FROM THE ANNIVERSARY MEMOIRS OF THE BOSTON SOCIETY OF NATURAL HISTORY NOTES ON THE CRANIA OF NEW ENGLAND INDIANS. By LUC1EN CARR, ASSISTANT CURATOR, PEABODY MUSEUM OK AMERICAN ARCHiKOJ.OGY AND ETHNOLOGY, CAMBRIDGE, MASS. BOSTON: PUBLISHED BY THE SOCIETY. 1880. 1830. ANNIVERSARY MEMOIRS OF TI1E BOSTON SOCIETY OF NATURAL HISTORY. 1880. NOTES ON THE CRANIA OF NEW ENGLAND INDIANS. By LUCIEN CARR, ASSISTANT CURATOR, PEABODY MUSEUM OF AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY AND ETHNOLOGY, CAMBRIDGE, MASS. BOSTON: PUBLISHED BY THE SOCIETY. 1880. Notes on the Crania of New England Indians. By Lucien Carr. ACCORDING to the earliest writers, New England, or at least, all that portion of it lying between the Hudson river and the Saco, was inhabited by “ five principal nations of Indians.” Of these, it may be roughly said that: 1st, the Pequots, or Mohegans, held the greater part of Connecticut, with their principal town at, or near, the site of the present city of New London; 2d, the “ Narragansitts ” occupied what is now known as Rhode Island; 3d, the Pawkannawkuts, or Wampanoags, lived in southeastern Massachusetts; 4th, the Massachusetts were just north of them “ in the bay of that name and the adja- cent parts,” and 5th, the Pawtucketts lived still farther to the north, “with their dominion reaching so far as the English jurisdiction, or colony of the Massachusetts doth now extend.”1 Beyond this limit and within the confines of the present state of Maine, there were to be found the Penobscots and Norridgewocks and kindred tribes, or Abenakis2 as they were called by the French, and still farther to the east and north, the dreaded Tar- rantines, whom Schoolcraft identifies with the Micmacs. With this latter group, however, I am not now concerned, and shall confine my observations to the five principal “ Sa- chemships” of New England. These were subdivided into a number of smaller tribes, or to quote the precise words of the old chronicler, they “had dominion over,” or “had under them many other petty governours” or “Sagamores.” Although thus divided and subdivided, and not unfrequently engaged in internecine strife, there appears to have been but little if any difference between them, judging from what we are told of their ap- pearance and language, their manners and customs, as well as of their mode of life and form of government.3 Indeed we may even go a step farther, and basing our conclusion upon the vocabularies that have come down to us, declare with Mr. Gallatin, that the Indians from the Saco river to the Hudson belonged to the Algonkin-Lenape family.4 1 Gookin’s History of the Indians of New England, pub- lished in the Collections of the Massachusetts Historical So- ciety, Vol. i, first series, p. 147 et seq. Archaeologia Amer- icana, Vol. ii, p. 33. 2 Schoolcraft. Vol. v, p. 218. 3 Consult Description of New England, by Capt. John Smith; History of the Indians of New England, by Daniel Gookin; Josselyn’s Two Voyages to New England ; Gorges’ Description of New England; Brereton’s Discovery of the North Part of Virginia, &c., &c. These have all been re- published in the Collections of the Massachusetts Histor- ical Society. 4 They “ spoke, though with many varieties, what may be considered as the same language, and one of the most exten- sively spoken of those of the Algonkin-Lenape Family.” Archaeologia Americana, Vol. u, p. 36. 4 CARR ON THE CRANIA This similarity in language, appearance and customs, justifies the treatment of the collec- tion of crania under consideration as a whole, even if a line of demarcation could be established among them by which it would be possible to assign any special form of skull to a particular tribe; but this cannot be done. The number of crania from any given Table I. Ckania of New England Indians. Maxes.1 Average Maximum Minimum Range WCOCOCCCOCOCOCOCOtOtCtOtOtOtOtOtOtOtOh-iHMl-il-iMMMHI-i 00 —7 05 Cn 4- 02 ISO 1—‘ O CO GO —7 05 On 4- CO tO 1—i O CO GO —7 05 C7i 45 CO tO H* O CO 00 —7 05 CJ< 45 CO tO 1—‘ Number i—11—11—i o to tc CO O O O 05 V - ' \ 1 1 1 ' 1 1 1 1 1 . ■ 1 1 i 1 « 1 1 1 -1 ' ' . i l ' 1 1 U-A U-A M _U. u—L 1 1 Ui A ImmL l__L CO 4- CO 4- CO tO CO CO 4— tO 45-05 CO tO 45 Cn td 05 45- 050n 02 02 45 02 02 02 to 45-tO—7h-1—7—4tOGOtO CO 05 CO GO O’ tO CO CO CO M CO —7—7—7tOCOCO O OOnOOl—iCnOCnO OO O OOOOO O OCT O CT CT CT CT W Capacity h5 1-5 1-5 tO C5 CO GO GO GO CO O M h‘ 1—‘ 1—1 |—1 |—1 |_it—It—1 1—it—‘ 1—1 1—it—‘ >-i 1—1 1—1 »—1 1—1‘I—1>—1H-1I—‘I—‘I—‘I—‘I—1>—1>—‘1—1|—1|—1|—1|—1|—iH-l^l—* COOO—7—7CO—7GCOOCCGO—7—7—7—70000—7—7—7—7—7—7CCO50O—7COGOCOCOOOOO—7—7—7—700—7 4i-05tOC04i-Ol—1—7t005COC0005l—1»—iGOOOl—iGC45-05--70005G0 05 00 t045.05050GOtOrf5’45-0 Length !