1895.] Observations on a So-called Petrified Man. 333 
external layers of tissue first, and, when found, had not ex- 
tended far inside. I think I can understand, then, why it is 
that the external tissues are preserved, but I do not understand 
the preservation of the inner tissues. I do not believe that the 
small amount of lead found in some portions of the body itself 
can account for the preservation. Can it be that the silica, 
alumina and oxide of iron held in suspension, and the silica, 
lime and magnesia in solution in the water could have pre- 
vented decomposition? The three ingredients, silica, alumina 
and magnesia constituted the bulk of the mineral substances 
deposited in the tissues, and that near the periphery, was in - 
sufficient quantities to give it a firm consistency. The soil 
contained nearly 3% soluble silica, and the water contained a 
large percentage; but can this account for the preservation? 
The observed tact is that the body was preserved and decay 
completely checked, and I can only account for it by saying 
that the combined action of all the ingredients of the water— 
silica in suspension and in solution, alumina and oxide of iron 
in suspension, and lime and magnesia in solution—is to be 
looked upon as the cause. 
And, what is still more obscure, is the fact that the body was 
buried with a shroud (or some clothes), while all that now re- 
mains of it is the imprint nicely stamped on that part of the 
abdomen that had swollen and pressed closely against the lid 
of the coffin, and also on the lid of the coffin where some of 
the mineral matter is adhering. Every thread of the cloth is 
as plainly visible in the impression as it is possible to make 
them with plaster casts. It appears to have been a cotton 
sheet, but not a fiber of the original cloth isto be found. Now, 
why was this cloth not preserved? If it was cotton cloth, its 
chemical composition was practically the same as that of the 
pine coffin which was perfectly preserved; if the cloth was 
woolen (there can be but little doubt that it was cotton), its 
chemical composition was practically that of the hair which 
was also perfectly preserved. I cannot account for this to my 
own. satisfaction, and will offer no suggestions; to me, this is 
more difficult of explanation than the preservation of the body. 
13 
