When renowned archaeologist Fujimura Shinichi was caught planting artifacts at a dig, Japan lost most of its prehistory. Shoh Yamada provides an insider's perspective on the circumstances behind one of the world's greatest forgeries.

Shoh Yamada received his Ph.D. in Archaeology from Harvard University in 2000. He specializes in the Neolithic period in Southwest Asia. As a student in Japan, he participated in excavations in which Fujimura Shinichi was involved. 

On the morning of November 5, 2000, a headline in the Japanese daily Mainichi Shimbun announced that Fujimura Shinichi, a renowned Japanese archaeologist, had been caught planting stone tools at the Kamitakamori excavation site in Miyagi Prefecture. The article was accompanied by stills from video footage captured by the Mainichi of Fujimura nonchalantly burying artifacts in the early morning of October 22.

The shock to the Japanese archaeological establishment, as well as to the public, was tremendous. For the past twenty  years, Fujimura had been in the academic and media spotlight for a series of extraordinary discoveries dating from the Early and Middle Paleolithic Periods. In a career that spanned more than two decades, Fujimura’s findings had appeared to push back the earliest human habitation of Japan from 30,000 to 600,000 years ago. The Kamitakamori site in particular had captured worldwide attention, as evidence unearthed by Fujimura seemed to show not only that early humans inhabited the area 600,000 years ago, but that these early humans were more intelligent than their contemporaries elsewhere in the world. In the words of one archaeologist, Fujimura had been in the process of  “rewriting the story of human evolution.”

Fujimura initially only admitted to the two cases in which his forgeries had been witnessed. However, re-examination of several other sites where he had worked yielded more planted artifacts, and a review of his previous discoveries revealed surface damage and traces of different types of sediment on the artifacts, suggesting that the artifacts had been transported from a different site. Although many of Fujimura’s artifacts had been examined by specialists and been loaned out for exhibitions, such details had gone largely unnoticed. Even after the first forgeries were exposed, it took time for a consensus to develop among scholars that Fujimura’s other discoveries were suspect. 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.

Reactions to the Scandal

The Japanese media avidly reports the latest developments in archaeology, and major discoveries often make national headlines. Fujimura’s findings were therefore widely publicized, and his more important discoveries were incorporated into school textbooks (references to these findings were quickly removed after the forgery was revealed). Books on archaeology and Japanese history came to include descriptions of the Early/Middle Paleolithic Period based on Fujimura’s discoveries, which appeared to overturn the belief that Japan’s earliest inhabitants migrated approximately 30,000 years ago from what is now Korea.

News of the scandal quickly spread around the world. The New York Times poked fun at the archaeology-related merchandizing efforts of towns near Fujimura’s sites, which had tried to bolster their flagging economies by selling “Early Man” brand sake, sweet buns, and noodle soup, and holding an “Early Man Marathon”. The same article criticized Japan’s “giddy archaeology boom” which took place “without peer review, and even without a scientific dating of the artifacts,” and quoted Fujimura’s bizarre explanation that “the devil made me do it.”1  Newsweek described Fujimura’s downfall under the headline “Japan loses a million years of human prehistory,” and pointed to a dissent-stifling “cordiality” in Japanese academic circles.2  In January 2001, the British journal Science ran a strongly-worded article titled “Japanese Fraud Highlights Media-Driven Research Ethic,” which stated that:

Archaeologists who excavated with Fujimura have been criticized even more severely than the perpetrator himself for their failure to detect the forgeries and for allegedly creating the pressure for new discoveries that drove Fujimura to forgery. Ironically, the accusers included many who had excavated with Fujimura in the past. Some of those who had initially applauded his discoveries later criticized the excavations or claimed that they had been suspicious all along. The media also raised allegations of archaeological forgery unrelated to Fujimura. In early 2001, the popular weekly magazine Shukan Bunshun published accusations of forgery against Kagawa Mitsuo, professor emeritus at Beppu University. Following the accusations, Kagawa hanged himself, leaving a note that he was innocent and that he had committed suicide in protest.

