I.I I \I. KKM.MNS 18 



I in i H I. change \\iili en\ if on ii lent niiil en It iif*-: such changes in art i\ n n-~ 

 may take place much nimv slowly in some localities than in other-, yet 



the\ are iMUIIul to mailife-t the|||-e|\r- i- \ rr V \V hefe ill the collf-c of 



ages and to !* followed by corresponding and recurring structural 

 alteration-. Tin- great skeletal diversity of inuiikind to-day can lc 

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

 bones need not l>e general or even of prime importance, and may re- 

 quire for tlieif discovery detailed study and extended comparisons; 

 l>ui in tin- case of an individual from the earlier stages of the period 

 immediately preceding the recent they should IH> pronounced enough 

 lo IK- easily apprehended." The geologically ancient crania of Kuroj>e 

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

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

 must IH> avoided, for in such cases we can not lx certain that we are 

 outride of the territory of semipathological occurrences, and features 

 of reversion, degeneration, or purely accidental variation limited to 

 individuals or small numl>ers 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 jn-ople 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 ty|>es dis- 

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

 ence in age Ix'tween two sets of osseous human remains the greater 

 the improbability, for the reason just given alx>ve, that they In-long 

 to one physical variety. 



To summarize, identification of human lx>nes as those of early 

 man that is, man of geological antiquity demands indisputable 

 suatigraphical evidence, some degree of fossilization of the bones, 

 and marked serial somatological distinctions in the more important 

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

 fos- ili/.ed or not) agreeing in most of the more essential feature** 



It has l>een stated on good authority (A. Thompson and I>. Kawlnll Mnclvir. The 

 Ancient Itnri's of tln Tlu-i-niil. Oxford. 11M5 ; and 1'has. 8. Mjrera. Contributions to 

 Egyptian Anthro|H>uu>try. Journal of thr .lnf/>rujio/(/i<-al ln*titut>\ xxxv. 8O-91. llMi.'ii 

 Hint i In- most mi. -lent known Inhabitants of KK.vpt. dating from about ncven thotmand to 

 eluhl thousand ymrH ago. show no Important difference of type from certain Kcyptlan 

 natives ..f tin- |in-sent day. If definitely nettled, the fact would be of much Importance: 

 It iI.M-M not ap|M'iir. however, that much attention wan paid to numerouH feature* of the 

 skulls such at do not enter ordinarily Into anthro|N>metrlf determinations, but which mny 

 pl.-iv n InrL'e part In making distinctions. It Is often possible to detect Just such sec-ond- 

 ary r !* i-miiinonly Htudled characteristics in different localities amotitr the Imllans. even 

 though thew In-long to the same general ty|x>, and It may be confidently asserted that 

 tlu-y would U- found to differentiate recent from ancient man In any locality. It should 

 \*> lH,rn<- In mind aim. In connection with the Kgyptlan crania that seven thousnnd or 

 eight thousand year* la really but n short period geologically. ei|iiallng pn.tmbly lens than 

 half of tin- recent ra. See en this subject also I-:. Schmidt, in tin- .lc*. /. Anthrop., xrn, 

 180 et w?q.. 1888. 



