The Piltdown hoax
began in the early 1900s in Sussex, England. Near the village of Piltdown, a
piece of a skull had been discovered by a laborer. The artifact had then been
given to the archaeologist, Charles Dawson. Dawson claimed that the skull
possessed features similar to those of a primate. The scientific significance
of this finding has much to do with Darwin’s idea that living things descended
from the same ancestor. During the time of the Origin of
Species, evolution was deemed unorthodox in Great Britain. Therefore, obtaining
a skull that appeared to be part human and part ape would have been a
ground-breaking discovery in support of Darwin’s work. At the time, skeletal
remains had been uncovered in Germany, France, and Spain. More so, Germany was
thought of the birthplace of early man, which outraged Britain, for the British
had no discoveries. In efforts to build both Britain’s and Dawson’s
reputations, the Piltdown finding was worth pursuing. In doing so, Dawson and
Woodward began digging, soon uncovering an ape-like jawbone with human-like
teeth. This finding became known as the Piltdown Man.
The public was able
to view the Piltdown Man on December 18th, 1912. The British felt
triumphant and prideful over the discovery. As far as the scientific community
goes, scientists had their doubts whether the jawbone and skull matched.
Unfortunately, parts had been broken off in a unique way so that there was no
telling. With the addition of Chardin, a canine tooth was also found that would
put an end to the doubtful thoughts. As time went on, the Piltdown Man was thought of as not genuine. The hoax began when Kenneth Oakley
performed a chemical test so that the fossils could be authenticated. The
results of the test had shown that the Piltdown Man was in fact young.
Furthermore, by estimating nitrogen content, the skull appeared to be stained
while the teeth had been filed down. In fact, the skull was not even of human
nature. The scientific community as well as others were outraged. Suspects
included Conan Doyle, Dawson, and Woodward.
A major human fault
that comes into play when discussing the Piltdown Man has to do with a lack of
evidence. Woodward failed to test the jaw for its nitrogen content. According
to notes, this basic test would have easily proven the jaw to be very young.
Not only did he fail to perform the nitrogen test, he did not analyze the filed
teeth. This could have simply been done with a magnifying glass. The British appeared to be desperate in finding substantial support for Darwin’s evolutionary ideas so that they could triumph others. Therefore, being overly prideful comes into play when discussing faults. These faults
negatively impacted the scientific community by allowing people to believe in a
hoax for forty or more years. As a result, they were embarrassed.
As previously
discussed, scientists are able to chemically test the content of bones. Based on
the skull’s nitrogen content, the authenticity and date of a bone can be
revealed. In this case, the skull dates younger than actually predicted. Also, further speculations can be done in order to acquire information on any existing stain.
It is possible to
remove the human factor from science now, given all of the advances. However,
this does not mean that the human factor should be removed entirely from
science. Science can still benefit from human input. For example, self-
checkouts are added in grocery stores, partially eliminating the human factor.
In reality, a human is still needed when the machines fail to function. As far as the Piltdown Man goes, human action is what helped determine the hoax.
The life lesson taken
from this historical event is to always double check findings for accuracy. The scientific process deals with testing a hypothesis over and over again so that it may one day become a theory. Do
not just assume something is valid because an unverified source claims it is, regardless of wanting to rise above.
Hello,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the interesting post. Overall, you and I are in agreement with our assessments of what happened at Piltdown in 1912; the findings were indeed a hoax and due to both human error and dishonesty. The one thing where you and I differed in opinion was when you talked about the tests that were preformed on the bones, and the species that the fragment of skull belonged to. To my knowledge, the main test that was used to determine the age of the bones Dawson and Smith Woodward claimed to have pulled from the site in Piltdown was the Fluorine test. This process of testing the Fluorine content in bones shows their age because over time, bone absorbs Fluorine from water that is in the soil that entombs the bone. The more Fluorine present in the bone, the older it is. You got the concept down, just replace Nitrogen with Fluorine. Secondly, it is my understanding that at least the first fragment of skull was in fact human or human like. It was the rest of the bones that were artificially made to look like they weren't new. Thanks again for the interesting post, I think your assessment was indeed on the right track. This hoax is particularly interesting to me for the lack of the scientific communities use of critical thinking skills; something that is most definitely practiced in today's science.
- Steven Moentmann
Hello Steven!
ReplyDeleteThank you for your input. I can see where I went wrong with the type of test used. I read that tests were conducted to measure the Nitrogen content in the written transcript provided. However, the more blogs I read, it is clear that Fluorine was used.
