472 POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



The other view is that presented by Professor Chamberlin. He be- 

 lieves that the inhumation of the remains dates from a time when the 

 river bed was from fifteen to twenty-five feet above its present level, 

 that is, when the waters of the river eroded the surface of the lime- 

 stone upon which the bones were lying, and that the bones themselves 

 were covered by the action of the river, or by the wash from the ad- 

 jacent uplands. The material above the stratum already described, Pro- 

 fessor Chamberlin believes to be without evidence of water stratifica- 

 tion; that it was built up chiefly by the action of the tributary, which 

 deposited its washed down silt from the uplands upon the comparatively 

 low gradient of the end of its valley, while the river itself was flowing 

 at the opposite side of its flood-plain. He admits as possible, though 

 less probable, that the whole of the material covering the skeleton 

 may have been deposited by the action of the river while flowing at 

 a high elevation. Whether his views are finally accepted or not, they 

 are supported by valid arguments, and are conservative. By this ex- 

 planation a considerable antiquity is accorded to our Lansing man, but 

 one far short of the glacial times. If the other explanation is accepted, 

 the one first offered by the present writer, and the one suggested as 

 possible by Professor Chamberlin, the age of the skeleton would be 

 considerably greater, though still much short of the glacial times. 



Yet another opinion is held by certain able geologists that the 

 whole of the material covering the skeleton, and to the top of the 

 knoll, full forty feet above the flood-plain, has been built up, for the 

 most part at least, by the action of the tributary. This explanation 

 might permit the inhumation of the skeleton within very recent times, 

 since the settlement of the valley by white men, indeed. But, this 

 view seems incompatible, not only with the physical conditions pre- 

 sented, but also with the evidence afforded by the skeleton itself, and 

 is, I believe, untenable. This explanation would require the cover- 

 ing of the skeleton while yet in the flesh, by some sudden freshet in 

 the ravine, so deeply as to be beyond the effects of the atmosphere, and 

 the reach of the many prowling wolves and other predatory animals 

 a requirement that seems quite improbable, considering the position 

 and condition of the skeleton. Such a freshet would be far more likely 

 to wash the body or skeleton far out into the valley of the river. 



Dr. Holmes has somewhat modified Professor Chamberlin 's views, 

 in that he believes that a change of level in the altitude of the river 

 of five or ten feet would be sufficient to have met the conditions pre- 

 sented. However, Mr. Holmes frankly says that the decision must 

 finally rest with the glacial geologists, none of whom has so far pub- 

 lished anything to sustain the lessened estimate. Furthermore, Mr. 

 Holmes' views are open to the same objections as those just given. It 

 seems to me that nothing short of Professor Chamberlin 's estimate 

 will meet the paleontological requirements. 



