Talk:Piltdown Man

message: I have removed the following sentence from the Exposure section: 
Perhaps the most ridiculous revelation was that an "artifact" near the bones which was believed by the scientists to be a tool or a part of the skeleton, but later turned out to be a cricket bat. It is entirely untrue that this item "turned out to be a cricket bat" - it was a fake prehistoric artifact carved out of bone.  Nor was it ever believed to be part of the skeleton. 
I cannot help wondering whether this anonymous addition was really made in good faith.  It would imply that the scientists who examined the finds and believed them to be genuine, were not just gullible or careless, but staggeringly incompetant.  Could it be a subtle creationist dig - an attempt to imply that scientists are prepared to overlook obviously bogus evidence as part of some grand "pro-evolution" conspiricy?   --TomH 02:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue isn't the "cricket bat" but that the text suggested doesn't feel creditable; cricket bats are made of wood so unlikely to be confused as being part of the skeleton. As a tool, then that is creditable as some willow wood carved to appear as an older artefact could be a viable trick especially given how willow wood rots. The text "most ridiculous revelation" though seems to be conjecture as it would appear to me that the re-profiling of the skeleton itself would always be the most ridiculous. Who claims it the "most ridiculous revelation" ?, who says it was thought to be part of the skeleton ? Ttiotsw (talk) 02:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:   How dense can evolutionists get?  The fact that wood should not be mistaken for bone is exactly why the cricket bat is the "most ridiculous" aspect of this hoax.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.236.55 (talk) 14:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Yes, as everyone knows, TV documentaries are an entirely trustworthy source of information. 208.79.94.252 (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we actually have a direct quote of the documentary?  And what documentary was it?  When was it broadcast?  That some critics at the time teased advocates of Piltdown about the "cricket bat" shaped object does not at all prove that what was found *was* a cricket bat!   Here is a quote from Smith-Woodwood in The Earliest Englishman, p.44:
... I stopped his work, and searching the spot with my hands, pulled out a heavy blade of bone of which he had damaged the end. It was much covered up with very sticky yellow clay, and was so large as to excite our curiosity. We therefore washed it at once, and were surprised to find that the damaged end had been shaped by man and looked rather like the end of a cricket-bat; we also noticed that the other end had been broken across, and we thought it must have been cracked by the weight of the gravel under which it was originally buried.
on p.45 are two drawings of the "tool", and they do indeed resemble the wedge of a cricket bat. Smith-Woodward surmises that they are made of bone from an elephant. He says (p.47): " We cannot guess for what purpose it was made or how it was used... On the whole, it suggests a digging stick... Although no wooden tools have been preserved in the Piltdown gravel, there can be no doubt that the man who made the bone tool just described was accustomed to work in wood. The method of shaping the bone suggests work in wood."  Indeed!  It does look like a hoaxer's joke.  But do we have a reference for the notion that it wasn't bone but was indeed wood?  --Dannyno (talk) 09:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment 2

message: Who was Martin Hinton and what could have been his motive in perpetrating the hoax? Bastie 00:55, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment 3

message: Just a couple of points.
Firstly, I seem to remember reading that Dawson had a history of faking. This was in connection with the sighting and recording of rare birds in Sussex, I believe.
Secondly, The Piltdown forgery was technically extremely poor. Its genius was in offering the experts exactly what the wanted, evidence that human evolution was brain-led. It was also a British fossil man, the French had theirs, the Gemans had theirs and even the Chinese (horror of horrors!) had theirs, so where was the British one? It was all so unfair. Because it gave them what they wanted the people who were taken in by the Piltdown forgery were prepared to ignore all of the rules that normally apply to any sort of evidence.
Thirdly, one big problem that fakers have is where one thing joins another, in this case the area where the jaw joined the skull. The faker solved this problem by simply breaking off the terminals of the jaw. It was pointed out at the time that this must cast doubts on the integrity  of the specimen, but these objections were made in the main by foreigners, whose opinions, by definition, did not count. Happy days.
Regards, Nick. --Nick 11:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment 4

message: * What is this section trying to say?  It's not creationists who (weakly) claim PM is a forgery but the scientific community which does.  A sentence later the sense of the previous sentence is reverted -- scientists (strongly) exposed the forgery. As written, the section is self-contradictory -- but there's a bit of a gratuitous sneer towards creationists isn't there?
* Instrumentalization?  Is the appearance of this word as the section heading someone's idea of a deconstructionist joke?
* The claim that creationists are making a specific claim beyond the common consensus public claim, i.e. that PM was a hoax in 1912 and exposed in 1953, a period of 41 years, needs a cite, even before one starts to evaluate its possible signficance to this article. patsw 01:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Instrumentalization? 

