Bibliography - British Geological Survey

stone derived from the Wealden deposits. ‘In addition to these, there occur occasionally brown-coated subangular
flints, which agree so closely with those found in the Eoanthropus plateau (about 100 feet above)
that it seems safe to assume their derivation from that source. To our great surprise we found associated with
these expected constituents a not inconsiderable number of pebbles of quartzite and vein-quartz.’)
Haywood, I. 1987. Faking it: art and politics in forgery. Brighton: Harvester Press. (Piltdown, pp. 90-103)
Head, J. O. 1971. Piltdown mystery. New Scientist, 49 (14 Jan), 86. (Letter prompted by a commentary in
New Scientist, 48 (10 Dec), 471, which reported Louis Leakey’s strong hint, as reported by the Sunday Times,
that he believed the ‘hoaxer’ at Piltdown to have been Teilhard de Chardin. Mr Head recounts a conversation
he had with Robert Essex, who knew both Dawson and Teilhard. ‘One of Essex’s points lay in his estimation
of the personalities of the two men: Dawson being pompous, self-opinionated and unimaginative, far more
likely to be the victim than perpetrator of such a hoax, whereas Teilhard was, as Leakey states, well known
as a practical joker.’)
Heal, V. 1980. Further light on Charles Dawson. Antiquity, 54 (Nov), no. 212, 222‒225. (Presents evidence
that casts doubt on the authenticity of several of Dawson’s archaeological ‘discoveries’, notably a Neolithic
flint hatchet in a wooden haft from East Dean and an ancient boat of clinker construction from Bexhill, neither
of which was preserved. The author is a research student at Cambridge working on prehistoric wood technology
in N.W. Europe. See also remarks by John H. Combridge 1981.)
Heizer, R. F. & Cooke, S. F. 1954. Comments on the Piltdown remains. American Anthropologist, 56 (Feb),
92–94. (In the light of their experience in investigating and evaluating fluorine and other constituents of
archaeological human and animal bone, the authors draw certain conclusions from the findings of Weiner,
Oakley and Le Gros Clark, as reported in Washburn 1953. They would regard the jaw, molar and canine of
Piltdown I and the molar of Piltdown II as of very recent origin. The fluorine content of the bones mentioned
does not exceed the range found in fresh bone, while the values for nitrogen content (3.9‒5.1%) all lie at or
above the average value for fresh human and animal bone, which is about 4%. Even a relatively short period
of interment of the order of 100 to 300 years, as shown by burials in culturally late California sites, reduces
the nitrogen content rapidly to not higher than 3%. The Piltdown I skull, together with the frontal fragment
of Piltdown II, all give indication of moderate age. On the other hand, the fluorine and nitrogen values for
the occipital fragment of Piltdown II are conflicting and imply one of three possibilities: (1) a modern bone
introduced as a hoax; (2) an archaeological specimen removed from its original site elsewhere and introduced
to the Piltdown locality, or (3) an indigenous bone in the Piltdown gravels.)
Henneberg, M., Eckhardt, R. B. & Schofield, J. 2011. The Hobbit trap: how new species are invented.
2nd ed. Walnut Creek, California: Left Coast Press, xii, 215 pp. (First published in 2008 as The Hobbit
trap: money, fame, science and the discovery of a ‘new species’. The book challenges the claims of Prof.
Mike Morwood, an Australian archaeologist, to have discovered a new species of dwarfish human, Homo
floresiensis, on the island of Flores in Indonesia. Excavated in 2004, and cannily nicknamed the ‘Hobbit’,
this wholly unexpected species was stated to be only about 18,000 years old. While some scholars were
quick to accept the validity of Homo floresiensis, the present writers have good reason to believe that the
‘fossil’ is a comparatively modern Homo sapiens suffering from a well known genetic abnormality of the
skull. The suggestion is also made that the Hobbit’s left lower first molar appears to have been drilled and
subjected to modern dental work during its lifetime! Access to the remains in order to verify this point has
for some time been denied. The authors end their book with the plea: ‘We hope this debate will not end the
way the argument over Piltdown Man did. The truth – and the molar – are still out there.’)
Hewitt, J. T. 1898. Note on natural gas at Heathfield Station (Sussex). Quarterly Journal of the Geological
Society of London, 54 (3) Aug, 572‒574 (with discuss). (See herein Dawson 1898b for comments)
Hewitt, J. T. (for obituary see Turner 1955; Costello 1986 has implicated Hewitt in the Piltdown forgery;
see also Daniel 1986)
Hilber, V. 1915. Irrige Beziehungen zwischen Eoanthropus, Pithecanthropus, Heidelberger und
Neandertaler Mensch. Zeitschrift für Morphologie und Anthropologie, 17, 503–504.
Hill-Tout, C. 1921. The phylogeny of Man from a new angle. Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada,
ser. 3, 15, sect. II, 47–82. (Piltdown, pp. 74–78)
Hillaby, J. 1973. Who was the Piltdown Mephisto? New Scientist, 57 (15 Mar), 619‒620. (The writer has
spent much time talking to people associated in one way or another with the Piltdown affair. He is highly