Takeoka Toshiki of Kyoritsu Women’s University was one of the few who had openly expressed his doubts about Fujimura’s discoveries prior to the exposure of the forgery. Takeoka thought that some of Fujimura’s artifacts were too modern compared to ones from the same period that he had studied in France, and tipped off the Mainichi Shinbun to investigate. They first dispatched a crew to ambush Fujimura at the Fudozaka site in Hokkaido in August 2000, where they witnessed a possible forgery early in the morning but failed to take a conclusive photo. Three months later at Kamitakamori, they succeeded in videotaping the dramatic scene of Fujimura planting stone tools. However, the Mainichi delayed its revelation until after Fujimura and his fellow excavators announced their latest momentous discovery to the media. To Fujimura’s colleagues on the excavation, none of whom had been aware of the forgery, the news and the images were devastating both personally and professionally.

Shortly afterwards, the 50-year-old Fujimura took asylum in a mental hospital, where he remains today. His diagnosis has not been made public, and his communication with the outside world is mediated by his doctor and lawyer. Even the Japanese Archaeological Association’s official investigation committee has been prevented from speaking with him except in the presence of the doctor and lawyer. As a result, his motivation and the extent of his deceit are still unclear. Nor have any charges have been filed against him, since very little that transpired constitutes a crime according to Japanese law. He did not destroy archaeological sites, but rather created them, and in many cases he was not paid for his work.

Who is Fujimura?

Until the morning of November 5, 2000, Fujimura was perhaps the most respected amateur archaeologist in Japan. After graduating from high school, he went to work at a local electronic gadget factory. A diligent worker and caring father of two, he seemed to be the perfect honest and humble northern Japanese countryman. Until shortly before the scandal, he had never boasted about his discoveries, and it was always others who directed attention to the shy, modest Fujimura. In recent years Fujimura had occasionally seemed arrogant and disturbed. Some linked this with the death of his mother and his own health problems. Still, his reputation as a polite and devoted amateur persisted. Reporters were surprised to find that even after the scandal, everyone who knew Fujimura insisted that he was a nice and honest person. Fujimura’s closest colleague, Kamata Toshiaki, told the media immediately after the revelation of the forgery that “he is the most honest person I know. There is no one more indifferent to such things as money or honor.”

While some people initially blamed Fujimura’s close colleagues for pushing a naive amateur archaeologist to the point of forgery by pressuring him for further discoveries, such accusations tapered off as growing evidence indicated that the forgeries dated back 20 years. Moreover, there was little in Fujimura’s behavior over the years to generate suspicion. During surveys, people saw him taking meticulous notes on his “discoveries.” At excavations, he would get so excited when he found a stone tool that he would immediately call his friends on his cell phone. People now recall episodes such as these with astonishment. It was as if Fujimura were living in a fantasy that he had created through his own forgery. On the other hand, his forgery was calculated and carefully executed. Some have speculated that Fujimura suffers from schizophrenia, but there has been no medical diagnosis to confirm or refute this. An investigation by a special committee of the Japanese Archaeological Association is currently in progress, and there are many unanswered questions about Fujimura’s motivations and methods.

The Culture of Japanese Archaeology

Close collaboration between amateurs and professionals is an important characteristic of Japanese archaeology which has not only promoted discoveries but also assisted in the protection of archaeological sites and artifacts. A grass-roots tradition in Japanese archaeology first developed after World War II as a reaction against the imperial history propounded by the prewar government. It was strengthened by the student movement of the 1960s and 1970s, which sought to release academic disciplines from their ivory towers. Since archaeology deals with primary sources of history that can be found in any locality, it appeared to provide the ideal opportunity for amateurs to make their mark in an important field of research. Over the past several decades many amateur archaeologists have won wide respect for their work, and cooperation between amateurs and professionals is valued and fostered.