message: I should be grateful if editors from here could look at Edward Thomas Hall. Can you source, or disprove, the claim that he exposed the fraud, please? BlueValour 23:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who exposed the fraud? 

message: Its... just wow. Really badly built and arranged. I'm gonna do what I can, but I need more help from people who know more about the subject. AllStarZ 01:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not too bad down to the "Popular culture" section. After that it seems like a series of afterthoughts. Copey 2 13:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Article... sucks 

message: On the night of children in need 2003, over on BBC2, at 9pm, there was a timewatch episode about Piltdown Man entitled "Britain's Greaest Hoax" (I know because I recorded it out of intrest and have kept it ever since.) It presented cases for all the suspects and one of the interviewees said that Martin Hinton may have known it was a hoax and planted the cricket bat as an indicator that it was a hoax. --Indie.Bones 18:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timewatch Episode 

message: Perhaps an advocate of the theory of evolution, as opposed to one disputing it, can give an NPOV account of the credulity this hoax found in the scientific mainstream as if it were "too good to check".  The earliest debunkers, for example, for dismissed for their jealously of the fame Charles Dawson obtained.  12:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In George W. Crile's (his Wikipedia entry cites him as "a significant American surgeon") 1915 A Mechanistic View of War and Peace, the frontspiece is a full reproduction the Piltdown Man (then called the Sussex Man; a cropped version appears in the article), which the caption cites as "the most ancient known inhabitant of England" and notes Dawson as its discoverer. Crile titled the illustration "The Establishment of Action Patterns of War." I'm not necessarily an advocate of the theory of evolution; just someone who bought Crile's book thru Amazon. (Mencken cited it in an essay.) BubbleDine (talk) 01:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Credulity 

message: I re-wrote much of the article below the history section.  A lot of this meant basically taking out original research and what looks like a paste and extensive summary of the talk:origins archive page on Piltdown.  It's much shorter, but I think it reads better.  Could still use a bunch of references though.  WLU 18:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  re-write 

message: According to THE LOST CONTROL AND OTHER MYSTERIES: FURTHER REVELATIONS ON NEW ZEALAND'S FLUORIDATION TRIAL a New Zealand dentist first discovered the Piltdown Man. They give a citation of: Taylor, R.M.S. (1937) The dentition of the Piltdown fossil man (Eanthropus dawsoni) from a new aspect. Presented to Congress of the Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science. Reprinted in Taylor, R.M.S. (1978) Variations in Morphology of Teeth: Anthropologic and Forensic Aspects. Springfield, Illinois: Thomas. I didn't see a mention of this here. II | (t - c) 05:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Zealand dentist in 1937 noticed problems 

message: The timeline at the end of the article includes the year 2003, describing it as marking the "full extent of Dawson's hoaxes exposed." However, in the rest of the content of the article, the year is only mentioned in conjunction with a 50th anniversary exhibition, and in the publication dates of several of the reference sources, which I would assume were published at that time to coincide with this anniversary and/or with the exhibition.
So... outside of an exhibition and books published in conjunction with it, what exactly happened in 2003 to more fully expose the hoaxes? I can think immediately off the top of my head of three major anniversary exhibitions which occured in the last year or two in my field of study - Japanese history - relating to the anniversaries of various historical events; but that doesn't mean that, purely by acknowledging and celebrating an anniversary with an exhibition, that anything new is being discovered or exposed.
What was discovered or exposed in 2003 that was not in 1953? Thanks. LordAmeth (talk) 22:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the 2003 part per the above - still unanswered - question. Alfons Åberg (talk) 12:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  2003? 

message: This article needs more HPS to maintain its B rating or move forward to A. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs more History and Philosophy of science 

