B. ELEPHANT BONE 'BAT'
In Es***'s article (see Appendix I), Montgomery told Dawson that he had seen a fossil just like the elephant 'bat' in the Dordogne area. Teilhard was born not more than 100 miles from the area, and even as a small child was an avid collector of stones and similar artefacts.
In the Geological Society Report of 1915, 42 a de******ion of the bone specifically mentions that 'the decay has widened the cracks into small superficial grooves resembling those in a sub-fossil femur of Elephas from a lake deposit in Egypt, now in the British Museum'.
It is possible (but unlikely) that Dawson may have possessed such a fossil, and one could not therefore exonerate him on this evidence alone for he may have obtained such a bone in pursuing his palaeonto-logical interests.
Teilhard, however, had ample opportunity to collect such an item, for whether it came from the Dordogne or Egypt, his close association with both of these sites is of interest when considering the evidence against him.
C. ANTHROPOLOGICAL EXPERTISE
The hoaxer must have been an expert anthropologist to have fooled the professional scientists, who would be inspecting the fossils very closely. Breaking of the upper condyle of the jaw prevented them discovering how the jaw articulated with the skull and thus how far the jaw was
developed towards the human type. Had the jaw not been broken at this point, the shape of the upper condyle would have made it obvious that it was only an ape's jaw.
Similarly, the omission of the canine tooth prevented the experts from determining if the jaw was human or ape-like.
The filing and staining of the canine tooth, the discovery of which not has already been described, was also the work of an expert. The tooth had been filed with care, packed with grains of sand and given an appearance of fossilization.
A considerable list of items could be catalogued to indicate the very high level of skill and expertise possessed by the forger. Suffice it to say that when the fraud was exposed, his skill was acknowledged by Weiner, Oakley and Le Gros Clark, who, in their presentation of their findings in 1953 said:
[26] . . . from the evidence which we have obtained, it is now clear that the distinguished paleontologists and archaeologists, who took part in the excavations at Piltdown, were the victims of a most elaborate and carefully prepared hoax . . . the faking of 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. 45
Dawson was a complete amateur in these matters. Indeed, he had to ask his own dentist to show him how to fit a tooth into a jaw. His original interests were in local history and ancient tools and artefacts. He did not have the technical skill or expertise displayed by the fabricator.
Teilhard, on the other hand, was a keen student of palaeontology, even before he came to England, and went on to obtain international recognition as an expert, writing numerous papers and assisting at the excavation of the Pekin man, as we shall recount later. He would have had more than sufficient knowledge to know which animal fossils should be implanted in the gravel, to give it the correct age for dating the finds.
In addition, he would be aware that the atmosphere in scientific circles was ripe for the funding of an ape man link. The Java man finds had been publicized in 1895 with considerable arguments regarding their interpretation, and further links between man and animals were expected to be found at any time, in order to confirm the theory of evolution and man's descent from apes.
D. STAINING OF BONES
When Dawson found the first (five?) fragments of the cranium, before he called in Smith Woodward, he dipped them in bichromate of potash, mistakenly thinking that this would harden them. This chemical does not harden bones, and it is an indication of Dawson's ignorance of chemistry to have thought that it would do so.
Dawson sent these pieces to the local public analyst for a report. Had he deliberately stained them with intent to defraud, he is hardly likely to have wanted them to be analysed. In addition, the staining had been done in conjunction with a friend and many knew of it, including the experts. That Dawson 'stained' the early finds of the cranium is invariably considered to incriminate him in the staining of the jaw with iron compounds, but this is a much more complex procedure and quite a separate matter.
The remaining (four?) pieces of the cranium found after Smith Woodward had been called in were not stained in bichromate of potash. Here again, had Dawson intended to fool the experts with a planted cranium, he would surely have stained all the fragments before placing them in the pit for the excavators to find.
[27] Dawson's staining
The allegation that Dawson was experimenting with the staining of bones was made by a Captain St. Barbe. In 1913 he entered Dawson's rear office unannounced and found him 'surrounded by porcelain pots containing brownish liquids, in which bones were soaking'. Dawson said he was experimenting with bone staining to discover how it went on in nature. A few weeks later, he referred to the staining again, saying that he was experimenting with flints as well as bones. Again this would seriously incriminate Dawson as the fraudulent stainer of the jaw, but:
(a) This incident occurred some time in 1913, long after the jaw had been discovered. He would surely have completed his experiments before the 1912 excavations, had he been the hoaxer.
(b) Had he intended to defraud the experts, his office is hardly the most secretive place in which to carry out his staining experiments.
(c) He is unlikely to have volunteered the fact that he was also carrying out experiments on flints, some weeks after St. Barbe entered his office.
In fact, even whilst the excavations were being carried out in 1912 and 1913 , it was suspected by some of Dawson's local acquaintances that the finds were fraudulent. Indeed, his reaction to the word 'Dordogne' during the discussion recorded by Es*** indicates that he was aware that he had been the innocent dupe of a hoax and that he had suspicions who the guilty person was. His experiments with staining of bones were probably to see if staining had been used as a basis for the fraud. In addition, Vere suggests he may have been induced to 'harden' his skull pieces in bichromate by the hoaxer, to cover up the latter's use of a chromium compound for staining, and to further incriminate Dawson. Alternatively, knowing Dawson had 'hardened' the skull pieces in bichromate of potash, could not the forger have deliberately used a chromium compound to throw suspicion upon the skull pieces which he knew were genuine?
