MUNIZ—MC GEE] INDEPENDENCE OF WOUNDS AND OPERATIONS 67 
Cranium 4 displays cutting in such manner as to describe four irregu- 
larly rectangular bits of bone, while the work on cranium 5 yielded a 
still larger number of still more irregular fragments. The operation 
exemplified by cranium 8 may, indeed, have yielded a circular button, 
but considerable additional bone was removed in minute shreds by 
subsequent rasping. If the operation in cranium 10 was performed 
wholly by scraping, as appearances indicate, then all of the dislodged 
bone came away in shreds or filings; in the later operation or opera- 
tions on cranium 12 most of the bony matter seems to have been removed 
by scraping; in cranium 14 bony splinters only were removed, and in 
cranium 15 such splinters in connection with a probably broken bony 
tongue of irregular form. So, too, in all the other cases there are unmis- 
takable indications that the purpose of the operator was to produce an 
aperture, and not to obtain bone fragments of any particular form or 
size; and there is not the slightest indication in any of the specimens 
that the cutting was designed to yield rondelles.! 
SPECIAL INDICATIONS OF MOTIVE 
Strong yet somewhat illusive light is thrown on the motives actuat- 
ing the prehistoric practitioners of Peru by the relations between tre- 
phining and traumatic lesions. In 6 cases (exemplified by erania 6, 
14-17, and 19) the operations were evidently located by grave wounds. 
The 13 remaining crania display 18 operations having no traceable con- 
nection with lesions, while, as already enumerated, no fewer than 14 
scars of more or less serious wounds (some of considerable gravity) are 
displayed, none of which were treated by trephining. The 23 examples 
of manifestly intentional wounding of such severity as to leave bone 
sears over the temples may be neglected. Accordingly it appears that, 
while there are a few cases of indubitable connection between operation 
and antecedent lesion, this relation is subordinate—in most cases the 
cranial lesions did not lead to trephining, while in the great majority 
of cases the trephining was apparently not connected with traumatic 
lesion. In one case (cranium 2) there is a strong suggestion that the 
operation was connected with pathologic lesion; yet this case does not 
materially affect the relations between lesion and trephining. The rela- 
tions may perhaps best be summarized by the statements (1) that most 
of the operations were independent of cranial wounds so far as can be 
ascertained; (2) that most of the cranial lesions were not followed by 
trephining; and (3) that only wounds of great severity were followed 
by cranial treatment. 
On considering specially the six crania (6, 14-17, and 19) displaying 
operations located by immediately antecedent wounds, they appear to 

1This inference from the crania is in accord with the general results of Peruvian collecting by Dr 
Muniz and others. Among the many thousand specimens representing the apparel, ornaments, and 
other personal appurtenances found by Dr Muniz in connection with more than a thousand skeletons, 
and despite constant search, not a single rondelle or other object made from human cranial bone was 
found; and no record of the discovery of such objects by any of the numerous students of Peruvian 
archeology is known. 
