HRDLICKA] SKELETAL REMAINS 13 



hand, change with environment and culture ; such changes in activities 

 may take place much more slowly in some localities than in others, yet 

 they are bound to manifest themselves everywhere in the course of 

 ages and to be followed by corresponding and recurring structural 

 alterations. The great skeletal diversity of mankind to-day can be 

 accounted for in no other manner. The alterations in the skull or 

 bones need not be general or even of prime importance, and may re 

 quire for their discovery detailed study and extended comparisons; 

 but in the case of an individual from the earlier stages of the period 

 immediately preceding the recent they should be pronounced enough 

 to be easily apprehended. The geologically ancient crania of Europe 

 may be cited in support of this statement. In the case of single fea 

 tures, however, or with scanty material, all far-reaching conclusions 

 must be avoided, for in such cases we can not be certain that we are 

 outside of the territory of semipathological occurrences, and features 

 of reversion, degeneration, or purely accidental variation limited to 

 individuals or small numbers of persons. 



In this connection it is necessary to bear in mind also human 

 migrations, resulting in a replacement of physical types. While 

 the stability of the same stock of people is much greater in some 

 localities than is generally appreciated, it is probable that in a large 

 majority of places one or more replacements of population have 

 occurred even during recent geological time. On this account alone 

 the explorer is very likely to find in recent burials racial types dis 

 tinct from those found in older burials. The greater the differ 

 ence in age between two sets of osseous human remains the greater 

 the improbability, for the reason just given above, that they belong 

 to one physical variety. 



To summarize, identification of human bones as those of early 

 man that is, man of geological antiquity demands indisputable 

 siratigraphical evidence, some degree of fossilizatioii of the bones, 

 and marked serial somatological distinctions in the more important 

 osseous parts. A skeleton or a skull not fossilized or one (whether 

 fossilized or not) agreeing in most of the more essential features 



a It has been stated on good authority (A. Thompson and D. Randall-Maclver, The 

 Ancient Races of the Thebaid, Oxford, 1905 ; and Chas. S. Myers, Contributions to 

 Egyptian Anthropometry, Journal of the Anthropoloyical Institute, xxxv, 80-91, 1905) 

 that the most ancient known inhabitants of Egypt, dating from about seven thousand to 

 eight thousand years ago, show no important difference of type from certain Egyptian 

 natives of the present day. If definitely settled, the fact would be of much importance ; 

 it does not appear, however, that much attention was paid to numerous features of the 

 skulls such as do not enter ordinarily into anthropometric determinations, but which may 

 play a large part in making distinctions. It is often possible to detect just such second 

 ary or less commonly studied characteristics in different localities among the Indians, even 

 though these belong to the same general type, and it may be confidently asserted that 

 they would be found to differentiate recent from ancient man in any locality. It should 

 be borne in mind also in connection with the Egyptian crania that seven thousand or 

 eight thousand years is really but a short period geologically, equaling probably less than 

 half of the recent era. See on this subject also E. Schmidt, in the Arch. f. Anthrop. } xvn, 

 189 et seq., 1888. 