Mr. H. Morris, one of Dawson's rivals, furnishes further evidence that the fraudulent nature of the finds was common knowledge. When Dr. Weiner was investigating the fraud, he traced a cabinet full of eoliths or flint stones, which Morris had collected. In one of the drawers several notes were found, in which Morris accuses Dawson of staining flints, etc. He appears to have been jealous of Dawson's fame, but somewhat eccentric in writing these accusing notes and then shutting them in his drawer. One of the interesting notes he made, however, will be referred to later.
[28] Chemical expertise
All the skull pieces found were stained with iron salts for their full thickness. Piltdown soil is particularly rich in iron compounds. When the hoaxer fabricated the orang-utan's jaw, he had to stain it with iron to make it look like the cranium fragments. To do this requires a knowledge of chemistry of a high order. Ferric ammonium sulphate was probably used, together with chromium compounds, which are oxidizing agents, presumably to obtain iron oxide. Ferric ammonium sulphate has an unusual reaction on the calcium of bones. The chemical expertise required for such a process can be seen, whilst the presence of chromium in many of the fossils was considered to be evidence of fraud.
Teilhard's knowledge of chemistry was considerable, for he had been a lecturer in this very subject whilst at Cairo University. He would know the oxidizing effect which chromium compounds have upon ferric ammonium sulphate. Strangely enough he was also interested in the
staining of bones. When the hoax was exposed, he wrote the letter to Professor Oakley, dated 28th November 1953 (which we have mentioned before-p.20), which Speaight quotes. In it he says:
. . . water in the wealden clay can stain at a remarkable speed. In 1912, in a fresh stream near Hastings, I was unpleasantly surprised to see a fresh-sawed bone (from the butchers) stained almost as deep brown as the human remains from Piltdown. 29p318
Now, butchers do not usually discard their bones in nearby streams, and his statement gives every indication that it was he who deliberately placed a fresh-sawn bone in the stream, and observed it over a period of time, during which he noted that it was quickly stained as deeply as the Piltdown fossils. If this is correct, could he not have been carrying out a simple test to check how rapidly, and to what colour, fresh (ape's jaw?) bones would be stained in the waters of the weald, as part of his careful preparation for the hoax?
3. Further evidence
I feel that the evidence outlined above strongly indicates that Teilhard de Chardin could have been the perpetrator of the Piltdown hoax. If this is considered as a possibility, it would explain some other incidents
A. EARLY FINDS
Teilhard was the actual discoverer of several of the fake items.
(i) On the very first day of the June 1913 excavation, he 'laid hands [20] on' the fragment of the 'Stegodon' tooth, which came from Ichkeul.
(ii) Later, he found the fake flint tool actually in the pit, all the others having been found in the spoil heaps.
(iii) Later still, near the same spot, the stained jaw 'flew out' of the excavation when struck by Dawson's pick.
B .CANINE DISCOVERY
In Woodward's account of Teilhard's finding of the canine (see p.6) certain phrases become particularly significant. When Teilhard found the tooth, they were 'incredulous', as they had already seen several bits of ironstone . . . on the spot where he stood. He insisted, however, that he was not deceived, so we both left our digging....' Thus it is evident that Teilhard 'found' the tooth where Dawson and Woodward had already searched with sufficient thoroughness that at first they could not believe he had found anything, and he had to insist he had, before they would investigate his discovery.
Furthermore, in his letter to Oakley of 28th November 1993 29p318 he remembers his discovery of the canine, and says, '. . . when I found the canine, it was so inconspicuous among the gravels . . . that it seemed to me quite unlikely that the tooth would have been planted. I can even remember Sir Arthur congratulating me on the sharpness of my eyesight.' Having carefully filed and painted the tooth and packed it with sand granules, the hoaxer would indeed be foolish to so place it that it could easily be overlooked. All would be explained, however, if it was Teilhard who had brought it to the site.
C. MORRIS'S NOTE
One of the notes, scrawled by Morris and found in the cabinet, as mentioned on p.27 was the following: 'Judging from an overheard conversation, there is every reason to suppose that the "canine tooth", found at Piltdown was imported from France,' followed by: 'Watch C. Dawson. Kind regards.' Had Morris heard that it was Dawson (whom he disliked intensely), who had imported the tooth from France, he would surely have said so. The connection of another fossil with France should be noted and surely, if the canine came from France, the jaw could have come from there also.
It is not suggested that an account of an overheard conversation, written by an eccentric collector, should be seriously considered as satisfactory evidence. However, if nothing else, it does show that many local amateur collectors were aware of the fraudulent nature of Piltdown, even at the time when the excavations were being carried out. This we will now consider.
D. KNOWLEDGE OF A HOAX
Weiner relates how the possibility that the Piltdown specimens had been deliberated fabricated occurred to him, when he considered that the many conflicting aspects of their nature could be explained by such a 'hypothesis'. That Piltdown was a hoax is presented as a new discovery in the scientific world, yet in Chapter 12, which he entitled 'The Eye Wink', it is quite clear that the fraudulent nature of the finds was common knowledge among many of Dawson's local associates, even at the time when the finds were made.
