Note.—The fragments of a cranium, consisting chiefly of a very retreating frontal, and presenting traits of a low and brutal character, reminding one of the Neanderthal skull, were found underneath the above tabulated crania.

We observe that only three of these crania are brachycephalic, while the remaining five, and the mean of all, fall under the class of dolichocephalic crania, according to our classification. Mr. Gillman would call some of them Orthocephalic, and the mean of the eight crania giving a cephalic index of .786 and .802 as an index of height might properly be so classified. The same gentleman exhumed from an ancient mound on Chambers Island, Green Bay, Wisconsin, six crania, which as to type were equally divided into long and short skulls, while the mean cephalic index, .817, assigned them to the brachycephalic class. The long skulls were not far removed, however, from the dividing line between the classes (.80). The energetic and intelligent labors of Dr. R. J. Farquharson of the Davenport, Iowa, Academy of Sciences, has placed within our reach measurements upon twenty-five mound crania.[241] The following are the most important measurements in inches:

This table introduces a new feature into the investigation in hand; the brachycephalic or the near approximation to the short skull is displaced by a mean cephalic index of .758, indicating the well-marked dolichocephalic type. The mean internal capacity 73.3 inches falls considerably below the mean of mound crania as measured by Squier and Davis, Wilson and others, from localities farther south.

The mean results of Dr. Farquharson’s measurements[242] show a greater vertical than transverse diameter, a peculiarity of most Mississippi mound skulls, distinguishing them from Peruvian crania. In the Ohio Valley the brachycephalic type is quite decided, though the general features of high receding forehead, flattened occiput, and great transverse diameter, establish their relationship to all other North American mound crania yet discovered. Three Ohio Valley mound skulls, as to the genuineness of which no suspicion can be entertained, namely the Scioto Mound cranium and two crania from the Grave Creek Mound, give the following measurements in the mean: Longitudinal diameter, 6.5 inches; parietal diameter, 6 inches; vertical diameter, 5.5 inches, and 90.7 as their cephalic index. The mean internal capacity, though not obtainable with any degree of accuracy, in this instance is no doubt from eight to ten cubic inches greater than in the Davenport crania. With the general characteristics alike, minor differences may in most instances be attributed to artificial pressure. A valuable collection of mound crania was made in Kentucky for the Smithsonian Institution and the Peabody Museum, by Mr. S. S. Lyon, and is thoroughly reliable as a basis for measurements. Professor Wyman, in the Fourth Annual Report of the Peabody Museum, describes them as follows: “The twenty-four crania measured (Table VIII) show a mean capacity of 1313 cubic centimetres, which is greater than that of the Peruvians, but less than that of the North American Indians generally (viz., 1376 cubic centimetres, or 84 cubic inches). They differ also from those of the ordinary Indians in being lighter, less massive, in having the rough surface for muscular attachments less strongly marked. * * * In proportions they present a very considerable variation among themselves. Assuming the length of the skull to be 1.000, the breadth ranges from 0.712 to 0.950 of the length. The average proportion is 0.857, which places them in the short-headed group.”

We have already called attention to the extensive and thorough work performed by Professor Joseph Jones in Tennessee, the report of which was published in 1876 by the Smithsonian Institution in a “contribution” entitled Explorations of the Aboriginal Remains of Tennessee. Professor Jones secured above a hundred mound and stone grave crania, mostly in the valley of the Cumberland and on the banks of the Big Harpeth River. Some of the skeletons accompanying these crania were of gigantic stature, a fact which is at variance with the opinion that they were related to the diminutive race of Inca Peruvians.[243] On the contrary, however, a strong argument for the relationship between the Mound-builders and the Peruvians is found in the frequent occurrence of the Inca-bone (os inca) so-called, on the mound crania.[244] Mr. Henry Gillman found this same bone in one of the crania exhumed by him from the great mound of Rouge River, Michigan, with a disposition to its formation in several others.[245] Professor Jones is convinced of the unity of the mound race throughout the entire Mississippi Basin. The following table of measurements, published in the Antiquities of Tennessee, is one of the most valuable which has yet been prepared:

