PILTDOWN HOAX — STRAUS 367 



cated as being of late or Upper Pleistocene age, although ''probably 

 at least 50,000 years" old [19]. Their fluorine content was the same 

 as that of the beaver remains but significantly less than that of the 

 geologically older, early Pleistocene mammals of the Piltdown fauna. 

 This seemed to increase the probability that cranium and jaw belonged 

 to one individual. But at the same time, it raised the enigma of the 

 existence in the late Pleistocene of a human-skulled, large-brained 

 individual possessed of apelike jaws and teeth — which w^ould leave 

 "Eoanthropus" an anomaly among Upper Pleistocene men. To com- 

 plete the dilemma, if cranium and jaw were attributed to two different 

 animals — one a man, the other an ape — the presence of an anthropoid 

 ape in England near the end of the Pleistocene appeared equally in- 

 credible. Thus the abolition of a Lower Pleistocene dating did not 

 solve the Piltdown problem. It merely produced a new problem that 

 was even more disturbing. 



As the solution of this dilemma. Dr. J. S. Weiner advanced the prop- 

 osition to Drs. Oakley and Clark that the lower jaw and canine tooth 

 are actually those of a modern anthropoid ape, deliberately altered 

 so as to resemble fossil specimens. He demonstrated experimentally, 

 moreover, that the teeth of a chimpanzee could be so altered by a com- 

 bination of artificial abrasion and appropriate staining as to appear 

 astonishingly similar to the molars and canine tooth ascribed to "Pilt- 

 down man." This led to a new study of all the "Eoanthropus" mate- 

 rial that "demonstrated quite clearly that the mandible and canine are 

 indeed deliberate fakes" [1]. It was discovered that the "wear" of 

 the teeth, both molar and canine, had been produced by an artificial 

 planing down, resulting in occlusal surfaces unlike those developed by 

 normal wear. Examination under a microscope revealed fine scratches 

 such as would be caused by an abrasive. X-ray examination of the 

 canine showed that there was no deposit of secondary dentine, as would 

 be expected if the abrasion had been due to natural attrition before 

 the death of the individual. 



An improved method of fluorine analysis, of greater accuracy when 

 applied to small samples, had been developed since Oakley and Hoskins 

 made their report in 1950. This was applied to the Piltdown speci- 

 mens. The results of these new estimations, based mainly on larger 

 samples, are given in the first and second columns of the accompany- 

 ing table. Little elaboration is necessary. The results clearly indi- 

 cate that whereas the Piltdown I cranium is probably Upper Pleis- 

 tocene in age, as claimed by Oakley and Hoskins, the attributed 

 mandible and canine tooth are "quite modern." As for Piltdown II, 

 the frontal fragment appears to be Upper Pleistocene (it probably 

 belonged originally to Piltdown I cranium), but the occipital frag- 



