- Email: [email protected]
The Piltdown inquest
799
BOOK REVIEWS
Lewontin, R. C. (1966) Adaptation and natural selection. Science 152, 338-339. Simpson, G. G. (1944) Tempo and Mode in Evolution. New York: Columbia University Press. Simpson, G. G. (1964) Organisms and molecules in evolution. Science 146, 1535-1538.
The Piltdown By
Charles
Blinderman
(1986).
Buffalo:
Inquest
Prometheus
Books.
x and
261
ISBN
pp.
O-87975-359-5. So many people have been accused fraud that it is now becoming are: Sigmund Thomas
Freud, Kaiser
Edison,
Sally
Durkheim,
Enrico
When
last heard
presumptuous Chardin
(Gould,
somebody useful-until
1980), book
Mary Pickford, John
Eugene
V. Debs,
and Madame
from,
the years of having perpetrated
the people
Bertrand
Russell,
who lose sleep over
Arthur
Conan
Doyle
A. C. Hinton (Matthews,
appears
to be to bring
ends up muddying
Gerald0 Rivera. This work emerges
Mata
the identity
had given us W. J. Sollas (Halstead, Sir
Here they
Philip Sousa, Albert Einstein, Hari,
Emile
the waters
of Piltdown’s
1979), Pierre Teilhard
(Winslow
& Meyer,
1983))
1981). Charles Blinderman’s
the world
up to date,
rationale
which
might
even further.
as one of the best written of the Piltdown
the work is clearly of use simply on that basis. Absent nevertheless
it’s time to call
books. The bibliography is the communication
et al. (1982), which used a collagen radioimmunoassay
of the Piltdown jaw and canine as orangutan. the cover
art is certainly
not Piltdown,
in the book:
like Pithecanthropus than
is given as “William”,
by
like
and it is stated that he
anything
else. The late Wilton
examined
the Piltdown remains in 19 13, when he would have been 10 years old. (Krogman
[1978]
Krogman
and
test to verify the origin
There is also some carelessness
and looks more
be
over the last decade of
Perhaps
a great number of primary sources, many of which I had not seen previously,
Lowenstein
de and
Thus, a book that might have
cleared up some of the muck which has accumulated
Eoanthropology
the Piltdown
Curie.
he serves up yet another name: Lewis Abbott.
constructively
contains
Rand,
named Martin
for the present
Wilhelm,
Caruso,
perpetrator
through
easier to list those that have never been accused.
says it was 1931. His name is given properly
Granted
in the bibliography.)
the mistake of Le Gros Clark’s first name is an easy one to make, but if one is
going to write a book documenting aspects of the history of anthropology, one is going to have to come to grips with the fact that his first name was WILFRID, NOT WILFRED!!! Blinderman
(p. 75) actually
spelling, given correctly
quotes W. W. Howells’
by Howells,
now two of the last three historical exception
is Bowler’s
(1986)
to “Wilfred”.
Mankind in the Making and alters the
This is a source offrustration,
insofar as
books I have reviewed for JHE have gotten it wrong: the
scholarly
Theories of Human Evolution.
My major problem with The P&down Inquest is that it hashes over old ground, and doesn’t do anything very analytical in terms of criticizing the actual scientific reasoning. Blinderman writes with presentist condescension about Keith, Woodward, and company. But what is lacking here-and in virtually all the Piltdown literature-is a discussion of the scientific fundamentals involved. How do we know when to associate two bones (Matthew, 1916)? Why should professional scientists be suspicious instead of grateful for the assistance of amateurs? How does a chimp mandible differ from an orang, and how did Gregory (1914) come to see the Piltdown mandible as orang-like, and Miller (1918) as
800
BOOK
REVIEWS
chimp-like? Why shouldn’t the concept of “mosaic evolution” permit the association primitive mandible and a derived skull? And most telling, what of the concept replication
in science:
doesn’t the acceptance
going on by the scientific Consider
the
paleontologist.
views
community of
II simply indicate
of
that what was
at large was just normal science?
Richard
In 1917, his opinions
of Piltdown
of a
Swann
Lull,
of Piltdown
a
leading
were recorded
American
vertebrate
as follows:
While the skull is ofcomparatively high human type, the associatedjaw and canine tooth clearly are not and some difficulty was met in explaining their evolutionary discrepancy. That has apparently been answered, however, by the conclusion that the association of the material is purely accidental and that the jaw not only does not belong with the skull but that it is not even human but is that of a fossil chimpanzee (Lull, 1917, p. 681). He was accepting
the conclusions
later lulled by Piltdown
of Gerrit
Miller.
