472 ARCHEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS—II [ETH. ANN. 44 
of man in America. Various objects which were undeniably of 
artificial character, that is, bearing clear evidence of fabrication 
or manipulation by human hands, had been unearthed from gravel 
beds or found at great depths in alluvial deposits, under condi- 
tions which placed it apparently beyond dispute that they were 
a part of the formation in which they were found and that the 
material above them had not been disturbed at any time since it 
was originally laid down. These discoveries seemed conclusive ; 
the claim was made, and apparently was in a fair way to be sub- 
stantiated, that the human race in America dated back to the clos- 
ing, if not to the intermediate stages, of the glacial epoch; that it 
roamed to the very foot of the ice-sheet in its later advance as 
well as during its retreat. A few, unwilling to accept this view 
until its certainty should be proven beyond question, took the posi- 
tion that the objects might not be so old as was claimed; that 
comparatively recent specimens could be as deeply covered through 
the agencies of floods, landslides, or even ordinary erosion. So 
the whole argument as to “very ancient or relatively modern ” 
resolved itself into the query, “ What is the nature of the material— 
sand, gravel, soil, or whatever it might be—in which this implement 
was found? Is it part of the original glacial deposit, or has it 
been redistributed, perhaps several times, by later erosive agencies? ” 
Upon the determination of this question depended the solution of 
the problem. 
Earlier arguments were based less upon actual knowledge of con- 
ditions than upon enthusiasm, hope, or perhaps to some extent upon 
“ the prejudice of preconceived opinion.” 
As there was no possibility that the remains of this primitive 
Kansas settler could have been placed where they were found after 
the superincumbent earth was laid down, it was hoped and expected 
that a careful study of the situation would furnish new data from 
which there could be developed a more definite knowledge of the 
geological position of America’s first inhabitants. 
Unfortunately, such investigation as it was possible to make at the 
time was not sufficient to accomplish the desired result. Ardent 
advocates on either side of the controversy found, or thought they 
found, ample evidence to justify their respective positions. One was 
satisfied that the deposit was the original loess; the other was no 
less positive that certain indications pointed unmistakably to later 
modifications. ‘Those more cautious or conservative were unwilling 
to make a decisive pronouncement either way. There the matter 
rested. 
In order to gain additional information for further study, a series 
of excavations was undertaken in various directions from the point 
at which the skeleton was found. A detailed account of this work 
