Week 5 Piltdown Hoax Blog
Post
1. In 1912, amateur archeologist Charles Dawson
reportedly found a fossil, part of a jawbone with two teeth that was believed
to be dated a million years ago. This was a huge find, never before had ancient
human remains been found in England. They had been found in other parts of the
world, but not in England. Dawson invited leading Geologist Arthur Smith
Woodward and French Paleontologist Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin to join
him at the gravel pit at Piltdown, East Sussex England where the partial jawbone
had been recovered. Other pieces of what was believed to be early human remains
and animal fossils were found, mostly by Dawson, until Dawson’s death in 1916.
After his death, no other fossils were found at the site.
The scientific community was excited about
the discovery, especially Anthropologist Arthur Keith who was thrilled about
the finding because it supported his personal belief that humans had developed
bigger brains prior to walking upright. It was a great feather in England’s cap
and for England’s scientific community and a great headline grabber. The
“missing link” had been found!
From the beginning some scientists were
skeptical about the find but only a few people were allowed to examine the
fossils and no one was outwardly expressing their doubts. In 1949, scientists
conducted tests on the fossils using fluorine testing which determines how long
an object has been underground. It was discovered that the fossils were much
younger than they were thought to be, approx. 100,00 years old compared to the
1 millions years old previously thought. In 1953 a full-scale analysis was
conducted using better dating methods. It was discovered that the staining on
the bones was superficial and that a steal knife was probably used to cut them.
The two teeth on the jaw showed signs of being ground down instead of worn down
naturally. The jawbone was found to be of a female orangutan that had been cut
to hide the fact that the bones would not have fit an ancient human and so it
would not be seen as coming from an ape. It was determined that someone had
forged the fossils to look like an ancient find.
2. I think the human faults that played into
the hoax were hope, excitement and luck and pride. As previously stated, no
findings of early humans had been found in England, scientists were very
excited and proud that they could share in the other countries discoveries. It
gave clout to English scientists, made headlines. If the small doubt that some
of the people had would have been voiced better, this hoax may never have gone
on for so long. If up to that point in time findings were pointing to other
directions and suddenly these findings point into a totally different
direction, some scientific analysis should have been conducted to try and prove
it wrong. Especially in the case of Arthur Keith, he would have wanted his
personal thought regarding brain size being before standing upright to be true,
his human emotions won out over his scientific background.
3. The scientific process that was responsible
for bringing the hoax to light was the fluorine testing and the later dating
analysis conducted. They took the hypothesis that the fossils were what they
seemed to be a proved it wrong.
4. I’m not sure that you could remove the human
factor from science, or that you would want to. I think the human factor is
important, we aren’t machines and the fact that we are human is why we want to
find the answers to the questions of where did we come from etc. Machines don’t
care don’t feel. The scientific method is in place to ensure accurate results.
Unfortunately the scientific method was not conducted in the beginning when the
Piltdown man was discovered. If it had been and the last step publicized the
hoax would have/could have been avoided and any research that was halted would
have resumed.
5. It’s a nice thought to be able to believe
everything that you hear or that is told to you but unfortunately this can’s
always be the case. It is important to act on suspicion and prove things to be
true or you can end up hurt and embarrassed.
i enjoyed reading your post, you had a lot of details that i hadn't known about yet, and i really enjoyed your outlook on the Human Factor in science, I believed this helped the scientific community to not take things at face value any more.
ReplyDeleteDiane,
ReplyDeleteYour post was really detailed you did a good job. I do not understand how luck played a role in this case. I do agree with you that we are not machines therefore we cannot remove human factor from science. We have come a long way in science and it is because we are human.
Jeannette
In general, good background and good detail on the hoax. Just a couple of points to raise:
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you raised the point about Keith's theory of larger brains evolving before other hominid traits appeared. That was well done and represents the real significance of this fossil find, had it been valid. But this was not a "personal belief" of Keith's. This was his hypothesis based upon his understanding of human evolution and the evidence he had seen so far and he was looking for further evidence to test his hypothesis. Big difference.
Also, given the fossil's application to Keith's hypothesis, why bring in the "missing link" term? I understand that the video uses the term "missing link" but did you have the opportunity to review the video in the assignment folder about the use of this term? Is it valid to use this term to explain the importance of Piltdown?
I can see pride as a "fault" but I'm having trouble with "hope" and "excitement", as I just can't see these as bad things. How about greed? Ambition? Also, aside from reasons why scientists might have accepted this find too readily, with too little skepticism, why did the perpetrators produce the hoax to begin with? What faults were involved there?
Good coverage of the fluorine analysis. What qualities of the process of science itself helped to uncover the hoax? Why were they still analyzing this find 40 years later?
Good discussion on the human factor. I agree that it is the human factor that is the driving force behind science. The scientific method was in practice during this time (and has been for hundreds of years). The problem is that it was not followed faithfully.
Good conclusion.