HRDLICKA] SKELETAL REMAINS 15 
not been studied until the last year. The whole investigation has 
been carried on without preconceived opinions in regard to either the 
presence in or the absence from northern America of early man and is 
in the main a simple anatomical comparison. 
II1.—THE NEW ORLEANS SKELETON 
In a number of the older writings touching on the subject of man’s 
antiquity in North America, particularly in Nott and Gliddon,* are 
found references to the discovery of an apparently ancient skeleton 
at New Orleans, Louisiana. The original report on this find, usually 
credited to D. B. Dowler,’ is by Prof. D. Drake,’ and reads as 
follows: 
In 1844 I visited two gas tanks, each 60 feet in diameter and 16 feet deep, 
recently sunk in the back part of the city [i. e.. New Orleans], and received 
from the intelligent superintendent, Doctor Rogers, an account of what was 
met with in excavating them. At first they encountered soil and soft river 
mud, then harder laminated blue alluvion, then deep black mold resting on 
wet bluish quicksand. . . . The roots and the basis or stumps of no fewer 
than four successive growths of trees, apparently cypress, were found standing 
at different elevations. The first had a diameter of 2 feet 6 inches, the second 
of 6 feet, the third of 4 feet, and the fourth of 12 feet, at a short distance 
up, with a base of 28 feet for the roots. It is embedded in a soft deep-black 
mold. When cut with the spade much of this wood resembled cheese in tex- 
ture, but hardened on drying. . . . At the depth of 7 and 16 feet burnt wood 
was met with. No shells or bones of land animals or fish were observed, but 
in a tank previously excavated, at the depth of 16 feet the skeleton of a man 
was found. The cranium lay between the roots of a tree and was in a tolerable 
state of preservation, but most of the other bones crumbled on pressure. <A 
small 9s ilium, which I saw, indicated the female sex. A low and narrow fore- 
head, moderate facial angle, and prominent widely separated cheek bones 
seemed to prove the skull of the same race with our present Indians. No 
charcoal, ashes, or ornaments, of any kind were found around it. 
On the basis of the foregoing rather defective data and calcula- 
tions as to the probable age of the stumps, Doctor Dowler con- 
cluded (page 17) that the “ human race existed in the delta more 
than fifty-seven thousand years ago.” On a little reflection this 
estimate shows so many weak points that it can not be accepted 
for anything more than an individual opinion. The notes concern- 
ing the skull, so far as they go, indicate that the specimen resembled 
in the main the skull of an ordinary Indian, but this conclusion 
has httle value. It is nowhere stated what became of the skeleton. 
Drake’s remark that “ most of the other bones crumbled on pressure ” 
makes it probable that few, if any, parts of it have been preserved, 
and also clearly indicates that the bones were in no degree fossilized. 
«Types of Mankind, chap. xi, numerous editions, Philadelphia. 
»Tableaux of New Orleans, 8-9, New Orleans, no date (published in the early fifties). 
¢ A Systematic Treatise on the Principal Diseases of the Interior Valley of North 
America, etc., 76-77, Cincinnati, 1850. 
ia 
