The Piltdown Hoax

Date: [unknown] [unknown]
Location: Piltdown, Sussex, England, United Kingdom

Contents 1 Summary 2 Announcement 3 Excitement and reinforcement 4 Dissenting Voices 5 Digs and commemoration 6 Hoax Confirmed 7 Hindsight 8 The Piltdown Skull 9 Those Involved 10 Sources

Summary

The Piltdown Man the first piece of which was uncovered at Barkham Manor, Piltdown, Sussex, in 1908 was announced by amateur archaeologist Charles Dawson in 1912, suggesting a missing link between humans and apes. The fossil, as well as much of Dawson's work, was posthumously proven to be faked in the 1950's and later work confirmed the bones came from at least two humans and one orangutan.

More recently a consistent methodology used was established (specimens stained brown, loaded with gravel fragments and restored using filling materials), linking all specimens from the Piltdown I and Piltdown II sites to a single forger Charles Dawson ^[1]

Dawson uncovered all sites that yielded Piltdown Man and associated fossils, never divulged the location of the so-called Piltdown II site near Sheffield Park in Sussex, and was the only person present when all the remains were collected. After Dawson's death, no further remains were discovered despite the continuing efforts of Dr Arthur Smith Woodward. ^[2]

He may or may not have acted alone but speculation abounded for years afterwards.

Announcement

In December 1912, palaeontologist Dr Arthur Smith Woodward, Keeper of Geology at the British Museum (Natural History; now the Natural History Museum), and amateur antiquarian and solicitor Charles Dawson announced the sensational discovery of a new fossil hominin: Eoanthropus dawsoni (Dawson's dawn man’), otherwise known as ‘Piltdown man’. ^[1]

Dawson’s choice of his friend Woodward, known as a world expert in fossil fish, gave the announcement credibility. Woodward became involved with the excavations through 1912 and carried out the skull reconstruction making him appear complicit in the hoax. During the period of excavation which involved Dawson, Woodward, a French Jesuit Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and ”Venus” Hargreaves (possibly William Hargraves ) a local labourer, all had opportunity to tamper, if they so wished.^[3][4]

Excitement and reinforcement

The discovery was a watershed moment in evolution theory filling a gap predicted by Darwin. That we should discover such a race, as Piltdown, sooner or later, has been an article of faith in the anthropologist’s creed ever since Darwin’s time', wrote Sir Arthur Keith in in 1925. ^[5]

Others such as Wynfrid Lawrence Henry Duckworth and William Johnson Sollas added their weight to the importance of the discovery and Dr Grafton Elliot Smith declared the brain to be the most primitive and most ape-like human brain yet discovered. Sir Arthur Keith , however, drew attention to an important point, there was no eye-tooth in the jaw which would have established a human trait in its wear pattern. ^[6]

The missing canine became a crucial hurdle to full acceptance until it was ‘found’ following further digging by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, the convenience of which later made him yet another suspect. The eye-tooth was just what they had hoped for and closely fulfilled Smith Woodward’s prediction of its shape, size, and above all of the nature of its wear. Arthur Swaine Underwood noted that the tooth was “absolutely as modelled at the British Museum”. ^[6]

Additionally tools, particularly a club fossil fashioned from a elephant bone, convinced most sceptics of the authenticity of the claims. It seems that many in the scientific community were pulled by the magnetism of a perfect fit in an uncomfortable evolutionary gap.

The discovery of a second Piltdown skull , news of which moved slowly due to the advent of WW2 and the death of Dawson in 1916 convinced notable sceptics French anthropologist, Marcellin Boule and Henry Fairfield Osborn, a leading American anthropologist and the world soon followed suit.

