Bibliography - British Geological Survey

monographs (1911‒March 1913) describing the first complete Neanderthal skeleton from La Chapelle-aux-
Saints. Thus Teilhard’s remark may have had no relevance to the discoveries at Piltdown.)
Teilhard de Chardin, P. 1920. Le cas de l’homme de Piltdown. Revue des questions scientifiques, 77,
149–155. (This paper presents Teilhard’s only published statement on Piltdown. He regards the skull as
being older than Neanderthal but essentially that of an advanced human, whereas the jaw belongs to a fossil
ape, and thus he supposes that the skull and jaw must belong to two different creatures.)
Teilhard de Chardin, P. 1952. On the zoological position and the evolutionary significance of
Australopithecines. Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences, 14 (5), 208‒210. (After 1920,
Teilhard for the most part ignored the evidence of Piltdown in his discussion of fossil man. Interestingly, he
chooses in this paper to show ‘Eo’ (for Eoanthropus) as middle Pleistocene in an evolutionary diagram, but
goes no further than this notation.)
Teilhard de Chardin, P. 1965. Lettres d’Hastings et de Paris, 1908–1914. Paris: Aubier éditeur, 463 pp.
(Letters to his parents written during his time in the seminary at Hastings, and touching on his activities at
Piltdown. A translation of some of these letters into English was published by Herder and Herder, New
York, 1967 and 1968. See also translated correspondence in Spencer 1990b.)
Teilhard de Chardin, P. 1967. Letters from Paris, 1912‒1914. New York : Herder and Herder, 157 pp.
Translated by Michael Mazzarese.
Teilhard de Chardin, P. 1968. Letters from Hastings, 1908‒1912. New York : Herder and Herder, 206 pp.
Translated by Judith de Stefano.
Teilhard de Chardin, P. (for Teilhard’s views immediately following the first announcement of the
Piltdown forgery, see Anon. 1953d, and correspondence in Spencer 1990b)
Thacker, A. G. 1913a (see Buttel-Reepen 1913)
Thacker, A. G. 1913b. The significance of the Piltdown discovery. Science Progress, 8, no. 30, 275–290.
Thacker, A. G. 1916. [Note on Miller 1915]. Science Progress, 10, 468.
Thackeray, J. 1992. On the Piltdown joker and accomplice: a French connection? Current Anthropology,
33 (5), 587–589. (A response to Tobias’s defence of Teilhard de Chardin, ibid., 33, 244)
Thackeray, J. 2011. On Piltdown: the possible roles of Teilhard de Chardin, Martin Hinton and Charles
Dawson. Transactions of the Royal Society of South Africa, 66 (1), 9–13.
Thackeray, J. 2012. Deceiver, joker or innocent ? Teilhard de Chardin and Piltdown Man. Antiquity, 86,
228–234. (See note under Teilhard de Chardin 1913)
Thieme, F. P. 1986. Stephen Jay Gould, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and Piltdown revisited. American
Journal of Physical Anthropology, 69 (2), 271.
Thieme, F. P. 1988. Book review: [Blinderman, The Piltdown Inquest]. American Anthropologist, 90, 170–
171.
Thomas, H. 2002. Le mystère de l’homme de Piltdown: une extraordinaire imposture scientifique. Paris:
Belin, 288 pp. (Provides what has been described as perhaps the most objective analysis of the Piltdown
affair. Separate chapters are devoted to a defence of Teilhard de Chardin, Sir Arthur Keith, and Sir Arthur
Conan Doyle.)
Thomas, H. 2003. « Tête » d’imposteur ! Historia, no. 675, 38‒41.
Thompson, L. 1986. Qui a fabriqué l’homme de Piltdown? L’Histoire, no. 88, 94‒96.
Thomson, K. S. 1991a. Piltdown Man: the great English mystery story. American Scientist, 79, 194–201.
(After reviewing the evidence in the Piltdown affair, the writer finds himself favourably inclined to the
‘devilishly ingenious scheme’ put forward in 1980 by Leonard Harrison Matthews, which he thinks explains
nearly all of the anomalies and motives, but with a few modifications in order to make it ‘the perfect English
crime.’ Unlike Matthews, he sees Dawson as the sole instigator. Thus, Dawson begins by luring Samuel
Woodhead, Lewis Abbott and Teilhard de Chardin into his plot with a cock-and-bull story of workmen