We have already mentioned Morris and Captain St. Barbe; others were Major Marriot, Mr. Pollard and A. S. Kennard, who all mixed socially.
Weiner gives some interesting information regarding Kennard's views. He was an experienced amateur palaeontologist, whose ability was sufficiently recognized to warrant the offering of a post as an assistant in a professional capacity at the Geological Survey at South Kensington, when he retired from his business. Kennard appears to have had reservations regarding the elephant 'bat' for this is implied by his comment, recorded in the discussion on the paper 42 in December 1914, when Woodward and Dawson presented the find. He said:
. . . he wished to congratulate the authors on the discovery of a new problem from Piltdown. From the differences between the cut portion of the bone and the natural surface, he considered it possible that the bone was not in a fresh state when cut . . .
Did he imply that it had been cut in its fossilized state, i.e. in modern times?
Even more arresting is the comment made by R. Smith of the Department of Antiquities of the British Museum during the same discussion on the paper. He said 'the possibility of the bone having been found and whitled in recent times must be considered'. Such a comment is surely more than Weiner's de******ion 'ironic', being a thinly veiled accusation that the fossil had possibly been deliberately shaped to look like an ancient tool. One would expect a sense of shock to go through the meeting, but official accounts are hardly suitable for recording the atmosphere at such a gathering. Suffice it to say that in the replies, Woodward considered that the bone was fresh when it was cut, but they had not made any experiments in cutting bone with flint.
Weiner records that Kennard 'let it be known on several occasions (in the 1940's) that he believed Piltdown Man to be a hoax' and, '. . . intimated to Mr. Hinton (in the Natural History Museum) he did not consider Dawson the forger. He died in 1948 and his knowledge of the forger's identity went with him.'
[31] We have here a respected palaeontologist, who was a member of a closely associated scientific body, making serious accusations regarding the authenticity of the Piltdown fossils. The fossils, which the Natural History Museum authorities guarded so carefully under lock and key, and which numerous highly qualified scientists had spent many hours analysing and discussing, he considered to be nothing more than frauds. Surely even a hint that any of the numerous exhibits in the Museum were frauds should result in an immediate investigation. No such action, however, appears to have been taken. Kennard is said never to have intimated who he considered the hoaxer to be.
The sudden realization that Piltdown might be a fraud was obviously not as original as the British Museum experts appeared to think. One of them was suspicious as early as 1949, however. When, during the first series of Fluorine Tests, 44 Oakley saw the low F-******* of the fossils of Piltdown man compared with some of the other animal bones, his 'instinctive reaction was to regard Eoanthropus as bogus'. 49 Furthermore, the white drillings from the teeth during the test were similar to those obtainable from modern teeth, which should have aroused suspicion in any case.
What is also rather surprising is that Es*** said he went to the British Museum authorities and laid before them all his information, but apart from Weiner's inclusion of his name among many others in his preface 'who gave information and answered specific queries', no other mention is made of his important evidence by any member of that body.
4. Two strange accounts
(a) Teilhard's word
In trying to unravel a mystery such as we have at Piltdown, one naturally considers the significance of all clues, no matter how small. It would be quite wrong, however, to place too much weight upon the significance of one word in any accounts of the events. With this warning in mind, I will mention in passing a comment by Teilhard.
When the June excavations began, the only people who knew of the existence of the skull pieces were Woodward, Teilhard and some of Dawson's local friends. Although the skull was later to become known worldwide, the knowledge of its existence by such a small group of: people hardly merited his de******ion-'. . . the famous human skull . . . 29p44, in his letter of 3rd June 1912. This was written only one day after excavations had started, and the jaw had not yet been found. Did he know it would become famous?
(b) Teilhard as witness
Finally, I would refer once more to the letter quoted by Speaight, [32] which Teilhard wrote to Dr. Oakley on the 28th November 1953, one extract already having been quoted above. In this same letter Teilhard says:
No one would think of suspecting Smith-Woodward. I knew pretty well Dawson-a methodical and enthusiastic character. When we were in the field I never noticed anything suspicious in his behaviour. The only thing which puzzled me, one day, was when I saw him picking up two large fragments of skull out of a sort of rubble in a corner of the pit (these fragments had probably been rejected by the workmen the year before). 29p317
If we imagine this incident taking place, we are asked to believe that Dawson, who was always enthusiastic about his finds, found two large pieces of skull, quietly pocketed them and said nothing to the others, and that he did all this while Teilhard, who was sufficiently close to see they were skull fragments, was looking on. Furthermore, if Teilhard actually saw this taking place, then surely as an ordained priest and as a scientist concerned for the integrity of his profession, he had a duty to report this immediately to Woodward, who would then have cross-questioned Dawson. In my opinion, his account of this event does not ring true and I question whether it ever took place.
I have already examined Teilhard's account of Dawson showing him the Piltdown II site in 1913 after the discovery of the fossils there, and suggested that this also was fabricated to incriminate Dawson. Did Teilhard hope that it would be inferred that Dawson pocketed two skull pieces at Piltdown I which he would later 'find' at Piltdown II?
