The Cardiff Giant and the Piltdown Man are both examples of fraudulent ‘discoveries’ made within the world of pseudo-archaeology that successfully fooled the general public into believing that they were genuine. While both of these were faux discoveries were ultimately successful at least for a time being they were led by completely different motives.
In the case of the Piltdown Man, it was motivated by the desire for England to keep up with other nations. At the time nations surrounding England had been making numerous major discoveries, leaving England behind in their studies of early human archaeology. This led Charles Dawson and Arthur Woodward to fake the discovery of the Piltdown Man, and in the process brought them fame. As well as bringing the nation of England pride in believing that they had helped lead to important discoveries of human evolution. Alternatively, the ‘discovery’ of the Cardiff Giant was brought on by an argument George Hull, an atheist, had had with a priest. Leading him to fake the Cardiff Giant in order to prove a point about people willingness to believe absurd stories within the bible, as well as bringing him a large influx of money from the publics’ deep interest in the supposed ancient giant remains.
Both these hoaxes were successful in their original motivations and had a massive impact on the general public. In the case of the Piltdown Man, it deceived the public into thinking that England had made an important discovery in human evolution. However, ultimately the Piltdown Man would cause a great deal of grief for people trying to discern the age of the discovery and origin. It wasn’t until the remains were tested that it was discovered that they were in fact nowhere old enough to be a significant discovery and that some of the remains were not even human. The hoax of the Cardiff Giant unraveled much faster than the Piltdown Man. With many doubting it’s authenticity immediately upon viewing it, and people slowly leaking information until George Hull eventually admitted that he had, in fact, fake the discovery.
Both of these cases reveal the truth that even impartial scientists, fail to apply a skeptical eye, showing their eagerness to find discoveries that confirm their theories. However, this is an innate part of human nature and our desire to prove what we already believe. As both of these hoaxes show the motivations for this can be extremely different. While faux discoveries like these display a incredulous lack of ethics on their masterminds, they did ultimately increase the public interest in archaeology and provided an invaluable learning experience for those who chose to explore and research the Cardiff Giant and Piltdown Man.
You really brought up some great points in this post. I am fascinated by the Piltdown man and the motivations behind it. England has an immense history full of conquest, war/battles, and expedition in general. The need to prove that England can also show up archaeologically is almost hilarious to think about. Coming into this class I did not know much about the Piltdown man and the Cardiff Giant, and learning about these two for this past week has been interesting learning about the motivations. Most other pseudoarchaeological claims I know of are so well known and some of them still have large followings, such as the Egyptian Pyramids and who built them. The motive behind the Cardiff Giant I find particularly interesting just because Hull and Newell were trying to prove a point about biblical ideology, or lack thereof. I do think it is very England like to try and keep up with the rest of the world, they always want to be known as the best country, as they have been a political/economic giant for so long. Personally I find both of them to be a petty move, having to fake everyone out just so there is some sort of personal gain that they feel they needed. The monetary gain that Hull and Newell got is beyond anything they probably thought they might get. I can’t hate them for wanting to make a quick buck, however like I previously mentioned, I think it is very low of them to deceive so many people just for that reason. It is also sad to know that scientists can be so highly praised and can easily deceive us easily. Not that they would, but that they could. Nowadays it is harder for that to happen because peer review and technology, but in the 1800’s none of the overly existed.