VIII. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS 



The final conclusions reached as the result of the researches 

 recorded in the preceding pages regarding early man in South 

 America, may be thus briefly summarized: 



A conscientious, unbiased study of all the available facts has shown 

 that the whole structure erected in support of the theory of geologically 

 ancient man on that continent rests on very imperfect and incorrectly 

 interpreted data and in many instances on false premises, and as a 

 consequence of these weaknesses must completely collapse when 

 subjected to searching criticism. 



The main defects of the testimony thought to establish the pres- 

 ence of various representatives of early man and his precursors in 

 South America are: (1) Imperfect geologic determinations, especially 

 with regard to the immediate conditions under which the finds were 

 made; (2) imperfect consideration of the circumstances relating to 

 the human remains, particularly as to possibilities of their artificial 

 or accidental introduction into older terranes, and as to the value of 

 their association from the standpoint of zoopaleontology; (3) the 

 attributing of undue weight to the organic and inorganic alterations 

 exhibited by the human bones; and (4) morphologic consideration 

 of the human bones by those who were not expert anthropologists, 

 who at times were misled in the important matter of placing and 

 orienting the specimens and who accepted mere individual variations 

 or features due to artificial deformation as normal and specifically 

 distinctive characters. 



As to the antiquity of the various archeologic remains from Argen- 

 tina attributed to early man, all those to which particular importance 

 has been attached have been found without tenable claim to great 

 age, while others, mostly single objects, without exception fall into 

 the category of the doubtful. 



As to the many broken, striated, grooved, and perforated animal 

 bones, the writers have not been convinced that these are in any case 

 necessarily the work of geologically ancient man. In those instances 

 in which the originals were examined, the markings observed were 

 either clearly recognized as due to gnawing rodents or to other non- 

 human agencies or as of doubtful origin. 



The conclusions of the writers with regard to the evidence thus 

 far furnished are that it fails to establish the claim that in South 

 21535°— Bull. 52—12 25 385 



