The Piltdown jaw
1918; Wiley; Volume: 1; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1002/ajpa.1330010103
ISSN1096-8644
Autores Tópico(s)Pleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology
ResumoAmerican Journal of Physical AnthropologyVolume 1, Issue 1 p. 25-52 Article The Piltdown jaw Gerrit S. Miller Jr., Gerrit S. Miller Jr.Search for more papers by this author Gerrit S. Miller Jr., Gerrit S. Miller Jr.Search for more papers by this author First published: January/March 1918 https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.1330010103Citations: 21AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Bibliography Anomymous. [Notice of recent publications on the Piltdown skull]. Nature, vol. 97, pp. 309–310. Junè 8, 1916. Concludes: “We are of the opinion that all three specimens [skull, jaw, canine] are … parts of one individual or at least of individuals of one species.” “If mankind has been evolved from an anthropoid stock the occurrence of a combination of human and anthropoid characteristics in earlier or dawn human forms, such as occur in Eoanthropus, is just what we ought to find” (p. 310). Avebury, Lord, Prehistoric Times, 7th ed., pp. 1–623, text figs. 1–283. New York and London, 1913. Piltdown man, p. 337. “The lower jaw, if found by itself, would certainly have been referred to an anthropoid ape …” Barrell, Joseph, Probable relations of climatic change to the origin of the tertiary ape-man. The Scientific Monthly, vol. 4, pp. 16–26. January, 1917. “Most unexpectedly, however, a jaw of a chimpanzee has been unearthed from the Pleistocene of England in association with the Piltdown human cranium, Homo dawsoni … The careful anatomical study by Miller seems to show that the remains of a chimpanzee had accidentally become mixed in the same deposit with the remains of man” (p. 21). Boule, M. Studies on the evolution of Primates. l'Anthropologie, vol. 28, pp. 157–159. April, 1917. Review of Gregory, June 16, 1916. Eoanthropus, p. 158. The jaw is that of a chimpanzee. “Quelques paragraphes sont consacrés à la mâchoire de Piltdown, qui est celle d'un Chimpanzé auqel le mammalogiste américain Miller a donné le nom de Pan vetus. Dans un appendice, l'auteur veut bien rappeler que j'ai, de mon côté, insisté, dès le début, sur la ressemblance étroite de toutes les parties de la mandibule de l'Eoanthropus et de la mandibule d'un Chimpanzé, au point que je suggérais pour cette mâchoire le nom de Troglodytes dawsoni (Pan est le nouveau nom de genre adopté par les Américains, sans aucune raison sérieuse, pour le genre Chimpanzé).” Professor Boule intimates that he proposed for this animal a name which would antedate Pan vetus. In the passage to which he alludes (l'Anthropologie, vol. 26, p. 60, April, 1915) he merely says that if the mandible had been found alone it would certainly have been called Troglodytes dawsoni— “ … si cette mandibule avait été trouvée seule … on n'eût pas manqué de l'appeler Troglodytes dawsoni …” —a remark which cannot be regarded either as establishing a new specific name for the mandible or as restricting the dawsoni of Smith Woodward to the jaw. Boule, M. The Jaw of Piltdown Man. l'Anthropol gie, vol. 28, pp. 433–435, October, 1917. Review of Miller, 1915. Accepts conclusion that the jaw is that of a chimpanzee. Dawkins, Boyd, The antiquity of man and the dawn of art in Europe. Edinburgh Review, vol. 224, pp. 80–98. July, 1916. Account of Eoanthropus p. 91, chiefly from Woodward, Guide to the remains of fossil man in the British Museum. Dixon, A. F. Note on the fragment of the lower jaw from Piltdown, Sussex. Nature, vol. 99, p. 399. July 12, 1917. (Abstract of paper read before Royal Dublin Society, June 26, 1917.) “The author believes that it is possible to reconstruct the lower jaw on more distinctly human lines than has been proposed hitherto. It does not seem necessary to assume that there was complete absence of chin, or that the Piltdown man belonged to a genus different from modern man, or that he may not have represented an early race of Homo sapiens from which modern man has been