If Teilhard did fabricate these two accounts, and the evidence tends to support this, it would provide further confirmation that he was indeed the perpetrator of the hoax.
5. Comments
That Teilhard may have been the instigator of the Piltdown hoax is considered as unthinkable by most people in view of his international reputation and integrity as a Roman Catholic Jesuit priest. Some, however, have suggested that nevertheless this may be correct, and I give the comments of some of those who have suspected Teilhard.
Leak's views
Dr. L. S. B. Leakey says in his book Unveiling Man's Origin 90 that Teilhard had been in Egypt, whilst on p.144 he says:
The story of the uncovering of this hoax has been the subject of several books, but it seems likely that the last word on the subject has not yet been written. There can be no doubt at all that at least one of the persons [33] involved in making the forgeries must have had considerable knowledge of chemistry as well as some training in geology and human anatomy. The perpetrators also must have had access to fossil bones from outside Great Britain, since some of the animal fossils 'planted' with the skull and jaw, at the site, came from places like Malta and North Africa."
This de******ion clearly fits Teilhard very closely. His insinuation prompted a telephone call from the Sunday Times to his home in Nairobi, which he fended off by saying: 'I don't say so in so many words, do I?'
In his autobiography By the Evidence he recalls a visit he made to the British Museum (N.H.) in 1933 to inspect the original fossils. He says:
I was not allowed to handle the original in any way, but merely to look at them and satisfy myself that the casts were really good replicas. Then, abruptly, the originals were removed and locked up again, and I was left for the rest of the morning with only the casts to study.
In her biography of Leakey, Cole says he was just finishing a whole book on Teilhard's connection with the hoax. After his death, his wife prevented its publication as Leakey had no new evidence, and she felt it would damage her husband's reputation more than Teilhard's. p.399 Cole relates that Teilhard actually told Leakey that Dawson was not responsible, but he refused to elaborate.. Leakey pointed out that Teilhard never mentioned Piltdown, and considered that he had not attended the meeting of the Geological Society when the discoveries were announced, as he may have been questioned. Leakey considered that as an ordained priest, Teilhard would have been bound to confess to the fraudulence of the fossils. Leakey appears to maintain that Dawson was involved in the plot, even though Teilhard had said he was not responsible.
Other views
Leakey considered that the Piltdown hoax may have been the work of Teilhard as a practical joke 'in his early and somewhat irresponsible days'. This was also Es***'s view (who considered it was aimed at Dawson), and it is Vere's *******ion in his first book. It would be very difficult to give a precise motive at this distance in time, but if it was the work of a practical joker, who can say if he was intent on fooling one man, a group of locals, or a body of experts? It is noticeable that Vere, in his second book, is much more critical, for he makes no mention of practical jokes, and briefly considers Teilhard's role in the Pekin man discoveries.
Millar, who considers Sir Grafton Elliot Smith may have been the culprit but has little positive evidence to support this *******ion, admits that the case against Teilhard is very black, particularly in view of the Ichkeul tooth. He says that it was 'just possible that he might [34] have added the Elephas planifrons to gain some kudos'. If this were so, do we assume that there were two hoaxers at Piltdown, either working independently or in league together? The first would be too coincidental, and the second would still implicate Teilhard.
Millar mentions p232 that Sir Wilfred Le Gros Clark and Professor Oakley suspected Teilhard because of the Ichkeul fossil, but felt that his lack of anatomical knowledge and the whole nature of the man exonerated him. Clark also considered Dawson must have had a professional accomplice.
An article in New Scientist 47 quotes Sir Solly Zuckerman as saying that the hoaxer knew more about primate anatomy than the experts whom he deluded several times. The columnist considers that Teilhard's knowledge of palaeontology, geology, anatomy and biochemistry suggests that he cannot be excluded despite the horror expressed by some distinguished people.
Teilhard's philosophy
It is with considerable hesitation that I state the case against a man who has achieved such worldwide fame and is venerated by many. Indeed, when people have considered the case against Teilhard, it is often dismissed 'in view of the whole personality and nature of the man'.
Teilhard has written several philosophical books, in which he attempts to harmonize evolution and Christianity, and the response they evoke is sharply divided. To his admirers, he is a mystical philosopher at the limits of human thought, who had to create new words to express his concepts, and who was able to visualize a wonderful future, culminating in the full development of man's potential. One of his many admirers, Madame Barthélemy Madaule, is quoted by Speaight. p119 She says that the philosophy of Teilhard was
. . . preparing to emerge by way of phenomenological reflection, just as we shall be able to read in the total development of phenomena at the end of time their ontological meaning. And it is only in the degree to which phenomenology is incomplete and philosophy provisional that the two approaches arc justified. . .Phenomenology is the image of creation in time.... The moment had come to achieve this transfigured science of which Bergson had an occasional presentiment. For Teilhard phenomenology is the living spirit of science on the march, and constitutes the prolegomena to a philosophy.
Teilhard's philosophical nature is doubtless inherited, for his mother was a great-niece of Voltaire.
