A. HrdliiTca — Early Man in America. 551 



Buenos Aires collections. As to the " Tetraproth.omo'''' (the 

 fourth precursor of man, counting backward from the latter), 

 finally, the atlas was brought by an employee of the Museo de la 

 Plata from a fossil collecting trip to Monte Hermoso, and no 

 details are known of this discovery, even the year of the find 

 being uncertain ; while the femur was found, with other fossil 

 bones, some time during the early years of the present century, 

 the exact year being also uncertain, by Carlos Ameghino. The 

 atlas, which is human, after being brought to the Museum was 

 forgotten and lay for many years unnoticed. The first pub 

 lished notice of it appeared about twenty years after its discov- 

 ery. The femur belongs to an ancient small-sized carnivore. 



The above notes could be extended ; however, the subject 

 may be briefly summarized by the statement that not one of 

 the osseous specimens which represented the " ancient " man in 

 South America and particularly in Argentina has been dis- 

 covered or exhumed by an experienced anthropologist or arche- 

 ologist, or by a person well trained in or employing the 

 methods recognized to-day as requisite in dealing with objects 

 of such importance. And this applies equally to the other 

 objects than human bones which represent the "early" man in 

 Argentina. A more meager and defective record could 

 scarcely be imagined. 



Following unscientific collection of the specimens came defec- 

 tive judgment in adjusting their age and, in the case of numer- 

 ous specimens other than human bones, of recognition of their 

 true character. Such defects of judgment were, as has appeared 

 from the observation of Mr. Willis, an imperfect and in some 

 instances decidedly faulty identification of the deposits in 

 which the human remains were discovered ; a general but 

 wholly unwarranted conclusion that the human bones were 

 contemporaneous with the deposit in which they lay and with 

 the bones of various animals found at the same levels; the 

 noxious opinion that the mineralization of a human bone 

 meant generally and of necessity a great antiquity of the speci- 

 men ; the assumption that certain refuse and by-products of 

 the manufacture of stone implements were sufficient to estab- 

 lish ancient and otherwise unknown primitive cultures ; the 

 failure to recognize or admit the accidental nature of numerous 

 markings on the bones of ancient animals ; and the attributing 

 of anthropic significance to baked earth and scoriae which 

 are in all probability secondary volcanic products having noth- 

 ing to do with man's existence. 



A lack of experience in anthropology, with a dearth of 

 material for comparison, resulted in such sad occurrences as 

 the giving of wholly faulty positions to more or less incom- 

 plete human crania and ascribing the apparent differences 



