Bibliography - British Geological Survey

Weidenreich, F. 1936. The mandibles of Sinanthropus pekinensis: a comparative study. Palaeontologia
Sinica, Series D, 7 (3), 132 pp, 15 plates. (The Piltdown mandible, pp. 117–119. Considers the Piltdown jaw
and skull to be unrelated: ‘If the Piltdown mandible is to be considered as belonging to a human being ... this
would imply that in England a hominid lived with the brain case of recent man and an ape-like mandible, while
in the Far East (Choukoutien) at about the same time another human being lived with the most primitive brain
case known hitherto, approaching that of chimpanzee and with a mandible distinctly closer related to that of
recent man than to chimpanzee.’ Detailed comparison shows that ‘The Piltdown jaw resembles at the most a
female orang and is no more similar to Sinanthropus than the female orang.’)
Weidenreich, F. 1937. The dentition of Sinanthropus pekinensis: a comparative odontography of the
hominids. Palaeontologia Sinica, New Series D, no. 1, v, 180 pp + separate atlas of plates. (The Piltdown
teeth, pp. 146–149, & figs 141, 147, 213, 216, 217, 317 & 342 in atlas [not seen]. The molars in the Piltdown
jaw are considered to be comparable with those of a modern female orangutan, whereas the isolated molar
from Piltdown II is thought to be more human. The Piltdown canine is quite unlike that of Sinanthropus, but
neither does it bear any resemblance to that of an orang and thus does not belong with the jaw. Also, the
smooth, concave wear on this tooth does not fit the pattern of wear expected of a canine.)
Weidenreich, F. 1943. The skull of Sinanthropus pekinensis: a comparative study on a primitive hominid
skull. Palaeontologica Sinica, New Series D, no. 10, whole series no. 127, xxi,298 pp. (In the light of the
discovery of Sinanthropus the author feels compelled to reject the authenticity of Piltdown Man. He supports
the view, put forward by Frassetto in 1927 and Friederichs in 1932, that the Piltdown jaw belongs to an
orangutan, p. 216.)
Weiner, J. S. 1952. Physical anthropology since 1935. In: A hundred years of anthropology / edited by T. K.
Penniman. London: Duckworth. (Including a review of the Piltdown conundrum)
Weiner, J. S. 1954a. [Remarks on the Piltdown molars and canine.] Proceedings of the Geological Society
of London, no. 1504 (6 Jan), xvii‒xviii. (Report of presentation made at a meeting on 25 Nov 1953. Weiner
was evidently preceded at the meeting by A. T. Marston, and in opposition to Marston’s conclusion that the
Piltdown jaw and teeth are those of a fossil ape, went on to present evidence of artificial abrasion shown by
the molars and canine. Marston’s famous outburst, in which he criticised the experts for using Dawson as a
scapegoat in order to cover up their own ineptitude, was widely reported in the press but went unremarked in
the Society’s Proceedings; see Anon. 1953d, 1953e, Turrittin 2004. Oakley also made a presentation.)
Weiner, J. S. 1954b. [Comparison of the Piltdown molars and canine with those of a female orangutan
experimentally ground and polished.] Proceedings of the Geological Society of London, no. 1514, cxvi.
(Report of a presentation made at a meeting on 2 June 1954 demonstrating the results of new investigative
techniques applied to the Piltdown assemblage.)
Weiner, J. S. 1955a. Outline of the Piltdown problem. In: Further contributions to the solution of the
Piltdown problem / J. S. Weiner et al. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Geology, 2 (6),
229–233. (Smith Woodward was able to put forward a coherent and convincing case for the integrity of
Eoanthropus dawsoni, which Weiner resolves into a close-knit set of eleven arguments all tending to favour
Woodward’s interpretation. The absence of the chin (symphysial region) and articulating condyle from the
lower jaw was crucial in disguising its fully ape-like character; while the flat wear on the artificially abraded
molar teeth was distinctly un-ape-like. By 1950 every possible opinion of Piltdown Man’s status had been
discussed. Once the hypothesis of a fake or hoax had been entertained it provided a compelling explanation
of the circumstances of the finds and the sequence of discoveries. Weiner lists seven issues that were
adequately explained by such a hypothesis, now fully confirmed by the latest series of scientific tests.)
Weiner, J. S. [Feb] 1955b. The Piltdown forgery. London: Oxford University Press, xii, 214 pp., 8 plates,
correction slip; 2nd impression, corrected, Aug 1955; re-issued 2003 (50th anniversary edition) with a new
introduction and afterword by Chris Stringer. Oxford: Oxford University Press, xix, 212 pp., 8 plates. (This
remains one of the most readable examinations of the Piltdown affair, written by the man who initiated the
scientific re-examination of the Piltdown assemblage in 1953 and undertook the first detailed investigation
of the background to the forgery. Dawson appears as the principal suspect, but Weiner stops short of outright
accusation. He had originally planned to call his book The Piltdown Fantasy, but learned that Francis Vere
was already working on a book of the same title in defence of Dawson. Weiner was thus obliged to complete
his book somewhat hurriedly in order to avoid being pipped to the post by Vere and others. A less than
complimentary review appears in Edmunds 1955b.)