journal, which was then called and 90s there was little real debate over the Early Paleolithic the Journal of the Anthropological Society of Nippon, and is discoveries in eastern Japan. The lack of debate, however, Japan’s oldest anthropology journal. Oda and Keally pre- does not mean that there were not criticisms of the Early sented an extremely detailed analysis of the problems and Paleolithic research – rather that those criticisms, which inconsistencies in the Miyagi research and concluded that, were often seen as personal attacks, did not develop into a “no proven artifacts of human origin predating 30000 BP balanced scientific discussion. exist in Miyagi prefecture. The claims of Okamura, Kamata, Some readers may see an apparent paradox between the and some other Miyagi archaeologists that they have discov- idealistic ‘democratic’ aims of postwar Japanese archaeol- ered a ‘Lower Palaeolithic’ there are based on flawed ogy and the lack of open debate over major finds, but these research and are dubious claims” (Oda and Keally, 1986: p. phenomena are probably related. In trying to escape the 325). This important article was, however, basically ignored hegemonies of political and business control over the inter- by the archaeological community in Japan, as were later pretation of history, Japanese archaeologists were – and still contributions such as Keally (1987). In English, a number of are – reluctant to replace them with what they regard as the brief discussions of the Miyagi Early Paleolithic sites were hegemony of science. Japanese archaeology began in the written before Oda and Keally’s article appeared (Reynolds late 19th century in a Western tradition of scientific anthro- and Barnes, 1984; Reynolds, 1985, 1986). Having read that pology (Ikawa-Smith, 1982). Edward Morse, the American article, Shutler (1988: p. 670) concluded that although “The biologist who conducted the first excavations in Japan in Miyagi Prefecture sites have the potential to demonstrate the 1877, brought a strong natural science perspective to archae- pre-30000 BP occupation of Japan, … until the criticisms ology in Japan, just as his former Agassiz classmate and fel- made by Oda and Keally … [are] rectified, they had best be low excavator of New England shell middens, Frederic left out of any basis for claiming an early Paleolithic for Putnam, did in the United States (cf. Browman, 2002). As Japan.” Following this, many accounts in English noted the archaeology developed its own identity and agendas in controversial nature of the “Early Paleolithic” (e.g. Barnes, Japan, however, it became increasingly linked with the study 1993: p. 51) and work in both English and Japanese pointed of Japanese history. This trend was strengthened after 1945 to many problems in explaining the typological sequences Vol. 113, 2005 EARLY PALEOLITHIC HOAX 135 and other aspects of the finds. Peter Bleed (1991: p. 202) the newspaper comments by archaeologist Makoto Sahara admitted that “There is a lot that I cannot explain about these linking Yoshinogari with the legendary kingdom of Yamatai assemblages.” The intellectual excitement of trying to make that really fired public fascination with the site. Sahara him- sense of the Early Paleolithic finds is clear in the writings of self would later deny any direct links between Yoshinogari scholars such as Bleed (1991) and Kajiwara (1999a). Unfor- and Yamatai but the preservation of Yoshinogari, now a tunately, however, those involved in the actual excavations national historic park, had been achieved at the price of made less effort to question the stratigraphic integrity of the myths that displaced “it from its historical moorings” excavated artifacts. The basic problems of context raised by (Oblas, 1995: p. 69). By this Oblas means that the Japanese Oda, Keally, and others were ignored and festered at the media give sites such as Yoshinogari a mythical status that heart of Japanese archaeology. necessarily both embraces and transcends the historical con- Some commentators have contrasted the lack of debate troversies surrounding them. Insinuation rather than inter- over the Early Paleolithic in Japan with the continuing con- pretation is what lends these sites their mythical power. At troversies over the