A fact from Japanese Paleolithic appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 15 December 2004. The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Removed the section that stated that the Ainu resembles Caucasoid. Not only do they in no way resemble Caucasoid (they do not resemble Caucasoids in skin tone, facial structure, etc) - but genetically, they are similar to proto-Australoids and Polynesians of South East Asia and Australia. Intranetusa ( talk) 04:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
in the jomon article it says that the accepted earliest time for hominid inhabitation of japan is 200,000 BC, but this article suggests 500,000. Is it a typo in this article (should be 50,000) or in the other one (should be 500,000) ?? -- Ignignot 00:51, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
There was a major scandal some years ago involving an amateur archeologist by the name of Fujimura Shinichi. Article Japanese Paleolithic Hoax right on the Wiki site covers this. The relevant dates and assertions in this article are either seriously misdated or just simply not true. The section on tools saying that the earliest stone tools ever were made in Japan is completely wrong. The manufacture of stone tools is well over a million years old and human occupation of Japan is nowhere near that old. Miami University is typical of many websites that make note of this * [1]. Another is Australian ABC at * [2] and the University of Southampton. * [3]. Placing evidence of human habitation in Japan back 100k years needs real citations. These are serious credibility problems for Wikipedia.
-- Malangthon 09:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
The extent of Fujimura's damage may extend to at least 180 sites in which he was involved. See the wiki entry on Shinichi Fujimura and link to Yamada Shoh's artcle wherein he states:
"Fujimura’s confession in the fall of 2001 confirmed that his forgery had begun as early as 1980 and involved 42 sites. It is possible that most of the sites with which he was involved in his long career – over 180 in all – were affected by his forgery."
What percentage of the whole for Japan is not clear. Fujimura's "evidence" however formed the basis of the 600K year old dating and renders this dating utterly false.
Malangthon 13:38 EPT 13 Oct., 2006
In the section that says "..., the Mainichi Shinbun newspaper planted a camera at an archaeological site and captured video of Fujimura planting artifacts at the Kamitakamori site in 2000. 90% of Paleolithic work in Japan was attributed to Fujimura, and the discovery of the hoax thus put serious doubt on the chronology of ancient man in Japan[citation needed]..."
The 'citation needed' insert should be removed. The growing body of evidence in the field of archeology and in Japan is very clear, the entire time line is now in doubt and until this all settles, there are a lot of peole who are still recovering from the hoax. I have added a number of resources in the references section in the Fujimura article. If nothing else, many of them could be copied over here
Malangthon 18:22 EPT 13 Oct., 2006
No citation has been given for the statement that Japanese tools are unique and are the first of the ground stone tools anywhere on the planet. If no one can substantiate this, it needs to be removed. I have written a number of archeologists over the past few months and am getting no confirmation on this statement.
