50 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [Bull. 182 



Hrdlicka's evaluation of the Trenton crania is typical in that he 

 links these finds to similar 9th- and 10th-century Swiss and Lowland 

 folk. He does admit (Hrdlicka, 1907, pp. 41^2) : 



The inevitable conclusions are that the Burlington County skull and that from 

 the Riverview cemetery at Trenton are of a type different from that of the 

 Lenape, or of any other Indian crania from the East or elsewhere of which we 

 have thus far any knowledge. They are skulls of people of a different race with 

 which no further acquaintance has yet been made in this country. What this 

 race was, the writer was not able to show at the time of publication of the re- 

 port in 1902. Two possibilities suggested themselves at the time : One, that the 

 crania represented some non-Indian people who preceded the Lenape about 

 Trenton; the other, that they might be crania of later intruders — or immi- 

 grants — into that region. The former theory could not be accepted without 

 further proof, and the immigrant idea seemed hardly plausible, for the Dela- 

 ware valley had been settled largely by Swedes, whose cranial type is radically 

 different. On the whole there are very few localities known in Europe or else- 

 where, where normally very low skulls have been observed. 



With this he admits that he is at bay and cannot identify the racial 

 stock of these finds. 



Since these skulls are well within the normal limits of modern man, 

 so to speak, recent indications are that Homo sapiens sapiens skeletal 

 forms are every bit as old as Neanderthal types and that his frame has 

 not changed in the past few thousand years (De Terra, 1948-1949; 

 Figgins, 1935 a) . 



Hrdlicka made a miscalculation on the Vero finds, as ably demon- 

 strated by Stewart (1946) . After reconstructing the Melbourne slmll 

 and comparing it with the one recovered from Vero, Stewart is of the 

 opinion that : 



The Melbourne skull is surprisingly similar in form to the Vero skull, which 

 was found under like circimistances. I have shown, moreover, that the frag- 

 mentary nature of the Melbourne skull makes it imi)ossible to determine its 

 original form with complete accuracy. Nevertheless, the new version must ap- 

 proximate the original form because it depends ui)on careful matching of the 

 fragments and not upon a preconceived notion of what the form was. 



From evidence of other Early Man finds (Figgins 1935 a; De 

 Terra, 1949; Jenks, 1935, 1937; Jenks and Wilford, 1938), it now ap- 

 pears that the archeologist must accept the fact that Early Man does 

 not differ physically from modern man. Whether these finds, as well 

 as others, will be accepted as attributable to this early period must 

 await time, but the climate of opinion is in this direction. 



The first "Folsom" find was in reality reported by S. W. Williston 

 in 1902 in an article "On the Occurrence of an Arrow-head with 

 Bones of an Extinct Bison.-' In tliis he tells of a fluted point accom- 

 panying the bones of Bison occidental^; as found by Overton and 

 Martin in the summer of 1895 while collecting vertebrate fossils in 

 western Kansas. If this same article were to appear in any modem 