first human settlement of the Americas. the same time, however, their historical ‘moorings’ While there is no doubt that the practice of archaeology dif- remained fixed to a shared concept of the national history of fers between Japan and North America, both approaches Japan. This means that media reporting of archaeology in show how science can be influenced by unscientific clashes Japan seems ostensibly less controversial than that in the of personality and factionalism. Keally (2000: note 5) writes United States where sensationalism often surrounds the that after his criticisms of the Miyagi Early Paleolithic mate- issue of who produced particular prehistoric artifacts or fea- rials were published, “at least as far as Serizawa Chosuke is tures. The sensationalist claims made recently regarding the concerned I ceased to exist from that day. He will not even so-called ‘Miami Circle’ site in Florida (cf. Carr and return greetings when we pass at a conference.” In North Ricisak, 2000; Weisman et al., 2000) would, for example, be America, however, involvement in pre-Clovis research has unthinkable in Japan where a similar site would probably at times been perceived as potentially damaging to the actual receive extensive favorable media coverage emphasizing the educational and career prospects of younger archaeologists spiritual and technical abilities of the ancient Japanese. (Haynes, 2002: p. 7). In Japan through the 1970s there had Several Japanese journalists have accepted that the media been great controversy over Sozudai and other proposed played a negative role in inflating the Fujimura hoax (e.g. Early Paleolithic sites excavated by Serizawa and others, but Kawai, 2003). It remains to be seen, however, what journal- the obviously cultural remains from Miyagi appeared to put ists and archaeologists will learn from their mistakes. The such controversy to rest (Keally, 2000; Yajima, 2004). In this events surrounding one of the biggest archaeological stories respect the Miyagi finds can be compared with the role of in Japan since the Paleolithic hoax leave little room for con- Monte Verde in the Americas: a period of acrimonious con- fidence in this respect. In May 2003, a group of scholars troversy over the very existence of an Early Paleolithic/pre- from the National Museum of Japanese History gave a paper Clovis occupation was replaced by rather more balanced at the annual meeting of the Japanese Archaeological Asso- debate over the nature of those occupational horizons fol- ciation in which they presented new AMS dates for the lowing the acceptance of the discoveries in Miyagi and at that purport to show that the Yayoi began Monte Verde, respectively. around 1000 BC, some six centuries earlier than previously assumed (Harunari et al., 2003). Several days before their The Role of the Media conference paper was read, the authors gave a press confer- ence which led to their results making the front page of the A full analysis of the role of the media in the Fujimura national newspapers. A prime-time television documentary hoax requires a separate article, but there can be no doubt on the national NHK network appeared a few months later. that this was a significant reason why the hoax continued for An article criticizing the new dates appeared as early as so long. The mass media have been closely involved in the October 2003 (Hashiguchi, 2003), but that paper relied on popular and populist nature of archaeology in postwar Japan the press release at the original press conference as the (Niiro, 1986; Oblas, 1995). Newspapers, magazines, and, source of its data. The museum team have since published a later, television helped to foster the popularity of archaeol- book on their findings (Harunari and Imamura, 2004), but ogy as part of the people’s history. In the face of the massive despite the potential importance of their work for East Asian economic development and destruction of sites in the post- archaeology as a whole, as far as I am aware their results war era, Japanese archaeologists have also used these mass have not yet been fully published in a refereed academic media to generate support for the protection of sites. journal. Such publishing practice is normal in Japanese Although this activity has often