Like many others,
however,
Lull was
II:
The matter has, however, been settled beyond question by the finding of a second specimen of the P&down man some two miles distant, consisting of diagnostic cranial fragments associated again with a lower molar of precisely similar character to those in the first jaw, a happening which could hardly occur, according to the law of probabilities, in both of the only known instances if the jaw and skull were not those of the same form (Lull, 1922, p. 21-22). The fact remains
that fraud is a rarity in science
one of the early options exercised possibilities
by skeptics.
have been fully considered.
Rather
Replication
(contra Blinderman,
p. 237), and is not
it is what’s left over after all the other is what is supposed to act as insurance
against fraud. That makes it long and hard to uncover fraud, but easier to do science, and it ensures that judgmental
or interpretive
scandalous
Piltdown
accusations.
am not an advocate explaining evil-doers
because
career in rash and
it is the exception,
not the rule. I
one’s head in the sand, but the task of describing
the world falls to scientists,
and it is challenging
enough; the task offerreting
and out
is best left to Batman.
The case against Hinton,
of burying
errors will not end a promising
is interesting
Teilhard,
Lewis Abbott Dawson,
does not seem to be better or worse than that against
Conan
matter. The same sorts of innuendoes, hazy semi-recollections
continue
Doyle,
Elliot
circumstantial
Smith,
or Charlie
“evidence”,
Chaplin,
rhetorical
for that
questions,
and
to take the place of data. One noteworthy overstatement which reads “ ‘Piltdown Man Was Made In My Shop’:
involves a chapter subheading Confessions”. However, the “confession”
turns out to be Abbott’s
statement
that he is the
one who first told Dawson that what Dawson thought was an “eolith” was actually the first fragment of the Piltdown skull. What the statement says is “Piltdown Man was discoveredin my shop” (emphasis added). At any rate, I suppose we shall have a while to wait before a book on Piltdown as normal book ends on a positive note: “The science of human science appears. Blinderman’s evolution is still imperfect, but getting better all the time, which is more than we can say about a lot of things” (p. 242). I d on’t anticipate this book will add much to the scientific literature, and on the popular side it probably won’t change anyone’s opinion of the intelligence or integrity of scientists generally or of anthropologists specifically. Blinderman includes a few poems about Piltdown Person, and in the interest of thoroughness I will conclude this review with some obscure misanthropic lines from Earnest
Hooton
(1961)
not quoted in The Piltdown Inquest:
BOOK
801
REVIEWS
Dame of the Dawn with noble brow And teeth that God would not allow To any creature He calls man, Where did you get that apelike pan? What sort of canine-slashing rows Did you stir up with your tough spouse Who dumped you in the River Ouse? Cohabitating in noisome fens Did you breed Homo sapiens? Was it the issue of your travail That put you in the Piltdown gravel? You ought to have retained your virtue; I hope that your deflowering hurt you. JON
MARKS
Departments oJAnthropology and Biology, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520, U.S.A.
References Bowler, P. J, (1986) ?‘heories oj’Human Euolution. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins. Gould, S. J. (1980) The P&down conspiracy. Nat. Hist. 89,8-28. Gregory, W. K. (1914) The dawn man of Piltdown, England. Am. Mus. J., 14, 188-200. Hooton, E. A. (1961) Subverse. Paris: Finisterre. Krogman, W. M. (1978) The planned planting of Piltdown: Who? Why? In (S. L. Washburn & E. R. McCown, Eds) Human Evolution: Biosocial Perspectives, pp. 239-254. Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin/Cummings. Lowenstein, J. M., Molleson, T. & Washburn, S. L. (1982) Piltdown jaw confirmed as orang. Nature 299, 294. Lull, R. S. (1917) &panic Evolution. New York: Macmillan. Lull, R. S. (1922) The antiquity ofman. In (G. A. Baitsell, Ed.) The Edution ojMan, pp. l-38. New Haven: Yale University Press. Matthew, W. D. (1916) Note on the association of the Piltdown skull and jaw. Bull. iim. Mus. nut. Hid. 35, 348-350. Matthews, L. H. (1981) Piltdown man: the missing links. Ne~v Scientist,90, 280-282, 376,450,515-516,57&579, 647-648, 710-711, 785,861-862; 91,2&28. Miller, G. S. (1918) The jaw of the Piltdown man. Am. J. phys. Anthrop. 1, 25-52. Winslow, J. H. & Meyer, A. (1983) The perpetrator at Piltdown. Science 83 (4), 32-43.
