Books

Facts and Fallacies of the Fossil Record:
Re-Evaluating the Supposed Evidences for Human Evolution

By Brett A. Rutherford

Lesson Twelve

The Piltdown Hoax (Part Two)
Who Was Responsible?

Some have pointed to Teilhard de Chardin, the young Jesuit priest who discovered the eye tooth, as the one who committed the crime. He has been described as a bizarre man who saw no conflict between the atheistic tenets of evolution and the demand of his own religion for a Divine Creator. He believed man was developing “a higher, collective consciousness, a sort of super organism of social morality.”¹⁴⁵ The Catholic Church rebuked Teilhard for his blasphemous writings and sent him to remote corners of the world where they hoped he and his theories would be forgotten. The aspect of his character that has bearing on this case was his renowned, wicked sense of fun. He had an over active sense of humor and enjoyed a good practical joke.¹⁴⁶ However, it is unlikely that Teilhard had the means or the opportunity to mastermind the forgery, but his fondness for practical jokes has led some to believe he was the confessor of the true criminal.

Arthur Smith Woodward may also have participated in devising the grand deceit. However, most believe he was simply a gullible pawn used by the real forgers. Undoubtedly, his unswerving support of Dawson’s “Dawn man” thrilled those who created the fake.

No irrefutable evidence exists that would convict Charles Dawson of perpetuating this hoax. But, the circumstantial evidence makes him the prime suspect. In August of 1953, some strong circumstantial evidence in the case against Dawson was uncovered by J.S. Weiner. In a discussion over the Piltdown fossils with A.P. Pollard, Assistant Surveyor of the Sussex County Council, Weiner learned of a banker who dabbled in local archaeology. His name was Harry Morris. Morris, an expert in flint implements, had been one of the first to indicate the Piltdown tools were not genuine. Pollard explained to Weiner that Morris had somehow obtained some of the Piltdown flint implements from Dawson. Upon examination, Morris became convinced that some kind of deception had been committed. Strangely, he told only one or two friends of his convictions in the matter.¹⁴⁷ Some suspect that he did not seek to publicly discredit Dawson because he did not want to undermine Dawson’s entire Piltdown discovery. Morris believed, like many of his other colleagues, that the Piltdown fossils were essential to the credibility of the theory of evolution. Therefore, in order to protect his reputation and the reputation of all evolutionists, he thought it best to hide his findings from the general public.

Pollard also told Wiener that Morris’ other confidante had been Major Marriott of the Royal Marine Artillery. Unfortu-nately, Major Marriott had also died many years before Weiner had begun his investigation. However, what Weiner learned from Marriott’s family proved very useful in support of the case against Dawson. According to them, the major not only had reason to doubt the validity of the Piltdown tools, but he also expressed doubt in the genuineness of the fossils. His suspicion of the bones did not likely come from Morris, for Morris only suspected that the tools were fraudulent.¹⁴⁸ The foundation of Marriott’s suspicions became clear when a letter arrived at the office of the Keeper of Geology at the British Museum in December of 1953. The letter was from a Captain St. Barbe who claimed to have witnessed Charles Dawson staining the very bones he would later present as the second “Piltdown man”. St. Barbe explained in the letter that he had taken a few flints from his personal collection and given them to Dawson in 1912.

In May of 1913, St. Barbe claimed he had gone into Dawson’s office without knocking to inquire about the flints he had given Dawson. He had apparently caught Dawson in an unguarded moment. He claimed he saw several crucibles filled with brownish-colored liquid lying on Dawson’s desk.¹⁴⁹ According to St. Barbe, Dawson proceeded to explain to him that the brownish liquid was used for staining bones with the intent of gaining an insight into the natural process of staining. St. Barbe went on to say that a few weeks later, Dawson confessed to him he was also engaged in staining flints.

Perhaps the most fascinating portion of the letter was an account of St. Barbe’s chance meeting with Major Marriott. St. Barbe claimed that during the course of their conversation, Marriott explained he had also seen the crucibles of brown liquid on Dawson’s desk and received the same feeble explanation for the liquid’s use from the Piltdown discoverer. St. Barbe and Major Marriott agreed to say nothing about what they had witnessed until the experts began to express their doubts in the validity of the Piltdown findings. Unfortunately, to their dismay, the experts sided with Dawson. Leading anatomists, such as Elliot Smith and Arthur Keith, and the foremost geologists and paleontologists such as Newton and Sollas, were convinced that Dawson and Woodward’s “dawn man” was genuine.¹⁵⁰ Even the famed biologists, Boyd Dawkins and Sir Ray Lankester, agreed with Woodward’s interpretations of Dawson’s find. Can one really be surprised that St. Barbe and Marriott were intimidated into silence? After all, they were amateurs. Who were they to challenge the greatest scientific minds of their day?

