Bibliography - British Geological Survey

Boaz, N. T. 1987. Book review: The Piltdown inquest, by Charles Blinderman. American Journal of
Physical Anthropology, 74, 545‒546.
Bobys, R. S. 1983. Research fraud factors and effects. Free Inquiry in Creative Sociology, 11 (1), 44–48.
Bono, S. de 2005. Is the spirit of Piltdown man alive and well? The Telegraph, 7 Sept. (‘Ever since the
Piltdown man was shown to be a hoax about half a century ago, science has been haunted by the spectre of
fraud. By and large, most researchers have felt themselves part of an honourable tradition of being seekers
after scientific objectivity. And examples of trickery and deceit have been few and far between. However,
recent studies have shaken this view and challenged it as at best complacent, at worst misleading. The major
scientific crimes of fabrication, falsification and plagiarism may be only the tip of the iceberg and there is
evidence of a much wider and deeper problem, not of outright fabrication of results but of distortion, omission
and exaggeration. This has become such a concern that a new body – the UK Panel for Health and Biomedical
Research Integrity – has just been set up to advise on the extent of malpractice...’)
Booher, H. R. 1984. Scientific sleuthing at Piltdown: a case of tampering? Impact of Science on Society, 34
(4), no. 136, 401–404.
Booher, H. R. 1986. Science fraud at Piltdown: the amateur and the priest. Antioch Review, 44 (4), 389–407.
(A detailed defence of Dawson, and an equally detailed attempt to make Teilhard de Chardin the prime suspect.
Harold R. Booher was a senior psychologist on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in Washington.)
Boswell, R. 1963. Skull-diggery at Piltdown: a Baker Street irregularity. Baker Street Journal, 13 (3), 150–155.
Boule, M. 1911. L’homme fossile de La Chapelle-aux-Saints. Annales de Paléontologie, 6 (3/4), 109‒172
(1‒64), plates XVII‒XX (I‒IV). (The first in series of splendid monographs describing the first complete
skeleton of Neanderthal Man, discovered in central France in 1908 and subsequently designated the type
specimen for Homo neanderthalensis)
Boule, M. 1912a. L’homme fossile de La Chapelle-aux-Saints. Annales de Paléontologie, 7 (1), 21‒56
(65‒100), plate IV (V); 7 (2), 85‒104 (101‒120), plate IX (VI); 7 (3/4), 105‒192 (121‒208), plates X‒XIX
(VII‒XVI).
B[oule], M. 1912b. L’homme fossile de Piltdown, Sussex (Angleterre). L’Anthropologie, 23, 742‒744.
Boule, M. 1913. L’homme fossile de La Chapelle-aux-Saints. Annales de Paléontologie, 8 (1) Mar, 1‒70
(209‒ 278). (Comparison with Piltdown, pp. 217, 245‒246, 265‒266, although at this stage Boule was
familiar with Eoanthropus only from written accounts. A plaster cast of the La Chapelle-aux-Saints skull
was exhibited by Smith Woodward at a meeting of the Geological Society of London in Dec 1913; see
Dawson & Woodward 1913b)
Boule, M. 1915. La paléontologie humaine en Angleterre. L’Anthropologie, 26 (Apr), 1–67. (Eoanthropus,
pp. 39–67. Accepts the association between the skull and jaw, but points out that the jaw is exactly that of a
chimpanzee, and would have been described as Troglodytes dawsoni if found alone. He regards Woodward’s
erection of a new genus as unnecessary.)
B[oule], M. 1917. The jaw of Piltdown Man (La mandibule de l’homme de Piltdown). L’Anthropologie, 28,
433‒435. (Review of Miller 1915)
Boule, M. 1920. Le crâne et la mâchoire de Piltdown. L’Anthropologie, 30, 394.
Boule, M. 1921. Les hommes fossiles: éléments de paléontologie humaine. Paris: Masson et Cie, xi, 491 pp.
(L’homme de Piltdown, pp. 157–175; incidental refs, pp. 26, 52, 89, 145, 227, 229, 244–5, 444, 457. The
author reaffirms his view that the Piltdown jaw does not belong with the skull but is that of a chimpanzee,
while the skull itself in brain capacity is that of a relatively recent type of man.)
Boule, M. 1923. Les hommes fossiles: éléments de paléontologie humaine. 2nd ed. Paris: Masson et Cie, xi,
505 pp. + final page of errata. (L’homme de Piltdown, pp. 158–176; incidental refs, pp. 26, 52, 89, 145, 229,
231, 246–7, 457, 470. Boule was inclined to dismiss Eoanthropus as an artificial and composite being in the
first edition of his book, but after considering the evidence of Piltdown II, felt obliged to change his view,
though his doubts were by no means completely laid to rest: see pp. 471‒2 of English edition.)