—‘ i-5 |_5 CO to CO 03 CO CO tO GO 1-5 1-5 (—1 1—1 1—il—ll—il—IMhit—‘ 1—‘ 1—1 |—1 |-5 |_f‘1—ii—‘1—1|—1if—1; H■!—‘1—1|—lH-l>—‘1—1|—‘I—‘I—lh-iH-lH-it—1 05 45 4- 45 02t002 45 C002020245454-024-45020202t04-02024-0202024-454502450202024- t0Ot0t045.C045-O05l-‘45-C005O4i-C0O45.45-C000G045-t0C0(-‘ai-7—7tOt0 05 45-OGC45-OCO Breadth I—1 1—>■ 1—^ to to on CO | 1 ; 1 ) 1 I 1 1 1 [ 1 1 1 ) 1 I 1 j ■ 1 1 j 1 ) -1 ( 1 j 1 1 1 j 1 [ -1 ] ■ I 1 | 1 | 1 i -■ I 1 l i_l u—A i—l '__i. UwA 45 4- 02 02 02 0202020202Cn45 45 02 02 45 02 45 45 02 45 45 02 02 45 02 4- 45 45 02 02 45 02 45t0 O tOtOCOGO COOC000545-tOOOOCOOOt045-tOtOtOCJ CO Cn O OtOCn-7 GO 00 tO —7 —7 Nasal index 02 4-4- -7—14-0 02 02 415 O245.4545.O2CO 4545.0245.4545450245 45 4545.45 450202024-0202 COCO 0 CO 1-5‘0 1-5L CO GO toto—71—‘1—‘45.02001—1 (—1 h* tO M H CO CO CO O CO CO Width of orbit t—i 02 4- CO O tO tO On 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 45 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 05 CO 45 Cn Cn —7 02 05 45 O'05 t2 Oi 4 05 4-t2 t2 4- 4- 05 -7 —7 05 OO (X —7 —7 45. Height of orbit l—i tO -7 O 00 CO CO tO GO *—1 H-A COO OO 00 GO CO 00 CO GO OO OO CC CO OO CO -7000 OO GCOOCO CD CO CO CO CO CO OO tO O cn CO O' tO O tO CO 02Cn05CntOI—‘CD45tO tO tOCTO OtO—7—7t045—7 Orbital index l—i 1-1 CO O CO GO O GO On 1—1 1-5. —5 1-5 CO COCOCOCOOCOCDCOCDCO COCOCO CO COOCOOCOCOOCOCOCOCO 1-5 cni—104-00—70451—‘to —7—7CO to t200HOi0500000tO-7 Width of frontal < u P3 £ U *a> w Index of breadth Index of height B. N. B. A. Alveolar index Length of nose Breadth ,of nose Nasal index Width of orbit Height of orbit Orbital index Width of frontal WThere from 1 1260 168 128 142 .762 .845 101 104 1.03 51 28 .54 39 39 1.00 95 Mass. 2 1200 172 126 130 .733 .756 100 101 1.01 52 25 .48 39 34 .87 88 (C 3 1425 171 137 132 .801 .772 102 95 .93 52 29 .55 37 39 1.05 94 u 4 174 135 135 .776 .776 103 102 .99 54 25 .46 42 40 .95 ‘c 5 1310 181 130 132 .718 .729 99 92 .92 46 25 .54 41 33 .80 << 6 1380 174 134 129 .770 .741 103 104 1.01 51 25 .49 41 35 .85 ‘4 7 1390 180 131 134 .728 .744 101 102 1.01 46 25 .54 40 35 .87 ‘C 8 1450 178 134 136 .753 .764 99 101 1.02 49 26 .53 39 37 .94 94 9 52 25 .48 39 36 .92 89 u 10 181 128 .707 45 23 .51 36 34 .94 93 u 11 1268 172 133 136 .773 .791 98 96 .98 52 23 .44 37 35 .94 84 u 12 1268 180 138 136 .767 .756 51 27 .52 39 38 .97 92 u 13 178 129 .725 51 27 .52 37 34 .91 92 cc 14 1250 174 126 134 .724 .770 102 106 1.03 40 35 .87 87 u 15 1265 172 128 138 .744 .802 53 25 .47 37 35 .94 91 u 16 1205 172 128 .744 109 102 .93 53 26 .49 38 33 .86 88 u 17 1255 170 135 129 .794 .759 99 96 .97 56 25 .44 42 36 .85 94 Maine. 18 1182 174 132 126 .759 .724 104 105 1.01 50 26 .52 38 33 .86 95 U 19 187 127 130 .679 .695 108 108 1.00 52 22 .42 38 36 .94 92 Mass. 20 1425 182 134 130 .736 .714 101 98 .97 49 25 .51 39 37 .94 96 R. I. 21 1445 183 138 143 .754 .781 100 90 .90 47 29 .61 40 37 .92 97 a 22 1315 165 136 134 .824 .812 97 96 .99 48 27 .56 36 34 .94 89 u 23 1295 174 139 130 .799 .747 96 94 .97 45 24 .53 36 32 .88 89 u 24 1225 184 122 128 .663 .696 49 28 .57 38 36 .94 u 25 1580 178 142 136 .798 .764 103 100 .97 50 26 .52 38 37 .97 93 (C 26 1320 170 132 132 .776 .776 102 102 1.00 52 26 .50 37 37 1.00 90 U 27 1380 176 133 134 .756 .761 104 105 1.01 50 31 .62 42 36 .85 Mass. 28 1248 178 133 130 .747 .730 104 104 1.00 52 27 .51 43 34 .79 94 Maine. 29 1323 177 136 134 .768 .757 92 96 1.04 57 24 .42 33 39 .84 98 Mass. Average 1319 175 132 133 .752 .758 101 100 .99 50 25 .51 38 35 .91 91 Maximum 1580 187 142 143 .824 .845 109 108 1.04 57 31 .62 43 39 1.05 98 Minimum 1182 165 122 126 .663 .695 96 90 .90 45 22 .42 33 32 .80 84 Range 398 22 20 1 17 .261 *. 