Former Classics Student Attempts to "Correct Thinking" on the Palaeolithic, but Just Spreads Misinformation

 

Michael Button, the classics graduate who wants to join the ranks of the amateurs who challenge archaeological "orthodoxy" has done it again. Here on Twitter he triumphantly announces some sensational news: "Archaeologists discovered a structure that is 500,000 years old at Chichibu, Japan Clear evidence of building, intelligence and engineering - all staggeringly early":

"Things keep getting older", eh? The problem is this young-man-in-a-hurry did not check the information. A two second (literally) image search reveals the source of the photos and the newspaper article it came from -  The Japan Times, February 22, 2000. Quarter of a century ago. It refers to the Ogasaka site in Chichibu, the Saitama Prefecture. The proposed early dating of this site was called into question very soon after its discovery (' Can the "500,000-Year-Old Site" Really Be Believed?', Shukan Shincho, March 9, 2000) The finds at Ogasaka were said to have no scientific basis and were probably just "mura okoshi" (local hype to attract visitors), not necessarily faked, just without any scientific basis and therefore probably mistaken interpretations.

The site is now considered to be part of a major archaeological hoax, which came to light in 2000. The discoveries, particularly those claiming to be 500,000 years old, were fabricated by the discredited archaeologist Shinichi Fujimura and have since been shown to be false. It was one of several locations where it was later determined that Fujimura planted artefacts, including stone tools, to inflate their age and significance (the site is specifically mentioned here and here ). These too are publications from over a quarter of a century ago, and the Japanese Paleolithic hoax involving Lower and Middle Paleolithic finds in Japan discovered by amateur archaeologist Shinichi Fujimura prior to its discovery in 2000 is pretty well-known, so it shows what kind of a "researcher" the cocky "content creator" actually is. Classics possibly is not the best preparation for a career in archaeology-bashing.

In 2001 the Japanese Archaeological Association reviewed all of Fujimura's "discoveries" and concluded that he'd planted artefacts at 42 excavation sites. The following year, the association formally concluded that none of the objects supposedly found by Fujimura were correctly dated, finding that some bore marks from metal implements, and that some were just stones.

Pseudoarchaeologists of all kinds are dismayed that academic/professional archaeology does not easily recognise their lack of formal qualifications, experience and training as qualifying them to produce acceptable analyses and interpretation of archaeological data, or pose achievable research goals. Here however, we see two cases that constitute a very clear example of that, the amateur digger Fujimara  and the unprepared "cointent creator" both using the material not to actually advance knowledge, but advance their own positions, regardless of teh actual truth. 

The earliest human settlement in Japan known today on the basis of reliable physical evidence (not unsupported pseudoarchaeological claims) dates to c. 40 000 BP. 

 References 

 Taiga Uranaka, 'Faked digs put archaeologists on defensive', The Japan Times January 28, 2001

' Fake discoveries shock archaeologists', Mainichi Daily News November 7, 2000.

'Archaeologist faked finds at 42 sites' The Japan Times Oct 8, 2001

'Archaeological probe dismisses 'findings' of disgraced Fujimura' The Japan Times May 27, 2002.

Hat tip to Hugh Thomas @DrHughT for spotting this first.