Teilhard is much revered by his admirers, but does have many critics. One of them is C. S. Lewis who wrote to a friend saying:
[35] Have you read this book by the Jesuit de Chardin (The Phenomenon of Man) which is being praised to the skies? This is evolution run mad. He saves 'continuity' by saying that before there was life there was in matter what he calls 'pre-life'. Can you see any possible use in such language? Before you switched on the lights in the cellar there was (if you like to call it so) 'pre-light'; but the English for that is 'darkness'. Then he goes on to the future, and seems to me to be repeating Bergson without the eloquence) and Shaw (without the wit). It ends up of course in something uncomfortably like Pantheism; His own Jesuits were quite right in forbidding him to publish any more books on the subject. This prohibition probably explains the 'succes fou' he is having among our scientists . . .
FINAL CONCLUSION
As it is over sixty years since the Piltdown excavations took place, it would be extremely difficult to say with absolute certainty the true identity of the hoaxer. It is submitted, however, that until further facts become available, the evidence given in this section points to the instigator of the fraud being Pierre Teilhard de Chardin S.J.
[36]
APPENDIX I
A Hoax That Grew
R. Es***, M.Sc.
(An article appearing in the Kent and Sus*** Journal,
July-September 1955, Vol. 2, no.4, P.94-95.
reproduced by kind permission of Whitethorn Press Ltd.)
A defence of Charles Dawson, the Uckfield solicitor and geologist. The firsthand account of some happenings of the years 1912 to 1913. Mr. Es*** is the only scientist left who was in Uckfield and in day-to-day contact with Charles Dawson during the important years 1912 to 1913. He saw and remembers many things that recent investigators of the Piltdown mystery seem to have missed.
Two books have already appeared on the Piltdown Problem. The first is by J. S. Weiner The Piltdown Forgery (Oxford University Press), and it begins by tracing the steps that enabled a group of scientists to show that the Piltdown jaw was that of a modern ape, then it deals with the steps which led to the statement that all the Piltdown finds were planted and thirdly it gives the results of Dr. Weiner's conversations with a number of people living in the neighbourhood of Piltdown. As a result of all this, suspicion is pointed in Charles Dawson's direction.
The second book is by Francis Vere of Piltdown, The Piltdown Fantasy (Cassell) in which the author critically examines all the evidence, including some which Dr. Weiner did not consider. He comes to the conclusions, first that the hoax would have been short-lived had Smith Woodward not been quite so possessive and if he had, instead, allowed other scientists to examine the jaw itself instead of merely handling a plaster model of it: second that all the Piltdown finds were not planted, because the first finds, the skull parts, were discovered embedded in the gravel and had to be got out with a pick-axe. Thirdly, that if all the finds had been planted, the fluorine test could be ignored since it only applies in the case of specimens which come from the same deposit, and fourthly he comes to the conclusion that Dr. Weiner's travels in Sus*** resulted in the collection of a lot of gossip about Charles Dawson which will not bear critical examination.
Being practically in daily contact with Charles Dawson during the important years 1912-15, the present author saw many things which those who have recently been investigating the hoax have ignored.
First. Another jaw not mentioned by Dr. Weiner came from Pilt[37]down much more human than the ape's jaw and, therefore much more likely to belong to the Piltdown skull parts which are admittedly human. I saw and handled that jaw and know in whose bag it came to Dawson's office. The jaw was also seen by Mr. H. H. Wakefield, then an articled clerk of Dawson's, and he has given written evidence of seeing it. Dawson never saw it, and the owner probably never knew until 1953 that anybody but himself had seen it. It happened in this way. I was science master at Uckfield Grammar School, Charles Dawson was Clerk to the Governors and his office was quite near to the school, so near that in getting to Uckfield High Street one had to pass his office windows. One day when I was passing I was beckoned in by one of the clerks whom I knew well. He had called me in to show me a fossil half-jaw much more human than an ape's and with three molars firmly fixed in it. When I asked where this object came from, the answer was 'Piltdown'. According to the clerk it had been brought down by one of the 'diggers' who, when he called and asked for Mr. Dawson, was carrying a bag such as might be used for carrying tools. When he was told that Mr. Dawson was busy in court he said he would leave the bag and come back. When he had gone, the clerk opened the bag and saw this jaw. Seeing me passing he had called me in. I told him he had better put it back and that Mr. Dawson would be cross if he knew. I found afterwards that when the 'digger' returned, Mr. Dawson was still busy in court, so he picked up his bag and left.
From that time until December 1953, I was under the impression that I had had a preview of the jaw from Piltdown seen and examined by the experts. But when, a year and a half ago, I saw a photograph of the Museum jaw from the inner side, I realized that it and mine were not the same. I travelled down from York and put all my information on the matter before the experts at the British Museum. One big difference regarding the jaws was that whereas mine had three molars firmly fixed, the long accepted jaw had two and a cavity or empty socket. An interesting point arises here. The Encyclopaedia Britannica says the jaw had two molars and an empty socket. Chamber's Encyclopaedia published in 1950 says it had three molars in position.
Some time after my visit to Dawson's offices, related above, I was near Piltdown with one of my colleagues when we met Robert Kenward, son of the owner of the farm on which the Piltdown gravel pit lay. He asked us if we had seen X (naming the owner of the bag). X apparently was distractedly searching for something he had lost and would not tell Robert what it was.
