Week #5 - Piltdown Man Blog

EXTRA EXTRA, READ ALL ABOUT IT!!!

 

The Piltdown hoax all started in the early 1900’s when a laborer, digging at a farm in Barkham Manor, Piltdown, in the southeast England county of Sussex, discovered a piece of what appeared to be a human skull. The laborer reported his findings to Charles Dawson, a local novice archeologist, who in turn dug the area himself. In 1912, after collecting additional skull fragments, he contacted his mentor, Sir Arthur Smith Woodward, a paleontologist, geologists, and an influential figure in the archeological world. Together they excavated the site, which led to findings of more skull fragments, the right side of an ape-like jaw with two molar teeth in place, primitive stone tools, and an assortment of animal remains. With these findings, Woodward reconstructed the human skull and on December 18, 1912 the world was introduced to the Piltdown Man, officially named Eoanthropus Dawsoni. This is what scientists had been waiting for since the unique combination of  a human-like skull and an ape-like jaw was a completely new human species. It was the missing link in the theory of evolution; the ancient link between apes & humans. It was also what Britain was looking for politically; to prove that they were the birth of the human race. Although experts argued that their findings were separate human and ape fossils, further findings (canine tooth of Piltdown I man, and  skull fragments belonging to Piltdown II man) and the backing of the Natural History Museum (one of the world’s leading scientific institutions) shut down those arguments, and for the next 40 years, Piltdown Man became the “key member” of the human family tree.

 

  

During the 1940’s, new technology for dating fossils was developed. It was during this time that the Piltdown man was once again questioned. In 1949  Professor Kenneth Oakley, a staff of the Natural History Museum tested the fossils and found out that the skull and jaw were not as ancient. These results led to further testing, and with the help of Professor Joe Weiner and Sir Wilfrid Le Gros Clark, Oakley conducted a series of additional tests which revealed that the skull fragments were in fact human, but actually belonged to a recent human skull, the jaw also recent was that of an orangutan, the wear patterns on the teeth, had been artificially made and the remains had been boiled and stained to match the aged color of the gravel in which these had been found. On November 21, 1953, they exposed their findings to the world. The scandalous news, brought much disgrace and embarrassment  to the British scientific world. Many world experts had questioned the Piltdown man, but yet British scientists had made careers out of the initial hoax and the continued study of it. In a few words, the world had been deceived!

 

Scientists are curious, creative and persistent by nature, but being human, they also have faults. What human faults come into play here in this scenario and how did these faults negatively impact the scientific process? 

Regardless of our profession (teacher, law enforcement, doctor, scientist, etc), we are all humans first, and although we can all possess very admirable qualities, we also have faults. In this situation, I feel that politics played a huge role in the outcome of these events. France and Germany had already been linked to significant fossil findings (Neanderthals), there was an intense rivalry between Britain and Germany, and therefore, Britain was eager to prove that they were the birth of the human race. Although it does not excuse it, I feel that this added significant pressures to the British scientific world. These findings were worldwide news, not only did they bring much fame to the individuals that were involved, but also to the country. I feel that, deceit, lack of patience, manipulation, greed and fear were the negative faults that came into play. The scientific process was definitely negatively influenced, because for forty years this hoax was believed to be the “key member” of the human family tree and many scientists spent their careers analyzing and studying it; how accurate could their studies/findings be? Once the world found out about this lie, many questions were raised about the accuracy of science. British scientists felt shame and embarrassment.   

With that said though, I also see some good in this. The introduction of new technology allowed for the testing of these fossils. A man, who questioned the validity of it, went against what was believed to be true, went against a country’s reputation and proceeded to do the right thing. Regardless of the negative publicity it brought to others, his country and the museum he was a member of, he revealed to the world that what was believed to be true was not. I don’t believe he did this for himself, but instead for the world.

 

What positive aspects of the scientific process were responsible for revealing the skull to be a fraud? Be specific about scientific tools, processes or methodologies that were involved in providing accurate information about the Piltdown skull.

After World War II a technology for dating sites and fossils was introduced. The relative dating method is used to determine if something is older or younger than something else, but not by how much. The form of relative dating used, was the chemical fluorine analysis. Fluorine analysis only applies to bones, and as a matter-of-fact, bones found at the same location. During the fossilization process, bones are exposed to groundwater that usually contains fluorine. The longer a bone lies beneath the earth, the more fluorine it absorbs. Aside from chemicals, I feel that microscopes, and x-ray machine were also used to test these fossils. These test revealed that the staining of the bones was superficial, the fluorine content of the jaw/teeth, skull and tooth was not adequate to for the age these were claimed to be, the skull belonged to a man, the jaw to a less than 100 year old female orangutan, the molars had been filed down to look humanlike, material that was cut had been cut when they were already fossils with a steel knife, the tools found were replicas.

Although Oakley initially tested these in 1949, his findings were not announced to the world until 1953 for before revealing them as facts he wanted to ensure that they were accurate. He did so by having other scientists test them and test them numerous times. 

 

Is it possible to remove the “human” factor from science to reduce the chance of errors like this happening again? Would you want to remove the human factor from science? 

I personally do not believe that it is possible to remove the “human” factor from science to reduce errors nor would I want to see it removed. I feel that science encompasses many aspects of life and human relationships. The advancements made in this field have been possible because of humans. It is through their dedication, perseverance, and curiosity, that these advancements have been made possible. Humans rely heavily on science, and those in the field, we just have to keep in mind that nothing is perfect, mistakes will be made and it is because of these mistakes that we experience growth. As a human (mother, lover, daughter, sister, student, accountant, aunt) I am NOT perfect, nor do I expect to be, nor do I expect others to think that I am. I DO however, strive for improvement (emotionally and mentally) and I turn my mistakes into lessons.  

  

 

Life Lesson: What lesson can you take from this historical event regarding taking information at face value from unverified sources?  

I actually do not tend to take information at face value, but to be honest, I don’t think I would have questioned something as big as this in the past, especially when scientists and a reputable museum are behind it, and when I lack the knowledge on the matter.  After learning about this hoax, I have realized that it is okay to be skeptical, I have learned that information, regardless of the source, needs to be reviewed, and researched before it is believed to be true. It is a confirmation that humans, regardless of their professions, can not only make mistakes, but also possess negative qualities.  I have also learned that although science aims for accuracy it is not perfect. Lastly, and most importantly, it proves something that I have always told my kids; whether it happens now or later, the truth always comes out and before you tell a lie, think of all of the people you are hurting/affecting in the process, including yourself.