When Charles Dawson died in 1917, he did not leave behind a confession or solid evidence that he was the mastermind behind the forgery. There is a slim possibility that he was an innocent victim of the real perpetrator. However, the circumstantial evidence seems to be overwhelmingly against him. Why did he do it? His intent was obviously not to embarrass the prominent evolutionists of his day. He strongly believed in the theory of human morphology. Perhaps he wanted fame or acceptance from his colleagues? No one will ever really know what motivated him to create such a masterful deception. One can say that desperate men often perform desperate acts. Charles Dawson may have been such a man. The highly criticized theory of evolution was in dire need of some substantial evidence. Perhaps this is why he decided to fabricate some? Dawson is not unlike evolutionists today who continue to weave a web of masterful lies and deceit.

Conclusion

Why were so many experts fooled by Dawson’s “Dawn man”? Some have suggested that the initial acceptance of the authenticity of the Piltdown fossils by leading British scholars was due to an overwhelming desire to find the ancestor of man in the center of modern civilization — Great Britain. It is true that many British anthropologists and naturalists of the early twentieth century were offended by the suggestion that man’s origins would be found in Asia or Africa. Therefore, many leading British scientists allowed their Eurocentric views to blind them to the facts.

Certainly, national pride had played a part in the success of past forgeries. For example, in the Moulin Quignon affair, the fake implements and bones that Boucher de Perthe presented as genuine were rejected by the British, but the French refused to believe they were not authentic. Even when British scientists sawed open the Moulin Quignon bones and revealed the non-fossilized interior of a modern replica, the French were still not convinced.¹⁵¹ The only possible motive for the stubbornness of the French during this scandal stemmed from a desire to preserve their national pride. They simply did not want to accept that a prominent French scientist would be involved in this kind of deceit.

There can be no doubt that British national pride played a part in the acceptance of the Piltdown fraud. However, this does not explain why leading scientists from other nations enthusiastically supported the legitimacy of the Piltdown remains. Why had outstanding scientists such as Grafton Elliot Smith of Australia, Marcellin Boule of France, and Gerrit Miller of the United States endorsed the “Dawn man?”

According to anthropologist, Roger Lewin, the international acceptance of Dawson’s creature is primarily due to its perfect anatomical structure. In other words, “Piltdown man” was exactly the specimen for which they were looking. They were blinded by their preconceived notions of how an ancient ancestor of man should appear. The Piltdown remains were a perfect fit for those notions. He was everything they had ever imagined him to be. That fact alone should have made them suspicious of the find, for no settlement or artifacts when discovered by archaeologists exactly fit prior conceptions. Essentially, these men had allowed their own personal views to supersede the evidence. This one fact still prevails among evolutionists. It is the essential element that continues to keep them in the dark!

Review Questions

1. Why is Teilhard de Chardin suspected by some of perpetrating the Piltdown hoax?

2. Who was one of the first flint experts to indicate that the Piltdown tools were a forgery?

3. Why didn’t Harry Morris publicly denounce the Piltdown find as a hoax?

4. In May of 1913, what had Captain St. Barbe seen on the desk of Charles Dawson?

5. Why didn’t St. Barbe and Major Marriott reveal to the scientific community they had seen evidence of the forgery in Dawson’s office?

6. What are some of the reasons why Charles Dawson might have created the Piltdown fossils?

7. What are some possible reasons why so many experts were fooled by Dawson’s “Dawn man”?

8. Give an example of national pride taking precedence over the facts.

9. When settlements and artifacts are discovered by archaeologists, do they always fit the archaeologist’s preconceived notions about what those settlements and artifacts will look like?

10. Did the Piltdown fossils fit the evolutionist’s preconceived notions of how a “Dawn man” should appear?

11. Is it true to say that the personal views of the evolutionists superseded the evidence in the case of the Piltdown fossils?