been quite successful, it has archaeology but it is not, I would suggest, helpful in evaluat- sometimes involved a Faustian bargain with the media. One ing controversial new findings. of the best examples here is that of the Yoshinogari site in Saga Prefecture, Kyushu. The publication of a story on The ‘Intrepid Explorer’ Yoshinogari in the Asahi Shimbun newspaper in February 1989 led to phenomenal public interest in the site and is Within the whole affair of the Japanese Early Paleolithic credited with rescuing the remains from development into an hoax, the motives of Shinichi Fujimura himself appear industrial park (Oblas, 1995: p. 68). There is little doubt equally mysterious both to those who knew him and to about the historical significance of the large Yayoi settle- those, like the present author, who have never actually met ment at Yoshinogari (Hudson and Barnes, 1991), but it was Fujimura. Despite a range of recent writings in Japanese, 136 M.J. HUDSON ANTHROPOLOGICAL SCIENCE nobody has been able to produce a good explanation as to ogy in Japan that revolves around the camaraderie of physi- why Fujimura should have perpetrated such an incredible cal labor outside and boisterous drinking after work. From hoax for so long. Many commentators who knew Fujimura all accounts Fujimura appears to have fallen easily into this have expressed their shock at his actions. Journalist culture. Keally (2000) recalls an evening party at one of the Nobukazu Kawai (2003: p. 192), for example, has written sites where Fujimura was digging: “In the video I have, that, “Recalling my personal memories, Mr. Fujimura was a Fujimura was not the only one dancing naked, and a lot (but good person. Although I had not met him for ten years, by no means all) of the viewers seemed to enjoy the exhibi- before that he always politely responded to my requests for tion.” As mentioned, Fujimura was admitted to hospital suf- information. That’s why I never even imagined anything like fering from an unspecified psychological disorder shortly a hoax.” Such surprise is further compounded by Fujimura’s after the hoax was exposed, but was reportedly released behavior after the discovery of the hoax. While undergoing from hospital in late 2003. Details of his hospital treatment more than two years’ hospitalization for an unnamed psy- have not been made public but, at least until the hoax chological disorder, he is reported to have cut off a finger – became known, one senses that Fujimura was trying hard to an act of contrition usually associated with the Japanese be a ‘typical’ Japanese archaeologist. As Keally (2000) puts mafia – after he was divorced by his wife. it, “If Fujimura’s actions mean he had some sort of mental Surprise that a colleague or friend should have perpetrated problem, then a whole lot of other archaeologists do too.” such a hoax is, of course, a natural reaction and one is Keally’s (2000) conclusion that Fujimura’s actions are best reminded of the comment of a local woman regarding explained as resulting from problems inherent in the social Charles Dawson’s involvement at Piltdown: “Impossible! structure of Japanese archaeology remains the strongest He is a gentleman – I played golf with him” (Daniel, 1981). explanation for his behavior. In the writings of many of those involved in Miyagi archae- ology one feels keenly the real shock and trauma they expe- Discussion and Conclusions rienced over the hoax (e.g. Bleed, 2000). This shock needs to be tempered, however, by the realization that in Japan, as in The Japanese Archaeological Association (JAA) recently most countries, it is those who have the least formal training published a 625 page final report on its investigations into in archaeology who are largely responsible for the day-to- the Fujimura hoax (JAA, 2003). The black cover of this day discovery of artifacts (Berggren and Hodder, 2003). book can be said to symbolize the mourning of the Japanese Fujimura only attended high school and had no formal train- archaeological community for its loss of innocence. The ing in archaeology; in fact his knowledge of the discipline as detailed investigations conducted by the JAA were crucial in a whole is said to have been extremely poor (Kawai, 2003). demonstrating that none of