"== History vs. Pre-history etc ==
Hi, as it stands, the first paragraph begins with

  ""The history of Japan probably started around 100,000 BCE""

I'd like to point out that perhaps it's not useful or accurate to start a history article with a date 100000 BCE like this...  The reason why, in general, is that the study of history is typically restricted to the era of 'written records', as the Wikipedia article on ""History"" will even state.  There can be probably some fudging, because written records can date slightly earlier events or have relation to slightly earlier events.  In short, history and pre-history will be divided by written records.

Please take a look at the wikipedia article on History of England, in that, the upper-right table indicates prehistory is before 43 BC, and history in the years after.  This date of 43 BC is generally due to Roman era records.  And again, (somewhere geographicaly closer to Japan) in the article History of China, the article begins by saying that ""The history of China is detailed by historical records dating back to 1500 BC"". 

I think it's a bit problematic and misleading to state that history began 100,000 years ago, because if by history you mean purely archaeological evidence, then why stop there?  History will blend right into pre-history, and then into archaeology, without any meaningful demarcation.  

There is the more casual usage of the word 'history', of course.  That is, history is just the sequence of all events from beginning to end.  In which case, the history of Japan goes back to the Big Bang and all time afterward.  But as an informative and scholarly Wikipedia entry, I think this article should be amended with something more accurate, more specific, referring to what is canonically defined as ""history"".

I propose something like 

""The earliest records of Japan date back to 600 B.C.E., according to the Chinese source commonly known as the  Gishiwajinden, or the Chronicles of the Three Kingdoms.  In the text, the country of Yamataikoku is mentioned, which was said to be ruled by the Queen Himiko.""

I think this adds to the quality of the article in its specificity, and in exposing the reader to the Himiko story.  Even here, there is lots of controversy as to whether Yamataikoku even existed because of lack of archaeological evidence.  The idea that we have any idea of the specific events of 100,000 BCE, as the word 'history' demands, is somewhat unreasonable.  Any comments?  

"