THE GRAVES. 57 



also gives the length of the hind foot, without hoof, as 136 mm. Judging from the size 

 of the skull, however, Winton supposed this species to be considerably larger than P. piidu, 

 an opinion in which Lydekker concurs.* The foregoing is an insecure foundation for 

 identifying the species of a solitary metapodial, and as far as the length (96 mm.) of 

 the diminutive cannon-bone found in Cave 55 is concerned, the specimen might belong to 

 either species of Piidiia. At the same time I consider it altogether too small to represent 

 any of the South American brockets of the genus Mazana. The accompanying tibia is also 

 unsuitable for specific identification. 



Cave 56. 



This cave was probably very near the one last described, as its location was recorded 

 in the same general terms. The brief memorandum of the material collected includes a 

 human skull, human and llama bones, small rodent bones, potsherds, and two peach stones. 

 The Indian excavators made no statement regarding the depth at which the peach stones 

 were found or their relation to the human remains. This burial cave is of special chrono- 

 logical interest, for among the numerous bones, both whole and fractured, that were found 

 in it was a fragment from the shaft of a bovine tibia. The specimen, though small and 

 accompanied by no other skeletal parts of the animal, admits of positive identification and 

 is fraught with chronoloeical significance, since domestic cattle were unknown in the Ameri- 

 can continent before the Concjuest. The occurrence of this fragmentary beef-bone furnishes 

 almost indisputable evidence that the Machu Picchu mountainside was visited in post- 

 Columbian times for burial purposes, even if it throws nO' light on the equally important 

 question whether or not the city was inhabited during the same comparatively recent period. 

 I must regard this specimen as part of the regular garniture of the grave; for by no 

 stretch of the imagination can I assume that a wandering Indian or a treasure-seeker would 

 accidentally leave any part of a bovine tibia in or near a burial cave in a region so remote 

 or difficult to reach, even though the peach stones may have been sO' introduced. At no 

 period can beef have been a common article of food on the Machu Picchu Mountain. 



Another remarkable specimen is one of the rodent bones mentioned above. It is a large 

 lower incisor of a vizcacha, Lagostormis sp. (Ost. Coll. 3317). a rodent that seems beyond 

 its usual habitat at this altitude in the Peruvian Andes. No other part of the animal's 

 skeleton was recovered, and it is possible that the large and handsome rodent tooth was a 

 trinket or an article of Indian "medicine," brought from afar by its owner or obtained 

 in trade. Mr. Oldfield Thomas of the British Museum (Natural History) has kindly called 

 my attention to his description of a new species, Lagostoiuus crassiis, from a skull found 

 "buried in sand" at Santa Ana, Peru (Annals and Magazine of Natural History, Ser. 8, 

 Vol. V, 19 10, page 245). This species is larger and stouter than the typical vizcacha of 

 the Argentine pampas, L. inaxinnis; and the tooth found at Machu Picchu may represent 

 the same species, as it is a trifle larger than the corresponding tooth of an example of 

 L. ma.riiiiiis in the Peabody Museum of Yale University (Ost. Coll. 1400). The opinion 

 of Mr. Thomas regarding the antiquity of his specimen is al-so interesting in the present 

 connection : "No viscachas of this genus are known to live in Peru, and the animal is 

 probably now extinct, but the skull is in no way fossilized, and indicates that these animals 

 lived in Peru at a very recent date." 



* Lydekker, loc. cit., 1898, page 309. 



