8/8/2019 Weiner Et Al_1953

1/7

34

THE SOLUTION OF THEPILTDOWN PROBLEM

J. S. Weiner, K. P. Oakley,and W. E. Le Gros Clark

Note-The curator of a palaeontological collection, which may containrare specimens of great scientific importance, is frequently faced withthe problem of whether to allow such specimens to be reinvestigated bytreatment with acids, sectioning, removal of fragments for chemicalanalysis, or other methods which might seem to involve damage to aunique object. The cautious attitude of a previous generation has undoubtedly preserved for their successors many fossils which, for example,might have been damaged by mechanical treatment in the past, but cannow be developed in perfection by more recently devised chemicalmethods. In the case of the Piltdown relics, one can be certain that afterthey came into the late Si r Arthur Smith Woodward's possession theywould not have been treated or tampered with either chemically orphysically. The decision to submit these specimens to a rigorous re-examination was made some years ago; the final result, unexpected at th etime, will be found in th e following pages.

W. N. Edwards, Keeper of GeologySince the report, some forty years ago (Dawson &: Woodward, 1913) of

the discovery of several cranial fragments, a portion of a mandible an da canine tooth at Piltdown in Sussex, the problem of the "Piltdownskull" has been th e subject of continuous controversy. Some authoritieshave accepted all the remains as those of an extinct type of hominid. Butit is probably true to say that most anthropologists have remained sceptical or frankly puzzled by the contradictions which they present, for(apart altogether from other details) the combination of a cranium closelysimilar to that of Homo sapiens with a mandible and canine tooth ofsimian form seemed too incongruous. I t has been suggested, indeed, thatthey really represent the fortuitous association of a Pleistocene human

"The Solution of the Piltdown Problem," by J. S. Weiner, K. P. Oakley. an d W. E.I.e Gras Clark. Th e Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Geology, Vol.2, No.3, pp . 141-146 (London: Adland & Son, Ltd., Bartholemew Press, 1953). (Theillustrations have no t been reproduced here.) Reprinted hy kind permission of theTrustees of the British Museum.

Solutioncraniumarily defluorinethe manon the ato lendto belonwear ofnormall(thoughtion), whfrom thaof th e amandiblpanzee 0specimendiscussiOpossiblecontentonstratedpanzee (astonishion a critbility distrated qfakes. Th

EVIDENCE

Molar T(1) Th

almost thnormally

(2) TJbordersusually F(3) TJby a shalThis aprbe expec(4) TJcusps of

8/8/2019 Weiner Et Al_1953

2/7

8/8/2019 Weiner Et Al_1953

3/7

36 MAN'S DISCOVERY OF HIS PASTenamel, instead of forming a depression as would be expected in naturalwear.(5) In both molars much more dentine has been exposed on the antero-internal than the anteroexternal cusps. But in the course of naturalattrition the lateral cusps of lower molar teeth are normally worn downmore rapidly (and thus usually show a greater exposure of dentine) thanthe medial cusps (PI. 9, fig. I).

(6) The degree of wear in the two molars, NIl and M 2 , is almost identical. But in early stages of natural attrition M 1 is commonly (thoug h no talways) more severely worn than M 2 .(7) The planes of the flat occlusal surfaces of the two molars are no tcongruous, i.e., they do no t fit together to form a uniform contour. Unlessth e teeth have been displaced from their natural position after death(for which there is no evidence), this congruity is difficult to explain bynatural wear.

(8) Inspection of the isolated molar tooth (referred to the specimencalled Piltdown II) with a binocular microscope shows surface of theenamel has been finely scratched, as though by an abrasive.Canine Tooth

(1) The mode of wear of this tooth is unlike that found normally eitherin ape or human canines, for the abraded surface has exposed the dentineover the entire lingnal surface from medial to distal border and at onepoint actually reaches the apex of the pulp cavity.(2) The condition of the apex of the root, and the wide and open pulpcavity seen in an X-ray photograph, indicate fairly certainly that thecanine was still incompletely erupted or ha d only just recently completedits eruption. But this would be incompatible with the severe attrition ofthe crown if the latter were naturally produced.

(3) X-ray examination shows no evidence of the deposition of secondarydentine (with a constriction of the pulp cavity) which might be expectedif the severe abrasion of the lingual surface of the crown were the resultof natural attrition.

(4) The abraded surface of the crown shows finc vertically disposedscratches (as seen under a binocular microscope) which suggest the appli-cation of an abrasive.

EVIDENCE. OF THE FLCORINE CONTENT

The fluorine method as applied in 1949 (and reported in full in 1950)served well enough to establish that neither the Piltdown cranium nor themandible was Lower Pleistocene. I t did no t disting-uish (nor at that timewas it intended to distinguish) Upper Pleistocene from later material.