the artifacts found by Fujimura At the same time, that he was able to continue such a major had any scientific value. Despite this work, however, many hoax for twenty-five years suggests that Fujimura had aspects of the hoax await further clarification and it also enough knowledge of archaeology to convince his col- remains to be seen exactly how the hoax will affect the leagues. If there is one word that sums up Fujimura in Japa- future development of archaeology in Japan. At the same nese writings on the Paleolithic hoax, it is ‘convincing’. time, there are already several clear lessons from the Keiichi Omoto, one of Japan’s leading biological anthropol- Fujimura hoax that need to be acknowledged: the need for ogists, for example, acknowledged that his initial doubts the impartial evaluation and publication of research to inter- were removed upon actually meeting Fujimura: “… a few nationally accepted standards; recognition of the limitations years back I began to have contact with Serizawa’s group of media reporting of archaeological work; the need for and I actually met Mr. Fujimura himself. While talking more reflexive fieldwork; and the need for further debate on about various matters with him, I came to think that it was the aims of archaeology. due to [Fujimura’s] experience and senses and to believe Archaeology in postwar Japan has developed around the that, in a way, he could understand the ‘spirit’ of Homo erec- three poles of people’s history, national history, and state tus (genjin no kokoro)” (Omoto and Kobayashi, 2000: p. management of cultural resources. The remarkable achieve- 34). ments of postwar Japanese archaeology can be largely My intention here or elsewhere in this article is not to crit- explained by these factors – but at the same time the inherent icize any individual scholars for comments made prior to the contradictions between these three poles go a long way exposure of Fujimura’s hoax but rather to present the context toward helping us to understand the background to the in which his finds were evaluated. As well as apparently Fujimura hoax. The emphasis on archaeology as the history being convincing on a personal level, Fujimura made some of the people of Japan has tended to develop a nationalistic attempts to gain academic support for his discoveries. In one flavor that is common in origins research. As Gamble (2001: of his few published papers, he attempted some methodolog- p. 172) notes, “We need to attend to more voices than just ical notes toward a ‘study of site discovery’ (Fujimura, that of origins research, where, at its worst, the hunt for the 1999). With the benefit of hindsight, this article could be dis- oldest comes to dominate the conversation.” Kaner’s (2001) missed as a joke in very poor taste, but I believe that would proposal that Japanese archaeology needs to go “beyond eth- be a mistake. One senses that the quest for respect – rather nicity and emergence” is to be supported but this requires than respectability – was an important motivation for further debate over the broader academic and social aims of Fujimura. That quest may also explain Fujimura’s notorious archaeology in Japan. party behavior. Although Japanese archaeologists famously Wendorf (1978: p. 8) notes of amateur archaeologists in dig in white gloves, there is also a ‘macho’ side to archaeol- the United States that, “It is significant that these early ‘ama- Vol. 113, 2005 EARLY PALEOLITHIC HOAX 137 teurs’ not only found the data, but interpreted them,” but in ment’. The Fujimura hoax has thrown a strong light onto the Japan such interpretive work has tended to receive less weaknesses of both of these approaches. Without a shared acclaim than discovery. Many Japanese archaeologists I framework of anthropological theory and practice, in Japan spoke with while writing this article emphasized that the both the worthy sociopolitical aims of ‘people’s archaeol- Early Paleolithic hoax was not caused by poor excavation ogy’ and the bureaucratic system of CRM have tended to techniques. They point to the identification of spade marks dilute the status of archaeology as a system of scientific and other stratigraphic evidence of the hoax in the re-exca- knowledge. vations (Sagawa, 2004) as proof that Japanese