Piltdown Man Hoax

In early in 1912 workers at a gravel pit near the village of Piltdown, in East Sussex, uncovered a piece of fossil and gave it to an amateur archaeologist Charles Dawson.  Dawson then wrote a letter to Arthur Smith Woodward, Keeper of Geology at the Natural History Museum, in which he claimed to have found a piece of thick human-like skull in gravel beds at Piltdown in Sussex.  Dawson and Woodward joined forces and unearthed more skull fragments and a jawbone with 2 teeth.  Believing the pieces to be from the same individual Woodward made a reconstruction that suggested an early human with a large brain and the ape-like jawbone with human-looking teeth.  This reconstruction suggested it could be an early human relative who lived about 500,000 years ago and was given the name Eoanthropus dawsoni (Dawson’s Dawn Man). 

In December of 1912 Woodward announced the discovery of Piltdown Man to the world.  While scientists outside Briton were skeptical, later finds in Piltdown; a canine tooth in 1913, a tool carved from a piece of fossil elephant bone in 1914, as well as a claim by Dawson in 1915 that he had found a molar tooth and skull pieces closely matching those of Piltdown Man at a nearby site seemed to silence some of the doubts.  However since Dawson’s death in 1916, no other evidence had been discovered despite Woodward’s efforts.  

The Piltdown skull was a hoax, a hoax that lasted for 40 years and led science astray.  After Piltdown Man, increasing numbers of ancient human fossils were discovered in Africa, China, Indonesia, Asia and Europe.  However, none of these discoveries replicated or validated the Piltdown Man find.  The new findings suggested that the jaws and teeth became human-like before the evolution of a larger brain unlike the Piltdown Man.

Considering the discrepancies and with the advent of new dating technology, new investigation into the Piltdown Man began.  The Piltdown hoax was finally exposed in 1953 by Kenneth Oakley through fluorine absorption testing.  Fluorine absorption testing uses fluorine’s accumulation in calcium containing organic matter such as bones and teeth.  With this testing Oakley was able to estimate that the Piltdown fossils were probably less than 50,000 years old.  Based on Oakley’s findings biological anthropologist Joseph Weiner and human anatomist Wilfrid Clark also tested the Piltdown fossils and found that the skull was from a medieval human and the jaw was probably from an Orangutan.  Visible scratches on the surfaces of the teeth revealed that the teeth had been filed down to make them look human.  Lastly they discovered that the Piltdown fossils had been chemically aged.

Up until the Piltdown find fossils of early humans had been found in Germany, France and Asia, but nothing from the British Isles.  This hoax could have been perpetrated for self-interest or national pride.  It seems the scientist in Briton didn’t further analyze (or didn’t have the technology to do so) the Piltdown findings as critically as would seem prudent given its importance to the scientific community.  Perhaps this was in defense of national pride, however this hoax was a huge hit to their scientific prestige.  However, the perpetrator of the hoax has never been determined, though Dawson would appear the prime suspect and he could have been motivated by ambition.  Few suspect Woodward and most think that he had been duped all those years.  

Blind ambition, self-interest and even national pride could have come into play in this scenario.  Because some scientists chose not to (for whatever reason) do proper research and analysis of the evidence, science was led down the wrong path for 40 years.  Science and evolution also suffered the public doubt of their theories and their processes.

Thanks to science’s constant questioning of data and evidence this hoax was uncovered.  When additional finds produced conflicting evidence, scientists renewed their analysis of the Piltdown finds, and with the help of new technology (fluorine absorption testing) were able to falsify the Piltdown findings.

I don’t believe the “human” factor can be removed from science due to the fact that it is the “human” factor of curiosity that produces new theories and the challenging of those theories.  While pride, ambition and self-interest are “human” factors as well, the scientific method is set up to constantly question and analyze findings and data to root out claims and theories based upon those negative “human” factors.

A good life lesson to take from this scenario is to question everything.  Do not take statements or theories at face value, be prepared to put in the effort to always question and analyze, do your own research and determine the facts for yourself.