Hello Amy, I must say that we both agree when it comes to the human factor. Although like you said science is so advanced but we cant rely completely on it. Good example on the self checkout registers. If the ,machine breaks down or if you want to purchase a bag you still need to ask for assistance from a human. The human factor will always be needed. I also agree that its best to always double check findings for accuracy. You cant say something is valid when you don't know the source.
ReplyDeleteHi Amy,
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed your post and the amount of detail regarding the Piltdown Man. I agree with most of what you said, however, I never really included the bit about Britain trying to surpass other countries with finding evidence to back up Darwin's theory of evolution. I feel that the oversight of missing the age of the fossil and the shaven teeth is something the scientific community is responsible for and I feel like Dawson tried to hide the truth for prideful reasons. He wanted to be the one putting England on the map of science, so it is assumed that he manipulated and hid the fossils so no one could reveal his lie. Overall, I thought your post was really well written and detailed.
Hi Amy,
ReplyDeleteI couldn't agree more with the Piltdown hoax being totally human error. The amount of carelessness and negligence that went into the study is absolutely absurd, but it was also the result of scientists being very naive and trusting. You are right, if they actually did do proper tests and not rely on trust they would've easily debunked the fossil. This just goes to show that yes, it's okay to have trust in someone of high regard, but follow proper procedures and DO ask questions, because sometimes even those you trust can be deceitful.
Hello Amy,
ReplyDeleteIn describing the major human error that came into play here, you mentioned that it had to do with a lack of evidence. I, however, do not agree with this. A lack of evidence is not human error, I believe that would be a scientific error. Just because a human is the scientist it does not make it a human error. I consider a human error to be more of something like emotions, or too much trust.
I did also think your reasoning for the human factor to not be taken out of science was very interesting. I wrote in my post that the human factor should be taken out because it interferes, but your example and perspective made me see things a bit differently.
Some clarifications first:
ReplyDelete"Dawson claimed that the skull possessed features similar to those of a primate."
No, that wouldn't have been a big deal. The claim was that this fossil had both the traits of more modern humans and primitive non-human qualities as well. Recognize that humans *are* primates, so saying that this fossil looked like a primate doesn't tell us much.
"Therefore, obtaining a skull that appeared to be part human and part ape would have been a ground-breaking discovery in support of Darwin’s work. "
No. By this time, Darwin's theory wasn't in question, and neither was the fact that humans and non-human apes and other primates were related. It wasn't about "if" they were genetically related, but *how* humans had evolved from that common ancestor with non-human apes. So what would this discovery have taught us about "how" humans evolved? Piltdown was characterized by large cranium combined with other more primitive, non-human traits, suggesting that the larger brains evolved relatively early in hominid evolutionary process. We now know this to be incorrect, that bipedalism evolved much earlier with larger brains evolving later, but Piltdown suggested that the "larger brains" theory, supported by Arthur Keith (one of the Piltdown scientists) was accurate.
Passed that, you do a very good job of providing the historical perspective on this event, walking your reader through the other things that were happening in paleoanthropology and politics that may have had an impact on the creation of the hoax and the all-to-eager acceptance of this fossil discovery by the scientific community.
With regard to faults, "lack of evidence" isn't a human fault. You have to ask why they ignored the lack of evidence? Ambition? Greed?
"Woodward failed to test the jaw for its nitrogen content. "
Okay... but then why didn't any other scientist do this test? It is a simple test and many would have been qualified.
"The British appeared to be desperate in finding substantial support for Darwin’s evolutionary ideas so that they could triumph others. "
No, again, this doesn't reflect the scientific reality at that time. But they might have been "desperate" for another reason. You talk about how other countries had already found hominid fossils. This was potentially the fossil that would put England on the hominid map. Could it be that a bit of national pride is involved here that dissuaded scientists from looking too closely at Piltdown?
Good discussion of the technology used to uncover the hoax, but what made scientists come back and retest Piltdown? What was happening in paleoanthropology in those 40 years that pushed them to re-examine this find? What aspect of science does that represent?
Can you explain why humans are still needed in science? You seem to be assuming all factors are negative, so why not get rid of the problem altogether? Or do humans bring positive aspects to the scientific process that we can't afford to lose (this was a question in the prompt)? How about curiosity, ingenuity and innovation? Could we even do science without these factors?
Good life lesson.