Solution toThe rateto give aglacial bOonly with10 milligfluorine csamples whave sinceand it thecritical PiThe newMr. C. F.that, wheclaimed inmodern.

Minimum FDitto. UppePiltdown eraPiltdown craPiltdown craPiltclown maMolar of PilPiltdown canIsolated molMolar of Re

All the lo

EVIDENCE 0:

To regarlantiquity hserious attePiltdown s1of bones fn(1947) havetions the njon an averwith discrefor th e re Iof th e flUOlDepartmenof estimati

8/8/2019 Weiner Et Al_1953

4/7

37

tt

the

one

theof

thetime

Soiutioll to the Piltd(}\l'l1 ProblemThe rate of fluoridation at this site has probably no t been high enoughto give a clear separation between Upper Pleistocene amI, say, Early Postglacial bones. Moreover the method of analysis used in 1949 was accurateonly within rather wide limits when applied to samples weighing less than10 milligrams, with the consequence that even the difference between thefluorine contents of fossil an d modern specimens was obscured where thesamples were of that order of magnitude. Improvements in techniquehave since led to greater accuracy in estimating small amounts of fluorine,an d it therefore seemed worth while submitting further samples of thecritical Piltdown specimens for analysis in the Government Laboratory.The new estimations, based mainly on larger samples, were made byMr. C. F. M. Fryd. The following summary of the results leaves no doubtthat, whereas the Piltdown cranium may '\lell be Upper Pleistocene asclaimed in 1950, the mandible, canine tooth and isolated molar are quitemodern.

_o-t-::,,,_F_ X 100% P20.-,Minimum F-content of local U. Pleistocene bones 0.1 0.4Ditto. Upper Pleistocene teeth" 0.1 0.4Pilt

8/8/2019 Weiner Et Al_1953

5/7

38 MAN'S DISCOVERY OF HIS PASTthis new method, determined the nitrogen content of a series of samplesof the Piltdown material an d of selected controls. The following is asummary of the results of this work which agree with all the other evidenceindicating that the Piltdown mandible, canine, and isolated molar (II)~ r m o d e ~ n . (The possibility that the Pi l tdown specimens were steepedm a gelatmous preservative has been borne in mind; if this had been theexplanation of their nitrogen-content, the cranial bones which are porouswould have shown more nitrogen than the highly compact dentine of theteeth; whereas the reverse is true.)

Nitrogen Content of Bone Samples %NFresh bone 4.1Piltdown mandible 3.9Neolithic bone (Kent) 1.9Piltdown I cranial bones (average) 1.4Piltdown II frontal 1.1Piltdown II occipital 0.6U. Pleistocene bone (London) 0.7

Nitrogen Content of Dentine Samples %NChimpanzee molar . . 3.2Piltdown canine . 5.1Piltdown I tllolar 4.3Piltdown II molar 4.2U. Pleistoccne cquine molar (Piltdown) 1.2U. Pleistocene human molar (Surrey) 0.3

EVIDENCE OF THE COLORING OF THE PILTDOWN SPECIMENS

A black coating-ferruginous according to Dawson & ''\Toodward(1914:87)-covers most of the surface of the Piltdown canine. When thistooth and the molars were sampled in 1948, one or us (K.P.O.) notedthat "below an extremely thin ferruginous surface stain the dentine waspure white, apparently no more altered than the dentine of recent teethfrom the soil." Examination by Dr. G. F. Claringbull in the Departmentof Minerals has now shown that the coating on the canine is in factnonmetallic, it is a tough, flexible paint-like substance, insoluble in thecommon organic solvents, and with only a small ash content. The extremewhiteness 01 the uentine and the nature of the black skin are thus bothconsistent with the evidence presented above for the essential modernityof the canine.

The mandible is or a reddish-brown color which, though rather patchy,matches closely enough that 01 the cranial fragments to raise no suspiciontha t all the remains (from the original Piltdown si te) might not belongto one skull. The frontal fragment stated to have been found at a second

Solution to the PilrdO\\site (Piltdown II) isfrom the darker greyth e color of all thesby direct analysis infragments are all dthickness, the iron ssurface sample analcourse of our re-exsample obtained waThe difference in ievidence that the ja\

Smith \Voodwardof th e pieces whichson when he dippemistaken idea thatcarried out by Drs.Minerals at the Brispectrographic methOxford University, \\ 'oodward in the sptions) do contain chthe cranial fragmenright parietal, or inVVoodward himselfmandible (which waward, 1948:11) wouchemical analysis cBri tish Museum, thWoodward's statemPiltdown I (whichja w could hardlyexcavation. The ircto us to be explicabof the ja w of a mod

This grave interreceives support frolabelled Piltdown Iof chromate. The pthe cranium of Piland fluorine it rese]of Piltdown II . Juth e Piltdown mandoriginally belonged

