On Piltdown: the possible roles of Teilhard de Chardin, Martin Hinton and Charles Dawson

Abstract

ABSTRACT Teilhard de Chardin (1881–1955) was a Jesuit priest, philosopher and palaeontologist. A number of his letters and publications are examined, including those written from Paris almost immediately after the announcement of the controversial “Piltdown Man” (Eoanthropus dawsoni) which included a human cranium and the jaw of an ape. The first cranial fragments were obtained by Charles Dawson (an amateur palaeontologist) in 1908. The hoax or joke was not exposed until 1953. Writing to his cousin Marguerite Teillard-Chambon during World War I, some time after facing questions about Piltdown, Teilhard expressed a troubled mind, associated with questions and “circumstances in which I was necessarily involved”. He refers to a theological solution, through use of the words “eminently sanctifiable” (sanctify can mean to purify or free from sin). Writing to his theological friend Edouard le Roy from China, he makes a brief comparison between Sinanthropus (Homo erectus) and “Piltdown Man”. His comments are discussed in the context of the possibility that he was aware that E. dawsoni was not a genuine hominid fossil. A scenario is given whereby Martin Hinton, a zoologist and palaeontologist based at the British Museum (Natural History) was one of the perpetrators, associated with a joke aimed initially at Smith Woodward who formally announced “Piltdown Man” on December 18, 1912. In terms of this scenario, Hinton approached Teilhard in London (some time after August 11, 1913) to assist in exposing the joke. The painted canine of an orangutan was discovered at Piltdown by Teilhard on 30 August 1913, but was found in an area that had already been searched. The canine was accepted as a hominid tooth by Smith Woodward, instead of being recognised as a joke. Thereafter Teilhard appears to have been reluctant to write or say very much about “Piltdown Man”. A review of certain documents lends support to the hypothesis that Hinton, Teilhard as well as Charles Dawson were involved. Statements from both Teilhard and Hinton claim to suggest that Dawson was innocent in the case of Piltdown, but Dawson was evidently implicated in many forgeries and cannot be excluded as a person who was partly responsible.