The Piltdown Man hoax was motivated by a sense of nationalism by the amateur British archaeologist Charles Dawson and his associates. British archaeology was lagging behind on the ancient hominin discoveries that were becoming nigh on rampant in continental Europe. Another key component to the motivations behind Piltdown Man is that it confirmed the very popular contemporary theory on human evolution that the modern human brain developed before modern bodily physiology did. People, but especially the English wanted to believe in the Piltdown Man because it confirmed their own sense of national pride. Members of academia that believed in the Piltdown could be influenced by this nationalism as well, but they were most likely influenced by the fact that he was supported by Arthur Woodward and Arthur Keith who were respected members of the scientific and or academic community. It was for this reason that until 1949 when new technology came onto the scene and it could be proved definitively the Piltdown Man and by extension, the Eonthropus Dawnsoni genus remained an established fact. Fluorine dating made it possible to correct the mistakes of the past.

The Cardiff Giant hoax was largely motivated by a desire to make money. Both George Hull and Stub Newell were very successful in this endeavor. But it was largely successful due to the ideological component of George Hull’s motivations which was to capitalize on people’s irrefutable belief in the Bible.  Hull set out to prove the general populace as God-fearing idiots with no minds of their own. Which is why the Cardiff Giant has such specific religious tones in its name as well as its discovery. I think the Cardiff Giant’s success was also aided by the fact that they never explicitly claimed it to be some great scientific discovery. And did not seek validation from the academic or scientific community. It, therefore, did not have a resounding effect on those communities and did not have a particularly noteworthy impact on the understanding of the human past.  

I believe that the end results of these two hoaxes indicate and exemplify the self-corrective nature of science. While initial evidence for both cases was hardly convincing, they did fill at least some of the scientific criteria for evidence of the time. Enough at the very least to gain footing in the minds of their respective contemporary academics, and more than enough to capture the hearts and imaginations of the public.  However, once the opposition to these hoaxes had evidence that met updated scientific standards for evidence they were more than happy to correct and readjust to this new understanding of the human past. And leave their mistakes behind them.