244 B. SHlMiiK NEBBASKA ''tOESS MAN^' 



The geological evidence is also extremely unsatisfactory, because in the 

 great majority of cases in which human remains have been found the first 

 excavations were made by those not skilled in the interpretation of the 

 superficial deposits to which such remains seem to be limited. 



The flimsiness of much of this evidence is well illustrated by a recent 

 paper/ in which in all seriousness the author quotes as evidence, "based 

 on actual discoveries," Aughey's absolutely unreliable report of the dis- 

 covery of such evidence in the loess of Nebraska ; the discovery, by Thomas 

 Belt, of a skull in "what was supposed to be the western extension of the 

 loess in Colorado;" the finding of a "stone ax 70 feet beneath the sur- 

 face in loess in Illinois" — a statement which is especially interesting be- 

 cause there is no known place in Illinois where the loess reaches even 

 approximately that depth; Witter's cautious references to the discovery, 

 by another party, of arrow-heads under extremely doubtful circum- 

 stances f and Miss Owen's report of the discover}^, at a depth of 4 feet, of 

 a stone ax at Saint Joseph, Missouri, "supported by the legal affidavit of 

 the foreman of the quarry," which was, judging from the description,* 

 simply imbedded in a mound of comparatively recent human construction, 

 of the type which is common along the bluffs of the Missouri valley. 



In this account are also included as conclusive evidence the last two 

 discoveries of this kind, the "Lansing man" and the "Nebraska loess 

 man," to which unusual interest attaches because in both cases excava- 

 tions and observations were made by men actively engaged in scientific 

 work. 



The case of the "Lansing man" has led to much controvers}^, which, 

 however, was scarcely warranted, as the remains were found in a deposit 

 clearly distinct from ordinary undisturbed loess,^ evidently consisting of 

 slumped material — a fact wMch leaves the question of age altogether 

 problematic and certainly gives no assurance of great antiquity. 



The "Nebraska loess man" bids fair to give rise to an equal amount of 

 controversy, though as yet the conclusions of the discoverers have gone 

 practically unchallenged, at least on the geological side, and have been 

 quoted as decisive.' 



Previous Work 



The somatological evidence has been considered by Dr H. B. "Ward, 



2 N. H. Wlnchell : Records of the Past, vol. vi, May, 1907, pp. 14S-157. 



' See Proceedings of the Iowa Academy of Sciences, vol. i, part 2, pp. 66-68, 1892, and 

 the American Gcologrist, vol. ix, 1892, pp. 276-277. 



* See Winchell's paper, p. 154. 



=" See writer's discussion in Bulletin of the Laboratory of Natural History, State Uni- 

 versity of Iowa, vol. V, November. 1904, pp. 346-352. 



' See Winchell, ibid., pp. 156-157. 



' Nebraska Geological Survey, vol. ii, 1906, part 5, pp. 319-327. Putnam's Monthly, 

 January, 1907, pp. 410-413. 



