URDLICKA] SKELETAL REMAINS 39 
is normal with the following exceptions: There is a slight depres- 
sion behind the left lower portion of the face, and the angle between 
the plane of the posterior nares and the basilar process is somewhat 
more acute than usual; the left border of the foramen magnum is 
slightly irregular, and on the left side the upper half of the border 
of the occipital is situated somewhat higher than that of the parietal 
bone. The left mastoid also is situated a little more posteriorly than 
the right. All of the features indicate some disturbance in the devel- 
opment of the inferior portion of the left side of the skull. These 
defects were not of a serious enough character, however, to affect the 
general conformation of the skull, and the vault together wth other 
parts 1s symmetrical. 
The surface of the skull shows a large abrasion on the left parietal, 
and several cuts, such as could be made with the edge of a not very 
sharp shovel, on the left parietal bone; considerable and deep scaling, 
particularly over the frontal and left parietal regions; and two dark- 
greenish (copper or brass) discolorations of oval shape about 2 cm. 
in the longer diameter, situated one on the left squama behind the 
pterion, the other near the middle of the right squama, on the parietal 
bone adjoining. Both squame and the occipital bone give evidence 
of defects caused by injuries. 
Inspection as well as measurements show the Riverview skull to 
be very closely allied to that from Burlington county and in common 
with the latter to differ radically from all other crania described in 
this paper. The Riverview skull presents similar rounded outlines 
of its planes, similar small height, narrow face, and megaseme orbits, 
in comparison with that from Burlington county. The differences 
between the two are only shght, such as are commonly met with in 
the two sexes.” 
The face in the Riverview skull is orthognathic, but this character 
is undoubtedly due in part to the previously mentioned backward 
depression of the facial parts. The alveolar process, fairly well 
preserved, presents also but little slanting. The alveolar arch is 
regular and massive; it is rather low (alveolar point to nasal 
border 1.85 cm.), but not very narrow (maximum external width 
@7The peculiar features of these crania were well recognized by Prof. F. W. Putnam 
as early as 1888, and are also acknowledged by Doctor Russell in his paper on the Human 
Remains from the Trenton Gravels (148-150). Doctor Russell wrote under the difficulty 
of lacking sufficient material, a circumstance which undoubtedly iniluenced his incorrect 
final conclusions. Professor Putnam’s remarks, made after the presentation by Mr. Volk 
of the Riverview Cemetery specimen to the Peabody Museum, are as follows (Peabody 
Museum Report, tv, no. 2, 35, 1888): ‘This human skull (the Riverview specimen) is 
small and of a remarkable form, and agrees with two others (Burlington County and 
*Gasometer’ skulls) which we have from New Jersey, one of which was certainly from 
- the gravel. These three skulls are not of the Delaware Indian type,’ etc. The only 
error in these remarks relates to the gasometer skull which, after all, was shown to be 
closely similar to the crania of the Lenape (see The Crania of Trenton, Bulletin of 
American Museum of Natural History, xvi, 28, New York, 1902). 
