Palaeontological fakes

BATALLERIA

16

2011

37 - 45

(Barcelona, gener 2011)

ISSN 0214-7831

Palaeontological fakes Falsificaciones paleontológicas Joan Corbacho*, Consuelo Sendino** & M’Hamed Tahiri*** *Museo Geológico del Seminario de Barcelona, Diputación 231 - 08007 Barcelona (Spain) ** Dep. Palaeontology, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, london SW7 5BD (United Kingdom) *** Musée Paléontologique Tahiri d’Arfoud, rue d’Arfoud á Rissane - Arfoud (Morocco)

ABSTRACT – Different kinds of fossil fakes from around the world are described. Well-known methods for their detection are explained, as well as the means used for making the fakes.

KEY WORDS – Palaeontology, fakes, fossils, Morocco, Russia, USA, China.

RESUMEN – Se detallan diferentes formas de falsificaciones de fósiles de distintos países del mundo. También se describen los métodos conocidos para su correcta detección, así como los medios que se utilizan.

Introduction

With time there are increasingly more fossil fakes and countries where it is possible to find them. On the one hand, this is a result of the large demand for fossils; on the other hand, it is due to the outlawing of commercialization and sale in different countries combined with the economical necessity of many families that use fossils as a source of income. In this case the intermediaries or sellers are mostly responsible for their commerce as they usually know what they sell. This is the third work published on fakes. The first one, Corbacho et al. (2007), was about trilobite fakes from North Africa and the second one, Corbacho & Vela (2009), studied non-trilobite fossil fakes of North Africa. This is the reason why we will not insist in the fossil fakes made in North Africa.

Antecedents

The history of fossil fakes is almost as old as the history of palaeontology. There are several previous studies that deal with fakes in general. Liñán (1992) described some aspects of the first fossils used by humans in the Neolithic. No fakes are cited, but it is interesting to emphasize their use for exchange in commerce. The vicissitudes of J.B.A. Beringer’s (1667-1740), who was Professor of Medicine in Würzburg, Franco-

nia (Germany), combine extravagance, ingenuity and a Germanic sense of humour. Some malicious colleagues of Beringer, who were motivated by the Beringer’s arrogant character, made extraordinary fakes. These were then sold to Beringer who was misled into believing that they were genuine and wrote a book about these “fossils” (Pl. 3 Fig. 2). When he discovered the trickery, the perpetrators were brought to trial. After feeling to have made ridicule, Beringer tried to buy all copies of his books to destroy them. A contemporary palaeontological journal, Beringeria, named in Beringer’s honour, shows some of Beringer’s “fossils” on its cover. See Taylor (2004) for a full account of the Beringer fraud. One of first commercial fakes was carried out in the 19th century by Joachim Barrande’s (1799-1883) assistants in the current Czech Republic (Burkhard & Bode, 2003). Another very different case is represented by Piltdown Man from Sussex in England. This fraud was made by an expert mixing the jaw of a modern ape, made to look old by treatment with ferrocyanide, and a primitive human skull. The fluorine absorption test on the teeth eventually revealed that the lower jaw came from a recent ape (Oakley, 1964), but not before many scientists had accepted Piltdown Man as the ‘missing link’ between apes and humans. Burkhard & Bode (2003) published a sales catalogue noting different kinds of fake trilobites from Morocco. Later, Tierney (2005) explained in an interesting and divulging way the complex world of fossil fakes. Fortey (2008) cited an anecdote in which Richard Meinertzhagen deceived the Natural History Museum in London deliberately with fraudulent samples of birds. More recently

38

J. CORBACHO, C. SENDINO & M’HAMED TAHIRI

Fortey (2009), after the description of the new species Asaphellus stubbsi, cited the problem of fake giant trilobites from the Moroccan Ordovician. A major item of world news was the discovery of the fake of Archaeoraptor, a supposed new genus of the dinosaur Celurosaurio maniraptor, found in China and published in National Geographic Magazine in 1999. This journal announced the fossil to be the “the lost link” between birds and theropod dinosaurs. Even before the publication, there had been severe doubts about the authenticity of the fossil. Archaeoraptor became a scandal when it was demonstrated to be a fake following an additional scientific study. The supposed fossil was built of pieces of true fossils from different species. Zhou et al. (2002) confirmed that the major part of the fake, the body, really belonged to a primitive fossil bird, Yanornis, but the tail was from a dromaeosaur Microraptor described in 2000 by Lewis Simon. The limbs belonged to an animal still undetermed. (Plate 3, fig.3a, 3b). The scandal of “Archaeoraptor“ attracted attention towards the traffic of illegal fossils in China. It also highlighted the necessity of constant scientific scrutiny of supposed “missing links” published in prestigious journals without appropriate scientific review. This fake has been used by some creationists to argue against the theory of evolution. Although Archaeoraptor is a fake, there are many true examples of feathered dinosaurs that show the evolutionary connection between birds and theropods (Gauthier & Queiroz, 2001; Czerkas et al., 2002). There is another type of fossil fraud that has palaeontological importance. This deception consists of changing the provenence of genuine fossils to make them appear more important than they really are. Recently, the best known case was carried out by Professor Vishwa Jit Gupta of Panjab University (Chandigarh, India). Gupta bought fossils from Morocco or New York State and claimed to have found them in India, with misleading implications for the palaeogeographical distribution of these taxa (Stevens, 1989).

