Piltdown Hoax Blog

1. Begin by giving a brief synopsis of the Piltdown hoax, including when and where it was found, by whom and the varying responses it received from the scientific community. Also include how the hoax was discovered and the impact this had on the scientist(s) involved and in the related fields of human evolution.
The "Piltdown Man" is a famous anthropological hoax concerning the finding of the remains of a previously unknown early human. The hoax find consisted of fragments of a skull and jawbone collected in 1912 from a gravel pit at Piltdown, a village near Uckfield, East Sussex, England. The fragments were thought by many experts of the day to be the fossilised remains of a hitherto unknown form of early man. The latin name Eoanthropus dawsoni ("Dawson's dawn-man"), (after the collector Charles Dawson) was given to the specimen. The significance of the specimen remained the subject of controversy until it was exposed in 1953 as a forgery, consisting of the lower jawbone of an orangutan that had been deliberately combined with the skull of a fully developed modern human. The Piltdown hoax is perhaps the most famous paleontological hoax ever. It has been prominent for two reasons: the attention paid to the issue of human evolution, and the length of time (more than 40 years) that elapsed from its discovery to its full exposure as a forgery.

2. 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 negatively impact the scientific process?
Human faults come into play here because I do not think that they every considered that the fossils would ever be tested, perhaps because of their credentials, who can say? The negative impact that it has scientifically it would seem it would have made it harder for the public to believe anything after that when it comes to science.
Piltdown Man was obviously a deliberate hoax. Upon critical investigation, the hoax was exposed very quickly. However, the "find" was not investigated properly until forty-years after the initial "discovery". This was due primarily to the excellent credentials held by the men who made the "discovery." Very few experts ever suspected fraud. It wasn't until 1949, when the fossils were dated using the fluorine absorption technique, that the authenticity of the "discovery" was called into question. It is true that the fluorine test was not developed until many years after the hoax. However, the file marks upon the teeth, and the fact that the "wear" was backward, would have been immediately obvious upon any inspection from the very beginning.

3. 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.
The Piltdown man hoax had succeeded so well because, at the time of its discovery, the scientific establishment had believed that the large modern brain had preceded the modern omnivorous diet, and the forgery had provided exactly that evidence. It has also been thought that nationalism and cultural prejudice also played a role in the less-than-critical acceptance of the fossil as genuine by some British scientists. It satisfied European expectations that the earliest humans would be found in Eurasia, and the British, it has been claimed, also wanted a first Briton to set against fossil hominids found elsewhere in Europe, including France and Germany
In November 1953, Time published evidence gathered variously by Kenneth Page Oakley, Sir Wilfrid Edward Le Gros Clark and Joseph Weiner proving that the Piltdown Man was a forgery and demonstrating that the fossil was a composite of three distinct species. It consisted of a human skull of medieval age, the 500-year-old lower jaw of a Sarawak orangutan and chimpanzee fossil teeth. The appearance of age had been created by staining the bones with an iron solution and chromic acid. Microscopic examination revealed file-marks on the teeth, and it was deduced from this that someone had modified the teeth to give them a shape more suited to a human diet.

4. Is it possible to remove the “human” factor from science to reduce the chance of errors like this from happening again? Would you want to remove the human factor from science?
I do not think that it is possible to remove the “human” factor because we as humans have this drive within us to want to be the first to discover things (if it is applicable), and I just do not think that desire will disappear from we as human beings. To keep it from happening again perhaps before the work is submitted, whoever is receiving the work can make sure that it is authentic first. I definitely would not want to remove the human factor from science; otherwise there would be scientist that would not reap the benefits of their work by it being published, or having their work mentioned in history books for their contributions and research.

5. Life lessons: What lessons can you take from this historical event regarding taking information at face value from unverified sources?
The lesson that I would take from this historical event would be; to prove and test everything making sure that my facts and findings are accurate and can be provable beyond any doubt, so that I can have integrity.