I ^89.] ArchcBology and Anthropology. 187 
Skull." The forehead (if forehead it could be called) is very 
low, lower and more animal like than in the "Neanderthal" 
specimen. The two following cuts will illustrate this descrip- 
This skull is quite small for an adult individual. The inner 
portions of the brow ridges are slightly prominent. 
The distance from the lower portion of the nasal bone to the 
upper margin of the eye cavities is only four centimeters. A 
slight portion of this bone has, however, apparently been broken 
The distance between the eye sockets at a point midway 
between the upper margin of the eye cavities and the lower 
portion of the nasal bone is two and three-fourths centimeters. 
Only that portion of the skull figured was found intact, the 
other portions being too much crushed by the weight of the earth 
from above to allow of a reconstruction of its parts. One of 
the jaws, containing well preserved teeth, was found. This was 
rather strong, but the teeth only moderately so. We were at 
first inclined to consider the strange form of this skull as due 
to artificial pressure while living, but a critical examination of 
it revealed the fact that it was normal, i.e., not having been ar- 
tificially deformed. The teeth of the babe were very small, 
and the skull thick, even for an adult person. 
The next skeleton was that of a man nearly six feet in 
height. The crowns of all the teeth had been very much worn 
down, some of them even down to the bone of the jaw. 
'^^ore stated, the remaining bodies were those of young 
'-- skull of one of which was small for a full- 
'•-<; of any description were found with 
nound. This burial appeared to be 
a ^^'. estone fragments in the floor of the 
excavation ov,. ^ not all decomposed. 
In other mounds v.^ led' on the same stream, at Charles 
City, six miles below, fragments of the same limestone was 
not infrequently found, but in no case was decomposition 
visible, except as a thin outer crust, although the human bones, 
which were usually more or less abundant, were in no case very 
well preserved, but on the contrary, often nearly or entirely 
decomposed. The fine preservation of the remains in the 
'These mounds are thirty-one in number, an exploration of nearly all of which 
has been made by the writer and the results embodied in a paper soon to be pub- 
lished. A comparison of the method of burial practiced by the Mound Builders 
near Floyd, and by those of Johnson County, Iowa, (a description of which has been 
given by us in a paper on "Ancient Mounds in Johnson County, Iowa," and which 
has been in the hands of the printer for some time) will be of interest. 
