I suspect the short answer is that the collection classes lost type information in the days before Java generics. If a collection is not generic, then it must return a concrete Object (and be downcast at runtime to whatever type it was previously).
Since making a concrete class into an abstract class would break binary compatibility (as noted upthread), the concrete Object class was kept. I would like to point out that in no case was it created for the sole purpose of sychronization; dummy classes work just as well.
The design flaw is not including generics from the beginning. A lot of design criticism is aimed at that decision and its consequences. [oh, and the array subtyping rule.]
