Faux fossils by the hundred: the story of Johann Beringer’s ‘lying-stones’

The sorry story of Johann Beringer has been a part of the folklore of palaeontology for nearly 200 years. In 1726, Beringer revealed a e book illustrating some extraordinary ‘fossils’ apparently discovered within the rocks near Würzburg in southern Germany. Nonetheless, very quickly after its publication, Beringer realised that he had been tricked and that the specimens have been fakes. The reality in regards to the deception – and its perpetrators – continues to be shrouded in thriller, and the story of Beringer’s Lügensteine (’lying-stones’) ranks with Piltdown Man as the best of all fossil frauds.

Who was Beringer?

No portrait exists of Johann Bartholomew Adam Beringer (1667–1740) even though he was an vital determine in Würzburg in the course of the early eighteenth century. The son of a tutorial, Beringer turned Chief Doctor to the Prince Bishop of Würzburg and Duke of Franconia (Christoph Franz von Hutten) and to the Julian Hospital, and was additionally the Dean of the School of Medication at Würzburg College. Like different realized males of the time, Beringer stored a ‘cupboard of curiosities’ mentioned to comprise ammonites, belemnites and sharks’ tooth. He appears to have led a traditional life for somebody of his excessive standing till Might 1725, when an unlucky prepare of occasions was set in movement. Three younger males employed by Beringer to produce him with fossils delivered the primary of a very outstanding sequence of specimens presupposed to have been discovered at Mount Eibelstadt, a couple of kilometres south of Würzburg. These are the notorious Lügensteine, or iconoliths, described by Beringer within the Lithographiae Wirceburgensis of 1726. The unique textual content was revealed in Latin, however Jahn and Woolf (1963) have revealed a wonderful English translation accompanied by scholarly background data. Lithographiae Wirceburgensis incorporates 21 plates, depicting 204 specimens. A typical instance is reproduced in Fig. 1.

The Lügensteine

Rocks of the Center Triassic Muschelkalk (‘shell limestone’) outcrop at Eibelstadt and might be seen within the soil of the vineyards that carpet the area right now. The Muschelkalk incorporates ample fossils of marine animals, together with ceratitid ammonoids and bivalves, however Beringer’s iconoliths have been one thing fully completely different. Certainly, Beringer himself made it clear in his e book that they weren’t atypical fossils. Though there are a couple of iconoliths that superficially resemble true Muschelkalk fossils, even these are decidedly peculiar on nearer inspection. For instance, one specimen appears to be a ceratitid on one aspect, with a attribute lobe and saddle suture sample, however the imbricated radial markings on the opposite aspect are totally completely different and fairly in contrast to something recognized on this group of ammonoids (Fig. 2).

The remaining iconoliths vary from the hardly credible to the completely unbelievable (Figs three to 11). The majority of Beringer’s iconoliths are bas-reliefs, by which the ‘fossil’ suits nearly precisely the form of the rock, one thing which Beringer himself remarked on in his e book: “The figures expressed on these stones, particularly these of bugs, are so precisely fitted to the size of the stones, that one would swear that they’re the work of a really meticulous sculptor.” (Jahn and Woolf, 1963, p. 35). Just a few iconoliths take the type of moulds (that’s, damaging impressions), however most are in optimistic reduction. Preservation is invariably excellent and the animals and crops are full – for instance, the crops could have roots, stems, leaves and flowers (Fig. three). All the animals and crops are in preferrred orientations for his or her anatomical options to be noticed clearly. There isn’t a compression or different distortion.

Whereas a few of the ‘iconoliths’ show animals with shells or skeletons, the bulk are soft-bodied organisms. Within the few iconoliths of shell-bearing animals, there is no such thing as a distinct shell, simply its form within the limestone. Just a few examples exist of vertebrates with bony skeletons, however these are anatomically incorrect. For instance, a fowl iconolith (Fig. four) has absurdly coarse ribs. Different birds are preserved subsequent to clutches of their eggs. Not often, two completely different ‘fossils’ happen on reverse faces of a single iconolith (Fig. 5).

Obvious examples of predators caught within the act of capturing their prey are frequent (Fig. 6), as are animals mating, particularly frogs (Fig. 7). There are a number of examples of incongruous assemblages of fishes, moths, snails and so forth, on a single iconolith (Fig. eight). It’s value noting that few, if any, of the organisms might be exactly recognized – for a lot of, the broad taxonomic group is obvious (for instance, frogs and beetles), however, for others, even that is tough to establish. Featureless elongate types could characterize both worms or snakes. There are a couple of mermaid- and angel-like iconoliths (Fig. 9). Vying with these for the honour of being probably the most weird are iconoliths formed like miniature celestial our bodies – the solar, moon, stars and comets (Fig. 10) – and others representing Hebrew script (Fig. 11). It’s value noting that, within the early eighteenth century, the opportunity of fossils taking the form of celestial our bodies and someway associated to things seen within the sky was not thought-about to be preposterous. Witness the pentaradiate stem segments of isocrinid crinoid fossils, broadly often called ‘starstones’.

The sheer scale of the fraud is astonishing. It’s estimated that over 1,000 iconoliths have been manufactured, all in all probability made inside the house of a few yr. Greater than 490 iconoliths survive right now in varied European museums (Niebuhr and Geyer, 2005). The best numbers are within the collections of the College of Würzburg and the Mainfränkisches Museum in Würzburg, with a mixed complete of 311 specimens, and the Oxford College Museum owns two examples (Edmonds and Powell, 1974). The Muschelkalk limestone by which they’re carved is a compact and well-lithified micrite, demanding bodily effort to work. It’s attainable to envisage a cottage business of stone cravers labouring energetically within the interval main as much as the publication of Beringer’s e book.

Whodunit?

