In the Early 1900’s the first skull fragments were
discovered and then later in 1912 publically
announced as Piltdown Man to the Natural History Museum. This was accredited to Charles Dawson who invited
Arthur Smith Woodward and Father Pierre Teilhard De Chardin to support his
discovery. This was significant because Piltdown Man theorized that it was an evolutionary
path that associated apes and humans closely together. Another member involved
in the Arthur Keith an anatomist that once opposed the remains authentication,
changed his opinion and fully supported Piltdown Man when it supported his
theory that large brains came before walking upright in the human evolutionary
path. The remaining fossils were uncovered four years after the public announcement
and death of Charles Dawson. Within the decade of Piltdown Man last discovered
remains ancient human fossils were found in Asia and Africa and less human
looking in appearance some were discredited due to the fact that they did not
follow the evolutionary path of Piltdown Man.
The reconstructed skull of Piltdown Man was one of male
skull fragments and the altered lower jaw bone and tooth of a female orangutan.
The jaw bone was purposely broken to remove the tell-tell sign that the jaw was
not human and the back teeth were filed down to resemble human molders, the staining
with potash gave the fossil the appearance of being older and the tooth also
filed down was painted to resemble aged remains. Piltdown man was later proven
to be a hoax due to cutting edge test however the hoax lasted for 40 years some
of which were scientist were not allowed to conduct test even as new discoveries
gave evidence to question the integrity of the remains (first and last remains
were discovered by Charles Dawson and none were found after his death, 1975 the
trunk belonging to Martin Hinton of artifacts with chemical staining and filing
down proven similar to Piltdown Man).
The human fault in this scenario or any scientific discovery
is when artifacts are altered to prove theories and integrity of the discovery
is not objective (egos and pride). The Piltdown Hoax was a discovery that temporally
changed the beliefs our evolutionary path and discredited other discoveries
because they were different from Piltdown Man. This error in history lasted 40
years until accurate test were developed and allowed to be administered on the
remains of Piltdown Man. The falsification of Piltdown Man was a mystery that
was questioned but never really remarked on at the time, even when older authentic
remains surfaced in other parts of the world.
Positive aspects of science are that test can be improved
with time. The test that confirmed the hoax of Piltdown Man were a drilling
test that revealed the skull fragments were odorless clearing them to be older than
the lower jaw bone. The lower jawbone contained a burning scent that only
occurs with fossils that are younger (like fresh bones). This test disproved
the assumption that the skull fragments and jaw bone are from the same specimen.
Another test was the fluorine absorption test performed in 1949 by Dr. Kenneth
Oakley (the longer remains are in ground the more fluorine they can absorb from
the soil) results stated that the skull fragments were much younger than
estimated (500,000 years old) and the jaw bone was younger than the skull and
from a female orangutan. Test in 1959 (carbon-14 dating technique) confirmed by
Joseph Weiner that the skull was 520-720 years old and jaw centuries younger.
The Acid Test where hydrochloric acid applied to the fossils rubbed off the
staining color caused by potassium
dichromate.
I’m not sure if it’s possible to
take the human factor out of science completely, so that past errors like
Piltdown Man won’t occur again but I think several precautions are in placed
because of events like this. Scientists can keep detailed documentation, record
all interpretations/speculation, review with specialist and re-check results
several times but in the end we are all just human. It’s common nature to
over-look things and change a thought during a discovery and have an ego. I’m
on the fence about whether I would remove human factors from science as a whole
because we may produce errors on occasion but we’re persistent about proving
our findings true but without unbiased evidence and mindset errors are bound to
happen.
This makes me want ten forms of confirmation that something is accurate. That amateur in the field should review with established scholars or scientist on findings because this event can really open your eyes to bad/good research and methods. I have never really heard of this particular event in history perhaps due to the huge discredit it received. This assignment has made me cautious and curious of discoveries and how objective methods are key in the science process.