holmes] aboriginal AMERICAN ANTIQUITIES PART I 59 



various discoveries of osseous remains and artifacts and by hypo- 

 thetical Unks, and the formidable body of data collected and pub- 

 lished has carried conviction in numerous European and American 

 centers of research. In 1909 the writer had the opportunity of exam- 

 ining the various traces — cinders, fossil bones, and stone artifacts — 

 in the Museo Xacional at Buenos Aires, and portions of the material 

 were studied in greater detail in Santiago, Chile, where the evidence 

 was presented by Ameghino before the section of Natural Sciences 

 of the First Pan American Scientific Congress. The various phases 

 of the subject presented so many features of scientific interest and 

 imj^ortance that arrangements were made later to have Dr. Ales 

 Ilrdlicka, physical anthropologist, of the United States National 

 Museum, and Dr. Bailey "Willis, geologist, of the United States 

 Geological Survey, visit Argentina with the view of becoming more 

 intimately acquainted with the character of the field observations 

 and the various relics of antiquity preserved in the Argentina mu- 

 seums. The results of this investigation, which inchided a most 

 exhaustive study of the large body of literature relating to the sub- 

 ject, are summarized by Dr. Ilrdlicka in the following paragraphs: 



A conscientious, iinbiased study of all the available facts lias 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 weak- 

 nesses must completely collapse when subjected to searching criticism. 



The main defects of the testimony thought to establish the presence of 

 various representatives of early man and his precursors in South Ajuorica 

 are: (1) Imperfect geologic determinations, especially with regard to the 

 immediate conditions under which the finds were made; (2) imperfect con- 

 sideration of the circumstances relating to the human remains, particularly 

 as to possibilities of their artificial or accidental introduction into older ter- 

 ranes and as to the value of their association from the standpoint of zoopaleon- 

 tology ; (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 de- 

 formation as normal and specifically distinctive characters. 



As to the antiquity of the various archeologic remains from Argentina attrilv 

 uted to early man, all those to which particular importance has been attaclied 

 have been found without tenable claim to great age, while others, mostly single 

 objects, without exception fall into the category of the douiitful. 



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 deafly recognized as due to 

 gnawing rodents or to other nonhuman agencies or as of doubtful origin. 



The conclusions of the writers with regard to the evidence thus far fur- 

 nished are that it fails to establish the claim that in South America there have 

 been brought forth thus far tangible traces of either geologically ancient man 

 himself or. of any precursors of the human race. 



