Don't Ask, Don't Tell: The Piltdown Hoax

   

The Piltdown Hoax, as it has been dubbed, began in the small English town of Piltdown, in 1912, when a laborer working for an amateur archaeologist named Charles Dawson uncovered part of a human skull. Although evidence of early man had already been discovered in other countries in Europe, including Germany and France, as well as Africa, the British had yet to make such a find. Dawson, who had long wanted to be recognized within the scientific community, seized upon this opportunity and quickly reported the find to London's Natural History Museum. Sir Arthur Woorward, a highly respected geologist from the museum, joined him at the Piltdown site where, in addition to uncovering other prehistoric animals and tools, they finally uncovered the remainder of the ape-like skull, complete with human teeth. This confirmed Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, and marked England as the birthplace of early man. Piltdown Man, as he was named, became famous throughout the world although there were some people who were skeptical of the legitimacy of the find. Sir Arthur Woodward's stamp of approval helped lend credence to the situation, and another amateur archaeologist and philosopher named Father Teilard de Chardin also supported the findings. Father Chardin's motivation was that the skull seemed to support his long held theory that man developed his large brain prior to walking erect (which has now been proved false).


For over 40 years, despite growing skepticism, the Piltdown man was accepted as truth. Finally, in 1953, tests determined that the skull was not a half a million years old, but was, in fact, less than 100 years old and had been stained to give it an aged look. In addition, the skull had been pieced together from various animals, including the infamous jaw with teeth, which was probably that of a female orangutan. The teeth, which had been alleged to be human because of the "flat" canines, were revealed to have been filed down. The question then focused on who did this and why. The most obvious suspect was Charles Dawson himself, with the motivation being his ambition to be accepted in academic circles, and the revelations that he was a less than upstanding citizen. While Sir Arthur Woodward was considered a suspect, the fact that he spent the remainder of his life returning to Piltdown to try and find more remains seemed to suggest that he was also duped, although it is a mystery why a noted man of science would not have conducted simple tests that were available to date the fossils. Another man who may have been the culprit was a colleague of Sir Woodward, Martin Hinton, who held a grudge against the man and was known for pulling pranks. The case against him was strengthened when other forged fossils that had been forged in the same manner were found in a trunk belonging to him. Even Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, author of Sherlock Holmes and an avid collector of fossils, was considered based upon his grudge against the scientific community because they scoffed at his unscientifically recognized spiritual practices.



There were a number of human faults that allowed this hoax to not only be perpetrated, but to go on for so long. The first faults were with the people involved in the actual hoax. Dawson, whether guilty or not, placed greed and self-interest ahead of science which is a dangerous thing because his motivation was not pure. Science is about discovery and finding answers to the unknown. Because this was not Dawson's driving purpose, he was doomed before he started. I believe Woodward got caught up in the prestige, and the accolades, and even began to believe he was seeing things that weren't there and this led to taking short cuts. This is dangerous because Woodward is in a very influential position, which makes his endorsements powerful. Almost like what we talk about today when we think of our sports stars as 'role models'. It's a dangerous position because if you are revered you can lose your humility, but if you lose your humility you may lose your ability to be an objective scientist. Father Chardin has a classic case of researcher bias because he had a set belief system and was merely looking for something to support that belief. That is a very dangerous thing in research because often the researcher misses things that are right in front of them simply because they contradict their hypothesis. Although there is some evidence to suggest that Martin Hinton was the perpetrator of the hoax, there is actual written proof that he knew it was a hoax for many years which is something many people suspected. This leads to us to wonder why so many noted scientists allowed this find to go unchallenged and untested for 40 years? The human fault at play here is respect. It is rare that you would ever consider respect a human fault but when it comes to science, not challenging or questioning someone's findings out of respect for them, or their status, or their country can lead to something like this, or worse.


The positive aspects of science that ultimately lead to the unearthing of the Piltdown Hoax are based upon the thing always makes science great: testing. First, a scientist applied a chemical test to determine if the fossils were real and how old they were. They were looking at the nitrogen content in the fossils and it was eventually determined that the fossils were less than 100 years old. They determine that the bones had been boiled and then they had been coated with a stain to give them an aged look. They were also able to determine that the bones of the skull had been pieced together, with pieces being filed down in places to make them appear as if they fit together. In addition, they could see file marks on the teeth where they had been filed down from sharp points into flat 'human-like' teeth. It was determined that this jaw bone portion of the skull was actually from a female orangutan. Once scientists actually began to use the scientific methodologies that are in place to test these finds, science immediately did it's job.



It is not possible to ever remove the human factor from scientific testing nor should we want to. We are human, and it is our human ability to see patterns, make connections, have passion, be determined, and myriad other things that enhances science. However, as the Piltdown Hoax shows, human faults can be fertile ground for scientific error 'if" they are not accounted for. The scientific method, as well as the research method for social research, both include the retest component and other built-in steps to try and limit bias and other human error.



This is a great lesson because as students we hear many things from a lot of different sources and often they contradict each other. A perfect example is what is presented to us in the media. Many of us simply hear a story and take it as fact, especially things related to politics. We often forget about things like ratings and media bias and hidden agendas. If something sounds sensational, it's a good idea to check out the facts and make sure that it holds up to scrutiny. Another thing that I will take away from this is how long it took for anyone to actually stand up and say "Hold on, we need to check this out". I know that when someone tells me something that sounds strange (or that I sometimes even know is an incorrect fact) they sometimes seem offended when I say that I need to check it out. People want you to believe what they tell you, even when they aren't sure of their own source. I have to admit, if the person telling me the information is someone in a position of authority, I will sometimes not say anything, even if I am skeptical. An example of this is once when I was having a conversation with a teacher and I used the word dearth to describe the lack of people needed for a task. The instructor told me I had used the word incorrectly because dearth meant an excess of, not a lack of. I knew the definition of dearth, so I knew that I had used it correctly, but I didn't want to challenge it because I thought my teacher might feel disrespected. Now I can see why that might not be the best thing to do, and when it comes to science, it is never the right thing!