Dissenting Voices

Others were less convinced. Among the few dissenting voices at the first meeting was David Waterston who remained a sceptic until his death finding it hard to conceive of a functional association between a jaw so similar to that of a chimpanzee and a cranium in all essentials human.^[6]

Gerrit Smith Miller Jr an American zoologist and botanist and Curator of Mammals at the United States National Museum, preferred to believe that two fossil creatures were really represented in the Piltdown remains and maintained his disbelief. ^[6]

Dr Wilfrid Courtney Lyne a dental anatomist pointed out in 1916 that dental wear was so heavy as to be out of keeping with the immaturity of the tooth. ^[7]

On bone tools Reginald Allender Smith, Department of Antiquities, British Museum drew attention to ‘the possibility of the bone having been found and whittled in recent times', and Alfred Santer Kennard also doubted whether the bone could really have been cut when fresh. Henri Édouard Prosper Breuil aka Abbé Breuil in 1938 also expressed doubts on the bone markings. In contrast no experiments in cutting bone with flint were made by the original investigators. ^[6]

In 1941 Mr. A. P. Pollard, Assistant Surveyor of the Sussex County Council, when asked for his opinion on Piltdown Man deferred to his old friend Harry Morris a bank clerk and keen amateur archaeologist, whose acquaintance he had made on taking up his post at Lewes in 1928. Morris in 1912 or 1913, right at the beginning, had come to the conclusion that the flints at Piltdown were not genuine. He had at the time only revealed his thoughts to close friend Reginald Adams Marriott DSO (1857-1930) ^[6]

Alfred William Oke (an amateur member of the Geologists’ Association, the Sussex Archaeological, the Hastings Naturalist, and other societies) wrote an extremely hostile letter to a Brighton paper in 1946 questioning the evidence. ^[6]

Digs and commemoration

After Dawson’s death there were many efforts made to find more evidence at Piltdown, principally involving Woodward all to no avail. It seems that without Dawson, no evidence was forthcoming. ^[6]

Nevertheless in 1938 Woodward organised the erection of a memorial stone to Dawson at the site of the gravel pit at Barkham Manor. ^[6][8]

Here in the old river gravel Mr Charles Dawson, FSA found the fossil skull of Piltdown Man, 1912–1913, The discovery was described by Mr Charles Dawson and Sir Arthur Smith Woodward

Hoax Confirmed

In 1949 Geologists concluded that the early date of Piltdown Man could not possibly be correct. The result of the fluorine dating test announced by Dr. Kenneth Page Oakley in 1949 brought about this decisive change of outlook.^[9]

In November 1953 Oakley, along with Drs. Joseph Sidney Weiner and Wilfrid Edward Le Gros Clark published a paper revealing the hoax. Through a complete re-analysis of the specimen's tooth abrasion, fluorine content, nitrogen content, and colouring, they proved that the skull fragments were not from a single specimen but a fabrication of a modern ape mandible fused to the cranial fragments of another species. ^[10]

In 1955 Oakley further confirmed that of the 18 specimens of fossil mammals recorded from the Piltdown gravel by Dawson and Woodward, 10 are unquestionably frauds. ^[6]

Hindsight

In support of those that were fooled by the hoax, many of whom were leaders in their own fields, it should be remembered that at the time only a few Neanderthal remains (From 1829), Java Man (1891) hailed as the missing link, and the Heidelberg Jaw (1907) were available for comparative research.

Today there is a much wider spectrum of analytical tools available including DNA evidence that can be brought to bear on a more diverse range of global findings.^[11]

Additionally Dawson turned out to be a very skilful forger! In the words of Oakley “ the faking of the mandible and canine is so extraordinarily skilful, and the perpetration of the hoax appears to have been so entirely unscrupulous and inexplicable, as to find no parallel in the history of palaeontological discovery. ^[10]

The Piltdown Skull

A Discussion on the Piltdown Skull

“A Discussion on the Piltdown Skull” is a portrait painted by John Cooke in 1915 depicting a group of scientists at the Royal College of Surgeons discussing the Piltdown Skull and jaw fragments on 11 August 1913.

Back row: (left to right) Frank Oswell Barlow, Dr Grafton Elliot Smith, Charles Dawson, Dr Arthur Smith Woodward.

Front row: Arthur Swaine Underwood, Sir Arthur Keith, William Plane Pycraft, and Sir Ray Lankester.

