HRDLICKA| SKELETAL REMAINS 73 
Inarked by numerous Wormian ossicles, and in one case with a large triangular 
interparietal between the occipitel and parietal bones. 
“In the calvaria, the two most conspicuous elements are the enormously de- 
veloped superciliary ridges and the low arch of the crown. 
“The parietal diameter or maximum breadth of the skull reached 140 to 150 
mm. The cephalic index could not be calculated with full accuracy on account 
of the imperfections of the specimens, but in one case was estimated as 79 and 
in a second was somewhat less. In two of the skulls from the higher level of 
the mound, the cephalic index was 71 and 78, while their maximum breadth was 
1388 and 141 mm., which serves to indicate the prominent differences in form 
between the two groups of calvaria. In the skulls of the upper layer, more- 
over, the bone is very much thinner and has an entirely different appearance 
and texture. 
“All in all the skeletons of the lower layer show many points in common with 
primitive types of the human race. In some particulars these primitive char- 
acters agree with those of the mound-builders, and yet points of difference are 
also observable. Compared with the tribes of Indians which inhabited this 
region immediately before the coming of the Caucasian, these remains show 
radical differences.” 
BarRgBour, Science, January 18, 1907. ‘“ Long’s hill . . . isa hill of erosion, 
and no discoverable land slip has complicated its simple geology. On its sum- 
mit is Gilder’s mound, in the superficial layer of which were found mound- 
builder remains and in the deeper layer eight skulls and many bones of a still 
more primitive type.” 
The upper layer, in which the two “ mound-builders’ ” skulls were discovered, 
“has a thickness of 23 feet. Below it was an undisturbed layer of unmistak- 
able loess and in it numberless fragments of human bones and an occasional 
animal bone, loess shells, and stray angular pebbles. 
“In brief, the conclusion is that in the case of the upper bone layer there was 
a burial; in the lower, deposition. Those in the loess doubtless antedate 
the hill itself, while those in the upper layer are subsequent to it. That archaic 
burial could have taken place in-loess without detection is altogether improb- 
able. Of necessity there would result a mixture of black with light soil and a 
breaking up of the lithologic structure. Where these bones occur, the loess 
structure and color is perfectly preserved, and it contains characteristic vertical 
lime-tubes, concretions, and shells, precisely as is customary. Out of the evi- 
dence at hand the writer concludes that bones of this layer were strictly syn- 
chronous with the loess formation in which they were found, in substantiation 
of which comes the fragmental nature of all of the bones, their waterworn condi- 
tion, their range of distribution, and disassociation of parts. 
“One would scarcely think of such conditions being possible in the case of 
human burial; besides, it is improbable that a primitive people would dig graves 
to a depth of 12 feet.” 
As to the age of the supposed loess man, Professor Barbour says: “ The chief 
point is the evidence that human remains have been found in the loess, and 
whether this is the very oldest or newest loess seems a secondary considera- 
tion. The loess here is not leached of lime salts, but is actively effervescent at 
all levels, arguing for recency of deposition. All recognize the chronological 
diversity in the loess formation, and whether Long’s hill is in the main loess 
body, as we believe it to be, or in a much more recent one does not materially 
affect the relation of the bones to some stage of glaciation, the precise glacial 
or interglacial age being as yet undetermined. 
“The loess in question rests on Kansan drift, and though as young as the later 
Wisconsin sheet or younger, it is nevertheless old.” 