techniques As noted at the beginning of this essay, my intention here remain ‘world-class’. The point that archaeology is more has not been to attempt a comprehensive account of the than just a technique came up less often in such conversa- Early Paleolithic hoax in Japan. Instead I have explored tions. Japanese archaeologists are for the most part very some aspects of the social context of the hoax, focusing on skilled excavators but I believe that the Fujimura hoax the particular history of postwar Japanese archaeology and clearly supports the need for more reflexive fieldwork such trying to situate the hoax within the historical nature of as that outlined by Berggren and Hodder (2003). knowledge (Hodder, 1999: pp. 32–33) of archaeology in In terms of the broader context in which archaeology is Japan. In this last section I have also made some brief sug- conducted, the links between archaeology and anthropology gestions as to how the early postwar aims of Japanese continue to be hotly debated in North America (Gillespie archaeology as ‘people’s history’ might be furthered within and Nichols, 2003). In Japan, anthropological archaeology the contemporary context of highly bureaucratic site man- tends to be seen as highly theoretical but in North America agement. The discussion here has thus, to a large extent, several scholars have recently emphasized the practical been focused inwards on Japanese archaeology. I want to aspects of anthropology as ‘applied archaeology’ (Downum conclude, however, by emphasizing the importance of the and Price, 1999; Ferguson, 2003). Applied archaeology Fujimura hoax for understanding the practice of archaeology involves a range of topics related to the interface between beyond Japan. As Hodder (1999: p. 20) has recently noted, archaeological research and public policy, such as identity there is remarkably little literature on how archaeologists politics, historical education and outreach, CRM, cultural reach what they regard as ‘satisfactory’ interpretations. A tourism, environmental impacts, and ‘minority’ issues. Any- full account of the Fujimura hoax must engage this very one familiar with postwar Japanese archaeology will realize question and the fact that ‘satisfactory’ interpretations of the that it is just these areas that have had the most resonance Japanese Early Paleolithic were later shown to be totally with the view of archaeology as ‘people’s history’. The incorrect will provide, in my opinion, an extremely signifi- pages of Japan’s largest circulation archaeology journal, cant case study for understanding the nature of the archaeo- Kokogaku Kenkyu, are full of articles on education and the logical process. textbook controversy, CRM and site destruction, the prob- lem of the so-called ‘imperial mausolea’, and so on. It is just Acknowledgments these issues that have been so central to postwar Japanese archaeology that lend themselves to further analysis using I am grateful to Toshiaki Tsurumaru for information on broad yet critical anthropological frameworks. Shinichi Fujimura used in this article. I also wish to thank Applied archaeology can be seen as an attempt to solve Yuji Mizoguchi, Akira Ono, and the anonymous reviewer essentially non-academic problems of public policy. In for their comments on an earlier version of the manuscript. North America the need for more explicit consideration of Finally, I wish to emphasize that the opinions and any mis- the relations between past and living societies has been takes found here are entirely those of the author. emphasized in this regard. Within the anthropological tradi- tion of American archaeology such an approach has been References facilitated by the clear differences between most contempo- rary archaeologists and past, non-European societies. Japa- Agency for Cultural Affairs (Bunkacho Bunkazai Hogobu) (1966) nese scholars, however, have typically interpreted An Excavation Manual for Buried Cultural Properties (Maizo prehistoric Japan in terms of ‘Japanese’ society and history Bunkazai Hakkutsu Chosa no Tebiki). Kokudo Chiri Kyokai, Tokyo (in Japanese). (Pearson, 1992: p. 120; Hudson, 2003). Thus before the Barnes G.L. (1986–88) The origins of bureaucratic archaeology in hoax was exposed archaeologist Tatsuo Kobayashi