Malangthon 13:54 EPT 13 Oct. 2006
Malangthon 06:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
There is no reason why Paleolithic people could NOT have used ground stone tools; the technique is way simpler and easier to master than any form of chipping and particularly the direct percussion Levallois technique used by the Neanderthals(!). Late Paleolithic blade techniques maximized edge sharpness and raw material use efficiency to a degree unobtainable by grinding. The fact that grinding usually only appears in the Mesolithic or Neolithic does not make it more "advanced" than chipping, the different methods of which require extensive training and skill -- in fact, in terms of work time per inch of edge, grinding is massively more inefficient than chipping. In many cases the reason for grinding has been the absence of fine-grained, non-directional stone suitable for chipping or the need for special-purpose tools such as axes that need to be made of a stone that is better resistant to shattering but is coarse-grained or directional. If special circumstances in Paleolithic Japan were conductive to the adoption of ground stone axes, this is no reason to postulate that the inhabitants were in any way more "advanced" or "intelligent" than their mainland neighbours. When the Paleolithic and Neolithic (and later the Mesolithic) were defined in the 19th century based on Central European archaeology, a number of material criteria were suggested for identifying them. These included chipped vs. ground stone, pottery, and agriculture. However, these are not universally applicable criteria; for instance, chipping has continued in many places up to the historical period and even to the present day and has been used parallel with grinding, pottery appeared thousands of years ago in certain areas (e.g., Siberia and Alaska) where no actual agriculture has spread to this day, etc.. The evolutionist doctrine that certain inventions appear only during certain fixed phases of cultural evolution has been debunked more than a hundred years ago. PS. To my knowledge, no ground stone tools are known from the European, African or mainland Asian Paleolithic and I would suggest that Malangthon present evidence to the contrary before demanding the removal of the statement. Reading the article to the end should make it clear that there is no "mythical Japanese race" going back to the Paleolithic but a series of immigrations from various directions.-- Death Bredon ( talk) 20:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello all --
Elvenscout742 edited out the interwiki link to ja that I'd added to the Japanese rendering of the phrase "Japanese paleolithic age", i.e. 日本の旧石器時代, stating in their edit comment that "that's not the place for interWiki links." Would someone be so kind as to explain then where is the correct place? My thought in adding the link is that if someone wants to see the Japanese version of this article, they can click directly on the Japanese text right here from the en article. Otherwise they'd have to copy and paste into the ja wiki's search box in a separate browser window, which is somewhat less than convenient.
Does linking the Japanese text to the ja wiki violate some base Wikipedia policy? Does it get in anyone's way? Does it offend anyone? If so, by all means please state your case -- my ears are open. :) In the meantime, I'm adding the link back, as I find it most helpful when comparing the en and ja content.
Thank you, Eiríkr Útlendi 22:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Hey there folks --
I'm about halfway through translating ja:旧石器捏造事件 into English, and in checking my facts and making sure everything makes sense, I think I've stumbled across an error here in this Japanese_Paleolithic#Japanese_archeology_of_the_Paleolithic_period section. To wit, the article text states:
Grammar and spelling aside, it looks like this 90% figure is mistakenly interpreted. The closest I get in the Japanese article about the hoax is the following:
So it's apparently not 90% of all paleolithic work in Japan. I'll dig around elsewhere online and see what I can find about this. Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi 18:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that someone had tried to swap the dating style from BC/AD to BCE/CE - but I don't see that they tried to get consensus for it on the talk page. So I am putting it back the way it was, especially as the history template now uses BC/AD. John Smith's ( talk) 21:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Again an anon-user has unilaterally changed the dating style. If people wish to make a case for something other than BC/AD they should do so here, or at the very least explain it. Furthermore the edit was only partial - the rest of the article still used BC/AD. Thus I have restored the previous style. John Smith's ( talk) 20:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