150 13 18 .14 12 1 9 .20 10 7 .25 14 Table II. Crania of New England Indians. Females Of course the presumption is in favor of some member of the tribe that formerly inhabited the locality where it was found, and yet for reasons given above, this conclusion might be far from correct. In view then of the impossibility of discriminating between the skulls 1 Mr. Gallatin estimates the Indian population within the present boundaries of the states of New Hampshire, Massa- chusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut “ to have been from thirty to forty thousand souls, before the epidemic disease which preceded the landing of the Pilgrims.” He thinks that this population, “ principally along the seacoast between the old Plymouth Colony and the Hudson River, was much greater in proportion to the extent of territory, than was found any where else on the shores of the Atlantic, or, with the exception perhaps of the Ilurons, in the interior parts of the United States ”; and he ascribes “ this greater accumu- lated population to the greater and more uniform supply of food afforded by fisheries than by hunting”, and to the fact “ that the Indians along the seacoast had been driven away from the interior and compelled to concentrate themselves in order to be able to resist the attacks of the more warlike Indians of the Five Nations.” Archaeologia Americana, Vol. II, p. 37. 2“ These Sachems have not their men in such subjection, but that very frequently their mep. will leave them upon dis- taste or harsh dealing and go and live under other Sa_ chems.” Gookin, l. c., p. 154. 6 CARR ON TITE CRANIA of the different tribes, and of the linguistic and other evidence of the identity of the peo- ple formerly inhabiting this region, 1 am led to treat this entire series of crania as having belonged to one race. Considered in this light, there is of course a large increase in the number of specimens upon which to base a conclusion, and to this extent, that conclusion is strengthened. In accordance with this plan the tables on pages 4 and 5 have been compiled from meas- urements made upon crania now in the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, the Army Medical Museum at Washington City, the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology in Cambridge, Mass., and in the Museums of the Harvard Medical School, the Boston Society for Medical Improvement, and in the private collection of the late Dr. Warren of Boston.1 In them I have endeavored to separate these skulls according to the features that distinguish the sexes, and also according to the localities whence they were derived. It must not be forgotten, however, that this latter classification is intended simply to facilitate future reference, and does not carry with it any ulterior significance whatever. Aside from the brief historical sketch given above, there is but little known as to the precise age of any of these crania. Two of them, No. 22, Table I,2 and No. 38, Table I,3 belonged to Indians whose deaths are matters of record, and in the case of some others glass beads and other articles of European manufacture were found in the graves. When- ever this occurs, the burial must, of course, have been subsequent to the arrival of the whites. One calvarium, No. 13, Table I, (Peabody Museum, No. 10,259) was found under a shell heap near Salem, Mass., from which circumstance Mr. Putnam has concluded it to be the oldest skull yet found in New England. It is mesaticephalous though verging very closely on brachycephalous and resembles the crania found in the Florida Mounds.4 Of the rest we know nothing, except perhaps, some of the circumstances of their burial. These silent revelations of the spade and pickaxe, however, indicate their origin most unmistakably; and although it is possible that some of the more recent specimens may belong to persons of mixed (Indian and White) blood, yet the skulls themselves do not show it, and the chances of such admixture are so small as scarcely to merit recog- nition. Except when such mixed unions have taken place on a large scale and been con- tinued for a long period of time, as is the case to-day with some of the Indian tribes of the United States and Spanish America, the presumption as to any single skull found as these were, is always in favor of its being of pure Indian origin. Referring now to the preceding tables, it will be seen that the average cranial capacity 1 In this connection I desire to return my thanks to Mr. Parker of the Philadelphia Academy, to the late Mr. Caleb Cook of Salem, to Dr. J. C. Warren of Boston, and to Mr. Applegate and Dr. Win. F. Whitney of the Harvard Medical School. To the latter gentleman I am under special obliga- tions for practical aid in the work of measurements and for many valuable suggestions. 