sug- Japan. Journal of the Hong Kong Archaeological Society, 12: gested that the importance of the numbers three, five, and 183–194. seven in modern Japanese society could be traced back to the Barnes G.L. (1993) China, and Japan: The Rise of Civiliza- Early Paleolithic sites dug by Fujimura (Omoto and Koba- tion in East Asia. Thames and Hudson, London. yashi, 2000: pp. 36–37). My argument here, then, is that Barnes G.L. and Okita M. (1999) Japanese archaeology in the such circular reasoning could be avoided and the sociopolit- 1990s. Journal of Archaeological Research, 7: 349–395. Berggren Å. and Hodder I. (2003) Social practice, method, and ical aims of Japanese archaeology as ‘people’s history’ be some problems of field archaeology. American Antiquity, 68: better served by a broad, comparative archaeology as anthro- 421–434. pology. Instead of the divide between ‘theoretical’ and ‘dirt’ Bleed P. (1991) Comments on seminar III. Ancient relations archaeologists that is recognizable in North America, in between Japan and the continent: a panel on recent archaeo- postwar Japan the tension has been between the ideal of logical approaches. Transactions of the International Confer- archaeology as a democratically based ‘people’s history’ and ence of Orientalists in Japan, 36: 200–206. Bleed P. (2000) Digging out of the Scandal. Electronic document, the reality of a highly bureaucratic system of site ‘manage- 138 M.J. HUDSON ANTHROPOLOGICAL SCIENCE

http://www.ancienteastasia.org/special/ Ikawa-Smith F. (1978) Early Paleolithic in South and East Asia. japanarchscandal2.htm, accessed April 22, 2004. Mouton, The Hague. Browman D.L. (2002) The Peabody Museum, Frederic W. Put- Ikawa-Smith F. (1982) Co-traditions in Japanese archaeology. nam, and the rise of U.S. anthropology, 1866–1903. Ameri- World Archaeology, 13: 296–308. can Anthropologist, 104: 508–519. Japanese Archaeological Association (JAA) (2003) Inspection of Carr R.S. and Ricisak J. (2000) Preliminary report on salvage the Early and Middle Palaeolithic Problem in Japan (Zen, archaeological excavations of the Brickell Point site Chuki Kyusekki Mondai no Kensho). Japanese Archaeologi- (8DA12), including the Miami Circle. The Florida Anthropol- cal Association, Tokyo (in Japanese). ogist, 53: 260–284. Japanese Archaeological Association (JAA) (2004) Recent Pale- Daniel G. (1981) Antiquity editorial (March). Reprinted in Writing olithic Studies in Japan: Proceedings for Tainted Evidence for Antiquity: An Anthology of Editorials from Antiquity. and Restoration of Confidence in the Archaeol- Thames and Hudson, London. ogy of the . Japanese Archaeological Downum C.E. and Price L.J. (1999) Applied archaeology. Human Association, Tokyo. Organization, 58: 226–239. Kajiwara H. (1999a) A symposium to commemorate the 80th Edwards W. (1991) Buried discourse: the Toro archaeological site birthday celebrations of Professor Chosuke Serizawa. In: and Japanese national identity in the early postwar period. Kajiwara H. (ed.), From Sozudai to Kamitakamori: World Journal of Japanese Studies, 17: 1–23. Views on the Early and Middle Palaeolithic in Japan. Tohoku Fawcett C. (1995) Nationalism and postwar Japanese archaeology. Fukushi University, Sendai, pp. 21–51. In: Kohl P.L. and Fawcett C. (eds.), Nationalism, Politics, and Kajiwara H. (1999b) From Sozudai to Kamitakamori: World the Practice of Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Views on the Early and Middle Palaeolithic in Japan. Tohoku Cambridge, pp. 232–246. Fukushi University, Sendai. Ferguson T.J. (2003) Anthropological archaeology conducted by Kaner S. (2001) Beyond ethnicity and emergence in Japanese tribes: traditional cultural properties and cultural affiliation. archaeology. In: Denoon D., Hudson M.J., Morris-Suzuki T., In: Gillespie S.D. and Nichols D.L. (eds.), Archaeology is and McCormack G. (eds.), Multicultural Japan: Palaeolithic Anthropology. Archeological Papers of the American Anthro- to Postmodern. Cambridge University Press, Melbourne, pp. pological Association, No. 13, Arlington, Virginia, pp. 137– 46–59. 