derived.” Giuffrida-Rurggeri, V. l'uomo attuale una specie colletiva, pp. I–VIII. 1–192, pls. 1–13, text figs. 1–3. Milano-Roma-Napoli, 1913. Eoanthropus, pp. 120–121. Quotes published opinions, but avoids adding anything new to the discussion. Giuffrida-Rurggeri, V. La successione e la provenienza delle razze Europee preneolitiche ei pretesi Cro-Magnon delle Canarie. Revista Ital. di Paleont., vol. 22 (1916), pp. 59–67. March 28, 1917. Primarily a review of Osborn, 1916. Eoanthropus, pp. 59–61. Difficult to reconcile the characters of the jaw and skull. “Le riserve sulla posizione antropologica di Piltdown sono molto giuste, ed a me sono sempre apparse tanto più giustificate quanto più era visibile lo sforzo—e direi la virtuosità anatomica—di conciliare la scatola cranica di 'Homo evoluto' e la mandibola scimmiesca (trovata a qualche distanza), nonchè il canino” (p. 61). Gregory, William K., Studies on the evolution of the Primates, parts 1 and 2. Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., vol. 35, pp. 239–355. June 16, 1916. Pan vetus, pp. 313–320. “I consider that Mr. Gerrit S. Miller has practically demonstrated that the Piltdown lower jaw represents a Pleistocene species of chimpanzee and that it did not belong with the associated braincase” (pp. 315–316). Gregory, William K., Note on the molar teeth of the Piltdown mandible. Amer. Anthrop., n. s. vol. 18, pp. 384–387, fig. 47. July-September, 1916. “I recognize that … Mr. Miller's illustrations furnish a demonstration of the generic identity of the Piltdown jaw and the chimpanzee jaws there figured” (p. 384). See Pycraft, 1917. Hooton, E. A. The evolution of the human face and its relation to head form. Dental Cosmos, vol. 58, pp. 272–281. March, 1916. Piltdown skull, pp. 277–278, accepted as “… an entirely human braincase … and paradoxically enough associated with it a long, narrow and very simian jaw.” Hopson, Montagu F., Discussion [of paper by Lyne]. Proc. Roy. Soc. Medicine, London, vol. 9, Odont., pp. 58–60. February, 1916. Degree of wear in Piltdown canine sometimes found in milk teeth. See Underwood. Hrdlička, Aleš., The most ancient skeletal remains of man, 2d edition, pp. 1–63, pls. 41, text figs. 12. May 13, 1916. Piltdown man, pp. 13–20. “The writer's feeling is that none of the conclusions regarding the Piltdown find should as yet be accepted as final; they all need corroboration and further elucidation, which can only be furnished in the course of time by additional finds … Until then all hypotheses relating to ‘Eoanthropus’ and the term itself must be regarded as more or less premature” (p. 20). Johnston, H. H. [Review of Osborn's Men of the Old Stone Age]. The Geographical Journal, vol. 48, pp. 349–350. October, 1916. Remarks that the author “… seems … to be a little perverse in quoting the absurd suggestion … that the Piltdown jaw and teeth do not belong to the Piltdown calvarium … This quotation from Mr. Miller is the only weak point in the work under review.” Keith, Arthur, Present problems relating to the origin of modern races. The Lancet, 1913, vol. 2, pp. 1050–1053. October 11, 1913. Piltdown skull, pp. 1052–1053. Keith, Arthur, Discussion [of paper by Lyne]. Proc. Roy. Soc. Medicine, London, vol. 9, Odont., pp. 52–55. February, 1916. Canine tooth belongs with the skull and jaw. It is a right lower canine, “although there is now a school in America which places it as an upper canine tooth on grounds which I do not understand.” Admits that the wear is unlike that in any lower canine which he has seen, but regards the peculiarities as due to the position the tooth must have occupied in a jaw half way between that of ape and man. Keith, Arthur, Lo schema dell'origine umana. Revista di Antropologia, vol. 20, No. 17, pp. 1–20, figs. 1–5. October, 1916. Piltdown man, pp. 17–18. If the Piltdown type represents a distinct genus, equal rank should be assigned to the Neanderthal type and to modern man. For the present it is safer to speak of types than of genera. Keith, Arthur, Men of the Old Stone Age [review of Osborn]. Man, vol. 17, pp. 82–85. May, 1917. Eoanthropus, pp. 84–85. “We