The Piltdown Hoax

The infamous event of the Piltdown hoax is one that continues to draw speculative attention over a century after the initial announcement of the paleoanthropological findings. Although many scientists, especially those involved in the field of paleoanthropology, would like to forget the incident entirely, the Piltdown man—taxonomically referred to as Eoanthropus dawsoni—is perhaps the greatest hoax in anthropological history. Since the exposure of the Piltdown discovery as a forgery in the mid-twentieth century, many accusations have been made against various individuals; however, the mystery still remains unsolved. Despite much of the research that seems to incriminate Charles Dawson, among others, the Piltdown hoax can be accredited solely

15). The orangutan mandible was necessary to the Piltdown skull as it offered the prognathic features of an ape, while the human skull provided the link to large modern human cranial size. Throughout the Piltdown affair, Martin Hinton, a zoologist and paleontologist, worked at the Natural History Museum. In 1910, Hinton was first employed as a volunteer, and then as a Deputy Keeper of Zoology, in 1927; before becoming the Keeper of Zoology in 1936—a position he occupied until 1945, upon retiring (Thackeray, 2011). The attainment of the mandible seemed unlikely when Hinton was merely a volunteer, but in 1912 Hinton started working in the Zoology Department, where he worked on collections of mammals (Gardiner, 2003). It is not clear whether Hinton had access to the orangutan mandible through this position; however, it is plausible that the Department of Zoology possessed primate remains, namely orangutans, and Hinton could have stolen the artifact. At this time, Hinton had access to these collections as well as the Piltdown site where he could have planted the mandible before Dawson and Smith Woodward made the discovery. Furthermore, it is important to note Hinton’s motive behind the hoax. In 1910, Hinton wrote to Smith Woodward asking for employment; Woodward replied suggesting the opportunity to produce the Rodent Catalogue. The subsequent year,

Hinton had discovered that this technique would allow the iron and manganese to stain the fossils better. The staining technique was crucial to the hoax, as it was needed to artificially match the gravels of a Pleistocene era (Gardiner, 2003). The one exception to Hinton’s staining technique was the orangutan mandible. According to Gee (1996), the orangutan mandible could not be etched with chromium acid because the jaw contained two teeth; etching the teeth would have been a clear indicator of forgery. Thus, Hinton stained the teeth differently than the other fossils, which resulted in a lighter stain (Gee, 1996). The use of the chromium acid as a precursor to the iron and manganese stain was Hinton’s signature technique. Therefore, this is what ultimately implicated him as the sole hoaxer as there were traces of chromium found among the fossils at