Fakes or fossils We distinguish between countries where fake fossils are sold as copies, and countries where the copies are sold as though they were real fossils. The latter include Peru, Colombia, Russia, USA, Germany, France and mainly Morocco and China. But the biggest market for fake fossils is in the USA, mostly of Moroccan and Chinese origin. The USA is also the market leader in trade and on the Internet. Sale and auction websites on the Internet are an ideal way for selling these “fossils”. Other places where we can see numerous fake fossils are the mineral and fossil fairs organized around the world. The more important the fair, the larger the number of fakes. Fairs that have more

controls to avoid fossil fakes are in Germany. An important fact to highlight is that since China became open to commerce, fakes have increased more than 500% due to the massive demand for fossils. In this work we will only show the well-known fakes from different countries around the world and in a very schematic summarise the detection techniques described in some of our previous works. Copies of fossils are acceptable, but only if they have been identified as replicas and not real fossils. We also note that repairs to fossils are acceptable up to 10% and only if the repair is not to an important part used in the fossil description and its presence is notified by the seller.

Different kinds of fakes

Current fakes of, for example, the dinosaur Psittacosaurus, turtles and crocodiles from China, consist of specimens made of pieces from different specimens, or are copies made completely of plaster in the case of turtles and crocodiles, or plaster parts of Smilodon skulls. The variety and magnitude of Chinese fake fossils is endless. Plates 1-5 give details of some of the different fakes and analytic methods. The scale bars all represent 1 cm. Some of them already were shown in Corbacho at. al. (2007) and Corbacho & Vela (2009). They are again offered for new English version.

Plate 1 Fig.1 – A shale slab, made in China, with two resin Keichousaurus specimens mounted with earth applied above to mislead. Simply placing it in a bath of acetone or using a soldering iron will reveal that resin has been used. This slab was given by a Chinese friend as a present to the first author of this paper when the author visited China. The friend believed it to be a genuine fossil. Currently it is kept at the Museu Geològic del Seminari of Barcelona with other fakes. This kind of technique has also been used to fake specimens of Sinohydrosaurus in China. (Corbacho et. al. 2007. Fig. 3) Fig.2 – Imitation of a dinosaur egg nest (Hadrosaurus) produced in China. The eggs are made of concrete overlapped with pieces of real egg shells from different specimens in a matrix of compressed earth. The fakery can be revealed following detailed observation or by using X-rays. This kind of fake is very common. This specimen belongs to the private collection of Joan Corbacho. Fig.3 - Chinese trilobite belonging to the genus Drepanura (see Kobayashi, 1935). Made in China, this is a very good fake. It has been carved and polished with acid, making the fakery very difficult to discern except

PALAEONTOLOGICAL FAKES

by an expert on trilobites. The first author bought it in an auction website on the Internet. The seller was an Australian who bought the “trilobite” personally during one of his trips to China and the trilobite was studied in an Australian museum believing it to be authentic. It is not detectable using acetone or a soldering iron, and even with X-ray the difference is hardly visible. The only way to check this fake is with the knowledge of an expert due to the substantial difference of the morphology of the trilobite and under microscope where the sculpture can be seen. Fig.4 – In this image clearer patches can be observed, the result of exposing the fossil under ultraviolet light. These patches correspond to the resin used to repair the fossil. The specimen, made in Russia, is not a fake but demonstrates how reconstructions can be detected, such specimens exceeding fakes in proportion. This specimen belongs to the private collection of Joan Corbacho. Fig.5 – Fake Heteroceras that consists of an original fragment with the rest made from carved stone (roughly) glued to the original part. It is a coarse Moroccan fake. This kind of fake is easily detected through careful observation. This specimen belongs to the private collection of Joan Corbacho.