The third link is this. I was standing outside Dawson's office talking to him and to John Montgomery, the Headmaster of Uckfield Grammar School and himself a member of the local Archæological Society, and a little apart were two or three others talking. When Charles [38] Dawson said he had never seen anything like the 'sixteen-inch bat' found at Piltdown, Montgomery told him he had seen one in the Dordogne. Montgomery told me afterwards exactly how he saw it, but the point is that as soon as Montgomery said 'Dordogne', Dawson's eyes glanced across to the nearby group of people, one of whom was the owner of the bag. Then he turned abruptly indoors. That information I gave in much more detail, to the experts months before their report was issued.
I am certain Dawson suspected something, although at the time I had no idea what he suspected. He was not the man to broadcast suspicion. In support of this, there is a fact not generally known. It is on record that Dr. S. Allison Woodhead, then Head of the Agricultural College at Uckfield and afterwards County analyst did one analysis for Dawson. As a matter of fact he did several. I knew Dr. Woodhead very well, and I am certain that even to him Dawson never mentioned this suspect or his suspicions in general.
Dr. Weiner mentioned Dawson's experiment with bones and seems to think that Dawson was trying to fake. He was trying to see if they could be faked, which is not the same thing. Further the tale of the boiling of bones in Dawson's office is a complete fairy tale. Dawson did not know enough chemistry to do any real work on such matters; he might have made a few simple tests suggested by Dr. Woodhead. Unfortunately, Dawson died before he could finish.
It might be asked why suspicion has turned on to Dawson. Amongst the people who know the facts there is not one who suspects him.
I have given all the above facts to the scientific team in charge of the matter. I have named X and I have identified him. It is not my business to pillory him publicly. He conceived a joke. It worked far better than he could have hoped in one way and in another it failed; but that was not his fault. It was in a measure the fault of the scientists who did not subject the 'jaw' itself to critical examination and partly it was due to the fact that the people concerned became scattered. Dawson died, Smith Woodward retired; and X ? If Dawson had lived I am certain he would have found out the whole affair, and I should have loved to have been there to listen to the dressing-down to which X would have had to listen. Then he would have had to collaborate in cleaning up the mess.
Incidentally the hoax was not conceived as a whole. It grew. When the first bait was swallowed and the hoaxer did not get the satisfaction of seeing the face of his victim when he realized he had been galled, he tried again and again and in the end all the hoaxer had was the knowledge that in the British Museum was his hybrid offspring which he could not publicly claim, together with a few teeth and a bat.
[39]
APPENDIX II
The Problem of Dawson's Early Discoveries
A careful consideration of various statements by the three investigators concerning what exactly Dawson did discover before they began excavating in July 1912, showed that there were important discrepancies between the accounts, which cast some doubt on the authenticity of certain statements. I will first set out the main points of the various accounts of Dawson's early discoveries, which were made by the three men.
(a) DAWSON'S REPORTS
Dawson, in his first report in December 1912, 40 makes it clear that he discovered only two skull pieces before they began excavations, for he said that the first piece of skull was handed to him 'some years ago', then in 1911 he found another piece which fitted the first one, and he took these to Woodward who was impressed. He then continues, 'We started digging . . . we recovered from the spoil heaps as many fragments as possible.... Besides the human remains we found two small broken pieces of a molar tooth of a Pliocene elephant....' (He then lists all the other fossils discovered at that time.) He later says, 'Among the flints we found . . .' and in a footnote attributes the discovery of one of the flints and the portion of elephant's tooth to Teilhard, 'who accompanied us on one occasion', as we have noted.
Thus in the official records, Dawson said he found only two skull pieces, and everything else was discovered after Teilhard and Woodward went to the site.
(b) TElLHARD'S LETTER
Speaight gives a letter, written by Teilhard, dated 3rd June 19I2 (Sunday) which appears to be an account of the first day's excavation -the previous day (Saturday). He says, 'Dawson unearthed another fragment of the famous human skull-he had already found three other pieces-and I myself laid hands on the fragment of an elephant's molar.' p44
Weiner says that Teilhard's figure of three is supported by Dawson's obituaries, although this does not appear in the one written by Woodward in the Geological Magazine in 1916.
Teilhard makes no mention of the flint tool (later discovered to be faked), which Dawson said Teilhard found. Did he perhaps find the tool during a visit to the pit when Dawson and Woodward were not present?
(c) DAWSON'S LETTERS
On the files of the British Museum, there are several letters which Dawson wrote to Woodward, and Weiner gives some extracts as follows:
14 February 1912 He had 'come across a very old Pleistocene bed . . . which I think is going to be very interesting' - 'with 'part of a human skull which will rival Homo heidelbergensis '.
26th March Hippopotamus tooth enclosed with a note saying 'will you kindly identify enclosed for me? I think the larger one is hippo' (Woodward confirmed that it was.)
28th March 'I will of course take care that no one sees the piece of skull who has any knowledge and leave it to you.' (Vere says this letter specifically mentions the hippo tooth he had sent on the 26th.)
23rd May 'Some time tomorrow (Friday), . . . I will bring the piece of skull and a few odds and ends found with it, or near it, in the gravel bed.'
