46 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [BULL. GO 
But great difficulty is encountered if we try to harmonize ob 
served conditions Avith the opinion that all the bones of Skeleton II 
were derived from stratum No. 2. If the skeleton had been inclosed 
within this layer and the sand over the larger part of the remains 
had been subsequently washed away, how could we explain that the 
bones thus exposed, some of which are small and light fragments, 
happened to remain, and remain at different levels? Is it not 
reasonable to assume that they also w T ould have been rolled or washed 
away or sunk to one horizon? How could some of the bones, as 
the radius, have reached almost double the depth of others? After 
exposure and before being covered with the sediments and muck 
of layer No. 3, how could the bones, or at least some of them 
or some part of a bone, have escaped bleaching or weathering? We 
have seen that the three bones which fell out of the bank before the 
skeleton &amp;gt;fas located all show decided bleaching as a result. How 
could the fifth metatarsal, which shows the same color and the same 
fossilization as most of the other bones of the skeleton, have come 
to lodge in the midst of the muck of layer 3, above and to the east 
of the radius, as explained by Sellards (p. 142 1 ) ? It might possibly 
have been brought there by a rodent, but the same agency could not 
have been instrumental in placing some of the other bones of the 
skeleton. 
Respecting the question of antiquity, it would really not matter 
much whether the skeleton lay in the lowest part of layer 3 or in 
layer 2, the remains of which in this place did not even show indura 
tion it could have been introduced with equal facility in either 
stratum; but conditions are such that the assumption of its having 
been included in stratum 2, as already outlined, would involve us in 
difficulties seemingly not susceptible of satisfactory explanation. 
A more important problem is whether the skeleton represented an 
accidental inclusion or a burial. The bones are broken and were in 
a considerable measure dissociated, as if they might have lain for a 
time exposed to the elements and have been dragged and trampled 
by animals, conditions which would normally precede an accidental 
covering and inclosure of such remains. If, however, w r e look closely 
into the matter, it is soon felt that the actual facts as shown by the 
bones are not compatible with such a conclusion. 
The entire area covered by the bones, including the few parts found 
by Sellards in layer 2, was an ellipse about 12 or 13 feet in its longest 
and evidently less than 7 feet in its transverse diameter. This is 
altogether a too moderate scattering to admit of the theory that part 
of the body or of the bones were dragged about by animals. The 
1 &quot; One of the foot bones, a fifth metatarsal, was taken about 8 feet east of the ulna 
and at an actual level, owing to the change in slope, above that of the radius and ap 
proximately the same as that of the ulna.&quot; 
