One of the reasons the forgery was so successful was that there were so many internal inconsistencies; scientists spent more time arguing over the interpretation of details than they did on validating the whole matter. For example, there were no systematic excavations at the site of Piltdown I, and the Piltdown II site was never found. The forger had also cleverly salted the gravel bed with faunal elements that indicated up to four separate horizons for geologists to fit into the existing Pliocene-Pleistocene chronology.As the years went on, other paleontological finds? especially the discovery of Peking man in the 1920s and 1930s by W. C. Pei and Teilhard de Chardin, the australopithecine facial skeleton discovered by Raymond Dart in 1924, and many other European remains showed that Piltdown man's combination of an advanced cranium and a primitive jaw was anomalous. Piltdown man became very much a side issue.In 1953, the Piltdown man controversy was revived at a London conference on human origins convened by the Weiner-Gren Foundation. Notably, the conference brought together two men: Kenneth Oakley, a geologist from the British Museum, who had been using various novel chemical analyses to test the age associations of fossil remains including Piltdown, and Joseph Weiner, a South-African-born anthropologist of Oxford University. The two shared a skepticism about the age of the Piltdown remains, the association of the jaw and the skull, and the haphazard pattern by which the fossils were collected. Oakley, for instance, had already shown that the remains were not very old at all.

He couldn't use his own urine because the testosterone in older male urine can be detected. 

An example in America might be if someone if a sewer line is being put in somewhere in small town Ohio, and they find artifacts that are unusually early (say from the 17th century).  If none of the nearby archaeologists are versed in that time period, what do they do?