I'm told by my husband who knows the material better than me that the jaw was recent, and at most the cranium was a few hundred years old. The "cricket bat" was genuine fossil material but was re-worked with a steel knife. So te chances of a over-up of an actial fossil seems unlikely.
The problem was people getting carried away by enthusiasm, (also probably for the reason lil_shepherd gives)but an interesting point is why it took so long to uncover. I also agree with lil_shepherd that Dawson is still by far the most obvious culprit for the reason he quotes, but there is certainly some mileage in the idea that Teilhard de Chardin may have planted some material, maybe, in our view, to try and send a signal to Dawson that his trickery was known and a signal to him to back off. And the cricket bat was likewise an attempt to expose it by making the obvious nature of the fake plain. But it didn't work, Dawson died and others were still carried away with enthusiasm. Then for a long time, the academic world effectively ignored Piltdown and worked round it, until it was exposed.
But there's something about Piltdown and its fascination that just won't go away. My other half wants to go back and look again at the eoliths, because we mainly ignored them when we looked at the rest of the stuff. There is something odd about the fact that no more were found after Smith-Woodward got involved. Not sure what sort of odd, or even where we're going with this, but it is just a loose end he's had on his mind for a while.
As I said, Pildown still fascinates us as well. The main mystery may have been solved (probably) but there are still oddities buried in there as well which deserve more work.
We have at least two feet of shelf space taken up with Piltdown books!! All good fun, as is discussing it here :)
I've had an absolute fascination for the history of fakes in general wo a while now, and have amassed quite a lot of material on classic fakes etc, including the excellent British Museum Catalogue "Fakes" for their big exhibition a few years ago. Wonderful reading. I highly recommend it.
The problem was people getting carried away by enthusiasm, (also probably for the reason lil_shepherd gives)but an interesting point is why it took so long to uncover. I also agree with lil_shepherd that Dawson is still by far the most obvious culprit for the reason he quotes, but there is certainly some mileage in the idea that Teilhard de Chardin may have planted some material, maybe, in our view, to try and send a signal to Dawson that his trickery was known and a signal to him to back off. And the cricket bat was likewise an attempt to expose it by making the obvious nature of the fake plain. But it didn't work, Dawson died and others were still carried away with enthusiasm. Then for a long time, the academic world effectively ignored Piltdown and worked round it, until it was exposed.
But there's something about Piltdown and its fascination that just won't go away. My other half wants to go back and look again at the eoliths, because we mainly ignored them when we looked at the rest of the stuff. There is something odd about the fact that no more were found after Smith-Woodward got involved. Not sure what sort of odd, or even where we're going with this, but it is just a loose end he's had on his mind for a while.
As I said, Pildown still fascinates us as well. The main mystery may have been solved (probably) but there are still oddities buried in there as well which deserve more work.
We have at least two feet of shelf space taken up with Piltdown books!! All good fun, as is discussing it here :)
I've had an absolute fascination for the history of fakes in general wo a while now, and have amassed quite a lot of material on classic fakes etc, including the excellent British Museum Catalogue "Fakes" for their big exhibition a few years ago. Wonderful reading. I highly recommend it.
Reply
Leave a comment