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?

Objectives Today

CONFIRMATION BIAS:SNAKE HANDLERS IN TENNESSEE

WHAT TO DO???

THINK FOR YOURSELF!

BUT HOW?

Example from ArchaeologyThe 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: IMPLICATIONSHYPOTHESIS 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 record—Ainu 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

北海道大学Sakushu Kotoni

River Site; belongs to Satsumon

Culture (NOT Jomon)

Hokkaido University, Dormitory Foundation

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 record—Ainu 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 Liesabout 500 published science articles retracted in 2013 (see “Retraction Watch” web site)

Headline in South Korean Newspaper: “God’s 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

CHRONOLOGY

Europe/Africa

Lower Palaeolithic

Middle Palaeolithic

Upper Palaeolithic

Neolithic

2 million

200,000

Yrs Ago (BP)

40,000

10,000

Chinaoldest pottery in

world 18,000-14,000 BP

Japan

35,000 BP

?

Jomon

Technology of Homo erectus and their contemporaries

Modern Humans appear Homo sapiens (us)

Neanderthal

50,000

“Peking Man”

Babadan site

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.

Artifacts consistent with Upper Palaeolithic; dating appears wrong

older than 40,000 BP?

An Early Critique (warning signs obvious)

http://www.ao.jpn.org/kuroshio/86criticism.html

from Jinruigaku Zasshi　人類学雜誌 (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

神の手

Fujimura planting the artifacts Oct. 2000

money? (maybe in the sense of keeping a job…but were hoaxes necessary?)

pride?

group security & respect of colleagues?

nationalism (competition with China)

psychopathy?

combination of these?

Fujimura’s Motivation

Is the Japanese case unique?

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

should have been discovered much earlier

Prof. Hiroto Takamiya (Sapporo University)

His thoughts on the Fujimura scandal

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.

Text from Prof. Takamiya’s email:

Prof. Serizawa and wifeSendai, Japan 1974

inner circle

Prof. Kajiwara and others

Serizawa Sensei

Fujimori

Prof. Serizawa and wifeSendai, Japan 1974

inner circle

Prof. Kajiwara and others

Serizawa Sensei

Fujimori

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 Giantnear Syracuse, NY

Cooperstown

Cardiff Giant Discovery• October 1869, found by Stub Newell while digging a well

• George Hull, a relative of Newell’s 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 (today’s $$)

• 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

• eyewitnesses recalled seeing something fishy

• Newell bragged to family about the hoax

• scientists examined the giant

• gypsum, not fossil

• tool marks visible

• weathering rate showed gypsum had weathered for about 370 days

• initially, the public did not want to except scientists’ findings

petrified tree stumps, China

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 gain—many 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)

don’t be too successful

it’ll build resentment and suspicion

learn from your mistakes (an “iterative” process)

criticisms teach how to avoid getting caught