must expect, if evolution be true, to find forms in which ape and human characters are reproduced in various combinations” (p. 84). The teeth are “as unlike chimpanzee teeth as teeth can well be” (p. 85). Lankester, Ray, The missing link. Diversions of a naturalist, chapter 30 (pp. 275–291), figs. 24–30 (mostly after Woodward) Preface dated June 16, 1915. (Previously published in London Telegraph.) “The Piltdown jaw is the most startling and significant fossil bone that has ever been brought to light … because this jaw and the incomplete skull found with it really and in simple fact furnish a link—a form intermediate between the man and the ape” (p. 284). Lyne, W. Courtney, The significance of the radiographs of the Piltdown teeth. Proc. Roy. Soc. Medicine, London, vol. 9, Odont., pp. 33–51, 60–61, figs. 1–7. February, 1916. The pulp cavities show that the canine and the molars belonged to individuals differing greatly in age. The skull and jaw were parts of one individual but the canine is the lower milk tooth of an unknown “humanoid anthropoid.” “If you look at the skiagram of the mandible you will find that the bony trabeculæ are a much nearer approach to the Krapina man than those of the chimpanzee. In my opinion, the points which have shown Simian tendencies in this mandible have been magnified to the utmost possible extent and the points which were typically human have only been brought in sufficiently to correlate, apparently, this mandible with the cranium.” MacCurdy, George Grant, The man of Piltdown. Amer. Anthrop., n. s. vol. 16, pp. 331–336, pl. XXX, text figs. 110–111. June, 1914 (Illustrations copied from Dawson and Woodward). Review of subject to date. MacCurdy, George Grant, The revision of Eoanthropus dawsoni. Science, n. s. vol. 43, pp. 228–231. February 18, 1916. Review of subject to date. “During the month of December, 1915, the writer … examined the material on which Miller bases his conclusions, conclusions from which it would seem impossible for any one to escape who approaches the question with an open mind.” Matthew, W. D. Recent progress in vertebrate paleontology. Science, n. s. vol. 43, pp. 103–110 (with Eastman, C. R. and Gregory, W. K.). January 21, 1916. Piltdown skull, pp. 107–108. “In the present reviewer's opinion Dr. Miller's argument is convincing and irrefutable; the jaw belonged to a chimpanzee and the skull to a species of man comparable to that represented by the Heidelberg jaw.” Matthew, W. D. Note on the association of the Piltdown skull and jaw. Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., vol. 35, pp. 348–350. June 16, 1916. “But the argument from association is quite too slight to outweigh any … contrary evidence and certainly not adequate to base on it the erection of a new type of primate combining characters hitherto found dissociated in distinct generic types” (p. 350). See Smith, May 25, 1916. Miller, Gerrit S., Jr., The Jaw of the Piltdown man. Smithsonian Miscell. Coll., vol. 65, No. 12, pp. 1–31, pls. 1–5. November 24, 1915. Mitchell, P. Chalmers, An application of the rules of zoological nomenclature. Nature, vol. 96, p. 480. December 30, 1915. “Thus if his [Miller's] opinion be sustained, the very famous Piltdown jaw, discovered by Mr. Dawson, made known to science by Mr. Dawson and Dr. A. Smith Woodward and lodged in the British Museum, will have to be cited as the type of Pan vetus, Gerrit S. Miller.” Moir, J. Reid, Pre-Palæolithic Man in England. Science Progress, vol. 12, pp. 465–474, January, 1918. Piltdown individual, pp. 470–474. “Thus we find in this unique fossil a combination of human [cranial] and simian [mandibular] characters, such as have been looked for by evolutionists ever since Darwin first enunciated his famous theory regarding the ancestry of modern man” (p. 470). Age of the deposit probably Pliocene. Character of the associated flint implements could have been predicted from an inspection of Dr. Woodward's reconstruction of the Piltdown skull and jaw (p. 472). Nuttall, T. E., The Piltdown Skull. Man, vol. 17, pp. 80–82. May, 1917. Deals with the reconstructions of the