Salvage archaeology – the investigation and possible excavation of land targeted for development, intended to rescue archaeological sites before they are destroyed by construction – has developed into a huge industry in Japan, which is densely populated and has a very active construction industry. Most professional archaeologists work in this rescue excavation system, which belongs administratively to local boards of education. The number of rescue excavations peaked at over 10,000 a year in the mid-1990s, and huge amounts of public and private money have been spent on these projects. Million-dollar excavations, almost unheard of in other countries, are quite common in Japan. The system requires developers to pay for rescue excavations as well as for the publication of reports on the discoveries. Public appreciation of the significance of buried cultural property – and by extension the significance of archaeology – is considered important in order to justify spending large amounts of money for the rescue work, as well as to justify delays in construction. Much effort has therefore been spent on public education about archaeology.

One manifestation of this public outreach is the “on-site excavation report,” a day when the salvage excavations are open to the public, most commonly held in the final phase of an excavation. The objective is to share the results of excavations with the public. Originated by struggling pioneer rescue excavators, the event has become a well-established practice, popular with both the public and professional archaeologists. It is usually held on a Saturday or Sunday afternoon and announced in daily papers and on local TV news a few days in advance. A high-profile excavation can attract thousands of visitors. Since the sites are generally destroyed by construction shortly thereafter, the opportunity for on-site examination is important not only for the public but also for archaeologists.

This tradition of amateur archaeology allowed Fujimura to play such a major role in research, but the unique convergence of several other factors also contributed to his dubious success.

Fujimura’s Rise

The presence of a Paleolithic culture (more than 10,000 years old) in Japan was not proven until 1949, when Aizawa Tadahiro, an amateur archaeologist, made the first discovery of Paleolithic artifacts at the Iwajuku site north of Tokyo. With his discovery Aizawa became one of the most celebrated archaeologists in Japan, and he also established the importance of amateurs within the field. One reason amateurs are capable of making great archaeological discoveries is their freedom from the biases of established theories. Moreover, any discovery, whether amateur or professional, involves a certain amount of luck.

Fujimura wanted to emulate Aizawa, and a golden opportunity presented itself. Aizawa’s work proved only that Japan was populated in the Upper Paleolithic Period (up to 30,000 years ago), while the presence of humans in the Early/Middle Paleolithic Period (older than 30,000 years ago) in Japan was still being debated. Beginning in the mid-1960s, Professor Serizawa Chosuke of Tohoku University undertook several excavations, in the hope of proving the presence of humans in Early/Middle Paleolithic Japan. However, many scholars rejected Serizawa’s findings; they argued that Serizawa’s discoveries were not artifacts (objects made by human beings) but geofacts (naturally shaped objects), and that the date of the objects was uncertain. When Fujimura appeared on the scene in the mid-1970s, the debate over Serizawa’s findings had reached a stalemate.

Fujimura began surveying for archaeological artifacts in northern Miyagi Prefecture where he lived. In the beginning, the Early/Middle Paleolithic controversy was not on his mind, and he simply searched for Upper Paleolithic sites in the area. Although by that time many Upper Paleolithic sites had been discovered throughout Japan, few had been reported in Miyagi Prefecture because of the lack of intensive surveys there. It was therefore not surprising that Fujimura succeeded in finding one Paleolithic site after another. His discoveries caught the attention of some professional and amateur archaeologists who established a Paleolithic research group in the region in 1975. Following a grass-roots research style, the Miyagi research group had a mixed membership of professionals and amateurs with diverse educational backgrounds. The formation of this group marked  the first research activity of its kind in the region, and it lasted for almost 25 years. Their excavations were supported by many volunteers and by small private donations. In this atmosphere of good will, no one ever suspected that a forger would find a niche in the core of the group, misguiding them in the work to which they devoted their lives for over a quarter of a century.

Fujimura was doubly fortunate to have Professor Serizawa and his students in the region. Although Japanese archaeology is generally friendly to amateurs, Professor Serizawa was particularly insistent on giving them credit. Aizawa, the celebrated amateur who had discovered the first Paleolithic site in Japan, later cut himself off from many professional archaeologists because he felt they had not given him the credit he deserved. However, Professor Serizawa had managed to maintain an exceptionally good relationship with Aizawa due to his respect for the amateur’s accomplishments. Serizawa’s attitude was duly adopted by his students, and, ironically, facilitated Fujimura’s exploitation of their good will.

