TCDE-Team: Created page with "{{Cargo_Reviews_Articles |Date=1997-01-01 |Book=Unraveling Piltdown |BookAuthor=John Evangelist Walsh |Reviewer=Doug Elliott |Topics=Piltdown }} This review of the book ''"Unraveling Piltdown", by John Evangelist Walsh'' was written by Doug Elliott and published in the A.C.D. - The Journal of The Arthur Conan Doyle Society (Vol. 7, 1996/7). This review discusses John Evangelist Walsh's ''Unraveling Piltdown'', a study of the famous Piltdown Man scientific f..."

2026-03-07T21:33:38Z

Created page with "{{Cargo_Reviews_Articles |Date=1997-01-01 |Book=Unraveling Piltdown |BookAuthor=John Evangelist Walsh |Reviewer=Doug Elliott |Topics=Piltdown }} This review of the book ''"Unraveling Piltdown", by John Evangelist Walsh'' was written by Doug Elliott and published in the A.C.D. - The Journal of The Arthur Conan Doyle Society (Vol. 7, 1996/7). This review discusses John Evangelist Walsh's ''Unraveling Piltdown'', a study of the famous Piltdown Man scientific f..."

New page

{{Cargo_Reviews_Articles
|Date=1997-01-01
|Book=Unraveling Piltdown
|BookAuthor=John Evangelist Walsh
|Reviewer=Doug Elliott
|Topics=Piltdown
}}
This review of the book ''"Unraveling Piltdown", by John Evangelist Walsh'' was written by [[Doug Elliott]] and published in the [[A.C.D. - The Journal of The Arthur Conan Doyle Society]] (Vol. 7, 1996/7).

This review discusses John Evangelist Walsh's ''Unraveling Piltdown'', a study of the famous Piltdown Man scientific fraud and the search for its perpetrator. It focuses particularly on Walsh's examination and rebuttal of theories accusing [[Arthur Conan Doyle]] of involvement in the hoax.

== Review ==
[[File:Acd-society-journal-1997-vol7-p160-review-elliott.jpg|thumb|250px|right|[[A.C.D. - The Journal of The Arthur Conan Doyle Society]] (Vol. 7, 1996/7, p. 160)]]
[[File:Acd-society-journal-1997-vol7-p161-review-elliott.jpg|thumb|250px|right|[[A.C.D. - The Journal of The Arthur Conan Doyle Society]] (Vol. 7, 1996/7, p. 161)]]
[[File:Acd-society-journal-1997-vol7-p162-review-elliott.jpg|thumb|250px|right|[[A.C.D. - The Journal of The Arthur Conan Doyle Society]] (Vol. 7, 1996/7, p. 162)]]

: [[File:random-house-1996-unravelling-piltdown.jpg|100px]]
: '''Unraveling Piltdown'''
: '''The Science Fraud of the Century and Its Solution'''
: by John Evangelist Walsh
: New York: Random House, 1996; 304 pp; U.S.$25.95 ISBN: 0-679-44444-0

'''Reviewed by Doug Elliott'''

Piltdown Man, like [[Sherlock Holmes]], never lived and so can never die. Since the famous anthropological fraud was revealed in 1954, a steady stream of ink has been spilled on the subject, primarily because the leading lights of anthropology were completely fooled for over forty years and because the culprit remains at large. Every decade seems to bring a new review of the affair and the announcement of a new suspect. Members of this Society have reason to take note, because every comprehensive survey of Piltdown since 1983 finds it necessary to address the question of whether the perpetrator was in fact [[Sir Arthur Conan Doyle]]. John Hathaway Winslow first announced [[Sir Arthur Conan Doyle|Sir Arthur]]'s guilt in a paper in the popular magazine ''Science 83'' and provided what appeared to be a well-considered mass of evidence. I assessed his evidence and his logic, finding both severely wanting, in a monograph published by ''The Bootmakers of Toronto'' in 1988 (The Curious Incident of the Missing Link). Books by Blinderman (Charles Blinderman: ''The Piltdown Inquest''. New York: Prometeus, 1986), Spencer (Frank Spencer: ''Piltdown: A Scientific Forgery''. Oxford, 1990), and others that have set out to examine all the suspects also found the case against [[Arthur Conan Doyle|ACD]] unconvincing.

