Antiquity of Man in America compared with Europe 147 



with European anthropologists the correctness of their Paleo- 

 lithic cranial type? 



4. Would not the acceptance of a Paleolithic type cranium 

 for America be in harmony with the existence here of many 

 paleolithic stone implements, both being of pre- Wisconsin 

 date? 



Objections Along the Line of Geology. 



Let us now consider briefly the geological difficulties. The 

 "eolian hypothesis" is the hobby horse that carries all these 

 objections, but this horse runs to the same goal as that already 

 mentioned, and flaunts the same banner. The most daring 

 rider is the professor of botany in the University of Iowa, 

 Professor B. Shimek. I know of no geologist of America who 

 mounts this horse and drives so recklessly. 



I cannot here take the time to go into the details of this 

 question. I can say only, in general, that there are two funda- 

 mental geological facts which are ignored, and apparently 

 unknown, by the adherents of the eolian hypothesis of the 

 origin of the loess, which, it seems to me, would convince a 

 competent geologist of the aqueous origin of the loess of the 

 Missouri valley. First, the loess is stratified as only water can 

 do, from top to bottom ; and second, the loess is a feature of 

 the valleys, and not of the country at large. Neither of these 

 features can be accounted for by the eolian hypothesis. If we 

 look in detail at the objections that Professor Shimek has 

 brought against Professor Barbour's interpretation of the 

 facts connected with the locality of the "Nebraska man," we 

 shall see vividly the untenableness of his criticisms. 



The differences circle about the question, Is the material in 

 which the bones of the Nebraska man were found "undis- 

 turbed loess," as claimed by Barbour, or is it that which would 

 be produced by the excavation and refilling incident to a recent 

 burial ? 



The descriptive facts stated by the two observers do not dif- 

 fer essentially, with the exception that Shimek makes no men- 

 tion of a burnt and connected layer separating the mound- 

 builder remains from those found in the loess-like material 

 containing the skulls lying below that layer. The differences 



