THE PILTDOWN MYSTERY

Press, Volume XCI, Issue 27576, 5 February 1955, Page 9

THE PILTDOWN MYSTERY

1~-The Sussex Wizard based °" . W einer s forthcoming book “The Piltdown canild 6 out e b£ fi Dn X Wetae”with Professor™ F.R.S., and Dr. Kenneth Oakley, assisted by a team of physicists and chemists A full report of their tests is to be His U totj) h ° a BuUetln of the British Museum (Natural

One night in the summer of 1953 ft was the occasion of a congress, held in London, on human evolution—Dr. Kenneth Oakley, of the Natural History Museum, and Dr. J. S. Weiner, of the Department of Anatomy at Oxford, fell to discussing over dinner the tantalising enigma of Piltdown Man. Neither of these scientists had at that time any inkling that, within a few months, they themselves would provide a most sensational explanation of this mystery which, during all the previous 40 years, had grown only more murky. However, as Dr. Weiner drove home to Oxford afterwards, he was preoccupied. Was it, he kept won--1 dering, really imposible to solve the , piltdown puzzle? He then knew no more of the cir- ' : cumstances than were common know- ' ; ledge. In February, 1912, Charles : ; Dawson, a Sussex solicitor who was also an amateur geologist and archaeologist, had written to his friend, Ar- ' ' thur Smith Woodward, Keeper of the Geology Department at the British ' Museum, telling him that he had ; •‘come across a very old Pleistocene ' (Ice Age) gravel-bed between Uck- • field and Crowborough,” and adding: “I have a part of a human skull which will rival Homo Heidelbergensis in solidity.” By the following winter, when several more pieces of this un- 1 usually thick human skull had been uncovered on the same Piltdown site, to- 1 gether with an extraordinary apish jaw ' containing two human-seeming teeth, Smith Woodward, after examining the remains, pronounced confidently that they represented Man’s earliest known ancestor —an ape-man who could, at ! least, bear witness to the soundness of 1 Darwin’s evolutionary predictions. : Jubilantly, Smith Woodward pointed out that the creature fulfilled evolu- : tionary expectations in his form, ' while his tools (very primitive flints ’ found nearby) and remains of con- • temporary and even earlier animals 1 (hippopotamus, rhinoceros, mastodon 1 and early elephant), provided corrobo- J rative evidence of his existence in the 3 Early Ice Age, some 500,000 years ago. , The bones, moreover, had been found very close together, and were similar 1 in their rich mahogany colour, and, 5 apparently, their mineralisation; they were complementary to one another ; and functionally related, since the ' teeth were worn flat in the human ; fashion—which was to be expected in a freely-moving jaw such as would necessarily have been associated with : so human a skull. “Dawn Man” Smith Woodward—a leading authority on fossil reptiles and fishes, and on , mammalian origins—was perhaps un- i expectedly emphatic in his claims for ] the Dawn Man (or Eoanthropus daw- -< soni, as he was officially named), but j other experts were hot slow to support him. Among scientists, and also among the general public, there was a certain preconceived inclination to accept the Piltdown Man: “That we should discover such a race as Piltdown, sooner or later,” wrote one . authority, “has been an article of faith ‘ in the anthropologist’s creed ever since 1 Darwin’s time.” The few sceptics— . notably David Waterson, Professor of j Anatomy at King’s College—who ’ voiced doubts about the possibility of 3 such a skull and such a jaw belonging to a single individual, were brushed aside. To be fair, one had to bear in mind that, in 1912, Eoanthropus was virtually ' without rivals as “Early Ice Age an- , cestor” of homo sapiens. The signi- i ficance of the Java remains discovered i in 1892 was still being disputed, and ’ the isolated Heidelberg Jaw found in ’ 1907 did not seem incompatible with J the more complete Piltdown skull. It was in the light of subsequent fossil finds in Java, Peking and South Africa that j Piltdown Man became an awkward and embarrassing anomaly; for, while these other fossils certainly demonstrated a j combination of human and apish fea- i tures, it was a reverse combination: 1 whereas Eoanthropus had a forehead • similar to that of a modern human, and an apish jaw, all other skulls showed apish foreheads in association with jaws clearly resembling our own. As long, however, as the remains were thought to retain their great an- j tiquity, Piltdown Man’s claim had some justification, despite his strangely iso- 1 lated position in the fossil record. But J even those who were still willing to give him the benefit of the doubts about his human ancestry began to feel misgivings in 1949. The Scientific Tests j In that year, Dr. Oakley, who had successfully developed a method of as- < sessing the relative ages of bones by < the amount of their fluorine content 1 (a method first used in France in 1892, but subsequently neglected), applied this test to the Piltdown remains. As a result, he established that, far from 1 being 500.000-year-old Early Ice Age fossils, neither skull nor jaw could be i assigned a date earlier than Late Ice ‘ Age, a mere 50,000 years back. Since there, are many fossils showing that at that time fully developed men of our own type were in exis- 1 tenet, Eoanthropus was now seen to be more irretrievably out of step than j had been feared. Not only had he no deerend ants; he had no ancestors and no contemporaries. The only other explanation of the re- j mains that had been put forward was that the jaw was that of a fossil ape (unrelated to the human skull) which bad, by some amazing coincidence, < been washed into the same deposit. To this view there were many objec- 1 tions: there were all Smith Woodward’s ' convincing arguments for associating 1 jaw and skull, and the fact that great apes had never been found anywhere in Europe at any time during the Ice 4 Age. j Confronted by two equally inadequate explanations, Dr. Weiner began searching for a not impossible third, j It occurred to him that there was at least a chance of the remains having come together artificially by means of human agency, though the more monstrous idea of their having been deliberately and fraudulently assembled did not strike him until, after further cogitation, he came to believe that the flat wear of the teeth —which was the only positive evidence of their be-ng human rather than simian—could well have resulted from deliberate filing ' down. This belief was strengthened When he found that he was himself* able to simulate the form of the Pilt-i down molars by filing those of a mod-i cm chimpanzee or orang. His suspicions by now thoroughly aroused, he embarked, with fellow scientists, including Professor W. E. Le Gros Clark and Dr. Kenneth Oakley, upon a series of tests involving anatouflcal re-examination and the latest techniques of chemistry and X-ray It was soon obvious that the Piltdowr remains were not only meaningless anc without value, but also spurious anc contrived. In the table below the extent and method of the misrepresentahon can be studied: not only were uiost of the specimens stained artificially or otherwise treated, but genuine fossils included in the “haul’ had been imported from other sources, and the gravel-bed itself was eventu-* hliy found to be entirely erous. Ih*. Weiner emphasises, however, that it must not be thought that the remains had been accepted as a result Merely of carelessness or mistakes. The h°ax had been perpetrated with amaz*hg skill at a time when little material was available for comparison. wx. Deceiver or Dupe? Who, then, had been clever enough to play this unkind and expert trick upon the scientific world? Charles Jiawson was certainly inextricably en--angled with all the suspicious episodes i toe Piltdown affair, while it wouldj that others concerned could well haje been Dawson, died tn 1918/ can, however, say|

