Piltdown Hoax Blog Post

The Piltdown Hoax was an impactful, game changing 40-year hoax that took place in the small village of Piltdown, East Sussex (England) in 1912.

It all started when an amateur archeologist named Charles Dawson claimed to have found a piece of an ancient human skull while digging through a gravel pit in Piltdown.  Upon this discovery he invited both England's leading geologist, Arthur Smith Woodward, (of the Natural History Museum) and French Paleontologist Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin to join him in Piltdown. Prior to this point there been only been remains of primitive humans found in France, Germany and Asia so the discovery of evidence of the existence of primitive humans in England could finally put them on the map, so to speak. Knowing the potential of such a find, the three of them set forth on their archeological hunt and it was Charles Dawson who came up with the elusive find; a jawbone that was thought to belong the skull that was previously found. These findings were presented to the Royal Geological Society by Woodward in December 1912 and officially leveled the playing field of the existence of ancient human remains.  These findings were backed by reputable scientists, including Woodward so even though there may have been some skepticism, nobody was going to challenge them publicly.  It wasn't until 40 years later that these findings would be exposed for the frauds they were.

As the years went by and new dating methods emerged, the Piltdown Man was once again studied in 1949 by Professor Kenneth Oakley, (British Museums). Professor Oakley used the relative dating method, Flourine analysis, to determine that the human skull was significantly older than the jaw bone that Dawson had discovered in the same area. Flourine analysis is a method that only applies to bones that have been exposed to flourine, most likely through the seepage of groundwater. The longer the bones lie in the earth, the more flourine is incorporated during the fossilization process and bones that have been in the same place for the same duration should contain the same amount of flourine.  Oakley's discovery that the jaw bone was much younger than the skull was a surprising find that didn't make any sense.  It was this discovery that led scientists to conduct further testing and in 1953 scientists launched the first full scale analysis with better dating methods. It was immediately found that the bones had been stained, altered and forged. The teeth of the jaw had been filed down to look like those of a human and the bone was cut to fit the human skull. The jaw dated back less than 100 years and in fact belonged to a female orangutan. Scientists were blown away by these findings as it was hard to believe that anyone would be capable of making such a mockery of such a monumental scientific find. 

I have always believed that while science itself is backed by scientific methods, behind every scientist is a human being. And fault lies within all of us. Perhaps Charles Dawson was driven by his desire be apart of the Royal Society by being the one to find the existence of ancient humans in England or perhaps he, himself had been duped as well.  It's almost as if there was a wide spread conspiracy to keep the truth under lock and key as over the years following the discovery (and prior to the actual proof of fraud) there was very little, if any, access to the fossils for further studies.  If this hoax has taught us anything it's that scientists don't always act on their motives to test the validity of hypothesis, opinions can play a negative role in science and scientists are in fact capable of deceit.

I think the quote, "good science depends on objectivity" is incredibly important and a reason why we cannot remove the "human" factor from science to reduce the chance of errors like this from happening again. Not all scientists are frauds and not all findings are forged. Objectivity plays a vital role in science, and in the beginning if only one scientist had spoken up against the supposed human jaw bone than perhaps scientists could have been saved from 40 years of deception.  I absolutely do not want to remove the human factor as I find it the most interesting factor of science. I seek to challenge those who present scientific theories and in those challenges we learn new things.

My lesson in life that I take from this historical event is that just because someone says something is "science based" does not mean I cannot challenge it and provide evidence to the contrary. Taking information at face value from unverified sources would be MY mistake and not the fault of the person presenting the information. I am capable of doing research and then making informed decisions based on those findings.