As for the ‘whodunit’ aspect of this fraud, a well-liked fable is that Beringer’s college students carved the iconoliths as a prank. Solely when Beringer found an iconolith carved along with his personal identify did he realise he had been fooled. That is the story instructed, for example, in an ordinary early e book on the historical past of geology and palaeontology written by Karl von Zittel (1901, p. 18). Nonetheless, proof from courtroom information (see Jahn and Woolf, 1963) suggests as a substitute that the culprits could have been two of Beringer’s colleagues at Würzburg College. Inside days of the publication of Lithographiae Wirceburgensis, Beringer initiated a judicial enquiry towards the three collectors from Eibelstadt, who in flip implicated J Ignatz Roderick and Georg von Eckhart, respectively Professor of Geography and Algebra and librarian. Sadly, the ultimate consequence of the enquiry is unknown because the information are incomplete. It has even been urged (Niebuhr and Geyer, 2005) that Beringer himself could not have been a wholly harmless celebration within the fraud.

Beringer in context

It’s all too simple with our fashionable information of fossils and the way they’re shaped to dismiss Beringer as a gullible idiot. Within the early eighteenth century, nevertheless, the true origin of fossils had not been utterly established and there was a poor understanding of what might and what couldn’t be fossilised. Granted, Steno and others earlier than him argued convincingly that fossils have been the stays of as soon as residing organisms naturally entombed in sediment, however varied different theories of fossilisation have been nonetheless being debated. These included vis-plastica, whereby fossils grew inorganically within the rock like minerals, and the Spermatick Precept, explaining no less than some fossils because the progeny of the airborne seeds of marine animals that turned lodged in cracks within the rocks and developed into fossil shells resembling, although not equivalent to, animals residing in fashionable seas. Beringer’s e book tried to use these and different theories of fossilisation, such because the Biblical Flood, to his iconoliths, however he was unable to achieve any agency conclusion. Paradoxically, given his change of opinion after the e book was revealed, he went to nice lengths explaining why they weren’t of human manufacture, even though a number of had obvious scratch marks on their surfaces as if made by a knife. Beringer acknowledged that some faux iconoliths had been produced and he even witnessed one being carved. These he thought-about to be like faux Roman cash made by the unscrupulous to revenue from the excessive worth of the real articles. Nonetheless, he claimed that he might simply distinguish the faux from the true iconoliths.

Why did Beringer cling to his perception that the iconoliths have been pure objects and what made him ultimately change his thoughts? These are tough inquiries to reply. Beringer wrote that he had been favoured by Divine Windfall to have the iconoliths delivered to him for description, which can have pre-empted any questioning of their authenticity. One faculty of thought (Cooper, 2007) is that he was motivated by the need to glorify Franconia, the distinctive presence of the iconoliths elevating the stature of Franconia above neighbouring areas. The frilly frontispiece of Lithographiae Wirceburgensis depicts a number of classically dressed figures deporting themselves over a hillside affected by iconoliths and capped by a monument bearing the symbol of the Prince Bishop of Würzburg (Fig. 12). Along with the e book’s dedication, this makes it clear that Lithographiae Wirceburgensis was aimed on the head of state of Franconia, Prince Bishop Christoph Franz von Hutten. Mockingly, it could nicely have been von Hutten who lastly persuaded Beringer that he had been cruelly deceived.

Lügensteine renaissance

Beringer’s iconoliths turned the discuss of well mannered German society instantly after the fraud was revealed. Apart from a couple of articles (for instance, Taylor, 2004; Ache, 2004; Ache and Byrd, 2005) and, in contrast to the Piltdown conspiracy which nonetheless attracts appreciable public curiosity, Beringer’s Lügensteine have been comparatively uncared for. Nonetheless, there may be now a Lügensteine Affiliation in Germany, with a small museum and internet pages dedicated to this fascinating case of fossil fakery on an enormous scale (https://www.beringers-luegensteine.com/en/home.html). The purpose of this affiliation is to encourage analysis on the Beringer fraud. To publicise its actions, the affiliation produces duplicate Lügensteine, some as sweets, cleaning soap or key rings (Figs. 13 and 14). Now there’s one thing not but tried for Piltdown Man.

In regards to the writer

Paul Taylor is a Benefit Analysis Scientist within the Division of Earth Sciences, Pure Historical past Museum, London.

References

Beringer, J. B. A. 1726 Lithographiae Wirceburgensis. Würzburg: Fuggart.

Cooper, A. 2007 Inventing the Indigenous. Cambridge: Cambridge College Press.

Edmonds, J. M. & Powell, H.P. 1974 Beringer ‘Lügensteine’ at Oxford. Proceedings of the Geologists’ Affiliation 85: 549–554.

Jahn, M. E. & Woolf, D. J. 1963 The Mendacity Stones of Dr. Johann Bartholemew Adam Beringer being his Lithographiae Wirceburgensis. Berkeley and Los Angeles: College of California Press.

Niebuhr, B. & Geyer, G. 2005 Beringers Lügensteine: 493 Corpora Delicti zwischen Dichtung und Wahrheit. Beringeria Sonderheft 5(2): 1–188.

Ache, S. 2004 Johann and the magic stones. New Scientist, 25 December 2004/1 January 2005: 74–75.

Ache, S. & Byrd, B. 2005 Johann and the Magic Stones. Muse 9(5): 38–43.

Taylor, P. D. 2004 Beringer’s iconoliths: palaeontological fraud within the early 18^th century. The Linnean 20: 21–31.

Zittel, Ok. A. von 1901 Historical past of geology and palaeontology. London: Scott.

Buy Fossils, Crystals, Tools
Subscribe to Deposits
Join Fossil Hunts
UK Fossil Locations

Deposits Magazine