nothing in his own defence. Perhaps be r-J'°°’ bad been a dupe’ 3 e 4? er ’ 1953, went hS to ,Sussex, to explore the neighS?y i ? ood w l here Dawson had spent the wh 3 ! 6 * P ar * bis an d to glean what information he could from the cal people. It was, he comments, no easy task—detectives need to be ?.!? th e scene of the crime before 40 >J ar s have elapsed and the majority or potential witnesses disappeared. it was, nevertheless, possible to build up a picture of a remarkable man. Reasonably successful in his professi°n,al ca s e ? r a s a solicitor, Dawson l i ot - be , dl smissed as a mere dilettante m his hobbies of geology and archaeology. They were to him Lu .C long , inter est. While still a he had begun searching the Weald for fossil reptiles under the Sytdance of S. H. Beckles, a Fellow Soi ®°yal Society. As a result, he was later able to present a valuable collection of these fossils (including Iguanodon dawsoni) to the British Museum, for which he was, during 30 acce P^ ed as an honorary colAmong his really solid achievements was the finding, in 1891, of the firstknown tooth of Plagiaulax dawsoni—nm L™ 1 ™ 1 .existing more than iou,uoo,Coo years ago and an important clue, in the study of mammalian origins. Eoanthropus was, therefore, though the most important, not the first species to which he had been entitled to give his name. outward . appearances, Dawson had been a man of substance with a * of honourable respectability. His friend. Arthur Smith Woodward, in particular, had often spoken of him in the warmest terms as a congenial, enthusiastic fellowworker, a man with drive and tmfailing optimism, a “restless mind, ever alert to note anything unusual .. . never satisfied until he had exhausted all means to solve and understand any problem which presented itself.” .He was toe author of a two-volume History of Hastings Castle,” and a recognised authority on old iron work, of which he had a remarkable collection At the request of the Sussex Archaeological Society, he had undertaken in 1892 the excavation of the Lavant caves; just after the turn of the century he was working at the Roman camp at Pevensey, and in 1906 he took part in the disinterment and examination of two Iron Age skeletons near Eastbourne. Cifriosities Unearthed Though it was the Piltdown Man which, in 1912, made his name familiar to everyone who read a newspaper, he had been well known locally for many years before that, and his flair for making spectacular and quite extra-