(d) SMITH WOODWARD'S BOOK
Shortly before he died, Sir Arthur Smith Woodward dictated (he was then blind) his book The Earliest Englishman in which he gives his account of the discoveries. He says that Dawson found three pieces of skull which fitted together, and a further two separate pieces which he brought to Woodward in the spring of 1912 for his opinion. He continues, 'We also hoped to find other fossils because Mr. Dawson had already picked up flint tools and teeth of hippopotamus and elephant in the same deposit.' p8
When the excavation began, he says, 'We found three pieces . . . and I found in another heap an important fragment.'
He later says, 'On different days we also picked up three undoubted flint implements, besides several "eoliths" and fragments of a tooth of an elephant....' p.11
(Eoliths are stones which have simple breakage patterns. There was great controversy about this time whether they were fashioned by early man or due to natural causes.)
Finally on p.32 he says, '. . . two teeth of hippopotamus which have already been mentioned as having been found by Mr. Dawson during his earlier examination of the gravel pit.'
[41] COMMENTS
From all these accounts it is important to ascertain whether the faked flints and animal fossils were found before or after 2nd June. If these fossils were all found after 2nd June, suspicion would clearly fall on Woodward, whilst Teilhard would be even further implicated, for it would be unnecessary to assume that he had visited the site before the excavations began. As we have seen, Dawson said in his paper that the flints and animal teeth were found after the June excavations. Teilhard makes no mention of them and, moreover, Dawson does not appear to have shown these important fossils to any of his friends who saw the skull pieces before that date.
Considering first Dawson's letters, it would appear from these that he had found a hippo tooth, skull pieces and 'a few odds and ends'. Regarding the hippo pre-molar, it was from a different source to the molar, was stained dark brown throughout, and contained some gypsum and the 'incriminating' chromium. 36p68 As the molar appears to have come from Maltese caves, there is no real evidence that the pre-molar was a forgery, for the chromium may well be due to Dawson's 'hardening' of it in a chromium compound. Thus, there does not seem to be any direct evidence that this particular fossil was fraudulently stained, and it was probably a genuine fossil found in situ at Piltdown, for hippo teeth have been found in England.
The skull pieces, as I have shown, were genuine fossils, and we have, therefore, only Dawson's extremely vague reference to 'odds and ends' as evidence from him that possibly fake fossils were found before June. Could it not simply be that they were merely examples of the very controversial 'eoliths' or else shaped pieces of ironstone looking like small fragments of fossilized bones, all subsequently to be dismissed by Woodward when Dawson brought them for his inspection? Ironstone fragments can look very similar to some fossils, and Woodward, in his de******ion of the discovery of the canine, mentioned that 'they had already seen bits of ironstone that looked like teeth'. Similarly, when Dawson wrote to Woodward on the 26th March, he had included another fragment, which Woodward identified as being simply a piece of ironstone. 24pl20
If this explanation is accepted, Woodward's book is the only evidence which states specifically that any fossils, later found faked. were discovered before June 1912, and we will examine this in detail. Before leaving Dawson's letters, however, I must point out that the only records which Dawson would certainly have read and approved before his death were those in the Geological Society for the years up to 1915. All other correspondence and writings were publicized after his death, when he could no longer comment on their accuracy. Were he alive today, he [42] might well be able to give a satisfactory explanation for the *******s of his letters at present on the files of the British Museum.
Woodward's book
Woodward's book contradicts the report presented to the Geological Society in December 1912, in which Dawson gives all the fossils which were discovered during that first season's dig. Woodward clearly says that Dawson had already picked up flint tools p8 and later on p.11 he says that 'we' picked up three further tools. Thus one would presume that some five or more tools had been found. But Dawson's 1912 report lists only three tools being found at that time, and in fact he said: 'Among the flints we found. . . .' There is clearly a discrepancy, and one is left wondering if Woodward was right on p. 8 in saying that Dawson had found flints before June 1912.
Doubt regarding this same passage is further strengthened by the reference to the fragments of elephant's (Elephas ) teeth. Woodward says that Dawson had already picked up teeth of hippopotamus and elephant, and then later says 'we' picked up fragments of tooth of an elephant, indicating that at least three fragments had been found. Again Dawson reported: 'we found two small broken pieces' of elephant teeth. This is confirmed by Teilhard's letter, for it is clear that Teilhard was there to discover the tooth of an elephant, the second piece presumably being found some time later.
Woodward may have used the term 'we' to include Dawson's early finds, but it is clear from the context of the passage that this is not so, and as a trained scientist he should have been accurate with his statements. He makes no mention of some other flint tools and a further piece of elephant tooth found in 1913 in his account of that season's results.
Thus, of the three items he mentions as being picked up by Dawson alone, the flint tools and elephant tooth are in some doubt, and the hippo (pre-molar) tooth is the only item Dawson refers to in his correspondence, which was probably a genuine fossil.
Was Woodward's book altered?
Woodward's failure to mention the flint tools and elephant teeth found during the 1913 dig, and to attribute Dawson with the discovery of such items before June 1912, in contradiction to the Geological Society's report, could infer that he wished to protect his name, should the fraud be discovered at any time. Alternatively, there is the possibility that Woodward's manu****** was altered between his death and the publication of his book four years later. As I have already pointed out, Vere suggested this possibility in view of the fact that Woodward makes no mention of the controversial Piltdown II discoveries, except for one passing comment.
