FINE ANTIQUE BIRD PRINTS 
VPC 0109 MILVUS MIGRANS SPIZAETUS ALBONIGER VPC 0110 
This fine pair of feathered hunters, after John Gould portfolio originals, were 
faultlessly executed by Joseph Wolf, "the Bird Man,” renowned artist/naturalist of 
the 19th Century. Our full colour Imperial Folio reprints, in limited edition, on heavy 
archival art paper, are a visually appealing addition to the decor/collection of those 
who appreciate the finest of Nineteenth Century bird prints. To order this fine pair 
of prints, send $90.00 (check or M.O.) or telephone and use your Master Card/VISA. 
Our Catalog containing these and other fine prints is available for $2.00. 
(Dealer inquiries invited.) 
' Viiltai'C "Imaiie Dept. C61, P.0. Box 480476, Los Angeles, CA 90048 (213) 389-2650 
V ) 
book, we find, “The paleolith flint (nr. 
E. 606), however, provided a notable 
exception . . . this was found in situ 
by Teilhard de Chardin. . . . But that 
this fragment has been deliberately 
stained admits of no doubt.” The per- 
son who had stained the bones also 
had stained the flint. For details one 
might look up Weiner’s book, which 
actually reads like a detective story. 
The implement must have been placed 
at the site with the purpose of de- 
ceiving Teilhard and this could, in 
view of the former suppositions, only 
have been done by Dawson. 
Gould’s suggestion that Teilhard 
was presumably an ardent French pa- 
triot is noteworthy: “what a wonderful 
joke for a Frenchman . . . what an 
irresistible idea to salt English soil 
with this preposterous combination of 
a human skull and an ape’s jaw and 
see what the pros could make of it.” 
What an incredible insinuation against 
an honest scholar! 
Gould’s article is based entirely on 
speculations. Could it really satisfy 
anybody to maintain that “Teilhard 
was an active collaborator” of Daw- 
son’s alleged conspiracy? “Only in this 
way,” according to Gould, “can I 
make sense of the pattern in Teilhard’s 
letters to Oakley, the 1920 article, 
the subsequent silence, the intense em- 
barrassment.” 
Who then was the mastermind be- 
hind Dawson, and what was the mo- 
tive? The oldest prehistoric man an 
Englishman? National pride or per- 
haps the reward of becoming a fellow 
of the Royal Society? 
At long last, by an event as sur- 
prising as it was unexpected, we are 
able to present a reasonable expla- 
nation. The person responsible for the 
fraud was Professor W. J. Sollas of 
Oxford. The late Professor J. A. Doug- 
las (1884-1978), who held the Chair 
of Geology at Oxford and was a close 
friend of Sollas, had known the truth. 
Shortly before his death, Douglas 
transmitted the story by tape record- 
ing. He had a “bitter dislike of Smith 
Woodward, which was mutual.” He 
wanted to make a fool of him, to ruin 
his scientific reputation. And this led 
to the Piltdown forgery. (As reported 
by B. Halstead in Nature, vol. 276, 
pages 1 1-13.) It is a pity that this rev- 
elation should have been overlooked 
by Gould. Otherwise his concoctions 
would never have been printed. 
As for Teilhard’s alleged “guilt,” 
it is quite evident that he was but 
an interested yet innocent bystander 
24 