Plate 2 Fig.1 – Specimen of Andegavia sagittapeltis mounted in resin totally on top of a stone matrix. This was acquired from the stand of a Moroccan dealer at Expominer, an annual fair held in Barcelona and the most important in Spain. This kind of fake is the most frequent in Morocco. It is possible to detect using a soldering iron, applying its point and melting the resin, which gives a peculiar smell. Holes in the resin can be seen with a magnifying glass, representing air bubbles trapped in the resin. If such specimens are placed in acetone, they will be completely white in less than one day. This specimen belongs to the private collection of Joan Corbacho. Fig.2 – Cross section of a Moroccan trilobite (Zlichovaspis sp.) resin mounted on a stone matrix. This fake was said to be authentic by the seller in Rissani (eastern Morocco) and was on sale as a real fossil, although after discussing its authenctity it was purchased for a price of fake in 2005. This specimen belongs to the private collection of Joan Corbacho. See Corbacho & al. 2007. Fig. 8. Fig.3 – This Bolivian specimen is one of the most strangest fakes that is possible to see for sale on the Internet. It is a hypothetical trilobite with a reptile on top, made of clay and offered by email like a “valuable fossil”. Fig.4 – This is a very common fake Russian trilobite, an authentic trilobite on a stone matrix that does not belong to it. Although its palaeontological context is lost by this process, it still has commercial value. In order to detect the fakery, the best method is to apply a sol-

39

dering iron between the fossil and matrix. This specimen belongs to the private collection of Joan Corbacho. Fig.5 – Skull of Dyrosaurus made of plaster mounted on a sand matrix. This skull has real teeth, but from different specimens. First impressions suggest that is not a fossil and X-rays will confirm this conclusion. The fake was made in Morocco. This specimen belongs to the private collection of Joan Corbacho. Fig.6 – This is another swindle carried out on an important auction website. This specimen was sold by an American seller to a Spanish collector as a dinosaur coprolite. However, it is septarian concretion, probably only recognizable by an experienced palaeontologist. A curious anecdote concerning this specimen is that the first author of the current paper three years ago took the “dinosaur coprolite” with all the papers that affirmed its authenticity to a provincial museum in Spain where there are always students of palaeontology. More than 15 of these students admired the “coprolite” of an unknown species of dinosaur and sought to determine the species. Fig.7 - Tooth of the shark Carcharodon megalodon with the root replaced by resin and later painted to hide it. This piece comes from Miami (USA), but we do not know where it was faked. Many of the teeth of Carcharodon megalodon from the Atacama Desert (Chile) are highly reconstructed, some of them more than 80%. With this kind of fake it is better to check with a soldering iron or other point of heat. In Morocco, the shark teeth gums are falsified with plaster, whereas in the case of dinosaur teeth and claws resin may be used. Fig.8 – Carpopenacus from Lebanon. These specimens were painted in the rock. Simply by applying acetone the fake is revealed, or even with careful observation under a hand lens. (See Corbacho et. al. 2007. fig. 2)

Plate 3

Fig.1 – This fake human footprint was presented in 1930 in Glen Rose (Texas, USA) by George Adams, a well-known creationist with a reputation for falsifying fossils. It is possible to observe some cuts in order to “authenticate” the specimen. The footprint was not formed by pressure, as in true fossil footprints, but was carved using the lower stratum and not the upper one. In 1970, Wayland Adams, resident in Glen Rose, explained to the press that his uncle George Adams had falsified human footprints and made a practical demonstration of the procedure (Delgado Rosas, 2009). Fig. 2 – Fake fossils described by J.B.A.Beringer. See above. Fig. 3 – Archaeoraptor. See above. Figs. 4 – Supposed fossils trapped in amber. These coarse specimens were obtained in Istanbul. Insects, amphibians and reptiles, among other animals, were being sold as though they were real fossils. The figured examples were sold on the Istanbul market, with the assur-

40


ance that they were authentic amber from the Baltic. This specimen belongs to the private collection of Joan Corbacho. Fig.5 – This kind of fake is very well-known on the Internet. It is based on “fossil” dragonflies made of resin mounted on top of a stone matrix, or made with different pieces from different specimens. They come mostly from China. This specimen belongs to the private collection of Joan Corbacho. Fig.6 – Other kinds of fakes common on the Internet comprise false fossil birds made in resin on a stone matrix or consisting of different fossil bones from various species mounted onto stone matrix. They are sold as authentic and are mainly made in China. This specimen belongs to the private collection of Joan Corbacho.