2 This is No. 3274 of the Warren Anatomical Museum of Boston, and is the skull of “Qualish, a New England Indian who died and was buried in Dedham, Mass., in 1774, aet. 68. Every tooth in place.” 8 This is No. 1560 of the Army Medical Museum at Washington City, and is said to be the skull of an Indian basket maker who was killed during the Revolutionary war. In a note to the writer, Dr. Otis, the Curator of that Mu- seum, says “it has the largest internal capacity of any North American Indian skull I have ever measured, and is, more- over, extraordinarily brachycephalic.” 4 Tenth Annual Report of the Peabody Museum of Amer- ican Archaeology and Ethnology. Cambridge, Mass., 1877 OF NEW ENGLAND INDIANS. of the 29 supposed adult females is 1,319 cubic centimeters and of the 38 supposed adult males 1,436 c.c., showing a difference of 117 c.c. in favor of the latter. The smallest skull in the collection is No. 18, Table II (Peabody Mus., No. 12,350) from a shell heap on Great Deer Island, Maine, which measures 1182 c.c.; and the largest is No. 38, Table I,1 (Army Medical Museum No. 1560) which reaches the enormous size of 1920 c.c. The range or difference between the two extremes amounts to 738 c.c., which is less than that of the Indians of the Santa Barbara Islands, California, or of the Moundbuilders of the Cumber- land valley.2 Assuming, with Dr. J. Aitken Meigs, 1376 c.c. to be the average of the North American Indian,3 it will be seen that the mean of the two sexes, 1377 c.c., as given above, accords with it in a striking manner. This is greater than the Indians from the Santa Barbara Islands,4 1310 c.c., the Tennessee Moundbuilders, 1341 c.c.,5 or the Peru- vians of the coast, 1230 c.c.,6 but.does not equal the Eskimos of Greenland, 1392 c.c., or of Alaska, 1404 c.c.7 Of the entire series, twenty-five are below 1350 c.c., or microceph- alic, and thirteen above 1450 c.c., or macrocephalic, and thirteen are between the two, or mesocephalic, to which class the collection taken as a whole also belongs.8 The index of breadth,9 or the relation of the greatest breadth between the parietals, to the length measured through the glabella to the most prominent point of the occiput, is .767 for the males, and .752 for the females; or, taking the mean of the two sexes and leav- ing off the fraction, .759 for the whole collection. This brings them within the class of me- saticephali, though by a very narrow margin. Of the entire collection, twenty-six have an index below .750, and hence may be classed as dolichocephali; nine have an index greater than .800 and are, therefore to be ranked among the bracliycephali or short skulls, whilst the remaining thirty-one have indices ranging between these limits and thus, of course, belong to the mesaticephali. Of this last group, the index is .775. The females are, however, slightly more dolichocephalic than the males, the figures being .771 for the for- mer and .779 for the latter. 1 Notwithstanding the very unusual size of this skull, I have not felt at liberty to omit it from the table for the fol- lowing reasons : 1st, its history is pretty well known ; 2d, there are crania of undoubtedly aboriginal origin now in the Peabody Museum of Cambridge, i. e., one from San Clemente Island, California, that measures 1747 c.c., and one from a mound in Tennessee that reaches 1825 c.c., that are ab- normally large when compared with the averages from their respective localities; 3d, it is equalled, if not surpassed, by other specimens in the Peabody Museum, in the measure- ments of length, breadth and height, respectively, though none of them equals it when all the measurements are taken together. It is proper to add that the capacity of this skull was measured with No. 8 shot, whilst in all the others selected peas of