Background
In 1912, the discovery of human skull fragments, an ape-like jaw and crudely worked flints close to the quiet Sussex village of Piltdown聽was hailed by the world鈥檚 press as the most sensational archaeological find ever,聽the 鈥榤issing link鈥� in the 鈥榗hain鈥� of human evolution.
The 鈥榬econstructed鈥� skull of Piltdown Man.The news spread quickly;聽anthropologists, geologists, and archaeologists all voicing their eagerness to examine the find.聽Few archaeological discoveries have the capacity to be front-page news twice over,聽but 鈥楶iltdown Man鈥櫬爄s a rare exception.
Forty-one years after he first became famous, the 鈥淓arliest Englishman鈥� was again hot news, for, in late November, 1953, the world discovered that Piltdown Man was a fraud, the 尝辞苍诲辞苍听厂迟补谤听declaring it to be 鈥渢he biggest scientific hoax of the century鈥�. There never had been a 鈥榤issing link鈥� preserved in the gravels of Piltdown; the whole thing had been part of an elaborate archaeological forgery.
The 鈥淓arliest Englishman鈥� was nothing more than a cheap fraud.
Investigating the forger
For over 50 years, people have speculated on the identity and motive of the Piltdown hoaxer. Many names have been put forward, often on little more than guesswork or supposition. As time moves on, so the list of suspects increases. Conspiracy and counter-conspiracy theories abound, as any examination of the current literature will confirm.
Half a century on, and it seems that anyone alive in the British Isles or Northern France in the early years of the 20th聽century could have generated the fraud, even, as one author recently noted, 鈥渢he Piltdown milkman鈥�.
One name that continues to surface in any discussion of the hoax however, is that of its finder, Charles Dawson. Dawson was a solicitor by profession but in his spare time, he was a keen local antiquarian, his discoveries earning him the title 鈥渢he Wizard of Sussex鈥�.
Those who defend Dawson against the charge of hoax often cite his impressive archaeological credentials noting also that, as being a well-respected solicitor, he did much to benefit his local community. Hard to believe that such a man could be the same one sometimes accused of perpetrating the most infamous scientific fraud in history.
Most of the discussions, theories and 鈥榮olutions鈥� to the Piltdown hoax rely on the premise that the discovery was a聽one-off聽鈥� a single, if聽elaborate聽hoax, designed to fool the scientific community, embarrass certain key figures of the establishment or to verify (or discredit)聽fledgling聽models of human evolution. Under such聽circumstances, one of any number of people may plausibly be held responsible.
Of聽course聽this all presupposes that the Piltdown hoax had no immediate ancestry,聽that it burst, fully-formed, on to the scientific stage and that its author had not previously been engaged in any form of deceit or academic deception. What if this were not the case?
The key to resolving the Piltdown forgery, and the focus of study since 1999, is the finder: Charles Dawson FGS FSA. Indeed a detailed analysis of Dawson鈥檚 antiquarian聽collection,聽has shown that all is not as it seems for, of his recorded discoveries, at least 38 are obvious fakes. Among these聽are the teeth of聽Plagiaulax聽dawsoni,聽a 鈥榤issing link鈥� between reptiles and mammals (which filed down in the same way that the teeth of Piltdown man would be some twenty years later).
Of his antiquarian publications,聽most聽demonstrate evidence of plagiarism or at least naive referencing. At Piltdown itself, of the faked cranium, mandible and teeth, canine, nasal bones, animal bone assemblage, flint tools, elephant bone tool, the only clear suspect is none other than Charles Dawson himself.
The 1915 painting by John Cooke entitled 鈥楢 Discussion on the Piltdown Skull鈥� showing all the key investigators. Charles Dawson is standing immediately in front of the picture of Charles Darwin.Dawson鈥檚 whole antiquarian career appears to have been one built upon deceit, sleight of hand, fraud and academic deception, the ultimate gain being聽international聽recognition (and not financial reward). Piltdown Man generated academic interest like no other discovery. Using the skills honed over many decades, Charles Dawson gave British palaeontology what it had craved for so long: a missing link from the home counties of England.
Research into both Piltdown Man and the antiquarian collection of the Piltdown finder, Charles Dawson, continues and new 鈥榙iscoveries鈥� are being made within the museum collections of Sussex, Surrey, Kent and Greater London. The conclusions, however, are clear enough: Piltdown Man was not a 鈥榦ne-off鈥� hoax, more the culmination of a life鈥檚 work.
