Hm.i.itiu] I I \l. Ill M MNS .'t'.l 



i- normal with tin- following except inn- : Then- i- M -li^lit depres- 

 sion In-hind the left lower |Hirii(>M of tin- face, ami (In- angle lctwecn 

 the plain- f the posterior nan-- and tin- ha-ilar process i- someuhat 

 nmn- acute than u-ual: tin- left lx>rder of tin* foramen magnum is 

 j-lightly irregular, and on tin- left -id.- the npixT half of the border 

 of tin- occipital is situated somewhat higher than that of the parietal 

 IMMIC. The left maMoid al-o is situated a little more posteriorly than 

 the right. All of the features indicate some disturbance in the devel- 

 opment of the inferior i>ortum of the left side of the skull. These 

 defect- \\ere not of a serious enough character, however, to affect the 

 general conformation of the skull, and the vault together with other 

 parts is symmetrical. 



The surface of the skull shows a large abrasion on the left parietal, 

 and several cuts, such as could IK? made with the edge of a not very 

 sharp shovel, on the left parietal l>one; considerable and deep scaling, 

 particularly over the frontal and left parietal regions; and two dark- 

 greenish (copjx'r or brass) discolorations of oval shape about "2 cm. 

 in the longer diameter, situated one on the left squama l>ehind the 

 pterion, the other near the middle of the right squama, on the parietal 

 bone adjoining. Both squanue and the occipital bone give evidence 

 of defects caused by injuries. 



Inspection as well as measurements show the Riverview skull to 

 be very closely allied to that from Burlington county and in common 

 with the latter to differ radically from all other crania descril>ed in 

 this paper. The Riverview skull presents similar rounded outlines 

 of its planes, similar small height, narrow face, and megaseme orbits, 

 in comparison with that from Burlington county. The differences 

 between the two are only slight, such as are commonly met with in 

 the two sexes." 



The face in the Riverview skull is orthognathic, but this character 

 is undoubtedly due in part to the previously mentioned backward 

 depression of the facial parts. The alveolar process, fairly well 

 preserved, presents also but little slanting. The alveolar arch is 

 regular and massive; it is rather low (alveolar point to nasal 

 lx>rder 1.85 cm.), but not very narrow (maximum external width 



The peculiar features of these rranla were well recognized by Prof. F. W. Putnam 

 as early as 18K8, and are aim) acknowledged by Ihictor Kuss.-ll In his paner on the Human 

 l:-in:ilris fn.iii the Trenton (travels ( 148-150). Doctor Kuiwell wrote under the difficulty 

 of lurking sufficient material, a circumstance which undoubtedly Influenced his Incorrect 

 final conclusions. Professor Putnam's remarks, made after the presentation by Mr. Volk 

 of the IMvTvli-w Cemetery specimen to the Peabody Muiteum, are as follows (Peatiody 

 Mui- inn Id-port, iv, no. 2, 35, 1888): "This human skull (the Hlrervlew specimen) Is 

 mall and of a remarkable form, and agrees with two others (Kurllngton County and 

 'Gasometer' skulls) which we have from New Jersey, one of which was certainly from 

 the gravel. These three skulls are not of the Delaware Indian type," etc. The only 

 error In these remarks relates to the gasometer skull which, after all, was shown to be 

 closely similar to tin- crania of the Lenape (see The Crania of Trenton. Bulletin of 

 American Miucvm of .Natural UUtory, xvi, L'.'t, New York, 1902). 