nearly uniform size were used. This, of course, to a certain extent, vitiates the comparison, as very different results are obtained when different materials are used ; but it is believed that the excess of this skull over the one next to it in point of size, No. 16, Table I (a Natick In- dian in the collection of the Philadelphia Academy) which measures 1690 c.c., is so great as to allow a very wide mar- gin for the inequality caused by using different methods of measurement. Be this as it may, my object in singling out this particular skull, was to mark the differences rather than to institute a comparison where surely none exists. 2 Twelfth Annual Report of the Peabody Museum, 1880. 3 Catalogue of Human Crania in the Collection of the Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences, p. 10. 4 Check-list of the Army Medical Museum. Washington, 1876. Twelfth Annual Report of the Peabody Museum, pp. 498 et seq. 5 Eleventh Annual Report of the Peabody Museum, pp. 224 and 361. 1878. 6 Fourth Annual Report of the Peabody Museum, p. 18. 1871. 7 Check-list of the Army Medical Museum, Washington? 1876. 8 For this classification see Prof. Wm. H. Flower, in the Osteological Catalogue of the Royal College of Surgeons, Part 1, Man. p. 252. London, 1879. 9 Index of breadth == breadth X 1000-j-length. CARR ON THE CRANIA As was to have been expected in a collection, composed as this is of the crania of differ- ent tribes, the range is very wide, extending from .859, No. 26, Table I, (Boston Society for Medical Improvement, No. 1376) to .663, No. 24, Table II (Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, No. 1040). This latter specimen is catalogued as “ a woman aetat 70, with a singularly elongated head.” Upon examination, the sagittal, coronal and lamboidal sutures were found to be closed. This may have been due to the age of the woman, and hence the peculiarly elongated form of the cranium cannot be ascribed to the premature closing of the sagittal suture, though that, of course, is possible. However, there are in this collection other perfectly normal crania that approach it too closely in this respect, e.g. No. 19, Table II, and No. 12, Table I (Peabody Museum, Nos. 660 and 10,249), to jus- tify us in rejecting it as an aberrant form. The index of height for the males is .761, for the females .758, and for the two sexes taken together .759. Compared with the indices of breadth, as is done in order to get at the shape of the head, we find that among the former the height is less than the breadth, whilst among the latter it is greater. The difference, however, is very small, amounting in either case to only 1 m.m. actual measurement. Taking the collections as a whole, and the indices of breadth and height are found to be equal, but if the skulls be considered singly, twenty-seven of them have the index of breadth greater than that of height, whilst in twenty-nine the reverse is the case. Coming now to the facial measurements, and beginning with the alveolar index or the relation of the basi-nasal length to the basi-alveolar, estimating the former at 100, and it will be found to be in the males .96, and in the females .99.1 Of the entire collection, twenty-six are orthognathous, twenty mesognathous, and only three that can be called strictly prognathous. Taking the two sexes together, the index of the whole is .975, or orthognathic with a strong tendency to mesognathism. The nasal index of the males is .49, and of the females .51, which brings them both, when considered either separately or together, among the mesorhine. There are, how- ever, in the series fourteen that have an index below .48 or are leptorhine, twelve with an index above .53 or platyrhine, and thirty that are within these limits or mesorhine. The orbital index is .88 for the males and .91 for the females, or .895 for the two. This classes them with the megaseme, though just within the limits.2 As is usually the case, the orbit among the females is proportionately more open than among the males. Summing up the result of these measurements, the average skull of this series is found to be of medium capacity and mesaticephalic, with a decided tendency towards dolicho- cephalism. It is orthognathic, mesorhine