BOOK REVIEWS
Lewontin, R. C. (1966) Adaptation and natural selection. Science 152, 338-339. Simpson, G. G. (1944) Tempo and Mode in Evolution. New York: Columbia University Press. Simpson, G. G. (1964) Organisms and molecules in evolution. Science 146, 1535-1538.
The Piltdown By
Charles
Blinderman
(1986).
Buffalo:
Inquest
Prometheus
Books.
x and
261
ISBN
pp.
O-87975-359-5. So many people have been accused fraud that it is now becoming are: Sigmund Thomas
Freud, Kaiser
Edison,
Sally
Durkheim,
Enrico
When
last heard
presumptuous Chardin
(Gould,
somebody useful-until
1980), book
Mary Pickford, John
Eugene
V. Debs,
and Madame
from,
the years of having perpetrated
the people
Bertrand
Russell,
who lose sleep over
Arthur
Conan
Doyle
A. C. Hinton (Matthews,
appears
to be to bring
ends up muddying
Gerald0 Rivera. This work emerges
Mata
the identity
had given us W. J. Sollas (Halstead, Sir
Here they
Philip Sousa, Albert Einstein, Hari,
Emile
the waters
of Piltdown’s
1979), Pierre Teilhard
(Winslow
& Meyer,
1983))
1981). Charles Blinderman’s
the world
up to date,
rationale
which
might
even further.
as one of the best written of the Piltdown
the work is clearly of use simply on that basis. Absent nevertheless
it’s time to call
books. The bibliography is the communication
et al. (1982), which used a collagen radioimmunoassay
of the Piltdown jaw and canine as orangutan. the cover
art is certainly
not Piltdown,
in the book:
like Pithecanthropus than
is given as “William”,
by
like
and it is stated that he
anything
else. The late Wilton
examined
the Piltdown remains in 19 13, when he would have been 10 years old. (Krogman
[1978]
Krogman
and
test to verify the origin
There is also some carelessness
and looks more
be
over the last decade of
Perhaps
a great number of primary sources, many of which I had not seen previously,
Lowenstein
de and
Thus, a book that might have
cleared up some of the muck which has accumulated
Eoanthropology
the Piltdown
Curie.
he serves up yet another name: Lewis Abbott.
constructively
contains
Rand,
named Martin
for the present
Wilhelm,
Caruso,
perpetrator
through
easier to list those that have never been accused.
says it was 1931. His name is given properly
Granted
in the bibliography.)
the mistake of Le Gros Clark’s first name is an easy one to make, but if one is
going to write a book documenting aspects of the history of anthropology, one is going to have to come to grips with the fact that his first name was WILFRID, NOT WILFRED!!! Blinderman
(p. 75) actually
spelling, given correctly
quotes W. W. Howells’
by Howells,
now two of the last three historical exception
is Bowler’s
(1986)
to “Wilfred”.
Mankind in the Making and alters the
This is a source offrustration,
insofar as
books I have reviewed for JHE have gotten it wrong: the
scholarly
Theories of Human Evolution.
My major problem with The P&down Inquest is that it hashes over old ground, and doesn’t do anything very analytical in terms of criticizing the actual scientific reasoning. Blinderman writes with presentist condescension about Keith, Woodward, and company. But what is lacking here-and in virtually all the Piltdown literature-is a discussion of the scientific fundamentals involved. How do we know when to associate two bones (Matthew, 1916)? Why should professional scientists be suspicious instead of grateful for the assistance of amateurs? How does a chimp mandible differ from an orang, and how did Gregory (1914) come to see the Piltdown mandible as orang-like, and Miller (1918) as
800
BOOK
REVIEWS
chimp-like? Why shouldn’t the concept of “mosaic evolution” permit the association primitive mandible and a derived skull? And most telling, what of the concept replication
in science:
doesn’t the acceptance
going on by the scientific Consider
the
paleontologist.
views
community of
II simply indicate
of
that what was
at large was just normal science?
Richard
In 1917, his opinions
of Piltdown
of a
Swann
Lull,
of Piltdown
a
leading
were recorded
American
vertebrate
as follows:
While the skull is ofcomparatively high human type, the associatedjaw and canine tooth clearly are not and some difficulty was met in explaining their evolutionary discrepancy. That has apparently been answered, however, by the conclusion that the association of the material is purely accidental and that the jaw not only does not belong with the skull but that it is not even human but is that of a fossil chimpanzee (Lull, 1917, p. 681). He was accepting
the conclusions
later lulled by Piltdown
of Gerrit
Miller.
