imw.irKA) SKELETAL REMAINS 17 



remain-. In a Hihxcqucnt \\ork" In- -tate- that ihc pelvic bone wa.s 

 taken from a comparatively iv.-ent channel kno\\n a> the Mammoth 

 rax inc. at tin- l>a-e of a high cliff. 

 Tin* cliff consists >f a Cretaceous base, u layer of Kocetie inuterlnl, and a Hur- 



I'M"-.- dc|M.sit of Iniilii or 10688. 



From u clavr.x iii-posit Immediately below the yellow loam, bone* of the 

 Mnxtoilon nhintii-Hn. u s|ecles of Mcgalonyx. tomes of the genera />/*. HOH, 

 and others, some of extinct and other presumed to IM> of living s|HK'leM, hud 

 il.-t.-K lii-il. falling to the l>ase <if the cliff. Miir_-li-l with the rent, the 

 IN, IK- of man os Iniiomlimtuni watt obtained by Doctor Dickeson, of 

 Natchez. In whose collection I Haw It. Jt up|Mureil to be quite in the same 

 stati' of preservation, ami was of the same black color as the other fossils. 

 and \\as believed to have come, like them, from a depth of alxiut ''' feet 

 from the surface [of the cliff]. 



In my Secoud Visit to America (u, 197, 1S4) I suggested, as a iMmslhlc 

 explanation of this association of a human IMIU> with remains of a Mastodon 

 and .Mi-iraliiii\ \. that the former may |M>ssibly have l>een derived from the 

 vegetable noil at the top of the din", whereas tin- remains of extinct mammalia 

 were dislodged from a lower i>osition, and both may have fallen into the same 

 heap or talus at the bottom of the ravine. The pelvic bone might, I eoiHvlved, 

 have acquired its black color by having lain for years or centuries In a dark, 

 superficial, iteaty soil, common in that region. I was informed that there 

 were many human Inmes, in old Indian graves in the same district, stained of 

 as black a dye. . . . No doubt, bad the pelvic bone belonged to any m-ent 

 maininifcr other than man. such a theory would never have been resorted to; 

 but so long as we have only one Isolated case, and are without the testimony 

 of a geologist who was present to behold the bone when still engaged in the 

 matrix, and to extract it with his own hands, it is allowable to suspend our 

 judgment as to the high antiquity of the fossil. 



The Natchez pelvic bone was described in detail and illustrated by 

 E. Schmidt in 1872. 6 This author takes issue with Doctor Dickeson's 

 -tatement that the bone belonged to a young individual; he con- 

 >i<lcrs it that of an adult, but damaged in such a way that it resem- 

 Ut - an immature specimen. He takes issue also with Sir Charles 

 Lycll regarding the antiquity of the bone, declaring his l>elief that 

 it is not recent, but dates from the Champlain epoch. r Schmidt 

 docs not furnish any new important facts concerning the find, but 

 attempts to substantiate his view by a different interpretation of the 

 known conditions. Lyell apparently did not accept Schmidt's con- 

 clusions, for the last edition of the former's Geological Evidcm .- 

 the Antiquity of Man contains exactly the same statement concerning 

 the Natchez bone as those published previously; and. a< he was a 

 geologist and visited the locality a short time aft-T the find had 



The Geological Evidence* of the Antiquity of Man, 3d *d., fM> "t "'! Ix>nc!<.n. !Htt3; 

 tli .<!.. I 1 :'-'', i-t si|.. London. 1M7.T 



Zur rriceHchU-hti- NordnmeclkaB. Arch. f. Anthrop., v, 244 ' I 1^71-7'J. 



'The references of SHunldt t<> tin- riinniplaln epoch " Indent.- u different nollon of 

 this period and a greater anll<|iilty than that now accepted by American geologists. See 

 particularly paw 'jari ot hi* paper. 



O7 2 