ordinary discoveries had earned him the nickname of “The Wizard of oussex. ’ The curiosities he unearthed undoubtedly afforded him great delight, regardless of their intrinsic imPprtonce. He had, for instance, found at Heathfield a supply of natural gas which was, for some time afterwards, used to light the local railway station and hotel. On the night-of his reading a paper on the subject to the Geological Society it was used also to illuminate the lecture-room. Then, in 1901, he presented to the Brighton Museum a curiosity which became known as the “Toad in the Hole —a petrified toad encased in a hollow nodule of flint into which it P resui P a bly. crept when it was small, and in which, finding a plentiful supply of insects, it had remained until it grew too large to get out. Parallel with his relish of the strange and the sensational, Dawson r a i „ persistent interest in “missing links, or, as he himself termed them, intermediate” forms. After his early achievement in finding the tooth of Plagiaulax dawsoni—which could be considered as the link between reptile an d mammal—he produced a “transitional” boat (haff-coracle and halfcanoe); a Neolithic weapon, made of stone but with a wooden haft; an example of the first use of cast iron; a creature he claimed to be a cross between a goldfish and a carp; and a transitional” horseshoe. The Darwinian Link To people who knew this ebullient, lively-minded man, it must, therefore, have appeared not unnatural that it should be he who brought out of the conjurer’s hat the Darwinian missing link between man and ape. To his friends it must indeed have seemed a well-deserved triumph crowning the perseverance of many years. That Dawson had longed for such a triumph is evident from a letter, written earlier to Smith Woodward, in which he remarked that he was still “waiting for the big discovery which never seems to come.’ But before he could fully enjoy his triumph, Charles Dawson died. This seemingly admirable and even touching record was, however, not the whole of the Dawson story. Dr. Weiner, in his investigations among the people who had known Dawson in Sussex, found that he was not remembered with unanimously friendly feelings. The first hint of latent animosity was the surprisingly meagre representation of his achievements in the local museums. The Barbican, premises of the Sussex Archaeological Society, had among its exhibits no specimens of his finds, only a cast of the reconstruction of Philtdown Man and an enlarged model of a Piltdown molar, all acquired only in 1928. Most surprising of all, the “Sussex Archaeological Collections” contained, in the voluumes for the years 1911 to 1916, no mention whatsoever of the Piltdown finds. Astonishment gave way in Dr. Weiner’s mind to curiosity* He resolved to find out what lay behind this unexpected cold-shouldering of a local celebrity. . Next week’s Piltdown Mystery article will relate something of what Dr. Weiner learned of local feeling about Dawson, and of the suspicions which had long been entertained, among some Sussex archaeologists, concerning his discoveries. Next week's Piltdown Mystery article will relate something of what Dr. "Weiner learned of local feeling about Dawson, and of the suspicions which had long been entertained, among some Sussex archaeologists, concerning his discoveries.