message: "The "Piltdown Man" was the fossilised remains of a previously unknown early human, ... later discovered to be a hoax"
That first sentence is factually incorrect because it states something like "X is Y, but X isn't Y". Would it be more accurate to say "The Piltdown Man was believed to be the fossilized remains...", or "The Piltdown Man was a hoax presented as the fossilized..."
Wanderer of Wiki (talk) 18:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think either of your suggestions would be an improvement, although my preference would be the first ("was believed to be..."). Nev1 (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well spotted, WoW. As Nev1 says, either one would be an improvement, but I would actually favour the second as getting the word "hoax" into the text as early as possible. In fact, how about adding it to the title: Piltdown Man Hoax? Awien (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You do make a good point about pointing out it was a hoax as early as possible, so you've convinced me that the second option would be better. As for the title, I think "Piltdown Man" is the more common name although "Piltdown Man hoax" would still be accurate. I did a superficial search of Jstor and the term "Piltdown Man" turned up 319 results to the 9 of "Piltdown Man hoax". That said, it is regularly referred to as a hoax or forgery so I can see where you're coming from. Nev1 (talk) 22:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I knew nothing about this subject. When I first looked it up I almost moved away from the page with the thought it was real. The hoax part was on the next line, and I almost didn't read it. My bad for skimming, but I wasn't expecting the later part of the sentence to nullify a clear statement from an earlier part. I will try introducing the word "hoax" nearer to the beginning. I am new to this - should I discuss the exact change first on the Talk page, or just go ahead and make the (minor) change? Wanderer of Wiki (talk) 20:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, never mind - someone already changed it. Wanderer of Wiki (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and did it (crediting you WoW in the edit summary) since you seemed to be reticent about it. Now, what about changing the title? I don't think either of you would object - does anyone? Awien (talk) 22:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections here. I think it is a good idea. Wanderer of Wiki (talk) 22:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentence contradicts itself 

message: I find it very odd that no mention is made of the bones' current whereabouts.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason Peterson (talk • contribs) 17:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Find out and add it to the article, perhaps other editors haven't been able to find out. Dougweller (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  So... where are the bones now? 

message: Towards the end of paragraph five of the Find section it says "Smith sided with Woodward and at the next Royal Society meeting..." It's not clear from the rest of the article which Smith this is refering to. It's not a reference to Arthur Smith Woodward (for obvious reasons), and the only other Smith mentioned in the body of the article comes later on, in the sixth paragraph of the Find section (American zoologist Gerrit Smith Miller). Could this mysterious Smith in fact be G Elliot Smith, who is mentioned in the caption for the 'group portrait' image in the introduction section? He was a member of the Royal Society, after all. However, it's a little confusing as the body of the article doesn't make any reference to the people depicted in the image. Thanks! Siscarfe (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which Smith? 

message: I am not expert enough in the subject, but you may wish to add a reference to scientific discussion prior to 1915 e.g. this article in The Forum, July 1914:
https://archive.org/stream/theforum52newy#page/2/mode/1up Echinops (talk) 10:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion in The Forum July 1914

message: T. de Chardin denied that he was in England at the time of the first discovery.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.98.54.253 (talk) 16:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Denied 

message: http://www2.clarku.edu/~Piltdown/map_prim_suspects/Teilhard_de_Chardin/Chardin_Prosecution/piltdownrevisited.html
Gould wrote in Natural History Mar 1979 a good argument implicating de Chardin, and despite prior sections here de Chardin was in the area long enough (and savvy enough about archeology) to convincingly plant the pseudoartifact in a place where it would be found- he did not need to be in the area the day of.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.170.78.58 (talk) 05:18, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gould's deduction and analysis-de Chardin was the probable culprit 

message: This section begins with the statement that "The identity of the Piltdown forger remains unknown." My read is that both palaeoanthropological and circumstantial evidence now indicate, possibly conclusively, that the forger was Charles Dawson. The August 10, 2016 article by Isabelle De Groote (Solving the Piltdown Man crime: how we worked out there was only one forger) reviews recent DNA analyses, CT scanning and X-ray tomography studies that made by De Groote and her colleagues. Combine this evidence of consistency of techniques and the limited number of specimens used to create Piltdown I and II with the fact that Dawson was at every discovery, and the only one seen at the Piltdown II site. This led De Groote and her colleagues to the conclusion that Dawson was the only forger responsible for the hoax. An archival research furthermore showed that Dawson was responsible for at least 38 forgeries, such as Roman inscribed tiles and a statuette excavated by him. Catrachos (talk) 21:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I too was thinking that that statement is no longer valid. Awien (talk) 23:02, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identity of Forger  

message: Could the word "supposed" or "alleged" be inserted here in front of "dishonesty"? The only dishonesty is on the part of creationists who quote the Piltdown Man hoax as "evidence" that scientists were supposedly lying, and that creationists are by implication always truthful.89.212.50.177 (talk) 17:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "an example of the dishonesty of paleontologists who study human evolution" 

message: I'm new to this subject, it's all quite interesting. As far as the article goes, there's one thing I, the casual reader of Wikipedia articles, still find quite unclear; it is understood that the skull is a faked composite, yet the article refers to the braincase as being "two thirds the size of a modern human". Was the braincase from a single human? If not, OK, but clarify the point. 
But if it is from a single modern human, nowhere is it addressed as to why the brain size is so small. Are there any theories out there as to the origins of the source individual used in the hoax?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:6582:8580:C00:3C24:8B48:824E:B1F1 (talk) 12:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something Missing 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Piltdown, East Sussex which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 08:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress