Gidley's presentation, which was illustrated by some of the human remains discovered and by lantern slides. What then is the explanation of the rounded shape reported by Hrdlicka for the Melbourne skull. Is it, despite paleontological evidence, really as recent as Hrdlicka claimed.
It is important to state the limitations imposed on the restorer by the imperfections of the fragments. I have our views on the writer's reconstruction of the Melbourne skull, oriented to the Frankfort horizontal.
NO. 10 SKELETAL REMAINS FROM MELBOURNE STEWART 7
RECONSTRUCTIONS COMPARED
The method used in reconstructing the second version of Melbourne's skull made it possible to obtain an endocranial cast. In addition to further verifying the fairly correct relationships between the skull fragments, this cast also demonstrated two skull features, the existence of which was completely hidden in the first version. The subsequent finding of the posterior part of this parietal shows that the swelling in the endocast gradually decreases in this direction.
5 and 6 on average the distance from the lateral edge of the orbit (ecto-conchion) to the porion is 33 mm. Without attempting to provide further evidence, it can be said categorically that the position of the ears in the first version of the Melbourne skull is erratic. No such discrepancies exist between the dimensions of the second version and the long-headed skull from Pensacola Bay.
Summarizing these findings, the two reconstructions of the Melbourne skull represent extremes of skull shape; hyperbrachycrany (89.0) in the first version and dolichocrany (73.1) in the second. It seems certain that the width of the vault achieved in the first reconstruction (162 mm.) is excessive. Also, the positions of the temporal bones and some frontal and parietal fragments in this version are absolutely incorrect.
In the main, however, the vast difference in form presented in the two versions is due to the incomplete joint, which includes about a centimeter and a half of sagittal suture in the middle parietal region.
THE VERO SKULL
As this joint, in addition to being damaged externally, is the only contact between the two sides, it is capable of acting as a hinge. When this hinge is opened, the vault becomes wider, and when it is closed, the vault becomes narrower. Although the facts presented so far will probably convince most readers that the second version of the Melbourne skull is the better of the two, there are undoubtedly many who are still unsure how closely the .. new reconstruction approximates the original form.
Because of the pattern of the missing parts, no one could hope to achieve perfection in restoring the relationships of the remaining parts.^ Therefore, . the best he can do is to aim at a reasonable reconstruction, . riiis, I believe, it has been achieved. Plaster of the endocranial surface in the region of the right half of the coronal suture. The circular fracture between the pairs of arrows probably resulted from a thinning of the bone in this region, which in turn may have been caused by a brain tumor.
NO. 10 SKELETAL REMAINS FROM MELBOURNE STEWART II
12 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. I06
MELBOURNE AND VERO SKULLS COMPARED
By superimposing the outlines of these three skulls, the following parts were made to coincide: i, the middle line; 2, the most anterior projecting part of the supraorbital prominence; and 3, the Frankfort level. There can therefore be no doubt that the second reconstruction of the Melbourne skull is reasonable. These considerations outweigh the minor errors (asymmetries) in the reconstruction that make these comparisons clear and which have already been addressed (pp. 7, 9-10).
OTHER DETAILS
These drawings are oriented so that the most anterior projected part of the supra-orbital elevation, the midline, and the line of the Frankfort plane all coincide. However, enough of the mandible can be assembled to obtain a reasonably accurate orientation of the symphysis. Using this orientation, stereographic drawings (fig. 4, A and B) were made to show the shape of the fragments and a reasonable reconstruction of the missing parts.
These drawings suggest that the bicondylar width was greater than that between the glenoid fossae of the reconstructed skull. The gonial angle formed by the posterior edge of the ascending ramus with the lower edge of the horizontal ramus is 113° as the specimen is oriented in the drawing, but when this angle is taken in the plane of the left ramus, it is approx. 120°. According to the intervals for this measurement in the two sexes, the number 91 does not occur among men.
The restored teeth of both jaws show extreme wear with consequent exposure in some cases of the pulp cavity. In the lower jaw, teeth were lost antemortem or were about to be lost due to recession of the alveolus. Because of the great variability of the acromial end, any reconstruction of this part would be rather doubtful.