Plate 4 This plate shows mainly fakes relating to fossil fishes. Fig.1 – Authentic fish belonging to the species Aspidorhynchus comptoni that comes from Brazil. It has been mounted on sandstone matrix. Such fakes are made in Italy and have a commercial value and are aesthetic specimens for exhibitions. The authentic specimens would be normally fossilised in nodules. The figured sample was sold with a full explanation about its preparation at Expominer, the international fair held in Barcelona. This specimen belongs to the private collection of Joan Corbacho. Fig.2 – Specimen from Italy whose tail has been substituted with resin. It was sold at Expominer. This specimen belongs to the private collection of Joan Corbacho. Fig.3 – This is the most common fake or repair. The fish has been constructed from pieces of different specimens, above all bones, tails and fins. Fakes like this are made everywhere. The figured example is a fish that has its tail rebuilt using pieces from different specimens. It was sold in a museum. This specimen belongs to the private collection of Joan Corbacho. Fig. 4 – Fish with head carved and painted. It was sold by an auction website as though authentic. This example comes from Russia. This specimen belongs to the private collection of Joan Corbacho.

Methods and tools to diagnose fakes We will cite all of the methods used to detect fossil fakes. We reproduce an X-ray and a computerized axial tomography (CAT) and recommend the first one for being more economical and more reliable. The tools used are well-known, and include microscopes, binocular lenses, ultraviolet lights, acetone and soldering irons.

X-rays (Plate 4, fig. 5) differentiate the matrix and authentic part of the specimen from the fake by the density difference. In Plate 4, fig. 5 it can be seen that the matrix has been prepared, in this case with sand, and did not belong to the original specimen. This specimen belongs to the private collection of Joan Corbacho. Currently the other method to check fake fossils is the CAT (Plate 4 Fig. 6). It has been used to verify the authenticity of a Psittacosaurus from the Cretaceous of China, housed at the National Natural History Museum Naturalis, Leiden (Holland) (Rita et al., 2008). The microscope is very useful in distinguishing the different materials that make up the sample, making it a reliable tool for detecting some kinds of fakes. Binocular lenses (10-30 x magnifications) are enough to detect holes in resin, or if specimens have been painted or carved. We find a lens very helpful to study trilobites and any spiny fossils to see if the spines are broken and if they really belong to the specimens. Ultraviolet light is necessary to distinguish the resin applied in fossils not previously painted, and is generally used to detect fake Russian trilobites (Plate 1 Fig. 4). Acetone is valuable in revealing fossils falsified with resin (epoxy). Specimens should be placed in acetone for several hours to see the complete whitening that indicated the use of resin. In cases where the specimen has been carved in the same matrix and later painted, application of a paintbrush dipped in acetone can be enough to confirm the fake. A soldering iron is used to detect the use of resin in the fossil or between the fossil and the matrix. This tool is very useful for Russian trilobites.

Conclusions Our aim here has been to call attention to the palaeontological fakes that are currently on the market. These can be found for sale not only in shops and fairs, but also on the Internet. The net has become a way to spread these specimens everywhere, including to museums. These fakes are made mainly in China and Morocco, but commercialised principally in the USA. They can be partial and complete. In the case of partial fakes, the fake has to comprise more than 10% of the specimen to consider the fossil to be false. Fakes can be carved in rock, painted, formed of different pieces from different specimens, or made of resin. Fakes exist of many types of fossils, such as trilobites, dinosaurs, birds and fishes and even supposed new species.


Plate 1

(Scale bar = 1 cm) Fig.1 – Fake Keitchosaurus (resin) Fig.2 – Fake egg nest of Hadrosaurus Fig.3 – Chinese trilobite carved in stone. Fig.4 – Russian trilobite under ultraviolet. Fig.5 – Ammonite Heteroceras made of different pieces of diverse specimens.

41

42


Plate 2

(Scale bar = 1 cm) Fig.1 – Trilobite made of resin. Fig.2 – Cross section of a fake trilobite made of resin. Fig.3 – False fossil made of clay.

Fig.4 – Trilobites mounted on the top of a calcarea matrix. Fig.5 – Skull of Dyrosaurus made of plaster. Fig.6 – Septarian concretion. Fig.7 – Carcharodon megalodon tooth with root made of resin. Fig.8 – Carpopenacus fakes (painted).


