The Piltdown fossil discovery took place and began in the early 1900's in Sussex, England. An unearthed strange piece of skull, passed onto Charles Dawson, an amateur archaeologist, from a laborer. In 1953, piltdown man was leveled a fake after a few tests and the close observation of a canine tooth. The scientific world was taken by storm. The piltdown man was first revealed as a hoax, it was horrifically embarrassing for the science community as a whole, but even more so by those who built their careers off of its discovery/finding. The scientists involved were Charles Dawson and Sir Arthur Smith Woodward.
A fault such as being so desperate as to forge/ fake a scientific discovery for fame and/or notoriety, because you lack the grit or aren't fortunate enough to discover something of this measure through hard work and persistence. These faults have made a mockery of the world's scientists who fell for such a hoax.
The positive aspects, well the methods used were quite efficient, the mineral department carried out nitrogen content tests, and Kenneth Oakley applied a chemical test to help authenticate and date fossils, revealing that the fossil was much younger then expected. The skull had been stained and the teeth had been filed down and colored with paint.
It'd be hard for someone to remove the "human" factor because there's a chance of error no matter what, but that comes with the field work and chances of getting it right every time no longer exists which is why we have tests for just about every angle to prove of authenticity. I would not want to remove the human factor its needed, it brings more questions to prove authenticity.
To be sure for yourself and that seeing isn't necessarily always believing. Sometimes you need to see or read of the cold hard facts from tests and years of research and proof.
A fault such as being so desperate as to forge/ fake a scientific discovery for fame and/or notoriety, because you lack the grit or aren't fortunate enough to discover something of this measure through hard work and persistence. These faults have made a mockery of the world's scientists who fell for such a hoax.
The positive aspects, well the methods used were quite efficient, the mineral department carried out nitrogen content tests, and Kenneth Oakley applied a chemical test to help authenticate and date fossils, revealing that the fossil was much younger then expected. The skull had been stained and the teeth had been filed down and colored with paint.
It'd be hard for someone to remove the "human" factor because there's a chance of error no matter what, but that comes with the field work and chances of getting it right every time no longer exists which is why we have tests for just about every angle to prove of authenticity. I would not want to remove the human factor its needed, it brings more questions to prove authenticity.
To be sure for yourself and that seeing isn't necessarily always believing. Sometimes you need to see or read of the cold hard facts from tests and years of research and proof.
You've got the basics here, but I would have liked to have seen more background offered. In particular, what was the scientific significance of this find? Why did it make such a big impact on the scientific community (prior to being uncovered as a hoax)? This would have contributed to our understanding of human evolution and it impacted the standing of England in the scientific community? Why?
ReplyDeleteWhen the hoax was uncovered, what were the details on what the bones actually turned out to be?
You mention the scientists falling for this hoax, but why did they do that? Was the hoax really that well perpetrated? Did no one challenge it? What other factors might have encouraged scientists (particularly British ones) to accept the find with little question?
Can you offer more explanation on the chemical tests used by Oakley to uncover the hoax? Why did it take so long to do this?
Okay on the final two sections. Don't afraid to expand your writings. Show me what you know!
It contributes to the origins of man and at first the skull wasn't identifiable, making scientists believe it was the oldest ancestor linking man and primates. It had such a big impact because the British were without a first man, meaning there wasn't any discovered remains of man found in Britain at the time. The contribution of this discovery would challenge and went against the beliefs of Church and of the Bible.
ReplyDeleteThe bones turned out to be bones of an orangutan's and the bones were boiled and stained to give them an aged look.
They fell for it because tools had been found the only missing was actual evidence of the first englishmen. Along with the missing link skull found by Dawson and Smith. Further more there was the discovery of the missing canine tooth. It was challenged because the jaw was broke off and the tooth was missing but once the tooth was found the critics were quieted.
I'm not sure about the skull being unidentifiable. They ended up suggesting that the skull and jaw were supposed to be a unit. Yes, the fact that this was the first find in England did give it great significance.
DeleteThe issue wasn't that it was linking man and primates. Man IS a primate and that was generally understood at the time. What wasn't understood was HOW man evolved and descended from our common ancestor with non-human apes. This fossil had a large cranium and ape-like jaw and teeth which supported a hypothesis by Arthur Keith that humans had developed larger brains before other human traits, like dentition or bipedalism. That was the significance. We now know that bipedalism developed first and Piltdown gave us false information on this.
The jaw was orangutan but the skull was human.
The point that this was the first "Englishman" is the key here. Some may have been fooled, but too many kept their silence and it has been suggested that they didn't want to be the ones to take away England's first fossil hominid, so national pride came into play here.
I have always been fond of science methods, particularly those involving chemical testing to determine ages. How awesome could have been that someone thought to apply this method of testing to the fossil fragments. It is this type of scientific thinking that also many apply to challenges and questions. To bad there is not a test for everything, like a lying test. Imagine we had a chemical, that a person drank, and after being asked a question, if he was telling the truth there would be no problem, but if he told a lie that chemical would cause their mouth and insides to start burning up. :)
ReplyDeleteThat sounds so cruel. However I imagined scientists like the research and hard-work that comes with their field. Repetition can be fun when learning and discovering new facts and items from the past.
DeleteI liked this post, I would just say give a bit more depth with each response and those that were involved. I agree that the human factor cannot be completely removed no matter how professional and objective one tries to be. If it wasn't for the human factor.. wouldn't we all just be mindless computers processing information? Even computers have errors and it seems the more advanced technology gets the more room there is for error. Humans learn from mistakes and find ways to prevent those mistakes from being repeated, we should be glad we make mistakes otherwise we could not appreciate and develop greater methods for future development.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was presented as a hoax after. so do you mean after Charles death or during the time he was alive. but over all I liked your post and the fact that humans bring authenticy to it all.
ReplyDeleteI thought your post was very similar to what I posted. Although it was such an incredible hoax to pull off, the story of this find is quite small and everyone writes almost the same thing. Unfortunately, we will never know who was the mastermind of this hoax. That would certainly be interesting reading.
ReplyDelete