Bibliography - British Geological Survey

More documents

Recommendations

Info

$BOORPLEKAAN\iVYSING VIR WATER IN SUiDWES-TRANSVAAL$

‘To connect the shapely, wholly normal Piltdown jaw with the gross, heavy Piltdown skull into the same individual seems very difficult. After prolonged handling of both the jaw and the skull there remained in the writer a strong impression that the two may not belong together, or that if they do the case is totally exceptional.’ He concludes however that the jaw is not that of a chimpanzee, as argued by his American colleagues, but of a human precursor or very early man.) Hrdlička, A. 1923. Dimensions of the first and second lower molars, with their bearing on the Piltdown jaw and on man’s phylogeny. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 6 (2), 195–216. (Concludes that ‘the Piltdown teeth, primitive as they are in some respects, are already human or close to human.’) Hrdlička, A. 1924. New data on the teeth of early man and certain fossil European apes. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 7, 109–132, plate. (Eoanthropus, pp. 118–122) Hrdlička, A. 1930. The skeletal remains of early man. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 83, 379 pp., 93 plates. (Including a highly critical review of the Piltdown discoveries, pp. 65–90, plates XIII–XIV. The writer reinforces the incongruity that exists between the jaw and skull. He concludes that ‘...it must be plain that any far-fetched deductions from the Piltdown materials are not justified. This applies particularly to the superficially attractive conclusions that the Piltdown remains demonstrate the existence in the early Pleistocene, long before the Neanderthal and even the Heidelberg forms, of men with practically modern-sized and modern-formed skulls and brains and directly ancestral to Homo sapiens or recent man. This hypothesis is a proposition that would change the whole face and trend of human prehistory, and that against all other and better substantiated evidence in this line.’) Hunter, J. I. 1924? New light on the controversy of the Piltdown jaw and cranium. Summary address before the Society of Dental Science, New South Wales, pp. 1–11. (Cited by Quenstedt 1936) Hunter, J. I. (see under Smith, G. E.) Illingworth, L. G. 1953. Collapse of 600,000-year-old party. Punch, 2 Dec, 653. (Includes a cartoon with the caption: “This may hurt, but I’m afraid I’ll have to remove the whole jaw.” The cartoon, which shows an ape in a dentist’s chair with Alvan Marston about to operate, was inspired by Marston’s outburst at a meeting of the Geological Society on 25 Nov, but probably derives its theme from a humorous ‘Notice of Operation’ that was circulated by Marston in 1936 prior to a meeting at the Royal Society of Medicine where he put forward his argument for disassociating the Piltdown jaw and skull. For background to this see Turrittin 2004, who reproduces the cartoon, as does Spencer 1990a, frontispiece, and Blinderman.) Irving, A. 1913. The Piltdown horse “grinder.” Nature, 91 (28 Aug), 661. (Identifies a horse premolar from the Piltdown site as Equus robustus, implying a date for the Piltdown gravel far younger than Pliocene. The writer came to his conclusion after examining the original specimen at the Natural History Museum.) Irving, A. 1914. The Piltdown skull. Morning Post, Jan. Jenkins, W. D. 1987. Has anything escaped me? Baker Street Miscellanea, no. 49, 28‒34. Joel, C. E. 1982. The Piltdown let down. Popular Archaeology, 4 (2), 4. (Response to Clements 1982) Johnstone, P. 1957. Buried treasure. London: Phoenix House, 111 pp., 67 plates. (Tells the story of a BBC television series hosted by Glyn Daniel, which included a half-hour feature on Piltdown Man, aired on 30 May 1955) Jones, M., Craddock, P. & Barker, N. (eds) 