Like many others,
however,
Lull was
II:
The matter has, however, been settled beyond question by the finding of a second specimen of the P&down man some two miles distant, consisting of diagnostic cranial fragments associated again with a lower molar of precisely similar character to those in the first jaw, a happening which could hardly occur, according to the law of probabilities, in both of the only known instances if the jaw and skull were not those of the same form (Lull, 1922, p. 21-22). The fact remains
that fraud is a rarity in science
one of the early options exercised possibilities
by skeptics.
have been fully considered.
Rather
Replication
(contra Blinderman,
p. 237), and is not
it is what’s left over after all the other is what is supposed to act as insurance
against fraud. That makes it long and hard to uncover fraud, but easier to do science, and it ensures that judgmental
or interpretive
scandalous
Piltdown
accusations.
am not an advocate explaining evil-doers
because
career in rash and
it is the exception,
not the rule. I
one’s head in the sand, but the task of describing
the world falls to scientists,
and it is challenging
enough; the task offerreting
and out
is best left to Batman.
The case against Hinton,
of burying
errors will not end a promising
is interesting
Teilhard,
Lewis Abbott Dawson,
does not seem to be better or worse than that against
Conan
matter. The same sorts of innuendoes, hazy semi-recollections
continue
Doyle,
Elliot
circumstantial
Smith,
or Charlie
“evidence”,
Chaplin,
rhetorical
for that
questions,
and
to take the place of data. One noteworthy overstatement which reads “ ‘Piltdown Man Was Made In My Shop’:
involves a chapter subheading Confessions”. However, the “confession”
turns out to be Abbott’s
statement
that he is the
one who first told Dawson that what Dawson thought was an “eolith” was actually the first fragment of the Piltdown skull. What the statement says is “Piltdown Man was discoveredin my shop” (emphasis added). At any rate, I suppose we shall have a while to wait before a book on Piltdown as normal book ends on a positive note: “The science of human science appears. Blinderman’s evolution is still imperfect, but getting better all the time, which is more than we can say about a lot of things” (p. 242). I d on’t anticipate this book will add much to the scientific literature, and on the popular side it probably won’t change anyone’s opinion of the intelligence or integrity of scientists generally or of anthropologists specifically. Blinderman includes a few poems about Piltdown Person, and in the interest of thoroughness I will conclude this review with some obscure misanthropic lines from Earnest
Hooton
(1961)
not quoted in The Piltdown Inquest:
BOOK
801
REVIEWS
Dame of the Dawn with noble brow And teeth that God would not allow To any creature He calls man, Where did you get that apelike pan? What sort of canine-slashing rows Did you stir up with your tough spouse Who dumped you in the River Ouse? Cohabitating in noisome fens Did you breed Homo sapiens? Was it the issue of your travail That put you in the Piltdown gravel? You ought to have retained your virtue; I hope that your deflowering hurt you. JON
MARKS
Departments oJAnthropology and Biology, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520, U.S.A.
References Bowler, P. J, (1986) ?‘heories oj’Human Euolution. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins. Gould, S. J. (1980) The P&down conspiracy. Nat. Hist. 89,8-28. Gregory, W. K. (1914) The dawn man of Piltdown, England. Am. Mus. J., 14, 188-200. Hooton, E. A. (1961) Subverse. Paris: Finisterre. Krogman, W. M. (1978) The planned planting of Piltdown: Who? Why? In (S. L. Washburn & E. R. McCown, Eds) Human Evolution: Biosocial Perspectives, pp. 239-254. Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin/Cummings. Lowenstein, J. M., Molleson, T. & Washburn, S. L. (1982) Piltdown jaw confirmed as orang. Nature 299, 294. Lull, R. S. (1917) &panic Evolution. New York: Macmillan. Lull, R. S. (1922) The antiquity ofman. In (G. A. Baitsell, Ed.) The Edution ojMan, pp. l-38. New Haven: Yale University Press. Matthew, W. D. (1916) Note on the association of the Piltdown skull and jaw. Bull. iim. Mus. nut. Hid. 35, 348-350. Matthews, L. H. (1981) Piltdown man: the missing links. Ne~v Scientist,90, 280-282, 376,450,515-516,57&579, 647-648, 710-711, 785,861-862; 91,2&28. Miller, G. S. (1918) The jaw of the Piltdown man. Am. J. phys. Anthrop. 1, 25-52. Winslow, J. H. & Meyer, A. (1983) The perpetrator at Piltdown. Science 83 (4), 32-43.