In reality the discussion group also included Dr Wynfrid Duckworth, Dr Raoul Anthony of the Museum d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, Dr. Arthur Thomson, Chairman of the anatomical section of the Congress, and Mr. Leon Williams (an American dentist who assisted Keith in his reconstruction). ^[12]

Those Involved

In the years that followed the uncovering of the hoax, a list of those implicated slowly grew. In the order in which they were publicly identified, they are: Charles Dawson, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, William Ruskin Butterfield, ”Venus” Hargreaves (possibly William Hargraves ), Dr Grafton Elliot Smith, William Johnson Sollas, Martin Hinton, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Samuel Allinson Woodhead, John Theodore Hewitt, William James Lewis Abbott, Frank Oswell Barlow, Sir Arthur Keith,^[13]

A more exhaustive list in alphabetical order. ^[14]

William James Lewis Abbott

Frank Oswell Barlow, William Ruskin Butterfield, :Charles Panzetta Chatwin, Chipper the goose*, William Horace de Vere Cole

Charles Dawson, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Wynfrid Lawrence Henry Duckworth

Frank Anthony Hampton, ”Venus” Hargreaves (possibly William Hargraves ), John Theodore Hewitt, Martin Alister Campbell Hinton

Sir Arthur Keith Alfred Santer Kennard, Robert Kenward (and the young Kenwards)

John Lewis,

Maj Reginald Adams Marriott DSO, Harry Morris,

Felix C Pelletier,

Dr Grafton Elliot Smith, William Johnson Sollas,

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin,

Samuel Allinson Woodhead and Dr Arthur Smith Woodward.

*Tempting as it was to create an FSP for this character, I avoided the opportunity! Chipper was however frequently present during digs and may have caused the distraction needed to plant crucial finds.

Where did Sir Arthur Conan Doyle come into the picture? Conan Doyle lived near Piltdown, was an acquaintance of Dawson, and was interested in fossils. (Blunders)

Sources

1. ↑ ^{1.0 1.1} De Groote I et al. 2016 New genetic and morphological evidence suggests a single hoaxer created ‘Piltdown man’. R. Soc. open sci. 3: 160328. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160328
2. ↑ Proceedings of the Geologists' Association Volume 127, Issue 1, April 2016, Pages 101-106
3. ↑ Wikipedia contributors, "Arthur Smith Woodward," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arthur_Smith_Woodward&oldid=1190015571 (accessed January 21, 2024).
4. ↑ Weiner, J. S.. The Piltdown Forgery: Fiftieth Anniversary Edition, with a New Introduction and Afterword by Chris Stringer. United Kingdom: OUP Oxford, 2003.
5. ↑ Antiquity of man vol.2 by Keith, Arthur Publication date 1925 Page 667
6. ↑ ^{6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9} The Piltdown forgery by Weiner, J.S. 1955 Publication
7. ↑ Lyne W C. The Significance of the Radiographs of the Piltdown Teeth. Proc R Soc Med. 1916;9(Odontol Sect):33-62. PMID: 19979364; PMCID: PMC2017295.
8. ↑ Wikipedia contributors, "Charles Dawson," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Dawson&oldid=1193249904 (accessed January 19, 2024).
9. ↑ Wikipedia contributors, "Kenneth Oakley," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kenneth_Oakley&oldid=1177248467 (accessed January 22, 2024).
10. ↑ ^{10.0 10.1} The solution of the Piltdown problem by J S Weiner; Kenneth Page Oakley; Wilfred Edward Le Gros Clark Publication date 1953 Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) Geology Vol. 2 No. 3
11. ↑ Wikipedia contributors, "Human evolution," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_evolution&oldid=1195830383 (accessed January 22, 2024).
12. ↑ The Piltdown papers, 1908-1955 by Spencer, Frank Publication date 1990 Page 77
13. ↑ MediaWiki contributors, "Piltdown Man forgery," MediaWiki, , http://earthwise.bgs.ac.uk/index.php?title=Piltdown_Man_forgery&oldid=58865 (accessed January 19, 2024).
14. ↑ An annotated select bibliography of the Piltdown forgery Open Report OR/13/047 Compiled by David G Bate 2014

See also

• Sussex Archaeological Society Vol 151 Page 147ff
• The Man of Piltdown by MacCurdy, George Grant Publication date 1914-07-31
• The Man of Piltdown by MacCurdy, George Grant Publication date 1914-04-01 Publisher American Anthropologist
• The jaw of the Piltdown man by Gerrit S Miller Publication date 1915
• Scientific blunders : a brief history of how wrong scientists can sometimes be by Youngson, R. M Publication date 1998 Page 52ff]