When the article was created, it used an inconsistent style because of the included infobox. Since the infobox is present on other pages involving Japan, this article should probably follow that style and stick to BC/AD. I noticed a recent change made the article match the infobox, so it should probably stay that way unless the infobox changes too. Iridescence talk • contrib 09:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Rajmaan ( talk) 18:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Before I waste time, is anyone still watching this page? ( 2602:302:D13C:6BF0:A56C:B049:C529:64A6 ( talk) 20:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC))
--Yep, that's what I thought. It's a ghost town like most of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:302:D13C:6BF0:A56C:B049:C529:64A6 ( talk) 08:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Japanese Paleolithic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:31, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I have removed some climate claims that I could not reconcile with other sources. The text I removed states: "[...] although the period is associated with a warmer climate worldwide (30,000–20,000 before present), and the islands may have particularly benefited from it." The citation provided on that line does not discuss the climate during this time. In fact, the statement appears to be completely untrue as the period stated is during the Last Glacial Maximum; the worldwide climate would have been colder, not warmer. If I have missed something, feel free to revert but please provide a citation. Iridescence talk • contrib 09:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2023 and 8 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): RekishiKyoushi ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by RekishiKyoushi ( talk) 19:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 09:54, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
A fact from Japanese Paleolithic appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 15 December 2004. The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Removed the section that stated that the Ainu resembles Caucasoid. Not only do they in no way resemble Caucasoid (they do not resemble Caucasoids in skin tone, facial structure, etc) - but genetically, they are similar to proto-Australoids and Polynesians of South East Asia and Australia. Intranetusa ( talk) 04:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
in the jomon article it says that the accepted earliest time for hominid inhabitation of japan is 200,000 BC, but this article suggests 500,000. Is it a typo in this article (should be 50,000) or in the other one (should be 500,000) ?? -- Ignignot 00:51, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
There was a major scandal some years ago involving an amateur archeologist by the name of Fujimura Shinichi. Article Japanese Paleolithic Hoax right on the Wiki site covers this. The relevant dates and assertions in this article are either seriously misdated or just simply not true. The section on tools saying that the earliest stone tools ever were made in Japan is completely wrong. The manufacture of stone tools is well over a million years old and human occupation of Japan is nowhere near that old. Miami University is typical of many websites that make note of this * [1]. Another is Australian ABC at * [2] and the University of Southampton. * [3]. Placing evidence of human habitation in Japan back 100k years needs real citations. These are serious credibility problems for Wikipedia.
-- Malangthon 09:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
The extent of Fujimura's damage may extend to at least 180 sites in which he was involved. See the wiki entry on Shinichi Fujimura and link to Yamada Shoh's artcle wherein he states:
"Fujimura’s confession in the fall of 2001 confirmed that his forgery had begun as early as 1980 and involved 42 sites. It is possible that most of the sites with which he was involved in his long career – over 180 in all – were affected by his forgery."
What percentage of the whole for Japan is not clear. Fujimura's "evidence" however formed the basis of the 600K year old dating and renders this dating utterly false.
Malangthon 13:38 EPT 13 Oct., 2006
In the section that says "..., the Mainichi Shinbun newspaper planted a camera at an archaeological site and captured video of Fujimura planting artifacts at the Kamitakamori site in 2000. 90% of Paleolithic work in Japan was attributed to Fujimura, and the discovery of the hoax thus put serious doubt on the chronology of ancient man in Japan[citation needed]..."
The 'citation needed' insert should be removed. The growing body of evidence in the field of archeology and in Japan is very clear, the entire time line is now in doubt and until this all settles, there are a lot of peole who are still recovering from the hoax. I have added a number of resources in the references section in the Fujimura article. If nothing else, many of them could be copied over here
Malangthon 18:22 EPT 13 Oct., 2006
No citation has been given for the statement that Japanese tools are unique and are the first of the ground stone tools anywhere on the planet. If no one can substantiate this, it needs to be removed. I have written a number of archeologists over the past few months and am getting no confirmation on this statement.
