Paleolithic falsification of findings in Japan

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The paleolithic falsification of findings ( Japanese 旧石器 捏造 事件 , Kyū-Sekki Netsuzō Jiken , literally: "Scandal about the lie about Paleolithic stone tools") is the forgery of early and middle Paleolithic artifacts on Japanese excavation sites by the amateur archaeologist Fujimura Shin ' ichi . The falsifications were made known through an article in the Mainichi Shimbun on November 5, 2000. The discovery led to a scandal that has overshadowed the reputation of Japanese research in the Paleolithic to this day and which also devalued a large number of finds for research. For this reason, the dating of the Japanese Upper Paleolithic is still controversially discussed today.

context

The exploration of the Paleolithic in Japan particularly touches on the question of the origin of the Japanese. Up until modern times, it was primarily historical studies that suggested the image of an autochthonous , independent development of the Japanese people. The Kokugaku , national school, had rediscovered the oldest Japanese writings in the late 18th century and subjected them to an ethnocentric-philological analysis. With this, an unbroken line of ancestors from Tennō to mythical gods and an uninterrupted historical continuity had been postulated. Less than a century later, Japan opened up to the world and was overwhelmed by Western innovations in almost all areas of technology, science and society. The identity threatened to be lost. As a reflex, one could say, a multitude of currents and counter-movements emerged whose aim was to strengthen national awareness. The work of the Kokugaku led to the ideological establishment in State Shinto . In 1940 Japan celebrated its 2600th anniversary at great expense. A fatal war pact with Germany ultimately resulted in the dropping of two American atom bombs on Japanese cities and in the defeat in World War II . With the end of the war, the Tennō also rejected his status as a kami .

The question of identity required a new answer. The post- war Japanese discourses show the struggle for an answer. In this situation archeology gained importance alongside history.

Archaeological research in Japan had seen a significant boom since the end of World War II. The economic development had led to an enormous construction boom. The earth was churned everywhere for new building foundations . In many places, remnants of bygone times were found that wanted to be excavated and secured. The number of sites rose so rapidly that soon there was a personal problem and a strategy of one step ahead of the bulldozer was in place. What was to be secured was secured and auxiliary workers began to be deployed on a large scale for the systematic excavation and development of sites.

Falsification of findings

The chance had come for Shin'ichi Fujimura, an interested layman whose interest in archeology went back to the 1970s. Because of his interest, he began to work intensively on archaeological excavations as an assistant. In this way, over the years, he came into contact with serious researchers and research institutes, especially in Miyagi Prefecture .

In a short time Fujimura succeeded in discovering a large number of supposedly palaeolithic stone tools at the excavation sites . There was great media interest in finds that could provide information about where the Japanese came from. His discoveries therefore found their way into the mass media immediately. This attention in public perception is certainly one of the reasons why initial doubts about the findings from experts soon fell silent. His reputation as a leading amateur archaeologist peaked in the 1980s when he was nicknamed "Hand of God" ( kami no te ).

Apart from the publicity that Fujimura's spectacular finds brought about, the excavations were often financially supported by official bodies. For example, Zazaragi ( 座 散乱 木 遺跡 , ~ iseki ) was declared a national historical site by the Office for Cultural Affairs , which was linked to financial support. Exhibitions were organized and the finds made available to tourists.

A detailed scientific examination and follow-up was largely absent. Only a few scientists, such as Michio Okamura, pointed out inconsistencies in the diagnostic situation in articles. At that time, the dating of the finds was primarily based on stratigraphic criteria. The volcanic ash deposits served as the guide horizons . The most important of these ash layers is the Aira-Tanazawa- (AT) layer , which is about 26,000 to 29,000 years before present after an outbreak of the Aira Caldera has deposited. As it turned out later, Fujimura had not falsified the artifacts themselves, rather they were in fact archaeological finds, but mostly much more recent stone implements that can be assigned to the Jōmon period . By placing these finds in deeper layers of the earth than those in which he had actually found them, Fujimura falsified the location of the finds and ultimately the dating. For this reason, one speaks of falsification of findings .

discovery

On November 5, 2000, the daily Mainichi Shimbun exposed Fujimura's forgeries in its morning edition. At that time Fujimura was vice chairman of the "Tōhoku Research Center for Paleolithic Stone Tool Cultures " ( 東北 旧石器 研究所 , Tōhoku Kyūsekki Bunka Kenkyūjo ), an NGO research center. In order to get to the bottom of rumors of forgeries, reporters for the newspaper installed hidden cameras at the Kamitakamori, Miyagi Prefecture, and Sōshin Fudōzaka on Hokkaidō excavation sites , which recorded Fujimura as they buried and (re) located the finds.

Confronted with the article and the recordings, Fujimura admitted the falsified findings in a press conference following the publication. His initial claim that he had made fakes only in these two locations soon turned out to be false.

consequences

The discovery of the forgeries shocked the Japanese public. Foreign media also took an active part in the scandalous incident. Fujimura has been released from his duties as chairman of the research center. A special committee of inquiry was set up to identify almost all of Fujimura's finds as fakes. Fujimura buried artifacts in over 60 cases, either immediately or at a later date. He was expelled from the "Japanese Archaeological Society". The falsified findings could never be prosecuted.

Many of the sites that were declared national historical sites after Fujimura's discoveries lost their status and the associated funding as a result of the falsification of the findings. All excavation sites affected, including the finds, were classified as meaningless. In this way, research into the Japanese Paleolithic has de facto been thrown back to the beginning.

In retrospect, Takashi Inada identifies four reasons why the falsified findings remained undetected for a long time:

  1. Negligence in the photographic recording and written documentation; Comparisons of the diagnostic situations were not made.
  2. Limonite scratches and lines on the stone tools were missed. This damage, which was caused by agricultural equipment, would have called the findings into question.
  3. Insufficient typological research on stone tools. The similarities between the stone tools found and those from the Jōmon period were sometimes recognized, but kept secret.
  4. Excavation results were immediately adopted by society as a fait accompli, opinions of excavation teams were picked up by the mass media without sufficient professional discussion. The finds were exhibited quickly, which also led to a quick declaration of the sites. There was a lack of interdisciplinary collaboration to fully interpret the findings.

literature

  • Takashi Inada: General Introduction: The Paleolithic . In: Alfried Wieczorek , Werner Steinaus, Research Institute for Cultural Goods Nara (Ed.): Time of Dawn. Japan's archeology and history up to the first emperors. Publications of the Reiss-Engelhorn-Museums Volume 10 . 2. Manual. Peschke Druck, Munich 2004, ISBN 3-927774-17-0 (Japanese).

Web links

Remarks

  1. ↑ This rough summary should not hide the fact that this is a lengthy and very complex development.

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ 前 ・ 中期 旧石器 問題 調査 研究 特別 委員会 報告 . Japanese Archaeological Association, May 22, 2004, accessed April 21, 2013 (Japanese).