THE PILTDOWN REMAINS

An Outline of the 1953 Findi FINDS AT SITE I. Skull. Nine separate pieces, all unusually thick. Rich mahogany colour. From appearance and situation of gravel-bed. presence of flint tools, and remains of early animals, skull presumed to date from 500,000 years ago (Early Ice Age). Jaw. Undoubtedly apish in form. Two molars worn flat in human manner. X-ray appears to show short, human-seeming roots. Chin and joint with skull broken off. Rich mahogany colour. Presumed to belong with skull, and, therefore, to date from the same period. Eye-Tooth. Apish in form, but not in dental wear, which is unique, though apparently compatible with that of molars in jaw. Tooth not fully mature. Covered with dark brown film, presumed due to natural iron staining. Presence of grains of sand suggests fossilisation. Bone Implement (“Cricket Bat”). Seemingly whittled by means of flint tools from thigh-bone of fossil elephant. Light brown in colour. Unique. Flint Tool. E. 606. One of five tools (palaeoliths) found. Considered to be of Early Ice Age date on account of crude technique and provenance. Brown in colour. Early Elephant (Stegodon). Pieces of tooth, brown in colour: providing apparently strong evidence of early age of gravel and other fossils. Early Hippo. Brown in coldur. Considered as strong evidence of early date of other fossils. Rhino and Mastodon Teeth. Mahogany in colour. Early fossils. Gravel-Bed. Believed to belong to the “30-metre terrace” (in view of geological features, e.g„ height and situation), and therefore presumed of high antiquity. FINDS AT SITE IL 2 pieces of skull. Apparently from second individual of Eoanthropus. 1 isolated molar. Resembling those on Site I. 1 rhino molar. Early fossil.

ings after New Scientific Tests RESULTS OF TESTS. Skull. r Organic content low. Fine powder i yielded on drilling. Fluorine content . slight. Iron staining uniform through t bone. Staining involved formation of » gypsum not naturally resulting from . association with such soil. Evidence of chromium staining. Conclusions.—Specimen dates from about 50,000 years ago or even later. Staining artificial and deliberate. Jaw. 1 Organic content high. Fresh bone [ shavings yielded on drilling. Fluorine con- • tent low. Iron staining superficial. 1 Artificially stained with chromium. > Evidence of deliberate abrasion of ! molars. Apparent human features of roots disproved by clearer X-ray pictures. Conclusion.—Jaw is modern and unfossilised, bearing no relation to skull. Almost certainly modem orang jaw. Eye-Tooth. • Organic content high. Fluorine low. " Extensive wear abnormal and incom- • patible with immaturity-of tooth. Brown ; film found to be bituminous oil paint. 1 Grains of sand unnaturally uniform in " size. Conclusions.—Essentially modern specimen. Deliberately painted and abraded to simulate human tooth. Sand grains probably inserted to simulate appearance of fossilisation. Almost certainly modem orang tooth. Bone Implement ("Cricket Bat”). t Features cannot be paralleled in any • prehistoric bone work. Shaping could have been done only by means of metal knife. Evidence of deliberate “planting” of piece's of speicmen in recently worked loamy matrix. Conclusion.—Shaped with metal knife in modern times. Flint Tool. E. 606. Iron staining extremely superficial and j easily removed. Stained also with 1 chromium (which could not occur naturally in gravel soil). Technique can be matched in flint debris from much more recent Neolithic chipping sites. Conclusion.—Probably Neolithic. Early Elephant (Stegodon). • Radio-activity tests give results not to c be matched by other remains originating in Britain, but similar to those of .elephant teeth to be found in North Africa. Conclusion.—Most probably imported from Tunisia. Early Hippo. 5 Genuine fossil. Low fluorine content sugr gests provenance from limestone caves in Malta. Iron and chromium staining deliberate. Conclusion.—Probably Imported from Malta and stained to simulate local fossil. Rhino and Mastodon Teeth. Conclusion.—Genuine fossils, but almost certainly brought from Red Crag site in Suffolk. (See “Gravel-Bed” below.) Gravel-Bed. : Resurvey shows original geological date • assigned to be grossly inaccurate. Gravels • unfavourable to fossil preservation. Conclusion.—Unfossiliferous gravel, not of extreme antiquity. 2 pieces of skull. ' One piece semi-fossilised resembling closely those of Site I. The second piece is of different composition and unfossilised. 1 isolated molar. Abraded deliberately. 1 rhino molar. Genuine fossil, but almost certainly of Red Crag provenance. Conclusions.—Site II material valueless Two pieces of skull unrelated to each other, one being probably a part of skull at Site I, the other ordinary and modern. Rhino molar deliberately “planted” to suggest early date of other remains.