Piltdown Blog Assignment

The Piltdown Man Hoax was a significant scientific fraud that was perpetrated in 1912 and involved the finding of skeletal remains in the English town of Piltdown. The discovery of the remains was initially brought to light by an English archaeologist named Charles Dawson. It was at that time that Dawson reported that he was initially provided fragments of a what he had determined was a skull from a gravel pit worker in Piltdown during the 1908. Based on Dawson’s initial findings he sought to enlist the assistance of leading English geologist Arthur Smith Woodward, from the British Museum, and French paleontologist Pierre Tailhard de Chardin in the continued examination of the site for additional remains. During a several month period in 1912 the group continued to search the site for additional skeletal remains, and Dawson alone found additional skull fragments and a part of the lower jawbone with two flat teeth. Woodward created a reconstruction of the skull from the fragments that showed the presence of a human like cranium that was larger that apes and roughly two-thirds the size of a human, yet a jaw bone that was similar to a chimp with the exception of the flat human-like teeth. Based on the reconstruction Woodward concluded that the skull was proof that the prevailing thought of the period was accurate in that a larger brain evolved in humans prior to them walking upright and developing an omnivorous diet as proven by the human like molar teeth. 

The legitimacy of these findings was initially challenged in the years immediately after the public announcement by various paleontologist and zoologist of the times as they found that the skull reconstruction appeared to be the combination of an ape jaw and human skull. During this period the trio continued searching the area and uncovered additional canine teeth believed to belong to the Piltdown skull which were intended to support the Woodward reconstruction, but rival paleontologist Arthur Keith noted that they were not consistent with canines that should have existed with human like molar teeth. In 1915, much of the debate of the legitimacy of the findings were put to rest as Dawson claimed to have found fragments of another similar skull at a site relatively close to the location of the original Piltdown man findings. Once again Woodward corroborated Dawson’s findings although he could not substantiate through the gathering of his own personal physical evidence. In the 1920’s, although there were some fossil findings that disputed the Piltdown Man findings in Asia and Africa in that they appeared to be hundreds of thousands of years later yet less human like, there was no serious opposition in the scientific community to the assumptions on evolution that were derived from the Piltdown skull.

This falsehood went unchallenged until 1949, when the Piltdown bones were finally tested by English anthropologist Kenneth Oakley through a relative dating technique called fluorine analysis that had been recently perfected around that time. Fluorine analysis is a relative dating technique that can be used to determine if the fluorine levels found in two fossils at the same strata are consistent with what should have been buried during the same timeframe. The initial findings on the Fluorine levels determined that the Piltdown remains were only a few hundred years old and a thorough review of the strata where the initial findings were uncovered commenced. In 1953, the research was concluded, and it was determined that the Piltdown Man discovery was merely an elaborate hoax. Through the use of an X-ray fluorescence examination it was determined that the skull and jaw were from different period, and the jaw was in fact that of orangutan and the skull human as was originally believed by initial dissenters of Woodward’s findings. It was further determined that the skull and jaw had been stained with a chemical to provide it with an ancient appearance, and microscopic evidence was also uncovered that the teeth has been filed down to have their flat appearance. Naturally, this hoax lead to nearly 40 years of inaccurate thoughts and misconceptions on evolution, as any findings that were not consistent with Piltdown were not able to be put in their proper scientific context since they went against the prevailing evidence of those findings.

The Piltdown Hoax is a classic example of the impact that human faults can have on scientific discovery. Although science involves the pursuit of truth about how our world works that does not reduce the impacts of greed, fame and prestige on the aspirations and motivations of scientists. The search for scientific truth is a long, arduous journey but when a major discovery is uncovered that scientist if oftentimes showered with the praise, stature and potentially financially compensation that accompanies their findings. Dawson is at least the primary conspirator in the hoax and his potential motivations would clearly fit into all those areas. He was a little-known archaeologist when he brought his initial findings to Woodward and received fame and notoriety for his groundbreaking discovery. Once again, the elaborate nature of the fraud points out the level of deception that humans will perpetrate in the pursuit of advancing their own self-interest. Dawson attempted to manipulate the scientific process by introducing and manipulating scientific physical evidence that supported a narrative that he wanted to perpetuate, and then created his own supporting evidence that was used to further validate his initial findings. While Woodward can be considered a potential co-conspirator for being complicit in signing off on the validity of Dawson’s findings it does seem unlikely that he truly knew the degree of Dawson’s deception for it has been reported that he spent nearly two decades after Dawson’s death unsuccessfully attempting to survey the Piltdown site for additional remains to further substantiate his findings.

Although Dawson stalled scientific discovery in this area for a significant number of years, in the end it was the scientific process that eventually brought his hoax to light. One of the key concepts of the scientific process is to continue to follow your hypothesis to where your evidence leads. While scientists around the period of the Piltdown discovery had their initial doubts on the legitimacy of the findings, they did not have the access to the remains nor the technology at that time to fully test the evidence that has been presented by Dawson and Woodward. The scientific process has shown that findings must be reportable and duplicative so that your results can be independently corroborated by another scientist. Through this process scientist must continue to challenge previously agreed upon fact to either re-confirm those theories or modify them based on new information that is uncovered in this process. New technology or techniques allow the scientist to apply these methods to previous findings, like with the use of the fluorine analysis in this case, and determine if the prior results are still valid. In this case, with inconsistency in ancient findings subsequent to the Piltdown Man, scientists were able to use advances in stratigraphy, fluorine analysis and microscopic analysis to test the actual samples and uncover the inconsistencies with the timing and physical manipulation of the Piltdown remains. Stratigraphy showed inconsistencies between the location of the fossil findings, fluorine analysis showed that skull and jaw were not from same period due to fluorine levels and microscopic analysis showed the carvings of the teeth and combining of the skull and jaw. 

I feel that it is impossible to remove the human factor from science for it is our natural curiosity and pursuit to understand our natural world that drives scientific discovery. Naturally, this drive can lead scientist to go astray to obtain the previously noted benefits of scientific advancement, but I think the scientific process serves as a check and balance in this process. We live in a world now where our modern society is driven by the constant scientific and technological innovation of trail blazers that seek to change our understanding of what is possible daily. Naturally, in this rapidly changing world there is an opportunity for someone to attempt to manipulate scientific findings for self-gain, but I feel that the precedent has been established for independent testing of validation of new ideas and concepts. Thus, a person may be able to fool society for a short period, but I have confidence that new methods of testing their results will continue to be developed that will once again disprove any blatant falsehoods. This healthy skepticism is going to be especially evident in the presentation of more controversial scientific theories.       

In conclusion, this event points out the importance of validating information from unverified sources. It teaches us to question the presentation of evidence from a sole provider without the ability to validate its legitimacy. Naturally, this type of evidence must be looked at with a higher degree of skepticism and be the subject of greater scrutiny. There must be a greater effort made to determine if there is another party that can independently confirm the origins of the evidence. This also brings in to question the potential motives of the person that has provided the evidence and determining if there is a perceived benefit in the information they are sharing. Finally, this also highlights the importance of detailed scientific testing of any such evidence to ensure it has not been altered in any manner that would manipulate the perception of those that are relying on its legitimacy. Thus, all of these things must be addressed when assessing the relevance of evidential support.