216 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [bull. 52 



The same year the skull from "Pontimelo" is considered by 

 Kollmann.^ There are no further data regarding the circumstances 

 of the discovery. "The statements of Roth are admissible and there 

 is no reason to doubt his reports, especially since Ameghino and 

 Moreno [-] found traces of man in the same strata and with the same 

 fauna." Kollman received a series of nine photographs of the skull 

 and, using them as a basis, makes a number of determinations. 

 Virchow's suppositions as to the form of the skull are equally errone- 

 ously confirmed. It belongs to the ''chamseprosopic, brachycephalic, 

 ancient race of the American diluvium." The forehead is not primi- 

 tive in form but is broad, high, well-developed. 



In 1887 the skull is referred to by Quatrefages, who also regards 

 it as brachycephalic,^ and in 1888 the principal points relating to the 

 find arc given by Roth in liis good paper on the Pampean forma- 

 tions.* 



Meanwhile the remains came into the possession of the Zoological 

 Museum of the University of Copenhagen, and in 1888 a description 

 of them was published by Hansen.^ It was found that all the authors 

 who based their opinions on the imperfect photographs of the skull 

 reached erroneous conclusions. Its characteristics ''are nearly the 

 same as those of the race of Lagoa Santa. The skull is really dolicho- 

 cephalic . . . and is even more hypsistenocephalic than the crania 

 of the Sumidouro (Lagoa Santa) cave. . . . The facial parts had 

 been broken and are not well restored," so that an exact description of 

 the face is impossible. ''For this reason it is necessary to restrict the 

 remarks to the general statement that the face presents the same 

 aspect as that of the race of Lagoa Santa. ... If it is added to the 

 above that the measurements of the long bones indicate a similar 

 stature, it is seen that the individual should be regarded as a repre- 

 sentative of the same ancient race, without any considerable diver- 

 gence." 



Concerning the find as a whole Hansen says: "A close examination 

 of M. Roth's account gave the result that it is not possible to regard 

 the contemporaneity of f ossU man and Glyptodon as absolutely proven. 

 Tills find does not suffice to solve the question of the antiquity of 

 man in South America. . . . 



[P. 30] "It is a circumstance of no small interest that the skeleton 

 was found near a river, on a declivity on wliich the Pampean forma- 

 tion, consisting of a very fine clayey sand, was not covered by any 



' Kollman, J., Schiideln von Pontimelo; in his Hohes Alter der Menschenrassen, in Zcitschr. fur Ethn., 

 XVI, Berlin 18S4, pp. 200-205. 



[2 Reference can be only to Moreno's Rio Negro finds, which, however, were not made in the Pampean 

 soil, nor were they accompanied by bones of fost^il animals.] 



3 Quatrefages, A. de, Histoire generate des races humaines; in 2pts., Paris, 1SS7-S9, pp. 85-80, 105. 



* Referred to in the earlier part of this section. 



'•> Hansen, Soren, Det jordfundne Menneske fra Pontimelo (with abstract in French), in his Lagoa Santa 

 Racen, in Samling afAjhandlingcr c Musto Lundii, i, Kjobenhavn, 1888, pp. 1-27, pi. iv. 



