460 
the human bones. Anthropology then, so far 
as it is represented by Dr. Hrdliéka, has issued 
its declaration of independence. We are now 
informed that the presence of human bones in 
a deposit can, without the aid of the geologist 
and paleontologist, be readily explained so long 
as the deposits could have been penetrated a 
few hundred years ago by a man who wanted 
to bury his dead. Any disturbance of the 
earth would subsequently soon be obliterated 
by “adventitious stratification” (p. 49, pl. 
vil). Had our physical anthropologist reached 
this belated result while he was studying the 
Trenton bones he need not have so strongly 
committed himself to the potency of geology. 
The case needs further consideration. Mr. 
Volk had found the above-mentioned frag- 
ment of femur at a depth of 7 feet 6 inches. 
At the surface were 7 inches of black soil, 
followed below by 16 to 20 inches of yeilowish 
sand, this by 44 inches of coarse gravel and 
cobble stones, below which were 21 inches of 
greenish sand. In the latter lay the bone in 
question. Some obsessed persons have be- 
lieved that this discovery proved the presence 
of man in that region during the Wisconsin 
glacial stage. How much more reasonable it 
would be to suppose that a modern Indian, 
with an antler and his endowment of patience 
(66, p. 43), dug down through those gravels 
and sands and buried a corpse there? Nat- 
urally by the time the black soil, and the 
yellow and greenish sands, and the gravel and 
stones had been returned to the grave they 
would have been pretty thoroughly mixed to- 
gether; but anybody by examining Volk’s fig- 
ure can see how nicely the materials had re- 
arranged themselves. Had the bone not been 
discovered, nobody would ever have suspected 
that a grave had been dug there. The fact 
that only a piece of bone was found need not 
cause any surprise or skepticism; for doubt- 
less “ dissociation and fragmentation occurred 
later owing to movements, stresses, root action, 
and other agencies operating on or within the 
deposits enclosing the body” (66, p. 48). Ap- 
parently the fragment of parietal was caught 
5‘<Papers Peabody Mus.,’’ Vol. V., pp. 113- 
117, pls. 103-107, text fig. 23. 
SCIENCE 
[N. S. Vou. XLVITT. No, 1245 
in its migrations 20 feet away. Perhaps we 
get a clue here to the reason why civilized 
peoples nail up their dead in good strong 
boxes. 
That there may occur moyements in rocks 
and soils is well known. There is recognized 
even a creep of the continents towards the 
sea. Science has, however, concerned itself 
too little with the local movements that, ac- 
cording to our author, may go on in a deposit 
which is not absolutely solid. Some idea of 
the extent and complexity of these movements 
may be secured by studying Dr. Sellard’s fig- 
ure® which shows the positions of some of the 
bones of the seattered skeleton found at Vero. 
Joining by straight lines the parts of a bone 
or two bones which normally were in con- 
tact with each other, one may see the directions 
along which the forces may, in their simplest 
expression, have acted and the results thereof. 
These lines sometimes make nearly right 
angles with each other. If the suggested 
movements really occurred in the sand and 
muck they were probably still more complex. 
There must have been something like peristal- 
tic action going on there. One can only won- 
der that the bones subjected to such transla- 
tions are now found with the edges of frac- 
tures unworn and the surfaces unabraded. 
One of the surprising results reached by Dr. 
Hrdliéka is that derived from the study of the 
skull. He now expresses a good deal of doubt 
about the kind of Indian that owned the skull, 
if Indian it was at all. We are told, (66, p. 
55), that it might be that of an Algonquian, 
or a Sioux, or even a cross between an Indian 
and a white man. On the page cited this last 
impression had been “definitely removed”; 
but subsequently (p. 59) we are informed that 
“there remains some persistent doubt” 
whether the skull was not that of a white- 
Indian individual. As the case stands now, 
we may be permitted to believe that the indi- 
vidual was none of these three varieties, but 
a plain Pleistocene Indian. Perhaps a re- 
newed and intensive study of the pottery and 
the flint and bone articles might yield a sim- 
ilar result. 
6 Jour. Geol., Vol. XXV., p. 12, fig. 4. 
