Bibliography - British Geological Survey

finding a coconut-like skull. Having once tempted Smith Woodward onto the site, he realises that more is
needed than just a bit of thick cranium. During one of his visits to the Natural History Museum he steals a
medieval orangutan jaw to plant at Piltdown after doctoring it to disguise its true affiliation. Martin Hinton,
then a temporary worker at the NHM, suspects fraud, but cannot be seen to question the judgement of such
pompous advocates as Woodward and Arthur Keith. He drops hints to the visiting American vertebrate
palaeontologist, William King Gregory, who goes on to publish these ‘suspicions’. Yet Woodward is
undeterred, so Hinton decides to let the forger know he has been detected by playing a practical joke. He
starts with a patently false canine, planted by Teilhard in revenge for having been duped by Dawson (three
different scenarios are presented for Teilhard’s involvement). This not having the desired effect, Hinton
decides to provide Woodward’s ‘First Englishman’ with a suitable accoutrement in the shape of a bone
cricket bat, but the joke flops again. Dawson strikes back with Piltdown II, and then leaves Hinton and
Teilhard in limbo by dying! They have no choice but to lie low and drop a few hints. Thomson’s article,
which presumably was not meant to be taken seriously, was evidently prompted by the publication of
Spencer 1990a and produced a response from Spencer 1991; see Thomson 1991b.)
Thomson, K. S. 1991b. Piltdown remains. American Scientist, 79, 388. (Reply to Spencer 1991)
Thomson, K. S. 1993. Piltdown Man, the great English mystery story. In: The common but less frequent
loon and other essays / edited by K. S. Thomson. New Haven: Yale University Press, pp. 82‒95, 175‒176.
(Essentially the same text as Thomson 1991a)
Thorne, J. 1954. Charles Dawson. The Times, 19 Nov, 9. (A response to the interview with Baines 1954;
see http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/a2a/records.aspx?cat=509-hasmg&cid=-1#-1
Thornton, J. 1990. Making monkeys out of evolutionists. The New American, 6 (17 Dec), 35‒38.
Thuillier, P. 1972. Une supercherie exemplaire: l’homme de Piltdown. La Recherche, 3, nr 28, Nov,
998‒1002. [A review of Esbroeck 1972 and Millar 1972]
Tilney, F. 1927. The brain of prehistoric man. Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry (Chicago), 17, 723–
769. (Eoanthropus, pp. 738–743)
Tilney, F. 1928. The brain from ape to man. New York: Hoeber. (Eoanthropus, Vol. II, pp. 738–740,
751–752, 884–893)
Tobias, P. V. 1985. The former Taung cave system in the light of contemporary reports and its bearing on
the skull’s provenance: early deterrents to the acceptance of Australopithecus. In: Hominid evolution: past,
present and future / edited by P. V. Tobias. New York: Alan R. Liss, pp. 25‒40. (Argues that Arthur Keith
and the belief in Piltdown delayed the acceptance of Australopithecus as ancestral to humans by some 28
years)
Tobias, P. V. 1990. Introduction to a forgery. In: Spencer 1990a.
Tobias, P. V. 1991. The Piltdown skull forgery and Taung: rejection and acceptance in science, and new
revelations on the identity of the forger, part I. Adler Museum Bulletin, 17 (3), 4‒14.
Tobias, P. V. 1992a. New researches at Sterkfontein and Taung with a note on Piltdown and its relevance to
the history of palaeo-anthropology. Transactions of the Royal Society of South Africa, 48 (1), 1‒14.
Tobias, P. V. 1992b. The Piltdown skull forgery and Taung: rejection and acceptance in science, and new
revelations on the identity of the forger, part II. Adler Museum Bulletin, 18 (1), 9‒26.
Tobias, P. V. 1992c. Piltdown: an appraisal of the case against Sir Arthur Keith. Current Anthropology, 33
(June), 243–260, 277–293. (Sets forth a detailed, if unsound case against Keith as co-conspirator with
Dawson in the Piltdown forgery. The content of this paper can perhaps best be summarised by the following
comment from Walsh 1996: ‘Here, surely, is the ultimate illustration of how far from reality, from common
sense, the Piltdown investigation has drifted, how far it now stands from any clear idea of what constitutes
actual evidence.’ Tobias’s agenda, it has been said, is driven by his admiration for Raymond Dart, discoverer
of Australopithecus, which he believes was rejected by Keith as a human ancestor because it contradicted the
evidence of Piltdown. Tobias’s views on Keith originated from a conversation with Ian Langham in 1984.
The discussion that followed this paper incorporated comments from: P. J. Bowler, pp. 260–261; A. T.
Chamberlain, pp. 261–262; C. Chippindale, p. 262; R. W. Dennell, p. 263; F. G. Fedele, pp. 263–264; P.
Graves, pp. 264–265; C. Grigson, pp. 265–266; G. A. Harrison, pp. 266–267; F. B. Harrold, pp. 267–268;