43

Plate 3

Fig.1 – False fossil human footprint (Scale bar = 1 cm). Fig.2 – Example of Beringer’s fake fossils (Scale bar = 1 cm). © The Natural History Museum, London. Fig.3a – 3b – Archaeoraptor (after Rowe et al., 2001). 3a. Map of the slab face. Colour meaning: Red, associated bird bones; black, unverifiable ‘attached’ bones. 1a–w, Associated pieces lying in a natural position; 2,3, ‘left’ femur; 4a–j, ‘right’ and ‘left’ tibia/fibula (piece and counterpiece); 5a–e, ‘right’ foot/ankle (piece and counterpiece); 6, 7a,b, 8a–c, bone fragments; 9a–d, 10, 11, 12a–c, 13a,b, dromaeosaur tail pieces; A–HH, shims; 3b. Volumetric model generated from superimposed CT slices. Light grey, bones; dark grey, slab materials; black, air. Fig.4 – Scorpion in resin (Scale bar = 1 cm). Fig.5 – False fossil dragonfly (Scale bar = 1 cm). Fig.6 – False fossil bird (Scale bar = 1 cm).

44


Plate 4

(Scale bar = 1 cm) Fig.1 – Brazilian fish mounted in sandstone matrix. Fig.2 – Fish tail made in resin. Fig.3 – Fish tail made with pieces of different specimens. Fig.4 – Fish with painted head. Fig.5 – X-ray of skull of Dyrosaurus Fig.6 - CAT image from the skull base of a fake Psittacosaurus from China (Rita et al., 2008)

PALAEONTOLOGICAL FAKES Bibliographical References

Burkhard, H. & Bode, R. 2003. Trilobitenland Marokko. Keine Angst vor Fälschungen. – Offizieller Katalog der 40. Mineralientage. Corbacho, J. Vela, J.A. & Cuevas, J.A. 2007. Falsificación de trilobites del N. de África. Batalleria, 13; 29- 36. Corbacho, J. & Vela, J.A. 2009. Falsificación de fósiles del N. de África (No trilobites). Batalleria, 14; 49-56. Czerkas, S.A., Zhang, D., Li, J., & Li, Y. 2002. “Flying Dromaeosaurs”. In Czerkas, S.J. Feathered Dinosaurs and the Origin of Flight: The Dinosaur Museum Journal 1. Blanding: The Dinosaur Museum. pp. 16–26. Delgado Rosas, J. 2009. Arqueología ¿prohibida? parte2 – dinosaurios. [25 May 2010] http://mundo. paralax.com.mx/ciencia-y-tecnologia/130-arqueologia-prohibida-parte2.html. Fortey, R.A. 2008. The secret life of the Natural History Museum. 352 pp. Harper Press, London. -------- 2009. A new giant asaphid trilobite from the Lower Ordovician of Morocco. Memoirs of the Association of Australasian palaeontologists 37, 9-16. Gauthier, J. A., & De Queiroz, K. 2001. Feathered dinosaurs, flying dinosaurs, crown dinosaurs, and the name “Aves”: In: New perspectives on the origin and early evolution of birds, proceedings of the International Symposium in honor of John H. Ostrom, edit. Gauthier, J. A., & Gall, L. F., a special publication of the Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University, p. 7-41. Kobayashi, T., 1935. The Cambro-Ordovician formations and faunas of south Chosen. Palaeontology. Part 3. Cambrian faunas of south Chosen with a special study of the Cambrian trilobite genera and families. Journal of the Faculty of Science, Imperial University of Tokyo, Section 2, vol. 4 (2), 49–344, pls. 1–24. Liñán, E. 1992. Los fósiles en Aragón, Caja de Ahorros de la Inmaculada de Aragón, pp. 110. Oakley, K.P. 1964. Problem of man’s antiquity. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) Geology, 9, 85-162. London. Rita F., Mateus O. & Overbeeke M., 2008. Tomografia Computorizada na Detecção de Fraudes em Fósseis. Acta Radiológica Portuguesa, 80, 8384. Rowe, T, Ketcham, R.A., Denison, C, Colbert, M., Xu, X. & Currei, P.J. 2001. Forensic palaeontology: The Archaeoraptor forgery. Nature, 410, 539540. Simon, L. M. 2000. Archaeoraptor Fossil Trail, National Geographic, 198 (4), 128-132. Stevens, W.K. 1989. Scientist Accused of Faking Findings. The New York Times. [25 May 2010].

45

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/04/23/us/scientist-accused-of-faking-findings.html. Taylor, P.D. 2004. Beringer’s iconoliths: palaeontological fraud in the early 18th century. The Linnean 20 (3): 21-31. Tierney, P. 2005, Are your fossils fake? The fossils collector, 10-16. Zhou, Z., Clarke, J. A. & Zhang, F. 2002. “Archaeoraptor’s better half.” Nature, 420, 285.

Recibido en Abril de 2010 Aceptado en Septiembre de 2010