In 1992, with his discovery of the Zazaragi site – the first unanimously confirmed Japanese Early/Middle Paleolithic site – Fujimura became the first winner of the Aizawa Award, which had been established in memory of Aizawa and was intended to recognize an amateur archaeologist who had made an outstanding contribution to the study of the Paleolithic. Fujimura later won the award again in conjunction with his colleagues (although all of these discoveries now appear to have been forged). Through this series of discoveries he mirrored Aizawa’s story, and people around him felt that a model of amateur-professional archaeological cooperation had emerged, despite some minor problems from time to time regarding leadership and credit for discoveries.

Because of his apparent aptitude for discovery, Fujimura was nicknamed “God’s Hand” by his colleagues. In hindsight it seems obvious that a single person could not have made so many lucky discoveries. Yet even though it appears to defy logic, it is not uncommon in the world of archaeology for someone to have “golden hands.” Concentration, patience, instinct, and luck play important roles in archaeological discovery, and Fujimura’s success did not initially seem inconceivable.

Other factors favored Fujimura as well. Because of Japan’s strongly acidic volcanic soil in which buried bones often disintegrate, no faunal remains are preserved at most sites. If faunal remains had been preserved to help date the archaeological strata (as some species change or become extinct over time), forgery would have been much more difficult. Many Paleolithic sites in Japan are also buried under thick volcanic deposits and are thus invisible from the surface. One often has to find these sites by looking for artifacts in exposed vertical sections of earth on the roadside or at construction sites, sometimes by scraping the sections (an activity which is not looked upon favorably by many landlords). Fujimura therefore did not need to scatter substantial quantities of artifacts over large areas to create an archaeological site, but simply had to plant a few artifacts in a roadside section. Since the region lacked good quality stone for making tools (certain levels of hardness and fracturing tendencies are necessary), the low occurrence of flint-knapping (tool-making) debris and low artifact density at the Fujimura sites also appeared quite natural.

Even so, there were many missed opportunities to discover Fujimura’s forgeries. In some cases, he planted artifacts in inappropriate archaeological strata, yet the possibility of forgery was not even considered. With very few known precedents for such deception, people usually found alternative explanations in favor of Fujimura. In this way the truth repeatedly slipped past other archaeologists, and Fujimura’s work continued to gain credibility as forgery after forgery was accepted as authentic.

Solved and Unsolved Mysteries of Fujimura’s Forgeries

As the time of Fujimura’s rise to fame, one of the leading scholars was Michio Okamura, who like Fujimura was also pursuing the problem of Early/Middle Paleolithic sites in Japan, was also in the Miyagi research group. In the collection of stone tools that Fujimura had ostensibly discovered, Okamura recognized some that looked unusually old. We do not yet know whether those pieces were authentic or planted, but by that time Okamura had published articles predicting the types of Middle/Early Paleolithic stone tools that should be found in Japan based on the fragmentary evidence known at the time. Fujimura may have learned what stone tools from the Early/Middle Paleolithic might look like from the drawings in these articles.

Although he lacked formal academic training, Fujimura appears to have had an amazing aptitude for creating realistic Early/Middle Paleolithic stone tool assemblages. He somehow managed to either collect or make the artifacts, and then plant them. Although Okamura’s article would have provided a model for Early/Middle Paleolithic assemblages, no one knows how Fujimura acquired such a precise understanding of the tools based on a limited number of illustrations. Moreover, many of the forged pieces have features consistent with Middle Paleolithic stone tools from continental Eurasia. Even to some distinguished scholars visiting from the West, Fujimura’s creations appeared to be authentic Middle Paleolithic assemblages.

