1893.] Shell Heaps of Florida. 621 
mound." Between the skull and pelvis lay decaying frag- 
ments of ribs. It is probable that the missing arm bones 
extending upward were those inadvertently disarranged by 
digging half a foot above. 
At a depth of 84 feet immediately below the bones was a 
layer two feet, nine inches in thickness, consisting of the 
ordinary crushed shell of the shell heaps, with fire-places, 
bones of the lower animals, etc., as ordinarily found. Nothing 
of further interest was met with. 
Diagram of the northern side of this excavation is 
appended. 
A number of other excavations were made in various por- 
tions of the mound. No pottery was met with below 53 feet 
anywhere near the center of the mound, though near the mar- 
gin—probably a later deposit—pieces were found at a depth 
of seven feet. Eighty-eight feet from the first excavation on 
the northern slope of the mound seven feet below the surface 
was found a portion of a rude spear head of red chalcedony, 
14 inches in length. In this excavation the glandina trun- 
cata was comparatively numerous, some thirty or fourty speci- 
mens being present. This land shell is of infrequent occur- 
rence in the mounds. 
Of the four humeri found during the first excavation not 
one was perforated. The three tibie exhumed in a condition 
for measurement had an average of 58.0 per cent lateral 
diameter as compared to the antero-posterior diameter. No 
crania were saved. 
To those interested in the archeology of Florida, the result 
of the investigation conducted at Orange Mound must be 
regarded as of considerable importance. It will be remem- 
bered that to the present time no conclusive evidence has 
been secured, assigning to any sand mounds of the river an 
origin contemporary with the shell-heaps. That burials took 
place at Orange Mound in a regular stratified mound of sand 
is beyond the shadow of a doubt, and that the burial mound 
was not made upon an abandoned shell-heap, perhaps long 
This shifting of bones is not uncommon according to Topinard, Revue d'Anthro- 
pologie, 1886, page 742. 
