The Piltdown Man who was an Orangutan Woman

1. Brief synopsis of the Piltdown Hoax, how it was discovered and the responses by scientists.

In 1912 an English amateur fossil hunter by the name of Charles Dawson claimed to have found what many scientists were looking for… the ‘missing link’ between humans and apes near the town of Piltdown in Great Britain. The findings were a partial skull, jawbone and teeth.  

While many countries like Germany and France had already announced human fossil findings, England had not been able to make such a claim.  Dawson, not being an expert in the field, consulted the leading English geologist in the field of fish fossils Arthur Smith Woodward to verify his findings. Another expert, French Paleontologist Father Pierre de Chardin was also consulted. The trio concluded that the skull found by Dawson was in fact an ancestor of the human race.

Woodward, being the most credible in the field made the announcement to an overwhelmingly proud country and an even more encouraged scientific community.  From within this community scientist Arthur Keith was the Dawson’s biggest supporter simply because the skull proved his own theory that human had a bigger size brain before they started being bipedal.

Other scientists were either not asked or not able to speak up due to the national importance this announcement brought to England.

 

Another scientist, Martin Hinton, who was working under Woodward and volunteered at the National History museum helped Dawson find more fossils in the same area in England. Any doubts or skepticism by fellow scientists were not voiced until about 20 years later, when skulls in Asia and Africa were found. These skulls did not resemble the Piltdown skull at all.

The Natural History Museum restricted examinations of the Piltdown bones very well as they were under lock and key after Dawson passed away in 1916. However,  in 1949 a Florine test revealed that the remains were barely 100, 000 years old.

Just 4 years later further tests concluded that all stains found on the skull were artificially made by using a steel knife. Additionally it was concluded that the shortened teeth on the skull were filed down by hand and the findings were concluded to be fraudulent and a huge scientific hoax. The skull actually was determined to be that of a female Orangutan years later.

Dawson, who had died by than was considered the key suspect in the fraud. His ambition and desire to be part of the royal circle were named as possible motivation. Woodward was suspected as well, but since he continued searching for other fossils at the same time was not so much seen as a co-conspirator, but a fellow fooled scientist. Father Chardin joined the trio too late to be the originator of the fraud.  The only other scientist that would have had a personal gain from the fraud was Arthur Keith, as the skull confirmed his theory and gave him credibility. Not a suspect at the time was the volunteer from the Natural History Museum Martin Hinton. However, a trunk was found in his house in 1996 and it contained fossils that had the same chemical markings that the Piltdown skull had shown. However, it is unknown if Hinton was involved or if he tried to prove that Dawson was a fraud. Nobody was ever named the key suspect and it appears that it was a collaboration of many.

 

2. What human faults come into play here in this scenario and how did these faults negatively impact the scientific process?

The human factor in this scenario was Dawson’s ambition to be an acknowledged scientist and as such would have climbed up the social ladder in the English society.  Arthur’s Keith had the motivation to get his own findings verified and thus supported Dawson.  The person announcing the findings, Arthur Smith Woodward, gained scientific prestige.  The main human factor though were the other scientists, who were skeptic but kept quiet. At the time this all happened the different countries were not working together at all and Great Britain felt a great deal of jealousy towards countries that had been able to report major findings or breakthroughs in the scientific field.  Which human would stand in front of his fellow countrymen and express doubt about ‘the’ finding of the country?

3. What positive aspects of the scientific process were responsible for revealing the skull to be a fraud?

The first test shaking the foundation of the validity of the findings was conducted in 1943 when a scientist by the name of Oakley developed a method that would enable him to test the remains for fluorides, which are absorbed by bones from the soil and water they are surrounded by. Thus the jawbone, teeth  and the skull, belonging to the same person and being in the same are for the same amount of time should have had the same fluoride readings, which they did. However, the bones were deemed to be no more than 50,000 years old, which even if they were would not match already existing and verified human bones in structures or shapes.

Oakley discussed his findings rather casually with a fellow colleague, Joseph Weiner of Oxford University and though Weiner did not have access to the actual artifacts, he studied the photographs of the teeth. He urged Oakley to examine the teeth with a microscope on site and look for specific markings he believed to have seen on the images. Oakley, being one of the limited scientists with access to the remains, confirmed Weiner’s suspicions that the teeth were in fact cut down to make them look more like human teeth. Recent DNA tests  showed that the remains were that of a female Orangutan and all markings making it a mix between apes and humans were artificially added.

4. Is it possible to remove the ‘human’ factor from science to reduce the chance of errors like this happening again? Would you want to remove the human factor from science?

I don’t think it is possible to remove the human factor from science. This will give plenty of room for errors like the Piltdown Hoax to repeat itself. However, the world is a lot more skeptical, outspoken and technologically advanced.  The human factor is necessary to find fossils and other scientific wonders as no ‘machine’ could ever do that. Ambition, as misguided as it can be, is still necessary to push the limits of what is out there already. Question what is out there and search for what has not been found yet. Be it an undiscovered star, an unknown piece by Leonardo DaVinci or a new life form. A human may find it, but science will hopefully be able to verify or deny its authenticity.

5. Life Lesson: What lesson can you take from this historical event regarding taking information at face value from unverified sources?

I believe the biggest lesson is to always be skeptical. To not be afraid to speak up and to question what is not clear, especially when you are an expert in the field. A layman may have to take things at face value simply because they don’t know any better.  The hoax has shown to the world, that ANYBODY is capable of lying to advance themselves, even scientists who until then were considered to be gentleman and scholars and above any such acts.