As Fujimura was not particularly skilled in flint-knapping, most of the planted tools were probably authentic ancient stone tools, with only a few exceptions that he may have made. Many of the “Early/Middle Paleolithic” tools that Fujimura planted are now believed to be tools from the Jomon Period (10,000-2,500 years ago) that happened to resemble the Early/Middle Paleolithic artifacts predicted by Okamura. Since Jomon stone tools are very diverse, it is possible in theory to find pseudo-Early/Middle Paleolithic tools among them. But what are the odds of finding so many? Some of the Early/Middle Paleolithic stone tools that were planted by Fujimura appear to be rather rare, if not impossible, finds from Jomon assemblages. They may even be rare authentic Early/Middle Paleolithic stone tools found elsewhere, as was the case with some Upper Paleolithic tools that Fujimura planted. For the moment, it is impossible to say, since stone tool types dating back beyond 100,000 years ago were unknown in Japan prior to the forgeries.

The unexpected discovery of other artifacts planted by Fujimura in re-excavations of some sites has provided an important clue to how he planted stone tools, and has elicited further confessions. These re-excavations were carried out by teams consisting of experienced archaeologists and geologists. A special committee of the Japanese Archaeological Association also supervised these re-excavations. Each time stone tools were found in the re-excavations, the artifacts were left untouched until the committee members and other archaeologists could fly in to check the evidence.

I had a chance to see some examples of these stone tools in one of the re-excavations. At first glance, they looked remarkably authentic and I was tentatively excited to think that stone tools had finally been discovered in such ancient strata. However, the artifacts that I saw were found in the same place that a forgery had been uncovered a year before, and people who were experienced by then in detecting Fujimura’s artifice saw clues identifying these tools as forgeries.

In previous re-excavations, these people had spent hours analyzing the techniques used in the forgeries, and documenting their findings with video and photographs. Through these efforts, they discovered that Fujimura had invented a very clever way of planting stone tools with minimal disturbance of the surrounding sediments by using a special device. It was a very simple but effective method, and a blind test with experienced field workers trying to detect a stone tool planted with this device produced startling results. Even the person who had planted the stone tool could not pinpoint the spot. The relatively high number of planted tools left undiscovered by Fujimura himself and recovered in the series of re-excavations demonstrates the power of his method.

With Fujimura’s technique, it is virtually impossible to detect the presence of a planted artifact until you actually hit it with a digging tool. However, when the artifact is carefully removed, a small gap created by the planting tool may be visible between the artifact and the sediments beneath. In addition, sediments may be more loosely attached to the planted artifact than they would be under normal conditions. Such subtle signs are easily overlooked. Moreover, even these clues are not always present. In the case of a famous stone tool cache that yielded 15 tools arranged in a circle, no spaces were observed around any of the artifacts. This indicates that we do not yet know all of the techniques employed by Fujimura.

“God’s Hand”?

After Fujimura’s forgery at Kamitakamori was revealed, Saitama Prefecture conducted a major review of excavations at Ogasaka and neighboring sites in order to find out whether Fujimura had had any opportunities to plant stone tools at the sites. The reviewers checked photographs and videotapes and interviewed the crews regarding the timing of the discoveries, the members involved in the discoveries, and even how Fujimura was dressed at the time. As a result of the review, 54 out of 162 artifacts were initially declared “safe” discoveries. However, re-excavations later demonstrated that these sites were actually devoid of any artifacts other than those planted by Fujimura.

Even when the nature of many discoveries was not consistent with major theories regarding the cognitive ability of pre-modern Homo sapiens, researchers were convinced of the authenticity of the many findings because they had excavated them with their own hands. In some cases, their judgment may have been clouded by the excitement of the moment of discovery, but even careful re-examinations revealed no obvious signs of the forgery. In addition, over the past twenty years thousands of excavations annually have produced remarkable discoveries in every area of archaeology in Japan. Japanese archaeologists have grown accustomed to unusual discoveries that overturn existing theories, and this contributed to their acceptance of Fujimura’s findings.

