Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Piltdown Man and the Dualist Contention

  1. #1
    Senior Member Catterick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Last Online
    Thursday, September 7th, 2017 @ 12:29 AM
    Ethnicity
    Mixed Germanic and Celtic
    Ancestry
    British Isles & Scandinavia
    Subrace
    Borreby x Nordic
    Country
    Other Other
    Location
    Aqua
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Gondolier
    Posts
    2,199
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    19
    Thanked in
    19 Posts

    Piltdown Man and the Dualist Contention

    Skeptics of Piltdown Man.

    http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...st-contention/


    One of the most fascinating episodes in the history of palaeontology is that of Piltdown man, an alleged human ancestor discovered in 1908 at Piltdown in Sussex, England. Formally named Eoanthropus dawsoni in 1912, Piltdown man matched early 20th century expectations of what a human ancestor might be like. It combined a large brain with an ape-like jaw (therefore confirming ideas that the evolution of big brains led the way in hominin evolution), and it lived in Europe (confirming ideas that hominin evolution was a Eurasian event, the hominins of Africa and tropical Asia being divergent irrelevancies or side-branches). The African australopithecines had yet to be discovered, nor had scarcely any of the wealth of fossil African hominins we know of today.

    The one thing that every single person who’s heard of Piltdown man knows is that it was eventually determined to be a hoax. This didn’t happen until 1953 when Kenneth P. Oakley, Wilfrid E. Le Gros Clark and Joseph Weiner showed how an orangutan jaw and human skull fragments had all been combined to fool the scientists of the day (Weiner et al. 1953). Exactly who the perpetrator was and what their motives were remain debated, and an enormous amount of work has been published on this subject. This article is not about that particular part of the story, though I will say that amateur archaeologist and palaeontologist Charles Dawson was (in my view) the person most likely to have been behind the hoax.

    What’s discussed rather less frequently is that early 20th century views on Piltdown man were far more complex than popularly portrayed. Acceptance of Eoanthropus as a valid proto-human might have been the ‘mainstream’ view that made it into textbooks and encyclopedias, but it certainly wasn’t the only one, nor was this acceptance wholesale or uncontroversial.

    Also not especially well known is that Piltdown man was not a singleton. Two specimens were found at locations about 3 km apart. These are known as Piltdown I and Piltdown II, though the Piltdown II specimen (sometimes called the Sheffield Park specimen, and consisting of skull fragments and a tooth) was never properly described, nor was the site identified with precision.

    Piltdown man’s describer was Arthur Smith Woodward of the (then) British Museum (Natural History). But Woodward was an ichthyologist and many have wondered if he did himself a favour in devoting so much time and energy to an area that was not his speciality. Regardless, these concerns over Woodward’s expertise did not affect acceptance of Eoanthropus as an ancestor to modern humans among British palaeontologists. Several of Woodward’s colleagues – most notably zoologist William Pycraft (best known for his ornithological work) – were vocal and aggressive supporters of Woodward’s interpretation.

    Dualism and the dualists

    Long prior to 1953 however, certain other anthropologists, primatologists and mammalogists were of the opinion that the cranium and jaw of Piltdown I did not go together, and that while the cranium was human, the jaw was from a chimpanzee or some other non-human ape. In fact, some workers voiced doubts about the authenticity of Woodward’s reconstruction within just two or three years of 1912. We might even go as far as saying that quite a few anthropologists and mammalogists of the early 1900s would not have been surprised on learning that it was a hoax, and some might even have suspected that this is exactly what it was.

    This idea that the material was of a ‘dual’ nature became known as dualism, its supporters the dualists. Martin Hinton, a zoologist at the British Museum (Natural History) often linked with the hoax (Gardiner 2003), claimed that he had been aware of this duality since 1912 at least, and he noted that Oldfield Thomas, the museum’s leading mammalogist, was of the same opinion. Of course Hinton’s apparent brilliance takes on a different light if he was the hoaxer as some claim, and he did not come forward with this view until the 1950s.

    In 1913, King’s College anatomist David Waterston argued that the Piltdown I jaw was emphatically not that of a human, and that associating it with a human-like cranium was as incongruous as articulating a chimpanzee foot with a human leg (Waterston 1913).

