Objectives Today

provide an archaeological example of

hypothesis testing
explain the Japanese Palaeolithic Hoax:
the Fujimura case
how did it happen?
what were the circumstances (motivations)
that led Fujimura to do it?
why were so few in Japan skeptical?

CONFIRMATION BIAS:SNAKE
HANDLERS IN TENNESSEE

WHAT TO DO???
THINK FOR YOURSELF!
BUT HOW?

Example from Archaeology

The Scientific Method

How do we explain Ainu origins?

(native people of northern Japan)

HYPOTHESIS 1: Ainu economy (AD 700-1200) based on

hunting, fishing, farming and their culture is a result of

constant interaction with sociopolitical entities around them.

HYPOTHESIS 2: Ainu economy (AD 700-1200) based on hunting,
fishing, and gathering and their culture was isolated until recently;
they are the last representatives of a once dominant culture that
occupied the Japanese islands for 15 000 years.

HYPOTHESIS 3: Ainu economy (AD 700-1200) based on hunting,

fishing, and gathering and their culture was isolated until recently;

they are the last representatives of a European migration to Japan

in the distant past.

Must be TESTABLE

TEST: IMPLICATIONS
HYPOTHESIS 1: evidence of farming (tools, crop remains),
trade, cultural developing in step with developments in the
rest of Japan

HYPOTHESIS 2: wild resources dominate the record; little to no

evidence of trade, exchange or contact with the outside; continuity

in the recordAinu archaeological record should look similar to, or

at least show strong evidence of ancestry with, the Jomon

HYPOTHESIS 3: similar to Hypothesis 2, but human biology

should have evidence (DNA primarily) that the Ainu are
European

Many Sources of Information

Travellers, missionaries

Oral history

Written history

Ethnohistory

Archaeology

Human biology

Standard Hypothesis is #3
(established before 1960s)

proposed that they are European (Caucasian)

settled hunter-gatherers, isolated until recently

1970s discourse assumed Ainu nature was primitive

contemporary Ainu male

Revitalization and return to the past

But which past, and according to whom?

Hokkaido university research

Sakushu
Kotoni River
Site


Hokkaido
University, Dormitory
Foundation

Sakushu Kotoni
River Site; belongs
to Satsumon
Culture (NOT
Jomon)

Ainu ANcestors: Satsumon Culture

AD 700-1100

house floor: architecture common throughout Japan at the time

Jomon House

Final Jomon Pottery

Satsumon Pot

Satsumon Pot

Grain in Samples from

Sakushu-Kotoni River

from garbage deposits, house floors, fireplaces

TEST: IMPLICATIONS
HYPOTHESIS 1: evidence of farming (tools, crop remains),
trade, cultural developing in step with developments in the
rest of Japan

HYPOTHESIS 2: wild resources dominate the record; little to no

evidence of trade, exchange or contact with the outside; continuity

in the recordAinu archaeological record should look similar to, or

at least show strong evidence of ancestry with, the Jomon

HYPOTHESIS 3: similar to Hypothesis 2, but human biology

should have evidence (DNA primarily) that the Ainu are
European

Anatomy of an

Archaeological Hoax

Hoaxes and Lies

about 500 published science articles retracted in 2013 (see

Retraction Watch web site)

Headline in South Korean Newspaper: Gods Hands Hwang,

Woo-suk, might liberate human beings from pains of

diseases? (South Korean stem cell research scandal of

2005)

Lance Armstrong
Prof. Reiner Protsch, archaeologist
at Frankfurt University falsified 30
years of research, resigned in
2005

Yrs Ago

CHRONOLOGY

(BP) Europe/Africa China

Neolithic

10,000
40,000
50,000
200,000

appear Homo

Jomon

world

18,000-14,000 BP

Upper Palaeolithic

Modern Humans

Japan

oldest pottery in

35,000 BP

Middle Palaeolithic
Neanderthal

sapiens (us)

Lower Palaeolithic
2 million

Technology of Homo erectus and their

contemporaries

Peking Man

Babadan site
older than 40,000 BP?

Artifacts consistent

with Upper Palaeolithic;

dating appears wrong

Yoshizaki M, and Iwasaki M. 1986. Babadan Locality a:

Recent Discovery of the Middle Pleistocene
Occupation of Japan. Canadian Journal of
Anthropology 5(1):3-9.

An Early Critique
(warning signs obvious)
http://www.ao.jpn.org/kuroshio/86criticism.html

from Jinruigaku Zasshi (Journal of the Anthropology Society of Nippon)

Yoshizaki M, and Iwasaki M. 1986. Babadan Locality A: Recent Discovery of the Middle
Pleistocene Occupation of Japan. Canadian Journal of Anthropology 5(1):3-9.