To his dubious credit, Fujimura appears to have been something of a magician when it came to planting artifacts. At the Kamitakamori site where he was caught on videotape, he did it early in the morning when no people were around. However, in some cases he apparently planted artifacts while excavating with many other people, sometimes side by side, and even while people (including the press) were watching him excavate. Even after his forgery was revealed, many people who had excavated with Fujimura still could not believe that everything had been planted, simply because they had been right there and had not noticed anything. At an earlier excavation of one of the forgery sites, some archaeologists suspicious of Fujimura had visited the site in the hopes of learning the truth, although they did not tell the site’s excavators of their doubts. After watching Fujimura excavating artifacts, they were completely convinced of the authenticity of his discoveries, and were shocked to learn later that they had been forgeries.

The genuine skillfulness of Fujimura’s forgery is reflected in remarks made by Professor Peter Bleed in later November 2000. In an online article titled “Digging Out of the Scandal”, Bleed wrote:

Bleed is an experienced archaeologist who is well-versed in Japanese archaeology. When he wrote this after seeing Fujimura digging in Japan, he did not know that what he saw would also turn out to be a forgery. He later told me that he still could not figure out how Fujimura planted those stone tools.

Fujimura even found stone tools in front of his colleagues during surveys in areas where he had never been before. This seemed to constitute strong evidence for the authenticity of the discoveries, particularly when the areas were far from Fujimura’s home. Since many Paleolithic sites in Japan are buried under thick deposits of volcanic ash, Fujimura could not have simply dropped artifacts from his pocket, but must have planted them in the appropriate layers of earth. Nevertheless, he and his colleagues often found several artifacts at a site soon after they arrived, and often at more than one site in the area. After Fujimura departed, local archaeologists also found artifacts independently at those sites. No traces of sediment disturbance were observed, and the artifacts were often found deep in the sections. Moreover, in most cases, the stone tools were found precisely at the level of ancient surface soil where evidence of human occupation was most likely to have occurred. In fact, it is amazing that Fujimura was able to make such quick and precise identifications of the sediments in places he had never visited. It normally takes time to understand the nature of the layers of sediments in an unknown section, especially when it entails scraping off surface dirt just to see the layers. Like those who excavated with Fujimura, many people who surveyed with him insisted upon the authenticity of their discoveries. They were stunned to learn that the sites they had found during surveys also turned out to be the product of Fujimura’s deception.

Many archaeologists remained confident about their own excavations with Fujimura for some time after the outbreak of the scandal in November 2000. Many issued statements to reassure the public of the authenticity of their own discoveries, and some even blamed the supervisors of the excavations at Kamitakamori and Fudozaka, where the forgeries had been uncovered, for their sloppy work. But as the inspection of past discoveries began to raise more suspicions and as Fujimura came forth with new confessions, they were forced to question their own discoveries with Fujimura. Some still insist on the authenticity of their discoveries despite the dubious circumstances.

Politics and Archaeology

The foreign media, Asian as well as Western, have tended to see Fujimura’s forgery as a manifestation of Japanese nationalism. A typical portrayal holds that Japanese archaeology is dedicated to proving the primacy of the Japanese race, or disproving its linkages to other East Asian peoples. For example, the New York Times article mentioned earlier states:

The Fujimura scandal has cast a harsh light on a scientific establishment that often lends itself to the national effort of enhancing Japan’s sense of uniqueness. State and local governments, for example, have spent huge amounts of money to underwrite the search for early man, while ignoring questions about Japanese identity. Ancient imperial tombs remain officially closed to researchers, many here say, because they might contain evidence linking the imperial lineage to neighboring Korea.

Since Japan does in fact have a vocal right-wing minority known for its claims of Japanese racial supremacy, as well as a history of right-wing involvement, some foreign observers of the Fujimura case immediately drew such a connection. Yet despite the appeal of this logic to those looking for an easy interpretation, it ignores many aspects of the case described in this article, including the trust and affection commanded by Fujimura, the importance of amateurs in Japanese archaeology, the lack of a precedent for such large-scale forgery (although two other isolated cases of artifacts planted in excavations had come to light in Japan in recent years, these incidents did not trigger alarm for those who dug with Fujimura), the constraints of salvage archaeology, and even the characteristics of Japanese archaeological sites.

