The burial was finally exposed at a depth of 3.6 feet below the surface of the mound, the floor of the grave lying at an average depth of 1.0 feet below the base of the mound. A vague area of discolored soil (which contrasted faintly with the surrounding undisturbed IIb sand) marked the location of the lower portion of the grave. The edges of the burial pit were quite indefinite, having been considerably disturbed by roots and rodents, but its appearance—both in flat plan and in profile—suggested that a shallow grave about a foot deep and just large enough to accommodate the body had been dug from the floor of the shallow sub-mound pit, the body had been placed in the grave, and then earth had been heaped over both the body and the shallow pit to form the mound. The skeletal remains from Burial No. 1 were examined by Dr. T. W. McKern, Assistant Professor of Anthropology, The University of Texas. He has kindly provided the following statement: “The skeletal material from Burial No. 1, Site 41UR10, Upshur County, Texas, consists of one skeleton in a state of poor preservation. Not only are the bones highly fragmented but not one, including the skull, has escaped the destructive teeth of rodents. The brain case is complete but the entire face is missing. Only parts of the mandible are present including both left and right molars (3rd not erupted) and a lower left 2nd premolar. The lower left dentition is _in situ_. No single bone in the postcranial skeleton is anatomically complete. Also, due to the young age of the remains, most of the epiphyses are missing. “So far as possible, metric and morphological observations were taken and recorded. But because of the incomplete nature of these observations, they will not be reproduced here. “The skeleton is that of a 14 year old male with a cranial index of 82 (brachycranic). Although the cranium is slightly distorted there is no evidence of artificial deformation. “For pathology, the teeth show very little wear which is consistent with the observed age. One pronounced cavity was found on the mesio-disto-occlusal surface of the lower left 2nd molar. “Because of the almost complete lack of knowledge concerning the range of physical types for the prehistoric populations of Texas it is impossible to associate this skeleton with any known Indian group on a strictly morphological basis.” DISCUSSION