Week 5: Piltdown Hoax
In February of 1912, an amateur British archaeologist named Charles Dawson committed one of the most infamous hoax in modern scientific history. Dawson would make write to London's Natural History Museum claiming that he had found fossils that indicated a common ancestor between human and apes, and to the excitement of the the British society, it was found in Sussex, in a little village called Piltdown. Dawson would then be aided by Arthur Smith Woodward, an establish figure of the Natural History Museum, and Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, a french paleontologist. The trio would find more "fossils" that gave evidence of early man living in England, and by 1915 a year before Dawson's death, they had been able to avoid the few skeptics they had with their "evidence" until 1953. With new innovation in fossil dating through fluoride measurements finally disproving the hoax, it also revealed the unfortunate truth that scientific focus, time, and resource was wasted for over forty years.
They would gain support from famous scientist in England like Arthur Keith, a leading animist researcher who found that the skull gave credibility to Keith's personal evolutionary theory that early man developed bigger brains before devolving the ability to walk upright, but the opposite would be proven to be the case. Regardless thanks to him and Arthur Smith Woodward established reputation, most other scientist would not openly challenge their interpretation of their findings either due trust in them or due to a lack of evidence or reason to counter Dawson's findings.
This would change after 1920, when discovery of other early men fossil in Asia and Africa would appear more ape-like rather then human-like despite the fossils appearing younger then Dawson's. Early chemical testing was able to show that the bone found by the late Dawson were painted to appear old. Further testing would show that the bones were cut to appear as though the they fit together, but the skull is only 500 year old human cranium and the jaw bone was from an orangutan, the teeth filed to appear human-like and flat. Furthermore, no new fossils would be discovered in Piltdown after Dawson's passing, and no similar fossil would ever appear since, despite 40 years dedicated to searching around Europe. All at the expense of ignoring the aforementioned Asian and African discoveries.
The whole experience at it's core is a testament of human bias and desire for recognition affecting scientific progress. Charles Dawson was amoung the many young archaeologist inspired by
Charles Darwin's theory of evolution to discover the common ancestry man and ape share. He had ambition to join the ranks of archaeological Royal Society, and thanks to the to the Piltdown Hoax he succeeded. By using the desire of British scientist to have their own fossilized early human, Dawson was able to hide behind this wall of national pride from any foreign skeptics. However, discovery from other countries continued, and new testing method are created to reinforce or challenge past results. If any lessons can be taught from this moment of history, it's that even established scientist and institution can fall victim to a lapse of judgement due to personal bias just like any other average joe.
They would gain support from famous scientist in England like Arthur Keith, a leading animist researcher who found that the skull gave credibility to Keith's personal evolutionary theory that early man developed bigger brains before devolving the ability to walk upright, but the opposite would be proven to be the case. Regardless thanks to him and Arthur Smith Woodward established reputation, most other scientist would not openly challenge their interpretation of their findings either due trust in them or due to a lack of evidence or reason to counter Dawson's findings.
This would change after 1920, when discovery of other early men fossil in Asia and Africa would appear more ape-like rather then human-like despite the fossils appearing younger then Dawson's. Early chemical testing was able to show that the bone found by the late Dawson were painted to appear old. Further testing would show that the bones were cut to appear as though the they fit together, but the skull is only 500 year old human cranium and the jaw bone was from an orangutan, the teeth filed to appear human-like and flat. Furthermore, no new fossils would be discovered in Piltdown after Dawson's passing, and no similar fossil would ever appear since, despite 40 years dedicated to searching around Europe. All at the expense of ignoring the aforementioned Asian and African discoveries.
The whole experience at it's core is a testament of human bias and desire for recognition affecting scientific progress. Charles Dawson was amoung the many young archaeologist inspired by
Charles Darwin's theory of evolution to discover the common ancestry man and ape share. He had ambition to join the ranks of archaeological Royal Society, and thanks to the to the Piltdown Hoax he succeeded. By using the desire of British scientist to have their own fossilized early human, Dawson was able to hide behind this wall of national pride from any foreign skeptics. However, discovery from other countries continued, and new testing method are created to reinforce or challenge past results. If any lessons can be taught from this moment of history, it's that even established scientist and institution can fall victim to a lapse of judgement due to personal bias just like any other average joe.
Okay, but this is an interesting, complex event and certainly more detail could have been provided on what was found, who was involved, and the process of uncovering the hoax, along with how long it took to produce evidence of the hoax and why it took so long. Significance is also an issue:
ReplyDelete"...claiming that he had found fossils that indicated a common ancestor between human and apes"
No. 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. The assignment module provides background information that explains the problem with this concept. Make sure you take the time to review this.
So the issue of significance remains. Yes, this was significant because it was the first hominid found on English soil, but there was also *scientific* significance. Had Piltdown been valid, it would have helped us better understand *how* humans (not *if*) evolved from that common ancestor with non-human apes. 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.
I do see you discuss Keith's theory in the second paragraph. It should have been included in the first. The second paragraph asks you to discuss the "faults" involved in this event that allowed this hoax to be created and perpetuated for 40 years.
"most other scientist would not openly challenge their interpretation of their findings either due trust in them or due to a lack of evidence or reason to counter Dawson's findings."
I've seen this claim a number of times and it isn't valid, not 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?
Additionally, this only deals with the faults of the scientific community. What about the faults involved with the culprits who created the hoax in the first place? What drove them to create the hoax? Ambition? Greed?
In general, good discussion on what drove scientists to return and retest Piltdown's conclusions 40 years later (though humans ARE apes, so "ape-like" doesn't help us here). Can you offer more specifics on the chemical test (and the person who conducted it) to help uncover the hoax?
"The whole experience at it's core is a testament of human bias and desire for recognition affecting scientific progress. "
I actually think it is a testament to the process of science being able to weed out the impact of human error, even if it does take a very long time.
I don't see where you address the prompt on the "human factor".
Good life lesson.
Hey there!
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed your post! My favorite part is when you mentioned that even scientists could be prone to a desire for recognition. This could be a big factor on the scientific process and affect the scientific community and it’s appearance. Around the time of the Piltdown hoax, the scientific community was looked upon as untrustworthy by some, especially creationists. If those like Charles Dawson seek out fame and fortune, the scientific community could suffer as a result through forgeries, like the Piltdown man.