Bibliography - British Geological Survey

More documents

Recommendations

Info

$BOORPLEKAAN\iVYSING VIR WATER IN SUiDWES-TRANSVAAL$

were wrong in saying that Piltdown Man represented a single creature, and that Dawson had been used by them as a scapegoat to conceal their own errors. There was also an element of self denial—if Piltdown Man’s teeth had been artificially altered, it would negate more than 15 years of research into developing a method of distinguishing between the teeth of fossil apes and men, in which Marston had used Piltdown as his main example.) Turrittin, T. H. 2006. An annotated bibliography of the Piltdown Man forgery, 1953‒2005. PalArch’s Journal of Archaeology of Northwest Europe, 1 (1), 1‒50. (This bibliography, which includes an overview and commentary (it is not annotated in the usual sense), focuses on relevant literature written since the exposure of the forgery in 1953. It covers predominantly English and North American material drawn from academic journals, books, newspapers, magazines, broadcast media and a selection of World Wide Web pages. The bibliography is freely available on the Internet in PDF format. In his ‘A Piltdown Man reading list’ (Mar 2006, Richard Harter’s World), Turrittin expresses his personal conviction that Dawson was the sole perpetrator of the fraud.) Underwood, A. S. 1913. The Piltdown skull. <strong>British</strong> Journal of Dental Science, 56, 650–652. (Results of X-ray analysis of the Piltdown mandible and teeth) Underwood, A. S. 1913b (contribution to discussion in Dawson & Woodward 1913b) Underwood, A. S. 1916. [Discussion of W. C. Lyne 1916]. Proceedings of the Royal Medical Society, 9, 55–56. Vallois, H. V. 1949. L’origine de l’Homo sapiens. Compte rendus hebdomadaires des séances de l’Académie des sciences, 228 (11), 949‒951. (Including a discussion of the position of Piltdown and Swanscombe) Vallois, H. V. 1952. Monophyletism and polyphyletism in man. South African Journal of Science, 49, 69‒79. Vallois, H. V. 1953. La solution de l’énigme de Piltdown. L’Anthropologie, 57, 562‒567. (Essentially derived from Weiner et al. 1953) Vallois, H. V. 1954a. Encore la fraude de Piltdown. L’Anthropologie, 58, 353‒356. Vallois, H. V. (see also under Boule 1946, 1957) Vere, F. [Apr] 1955. The Piltdown fantasy. London: Cassell & Company, xvii, 120 pp. (Francis Vere, actual name F. Bannister, lived or lodged in the Piltdown area and was well acquainted with Mabel Kenward of Barkham Manor. His book, published shortly after Weiner’s, is a stout defence of Dawson, who he believed had been used as a scapegoat by the scientific establishment. Weiner’s insistence that the original cranial fragments were fraudulently introduced along with everything else, in spite of Mabel’s recollection to the contrary, was a source of provocation to Vere, and later to Bowden and Booher. Vere’s version of events at Piltdown is somewhat naive. See comments by Hillaby 1973. See also notes by Turrittin 2006, 29.) Vere, F. 1959. Lessons of Piltdown: a study in scientific enthusiasm at Piltdown, Java and Pekin. Stoke, Hayling Island, Hants: Evolution Protest Movement, 51 pp. (Essentially a restatement of his defence of Dawson against the implied accusations made by Weiner in his book The Piltdown forgery. Discusses the ‘coconut’ story at some length.) Vincent, J. B. 1999. Piltdown Man: combining the instruction of scientific ethics and qualitative analysis. Journal of Chemical Education, 76 (Nov), 1501–1502. Vines, G. 2003. Toad in the hole. New Scientist, 179 (9 Aug), 50‒51. Vogel, J. C. & Waterbolk, H. T. 1964. Gronïngen radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon, 6, 368. (A re-analysis of the Piltdown jaw and cranium has reaffirmed the original findings of De Vries & Oakley 1959) Vram, U. G. 1913. Le reconstruzioni dell’ Eoanthropus Dawsoni, Woodward. Bollettino della Società Zoologica Italiana, ser. 3, 2, 192–198.
