SKELETAL REMAINS 47 



there is no possibility of definite racial determination. The specimen 

 bears evidence of what appear to be traces of human workmanship ; 

 the details of these, however, as well as the details of the physical 

 examination and the archeology of the find, will be dealt with by 

 Professor Putnam. 



XIV. THE LANSING SKELETON 



The skeleton of an adult and a portion of the lower jaw of an infant 

 were discovered in February, 1902, by the sons of Mr. M. Concannon, 

 a farmer near Lansing, Kansas, in digging a tunnel which was to 

 serve for storing apples and other farm products. This tunnel enters 

 horizontally into a low bench or terrace situated at the base of the 

 Missouri river bluffs at the entrance to a small side valley. The 

 child s jaw lay about 60 feet, the adult skeleton about TO feet, from 

 the entrance of the tunnel and 20 feet below the surface. The deposit 

 in which the bones were embedded and which forms the bulk of the 

 bench is an undisturbed loess-like silt, through which at all levels are 

 scattered fragments of limestone and shale, the whole presenting great 

 variety of composition and considerable irregularity of accumulation. 



The find became known to men of science through Mr. M. C. Long, 

 curator of the museum of Kansas City, who, on reading of the discov 

 ery in a local paper, immediately visited the locality in company with 

 Mr. E. Butts, a civil engineer. Before the end of 1902 the locality 

 had been visited and examined by many prominent geologists, and a 

 deep exploratory trench was sunk near the tunnel by Mr. G. Fowke, 

 under the direction of Professor Holmes of the Bureau of American 

 Ethnology. Scientific reports concerning the find were published by 

 Williston, a Upham, 6 Winchell, c Chamberlin^ Holmes, 6 and Fowke. ^ 

 It appears that no question has been raised as to the correctness of the 

 accounts regarding the location of the human bones; but there are 

 important differences of opinion concerning the geological age of the 

 deposits and consequently the antiquity of the skeleton. Without 

 going into details, it may be said that Professors Williston, Upham, 

 and Wmchell favored a considerable antiquity for both the deposits 

 and the specimens, regarding the former as true loess, while Profes 

 sors Chamberlin, Calvin, Salisbury, and Holmes, with Fowke, judged 

 the deposits to be not true loess but of a much more recent formation. 



Science, August 1, 1902. 



6 Science, August 29, 1902; American Geologist, September, 1902; American Anthro 

 pologist., n. s., iv, no. 3, 5G6, 1902. 



c American Geologist, September, 1902. 



&amp;lt;* Journal of Geology, October-November, 1902; also notes by Calvin and Salisbury in 

 ibid. 



e American Anthropologist, n. s., iv, no. 4, 743-752, 1902. 



f Bulletin 30 of the Bureau of American Ethnology, pt. 1, 1907. 