skull. “Professor Keith's estimate [of cranial capacity] is, I feel certain, much nearer the truth than either of Dr. Smith Woodward's” (p. 81). Obermaier, Hugo, El hombre fosil. (Comisión de investigaciones paleontológicas y prehistoricas, Mem. No. 9), Madrid, 1916, pp. I–VII, 1–397, pls. 19, text figs. 122. Preface dated January, 1916. Piltdown man, pp. 273–274, 297–299. Accepts Smith Woodward's views, but with evident doubt. “En vista de la novedad y importancia de las consecuencias que puede tener este hallazgo sería de gran interes el saber si la mandíbula y el canino pertenecen realmente a los restos del cráneo, pues de esta suposición depende la vitabilidad de esta nueva especie ‘Eoanthropus’ …” Osborn, Henry Fairfield, Men of the Old Stone Age, pp. I–XXVI, 1–545, pls. 8, text figs. 268. November, 1915. Eoanthropus, pp. 130–144. Accepts association of jaw with skull, but regards the canine as the left upper tooth. Osborn, Henry Fairfield, Review of the Pleistocene of Europe, Asia and northern Africa. Ann. New York Acad. Sci., vol. 26, pp. 215–315. July 31, 1915. Eoanthropus, pp. 286–287. “The placing of the skull and jaws together as belonging to one individual is not certain but is highly probable … the superior canine tooth (mistaken by the authors for an inferior canine) resembles that of the anthropoid ape.” Osborn, Henry Fairfield, Men of the Old Stone Age, 2d edition. February, 1916. In note X (p. 512) accepts the reference of the jaw to a member of the genus Pan. Pycraft, W. P. Britain's oldest inhabitant. Illustrated London News, vol. 142, pp. 678–679, 7 text figures. May 17, 1913. The author asserts that “… sometimes a whole skeleton can be reconstructed from a single bone,” and also that “… the mastoid process and the … articular surface for the lower jaw … are absolutely different in man and the apes” (p. 678). Pycraft, W. P. Discussion [of paper by Lyne]. Proc. Roy. Soc. Medicine, vol. 9, Odont., p. 58. February, 1916. The Piltdown canine should be compared with the corresponding [lower] tooth of Torres Strait Islanders, Australians, or Tasmanians. Pycraft, W. P. The jaw of the Piltdown man: a reply to Mr. Gerrit S. Miller. Science Progress, vol. 11, pp. 389–409, figs. 1–4. January, 1917. “A very brief study of his [Miller's] arguments will show … that they are based on assumptions such as would never have been made had he not committed the initial mistake of overlooking the fact that these remains—which, by the way, he has never seen—are of extreme antiquity and hence are to be measured by the standards of the paleontologist rather than of the anthropologist. This unfortunate lack of the right perspective has caused him to overlook some of the most significant features of these remains and has absolutely warped his judgment in regard to the relative values of the likenesses between these fragments and the skulls of the chimpanzee which he has so woefully misread” (pp. 390–391). “It will be obvious, to those who will take the trouble to analyse the evidence wherewith he supports his arguments, that he has endeavored, throughout, to confirm a preconceived theory; a course of action which has unfortunately warped his judgment and sense of proportion” (pp. 408–409). “The likeness which seems to obtain between the form of the coronoid process and the sigmoid notch in the Piltdown skull and that of the two chimpanzees which he figures in his memoir … is so close that I venture to suspect that it is largely due to that process of “mutilation” to which he tells us he has submitted these jaws in order that they may be made comparable with the Piltdown jaw” (p. 394). See Gregory, July-September, 1916. Rutot, A. Quelques découvertes récentes relatives aux races humaines primitives. Bull. Soc. Belge Geol., Proc.-Verb., vol. 27, pp. 5–6. 1913. Regards the Piltdown man as the maker of the eoliths. “La découverte du Sussex a, comme on le voit, une importance capitale, car c'est bien l'Homme tertiaire (Pliocène), à industrie éolithique, qui est enfin parvenu à notre connaissance.” Schuchert, Charles, A text-book of Geology, by Louis V. Pirsson and Charles Schuchert. Part 2, Historical Geology. 