Bibliography - British Geological Survey

as old as the gravel bed, some of the elements apparently derived from a still older deposit.’ The author
considers that, viewed independently, the Piltdown jaw and skull are clearly unrelated. Thus, ‘in place of
Eoanthropus dawsoni we have two individuals belonging to different genera, namely: (1) Homo dawsoni,
and (2) Troglodytes dawsoni as suggested by Boule, or Pan vetus, sp. nov., if we adopt Miller’s nomenclature.’)
MacCurdy, G. G. 1924. Human origins: a manual of prehistory. Volume 1. The Old Stone Age and the dawn
of man and his arts. New York & London: D. Appleton and Co, xxxviii, 440 pp. (Piltdown Man, pp. 305,
323–340, 435. Emphasises the lack of harmony between the jaw and skull, which is further obscured in the
former by the missing articular condyle and the incompleteness of the chin region. In spite of recent British
assertions that the jaw demonstrates hitherto overlooked human features, the validity of Eoanthropus as a
genus is considered to be still unproven.)
Marks, J. 1988. [Book review: The Piltdown Inquest, by Charles Blinderman]. Journal of Human
Evolution, 17, 799–801.
Marks, J. 1992. [Book review:] Piltdown: A Scientific Forgery [&] The Piltdown Papers, by Frank Spencer.
American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 87, 376–380. (The writer does not find the case against Arthur
Keith to be a very convincing one. ‘In Keith’s defense we have the fact that he reconstructed the skull poorly
and then engaged in a protracted and bitter dispute over the proper manner of reconstructing it. If he in fact
perpetrated the fraud himself, it is difficult to imagine him being so absentminded as to have forgotten what
it originally looked like!’ The reviewer asks why so many experts insisted that the jaw belonged to a chimpanzee
and failed to attribute it correctly to an orangutan. Most of these experts had to contend with casts, yet
Hrdlička, who examined the original specimens, saw human characteristics in the jaw! Marks has some
interesting and pertinent things to say about the nature of science, and how scientists act and think. His final
thought is to ask what would have happened if the fraud had been discovered promptly, and the perpetrator
identified: ‘Frankly, I would bet that if the perpetrator of Piltdown had been nailed, s/he would have gotten
off Scotfree, especially if it had been someone prominent such as Arthur Keith (who was already a Scot)...’)
Marks, P. 1987. Skullduggery. New York: Carroll & Graf Publishers, 284 pp. (A novel, based on the
Piltdown forgery, which, to quote Tom Turrittin, ‘depicts fictional accounts of the personal lives of scientists
such as K. P. Oakley and A. S. Woodward, occasionally focusing more on their sexual fantasies and
proclivities than on the subject of Piltdown Man’.)
Marston, A. T. 1936a. Chimpanzee or man? The Piltdown canine tooth and mandible versus the human
specific characteristics of the straight canine and the fused alveolar-maxillo-premaxillary suture. British
Dental Journal, 61 (June), 216–221.
Marston, A. T. 1936b. Preliminary note on a new fossil human skull from Swanscombe, Kent. Nature, 138
(1 Aug), 200–201. (Comparison with Piltdown)
Marston, A. T. 1936c. Observations on the Piltdown canine tooth. British Dental Journal, 61, 595‒569;
see also 728‒729.
Marston, A. T. 1936d. The teeth of prehistoric man. British Dental Journal, 61, 595‒569
Marston, A. T. 1937a. The case for the Piltdown jaw. Discovery, 18 (Jan), 13‒15.
Marston, A. T. 1937. The Swanscombe skull. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 67, 339‒406,
plates XLVI‒LI. (Marston’s formal monograph on this significant find from the 100-foot terrace of the
Thames. Detailed comparisons are made with Piltdown, pp. 386‒404, from which he concludes that the new
fossil is geologically older. Marston had by this time been made aware by K. P. Oakley (p. 394) that the
Piltdown gravel correlates with the much younger 50-foot terrace of the Thames. See Edmunds 1954.)
Marston, A. T. 1946. Piltdown Man: with special reference to the ape mandible and canine tooth.
Geologists’ Association Circular, no. 483, 1. (Abstract of a paper to be read before the Association on
5 July; also cited in Marston 1950b)
Marston, A. T. 1950a. [Comments on the Piltdown canine, molars and mandible.] Abstracts of the
Proceedings of the Geological Society of London, no. 1457 (13 Jan), 30‒31. (Report of presentation made
14 Dec 1949, which followed a presentation by K. P. Oakley. Marston showed lantern-slides to illustrate his
attempt to mount a cast of the Piltdown canine into the upper canine socket of a female orang-utan, where it
fitted more comfortably and thus indicated that it belonged to an ape. Radiographs of the canine indicated an