THE LOESS AND THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN 
97 
the term “spras” to “ loess,” and they were often synonymous. 
The varied uses of these terms often leave one in doubt as to 
their exact meaning in specific cases. 
While it may be truly said that the evidence of the antiquity 
of man in Europe as related to loess is, to say the least, doubt- 
ful, it is practically wanting so far as North America is con- 
cerned. It is true that in several cases human remains or arti- 
facts have been reported from loess, but in no case has it been 
shown that the deposit was truly loess. On the contrary, in those 
eases which have received the greatest attention, it has been 
conclusively shown that the deposit is not undisturbed loess. 
Several careful American students have investigated the 
problem of the antiquity of man, but chiefly on the somatic 
side. Among them, Hrdlicka, H. F. Osborn, and MacCurdy 
have secured valuable results. The geological side of the problem 
has received less satisfactory attention on the positive side. Un- 
fortunately that portion of the subject which is related to loess 
was taken by a group of men whose methods have been erratic 
and unscientific. Among these, Augbey, N. H. Winchell, and 
G. Frederick Wright were especially active in attempting to 
prove the age of certain human remains on the basis of the loess. 
As late as 1911, Wright 16 repeats the story of what he calls 
“the best authenticated and most significant cases”, namely the 
“Lansing Man”, the Nebraska “Loess” man, and a stone imple- 
ment found at St. Joseph, Missouri. 
It is unnecessary to renew the discussion of the Lansing and 
Nebraska cases, as the literature on that subject is well known. 17 : 
The former is clearly a case of slumping. Wright calls this an 
“erroneous opinion” but he does not attempt to explain the 
presence of blocks of stone in the deposit, which evidently came 
from ledges higher up on the slope, and which create a condition 
unknown anywhere in loess. 
The case of the Nebraska Loess Man is also well known and its 
weakness has been shown by the writer in the paper cited in foot- 
note (17). Wright attempts to discredit the writer’s work and 
16 G. Frederick Wright, The Ice Age in North America, 2d ed., pp. 678- 
686, 1911. 
17 For a part of the bibliography of the Lansing Man, see the Bull. Lab. 
Nat. Hist., State Univ. of Iowa, Vol. V, p. 327, footnote. For that of the 
Nebraska “Loess Man” see the writer’s paper, Bull. Geol. Soc. of America, 
Vol. 19, p. 254. 
7 