Waal, R. B. de 1994. The universal Sherlock Holmes. Toronto: Metropolitan Toronto Reference Library. (The Piltdown Man, pp. 232–233, with a bibliography of concerning the response to accusations made against Doyle as perpetrator; also avail at http://special.lib.umn.edu/rare/ush/05B.html#Piltdown Wade, N. 1978. Voice from the dead names new suspect for Piltdown hoax. Science, 202 (8 Dec), 1062. (Reaction to Halstead 1978) Wade, N. 1990. New light on an old fraud [review of Spencer 1990]. New York Times Book Review, 11 Nov, 7.14. Wade, N. (see also under Broad, W.) Walkhoff, O. 1913. Entstehung und Verlauf der phylogenetisches Umformung der menschlichen Kiefer seit dem Tertiär und ihre Bedeutung für die Pathologie der Zähne. Deutsche Monatsschrift für Zahnheilkunde, 31, 947–979. (Discussion of Piltdown, pp. 972–978 & fig. 8) Walsh, J. E. 1996. Unraveling Piltdown: the science fraud of the century and its solution. New York & Toronto: Random House, 279 pp, 8 plates; republished in the UK as Unravelling Piltdown [etc.] by The Softback Preview, Bath, 1997. (Walsh is in no doubt that Dawson alone perpetrated the Piltdown fraud which, he contends, should not be labelled as either a joke or a hoax. Among the list of suspects discussed are William Butterfield, Lewis Abbott, William Sollas, Grafton Elliot Smith, Martin Hinton, Samuel Woodhead, John Hewitt and Frank Barlow, while separate chapters are devoted to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Teilhard de Chardin, and Sir Arthur Keith. An important element in Walsh’s defence of Teilhard rests on his realisation that Teilhard had probably been taken by Dawson to the site of Piltdown III (Barcombe Mills) in 1913, and not Piltdown II (Sheffield Park) as both Teilhard and his accusers believed. Turrittin has drawn attention to Walsh’s discovery of an unpublished manuscript by Robert L. Downes (1956) which examines other potential forgeries by Dawson. For book reviews, see for example Anon. 1996; Bernstein, 1996; Hammond, N. 1996; Turrittin 2006, 17, lists several others.) Warren, S. H. (contribution to discussion in Dawson & Woodward 1914b) Warrimont, J. P. de 2004. De Piltdown-mens en de mammoetjagers van Hoogersmilde, over bedriegers & bedrogenen. Archeoforum, 26 Nov. Also avail at: http://www.archeoforum.nl/artikel/piltdownmammoetjagers/piltdownmammoetjagers.html Washburn, S. L. 1953. The Piltdown hoax. American Anthropologist, 55, 759–762 . Washburn, S. L. 1954. An old theory is supported by new evidence and new methods. American Anthropologist, 56, 436–441. Washburn, S. L. 1979. The Piltdown hoax: Piltdown 2. Science, 203 (9 Mar), 955–958. Washburn, S. L. 1981. Piltdown in letters. Natural History, 90, (6), 12–16. (Defends Teilhard de Chardin against Gould’s accusation of complicity in the Piltdown affair) Washburn, S. L. 1992 (contribution to discussion in Tobias 1992c) Washburn, S. L. 1996. Dawson, not Doyle. Pacific Discovery, 49 (3), 48. (A response to Anderson 1996a‒b) Washburn, S. L. (see Lowenstein et al. 1982) Waterston, D. 1912 (contribution to discussion in Dawson & Woodward 1912) Waterston, D. 1913. The Piltdown mandible. Nature, 92 (13 Nov), 319. (Restates the view expressed by him in the discussion that followed the reading of Dawson & Woodward’s paper on 18 Dec 1912, that the Piltdown jaw demonstrates a striking similarity to that of a chimpanzee) Waterston, D. 1923. The prehistoric find at Piltdown. Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society of Edinburgh, 20, 211–216. Watson, J. 1954. The Piltdown hoax. New Statesman and Nation, 27 Nov, 696–697. (Turrittin 2006 cites this as the first published account to implicate Conan Doyle) Weidenreich, F. 1932 (see Friederichs 1932)
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 and 58: Sheail, J. 1996. From aspiration to
Page 59 and 60: Smith, G. E. 1931a. The discovery o
Page 61 and 62: Spencer, F. 1991a. The Piltdown mys
Page 63 and 64: monographs (1911‒March 1913) desc
Page 65: K. A. R. Kennedy, pp. 268-269; M. K
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?