The Fraud of Piltdown Man

Piltdown Man "Fossil" pieces

Piltdown Man

The Hoax

In the early years of the 1910's, a British paleontologist by the name of Charles Dawson discovers a find of the lifetime. He supposedly discovers a fossil that was apparently the "earliest" known relative to humans, but to everyone's surprise it was founded in Piltdown, Uckfield located in the United Kingdom. Upon discovery of the pieces of the skull many skeptics and scientists questioned how or if the skull really were from the same creature as the jawbone just seemed out of place in comparison to the skull.

However, this was to be expected from a very early ancestor of humans, for the jaw to be questionably ape like more so than human like, but the only issue with this was to really determine anything they needed canines to solidify and appease those her doubted Charles Dawson. To everyone's surprise a canine tooth that sort of matched the expected size showed up almost a year later. 

Due to the lack of forensics, dating, and just poor scientific intuition at the time Piltdown Man became the only, and undisputed, human ancestor being founded specifically in the United Kingdom. Before the reveal of Piltdown Man being found out as a hoax, the United Kingdom took pride in the fact that it was the, "earliest Englishmen as the lords of creation," (Discovery Science). 

Eventually, as time passed by and more and more fossils of human ancestors arose from dig sites in places such as Australia, Asia, Africa, and so on, the authenticity of Piltdown Man was beginning to be questioned. During this time, the technology scientists have are now much more advance than it was in 1912, so scientists were able to use better dating technology to determine the age of the fossils and even reexamine them as a whole. 

The information founded was outstanding, solely because Piltdown Man was a fraud for over two decades. The fossils were notably stained, the jaw bone was merely less than a hundred years old (from an orangutan),  the lower molars were shaved down using modern tools, the canine was forged, and everything was just off about the entire thing. 

With this forgery being discovered, it was now time to figure out just who and why this was done in the first place. Such a discovery cannot just be forged without a reason, it threw off scientists for years and set back paleontologists and human study back many steps. The first person to come to mind was obviously Charles Dawson himself, as he was the one who found the first and any other later Piltdown fossils. Though because of his early death in 1916 it made it so that his forgery got to live and never be questioned by anyone, but he couldn't have pulled this off by himself. The fossil authenticator of Piltdown was a man named  Sir Arthur Smith Woodward, and with his authenticity, Dawson was able to get away with the hoax for many years. Yet, when looking into the background of Charles Dawson, it was quite clear he was the mastermind behind everything as he was a master of forgery and had the most to gain from such a discovery. In the end, Charles Dawson got what he wanted, to die with a discovery and fame that he had founded no one ever has. Hoax or not. 

Positives of Science

Due to the lack of information and the plausibility that the Piltdown skull was actually real during the 1910's-1940's scientists lacked the drive and tools to actually prove otherwise. However, as technology grows and research continues it was easier to actually disprove the existence of Piltdown as a whole. What brought up to look into Piltdown in the first place was not due to new technology, but findings later in the world that made scientists question the legitimacy of Piltdown. These findings were later skulls of human ancestors founded in countries such as Africa, Asia, and Australia where despite the skulls being younger in age, they were more ape like than man like despite the supposed earliest fossil, Piltdown, being more man-like. With this scientists took the opportunity to look back into the fossil and user newer technology to date the fluoride of the skull and jawbone to determine that accurate date. The answers were all over the place, as some pieces were only a few hundred thousand and the jawbone itself only being less than a hundred years. Along with the aging not being accurate it was noted that the fossils were stained with some dye and the bone was tampered with using copper modern tools to shave down the canines, molars, and the shape of the jaw. With all this considered, the fraud was exposed and all the errors Charles Dawson made were finally corrected. 

Human Factor

It's impossible to remove human factor from anything really, especially science. Because in the end, humans are the ones who are classifying anything in science. Humans are the ones who code and tell what the machines to do. Humans are the core and essential part of any scientific discovery overall. See, removing human error would be nice, but removing human factor isn't what we need. Human Error and Human Factor are two completely different things. The Human Factor allows for us to see the details of something in the scientific community using knowledge and understandings that technology can never correct. However, human error is the result of humans being clumsy, emotional, blind, and just not as precise as a machine. These errors throw us off and it isn't anyone's fault really, but it is still error that can be corrected by both other humans and technology. 

Life Lesson

This entire journey about the hoax that is the Piltdown Man is that we cannot trust everything at face value, and that unverified sources will never be reliable even if the information ends up being correct, you cannot back up any of your claims as such. Though, I think this hoax isn't really a good way to learn that lesson as Dawson and Woodward were esteemed scientists in their field that both had a hidden agenda. Dawson deceived the world and Woodward "verified" his discovery. The lesson is more so, even if you find one source, you should look into other sources and cross reference them to see if the information overlaps. That way you know more than one source agrees with the claim.