Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 62.djvu/478

472 The other view is that presented by Professor Chamberlin. He believes that the inhumation of the remains dates from a time when the river bed was from fifteen to twenty-five feet above its present level, that is, when the waters of the river eroded the surface of the limestone upon which the bones were lying, and that the bones themselves were covered by the action of the river, or by the wash from the adjacent uplands. The material above the stratum already described, Professor Chamberlin believes to be without evidence of water stratification; that it was built up chiefly by the action of the tributary, which deposited its washed down silt from the uplands upon the comparatively low gradient of the end of its valley, while the river itself was flowing at the opposite side of its flood-plain. He admits as possible, though less probable, that the whole of the material covering the skeleton may have been deposited by the action of the river while flowing at a high elevation. Whether his views are finally accepted or not, they are supported by valid arguments, and are conservative. By this explanation a considerable antiquity is accorded to our Lansing man, but one far short of the glacial times. If the other explanation is accepted, the one first offered by the present writer, and the one suggested as possible by Professor Chamberlin, the age of the skeleton would be considerably greater, though still much short of the glacial times.

Yet another opinion is held by certain able geologists—that the whole of the material covering the skeleton, and to the top of the knoll, full forty feet above the flood-plain, has been built up, for the most part at least, by the action of the tributary. This explanation might permit the inhumation of the skeleton within very recent times, since the settlement of the valley by white men, indeed. But, this view seems incompatible, not only with the physical conditions presented, but also with the evidence afforded by the skeleton itself, and is, I believe, untenable. This explanation would require the covering of the skeleton while yet in the flesh, by some sudden freshet in the ravine, so deeply as to be beyond the effects of the atmosphere, and the reach of the many prowling wolves and other predatory animals— a requirement that seems quite improbable, considering the position and condition of the skeleton. Such a freshet would be far more likely to wash the body or skeleton far out into the valley of the river.

Dr. Holmes has somewhat modified Professor Chamberlin's views, in that he believes that a change of level in the altitude of the river of five or ten feet would be sufficient to have met the conditions presented. However, Mr. Holmes frankly says that the decision must finally rest with the glacial geologists, none of whom has so far published anything to sustain the lessened estimate. Furthermore, Mr. Holmes' views are open to the same objections as those just given. It seems to me that nothing short of Professor Chamberlin's estimate will meet the paleontological requirements.