    This view was also championed by Gerrit Smith Miller – assistant curator of mammals at the United Stated National Museum in Washington – in 1915 (Miller 1915), and by both French palaeontologist Marcellin Boule and German anthropologist Franz Weidenreich in 1923 (Spencer 1990, Walsh 1996, MacRitchie 2011).

    Miller’s views and comments were especially well argued, useful and significant. He showed how chimpanzee jaws could, if broken in exactly the right places, end up looking almost identical to the jaw of Piltdown I, and he also argued that various details of the cranium indicated that it and the jaw simply could not have belonged to the same one animal (Miller 1915). He revisited the topic of Piltdown man on a few later occasions (Miller 1918, 1920).

    Miller (1915) concluded that the jaw represented a European chimp which he dubbed Pan vetus. The cranium, he thought, should be referred to the genus Homo and the name Eoanthropus, he proposed, should be discarded. Because the jaw and cranium were missing those parts that would ordinarily reveal the way in which they articulated, Miller (1915) noted that “Deliberate malice would hardly have been more successful than the hazards of deposition in so breaking the fossils as to give free scope to individual judgement in fitting the parts together”.

    It has been claimed that Miller suspected fraud right from the start (T. D. McCown, in Oakley & Groves 1970) but that he was persuaded to tread lightly given the seriousness of the accusations. We also know that, in 1930, Miller asked Remington Kellogg (best known for his work on fossil whales) to look at the Piltdown I jaw in order to see if the teeth had been artificially modified (Oakley & Groves 1970).

    Some of Miller’s colleagues agreed with him, including the American Museum of Natural History’s William King Gregory (1876-1970). But the reaction from others was extremely negative, most notably Pycraft. Furthermore, such noted American workers as Henry Fairfield Osborn and William Diller Matthew accepted Woodward’s interpretation, not Miller’s. Indeed Osborn became a prominent Piltdown proponent after viewing the material in 1921 (Osborn even visited Barkham Manor – the discovery site – with Woodward). Perhaps because of this weight of consensus, Gregory eventually changed his mind as goes agreeing with Miller, and did so at about the same time that Osborn and Matthew were voicing their support for Woodward’s interpretation.

    At least one researcher remained on Miller’s side however. Aleš Hrdlika (1869-1943), curator of physical anthropology at the National Museum of Natural History (Washington D.C.), also opposed Woodward’s reconstruction, and also became a dualist. In articles published in 1923 and 1924 he argued that the braincase was essentially that of a modern human while the jaw was from some sort of chimp-like ape, perhaps a dryopithecine (Hrdlika 1923, 1924). Given the poor stratigraphic data recorded from the Piltdown excavation, Hrdlika even intimated that the cranium might be a modern burial that had been incorporated into older strata. We know that Hrdlika and Miller corresponded extensively on Piltdown and it’s possible that Hrdlika instigated Miller’s further research into the subject. As an aside, in his 1990 book on the Piltdown saga, Frank Spencer drew attention to Hrdlika’s efforts of 1912 and before to critically assess Florentino Ameghino’s (1854-1911) startling claims of South American ancestry for humans (Hrdlika and colleagues published a book on this subject in 1912), noting that “Hrdlika was distressed to find his Anglo-Saxon colleagues headed in the same direction” (Spencer 1990).

    Hrdlika spent time with the Piltdown fossils in 1922. He was troubled by how impossibly similar the molars of Piltdown I and Piltdown II were to one another in every detail, and he wondered if the Piltdown II tooth might have been mislabelled: could it actually be part of the Piltdown I remains? With the benefit of hindsight we can say now that this was another obvious clue indicating the fraudulent nature of the remains. Of course Hrdlika was not about to make such a bold claim.

    Why were the dualists ignored?

    The dualist arguments were there right throughout the sorry history of one of palaeontology’s greatest and most notorious hoaxes, yet were ignored or waved away by several prominent workers who held influential positions. Piltdown’s proponents (like Pycraft) used the weight of authority and special access to the material to dismiss or quash the dualist’s arguments. This is despite the fact that those who made the dualist arguments were actually more qualified, more experienced, and more ‘relevant’ (as goes their qualifications and areas of expertise) when compared to the proponents.

    Dualism is discussed at length in all the good books on Piltdown and also formed the focus of one of Stephen Gould’s essays. I would say the same as Gould and other commentators: if leading workers in England, the USA and elsewhere had not been so invested, so committed, in the supposed authenticity of Piltdown man, if only they had listened to their detractors – to Miller, Hrdlika and others – they might well have accepted and understood the very reasonable, very well supported arguments of the dualists. Alarm bells were ringing right from the start.

