Forbidden Archeology_ The Full Unabridged Edition - Michael A. Cremo [361]
Regarding the two fluorine content tests by Oakley, we see that the first indicated both the skull and jaw were of the same age whereas the second indicated they were of different ages. It was stated that the second set of tests made use of new techniques—that happened to give a desired result. This sort of thing occurs quite often in paleoanthropology—researchers run and rerun tests, or refine their methods, until an acceptable result is achieved. Then they stop. In such cases, it seems the test is calibrated against a theoretical expectation.
Nitrogen content tests were also run on the Piltdown fossils. Examining the results, Weiner found that the skull bones contained 0.6–1.4 percent nitrogen while the jaw contained 3.9 percent and the dentine portion of some of the Piltdown teeth contained 4.2–5.1 percent. The test results therefore showed that the cranial fragments were of a different age than the jaw and teeth, demonstrating they were from different creatures. Modern bone contains about 4–5 percent nitrogen, and the content decreases with age. So it appeared the jaw and teeth were quite recent, while the skull was older (von Koenigswald 1956, p. 181; Weiner et al. 1953, p. 144).
By including for comparison in their report a nitrogen content of 0.7 percent for a Late Pleistocene bone from London, Weiner and his coauthors indicated the Piltdown skull fragments, with a similar nitrogen content, were probably also Late Pleistocene in age. However, as discussed in connection with the Galley Hill fossils in Chapter 6 and Appendix 1, the rate of nitrogen decay is subject to many variables. This greatly reduces the usefulness of comparing nitrogen contents of bones from different sites. In any case, the results of the nitrogen content test still allowed one to believe that the skull, at least, was native to the Piltdown gravels.
But finally even the skull came under suspicion. Weiner and his associates wrote in a lengthy report published by the British Museum: “As the fluorine and nitrogen content of the cranial bones were consistent with their being fairly ancient [1950 report], it seemed at first that the hoax had been based on a genuine discovery of portions of a skull in the gravel, and that animal remains and implements had been subsequently ‘planted’ to suggest that it was Pliocene or Early Pleistocene in age. As the investigations proceeded the skull too became suspect. Dr. G. F. Claringbull carried out an X-ray crystallographic analysis of these bones and found that their main mineral constituent, hydroxy-apatite, had been partly replaced by gypsum. Studies of the chemical conditions in the Piltdown sub-soil and ground-water showed that such an unusual alteration could not have taken place naturally in the Piltdown gravel. Dr. M. H. Hey then demonstrated that when sub-fossil bones are artificially iron-stained by soaking them in strong iron sulphate solutions this alteration does occur. Thus it is now clear that the cranial bones had been artificially stained to match the gravel, and ‘planted’ at the site with all the other finds” (Weiner et al. 1955, p. 257).
8.9 Was The Piltdown Skull Genuine?
Despite the evidence presented in the British Museum report, it can still be argued that the skull was originally from the Piltdown gravels. All of the skull pieces were darkly iron-stained throughout, while the jaw