Walsh's new book sets out to shed new light on the Piltdown affair: 'I plan ... to do what has not yet been adequately done: tell the essential story of the discoveries themselves, and the subsequent exposure, just as it all happened, in a continuous, detailed narrative. I shall highlight the personalities involved and, where necessary for full comprehension, describe vital aspects of the science. In this manner I hope to prepare the way for my own solution as to the perpetrator, with guilt demonstrated solely on the evidence'.

His solution depends very much on an awareness of the timing of events and as he reviews each of the traditional suspects, including [[Arthur Conan Doyle|ACD]], he focuses on where the suspect was at a particular time and where he would have needed to be had he been the guilty party.

In reviewing Winslow's case against [[Arthur Conan Doyle|Conan Doyle]], Walsh also addresses the more recent accusation of Robert Anderson in Pacific Discovery ('Piltdown Mystery Solved', Pacific Discovery, Spring 1996), which builds upon Winslow's theory. Walsh first acknowledges that a dismissive response based simply on a knowledge of [[Arthur Conan Doyle|ACD]]'s sterling character is not appropriate: 'While it may be largely circumstantial, the case against [[Arthur Conan Doyle|Doyle]] is by no means tenuous, nor does it lack elements that require and even demand a sober review. The possibility that the creator of [[Sherlock Holmes]] was also the creator of Piltdown Man may not be passed over lightly'.

After thus setting the stage for his chapter 'The Writer Accused', Walsh summarizes the case for the prosecution, presenting it in a favourable light. He goes so far as to say that Winslow treats the matter of [[Arthur Conan Doyle|Conan Doyle]]'s motive 'rather deftly'. Having drifted, one might say perilously, into the enemy camp, he then begins to knock down Winslow's arguments one by one. Though clearly aware of my 1988 monograph, Walsh covers much new ground, raising new points with a deft touch of his own. With respect to Anderson's new 'evidence' (Walsh also favours this term with quotation marks), he provides a curt, scathing rebuttal (Roy Pilot and I examine Anderson's theory at greater length in 'Baker Street Meets Piltdown Man', ''Baker Street Journal'', 46:1, December 1996, pp. 13-28). In the end, he leaves the reader with no doubt: 'Patient investigation of Winslow's charge stands firmly against any slightest possibility of [[Arthur Conan Doyle|Doyle]]'s guilt. The creator of [[Sherlock Holmes]] was not the fabricator of Piltdown.'

Now that I've given away the ending, you may say, what is the point of reading the book at all? Well, I hasten to guess that the conclusion doesn't surprise many of you. And like life, getting there is most of the fun. The complicated construction that Winslow and Anderson have fabricated in accusing [[Arthur Conan Doyle|ACD]] is fascinating to read and fun to take apart. (Think of this as a kind of do-it-yourself chapter.)

Walsh has written a very fine book indeed, aimed directly at the general reader but never avoiding necessary detail in this sometimes-convoluted affair. He provides accurate and complete notes to document his sources. This is a competent, careful, thorough, readable analysis. It is such an unaccustomed joy to see clear thinking clearly expressed. I find it hard to imagine this work being improved upon unless relevant new facts should surface.

Who does Walsh favour as the Piltdown culprit? That much I will not reveal. I predict that those who share my fascination with this bizarre scientific counterfeit will share my enjoyment at reading about it all over again from a fresh angle.

Doug Elliott

{{footer_acd_society_article}}
{{footer_periodicals}}
{{footer_review_articles}}

Review:Unravelling Piltdown/Doug Elliott - Revision history