4. Stereographic drawings of the mandible of Melbourne, viewed (A) from the left side and (B) from above.
NO. 10 SKELETAL REMAINS FROM MELBOURNE STEWART IJ
III/'
I wasn't trying to perfect my drawings, I was just interested in seeing if the reconstruction was more convincing based on the average measurements of one gender or the other. Mean measurements of the Chinese left clavicle (Woo, 193S) used in the Melbourne clavicle reconstruction and resulting measurements. Italics were used in the reconstruction and are therefore the same in Chinese and Melbourne.
DISCUSSION
If we now consider the significance of the similarity between the Melbourne and Vero skulls, the paleontological observations of Gidle and Loomis are believed to be correct. It must, however, be again emphasized that all the features in which the different parts of the skeleton differ from those of an ordinary Florida Indian are those indicative of a higher or more modern development. There is no feature of the skeleton that could even remotely indicate an individual older or more anthropologically primitive than the Indian.
We may here ignore the suggestion of white admixture, for elsewhere (p. 55) Hrdlicka says that "a detailed examination of the bones has definitely dispelled this impression." The essential point of the statement is that Hrdlicka recognized the Vero skull as being different from the great majority of those found in Florida, yet com-. The similarity between the Vero skull and the new version of the Melbourne skull means that the latter is also a stranger to Florida. In attempting to characterize the Vero racial type, Hrdlicka speaks of the Algonquian and Siouan Indians.
Even if skull height is of uncertain significance here, the evidence seems to indicate that both the Vero and Melbourne skulls, being dolichocranic, are not the same as those of the late Florida Indians. This is the principle that in the distribution of species within a large area, such as that of an entire continent, the marginal species should generally be regarded as the former, in. The older species, whose territory is invaded by another type, gives ground and is eventually either pushed to the periphery or forced into 'sanctuaries' where living conditions are less favorable than in the rest of the region, with the better and more favorable ones appropriated by the newcomers.
Assuming, then, that the peripheral distribution tends to indicate a comparatively old stratum of population, while the more recent immigrants are to be sought nearer the center, we may learn much by observing what is the distribution of human types in North America. continent.
22 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. I06
Chipped or polished stone blades of the required size and thinness were unknown in Florida, or at least until quite recently, and it is debatable whether they would cut cleanly. The absence of the posterior part of the left parietal may either mean that the cut is old and the fragments long ago separated, or that a shovel had simply shaved the edge of an ancient fracture, leaving little in the way of recognizable fragments. Although the left parietal was on the underside of the specimen as discovered, it does not seem impossible that a shovel could have struck it in this position.
It is important that the conclusion reached in this paragraph was verified before the missing parts were recovered (see p.25). As they appear to have been buried in mud (Gidley and Loomis, 1926, p. and the color of the bones confirms this, they were probably quite soft with exposure. However, I could not convince myself that the cut surface looked fresh. , and under the circumstances.
Since the skulls of these two specimens now appear to be practically the same size, at least this gender identification is consistent. However, size, especially when it is not one of the extremes, is not a reliable indicator of gender by itself. Nevertheless, the thinness of the vault bones in Vera's skull would indicate a woman.
In addition, the clavicle is slender as in the female, and the proportions of the mandible are suggestive of a female.
ADDENDUM
In both skulls, the upper borders of the orbits are also sharp and the supraorbital ridges do not appear to be of male proportions. It should be emphasized that these newly found parts do not contradict the conclusions already reached; they mainly hold or support them. In order to ensure the best possible articulation of all the fragments that make up the lateral part.
As we hypothesize, the new fragments do not show a cut surface corresponding to the parts with which they articulate. This confirms my earlier impressions that the shovel only shaved off one of these broken edges. Because of this smoothing of the edge, the precise articulation at this point is questionable.
Extremity Bones.—All these bones (pi. 8) have a slender structure similar to that of the clavicle. The fragment of the right humerus includes the lower end of the rough surface where the deltoid muscle inserts. At what is estimated to be about the middle of the right tibia, a cross-section was obtained, which is shown in Figure 7.
Although only a small part of the right tibia of the Vero skeleton was found, and this has not been identified for position, Hrdlicka.
LITERATURE CITED