144. Kaner S. (2002) Trouble in the Japanese Lower and Middle Palae- Fujimura S. (1999) Iseki hakkengaku no teisho (Paleolithic site olithic. Before Farming, 2: 1–23. Electronic document, survey: a proposed methodology). In: Kajiwara H. (ed.), www.waspress.co.uk/journals/beforefarming/journal_20022/ From Sozudai to Kamitakamori: World Views on the Early abstracts/index.php#200224, accessed November 12, 2004. and Middle Palaeolithic in Japan, Tohoku Fukushi University, Kawai N. (2003) The Paleolithic Site Hoax (Kyusekki Iseki Net- Sendai, pp. 84–89 (in Japanese). suzo). Bunshun Shinso No. 297, Bungei Shunju-sha, Tokyo Gamble C. (2001) Archaeology: The Basics. Routledge, London. (in Japanese). Gillespie S.D. and Nichols D.L. (2003) Archaeology is Anthropol- Keally C.T. (1987) Japan’s ‘Early Paleolithic’: recent pro and con. ogy. Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Current Research in the Pleistocene, 4: 19–20. Association, No. 13, Arlington, Virginia. Keally C.T. (1991) Environment and the distribution of sites in the Harunari H. (2003) Analysis of the Early and Middle Palaeolithic Japanese Palaeolithic: environmental zones and cultural problem. In: Japanese Archaeological Association (ed.), areas. Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association, 10: Inspection of the Early and Middle Palaeolithic Problem in 23–39. Japan (Zen, Chuki Kyusekki Mondai no Kensho). Japanese Keally C.T. (2000) Japanese scandals: this time it’s archaeology. Archaeological Association, Tokyo, pp. 593–600 (in Japa- Electronic document, http://www.ancienteastasia.org/special/ nese). japanarchscandal.htm, accessed April 22, 2004. Harunari H. and Imamura M. (2004) Absolute Chronology of the Kobayashi T. (1986) Trends in administrative salvage archaeology. Yayoi Period: Examining the C14 Dates (Yayoi Jidai no Jit- In: Pearson R.J., Barnes G.L., and Hutterer K.L. (eds.), Win- sunendai: Tanso 14 Nendai o Megutte). Gakusei-sha, Tokyo dows on the Japanese Past: Studies in Archaeology and Pre- (in Japanese). history. Center for Japanese Studies, University of Michigan, Harunari H., Fujio S., Imamura M., and Sakamoto M. (2003) The Ann Arbor, pp. 491–496. date of the beginning of the Yayoi period: on the results of Kobayashi T. (2003) Netsuzo jiken to kokogaku kenkyusha. In: C14 dating. Paper presented at the 69th annual meeting of the Japanese Archaeological Association (ed.), Inspection of the Japanese Archaeological Association, Tokyo, May (in Japa- Early and Middle Palaeolithic Problem in Japan (Zen, Chuki nese). Kyusekki Mondai no Kensho). Japanese Archaeological Hashiguchi T. (2003) On the of the Yayoi Association, Tokyo, pp. 600–605. Translated as ‘Archaeolo- period. Nihon Kokogaku, 16: 27–44 (in Japanese). gists and the Paleolithic Hoax’, electronic document, http:// Hayashi K. (2001) On the so-called ‘hoax’: typological consider- www.avenue.co.jp/~kouko/o_3_2_e03.html#30, accessed April ations. Kikan Kokogaku, 74: 74–79 (in Japanese). 28, 2004. Haynes G. (2002) The Early Settlement of North America: The Kondo Y. (1960) Tsukinowa Kofun. Tsukinowa Kofun Kankokai, Clovis Era. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Okayama (in Japanese). Hodder I. (1999) The Archaeological Process: An Introduction. Kondo Y. (1998) Tsukinowa Kofun. Kibito Shuppan, Okayama (in Blackwell, Oxford. Japanese). Hudson M.J. (2003) Foragers as fetish in modern Japan. In: Habu Matsumoto N. (2002) Update on the Japanese Early and Middle J., Savelle J.M., Koyama S., and Hongo H. (eds.), Hunter- Paleolithic problem. Before Farming, 2: 24–25. Electronic Gatherers of the North Pacific Rim. National Museum of Eth- document, www.waspress.co.uk/journals/beforefarming/ nology, Osaka, pp. 263–274. journal_20022/abstracts/index.php#200224, accessed Hudson M.J. (in preparation) Pots not people: ethnicity, culture, November 12, 2004. and identity in postwar Japanese archaeology. MS under Mizoguchi K. (1997) The reproduction of archaeological dis- review. course: the case of Japan. Journal of European Archaeology, Hudson M.J. and Barnes G.L. (1991) Yoshinogari: a Yayoi settle- 5: 149–165. ment in northern Kyushu. Monumenta Nipponica, 46: 211– Mizoguchi K. (2002) An Archaeological , 30,000 235. BC to AD 700. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadel- Vol. 113, 2005 EARLY PALEOLITHIC HOAX 139

