British amateur archaeologist Charles Dawson claimed at a meeting of the Geological Society of London that a workman at the Piltdown gravel pit had given him a fragment of the skull four years earlier. He explained that the workers discovered the skull shortly before his visit and broke it up in the belief that it was a fossilised coconut. Dawson claimed to have visited the site again and took further fragments to Arthur Smith Woodward, keeper of the geological department at the British Museum, who was highly interested in the findings and both continued working on the project until September 1912. In the meantime, Dawson found several further skull fragments as well as half of a jaw bone by himself.
At the said meeting, Woodward described the findings to be similar to the skull of a modern human except for the occiput, the part that sits on the spinal column. He further explained that the brain size was approximately two-thirds that of a modern human and proposed the famous Piltdown Man to be an evolutionary missing link between apes and humans. However, Woodward’s reconstruction of the Piltdown fragments was strongly challenged by some researchers almost immediately. At the Royal College of Surgeons, copies of the same fragments used by the British Museum in their reconstruction were used to produce an entirely different model, one that in brain size and other features resembled a modern human.
French philosopher and Jesuit priest who trained as a paleontologist and geologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin joined the discussion and began a systematic search of the spoil heaps specifically to find the missing canines. He was able to find a canine that, according to Woodward, fitted the jaw perfectly. Woodward probably expected the find to end any dispute over his reconstruction of the skull. However, Arthur Keith argued that human molars are the result of side to side movement when chewing. The canine in the Piltdown jaw was impossible as it prevented side to side movement. To explain the wear on the molar teeth, the canine could not have been any higher than the molars. After years of dicussion, Franz Weidenreich examined the remains and correctly reported that they consisted of a modern human cranium and an orangutan jaw with filed-down teeth.
In 1953, Time magazine published evidence gathered variously by Kenneth Page Oakley, Sir Wilfrid Edward Le Gros Clark and Joseph Weiner proving that the Piltdown Man was a forgery. It was demonstrated that the fossil was a composite of three distinct species. It consisted of a human skull of medieval age, the 500-year-old lower jaw of an orangutan and chimpanzee fossil teeth. Someone had created the appearance of age by staining the bones with an iron solution and chromic acid. Microscopic examination revealed file-marks on the teeth, and it was deduced from this that someone had modified the teeth to a shape more suited to a human diet.
To this day, the real identity of the Piltdown forger is unknown. However, several scientists including Dawson and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin have been named as suspects. The focus on Charles Dawson as the main forger is supported by the accumulation of evidence regarding other archaeological hoaxes he perpetrated in the decade or two prior to the Piltdown discovery. Archaeologist Miles Russell of Bournemouth University analyzed Dawson’s antiquarian collection, and determined that at least 38 of his specimens were fakes.
References and Further Reading:
- Natural History Museum: “Piltdown Man—the greatest hoax in the history of science?”
- BBC History: Piltdown Man: Britain’s Greatest Hoax
- The Piltdown Man at History.com