Bibliography - British Geological Survey

More documents

Recommendations

Info

$BOORPLEKAAN\iVYSING VIR WATER IN SUiDWES-TRANSVAAL$

the existence of the Piltdown skull, when I argued that in the evolution of man the development of the brain must have led the way.’) Smith, G. E. 1913c. The Piltdown skull and brain cast. Nature, 92 (30 Oct), 267‒268; (13 Nov), 318‒319. (Exchanges with Keith 1913h on the validity of Woodward’s restoration of the Piltdown skull) Smith, G. E. 1913d. The controversies concerning the interpretation and meaning of the remains of the Dawn-man found near Piltdown. Proceedings of the Manchester Literary and Philosophical Society, 58, vii‒ix; also reported in Nature, 92 (18 Dec), 468–469. Smith, G. E. 1914a. On the exact determination of the median plane of the Piltdown skull. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London, 70 (1), 93–97. (Appendix to Dawson & Woodward 1914; abstract in Abstracts of the Proceedings of the Geological Society of London, no. 949, 31 Dec 1913, p. 29.) Smith, G. E. 1914b. The significance of the discovery at Piltdown. Bedrock: A Quarterly Journal of Scientific Thought, 3, 1‒17. Smith, G. E. 1914. Prehistoric man. Proceedings of the Royal Philosophical Society of Glasgow, 45, 17-27. Smith, G. E. 1915. Prehistoric man and his story. London & Philadelphia. (Piltdown Man, pp. 125–129) Smith, G. E. 1916. The cranial cast of the Piltdown skull. Man, 16, 131‒132. Smith, G. E. 1916. New phases of the controversies concerning the Piltdown skull. Memoirs and Proceedings of the Manchester Literary and Philosophical Society, 60, xxviii–xxix. Smith, G. E. 1916. Observations on recently discovered fossil human skulls. Nature, 98 (30 Nov), 258‒259. (Talgau and Boskop. Abstract of a paper read before the Manchester Literary and Philosophical Society on 31 Oct.) Smith, G. E. 1916. Primitive man. Proceedings of the British Academy, 7, 455‒504. (Piltdown Man, pp. 461, 468–469) Smith, G. E. 1917. The problem of the Piltdown jaw: human or sub-human? Eugenics Review, 9, 167. Smith, G. E. 1918. On the form of the frontal pole of an endocranial cast of Eoanthropus dawsoni. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London, 73 (1) for 1917, 7–8; appendix to Woodward 1918. (Considers that the fragment of frontal bone corroborates the primitive and ape-like nature of Eoanthropus dawsoni) Smith, G. E. 1925. The reconstruction of the Piltdown skull. Proc. Anat. Soc., 59, 38-40. Smith, G. E. 1926. Casts obtained from the brain cases of fossil men. Natural History, 26, 294–299. (Pithecanthropus, Eoanthropus, La Chapelle-aux-Saints and Rhodesia) Smith, G. E. 1927. The evolution of man: essays. 2nd ed. London: Humphrey Milford, Oxford University Press, 195 pp. (The Piltdown skull, pp. 71‒73: ‘The foregoing pages represent (with some recent additions) the substance of an address to the British Association delivered in the autumn of 1912. Within the month after its delivery a dramatic confirmation was provided of the argument that in the evolution of Man the brain led the way.’ The reconstruction of the Piltdown skull, pp.74–84, including detailed drawings of the reassembled cranial fragments. See also pp. 96, 101, 103, 105‒107, 126. The first edition of this work was published in June 1924 but in respect of the Piltdown skull included only the BA address of 1912.) Smith, G. E. 1930a. The ancestry of man. Bulletin of the Geological Society of China, 9 (3), 191–194. (The discovery of abundant remains of Sinanthropus, whose geological age and associations are unquestionable, sheds new light on the previously irreconcilable evidence presented by Pithecanthropus and Eoanthropus. ‘It puts an end to the perennial controversies as to whether Pithecanthropus was human or Simian, or whether the ape-like jaw of the Piltdown man could really be associated with his obviously human skull’.) Smith, G. E. 1930b. The revelatory brain-case of Sinanthropus (the Peking man). Illustrated London News, 176, 769‒771, 810; = Smith 1930c, II. (Comparison with Eoanthropus, pp. 769, 810) Smith, G. E. 1930c. Sinanthropus, the Peking Man. I and II. Scientific American, 440‒441, 188‒189. Smith, G. E. 1930. Human history. London & Edinburgh, 509 pp. (Eoanthropus, pp. 67, 83‒86)