From the evidendistinguished palac

8/8/2019 Weiner Et Al_1953

6/7

39

SolliliO/1 10 Ihe Pi/idml'/1 Problem

site (Piltdown II) is also of a similar brown color but differs noticeablyfrom the darker greyish-brown occipital fragment from the same site. Thatthe color of al l these fragments is due to iron oxides has been confirmedby direct analysis in the Government Laboratory. But whereas the cranialfragments are all deeply stained (up to 8% of iron) throughout theirthickness, the iron staining of the mandible is quite superficial. A smallsurface sample analyzed in 1949 contained 7% iron, but, when in thecourse of our re-examination this bone was drilled more deeply, thesample obtained was lighter in color and contained only 2/3% of iron.The difference in iron staining is thus also in keeping with the otherevidence that the jaw and the cranium are not naturally associated.

Smith 'Woodward recorded (1918:59; see also 1935:134) that "the colorof the pieces which were first discO\'ered was altered a little by Mr. Dawson when he dipped them in a solution of bichromate of potash in themistaken idea that this would harden them." Direct chemical analysiscarried out by Drs, M. H. Hey and A. A. Moss in the Department of~ J i n e r a l s at the British Museum (I\'atural History), as well as the X-rayspectrographic method of M1. E. T, Hall in the Clarendon Laboratory,Oxford University, confirmed that al l the cranial fragments seen by Smith\\Toodward in the spring of 1912 (before he commenced systematic excava-tions) do contain chromate; on the other hand, there is no chromate inthe cranial fragments subsequently collected that summer-either in theright parietal, or in the small occipital fragment found in situ by Smith'Woodward himself. This being so, it is not to be expected that themandible (which was excavated later an d ill the presence of Smith "\Vood-ward, 1948: 11) would be chromate stained. In fact, as shown by directchemical analysis carried ou t in the Department of Minerals of theBritish Museum, the jaw does contain chromate. I t is clear from SmithWoodward's statement about the staining of the cranial fragments ofPiltdown I (which we have verified), that a chromate staining of thejaw could hardly have been carried out without his knowledge afterexcavation. The iron and chromate staining of the Piltdown jaw seemsto us to be explicable only as a necessary part of the deliberate matchingof the jaw of a modern ap e with the mineralized cranial fragments.

This grave interpretation, which we have found difficult to avoid,receives support from the finding that the frontal and occipital fragmentslabelled Piltdown II (and found three years later) contain small amountsof chromate. The piece of frontal bone, anatomically, could form part ofthe cranium of Piltdown I, and in color an d in its content of nitrogenand fluorine it resembles the first occipital of Piltdown I rather than thatof Piltdown II. Just as the isolated molar almost certainly comes fromthe Piltdown mandible, it seems only too likely that this frontal fragmentoriginally belonged to the cranium of Piltdown 1.

From the evidence which we have obtained, it is now clear that thedistinguished palaeontologists an d archaeologists wh o took part in the

8/8/2019 Weiner Et Al_1953

7/7

40 MAN'S DISCOVERY OF HIS PASTexcavations at Piltdown lvere the victims of a most elaborate an d carefully prepared hoax. Le t it be said, however, in exoneration of thosewho have assumed the Piltdown fragments to belong to a single individual,or who, having examined the original specimens, either regarded themandible and canine as those of a fossil ape or else assumed (tacitly orexplicitly) that the problem was no t capable of solution on the availableevidence, that the faking of the mandible and canine is so extraordinarilyskillful, an d the perpetration of the hoax appears to have been so entirelyunscrupulous and inexplicable, as to find no parallel in the history ofpalaeon tological discovery.

Lastly, it may be pointed out that the elimination of Piltdown ja wand. teeth from any further consideration clarifies very considerably theproblem of human evolution. Fo r it has to be realized that "PiltdownMan" (Eoanthropus) was actually a most awkward an d perplexing element in the fossil record of the Hominidae, being entirely ou t of conformity both in its strange mixture of morphological characters an d itstime sequence with al l the palaeontological evidence of human evolutionavailable from other parts of the world.

Referencl:SCook, S. F. & Heizer, R. F. 1947. The quantitative investigation of aboriginal sites:Analyses of human bone. Amer. J. Phys, Anthrop., Washington (n.s.) 5:201-220.Dawson, C. & lVoodward, A. S. 1913. On the Discovery of a Palaeolithic Human Skull

an d !\fandible in a Flint-bearing Gravel overlying the Wealden (Hastings Beds) atPiltdown, Fletching (Sussex). Quart. J. Ceo!. Soc. Lond., 69: 117-l44.-- 1914. Supplemell tary note on the Discovery of a Palaeolithic Skull an d Mandibleat Piltdown (Sussex). Quart. J. Ceol. Soc. Lond., 70:82-93.Nature, Lond., 165:37