phia. nese Archaeological Association (ed.), Recent Paleolithic Niiro I. (1986) Journalism and archaeology. In: Tanaka M. (ed.), Studies in Japan: Proceedings for Tainted Evidence and Res- The Iwanami Course on Japanese Archaeology, Volume 7: toration of Confidence in the Pleistocene Archaeology of the Archaeology and Contemporary Times (Iwanami Koza Nihon Japanese Archipelago. Japanese Archaeological Association, Kokogaku 7: Gendai to Kokogaku), Iwanami Shoten, Tokyo, Tokyo, pp. 12–27. pp. 209–232 (in Japanese). Serizawa C. (1971) Various problems on the Early Paleolithic. Oblas P.B. (1995) Perspectives on Race and Culture in Japanese Daiyonki Kenkyu, 10: 179–204 (in Japanese). Society: The Mass Media and Ethnicity. Edwin Mellen, Shanks M. and McGuire R.H. (1996) The craft of archaeology. Lewiston, New York. American Antiquity, 61: 75–88. Oda S. and Keally C.T. (1986) A critical look at the Palaeolithic Shutler R. (1988) Current status of the Japanese Early Paleolithic and ‘Lower Palaeolithic’ research in Miyagi Prefecture, and possible Asian mainland relationships. In: Proceedings of Japan. Journal of the Anthropological Society of Nippon, 94: the Tenth International Symposium on Asian Studies, 1988. 325–361. Volume 2, Asian Research Service, Hong Kong, pp. 649–676. Omoto K. and Kobayashi T. (2000) The arrival of humans in the Teshigawara A. (1988) A History of Japanese Archaeology: Chro- Japanese islands: the amazing spiritual culture of the Chich- nology and Interpretation (Nihon Kokogakushi: Nenpyo to ibu Homo erectus. Koken, 38(5): 26–41(in Japanese). Kaisetsu). University of Tokyo Press, Tokyo (in Japanese). Patterson T.C. (1995) Toward a Social History of Archaeology in Trigger B.G. (1989) A History of Archaeological Thought. Cam- the United States. Harcourt Brace College, Fort Worth. bridge University Press, Cambridge. Patterson T.C. (2001) A Social History of Anthropology in the Tsuboi K. (1986) Problems concerning the preservation of archae- United States. Berg, Oxford. ological sites in Japan. In: Pearson R.J., Barnes G.L., and Hut- Paynter R. (1983) Field or factory? Concerning the degradation of terer K.L. (eds.), Windows on the Japanese Past: Studies in archaeological labor. In: Gero J.M., Lacy D.M., and Blakey Archaeology and Prehistory. Center for Japanese Studies, M.L. (eds.), The Socio-Politics of Archaeology. Department University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, pp. 481–490. of Anthropology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, pp. Tsuboi K. (1992) Issues in Japanese archaeology. Acta Asiatica, 17–30. 63: 1–20. Pearson R. (1992) The nature of Japanese archaeology. Asian Per- Tsurumaru T. (2003) Archaeology and facts: the background to the spectives, 31: 115–127. site hoax affair. Sapporo Gakuin University Forum of Renfrew C. and Bahn P. (2000) Archaeology: Theories, Methods, Humanities, 5: 1–10 (in Japanese). and Practice. Thames and Hudson, London. Weisman B. R., Shepard H.E., and Luer G.M. (2000) The origin Reynolds T.E.G. (1985) The Early Palaeolithic of Japan. Antiquity, and significance of the Brickell Point site (8DA12), also 59: 93–96. known as the Miami Circle. The Florida Anthropologist, 53: Reynolds T.E.G. (1986) Toward peopling the New World: a possi- 342–346. ble Early Palaeolithic in Tohoku district, Japan. American Wendorf F. (1978) The changing roles of amateurs and profession- Antiquity, 51: 330–331. als in Texas archeology. In: House K.D. (ed.), Texas Archeol- Reynolds T.E.G. and Barnes G.L. (1984) The Japanese Palae- ogy: Essays Honoring R. King Harris. Southern Methodist olithic: a review. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 50: University Press, Dallas, pp. 7–14. 49–62. Yajima K. (2004) Investigations into faking Early and Middle Sagawa M. (1999) New perspectives on Paleolithic archaeology. Paleolithic studies in Japan. In: Japanese Archaeological In: Yasuda Y. (ed.), First Meetings with Japanese Archaeol- Association (ed.), Recent Paleolithic Studies in Japan: Pro- ogy (Hajimete Deau Nihon Kokogaku), Yuhikaku, Tokyo, pp. ceedings for Tainted Evidence and Restoration of Confidence 161–190 (in Japanese). in the Pleistocene Archaeology of the Japanese Archipelago. Sagawa M. (2004) Re-excavations of the ‘Paleolithic’ Zazaragi Japanese Archaeological Association, Tokyo, pp. 4–11. and Kamitakamori sites, Miyagi prefecture, Japan. In: Japa-