PILTDOWN HOAX — STRAUS 369 



In conclusion, therefore, the disjecta membra of the Piltdown "dawn 

 man" may now be allocated as follows: (1) the Piltdown I cranial 

 fragments (to which should probably be added Piltdown II frontal) 

 represent a modern type of human brain case that is in no way remark- 

 able save for its unusual thickness and which is, at most, late Pleisto- 

 cene in age; (2) Piltdown I mandible and canine tooth and Piltdown 

 II molar tooth are those of a modern anthropoid ape (either a chimpan- 

 zee or an orangutan) that have been artificially altered in structure 

 and artificially colored so as to resemble the naturally colored cranial 

 pieces — moreover, it is almost certain that the isolated molar of Pilt- 

 down II comes from the original mandible, thus confirming Hrdlicka's 

 [18] earlier suspicion; and (3) Piltdown II occipital is of recent 

 human origin, with similar counterfeit coloration. 



Weiner, Oakley, and Clark conclude that "the distinguished palaeon- 

 tologists and archaeologists who took part in the excavations at Pilt- 

 down were the victims of a most elaborate and carefully prepared 

 hoax" that was "so extraordinarily skilful" and which "appears to 

 have been so entirely unscrupulous and inexplicable, as to find no 

 parallel in the history of palaeontological discovery." 



It may be wondered why 40 years elapsed before the hoax was dis- 

 covered. Two factors enter here : first, there was no reason at all to 

 suspect the perpetration of a fraud, at least, not until fluorine analysis 

 indicated the relative recency of all the specimens, thus making the 

 association of a human cranium and an anthropoid-ape jaw, either 

 anatomically or geologically, hardly credible; and, second, methods 

 for conclusively determining whether the specimens were actual fos- 

 sils or faked ones, short of their wholesale destruction, were developed 

 only in recent years (it will be recalled that even the fluorine-estima- 

 tion method used by Oakley and Hoskins a few years ago was inade- 

 quate for detecting a significant difference between brain case and 

 jaw). It is of interest to note that Dawson, in his original report 

 [2], stated: 



A small fragment of the skull has been weighed and tested by Mr. S. A. Wood- 

 head, M.Sc, F.I.C., Public Analyst for East Sussex & Hove, and Agricultural 

 Analyst for East Sussex. He reports that the specific gravity of the bone (pow- 

 dered) is 2.115 (water at 5° C. as standard). No gelatine or organic matter is 

 present. There is a large proportion of phosphates (originally present in the 

 bone) and a considerable proportion of iron. Silica is absent. 



This statement obviously refers to the brain case alone ; for, in both 

 the title and text of the original report the authors spoke of "skull 

 and mandible" (italics mine). One cannot help but wonder what 

 might have come to pass if samples of the jaw and teeth had also been 

 submitted to chemical analysis, even though the j^resent, more refined 

 methods were not then available. 