The most noticeable feature in the table aside from the mean cephalic index .874 is the great internal capacity of cranium No. 7, which was found in a stone grave in a mound near Nashville, with a skeleton over six feet long. The occiput is but slightly flattened, and the general contour of the head is symmetrically oval. Morton gives as the mean internal capacity of fifty-two Caucasian skulls 87 cubic inches; the largest of the series measured 109 cubic inches, and the smallest 75 cubic inches. This remarkable cranium gives an internal capacity of 103 cubic inches, vastly above the mean European skull, and only falling six cubic inches below the largest measured by Morton. As we observed a considerable increase in capacity in the Scioto Mound cranium, with its ninety cubic inches, over the crania of the north-west and north, of Michigan and Davenport, so here a most remarkable advance upon the capacity of the Scioto cranium is presented. The evidence of considerable development in the size of the cranium in this same race is clear; and taken with other testimony, such as the great improvement in art and architecture, indicates probably a movement from north to south, and that the mound race was older in the former region than in the latter.

In September, 1877, Prof. F. W. Putnam and Mr. Edwin Curtiss exhumed sixty-seven crania from stone graves located in the neighborhood of Nashville, Tennessee. These crania were measured by Miss Jennie Smith and Mr. Lucian Carr, and the latter has tabulated and described them in the Eleventh Annual Report of the Peabody Museum (pp. 361 et seq., Cambridge, 1878). As some interesting features occur in the tables, we insert here Mr. Carr’s mean measurements. It will be observed that the classification in this instance is threefold, besides the distinct position assigned to the “much flattened” crania.

Mr. Carr calls attention to the fact that while the classified crania as a whole are brachycephali, still from twenty-three to thirty-three per cent. of the whole cannot be considered as falling within that group. Whether the five dolichocephali in the table belonged to the same race cannot be determined. They were buried together, for Prof. Putnam found a long and a short skull side by side in the same grave. Mr. A. J. Conant (see Commonwealth of Missouri, St. Louis, 1877, 8vo, pp. 106–7) discovered in a mound in South-eastern Missouri two crania belonging to skeletons buried in regular order, with a large number of other skeletons at the bottom of the mound, which differed strangely from all others found in that locality. The forehead was entirely wanting, and the contour of the top of one of the skulls was almost flat. It closely resembles the Neanderthal skull. Mr. Conant thought it at first to be an intrusive burial, but careful examination proved it to have been placed in position before the building of the mound, and to have been interred with as much care as was bestowed upon any of the other occupants of the mound. Vases, drinking vessels and food-pans accompanied it as they did all the other skeletons.

Mr. Carr thinks such crania as he has pointed out belonged to individuals who were conquered in war, or adopted or introduced into the tribe by intermarriage. Mr. Conant considers that the low type cranium which he discovered belonged to a very ancient race, the predecessors of the Mound-builders, and not far removed from the palæolithic races of Europe.

