Postwar Japanese Archaeology and the Early Paleolithic Hoax MARK J

ANTHROPOLOGICAL SCIENCE Vol. 113, 131–139, 2005 For the people, by the people: postwar Japanese archaeology and the Early Paleolithic hoax MARK J. HUDSON1†* 1Department of Northern Cultures and Slavic Research Center, Hokkaido University, N9 W7, Kita-ku, Sapporo, 060-0809 Japan Received 4 August 2004; accepted 6 December 2004 Abstract From at least 1976 until his exposure by the media in November 2000, amateur archaeologist Shinichi Fujimura planted artifacts at over 180 Paleolithic ‘sites’ in Miyagi Prefecture 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 biggest 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 background 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 Bunka Danwakai (‘Stone Age 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 occupation of Japan 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 prehistory. 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 China. 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.

Load more