Malangthon 13:54 EPT 13 Oct. 2006
Malangthon 06:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
There is no reason why Paleolithic people could NOT have used ground stone tools; the technique is way simpler and easier to master than any form of chipping and particularly the direct percussion Levallois technique used by the Neanderthals(!). Late Paleolithic blade techniques maximized edge sharpness and raw material use efficiency to a degree unobtainable by grinding. The fact that grinding usually only appears in the Mesolithic or Neolithic does not make it more "advanced" than chipping, the different methods of which require extensive training and skill -- in fact, in terms of work time per inch of edge, grinding is massively more inefficient than chipping. In many cases the reason for grinding has been the absence of fine-grained, non-directional stone suitable for chipping or the need for special-purpose tools such as axes that need to be made of a stone that is better resistant to shattering but is coarse-grained or directional. If special circumstances in Paleolithic Japan were conductive to the adoption of ground stone axes, this is no reason to postulate that the inhabitants were in any way more "advanced" or "intelligent" than their mainland neighbours. When the Paleolithic and Neolithic (and later the Mesolithic) were defined in the 19th century based on Central European archaeology, a number of material criteria were suggested for identifying them. These included chipped vs. ground stone, pottery, and agriculture. However, these are not universally applicable criteria; for instance, chipping has continued in many places up to the historical period and even to the present day and has been used parallel with grinding, pottery appeared thousands of years ago in certain areas (e.g., Siberia and Alaska) where no actual agriculture has spread to this day, etc.. The evolutionist doctrine that certain inventions appear only during certain fixed phases of cultural evolution has been debunked more than a hundred years ago. PS. To my knowledge, no ground stone tools are known from the European, African or mainland Asian Paleolithic and I would suggest that Malangthon present evidence to the contrary before demanding the removal of the statement. Reading the article to the end should make it clear that there is no "mythical Japanese race" going back to the Paleolithic but a series of immigrations from various directions.-- Death Bredon ( talk) 20:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello all --
Elvenscout742 edited out the interwiki link to ja that I'd added to the Japanese rendering of the phrase "Japanese paleolithic age", i.e. 日本の旧石器時代, stating in their edit comment that "that's not the place for interWiki links." Would someone be so kind as to explain then where is the correct place? My thought in adding the link is that if someone wants to see the Japanese version of this article, they can click directly on the Japanese text right here from the en article. Otherwise they'd have to copy and paste into the ja wiki's search box in a separate browser window, which is somewhat less than convenient.
Does linking the Japanese text to the ja wiki violate some base Wikipedia policy? Does it get in anyone's way? Does it offend anyone? If so, by all means please state your case -- my ears are open. :) In the meantime, I'm adding the link back, as I find it most helpful when comparing the en and ja content.
Thank you, Eiríkr Útlendi 22:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Hey there folks --
I'm about halfway through translating ja:旧石器捏造事件 into English, and in checking my facts and making sure everything makes sense, I think I've stumbled across an error here in this Japanese_Paleolithic#Japanese_archeology_of_the_Paleolithic_period section. To wit, the article text states:
Grammar and spelling aside, it looks like this 90% figure is mistakenly interpreted. The closest I get in the Japanese article about the hoax is the following:
So it's apparently not 90% of all paleolithic work in Japan. I'll dig around elsewhere online and see what I can find about this. Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi 18:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that someone had tried to swap the dating style from BC/AD to BCE/CE - but I don't see that they tried to get consensus for it on the talk page. So I am putting it back the way it was, especially as the history template now uses BC/AD. John Smith's ( talk) 21:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Again an anon-user has unilaterally changed the dating style. If people wish to make a case for something other than BC/AD they should do so here, or at the very least explain it. Furthermore the edit was only partial - the rest of the article still used BC/AD. Thus I have restored the previous style. John Smith's ( talk) 20:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
When the article was created, it used an inconsistent style because of the included infobox. Since the infobox is present on other pages involving Japan, this article should probably follow that style and stick to BC/AD. I noticed a recent change made the article match the infobox, so it should probably stay that way unless the infobox changes too. Iridescence talk • contrib 09:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Rajmaan ( talk) 18:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Before I waste time, is anyone still watching this page? ( 2602:302:D13C:6BF0:A56C:B049:C529:64A6 ( talk) 20:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC))
--Yep, that's what I thought. It's a ghost town like most of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:302:D13C:6BF0:A56C:B049:C529:64A6 ( talk) 08:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Japanese Paleolithic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:31, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I have removed some climate claims that I could not reconcile with other sources. The text I removed states: "[...] although the period is associated with a warmer climate worldwide (30,000–20,000 before present), and the islands may have particularly benefited from it." The citation provided on that line does not discuss the climate during this time. In fact, the statement appears to be completely untrue as the period stated is during the Last Glacial Maximum; the worldwide climate would have been colder, not warmer. If I have missed something, feel free to revert but please provide a citation. Iridescence talk • contrib 09:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2023 and 8 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): RekishiKyoushi ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by RekishiKyoushi ( talk) 19:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 09:54, 8 May 2023 (UTC)