and megaseme, but by very small margins. These measurements and the technical description based upon them are believed to be cor- rect ; in fact they agree so closely with those made by Dr. Wilson upon a number (30) of skulls3 of the same people that there can be little doubt as to their accuracy ; and yet after all it must be admitted that, in point of fact, so far as this collection is concerned, the 1Prof. Flower, of the Royal College of Surgeons, prefers this method of estimating the forward projection of the face for the reason that it is easy of application, “ and if in some cases not strictly accurate, in the large majority it certainly gives the desired information.” He classifies all below .980 as orthognathous. From .980 to 1.030 mesognathous. Above 1.030 as prognathous. In the first of these classes are to be found most Europeans, and in the last most negroes. 2Below .840 is microseme; above .890 is megaseme; between the two is mesoseme. 8 Prehistoric Man, p. 186. London, 1876. OF NEW ENGLAND INDIANS. typical cranium, as adduced from the measurements, has no real existence. Undoubtedly there are skulls in the collection that unite many of the characteristic features indicated by the above measurements, and it is possible that there may be a few which combine them all, but the variations are so great that the eye is hardly able to single out any one form as typical. For this purpose one will do as well as another, but not one is satisfactory. In this respect there is a marked difference between this collection and those from some other localities. Take for instance, the crania from the stone graves of Tennessee now in the Peabody Museum, or those from Greenland, now in the Army Medical Museum, and there runs through each series a certain prevailing form which is at once recognized. Here, however, no such uniformity exists. The crania differ among themselves in every possible way; and, in their distinguishing features, are so hopelessly mixed, that even though the range, or difference between the different extremes is no greater than in either one of the other collections, yet the entire series, judged by the eye, is too colorless to permit of the recognition of any type or standard save that furnished by the calipers and the “ rule of three.” These, however, do give us rather a solid foundation upon which to build, and justify us in asserting that, whilst the entire series considered with reference to the index of breadth does not supply us with sufficient data to reconstruct the typical prehistoric Indian skull of New England, granting such a thing to have existed, it does indicate an ad- mixture of the different forms such as might be looked for in a collection made from the potter’s field of London or New York. This is in accord with what is known of the exist- ence of different forms of crania among the American aborigines, and of the circumstances under which this collection was made. It is, as has been said, composed of crania from different tribes (though belonging perhaps to the same linguistic family) and it contains skulls that range from the extreme of dolichocephalism to a moderate degree of brachy- cephalism. Though, strictly speaking, it occupies a medium position between these two classes, yet the tendency is so decidedly to the former that it may be said partially to bear out the conclusion of Dr. Busk as to the prevalence of the dolichocephalic form of skull upon the Atlantic coast of North America.1 As a matter of interest and for the sake of comparison the following table of mean measurements of crania has been added. It might have been indefinitely extended, but for obvious reasons it was deemed best to limit it to crania from North America. Num- bers 1, 2 and 3 are taken from Dr. Wilson’s Prehistoric Man; Nos. 6 and 7 are made up from the check-list of the Army Medical Museum, and Nos. 4 and 5 are from the records of the Peabody Museum of Ethnology at Cambridge. 1 Journal of the Anthropological Institute of London, for April, 1873, p. 95. 10 CARR ON CRANIA OF INDIANS. Table III. Mean Measurements of Crania of American Indians Number of Specimens Capacity Length Breadth j Height > Index of Breadth Index of Height Width of Frontal Alveolar Index