Search

The Sixteenth International Congress of Americanists was held in the University building at Vienna, Austria, September 9 to 14, 19o8. The active and associate members in attendance numbered 376. In addition to Austria the following countries were represented by official delegates present: Argentina, German Burmeister; Belgium, J. Denuce; Brazil, Manuel de Oliveira Lima; Chile, Julio Montebruno; France, Professor L. Capitan; Holland, Jonkheer L. C. van Panhuys and Dr J. D. E. Schmeltz; Italy, Professor E. H. Giglioli; Japan, Professor Ryozaburo Sakaki; Mexico, Gilberto Crespo y Martinez; Paraguay, Leo Hirsch; Peru, Professor Max Uhle; Portugal, Jose Comte de Paraty; Prussia, Professor Eduard Seler; Spain, Professor Sanchez-Moguel; Sweden, Professor C. V. Hartman; United States of America, Professors Franz Boas and M. H. Saville, Dr George Grant MacCurdy and Dr Charles Peabody; Venezuela, Felix Stiassny. There were also in attendance delegates from seventeen learned societies and institutions from various parts of the world. The Congress was formally opened on Wednesday morning under the high patronage of Archduke Rainer, who, although not able to be present, sent a message which was read by the President of the Congress, Wilhelm Freiherr von Weckbecker, in his opening address. Later in the week Archduke Rainer held a reception in the Imperial Museum of Natural History. The Congress was also honored by the presence and faithful attendance of H. R. H. Princess Therese of Bavaria, who was one of the honorary presidents.

The joint meeting of Section H of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Anthropological Association, and the American Folk-Lore Society, held at Columbia University, New York City, December 27th, 1906, to January Ist, 1907, was notable for the number of working anthropologists present as well as for the length and excellence of the program. Conming, as it did, so soon after the International Congress of Americanists in Quebec, fear had been expressed that the New York program might be but the gleanings of a field already well harvested. That new fields were entered may be readily seen by a survey of the program, which included fifty-six numbers in addition to the addresses of the President of the Folk-Lore Society and of the retiring Vice-president of Section H.

The incoming year will witness the celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of the appearance of Darwin's Origin of Species. The celebration in this country began with the Darwin Anniversary Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science during convocation week. Every one is familiar with the uplift Darwin's work gave to science as a whole. Not the least among the beneficent results was the impetus given to the study of anthropology, particularly prehistoric archeology. By a singular coincidence the very year (1859) that the Darwinian theory was published, Prestwich visited the valley of the Somme and satisfied himself of the authenticity of Boucher de Perthes's discoveries in the river drift at Abbeville. It is therefore just fifty years since the first general recognition of paleoliths as artifacts. In visiting some new paleolithic stations during the past summer it occurred to me that this might be a fitting time to speak of certain recent developments in the European field. One of the most important paleolithic discoveries in recent years is that made by Herr Emil Baichler, Director of the Natural History Museum in St Gallen, Switzerland. The Alpine region had not been considered seriously as a field for paleolithic research, since the latter period closed before the retreat of the glaciers to anything like their present extent. It is true man might have penetrated into the Alps during an interglacial period, but the evidences of his presence would have been destroyed by the succeeding glaciation. Two stations in Switzerland of the Magdalenian epoch have been known for years, viz., Schweizersbild and Kesslerloch, but these are north of the Rhine in Canton Schaffhausen. It remained for Herr Bachler to make the discovery, somed four years ago, of a station of Mousterian age; not in a valley, or even the foot-hills, but in the Siintis mountains which lie between the lakes of Constance and Ziirich. 634

THE story of the Piltdown discovery is already more or less familiar to readers of this journal.1 But the recent gathering and publishing of additional data2 on the subject should not be allowed to pass unnoticed. This is especially true not only because of the far-reaching significance of the discovery, but also because British scientists have been known to be at odds concerning the reconstruction of the skull in question. It will be recalled that Dr Smith Woodward regarded the Piltdown specimen as the type of a new genus of the family Hominidae, to which he gave the name Eoanthropus dawsoni, and which was defined primarily by the characters of the mandible. Of the mandible only the right ramus with first and second molar teeth in situ was at first discovered. The condyle and symphysis were both lacking, but the fragment was of sufficient size to enable Dr Smith Woodward to reconstruct the symphysis with a fair degree of accuracy. It was the reconstruction of the cranium about which differences of opinion arose between Dr Smith Woodward and Professor Elliot Smith on the one hand and Professor Arthur Keith on the other. Of the brain case nine fragments, parts of the frontal, parietal occipital, and temporal, were found. From these Dr Smith Woodward reconstructed a skull with a capacity of about o1076 cc. On the other hand a reconstruction by Professor Keith gave to the skull a brain capacity of 1500oo cc., in other words that of a welldeveloped modern European skull. After further study Dr Smith

The last two years have witnessed important developments in the domain of prehistoric anthropology. This is particularly true of the European field and of discoveries in which skeletal remains of early man have figured. One such was discussed by me recently in this journal,1 viz., that of Homo Mousteriensis. Two others form the subject of the present paper. The first of these was made by Dr Otto Schcetensack2 on October 21 , 1907, in a sand-pit near the village of Mauer, ten kilometers southeast of Heidelberg. Mauer lies in the valley of the Elsenz, a tributary of the Necker. The human lower jaw was found in situ in the so-called Mauer sands, at a depth of 24. o meters and .87 meter from the bottom of the deposit. The first 10.92 meters at the top of the section are composed of loess which is classed as upper Quaternary, while the Mauer sands forming the rest of the section are lower Quaternary. The loess itself represents two district periods, an older and a

THE attention of prehistoric archeologists has long been turned toward the region of Weimar, Germany, because of important discoveries made at Taubach and Ehringsdorf, both in the Ilm valley. Known since 1871, the station of Taubach (back of the village of that name) was systematically explored between 1876 and 188o. The deposits at Taubach and Ehringsdorf are alike. Their basis is a layer of sand and gravel dating from the third or Riss glacial epoch (Obermaier). Above this is lower travertine with remains of the mammoth and woolly rhinoceros near the bottom, and those of Elephas antiquus and Rhinoceros merckii, both witnesses of a warm climate, near the top. Next above at Ehringsdorf comes the so-called "Pariser" (corruption from Pori-ser) deposit, a kind of loess. Higher still is a deposit of upper travertine with remains of the stag and woolly rhinoceros; curiously enough the Rhinoceros merckii also occurs at this level.