It was Japanese ARCHAEOLOGY, not architecture.

Also, I have recently contacted Prof. Keally to discuss with him my own attempt to write a comprehensive presentation of the information available (for now in English) on the Jomon period, underlining that I hadn't in any way studied it at university, but had been doing research on the side. Here's what he had to say about it (I hope he won't mind me quoting this extract from our personal conversation, but I think it sheds a different light on that passage Herky has quoted):

"But for general overviews of the Jomon period, or other aspects of Japanese archaeology, I think anyone who does good research is qualified to write on the subject. You do not have to be a professional archaeologist, just a diligent researcher."

I think the article to which I linked in my previous post and to which you refer, if read in full, explains pretty well where his comment comes from. He judged based on what he knows best and, as I added, the Jomon article at wiki is of particularly mediocre quality - hence it should come at no surprise that he came to that kind of conclusions (and trust me, it does apply to the article and discussion page for Jomon pretty well)

But in the end, my aim wasn't so much to slash people's efforts to contribute to wikipedia - and I am sorry if you felt offended by that article. My concern is with the quality of what is posted here. Not because we might be inaccurate here or there - as you said, most of us here haven't studied ancient history and therefore we're merely trying (also let's not forget that history isn't an exact science and there are many theories that meet a general agreement today but may well be proven wrong in the future with new discoveries)- but because copy/pasting someone else's work (and their possible mistakes along with it) is just plain wrong and detracts highly from the value of what Ancient Worlds has to offer to the online community