1990. Fake? The art of deception. London: British Museum Publications, 312 pp. (Including Piltdown, pp. 93–96) [Keith, A.] 1912a. Discovery of a new type of fossil man. British Medical Journal, 21 Dec, 1719–1720; & 28 Dec, 1763–1764. (On the evidence of his personal diary, this anonymous review was written by Keith two days before the formal presentation of the Piltdown discovery at the Geological Society on 18 Dec and derives from his personal examination of the material at the Natural History Museum early in December. He is critical of Smith Woodward’s interpretation of the Piltdown teeth. See Spencer 1990a, 188–190 etc, & Walsh 1996, 152–153 etc, for quoted passages, discussion and differing interpretation.) Keith, A. 1913a. Modern problems relating to the antiquity of man. Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Dundee, 1912, 753‒759. (Keith begins by noting Boyd Dawkins’ contention that the dawn of man occurred in the Pleistocene, which W. J. Sollas dates at some 400,000 years ago. ‘Human
workmanship becomes cruder as we approach the commencement of the Pleistocene. The stones which have been wrought by man’s hand (Eoliths) become then more difficult to distinguish from those which have been shaped by natural forces.’ L. Rutot in Belgium claims he can trace an eolithic culture back beyond the Pleistocene into the Pliocene, Miocene and even into the Oligocene, which might be dated at 3 million years. The late Joseph Prestwich believed that the eoliths of Kent were of Pliocene age, yet many authorities reject eoliths as evidence of man’s handiwork. On the basis that anthropoid apes had appeared by the middle of the Miocene, Keith argues that primitive man could have evolved at the same period, or at the very latest during the early part of the Pliocene. In speaking of the evidence for early man in England he states that ‘It is a mystery why Neanderthal remains have not been discovered in England; they ought to be found, and a rumour is now current that they have been found.’ Keith had possibly heard rumour of the discoveries at Piltdown, but evidently had no details. He presented his paper on 9 Sept 1912.) [Keith, A.] 1913b. Piltdown: the most ancient skull in the world. The Sphere, 53 (18 Jan), 76. (This anonymous account of a visit to Piltdown, ‘where the most ancient skull in the world was found’, can be linked to an entry, dated Sunday 5 Jan 1913, in Keith’s personal diary. See Spencer 1990a, 190–191 etc, & Walsh 1996, 153–155 etc, for quoted passages, discussion and differing interpretation.) Keith, A. 1913c. Problems relating to the teeth of the earlier forms of prehistoric man. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, 6 (odontol sect), 103‒124 (with discuss). (Piltdown mandible, pp. 116–119) Keith, A. 1913d. Present problems relating to the origin of modern races. Lancet, 2, 1050‒1053. (Piltdown man and other English finds) Keith, A. 1913e. Ape man or modern man? The two Piltdown skull reconstructions. Illustrated London News, 143, 16 & 23 Aug, 245, with 6 figs. (A criticism of Smith Woodward’s interpretation and restoration of the Piltdown skull) Keith, A. 1913f. Our most ancient relation. The Sphere, 53 (Sept), 811. Keith, A. 1913g (see Anon. 1913f) Keith, A. 1913h. The Piltdown skull and brain cast. Nature, 92 (16 Oct), 197‒199; (6 Nov), 292; (20 Nov), 345‒346. (A criticism of Smith Woodward’s restoration, which prompted some heated exchanges with Elliot Smith; see Smith 1913c) Keith, A. 1914a. The significance of the discovery at Piltdown. Bedrock: A Quarterly Journal of Scientific Thought, 2 (Jan), 435‒453. (Considers that the remains found at Piltdown represent a form of man living in the later part of the Pliocene period; that speech was not possible with such a conformation of jaw and tongue; that, on the whole, the evidence is in favour of the mandible and skull being parts of one individual, but that the canine tooth belongs to another individual of the same race. He does not believe that Piltdown man is an ancestor of the modern races of mankind.) Keith, A. 1914b. The reconstruction of fossil human skulls. