The Piltdown Man was initially dicovered in 1912 after amateur archaeologist, Charles Dawson, discovered a piece of its skull in a gravel pit located in Piltdown, England. The fossil remains of the Piltdown Man were, at the time, believed to be one of the oldest fossilized evidence of early humans. Upon his initial discovery of the skull fragment, Dawson invited Englands leading geologist, Aurthur Smith Woodward from Englands Natural History Museum to join him in excavating the fossils. It had been believed that they had discovered the missing link between apes and humans. Woodwards credibility helped validate the discovery as the scientific community cheered and applauded the discovery. This also helped validate Aurthur Keith's, England's leading anatomist, theory that big brains developed long before bipedal walking. However, during the 1920's scientist began finding ancient remains elsewhere throughout the world. The ressults sparked speculation about the authenticity of the piltdown man as the skulls of these more recent ancestors appeared to be less human rather than more human. It wouldnt be until 1949 that scientists could uncover the truth. In 1949 scientist conducted a fluorine test to determine the age of the fossils and found that they were rather recent. In 1953, a full scale investigation into the remains found at Piltdown took place. Scientist had found that the fossils and tools had been stained and tampered with to make them appear human. One of the most shocking finds was that the mandible had belonged to a female orangutan, was only about a hundred years old, and the teeth had been filed down to look more human. While no one is certain who tampered with the fossils, many skeptics believe that Dawson had done it to feed his own ambition and elevate himself in the scientific community and join the Royal Society.
In this case, ambition seem to be at fault. Ambition is what most likely drove Dawson to create the hoax as such a monumental find would elevate his carrer to heights he had dreamed of. Ambition is what drove Arthur Keith to blindly accept Dawson's findings as he only wanted to validate his own theory. Ambition is what drives many scientists. However, while Dawson's ambition helped him for the time being, it only hurt the scientific community as the Piltdown man would become the basis for research on human evolution for the next few decades. Errors like these hinder the scientific process as it essentially bring singnificant research to a hault until someone figures out that it's wrong.
It took time for scientist to figure out the hoax, but when the time came they used fluoride dating to figure out that the skull was a lot younger than they had initially thought. In 1953, when a full investigation was launched, a more accurate form of dating was used to determine that the mandible was only a mere hundred years old. Microscopic analysis showed that the teeth hand been mechanically filed down to appear human. Further analysis showed that not only had the fossils been stained, and the mandible had been broken apart to fit the skull and hide the fact that it belonged to an ape.
With advancements in science and technology, an error of this magnitude is unlikely, however while it is most likely not possible to remove the "human" from science as we are the ones who's ambition and curiosity drives scinetific research. Without a human touch there would be no one to speculate and research the validity of scientific discoveries in order to give us the most accurate information. Therefore, the human touch shouldnt be removed because whitout it, great discoveries and inventions wouldn't exist.
The Piltdown Hoax taught me to essentially to take certain information with a grain of sault. By that I mean that you shouldn't always believe information without questioning it's validity yourself. As scientist, it's important that you understand the information given to you as well as the information that surrounds it. In certain cases, it's best that you investigate such information to determine it's validity. As human's we must remember that everyone is capable of mistakes whether they are intentional or accidental. When it come to science I believe it's important to be able to take and consider criticism and well as give it. Otherwise, we may never discover the errors that could possibly shape our way of thinking.
Hello Jimmy,
ReplyDeleteI really liked your post and agree with your statements. I found it very interesting and easy to follow. Overall you did a very good explaining the Piltdown Hoax. Great job!
"This also helped validate Aurthur Keith's, England's leading anatomist, theory that big brains developed long before bipedal walking. "
ReplyDeleteThis is correct. This represents the significance of Piltdown, had it been valid.
So why did you include this?
"It had been believed that they had discovered the missing link between apes and humans."
As explained in the guidelines, this is not a valid significance of this discovery. Piltdown, had it been valid, would NOT have demonstrated a link between humans and apes. First of all, humans ARE apes, but beyond that, Piltdown would have been a branch on the hominid family tree. It would have had nothing to say about the connection between humans and non-human apes. It didn't go back that far in evolutionary time.
Great discussion on the subsequent fossils found that contradicted the conclusions of Piltdown. That is what sent scientists back to re-test the Piltdown fossil and discover the hoax.
Good discussion on the faults that led the perpetrators to create those hoax. Other than the culprits, can you find fault with anyone else? How about the scientific community? Why did they accept this find so readily without proper scrutiny? What might have inspired them (particularly the British scientists) to not do their jobs properly when it came to this particular fossil?
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? You have that information in your synopsis but didn't make that crucial connection here. What aspect of science does that represent?
Good discussion on the issue of the human factor. I agree with your conclusions and your reasoning.
Good life lesson.