Bibliography - British Geological Survey

Stringer, C. B. 2012. The 100-year mystery of Piltdown Man. Nature, 492 (13 Dec), 177‒179. (A team
of 15 researchers from the Natural History Museum and several British universities are now examining the
Piltdown finds using techniques such as radiocarbon dating and DNA and isotope studies in order to pin down
the taxonomic identities and geographical origins of the specimens. Spectroscopy will be used to establish
how many different staining methods were applied to the Piltdown assemblages of bones, teeth and tools.)
Stringer, C. B., d’Errico, F., Williams, C. T., Housley, R. & Hedges, R. 1995. Solution for the Sherborne
problem. Nature, 378, 452. (Letter describing the results of a detailed analysis of a supposed Palaeolithic
engraving of a horse’s head on a mammalian rib, said to have been discovered in quarry debris at Sherborne,
Dorset, and described by A. S. Woodward 1914. The engraving is shown to be a recent fake. See also report
by Nigel Hawkes, ‘Prized Stone Age carving exposed as juvenile hoax’, The Times, 30 Nov 1995, p. 8. Other
references to the Sherborne engraving will be found in the present Bibliography. See also Turrittin 2006, 12)
Stringer, C. B. (see also under Spencer)
Sussman, R. W. 2000. Piltdown Man: the father of American primatology. In: Primate encounters: models
of science, gender, and society / edited by S. C. Strum & L. M. Fedigan. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, pp. 85–103.
Sutcliffe, W. H. 1913. A criticism of some modern tendencies in prehistoric anthropology. Memoir and
Proceedings of the Manchester Literary and Philosophical Society, 57, 1–25. (Piltdown, p. 3)
Swinton, W. E. 1976. Physician contributions to nonmedical science: Sir Grafton Elliot Smith and Piltdown
Man. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 115 (20 Nov), 1047‒1053.
Symington, J. 1915. On the relations of the inner surface of the cranium to the cranial aspect of the brain.
Edinburgh Medical Journal, 14, 85–100.
Symington, J. 1916. Endocranial casts and brain form: a criticism of some recent speculations. Journal of
Anatomy and Physiology, 50 (3), 111–130. (The author strongly disagrees with Elliott Smith’s interpretation
of the Piltdown braincase and sees no peculiarity of development in the endocranial cast that would
distinguish Eoanthropus from a modern human, pp 122–129.)
Tappen, N. C. 1992 (contribution to discussion in Tobias 1992c)
Tattersall, I. 1995. The fossil trail: how we know what we think we know about human evolution. New
York: Oxford University Press. (Turritin cites pp. 48–51, 96–97)
Taylor, R. M. S. 1937. The dentition of the Piltdown fossil man (Eoanthropus dawsoni) from a new aspect.
Report Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science, 23, 201, 245. (Title only ;
for the text of this paper see Taylor 1978)
Taylor, R. M. S. 1978. Variation in morphology of teeth: anthropologic and forensic aspects. Springfield,
Illinois: Charles C. Thomas. (The text of a paper originally written in 1937, on the dentition of Piltdown
Man, is here included as an appendix, pp. 362–370)
Taylor, R. M. S. 1980. Piltdown echoes again. New Zealand Archaeology Association Newsletter, 23 (4),
232–234.
Teilhard de Chardin, P. 1913. La préhistoire et ses progrès. Etudes (Peres de la Compagnie de Jésus,
Paris), nr. 134, 40‒53. For English translation see : Teilhard de Chardin, P. 1956. The appearance of man /
translated by J. M. Cohen. New York: Harper & Row. (Francis Thackeray has argued that a sentence in this
essay, which appeared in Jan 1913 a few weeks after the formal announcement of the discoveries at Piltdown,
constitutes an admission of guilt by Teilhard. The opening sentence states that ‘There was a time when the
study of prehistory deserved to be suspected or joked about’ (translated from the French). Thackeray’s
translation (after J. M. Cohen) makes the final part of this statement read ‘... the subject of jokes’, which he
takes to be an admission by Teilhard that English palaeontologists, including Smith Woodward, had been
taken in by a joke (perpetrated by Teilhard). On the other hand, it may simply have been Teilhard’s way of
saying that the subject of man’s prehistory had previously not been taken seriously, but had now finally come
of age, thanks to the efforts of people like Hugo Obermaier and Marcellin Boule, both of whom taught at the
Institut de Paléontologie Humaine in Paris, where Teilhard was then studying. Obermaier was about to
publish his Der Mensch der Vorzeit, while Boule was due to complete the publication of a series of erudite