Piltdown Hoax

In 1912 a discovery of what scientists thought to be the first, and earliest fossil remains of human life was found in a southern English town of Lewis in a village called Piltdown. Headed up by Charles Dawson who was an amateur archaeologist, dug up the first piece of what he claimed to be part of an ancient human skull. He then connected with England’s leading geologist/ paleontologist Arthur Smith Woodward and French Paleontologist Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin to continue to authenticate and cultivate more ancient human findings.

            The science significance of the ancient human fossils was that primitive human remains were found in France, Germany, and Asia up to this point. England did not have any signs of primitive humans existence. Findings of the Piltdown man would have found the disconnect between humans and apes. With Arthur Keith supporting Charles Dawson, it would then be enough evidence to solidify his theory that humans had big brains before walking upright. These primitive human findings would have a huge effect on the science community because they were excited to see that ancient human life existed in England too. It would then mark them as discovering the oldest human fossil remains accounted for so far.

            However, a huge shock swept over the science community after 1942, WWII when possibilities arose by new advent technologies that would be able to measure fluorine by conducting tests to roughly date the fossils. In 1953 scientists, could conduct a full-scale analysis where they would discover that the Piltdown human findings were forged. This new information would reveal that the fossil was not as old as they thought and that the skull was stained superficially with markings from steel knives and areas where steel filing had taken place to falsify the information. The jawbone revealed to be less than 100 years old and the origin was from a female orangutan.

            Due to the new details unraveled from the full-scale analysis, the science community was surprised with dismay by the falsified information. They now know that humans walked upright before the big brain came into effect and more proof was found later to detect that the human fossil was a hoax. They couldn’t believe that Scientists (gentlemen), let alone English scientists could or would do something like this, but it came down to “power”. Dawson was an ambitious man who sought to be one of the royal society. He proved that he would do whatever it took to obtain prestige and notoriety even if it compromised his integrity.

            Scientists are human, and therefore, make mistakes or better off saying lying. The falsified information provided by the scientists and their partners were driven by notoriety, prestige, fame, and elite recognition from their peers. This impacted the scientific community by discrediting scientists who were found guilty and those involved. They would then be found as an unreliable source for past and future projects. This would have placed shame on the scientific community by the public. This would in return push back human evolution ideals and force scientists to redo tests and question results and conclusions.

            Although the Piltdown skull was revealed to be a fraud, positive scientific aspects came to light, such as the ability to measure fluorine in 1953 which could provide accurate dates and time lines. Within that piece, better dating methods gave scientists the ability to conduct a full-scale analysis. This revealed the artifacts had been stained and the stain was superficial. The jawbone originated from a female orangutan. They also could see that the teeth were filed down with steel knives and files. With these new tools, it made it possible to detect authenticity from fake.

No, one could not remove the “human factor” because that’s what creates curiosity. Even though we try to place our opinions aside, somehow one’s thoughts sometimes get entwined with results. Plus, why would you want to? Isn’t science about exploring and continuously seeking out information to find answers to the unknown. By eliminating the human factor, I believe the “what if factor” would be lost and science would come to a stance.

My takeaways and lesson learned would be to not just trust information without exploring the possibilities. Even if it’s backed by reputable companies/ persons, always do your homework and research it more in depth. I would say don’t be afraid to challenge results and don’t be afraid to “ask the whys”. One might need to explore more and create continuous tests to uncover the actual true conclusion.