The Divine Hands at Work

Kamitakamori site artifacts

Sunday, Nov. 5, 2000

Fujimura planting the artifacts

Oct. 2000

Fujimuras Motivation
money? (maybe in the sense of keeping a
jobbut were hoaxes necessary?)
pride?
group security & respect of colleagues?
nationalism (competition with China)
psychopathy?
combination of these?

an imperfect hoax: why? Did he follow the rules?

should have been discovered much earlier

Is the Japanese case unique?

Prof. Hiroto Takamiya

(Sapporo University)
His thoughts on the
Fujimura scandal

Text from Prof. Takamiyas email:

As you know Fujimura found the earliest stone tools in the early 80's, and his "discovery" was slow until
the early 90's. At that time I believed in what he had found. Then from around 1995 to 2001, he was
finding older lithics every year (every year, the date of the oldest turned out to be 100,000 years or
more older than previous year). Many people believed in what he had found, including medias and
scholars (even Prof. Yoshizaki).Around 1997-98,I was wondering if his finding would be acceptable.
But the big project by Omoto (the Origins of Japanese) started in 1997, where I met Kajiwara and
Kamada, who were co-workers of Fujimura. I was suspicious about Fujimura but Kajiwara and Kamada
seemed good scholars. Since they were involved and agreeing in Fujimura's finding as well as Profs.
Serizawa and Yoshizaki, I thought if these people accept Fujimura's finding, his finding might have
been OK.
Then medias. Fujimura and co-workers have announce new findings every year to medias before
publishing official report and examine their findings with other palaeolithic specialists. They had their
own "territory" and did not let other scholars examine their findings. This was not really scientific. But
since medias were publishing new "findings", I guess there was no room for other scholars got involved
in the findings. As you know, he was known to have "god hands". People (scholars) in his group and
their friends believed in this god hands thing. I do not know if you remember (Prof) Nagasaki. He invited
Fujimura to his site in Hokkaido and Fujimori found the Paleolithic immediately. Nagasaki, not without
any doubt, kind of worshiped him as god hands, as I recall.
Some kind of nationalism might have been also there. The "oldest" always attract lay people. The lay
people, media, and scholars who were eager to find and know about the "oldest" created the scandal.
After Fujimura's "discovery" was revealed to be hoax, scholars examined lithics, and dating, the layers
where lithics were found. Especially the lithics were not as old as the palaeolithic, mostly Jomon. So, if
these lithics were examined by other scholars, the stone tools found in 1980's might have been
rejected from the beginning and no findings for lithics older than 40,000-50,000 years ago.
But interestingly, people seemed to forget or at least not mention about the scandal recently. We hear
about Piltdown but not much about Fujimura scandal.

Prof. Serizawa and wife

Sendai, Japan 1974

Serizawa Sensei

Prof. Kajiwara
and others

Fujimori

inner circle

Prof. Serizawa and wife

Sendai, Japan 1974

Serizawa Sensei

Prof. Kajiwara
and others
Fujimori

inner circle

A Final Word
Scientific method not being applied to the issue of pre-40,000 year old
sites in Japan
How so?
the hypothesis was not stated but it was a simple one: people were in
Japan before 40,000 years ago (alternative: they were NOT present
at the time)
testing? superficially it seemed like it
no interdisciplinary analysis, no independent dating, no contextual
analysis, none of the forensic work was done
no debate, no publishing in strong science journals (conference papers
in Chicago in April , 1997 were debated verbally but never published)

The Cardiff Giant

near Syracuse, NY

Cooperstown

Cardiff Giant Discovery

October 1869, found by Stub Newell while digging a well
George Hull, a relative of Newells Confession to Fraud:
December 1869; he was an atheist who had argued with
a Baptist minister about the validity of biblical tales

Economics of the fraud

admissions fees to see it: $121,000 (todays $$)
Syracuse economy began to boom
a group bought 3/4 interest in giant for $640,000
(todays $$)
P.T. Barnum offered over $1 million for 3 months use
of giant
Barnum made duplicate

inflation calculations based on http://www.davemanuel.com/inflation-calculator.php?

Hoax Uncovered
petrified
eyewitnesses recalled seeing something
fishy

tree

Newell bragged to family about the hoax stumps,

scientists examined the giant
gypsum, not fossil

China

tool marks visible

weathering rate showed gypsum had weathered for about
370 days
initially, the public did not want to except scientists findings

Legend of
David and
Goliath

Why so was hoax so successful?

(despite scientific opinion)
religious beliefs at time (Christian biblical story of Goliath)
made it quite possible
wanted to believe it was real
no sense that earth had long prehistoric past
financial gainmany people benefitted
love of mystery
science led to the eventual confession, but for a while had
no impact

Planted by Hull in Montana in 1877

Rules of a Hoax:

how well did Fujimura and Hunt follow them?

give the people what they want

desire to believe trumps skepticism
(confirmation bias applies)
dont be too successful
itll build resentment and suspicion
learn from your mistakes (an iterative process)
criticisms teach how to avoid getting caught