214 BUREAU OF AMEEICAN ETHNOLOGY [bull. 52 



also the pelvis and ths femur of the ammal.^ A workman then 

 observed to Koth that a "fossil gourd protruded from the ground. 

 It was the top of a human skull. [-] This was excavated with great 

 care. The lower jaw was in its proper place. The other bones of 

 the skeleton fell to powder."^ 



Following the above, Vogt quotes Roth as follows: 



"The ribs lay dispersed here and there; the cervical vertebras were 

 quite far from the skull; one of the femurs still held to the pelvis. 

 The bones of the feet were scattered everywhere and a number of 

 them were missing ; the bones of one of the hands were still in place, 

 those of the other being dispersed. I have not been able to find more 

 than remnants of the vertebral column in a concretioned mass of 

 earth, which I saved. All these bones were decomposed, the external 

 parts being removed by decay, the cores alone being still recognizable. 

 All the bones were at the same level, below the Glyptodon, in the 

 steep bank of the stream. [*] Beneath the skull was found an oyster 

 shell p] 5 cm. long and 3 cm. broad, also an instrument of deer horn 

 18 cm. long and 1.5 cm. thick at its base." 



Vogt's remarks are, in brief, that in the branch of the deer horn, a 

 photograph of which he received, he was not able to recognize an 

 intentionally made instrument; also, that after the receipt of the 

 first letter from Roth he had answered him that the contemporaneity 

 of the human skeleton with the glyptodons could not be admitted 

 unless the probability of later interment was absolutely excluded. 

 "It is possible, I told him, that the earth had been moved and that 

 remains of very different ages were thus brought together." Roth 

 responded that movements of the ground, except in cases where other 

 proofs exist, can not be distinguished in the Pampean formation. 

 The soil, he said, is so fine, yielding, and homogeneous that when 

 excavated in making a pit and then returned to its place, it soon incor- 

 porates itself so well with the surrounding earth that it is impossible 

 to find again the place of excavation. But as to an interment of the 

 skeleton, that, he declared, he could not admit. "It would have 

 been necessary to remove the whole carapace of the Gli/ptodon in order 

 to place the cadaver in the position where I found the skeleton, and 

 then to replace the carapace, bedding it well with earth so that it would 

 keep the position in wliicli I found it." 



In 1882 and again in 1884 Roth speaks of the find under considera- 

 tion, in Ms catalogue of the Pampean fossils." This catalogue was not 



1 Erroneous; the bones were the pelvis and the femur of man; see further. 



2 Nothing is said in this place as to the level at which the skull was noticed. — A. H. 



3 This should probably read ''some of the bones of the skeleton fell to pieces." See further. 



I* "SuT la berge du fleuve"; this point is confusing, for no other mention is made of a stream in close 

 proximity. The Rio Arrecifes was given before as more than a mile distant.) 



[5 Later, in other accounts, mentioned as a shell of a "bivalve."] 



6 Roth, S., Fossiles de la Pampa, Amfirique du Sud; in Catalogue, San Nicolas, 1882, pp. 3-4 (2'>» ed.), 

 G6nova, 1SS4, pp. 5-7, pi. I. 



