364 ANNUAL REPORT SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, 195 4 



part of a remarkably thick human craniimi or brain case and the right 

 half of an apelike mandible or lower jaw with two molar teeth in situ 

 [2], Continued search of the gravel pit yielded, during the summer 

 of 1913, two human nasal bones and fragments of a turbinate bone 

 (found by Dawson), and an apelike canine tooth (found by the dis- 

 tinguished archeologist. Father Teilhard de Chardin) [3]. All these 

 remains constitute the find that is known as Piltdown I. 



Dawson died in 1916. Early in 1917, Smith Woodward announced 

 the discovery of two pieces of a second human skull and a molar tooth 

 [4]. These form the so-called Piltdown II skull. The cranial frag- 

 ments are a piece of thick frontal bone representing an area absent in 

 the first specimen and a part of a somewhat thinner occipital bone 

 that duplicates an area recovered in the first find. According to Smith 

 Woodward's account, these fragments were discovered by Dawson 

 early in 1915 in a field about two miles from the site of the original 

 discovery. 



The first description of the Piltdown remains, by Smith Woodward 

 at a meeting of the Geological Society of London on December 18, 

 1912 [2], evoked a controversy that is probably without equal in the 

 history of paleontological science and which raged, without promise 

 of a satisfactory solution, until the studies of Weiner, Oakley, and 

 Clark abruptly ended it. With the announcement of the discovery, 

 scientists rapidly divided themselves into two main camps represent- 

 ing two distinctly different points of view (with variations that need 

 not be discussed here) [5] . 



Smith Woodward regarded the cranium and jaw as belonging to 

 one and the same individual, for which he created a new genus, Eoan- 

 thropus. In this monistic view toward the fragments he found ready 

 and strong support. In addition to the close association within the 

 same gravel pit of cranial fragments and jaw, there was advanced 

 in support of this interpretation the evidence of the molar teeth in the 

 jaw (which were flatly worn down in a manner said to be quite pe- 

 culiar to man and quite unlike the type of wear ever found in apes) 

 and, later, above all, the evidence of a second, similar individual in 

 the second set of skull fragments and molar tooth (the latter similar 

 to those imbedded in the jaw and worn away in the same un-apelike 

 manner). A few individuals (Dixon [6], Kleinschmidt [7], Weinert 

 [8] ) , moreover, have even thought that proper reconstruction of the 

 jaw would reveal it to be essentially human, rather than simian. Re- 

 constructions of the skull by adherents to the monistic view produced 

 a brain case of relatively small cranial capacity, and certain workers 

 even fancied that they had found evidences of primitive features in 

 the brain from examination of the reconstructed endocranial cast 

 [9, 10] — a notoriously unreliable procedure; but subsequent altera- 



