Claim CC351:
The feather imprints of the London Archaeopteryx specimen were forged.
Evidence for this is that
- The feather impressions appear only on the slab, not on the
counterslab.
- The surface texture is different between the feathered and unfeathered
areas.
- Slightly elevated "blobs" appear which are not always matched by
depressions on the counterslab.
- The feathers show "double strike" impressions.
- Hairline cracks which pass through both bones and feathers could have
formed by slight movements to the slab after the cement was in place.
- Under magnification, the limestone appears different in fossil and
non-fossil areas of the specimen.
- Unknown material appears within the matrix in the fossil area.
- An x-ray chemical analysis showed chemical differences, including
silicon, sulfur, and chlorine in the fossil area that were not present
in the non-fossil area.
These points indicate that the feather impressions were made by someone
impressing feathers in a cement-like matrix that was added to the stone.
Without the feathers, Archaeopteryx would be identified as the dinosaur
Compsognathus, not as a transitional fossil.
Source:
Watkins, R. S., F. Hoyle, N. C. Wickramasinghe, J. Watkins, R. Rabilizirov,
and L. M. Spetner, 1985a. Archaeopteryx -- a photographic study.
British Journal of Photography 132: 264-266.
Watkins, R. S. et al., 1985b. Archaeopteryx -- a further
comment.
British Journal of Photography 132: 358-359,367.
Watkins, R. S. et al., 1985c. Archaeopteryx -- further evidence.
British Journal of Photography 132: 468-470.
Hoyle, Fred, N. C. Wickramasinghe and R. S. Watkins, 1985.
Archaeopteryx: Problems arise -- and a motive. British Journal of
Photography 132(6516): 693-695,703.
Hoyle, Fred and C. Wickramasinghe, 1986. Archaeopteryx, The
Primordial Bird, Christopher Davis, London.
Spetner, L. M., F. Hoyle, N. C. Wickramasinghe and M. Magaritz, 1988.
Archaeopteryx -- more evidence for a forgery. British Journal of
Photography 135: 14-17.
Response:
- There are nine other Archaeopteryx fossils discovered at different
times and places under well documented conditions. At least six of
these also have unequivocal feathers (Charig 1986; Wellnhofer 1993;
Mayr et al. 2005). On the Maxburg specimen, the feathers continue
under the bones and are overlain with dendrites that sometimes form
within bedding planes, precluding the possibility of forgery (Charig
1986). In addition, several other feathered
dinosaurs have
been discovered.
- Tiny fractures, infilled with calcite, extend through both feathers and
bones, showing that they have the same source. They also match
perfectly from slab to counterslab, proving that the two fit together
(Charig 1986). These fractures are invisible to normal vision; a
nineteenth-century forger would not even know they existed, much less
be able to replicate them.
- The "double struck effect" on the counterslab is due to the
fossilization method. Feather-degrading bacteria grew under the
feathers, causing the sediments beneath to lithify, and so preserving a
hardened feather impression. When the feathers decayed away, the
sediments above pressed down to create a cast of the surface below
(Davis and Briggs 1995). Evidence of this process, including lithified
bacteria, is visible under high magnification and could not plausibly
be forged.
Other lack of detailed impressions results from the
Archaeopteryx
body resting on a flat surface without sinking into it much. The bulk
of the fossil projected above the sea floor into the sediments that
settled around and over it. When the shale split along the original
seafloor surface, the upper part contained the bulk of the fossil,
while the lower part showed only the impression which the body made on
the sea floor. This pattern is typical of Solnhofen fossils.
(Swinburne 1988)
- The difference in surface texture in the area of the fossils is due to
the impression of the animal body (Charig 1986).
- The elevated "blobs" are natural irregularities. There are none which
don't have corresponding depressions on the counterslab. The two
halves fit together well except where one surface has been destroyed by
subsequent preparation. (Charig 1986)
- The double-strike impressions are not imprints; they are underlying
feathers. A double-strike impression would be harder to forge than a
single impression.
- The hairline cracks are infilled with calcite both in the original slab
and in the area Spetner claims was cement. Plus, the cracks match
between the slab and counterslab (Charig et al. 1986). None of this
would be possible if the cracks formed after a cement layer were
applied.
- Differences in appearance are due to different resolutions used in the
SEM photography (Nedin 1997).
- The unknown materials are clearly not within the limestone matrix
(Spetner et al. 1988, Figs. 4b-f). The carbonate grains on top of them
are simply dust.
- The chemical differences between the fossil and non-fossil areas are
likely due to residues of preservatives applied to the fossil
areas. (Nedin 1997)
Links:
Nedin, Chris, 1997. On Archaeopteryx, astronomers, and forgery.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/forgery.html
References:
- Charig, Alan J. et al. 1986. Archaeopteryx is not a forgery.
Science 232: 622-626.
- Davis, Paul G. and Derek E. G. Briggs. 1995. Fossilization of
feathers. Geology 23(9): 783-786.
- Mayr, Gerald, Burkhard Pohl, and D. Stefan Peters. 2005. A
well-preserved Archaeopteryx specimen with theropod features.
Science 310: 1483-1486.
- Nedin, Chris. 1997. (see above)
- Spetner, L. M., F. Hoyle, N. C. Wickramasinghe and M. Magaritz. 1988.
Archaeopteryx - more evidence for a forgery. British Journal of
Photography 135: 14-17.
- Swinburne, N. H. M. 1988. The Solnhofen Limestone and the
preservation of Archaeopteryx. Trends in Ecology and
Evolution
3(10): 274-277.
- Wellnhofer, P. 1993. The seventh specimen of Archaeopteryx from the
Solnhofen Limestone. Archaeopteryx 11: 1-47.
Further Reading:
Majka, Christopher, 1992. Archaeopteryx - is this bird a fraud? New
Brunswick Naturalist
http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/Environment/NHR/archaeopteryx.html
created 2001-2-18, modified 2007-4-17