Bibliography - British Geological Survey

two men one evening as they were scraping the bank and my father spoke to ‘Professor’ Woodward and
asked if there had been any further finds. The answer was “I’m afraid not.”’ The reputed burial of plague
victims at Piltdown is also recorded by Costello 1985, who suggests that the Piltdown skull might be linked
to such burials, although the common is at some distance from Barkham Manor.)
Gee, H. 1996. Box of bones ‘clinches’ identity of Piltdown palaeontology hoaxer. Nature, 381 (23 May),
261‒262. (Summary of Linnean Society presidential address to be given by Brian Gardiner on 24 May in
which Martin Hinton is accused of perpetrating the ‘hoax’, on the evidence of an old canvass trunk bearing
his initials and containing mammalian bones and teeth, stained and carved. The report prompted reactions
from Dempster 1996, Hall 1996, and Lutes 1996. For other reactions see Turrittin 2006, 21–22.)
Giret, R. 2003. L’homme de Piltdown. In: Le sens de l’Evolution en question? Association des Amis de
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin / Colloques Internationaux Teilhard de Chardin. Paris: Aubin Editeur, pp. 147‒
150.
Giuffrida-Ruggeri, V. 1913a. L’uomo attuale, una specie collettiva. Milano: Albrighi, Segati e C., 192 pp.,
13 plates. (Briefly alludes to the Piltdown finds, pp. 120–121. The author is puzzled by the statement of
Dawson and Woodward that they regard Piltdown as a contemporary of Heidelberg Man, and that flints of
the Chellean type were found with the remains—flints of that type being considered much later in date than
the Heidelberg jaw. At this stage it is impossible for him to make any further statement regarding the nature
of Eoanthropus until figures, or better still, models of the remains are at his disposal. See review, probably
by Arthur Keith, in Anon. 1913f.)
Giuffrida-Ruggeri, V. 1913b. [Review of Dawson & Woodward 1913a]. Archivio per l’Antropologia e la
Etnologia, 43, 184–186. (While accepting Woodward’s argument for a connection between the Piltdown
jaw and skull, the author registers some doubts about the distinctness of the genus Eoanthropus from Homo;
Spencer 1990b, 63.)
Giuffrida-Ruggeri, V. 1917. La successione e la provenienza delle razze europee preneolitiche e i pretesi
Cro-Magnon delle Canarie. Rivista Italiana di Paleontologia, 22 (4), 59–67. (In discussing the status of
Piltdown Man, pp. 59–61, the author concurs with the views of Miller 1915 and Osborn 1916 in seeing no
connection between the jaw and skull, for which he accepts the designations Pan vetus and Homo dawsoni
respectively. He thinks that European anthropologists have taken a deferential position with regard to the
views of Elliot Smith and Arthur Keith, yet the incompatibility between jaw and skull is clear.)
Giuffrida-Ruggeri, V. 1918. Unicità del philum umano con pluralità dei centri specifici. Rivista Italiana di
Paleontologia, 24 (1/2), 13–25. (Comments on ‘Homo dawsoni’, pp. 21–22. The writer remains sceptical
about the claimed association between the Piltdown skull and jaw, at least until such time as a second
individual is found. He had evidently not yet seen the formal paper by Woodward 1918 announcing the
discovery of Piltdown II.)
Giuffrida-Ruggeri, V. 1919. La controversia sul fossile de Piltdown e l’origine del philum umano.
Monitore Zoologico Italiano, 30 (1/2), 7–18.
Giuffrida-Ruggeri, V. 1921. Su l’origene del uomo: nuove teorie e documenti. Bologna, 267 pp., 13 plates.
(Piltdown, pp. 83–89, etc.)
Given, J. C. M. 1914. Recent discoveries of fossil man. Liverpool Medico-Chirurgical Journal, July,
227–242. (Finds at Piltdown, pp. 234–244. With reference to the lower jaw he notes that ‘In August last
the canine tooth belonging to this half of the jaw turned up, and Dr Smith Woodward informs me that by
carefully putting the earth and gravel through fine-meshed sieves, he has found both the nasal bones and
some small fragments of what he thinks is the vomer. The bones were all found lying close together. Mr
Dawson first found one fragment by chance, some time before the others, and this had been already dug up
by workmen’.)
Glover, M. J. & Phillips, G. F. 1965. Chemical methods for the dating of bones. Journal of Applied
Chemistry, 15 570–576. (Including a discussion of the techniques employed on the Piltdown remains)
Goodwin, A. J. H. 1953. The curious story of the Piltdown fragments. South African Archaeological
Bulletin, 8, no. 32 (Dec), 103–105.
Gould, S. J. 1979a. Piltdown revisited. Natural History, 88, (3), 86–97. (A consideration of the historical
conundrum ‘why did anyone ever accept Piltdown man in the first place?’)