Tuesday, September 18, 2018


The Piltdown Hoax started with Charles Dawson, an amateur archaeologist, found a piece of a human skull and a jaw bone in 1912 in a pit in the English town of Piltdown. This fossil was especially significant because it looked like a common ancestor of both humans and apes. They were believed to be from about one million years ago, proving exciting because while early human remains have been discovered in France, Germany, and Asia, this was the first to be found in England. This suggested that the ancestors of England could possibly be the earliest humans, and that apes and people share a common lineage. Although some scientists may have been skeptical of the remains, they neglected to challenge Dawson and his team. An anatomist, Arthur Keith, was especially supportive of this discovery because it supported his theory that big brains in humans evolved before upright walking did. The hoax was discovered after fossils were found in Asia and Africa, dating after the supposed Piltdown man. However, the new discoveries appeared to be less human than the Piltdown fossils, despite being older. This prompted a further look at the fossils with more advanced dating methods and it was soon discovered that the artifacts were artificially stained, material was cut with a steel knife, and the teeth were manually filed down. People believed that Dawson, himself, was responsible for the forging of the artifacts in order to become accepted into royal society and obtain prestige. Woodward, another involved scientist, was not to blame because he kept digging after the Dawson died, and found nothing else. Father Teilhard was quiet when the hoax was brought to light.

Human faults are exposed when looking at this scandal. In this particular scandal, Watson was more obsessed with being accepted into Royal Society and establishing himself as a prestigious scientist than actually being accurate and finding honest, honorable results. Humans can also be trusting, and sometimes too quick to believe what they are being told. The other scientist did not question Watson’s findings as much as the process required. Also, the skeptical individuals were too scared to confront or challenge Watson because if his standing in science at the time. Humans tend to not want to stand out or be criticized, and the scientific process was compromised because others did not want to be proven wrong.


When the truth was revealed about Piltdown man, it was due to many technological advancements. There was more advanced radioactive dating, which allowed them to find that the artifacts were not from millions of years ago. The jaw, in fact, was from less than 100 years ago from a female orangutan. There were also stronger microscopes, which helped scientists to see that the teeth had been filled down into the shape the suspect wanted. They also, after finding deep scratch marks, saw that the bones fossils had been cut by a steel knife.

As long as humans are performing these processes and experiments, I don’t believe than it is possible to completely remove the human factor from science. It is possible to reduce and minimize, but not to completely eliminate. Some aspects of the human factor should be removed such as motivations like recognition or fame. This can compromise the process and possibly lead to incorrect manipulation of experiments in order to produce a desired outcome. Other aspects, however, such as natural curiosity and innovation, should be kept in science because they are what makes the field advance. Computers cannot perform these tasks. They are needed to problem solve and figure out solutions to unexpected obstacles.

This historical event shows us that you must always be a little bit skeptical when receiving information from unverified sources. It can be tempting to simply believe it if it supports something you believe, similar to Arthur Keith, but it is better to have an incorrect theory to have unreliable, false support. Every aspect of the information has to be carefully examined to confirm its claims, not matter how convincingly correct it may seem. Accuracy is key to everything.

1 comment:

  1. Very good points throughout on your synopsis. In particular, I appreciate the discussion on Keith's enthusiasm for Piltdown as it supported his theory of larger brains evolving early in human evolution. That would have been it's significance, had it been valid. You also did well to note that new discoveries after Piltdown contradicted its conclusions.

    I do want to make some corrections. You say:

    "This fossil was especially significant because it looked like a common ancestor of both humans and apes. "

    and...

    "... [suggested] that apes and people share a common lineage."

    Piltdown wasn't old enough to do this. It is just a possible twig on the hominid family tree and speaks only to the process of how humans evolved, not to the common ancestry between humans and non-human apes. The later explanation involving Keith's theory is the key to Piltdown's significance, not any connections between modern humans and modern apes.

    With regard to faults: Who is Watson?

    I agree with your discussion of faults from the perspective of the culprits, but want to push back on this:

    "Also, the skeptical individuals were too scared to confront or challenge Watson because if his standing in science at the time."

    If you mean "Dawson" instead of Watson, this doesn't make sense, since Dawson was an amateur scientist at best. Beyond this, it doesn't reflect reality in the scientific community. Scientists can gain prestige by shooting down the claims of another scientist, so there is no incentive to accept a conclusion without question... in fact, it is the JOB of a scientist to question, so beyond incentive, scientists actually failed to do their job properly when they accepted Piltdown with so little skepticism. This needs to be explored. So why did the scientists fail to do their jobs? Remember that Germany and France had already found their own hominid fossils. This would have been England's first. Would you like to be the British scientist that killed England's chance to be on the hominid map? Could national pride have played a role here?

    Can you describe the precise test that was used to uncover the hoax? Who conducted this test? And beyond the technology, 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?

    I agree with your conclusions on the "human factor" issue, though the drive for fame and notoriety can have a very positive influence in pushing scientists to develop new technologies and explore new ideas and concepts. The problem is following the scientific method reliably, not the drive to be recognized.

    Good life lesson.

    ReplyDelete