A review of the excavational/curatorial histories of the source localities indicates that Arthur Smith Woodward had both initimate knowledge of access to all of the requisite specimens.The Ghar Dalam paleofauna, the likely source for Hippopotamus premolar planted at Piltdown, was originally described by Woodward in 1894.The radioactive "Stegodon" molar fragments are plausibly associated with the Upper Biozone at Pikermi where Woodward collected in 1901.

the dating technique fluorine analysis-30

The specimens recovered and the timing of their discovery provided support for Woodward's belief that orthogenetic principles could accurately predict "missing links" in human evolution.

Woodward's primary motivation may have been an effort to establish himself as the principal candidate for the coveted Directorship of the Natural History Museum.

It has been four decades since the revelation that a human cranium and an orangutan mandible were fraudulently introduced into the Piltdown gravel bed.

Oakley noted that a Patagonian archeological specimen may have served as the "remarkably thick" cranium used in the fraud.

Woodward acquired several Ona and Fuegean skulls in 1899.

Illustrations of an Ona cranium were found inserted into the pages of Woodward's personal copy of Keith's Antiquity of Man.

A Dawson-Woodward nexus is made more plausible by their three decades of regular interaction prior to 1912.

’s rocks are composed of minerals—inorganic elements or compounds that have a fixed chemical composition and that are made up of regularly aligned rows of atoms.

This paper was presented in a poster session of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists on April 1, 1994 and is appearing here by the kind permission of the author.

The abstract of this paper appears in the February 1994 issue of the AJPA Assessment of the chemical composition of the fossil specimens associated with the Piltdown cranial remains suggests several possible source localities for the introduced elements.

While additional evidence supports the Weiner-Oakley hypothesis (1955) that Charles Dawson was involved in the fraud, it remains difficult to explain his access to the unusual paleontological specimens without a scientific accomplice.