More Concerning The Lansing Skeleton -- By: Luella A. Owen

Journal: Bibliotheca Sacra
Volume: BSAC 060:239 (Jul 1903)
Article: More Concerning The Lansing Skeleton
Author: Luella A. Owen

More Concerning The Lansing Skeleton

Luella A. Owen

St. Joseph, Mo.

[Instead of contributing a closing article upon the Lansing Skeleton, the Editor has put it into the competent hands of Miss Owen, whose long residence near the locality, and whose careful study of the facts involved, have given great weight to the suggestions she has offered to the scientific world. In the conclusions to which she arrives, I heartily concur.—Ed.]

The fossil skeleton found on the Concannon farm at Lansing, Kansas, but first brought to the notice of the world by Mr. M. C. Long, of Kansas City, continues to maintain a firm hold on the attention of those distinguished for special work on the subjects involved in the determination of its early history. As yet, however, they have not been able to agree, and the two interpretations offered by geologists are supported by leading advocates of the divergent views.

Under the title of “A Fossil Man in Kansas,” its merits were considered by Professor S. W. Williston, in Science. August 1; while the discussion was carried on by Mr. Warren Upham, in the American Geologist arid Records of the Past for September, and in the Bibliotheca Sacra for October, 1902, by a detailed exposition of scientific data determining the overlying deposit to be loess of the Iowan stage of the glacial period, and assigning to man the right of citizenship at the close of time immediately preceding that epoch.

Professor N. H. Winchell, having been one of the earliest observers, was inclined to favor this interpretation, but reserved a positive opinion for the fuller and more careful investigation of a second visit, calling attention to the division of the loess suggested by Professor Todd into what he calls the “upper loess,” exposed on the uplands, and the “lower loess,” forming terraces of more recent date at lower levels. To which of these the deposit overlying the skeleton might correctly be referred, he refrained from deciding hastily.

From Mr. Upham’s interpretation, however, Professor T. C. Chamberlin, after a second visit, dissented in a lengthy and elaborate article published in the October-November number of the Journal of Geology. His arguments and conclusions as there set forth received the cordial support of Professors Samuel Calvin and R. D. Salisbury; and later, in an article by Professor W. H. Holmes, were accepted as the solution of the problem most satisfying to him as an anthropologist.

Preliminary conditions are discussed at great length by Professor Chamberlin before entering on interpretations, which h...

You must have a subscription and be logged in to read the entire article.
Click here to subscribe
visitor : : uid: ()