Smith, G. E. 1931a. The discovery of primitive man in China. Antiquity, 5 (Mar), no. 17, 21–36, plates I–V. (The author believes that the discovery in China of Sinanthropus, or Peking Man, provides a link between both Pithecanthropus and Eoanthropus, which were previously thought to be irreconcilable. An account is given of the circumstances of Dawson’s discovery of the first Piltdown skull fragments, including a detail not previously recorded. He thus describes how Dawson, having earlier asked the workmen at Barkham Manor to keep a watch for any fossil remains which they might find, returned to the spot in 1912 (actually, about 1908) where ‘he found the workmen, in defiance of the instructions he had given them, throwing stones at what they thought was an old coconut obtained from the gravels. He at once rescued the fossilized remains of a piece of a phenomenally thick human braincase...’ (pp. 23–24). It is likely, as stated in the preface to Elliot Smith’s The Search for Man’s Ancestors published in the same year, that his information came directly from Dawson. The story actually has a ring of truth about it.) Smith, G. E. 1931b. New discoveries relating to the antiquity of man, by Sir Arthur Keith. [Book review]. Nature, 127 (27 June), 963–967. (Criticises Keith’s claim for a certain resemblance of the London or Lloyds’ skull to the Piltdown skull and his suggestion to include them within the same genus. ‘The widespread suspicion of the authenticity of the Piltdown Man as a valid genus is notorious, and the chief reason for the lack of agreement in human palæontology. Even to-day many Continental anthropologists refuse even to refer to it in treatises on fossil man or, when they do so, brush it aside as being so doubtful that it is best to ignore it. I have been to some trouble to discover the reasons for the persistence of this attitude. It is not simply because the Piltdown jaw is apelike in general form, so much as the claim that the braincase associated with it conforms to the type of Homo sapiens.’ Hence, he continues, it does not help when Keith argues that the cranial features of Piltdown Man are essentially of the modern type.) Smith, G. E. 1931c. The evolution of man. In: Early man: his origin, development and culture / by G. E. Smith, A. Keith, F. J. Parsons, M. C. Burkitt, H. J. E. Peake & J. L. Myers. London, Ch. I, pp. 1–46. (Eoanthropus, p. 19) Smith, G. E. (Oct) 1931d. The search for man’s ancestors. London: Watts & Co, 56 pp, 6 plates. (Pithecanthropus, Heidelberg and Piltdown, and Peking Man) Smith, G. E. 1934. Recent discoveries in human palaeontology. Proceedings 1st International Congress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Science, London, 1932. London, pp. 63–65. (Eoanthropus, p. 64) Smith, G. E. & Hunter, J. I. 1925. The reconstruction of the Piltdown skull. Proceedings of the Anatomical Society, 59, 38–40. (Paper presented 12 May 1922, reported in Nature, 109, 3 June 1922, 726; evidently revised for publication in 1925: see Spencer 1990b, 159. A reconstruction of the skull and endocranial cast of Piltdown generally confirms the reconstructions made by Smith Woodward and Pycraft, but differs with regard to the position of the occipital fragment, which assumes a more vertical position. As a result, the cranium falls into complete harmony with the chimpanzee-like jaw.) Smith, G. E. (see Dawson, W. R. 1938 for a biographical account of Grafton Elliot Smith; also Swinton) Smith, R. A. (contribution to discussions in Dawson & Woodward 1912, 1914b, 1915) Smoker, B. 1997. Piltdown again. Current Archaeology, no. 153, 358. (Correspondent was a close friend of Kenneth Oakley, who, in response to her conclusion that Teilhard de Chardin was the guilty party, thought that she was ‘probably right’. Teilhard always refused to talk about the matter, as though ashamed of some youthful folly. Oakley later changed his mind, see Daniel 1982.) Sollas, W. J. 1910. The anniversary address of the President. In: Annual general meeting, February 18th, 1910. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London, 65 (2), xlviii–lxxxviii. (Sollas chooses as his special theme a discussion of the origins of man, pp. liv–lxxxviii. Notice is taken of the recent discovery of the Heidelberg jaw, which clearly has simian characters, but in which ‘The dentition is thoroughly human. The incisors and canines have been worn down to a uniform level...’ He notes that, while no implements have been found in association with the jaw, ‘it has furnished an interesting fauna; one of the species (Elephas antiquus) suggests the Chellean horizon, another (Rhinoceros etruscus) has been found elsewhere in the Upper Pliocene.’ He further makes an illustrative comparison (fig. 5) between the Heidelberg jaw and that of an orangutan. Sollas’s paper might well have provided guidance to the Piltdown forger: thus at Piltdown we have an orang jaw doctored to mimic human dentition, and an associated fauna containing elements datable both to the early Pleistocene and late Pliocene.)
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 and 34: verify and interpret these curious
Page 35 and 36: workmanship becomes cruder as we ap
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: Sheail, J. 1996. From aspiration to
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
show all

Bibliography - British Geological Survey

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

Delete template?

Save as template?