1915. Eoanthropus, pp. 965–969, pls. 39–40. Accepts association of jaw with skull (account drawn principally from Sollas, 1915). Sera, G. L. Un preteso Hominida miocenico: Sivapithecus indicus. Natura, vol. 8, pp. 149–173. 1917. Eoanthropus, pp. 170–171. Accepts association of jaw with skull. The teeth, on account of their height, would perhaps be better compared with those of a primitive Dryopithecus than with those of a chimpanzee. Sergi, G. La mandibola umana. Revista di Antropologia, Roma, vol. 19, pp. 119–168, numerous text figs. 1914. Piltdown mandible, pp. 166–167. Accepts association of jaw with skull and regards structure of symphysis as peculiar. “Ma soltanto ad osservare il residuo del margine prossimo alla sinfisi e le curve verso l'esterno e l'interno, noi crediamo che questa mandibola sia differente da quelle altre o fossili o recenti, equindi sia giustificata la denominazione dell'uomo cui apparteneva, di Eoanthropus dawsoni …” Smith, G. Elliot, Man of the dawn Sydney Morning Herald, July 3, 1914, p. 9. “… if that [Piltdown] jaw had been found without any teeth, or if it had been found separate from the skull, no one would have hesitated to call it an ape's jaw.” See Smith, 1917. Smith, G. Elliot, Discussion [of a paper by Lyne]. Proc. Roy. Soc. Medicine, London, vol. 9, Odont., pp. 56–58. February, 1916. “To bring a hitherto unknown ape into England in the Pleistocene period involves an upheaval of paleontological teaching.” Smith, G. Elliot, New phases of the controversies concerning the Piltdown skull, Proc. Manchester Lit. and Philos. Soc., vol. 60, pp. XXVIII–XXIX. May 25, 1916. “In considering the possibility that more than one hitherto unknown ape-like man or man-like ape expired in Britain side by side in the Pleistocene period and left complementary parts the one of the other, the element of improbability is so enormous as not to be set aside except for the most definite and positive anatomical reasons. The author … emphasized the fact that the skull itself revealed certain features of a more primitive nature than any other known representative of the human family” (p. XXIX). See Matthew, June 16, 1916. Smith, G. Elliot, “Men of the Old Stone Age.” Amer. Mus. Journ., vol. 16, pp. 319–325. May, 1916. Review of Osborn. Piltdown skull, pp. 321–322. “But the acceptance of the view that the jaw is an ape's and the cranium a man's would involve the supposition that a hitherto unknown and extremely primitive apelike man and an equally unknown manlike ape, died on the same spot; and that one of them left his skull without the jaw and the other his jaw without the skull. Not only so, but it would involve also the admission that an anthropoid ape was living in England in middle Pleistocene times …” See Wright, August, 1916. Smith, G. Elliot, The cranial cast of the Piltdown skull. Man, vol. 16, pp. 131–132. September, 1916. Reply to criticisms by Symington and Wright. Smith, G. Elliot, The problem of the Piltdown jaw: human or sub-human? Eugenics Review, vol. 9, p. 167. July, 1917. Review of Pycraft, 1917. “By means of the large collections of data relating to details of the anatomy of the teeth and jaws of chimpanzees and men he has proved quite conclusively that the Piltdown jaw … belonged to a primitive member of the human family …” See Smith, July 3, 1914. Spurrell, H. G. F. Modern man and his forerunners, pp. I–XXII, 1–192, pls. 1–5, text fig. 1. London, 1917. Piltdown man, p. 44 and pl. 5. “The Piltdown man, though by far the most ape-like of human remains yet found, has much in common with modern man … while he certainly has no place in the direct line of Neanderthal man's descent.” Symington, J. On the relations of the inner surface of the cranium to the cranial aspect of the brain. Edinburgh Medical Journal, vol. 14, pp. 85–100, figs. 1–21, February, 1915. Piltdown skull, pp. 92, 99–100. “It is unfortunate that the facts they [endocranial casts of prehistoric skulls] reveal are so few in number and so lacking in precision, but it is surely better to admit frankly the limitations of our