[43] Removal of Woodward's reference to Dawson's finds does not affect the sense of the passages and could be said to enhance them. Ignoring Dawson's vague references to 'bits and pieces', it is possibly significant that Woodward's statements, that Dawson had found tools and elephant's teeth before June 1912, are the only evidence which clearly exonerates Woodward and Teilhard from complicity in the early stages of the hoax.
[186]
وختاما
Within the compass of this book, I have examined the circumstances surrounding the discovery of the most important ape-men fossils, reviewed the type of evidence provided, compared differing views of man's history, and shown how Homo sapiens has been discovered in strata much deeper than those of his supposed ancestors.
Finally, I would specifically point out one aspect, which is apparent throughout this book, namely the meagre fossil evidence for the ape-men links. There arc numerous complete skeletons in the earth's strata, both of Homo sapiens and of animals, including dinosaurs, apes and monkeys.
But the fossil links between man and the animals consist only of fragments of jaws, some broken skull pieces, part of a foot, etc., no complete skeleton or even a reasonable proportion of one ever having been discovered
The speculation and generalizations drawn from the fossil evidence seem to follow an inverse law. Where it is very fragmentary, sweeping claims can be made regarding the position and importance of the 'hominid'. Where more fossils have been discovered, opinions become more conservative, for extravagant claims could be refuted from the available evidence, and whether the fossils are from an ape or a human becomes more obvious. The very fragmentary nature of the evidence supporting the existence of ape-men is sometimes admitted by the experts, but it is nevertheless held to be 'convincing' and 'irrefutable'.
I would venture to contradict such opinions. On the basis of the evidence provided, I suggest that it is very un convincing, and that the case for such links is 'not proven', despite extensive searching of the earth's surface for over one hundred years.
Indeed, this absence of evidence raises the possibility that there are no links, which is a consideration I will leave to those of my readers to whom this book is sincerely dedicated.
__________________________________________________ ____________________________
[187]
BIBLIOGRAPHY [sources referred to in Piltdown ch.]
9 Cole, S. 1975. Leakey's Luck, Collins.
12 Cuenot, C. 1918. Teilhard de Chardin, Burns & Oates (English translation 1965).
16 Keith, A. 1925 ed. The Antiquity of Man, Williams & Norgate.
21 Leakey, L.S.B. 1953 ed. Adam's Ancestors, Methuen.
22 Leakey, L.S.B. 1970. Unveiling Man's Origin, Methuen.
24 Millar, R. 1972. The Piltdown Men, Gollancz.
29 Speaight, R. 1967. Teilhard de Chardin-a Biography, Collins.
30 Teilhard de Chardin, P. 1962. Letters from a Traveller, Collins.
31 Teilhard de Chardin, P. 1965. The Appearance of Man, Collins.
32 Vere, F. 1955. The Piltdown Fantasy, Cassell.
33 Vere, F. 1959. Lessons of Piltdown, E.P.M.
34 Washburn, S.L. (Ed.). 1964. Classification and Human Evolution, Methuen.
36 Weiner, J.S. 1955. The Piltdown Forgery, Oxford University Press.
38 Woodward, A.S. 1948. The Earliest Englishman, Watts & Co.
39 Zeuner, F.E. 1958. Dating the Past (4th edition), Methuen & Co.
40 1913. Dawson, C. & Woodward, A.S. 'On the discovery of a Palaeolithic human skull and mandible in a flint bearing gravel at Piltdown', Quarterly Journal, Geol. Soc. London, vol.60, pp 117-51. (Report of the meeting held on 18th December 1912.)
[188] 41 1914. Dawson, C. & Woodward, A.S. 'Supplementary note on the discovery of a Palaeolithic human skull and mandible at Piltdown', Quarterly Journal, Geol. Soc. London, vol.70, pp.82-93. (Report of the meeting held 17th December 1913).
42 1915. Dawson, C. & Woodward, A.S. 'On a bone implement from Piltdown, Sus***,'Quarterly Journal, Geol. Soc. London, vol.71 p.144. (Report of the meeting held 2nd December 1914).
43 1917. Woodward, A.S. 'Fourth note on the Piltdown gravel with evidence of a second skull of Eoanthropus dawsoni', Quarterly Journal, Geol. Soc. London, vol.73, pt.I,pp.1-10.
44 1950. Oakley, K.P. & Hoskins, C.R. 'New evidence on the antiquity of Piltdown man',Nature, 11th March, vol161, pp.379-82.
45 1953. Weiner, J.S., Oakley, K.P. & Le Gros Clark, W.E. 'The solution of the Piltdown problem', Bulletin, British Museum (Natural History), Geol.2, No.1, pp.139-46.
46 1955. Weiner, J.S., Oakley, K.P. & Le Gros Clark, W.E. 'Further contributions to the solution of the Piltdown problem', Bulletin, British Museum (Natural History), Geol.2, no.6, pp.228-88.
47 1970. 'Ariadne' (Comment on Piltdown hoax), New Scientist, 10th December, vol.48, p.471.
48 1971. Head, J. 'Piltdown mystery', New Scientist, 14th January, vol.49, p.86.
49 1976. Oakley, K.P. Antiquity, vol.L, no.197 (March), pp.9-13.
Missing Link Found , الحلقة المفقودة
العرض العادي