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 44 (July), 12‒31. (Keith, by way of an experiment, set out to demonstrate the validity of his reconstruction of the Piltdown skull, which differs from that proposed by Woodward. As a practical test, he was furnished with some fragments of a specimen skull which he engaged to reconstruct using the same methodology that was applied to Piltdown. This was deemed, by Keith, to have been a success. Summarised in Nature, 29 Oct 1914, p. 240. Keith devoted a whole chapter to this experiment in his Antiquity of Man, 1915.) Keith, A. Oct 1915. The antiquity of man. London: Williams and Norgate, xx, 519 pp; further impressions issued 1915, 1916 & 1920. (About a third of the book is devoted to a detailed consideration of Piltdown Man, thus: Ch. XVIII. The discovery of the Piltdown skull, pp. 293‒305; Ch. XIX. The antiquity of the Piltdown race, pp. 306‒315; Ch. XX. Eoanthropus dawsoni, pp. 316‒336; Ch. XXI. The difficulties of reconstruction, pp. 337‒355; Ch. XXII. An experiment in reconstruction, pp. 356‒375; Ch. XXIII. Heads–ancient and modern –in profile, pp. 376–396; Ch. XXIV. The brain of fossil man, pp. 397‒429; Ch. XXV. The Piltdown mandible, pp. 430‒452; Ch. XXVI. Evidence of the teeth of fossil man, pp. 453– 478; Ch. XXVII. The face of fossil man, pp. 479–496. Keith avoids the inclusion of any reconstructions showing how Eoanthropus might have appeared in life. See review by Woodward 1915b) Keith, A. 1916. [Obituary of Charles Dawson]. British Medical Journal.
Page 1 and 2: AN ANNOTATED SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY OF
Page 3 and 4: Anon. (H. R. H.) 1913c. The Sussex
Page 5 and 6: Anon. 1955. The “tragedy of Piltd
Page 7 and 8: Baines, J. M. 1997. Charles Dawson:
Page 9 and 10: Boaz, N. T. 1987. Book review: The
Page 11 and 12: Bowler, P. J. 1992 (contribution to
Page 13 and 14: ‘Piltdown Man’ inn was analysed
Page 15 and 16: Costello, P. 1981a. Teilhard and th
Page 17 and 18: Daniel, G. 1974. Perpetrator of the
Page 19 and 20: and rowing would be minimal, and it
Page 21 and 22: discoloration in 1877, a year befor
Page 23 and 24: Doyle, J. C. & Costello, P. 1987. T
Page 25 and 26: Esbroeck, G. van 1972. Pleine lumi
Page 27 and 28: two men one evening as they were sc
Page 29 and 30: Gregory, W. K. & Hellman, M. 1926.
Page 31 and 32: stone derived from the Wealden depo
Page 33: verify and interpret these curious
Page 37 and 38: Keith, A. 1950. An autobiography. L
Page 39 and 40: ‘forced to conclude that the smal
Page 41 and 42: Le Gros Clark, W. 1955c. Arthur Kei
Page 43 and 44: as old as the gravel bed, some of t
Page 45 and 46: Matthew, W. D. 1916. Note on the as
Page 47 and 48: Moir, J. R. 1920. Pre-Palæolithic
Page 49 and 50: Oakley, K. P. 1949. Man the tool-ma
Page 51 and 52: The Piltdown race, pp. 130-144, pla
Page 53 and 54: in the Red Crag of Norfolk and Suff
Page 55 and 56: Robertson, E. 1984. Hen’s teeth a
Page 57 and 58: Sheail, J. 1996. From aspiration to
Page 59 and 60: Smith, G. E. 1931a. The discovery o
Page 61 and 62: Spencer, F. 1991a. The Piltdown mys
Page 63 and 64: monographs (1911‒March 1913) desc
Page 65 and 66: K. A. R. Kennedy, pp. 268-269; M. K
Page 67 and 68: Waal, R. B. de 1994. The universal
Page 69 and 70: Weiner, J. S. 1960. The evolutionar
Page 71 and 72: in the ‘Purbeck Beds’, which in
Page 73 and 74: Woodward, A. S. 1933. The second Pi

Bibliography - British Geological Survey

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?