Criticism that Japanese archaeology was merely a tool for national self-glorification therefore struck most Japanese archaeologists as unfair. Ancient imperial tombs are not being excavated because the Japanese government regards them as private tombs of the imperial family, but the Japanese Archaeological Association has been patiently negotiating with the government for several years to lift the ban. Moreover, since the ancient imperial tombs were originally designated based solely upon oral tradition and ancient literature, many undesignated tombs currently open for excavation are likely to be imperial tombs. In fact, the Kashihara Archaeological Research Institute, a major Japanese archaeology institute run by the Nara prefectural government, has been excavating some of these tombs. Unfortunately, the preservation of bones has been extremely poor, and skeletal remains are not complete enough to be morphologically diagnostic for ethnic or other features. They may not even be sufficient for DNA analysis. Also, contrary to the New York Times report, the earliest human settlement of the Japanese islands was a little-explored subject prior to Fujimura’s discoveries, and this facilitated Fujimura’s deception.

Others have also stressed the political and cultural aspects of the scandal. A report by Charles Keally titled “Japanese Scandals – This Time It’s Archaeology,” posted on the official website of the Society for East Asian Archaeology only two weeks after the discovery of Fujimura’s forgery, makes a point similar to the New York Times.4 Keally begins by expressing some sympathy for Fujimura, linking his actions to a stressful society that is responsible for the country’s high suicide rate. He even mentions Fujimura’s naked dancing at a party. Keally then goes on to say that he was skeptical of Fujimura’s discoveries early on, citing an article that he wrote in 1986. However, Keally later seemed convinced by some of Fujimura’s findings. After visiting the excavation of the Ohira site, later identified as a Fujimura forgery, Keally wrote in 1992 that:

Nothing about the Ohira site distinguishes it significantly from other Fujimura sites, and Keally was apparently convinced of its authenticity. The site was being excavated by a field worker who he trusted, and he saw the evidence himself. Keally’s situation is no different from that of many Japanese archaeologists who believed in the authenticity of Fujimura’s discoveries and have since been criticized for their credulity.

Regardless of the reason, the fact that Fujimura managed to deceive his colleagues for two decades has had a devastating effect on the credibility of Japanese archaeology. Many in the media and the archaeological profession itself have used the opportunity to point out characteristics of Japanese archaeology that facilitated Fujimura’s forgery: amateurism, media-driven research, factionalism, lack of peer review, international isolation and ignorance of new research in the field. While these have been largely constructive criticisms intended to initiate reform, some less informed critics have used the scandal as a platform for sensationalism and self-aggrandizement. Criticism from abroad – some well-deserved, and some poorly informed and opportunistic – has been particularly stinging. Finally, the continuing mystery surrounding the case has bred rampant speculation, with some people even suggesting the existence of as-yet-unrevealed collaborators. Such theories can neither be substantiated nor discounted. For the moment the investigation is still in an early stage, and the full story of Fujimura’s forgery remains unknown.

Endnotes

 1 Howard French, “Meet a stone age man so original, he’s a hoax”, The New York Times, December 7, 2000.

 2 George Wehrfritz and Hideko Takayama, “With a wave of god’s hand: an amateur paleontologist is discredited, and Japan loses a million years of human prehistory”, Newsweek, October 22, 2001.

 3 Peter Bleed, “Digging out of the Scandal”, The Ancient East Asia Website, Nov. 28, 2000. <www.ancienteastasia.org/special/japanarchscandal2.htm>

 4 Charles T. Keally, “Japanese Scandals - This Time It’s Archaeology”, The Ancient East Asia Website, Nov. 17, 2000. <www.ancienteastasia.org/special/japanarchscandal.htm>

 5 Charles T. Keally, “Japan’s ‘Early Palaeolithic’: A Changing Controversy”, Current Research in the Pleistocene, 9 (1992), p.27-29.