knowledge than to reconstruct primitive brains on such slender data” (p. 100). Symington, J. Endocranial casts and brain form: a criticism of some recent speculations. Journ. Anal and Physiol., vol. 50, pp. 111–130. January, 1916. Eoanthropus, pp. 122–129. Concludes: “That the various deductions made by … Elliot Smith and others with reference to the primitive and simian features of the brains of certain prehistoric men, from an examination of their endocranial casts, are highly speculative and fallacious” (p. 130). Thacker, A. G. [Notice of Miller, 1915]. Science Progress, vol. 10, p. 648. April, 1916. “The case for the dissociation … could hardly be better stated … and nobody can reasonably deny that some doubt exists.” Tomes, Charles S., A Manual of Dental Anatomy, ed. 7, pp. I–VI, 1–616, figs. 1–300. 1914. Eoanthropus, pp. 586–588. “There is doubt whether it is justifiable to create a new genus for this man … hence … the name should be rather Homo piltdownensis” (p. 586). “The contour of the front of the mandible is exactly that of a young chimpanzee. The [molar] teeth, however, are quite human.” (p. 586) Underwood, Arthur, Discussion [of a paper by Lyne]. Proc. Roy. Soc. Medicine, London, vol. 9, Odont., pp. 55–56. Canine tooth too much worn to be a milk tooth. It has suffered “huge removal of tissue by the wear of the upper canine.” (See Hopson.) Waterman, T. T. Evolution of the chin. Amer. Nat., vol. 50, pp. 237–242 figs. 1–7. April, 1916. Eoanthropus, fig. 3. Regards formation of chin as the result of dental retraction. Winchell, Newton Horace, The antiquity of man in America as compared with Europe. Bull. Minnesota Acad. Sci., vol. 5, pp. 121–151, figs. 1–20. May, 1917. Piltdown skull, pp. 126–127. “In all respects, so far as the specimens can be interpreted, the Piltdown man and the Heidelberg man are nearly allied, almost identical” (p. 126). Wissler, Clark, “Men of the Old Stone Age” — A review of Osborn. Amer. Mus. Journ., vol. 16, pp. 13–21. February, 1916. Piltdown type, p. 15. “Had this discovery [that the jaw represents a chimpanzee] been available at the time of writing our author could have made his case stronger” [that the Piltdown fossils are late (not early) Pleistocene]. Woodward, Arthur Smith, On the lower jaw of an anthropoid ape (Dryopithecus) from the upper Miocene of Lérida (Spain). Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. London, vol. 70, pp. 316–320, pl. 44, text figs. 1–2 December, 1914. Figure 1 (cross sections of symphysis) shows the resemblance of the Piltdown jaw to that of recent Pan and its striking difference from that of Gorilla and Homo heidelbergensis. Woodward, Arthur Smith, Discussion [of a paper by Lyne]. Proc. Roy. Soc. Medicine, London, vol. 9, Odont., p. 52. February, 1916. “It seems to me most improbable—almost incredible—that when we find a unique Primate skull in the same place as an absolutely new Primate jaw and close to an entirely new Primate tooth, we are dealing with the remains of three distinct animals.” Wright, William, The Antiquity of Man [Review of Keith]. Man, vol. 16, pp. 124–127. August, 1916. Piltdown man, p. 126. “It has been pointed out that it would be strange if they [the skull and jaw] were parts of two different and previously unknown animals, but now that we learn from Professor Keith's reconstruction of Eoanthropus that the cranium falls within the range of human variation, we have only to suppose that, with parts of man was found part of an unknown anthropoid ape—after all, surely not a very high flight of imagination. Certain parts of a tooth of Stegodon were found for the first time in Western Europe in the same deposit. Mandibles have a habit of appearing apart from the rest of the animals to which they belonged … and, further, it was quite time that representatives of our modern anthropoid apes were appearing.” See Smith, May, 1916. Wright, William, The endocranial cast of the Piltdown skull. Man, vol. 16, p. 158. October, 1916. Reply to Smith, September, 1916. Citing Literature Volume1, Issue1January/March 1918Pages 25-52 ReferencesRelatedInformation
Referência(s)