So the question is what is the Piltdown Hoax? Maybe they really thought this was a great discovery. In 1912 Charles Dawson, an amateur archaeologist claimed to have discovered the ‘missing link’ between ape and man. He CLAIMED to had found part of a human-like skull in Pleistocene gravel beds near Piltdown village in Sussex, England. The Piltdown Man, was a species of extinct human lineage whose fossils, including a portion of the skull, a jawbone, and a few teeth, were found in 1911 and 1912. This was believed to be "the earliest Englishman," and also the missing link between apes and humans. This took a turn when in 1953, the jawbone was found to be that of a modern ape. It was said that it had been treated with chemicals to make it look as though it had been lying in the ground for hundreds of centuries.
still thought to be a genuine fossil, but far more recent than originally believed. Scratches on the surfaces of the teeth, visible under the microscope, revealed that the teeth had been filed down to make them look human. They also discovered that most of the finds from the Piltdown site had been artificially stained to match the local gravels. In 1949, scientist conducted a test on the Piltdown fossils by measuring the fluorine levels of fossils scientist can roughly date them.
According to PBS.org, "The New York Times in 1953 further reported, "Sir Arthur Keith, famous British paleontologist, spent more than five years piecing together the fragments of what he called a 'remarkable' discovery. He said the brain case was 'primitive in some respects but in all its characteristics distinctly human.' The Piltdown man was named Eoanthropus dawsonii, or Dawn man, in honor of its discoverer, and paleontologists throughout the world handled it with reverence". (pbs.org) This made matters even more confusing, since there were fossil examples of modern humans from 50,000 years ago. That would have made Piltdown Man a freakish throwback, not a missing link. (pbs.org). Some of the pieces came from an orangutans, teeth were filed down, joints had been broken off. this was leading to ape, not human . What was the motive? Some may say that because England had not broken any barriers (like other great countries) in the world of archeologist Dawson may have felt the need to lie, in order to have a leg in the race. Some people do things for reason of desperation, I cant understand why? This situation however does bring me back to the topic of good and bad science and there differences. I feel the Piltdown hoax was a prime example of Bad science and how it is a flawed version of good science, if they would have done a bit more research on the bones then who know what they could have discovered as opposed to making them appear to be something that they were not. When you have a hypotheses it can come with the best of intentions, but by lying about something is very misleading and sets back science for years and years.
Just a formatting point: There were five key prompts in the guidelines. It would be to your advantage to separate your post into a paragraph for each prompt so that your reader can better follow how you address each point. I had difficulty locating where you address each prompt (I couldn't find the fourth one, regarding the "human factor" at all). Make sure you present the information clearly and concisely to avoid loss of points.
ReplyDeleteSynopsis: You do a great job with details about the fossil discovery and uncovering the hoax. You get a little stuck with it comes to the issue of "significance" of this fossil.
"In 1912 Charles Dawson, an amateur archaeologist claimed to have discovered the ‘missing link’ between ape and man."
In the guidelines, it is specifically stated that the term "missing link" could not be used to describe the significance of this find. Did you review the information in the Course Resources module that explains why this term is not valid? Please make sure you go back and review this.
Piltdown, had it been valid, would NOT have demonstrated a link between humans and apes. First of all, humans ARE apes, but beyond that, Piltdown would have been a branch on the hominid family tree. It would have had nothing to say about the connection between humans and non-human apes. It didn't go back that far in evolutionary time.
So the issue of significance remains. Yes, this was significant because it was the first hominid found on English soil, but there was also *scientific* significance. Had Piltdown been valid, it would have helped us better understand *how* humans (not *if*) evolved from that common ancestor with non-human apes. Piltdown was characterized by large cranium combined with other more primitive, non-human traits, suggesting that the larger brains evolved relatively early in hominid evolutionary process. We now know this to be incorrect, that bipedalism evolved much earlier with larger brains evolving later, but Piltdown suggested that the "larger brains" theory, supported by Arthur Keith (one of the Piltdown scientists) was accurate.
Human faults: Okay, I see where you are going here (under the "motives" section) but would Dawson have done all this to benefit the country of Britain? Or would he have done this for his own benefit (i.e., ambition)? We need to recognize that we still aren't sure who the actual culprits were, but usually people act to benefit themselves, not altruistically to benefit a nation.
That said, could that explain why the scientific community failed to detect the hoax when it was first presented to them (British scientists in particular)? Would you like to be the British scientist that killed England's chance to be on the hominid map? Could national pride have played a role here?
Benefits of the process of science: Earlier in your post, you describe the technology and techniques that were used to uncover the hoax. This needed to be included in a separate section under the "benefits" of science. But what made scientists come back and retest Piltdown? What was happening in paleoanthropology in those 40 years that pushed them to re-examine this find? What aspect of science does that represent?
Eliminate human factor?: I don't see where you address this?
Life lesson: You seem to reference this in the last sentence. Needed to clarify and expand.