The mound skulls are readily distinguishable from those of the Red Indian. Only in the Davenport crania and the five dolichocephali from Tennessee do we see any approximation as to form. However, the remaining characteristics of the Davenport crania establish the fact that they belonged to people of the mounds. In our classification of Dr. Morton’s measurements, it will be observed that only two supposed mound skulls appear among the dolichocephali (long skulls, A), and too much doubt is attached to their genuineness to admit of their use in drawing inferences. All the remainder belong to the savage tribes except three Peruvians of the ancient race of the region of Titicaca. In the table of brachycephali but few of the savage tribes are represented, except those which practice artificial compression to the extent of deformity. The mound skull as compared with the Inca Peruvian presents few resemblances, except that both generally belong to the brachycephalic class, and the singular and important fact already mentioned that the Inca bone has been found in North American mound crania. It is possible that when more extensive research is made, this distinguishing feature may lead to the conclusion that the races were one or closely related. On the other hand, the massive bony structure of some of the mound crania does not correspond with the facial bones of the Inca crania, which are very light and delicate. Prof. Wilson has pointed out the additional fact that the vertical diameter of the Peruvian short crania is not so great as that of the mound and Mexican short skulls, but a reference to the Professor’s own tables shows that the mean difference amounts only to thirty-seven-hundredths of an inch, altogether too small a variation to serve as the basis for ethnic generalizations.[246] Few if any similarities can be traced between the dolichocephali of Peru and the brachycephalic Mound-builders, the only resemblances being the heavy bony structure possessed in common by both races. The crania of the dolichocephali of Peru are pronounced of a Mongol cast and form, and are in every respect unlike the mound crania. Turning our attention, however, to the ancient Mexican crania, we find, so far as we are able to judge from the limited number of skulls which have come into the possession of ethnologists, a parallelism in measurements and resemblance in the various distinctive features, such as flattened occiput, broad transverse diameter, retreating forehead, strong bony structure, and a remarkable agreement in vertical diameter with those of the mounds of the Mississippi Basin, which point unmistakably to the closest relationship. Seven Mexican brachycephali measured by Prof. Wilson in the Boston and Philadelphia collections previously referred to, gave a mean vertical diameter of 5.55 inches.[247] Four Mound-builder crania measured by the same investigation gave precisely the same result, while the remaining measurements varied from each other but slightly. In confirmation of this result it is worthy of notice that the mean vertical diameter of the twenty-one mound and stone grave crania from Tennessee varied from that of the Mexican crania by only one one-hundredth of an inch (5.56).

When Dr. Morton began his investigations, he was disposed to recognize the existence of distinct races, represented by the dolichocephalic and brachycephalic crania of Peru.[248] But in later years, and at a period subsequent to the issue of his justly celebrated work, he concluded that the Peruvian elongated head was the product of artificial compression and not the distinguishing mark of an ancient race which long antedated the Incas.[249] Prof. Wilson has thoroughly discussed this subject, and from a series of investigations, conducted on a much more extensive scale than those of Dr. Morton, he has shown conclusively that the distinguished craniologist was quite mistaken as to the facts upon which he based his later views.[250] Much valuable information was afforded Prof. Wilson by the researches and collections of John H. Blake, Esq., made during that gentleman’s residence in Peru, as well as the extensive collection of Dr. J. C. Warren of Boston. Prof. Wilson points out the essential difference between the compressed and the naturally dolichocephalic cranium in these words: “Few who have had extensive opportunities of minutely examining and comparing normal and artificially formed crania, will, I think, be prepared to dispute the fact that the latter are rarely, if ever, symmetrical. The application of pressure on the head of the living child can easily be made to change its natural contour, but it cannot give to its artificial proportions that harmonious repetition of corresponding developments on opposite sides which may be assumed as the normal condition of the unmodified cranium. But in so extreme a case as the conversion of a brachycephalic head averaging about 6.3 inches longitudinal diameter by 5.3 inches parietal diameter into a dolichocephalic head of 7.3 by 4.9 inches diameter, the retention of anything like the normal symmetrical proportions is impossible. Yet the dolichocephalic Peruvian crania present no such abnormal irregularities as could give plausibility to the theory of their form being an artificial one, while peculiarities in the facial proportions confirm the idea that it is of ethnic origin and not the product of deformation.” Besides these differences there are peculiarities of a structural nature sufficient in themselves to distinguish the Peruvian long from the short crania. The former is small, narrow and decidedly long; the forehead is low and retreating, and two-thirds of the brain-cavity lies behind the occipital foramen. The superior maxillary is protruding and holds the incisor teeth obliquely. The weight of the bony structure also exceeds that in the brachycephalic. Though both classes are found artificially compressed, yet they are always distinguishable from each other. One of the best illustrations of this fact, and one already used by Prof. Wilson, is afforded in contrasting two dolichocephalic crania, both obtained by Mr. Blake in his explorations of the ancient cemeteries of Arica and Atacama. Both are evidently of children; one is in its normal condition, symmetrical, and when viewed from above presents the outlines of a graceful oval form, while the other was subjected to such compression as to throw the volume of the brain backward and to greatly deform the frontal bone.[251] A slight tendency to assume the dog-shaped head of the Chinooks of the Columbia River is manifest, where deformation is carried to such an extent as to produce monstrosities. However, even then, the normal brachycephalic type of skull of the Chinooks is not transformed to the dolichocephalic, since the base of the cranium remains comparatively unaffected while distension takes place in a posterior and upward direction. Mr. Squier in his Peru (p. 580, Appendix), has shown that circular compression produces a symmetrical effect in the same direction.

