Piltdown Man Hoax

   In the year 1912, an amateur archaeologist named Charles Dawson came across a fragment of a very old, human-like skull in Piltdown; which is a small town in East Sussex, England. Realizing the importance of such a discovery, Dawson contacted Arthur Smith Woodward, who was the keeper of archaeology at the Natural History Museum. Together, they claimed to have found a jawbone which resembled that of an ape, more skull fragments, and a set of teeth all belonging to the same individual. Smith Woodward then reconstructed the skull fragments, and announced at a Geological Society meeting that the fragments belonged to an ancient human ancestor - a find that was both astonishing and the first of its kind. For the next 45 years, the two men were known as the discoverers of the evidence that proved there was a common lineage between modern-day humans and apes. However, this label did not come without much controversy, and was the subject of serious debate within the scientific community and world. The debate over the find continued on until the year 1953, when evidence surfaced that shed light on what the find really was, a hoax. The fragments of skull that Dawson and Smith Woodward claimed to have unearthed from the site in Piltdown were found to have consisted of the altered jaw of an orangutan with teeth filed to appear like that of a human, intentionally combined with the cranium of a small brained, modern human. To everyone that had been the subject of the hoax's trickery in the scientific community, it was a genuine shock. However, it lead science in the right direction after the hoax was uncovered. Objectivity became the new safeguard for keeping things like this from happening in the future.

   Curiosity, creativity and persistence are all important parts of science. They each drive us toward discovery, new ways of looking at the universe, and new possibilities to explain the many unknowns we face in every day life. However, all three of these things are also traits that humans possess that make us what we are; human. As we all know, we are very complex creatures. One of the things that makes us this way is our capability to feel emotion. Often times, this emotion that we feel gets in the way of being truthful and clouds our judgement; both leaving us susceptible to dishonesty and a lack of objective thought. To me, it seems as if emotion was the true culprit of the hoax. Although it is unclear on whether Smith Woodward knew of the dishonest finds or not, its obvious that Dawson let his emotions take over his ability to be truthful. And just as it did for Dawson, the scientific community and the rest of the world (especially England) also fell under the spell of emotion. The significance of the find being in England made it very easy for Dawson to preform the hoax, and for the rest of England not to question it from an objective point of view. The scientific process fails when emotion is allowed to be the driving force.

   Now, being that the Piltdown hoax was in fact found out to be a hoax, there were some positive parts to the scientific process that came out of the 45-year long lie. After World War II, a new technology came about that allowed scientists to roughly date the age of fossils by observing the Fluorine content in them, which is absorbed from groundwater in the soil over time. After doing this test on the Piltdown Man's skull, it was found that the bones themselves were of different time periods, and from much more recent dates than Dawson and Woodward had lead the scientific community and world to believe. The evidence itself was incredibly startling, so a formal investigation in to the bones and men involved was launched. Some of the other signs that the Piltdown Man was in fact a hoax came out through close observation during the investigation. When the bone was being drilled to collect a fine dust to be tested, the bone gave off a smell that signified its young age. A bone of the age that the men had said it would be would not have given off such a smell. Also, when examining the teeth, it was found that they had been filed down with a steel tool because of the deep gashes that it left where the file had touched. The last test that was used to solidify the hoax was a Hydrochloric acid test, where the chemical compound was used to rub off the staining on the much younger-than-stated orangutan jaw. Finally, after 45 years, the scientific process was implemented correctly in order to verify the truthfulness (in this case, untruthfulness) of the find.

   Of course, it would be great if science could be free from things like human emotion, human error, and untruthfulness. But, unfortunately that's all we've got. There is no way that we could have scientists who are completely void of all of the imperfections that humans possess; or, is there? The answer is yes, there is a way. And I think we already have been implementing it for some time now. Computers are perfect; they don't make mistakes, they do exactly what they are programmed to do, and they do not let emotion or pride get in the way of looking at data objectively. And, without getting too much into the realm of an Orwellian dystopia where computers rule the world, I don't think it is too bad of an idea to keep moving forward in the direction of letting computers do most of the analyzing of data. Now, that's not to say that humans don't have a place in science. I refuse to believe that you can program the spark of human curiosity and wonder into a computer. But, if we are going to keep searching for advancements in anthropological study, or any form of scientific study, we need to keep objectivity at the core of the research. Hoaxes like the Piltdown Man won't happen again if we don't let them. The scientific method and all its beautiful processes are the strongest safeguard we have against events like this.

   On a final note, I think the best lesson that we as students, the scientific community, and the world can take from this event is the importance of critical thinking. One of the best things to happen to humankind was the scientific method. And as I said, objectivity has to be at the core of it. This is where critical thinking comes into play. If somebody told you that they were 100% certain that someone snapped their fingers and then all life was just created, you could objectively look at the claim the person is making and see their lack of evidence as an obvious sign of misinformation. On the same note, if someone told you that all life was gradually developed over the long history of the earth's existence through the process of evolution, you could objectively look at the plethora of evidence they have to defend their claim as a sign of strength to the argument. Critical thinking has a funny way of cutting through the mistakes that are created by not using scientific processes. Or, in the case of the Piltdown Man, un-scientific hoaxes.

http://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/simply-science/episode_10_missing_link_misunderstood 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOn97lU21L4

http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2009/05/11/there-is-no-missing-link/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUaJeNSkbC0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOxHLWMiULU