Bibliography - British Geological Survey

Matthew, W. D. 1916. Note on the association of the Piltdown skull and jaw. Appendix B in W. K.
Gregory. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 35, 348–350.
Matthew, W. D., Eastman, C. R. & Gregory, W. K. 1916. Recent progress in vertebrate paleontology.
Science, 43 (21 Jan), 103–110. (Including a discussion, by Matthew, of the Piltdown skull and jaw, pp. 107–
108, which entirely supports G. S. Miller’s conclusions that the latter belongs to a chimpanzee. ‘It is hardly
to be expected, however, that this conclusion will be readily accepted by the European writers, who have
with few exceptions committed themselves more or less deeply to the opposite view.’)
Matthews, L. H. 1981. Piltdown man: the missing links. New Scientist, 90: (30 Apr), 280‒282; (7 May),
376; (14 May), 450; (21 May), 515‒516; (28 May), 578‒579; (4 Jun), 647‒648; (11 Jun), 710‒711; (18 Jun),
785; (25 Jun), 861‒862; 91 (2 Jul), 26‒28. (This interpretation of events at Piltdown reads largely as a work
of fiction in which Dawson, starting with an old primitive-looking skull given to him in 1906 by a Mr Burley
of Nutley, near Piltdown, attempts with the help of Lewis Abbott to construct a hypothetical assemblage of
the same age as Heidelberg Man, including a faked jaw. In submitting part of the skull to Smith Woodward,
and having convinced himself that it had been found at Piltdown, Dawson overstates his case by including a
hippo tooth given him by Teilhard de Chardin. He is subsequently obliged to plant evidence when the site
itself fails to yield any finds. Teilhard, it seems, suspects a deception, as does Martin Hinton, a voluntary
worker at the NHM, and the two conspire to plant the canine tooth in order to warn off Dawson. This fails,
and Hinton alone then plants the bone implement, with the same negative result. Also implicated through
having had knowledge of Hinton’s complicity is C. P. Chatwin, an assistant at the NHM, who later worked
for the Geological Survey. Harrison Matthews evidently knew Hinton well during the period 1945–51, but
admits that although Hinton was dismissive of Piltdown, nothing of substance was ever said on the subject.
The series of papers prompted reactions from Costello 1981b, Oakley 1981, and Townshend 1981.)
Maxwell, J. 2012. Piltdown Man and other hoaxes: a book about lies, legends, and the search for the
missing link. American Book Publishing, 248 pp.
McCann, T. 1981. Charles Dawson and the Lavant Caves. Sussex Archaeological Society Newsletter, no. 33
(Apr), 234. (Charles Dawson and John Lewis carried out a detailed excavation of the Lavant Caves, at the
request and at the expense of the 6th Duke of Richmond, shortly after the discovery in 1890 of subterranean
passages cut into the Chalk at Hayes Down, East Lavant, near Chichester. The excavation was undertaken
during 1893, but the only published account that appeared was a report in The Sussex Daily News of 11 Aug
1893 based on a presentation by Dawson to the Sussex Archaeological Society. A number of roof collapses
forced the abandonment of the excavation, with the result that no official report was ever published. A manuscript
report does however survive in the West Sussex Record Office at Chichester, the content of which is
briefly summarised. There are aspects of the affair, such as the suspicious nature of the few artefacts found,
that are considered to reflect badly on Dawson: see in particular Allcroft 1916, Russell 1999, Russell 2003,
33–41. Clinch 1905 includes a plan of the workings supplied by Lewis. See Holden 1981, McCann 1997.)
McCann, T. J. 1997. The Lavant Caves revisited. Sussex Archaeological Collections, 135, 311. (The writer
has discovered a diary record of a visit to the Lavant Caves undertaken on 10 Mar 1893, by Mary Wyndham,
the daughter of the 2nd Lord Leconfield, which is quoted. She notes, reflecting the view of Charles Dawson,
that ‘It is supposed to have been inhabited by ancient Britons, & a few ornaments have been found.’ Allcroft
1916 suggested that the site had been a flint mine, but the modern view (Russell 2003, 38) is that it is the
result of post-medieval chalk extraction.)
McCulloch, W. 1981. Some remarks on Teilhard and the Piltdown hoax. Teilhard Newsletter, 14 (1), 1–2,
4. (A response to Gould’s accusation of Teilhard de Chardin’s complicity in the Piltdown affair. Gould
enlisted the views of the late L. S. B. Leakey in his argument, but the writer points out that Leakey could
never discover any evidence to support his suspicion, as is clear from a letter addressed to Oakley in Sept
1972, just a month before his death. After dealing with each of Gould’s arguments, the writer concludes that
what Gould calls his ‘complex hypothesis’ is contradicted by basic facts.)
McCulloch, W. 1983. A reader’s guide to S. J. Gould’s Piltdown argument. Teilhard Newsletter [or
Perspective?], no. 16, Dec, 4-7.
McCulloch, W. 1996. Teilhard de Chardin and the Piltdown hoax. Teilhard Studies, no. 33.
McGrath, P. 1987. Book review [Peter Marks, Skullduggery]. New York Times Book Review, 23 Aug, 7.11.
(See response by Blinderman 1987)