The custom of artificially flattening the head has, upon investigation, been shown not to be peculiar alone to the aborigines of America, but to have been practised by many of the semi-civilized peoples of antiquity in different parts of Europe and Asia. Hippocrates, in his treatise De Aëre, Aquis, et Locis, has described this savage practice among a people whom he calls Machrocephali, supposed to have inhabited the region near the Palus Mæotis, in the vicinity of the Caucasus. He says, “The custom stood thus: as soon as the child was born, they immediately fashioned its soft and tender head with their hands, and by the use of bandages and proper arts, forced it to grow lengthwise, by which the spherical figure of the head was prevented and the length increased.” Strabo refers to a people occupying a portion of Western Asia, who were addicted to the same custom and had foreheads projecting beyond their beards.[252] Pliny places them in Asia Minor,[253] while Pomponius Mela places the Machrocephali on the Bosphorus.[254] Blumenbach has figured in his first decade, a compressed skull obtained by him from Russia and probably originally from one of the tumuli of the Crimean Bosphorus, where it is supposed to have been exhumed during the Russian occupation. In 1843, Rathke figured and described in Müller’s Archiv für Anatomie, another example of the compressed human crania, obtained from an ancient grave near Kertsch in the Crimea. In 1820, Count August von Brenner obtained on his estate at Fuersbrunn near Grafenegg in Austria, a skull of similar characteristics. This was, upon examination, decided to have belonged to an Avarian Hun. Prof. Retzius described it in the Proceedings of the Royal Academy of Sciences of Stockholm in 1844, adducing arguments to strengthen that supposition. Dr. Tschudi, however, conceived the idea that it might have been a Peruvian skull which had been brought to Europe as a curiosity during the reign of Charles V. and afterwards thrown aside. His communication appeared in Müller’s Archiv für Anatomie. The opinion of the learned traveller was, however, subsequently reversed by the discovery at Atzgersdorf, near Vienna, of another and similar cranium. More recently others have come to light at the Village of St. Roman in Savoy, and in the Valley of the Doubs near Mandense. Dr. Fitzinger has probably investigated this subject with more thoroughness than any other writer, and has shown in his articles in the Transactions of the Imperial Academy of Vienna, that this custom was native to the Scythian region in the vicinity of the Mœtian Moor, and prevailed in the Caucasus and along the shores of the Black and Caspian seas and the Bosphorus. Among the most interesting relics cited as sustaining his views is an ancient medal struck in commemoration of the destruction of Aquileia by Attila the Hun in A.D. 452, and bearing the bust of that “Scourge of God.” The head represented in profile is of precisely the same shape as those of the other Avir skulls, having a flattened form in a vertical and oblique direction. Thierry in his Attila has traced the origin of the custom of flattening the skull, to the Huns, who, descending from their home upon the steppes of Northern Asia, left their remains upon many a field in Europe. One of these deformed skulls was discovered in 1856 by J. Hudson Barclay, in a large cavern near the Damascus Gate at Jerusalem. The skeleton was of unusually large size and decayed, but the skull, which was pretty well-preserved, was brought to this country and is preserved in the collection of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia.[255] Dr. J. Atkinson Meigs concluded, upon careful examination, that its occiput had been flattened by pressure during childhood. The testimony of Dr. Tschudi, rendered undesignedly, amounts to the best of evidence of the transition of this custom from the eastern shores of Asia to Peru, and this isolated instance has been strengthened beyond question or doubt by the abundant proof which has been brought to light since attention was directed to the subject.[256]

In referring to the methods by which artificial compression was brought about in America, Prof. Wilson remarks: “Trifling as it may appear, it is not without interest to have the fact brought under our notice by the disclosures of ancient barrows and cysts, that the same practice of nursing the child and carrying it about, bound to a flat cradle-board, prevailed in Britain and the North of Europe long before the first notices of written history reveal the presence of man beyond the Baltic or the English Channel, and that in all probability the same custom prevailed continuously from the shores of the German Ocean to Behring Straits.”[257] Dr. L. A. Gosse testifies to the prevalence of the same custom among the Caledonians and Scandinavians of the earliest times,[258] and Dr. Thurman has treated the same peculiarity of the early Anglo-Saxon.[259] It is a matter of no little surprise to the inquirer in this field to learn that this system of skull distortion introduced into Southern Europe by the Asiatic hordes which overran it in the fifth century has been perpetuated, though somewhat modified, and at present is in vogue in the south of France.[260] The distinguished Dr. Foville, in charge of the Asylum for Insane in the Department Seine-Inférieure and Charenton, has figured this process in his work on the Anatomy of the Nervous System, as well as a number of skulls which have striking Peruvian resemblances. The artificial form in this case is produced by the use of peculiar head-dresses or bandages.[261] The Egyptians placed a pillow under the neck and not for the head; hence the elongated crania characteristic of the race, and it is not a little remarkable that the Feejee Islanders have the same custom at the present day. The Kankas of the Sandwich Islands produce the flattened occiput by supporting the infant’s head always in the palm of the hand.[262] The South Sea Islanders have a flattened occiput, as Pickering describes it, projecting but slightly beyond the line of the neck.[263] Prof. Wilson comments upon this fact as follows: “Traces of purposed deformation of the head among the islanders of the Pacific, have an additional interest in their relation to one possible source of the South American population by Oceanic migration, suggested by philological and other independent evidence. But for our present purpose the peculiar value of these modified skulls lies in the disclosures of influences operating alike undesignedly, and with a well-defined purpose, in producing the very same cranial conformation among races occupying the British Islands in ages long anterior to earliest history, and among the savage tribes of America and the simple islanders of the Pacific in the present day.”[264] It is a well-known fact that flattening the skull has prevailed from the earliest times in most parts of the American Continent, especially on the Pacific coast. From the extreme north to Southern Peru, flattening the skulls was regarded as an artistic improvement on nature and was practised with a maternal solicitude, if we judge from the customs of the modern Chinooks, deserving of a higher aim. More centrally and toward the Atlantic border the custom was not so carefully and generally practised, unless we may except the case of the Natchez, who carried it to almost the extreme reached at present by the Columbia River tribes. The object of this strange transformation is believed to have been twofold, “to give,” as Torquemada supposes, in referring to the Peruvians, “a fierce appearance in war,” and to obtain the mark of a royal and dominant race, a fashion which seems to have been transmitted without a variation, from its Mongol source. The Chinooks consider it the mark of superiority, and will not permit the tribes subject to them to practise it. Mr. Paul Cane, has illustrated this subject with drawings made during his visit to the Columbia and Vancouver’s Island, while Dr. Pickering, Mr. Hale and others, have described the hideous and beastly aspect of the singular people practising the deformation. Skull flattening among the American tribes may be classified as intentional and unintentional. To the class of intentionally flattened skulls we may assign those of the twenty or more tribes of the North-west coast, the Natchez, the ancient Mayas, the Peruvians, and some of the more central and eastern South American tribes. The North-western flatheads subject the head of a child during the first eight or ten months of its life to pressure produced by means of a cradle or cradle-board, provided with a board which rests upon the forehead and tied down upon it by means of cords extending to the foot of the cradle, while the other end is connected to the head of the cradle with a hingelike attachment.