Week 4: Piltdown Hoax
Jealousy and the desire for approval
were some of the human factors that lead an amateur archaeologist to pull off a
hoax that fooled the science community for over 40 years! The hoaxer was
Charles Dawson joined by England’s leading geologist Arthur Smith Woodward of
the Natural History Museum. Together they made discoveries of skull fragments,
a set of teeth, a jawbone, and primitive tools they said were used by the
individual. They reconstructed the skull fragments and hypothesized that this
was evidence of a human ancestor that lived 500,000 years ago and he was named,
the Piltdown Man. Charles Dawson’s prestige held back any public criticism of
his claim and although not all the scientific community accepted their claim,
it was accepted in good faith.
The varying effects on the scientific
community came after Charles Dawson passed away in 1960 and no more of these
ancient remains were found in or about Piltdown. Yet, more younger human-like
remains continued to be found in other countries like Asia and Africa in the
1920’s. There were significant differences in the finds as well that began to
discredit the Piltdown man’s origin. Some important differences were that the
more recent finds showed ancestors that looked less human than the Piltdown
man.
Newly introduced dating technology that
involved testing the fluorine in the fossils, changed the scientific opinion of
the age of the Piltdown Man. Dr. Kenneth Oakley, a geologist also at the
Natural History Museum, were able to discover that the remains were only about
50,000 years old. This eliminated the hypothesis that humans and apes at that
point in time, had already developed into the form of Homo sapiens.
Further tests were conducted about
1953 by biological anthropologist Dr. Joseph Weiner and human anatomist Wilfrid
Le Gros Clark, from Oxford University joined Dr. Oakley to test the age of the
Piltdown remains. They found that the
teeth had been filed down to look human-like
Scientific significance of the
Piltdown man was that this discovery would have taught us that England’s
ancient man was the oldest of all ancestors discovered. Arthur Keith, England’s
leading anatomists supported Dawson’s claim as it would prove his theory that
human’s developed large brains before they walked upright. This claim would
also show us a common lineage between apes and humans.
All in all taking the human factor
into account, we cannot remove human faults from science as it is what leads
our curiosity to discover our surroundings and how we are connected to this
beautiful world. However, one life lesson to be taken from this historical
event regarding taking information at face value from unverified sources is
that we must respect science and the human factor because it will all come full
circle as with checks and balances bringing the desire for truth to light.
I enjoyed reading your post. I agree that we can not remove human faults from science because it contributes to our curiosity which is important when you are working in science. We seek to find answers! I admire what you said about respecting science and the human factor. Science is powerful because it directly affects us in a number of ways daily as we learned earlier this semester - we need to know that we can trust what the scientific community is telling us. It is clear that there was a lack of respect that took place in the Piltdown man hoax. Had he known it was going to come back full circle as you say I wonder if he would have done things differently.
ReplyDeleteYes, I think the human factor is a difficult thing we have to deal with and know that we will make mistakes including scientists. To respect science we must respect each other and ourselves. This means being disciplined and having ethics lead each science experiment. Because the human factor plays a role in who we are, its best to keep questioning things and remember that things always come full circle, so it's better to do strive to do things the right way.
DeleteJust a formatting point: There were five key prompts in the guidelines. It would be to your advantage to separate your post into a paragraph for each prompt so that your reader can better follow how you address each point. You have plenty of space available. No need to cram it all in.
ReplyDeleteOverall, good detail in your synopsis, with a couple of comments.
First of all, remember that we still aren't sure who the actual culprit was here. Dawson could be the creator of the faked fossils or he could have just been a dupe.
I was looking for your explanation of the "significance" of Piltdown and found your discussion further down your post. Please don't make your reader search for your answers to each prompt. Follow the guidelines so that you don't risk losing credit.
You reference "faults" in your first line and identify two possible faults, but don't actually discuss them to address the second prompt. See my point above.
Good information in your section on the positive aspects of science, but one question: 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 actually reference this above but it would have helped to pull this in here)? What aspect of science does that represent?
I agree with your conclusion on the "human factor" but a single sentence isn't sufficient explanation/discussion. Expand.
Good life lesson.
You gave a very detailed and clear synopsis, I just wish you expanded on the "human factor within science" prompt because I found that prompt in specific to be very interesting. But I think your life lesson was good.
ReplyDeleteI never knew about the Piltdown Man hoax, so this was a fun a assignment. I appreciate you reading my post and your constructive criticism.
DeleteI liked how you ended things with how things come full circle and with checks and balances. In the Piltdown Hoax, I assumed there were checks and balances with the use of the London Natural History Museum as will as credible people working with Dawson but I believe they were all blinded by their desire to have this discovery be true.
ReplyDeleteI agree that there were some checks and balances as well as some credible persons involved. It was pointed out that we still don't know who the real culprit was. Thank goodness for the fossil finds plus the dating technology that later came about, because it helped to confirm the doubt that existed about the Piltdown Man ,or it would not have mattered and all involved could have gotten away with it.
Delete