  2. #2
    Senior Member Catterick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Last Online
    Thursday, September 7th, 2017 @ 12:29 AM
    Ethnicity
    Mixed Germanic and Celtic
    Ancestry
    British Isles & Scandinavia
    Subrace
    Borreby x Nordic
    Country
    Other Other
    Location
    Aqua
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Gondolier
    Posts
    2,199
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    19
    Thanked in
    19 Posts
    I wonder about the jaw's provenance, the canines weren't worn down though the jawbone definitely came from a chimp not a hominin.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Last Online
    Friday, October 7th, 2016 @ 02:13 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Country
    Other Other
    State
    Cape Province Cape Province
    Gender
    Family
    Youth
    Religion
    none
    Posts
    972
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    Stephen Jay Gould was a Jew and a paleontologist and an old prick who died just a few years ago. Did Gould make a mark on paleontology? No. There he was a failure. Instead, he dabbled in something he knew nothing about, anthropology and human evolution. In that realm he became Dr.Jewish Anthropologist, constantly touting liberal Jewish attitudes and wishes as fact. His last failure was his support of Out of Africa in spite of the fact he knew nothing of genetics.

    So why didn't this hero expose Piltdown? It was a fossil. Fossils were within his wheelhouse. But this didn't happen because Gould failed here just like he failed everywhere.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Catterick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Last Online
    Thursday, September 7th, 2017 @ 12:29 AM
    Ethnicity
    Mixed Germanic and Celtic
    Ancestry
    British Isles & Scandinavia
    Subrace
    Borreby x Nordic
    Country
    Other Other
    Location
    Aqua
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Gondolier
    Posts
    2,199
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    19
    Thanked in
    19 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow View Post
    Stephen Jay Gould was a Jew and a paleontologist and an old prick who died just a few years ago. Did Gould make a mark on paleontology? No. There he was a failure. Instead, he dabbled in something he knew nothing about, anthropology and human evolution. In that realm he became Dr.Jewish Anthropologist, constantly touting liberal Jewish attitudes and wishes as fact. His last failure was his support of Out of Africa in spite of the fact he knew nothing of genetics.

    So why didn't this hero expose Piltdown? It was a fossil. Fossils were within his wheelhouse. But this didn't happen because Gould failed here just like he failed everywhere.
    Gould was a snail paleontologist, I don't know how successful he was but his interests were obscure to the public. He wrote about Piltdown later as a science writer, he wasn't involved at the time.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Last Online
    Friday, October 7th, 2016 @ 02:13 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Country
    Other Other
    State
    Cape Province Cape Province
    Gender
    Family
    Youth
    Religion
    none
    Posts
    972
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Catterick View Post
    Gould was a snail paleontologist, I don't know how successful he was but his interests were obscure to the public. He wrote about Piltdown later as a science writer, he wasn't involved at the time.
    That makes it even worse. People don't realize that "snail paleontology" is a function of the Geology Department. This means Gould was technically a geologist. These same geologists (paleontologists) do very technical and very fancy dating work. Geology is more of a real science than vertebrate paleontology since that is biology.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Catterick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Last Online
    Thursday, September 7th, 2017 @ 12:29 AM
    Ethnicity
    Mixed Germanic and Celtic
    Ancestry
    British Isles & Scandinavia
    Subrace
    Borreby x Nordic
    Country
    Other Other
    Location
    Aqua
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Gondolier
    Posts
    2,199
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    19
    Thanked in
    19 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow View Post
    That makes it even worse. People don't realize that "snail paleontology" is a function of the Geology Department. This means Gould was technically a geologist. These same geologists (paleontologists) do very technical and very fancy dating work. Geology is more of a real science than vertebrate paleontology since that is biology.
    Well TBH I don't know what Gould has to do with Piltdown. And the blog post is by Darren Naish.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: Saturday, August 13th, 2016, 12:14 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: Tuesday, April 25th, 2006, 12:10 AM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: Wednesday, June 8th, 2005, 02:28 AM
  4. Mastermind of Piltdown Hoax Unmasked?
    By Glenlivet in forum Paleoanthropology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Tuesday, December 23rd, 2003, 12:35 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •