Happy birthday Piltdown Man...100 years old
yesterday.
Piltdown Man (or Eoanthropus dawsoni to give him his proper name) remains
the greatest scientific hoax (that we know of in any case) of all time, the
fragments of human skull, an ape-like jaw and worked flints unearthed to the
south of a quiet Sussex village, was, a century ago, hailed by the world’s
press as the most sensational archaeological find ever: the ‘missing link’ in
the chain of evolution. The news spread quickly, anthropologists, geologists,
and archaeologists all voicing their eagerness to examine the find. The cradle
of humanity was to be found in the counties of southern England
Of course it wasn't..
The “Earliest Englishman” was a hoax (not just any old hoax mind, the London
Star declared it at the time to be “THE BIGGEST SCIENTIFIC HOAX OF THE
CENTURY”). There never had been a ‘missing link’ preserved in the gravels of
Piltdown; the whole discovery had been part of an elaborate and complex
archaeological forgery.
Well ok we don't know exactly when the most
famous scientific hoax was precisely 'born' but we can be pretty sure when he
was conceived (somewhere between November 1911 and February 1912) and we can be
sure that, after a 10 month gestation period, he was officially brought kicking
and screaming into the world on the evening of the 18th December 1912 at a
meeting of the Geological Society in London. It was there that the 'finder' of
the Earliest Englishman, Charles Dawson, together with his co-director, Arthur
Smith Woodward of the Natural History Museum, presented the artefacts and their
theory to the hushed audience. 100 years to the day I was in that self same
room in the geological society giving a paper on Charles Dawson and why it now
seems pretty clear that he was indeed the perpetrator of the hoax (and of at
least 35 previous offences which also now need to be taken into consideration),
which was kinda spooky, but good, in terms of 'resolution'.
Piltdown is one of the most famous 'brand names'
in archaeology today, something that annoys a lot of people (as it's not a genuine
archaeological find and, worse, it's something which successfully derailed
research into the human past for a not inconsiderable period of time), but I
admit to finding the tale rather comforting (in a strange way) as it's the
point of which archaeology, as a science, woke up and grew up, becoming far
more questioning, and far more critical about the nature of 'evidence', in the
process. It was, after all, the archaeological finds of early humans made
around the world in the years after 1912, with their more human faces and
ape-like skulls that helped dethrone Piltdown Man (which had these critical
features in the wrong order), way before the nature of the hoax was finally
revealed in 1953.
I have to say that I also have a bit of a soft
spot for Charles Dawson. Not for what he did (that was ultimately unforgivable),
but for the way that he did it. Dawson
When Dawson Sussex
So, rest in peace Charles Dawson, FSA, FGS
(1864-1916) and Eoanthropus dawsoni (1912-53)...
...and HAPPY BIRTHDAY !
Sometimes, there is great value to negative press. Just think of all the debate, controversy, interest and information this generated. Maybe Archaeology wouldn't be where it is today without this.
ReplyDeleteGiven the recent decline in the publicity of discipline (the burial of Time Team is a sad example), maybe it's time for Talbot Heath man. Perhaps, conveniently, that name sounds a bit like a Hollywood actor!
AF
Talbot Heath....wasn't he the brother of Canford Heath (both distantly related to Hampstead Heath)? A great acting dynasty and a story ripe for cinema...
DeleteDawson the personality intrigues me, too. I picture him as a kind of a charming, unassuming fellow, erudite and garrulous, someone who got along with everyone. Who would have suspected good old Charles? Woodward, on the other hand, was the polar opposite of likeable. Yet he is rarely named as a suspect.
ReplyDeleteI tried to reveal the key to Charles Dawson in my novel THE LINK, but I'm not sure I got it. In any case, it's fun to think about the dynamic between these two men, and how it might have changed if both had been alive in 1953.
Miles, thanks for your detailed excavation into Dawson's career as a fraudster.
Doug Elliott
Hi Doug
DeleteYes, Charles Dawson is rather an elusive character (to say the least) and I don't think that anyone really 'knew' him (even his wife, who joked about his 'secrets in the cellar'). A real Jekyll and Hyde, especially given that he was always a 'man of the law'. Would have been interesting indeed to see what would have happened had he lived to the 1950s. Look forward to seeing the finished version of THE LINK.
I read through your blog post, but there seems to be something missing - you've forgotten the book plug! or now I've looked maybe it should be bookS. Have you really written two books on Charles Dawson and Piltdown Man, both with 288 pages, the first one titled 'Piltdown Man: The Secret Life of Charles Dawson' (2003) and the second titled 'The Piltdown Man Hoax: Case Closed' (2012). Or is it case of the original book getting a slight edit with a new title and bought out for Piltdown Mans centenary?
ReplyDeleteH
Yes you're right (I stand in abject apology), there is no plug for the book (thank you for noticing – I would make a rubbish publicist).
DeleteIndeed, there are many books on Piltdown Man and I have, as you note, made two contributions: "Piltdown Man: The Secret Life of Charles Dawson" in 2003 (for the 50th anniversary of the hoax reveal), a whodunit (at 288 pages) looking (as objectively as possible) at the man Dawson and his catalogue of finds, and "The Piltdown Man Hoax: Case Closed" out now (from all good, and no doubt some bad, bookshops), commemorating the 100th anniversary of the 'birth' of Eoanthropus dawsoni on December 18th 1912 (at a more trim 158 pages).
The latter work is most definitely a 'howdunit' / 'whydunit', taking from the start the belief that Dawson was guilty (as established in the first book) and explaining how he did what he did and what he was ultimately trying to achieve.
I’d like to think that both works are complementary and that the most recent will finally put an end to all the conspiracy theories, putting a great big full stop at the end of the story - but I somehow doubt it will....especially when the results of the Natural History Museum co-ordinated research into material assemblage gets an airing…here’s to 2053 and 2062 then (though I don’t think that I will be around to see these next two particular anniversaries).
yay got them both. An interesting man with a strange backstory. Look forward to yr third book! DG
ReplyDeleteThanks, but I think two books on Piltdown is quite enough (for the time being at least)...
DeleteHaving just read, enjoyed and (as a long-time Piltdown watcher) agreed with - your Piltdown Man: Case Closed book, I thought I would flag up something in connection with the mysterious "Cricket bat" implement, which as you wrote seems out of line with Dawson's other Piltdown frauds. Take a look at the (genuine) "Neolithic alder wood club or beater" discovered at World's End (nice name), Chelsea, dating c3400BC, and now in the Barbican Museum of London. Web link is http://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/london-wall/ and search for Neolithic Alder club). Dare I suggest that the earliest English cricket bat may indeed not be Paleothic, but possibly Neolithic instead? (Any counter-suggestion that it is a baseball bat is, of course, ridiculous!)
ReplyDeleteJohn McKenzie
Hi John
DeleteThanks for reading and enjoying (and indeed agreeing with) Piltdown Man: Case Closed !
The 'Cricket Bat' remains, I think, the most interesting aspect of the whole case and I'm still not convinced that it was part of the original deception (nor indeed a creation of Charles Dawson), more a hoax within a hoax designed to blow the whole 'discovery' apart. Question is still very much 'Whodunit' for this then - hopefully the on-going work co-ordinated by the NHM will throw some more light on it (nature of manufacture and staining etc).
Must admit that I hadn't seen the Alder Club in the ML before (and I will investigate this further) - it does look very much like a baseball bat though (!) – An American cousin for Eoanthropus' perhaps? There must be good (genuine) precedents for the Piltdown secondary hoaxer to base his / her 'Cricket Bat' upon - perhaps this club is just such a piece; a genuine find to inspire the creation of the Piltdown bat?
Thanks - I'm glad the Alder Club is of some interest. I'd lost my notes from when I first saw it at the Barbican Museum, but have now found a further blurb on their site (at http://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/postcodes/places/SW10.html) which states it is a relatively recent find (1966), so no Dawson link is possible. It does, however, suggest that such objects must had their uses.
DeleteCan I flag up a couple more Piltdown-related items? (1) A Morning Star article (at http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/news/content/view/full/127902) which independently takes a very similar line to your book (I cheekily suggested that the author had read your book, but he hadn't, so I'm sending him an apology. At least the first letter I sent gave your book a plug!). (2) I don't think your book mentions the Martin Histon artifacts, similarly stained to Piltdown. The NHM blurb on their latest Piltdown display states that these included bones carved in a similar fashion to the "Cricket bat". I have a suspicion (which no-one else seems to!) that the Hinton objects may have been Dawson's, passed onto the NHM after his death: if so, it would place the "bat" firmly in Dawson's hands. I'd be interested to know what you make of the Hinton find.
John McKenzie
Thanks - I'm always happy to receive an extra book plug!
DeleteNo, the new book doesn't mention Martin Hinton (nor indeed any of the other potential suspects / helpers / workers / interested parties at Piltdown) as I just wanted to focus squarely on Dawson.
There's really very little detail concerning the origin of the 'Hinton Artefacts' but it wouldn't surprise me if they were the result of Hinton (or somebody else at the NHM) experimenting with ways in which the Piltdown bones could have been stained, as a way of proving (or at least suggesting) some degree of foul play. The Piltdown finds were sacrosanct until after the death of Arthur Smith Woodward (in 1944), so no one could really look examine them in much detail until the early 1950s, when the hoax was finally exposed.
Of course, some still claim that Hinton was somehow involved in the hoax, but he had nothing to gain from it (and in fact did not gain from it) was never on site and didn’t know Dawson, so he seems a bit of a long shot. He could, of course, have had a hand in the fabrication of the ‘Cricket Bat’ if that was, indeed, meant to be the ‘find’ that exposed the whole Piltdown assemblage as fraudulent. I guess we’ll have to wait until the current batch of tests, carried out by the NHM / Southampton Uni / Uni of Portsmouth / UCL, Liverpool John Morre’s Uni etc are complete (in late 2013) when the mechanics of the hoax will, hopefully, be laid finally to rest.