158 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM vol. 93 



Chavin Coast ceramics are not primitive, but extremely well finished" 

 (1939, p. 93). Sr. Larco contends that Cupisnique is the older, basing 

 his argument on stratification (see pi. 17c), the simplicity of the 

 graves, and the absence of metals. On the other hand, judged from 

 the findings elsewhere along the coast as described above, it is not 

 unusual for the custom of cranial deformity to appear early and then 

 disappear, only to reappear in modified form in later periods. How- 

 ever, without attempting to decide this point I shall compare the skele- 

 tal remains of these two groups in an effort to detect differences in 

 physical type. 



DEFORMITY 



Although the majority of the Cupisnique skulls were deformed, 4 

 of the 13 examined appeared to have no deformity. Since two of these 

 presumably undeformed skulls have an index above 80, there is the 

 possibility that they too may be deformed slightly. The most extreme 

 case of deformity in this group is shown in plate 11. Here the flat- 

 tening of the occiput is vertical and more on the left side than on the 

 right. This contrasts with the Nazca type of deformity in which the 

 occiput is rounded and usually symmetrical (pi. 13). The flat- 

 tening of the frontal in this Cupisnique skull also is not so extreme 

 as in the Nazca type, where a concave outline is not uncommon. The 

 type of deformity characteristic of the Cupisnique skulls is fronto- 

 vertico-occipital ("tabular erecta" of Imbelloni). whereas that found 

 among the Nazca people is parallelo-fronto-occipital (''tabular 

 oblicua" of Imbelloni) and perhaps of the pseudo-circular subtype 

 (Stewart, 1941). I disagree, therefore, with Dr. Kroeber (1930, p. 

 67) when he says that "in many cases the fronto-occipital deformation 

 in the Chimu area is as pronounced as in the average Nazca culture 

 skull, and of similar type." 



Speaking of the Trujillo district as a whole, Hrdlicka (1914) ulti- 

 mately concluded that all the deformed skulls had been modified in the 

 same manner (fronto-occipital) but to varying degrees; that frontal 

 deformity had not always been permanent, or in other words that "the 

 pressure on the forehead was inadequate to cause enduring changes in 

 that region" (p. 48). Kroeber (1930, p. 70), however, distinguished 

 between fronto-occipital and occipital deformity and believes that 

 these two "preferential trends" represent different chronological 

 periods. Although I cannot decide this point, from my analysis of 

 the undated material from the Chicama Valley (table 1) I can under- 

 stand Hrdlicka's viewpoint, for degrees of frontal and occipital flat- 

 tening are rather closely correlated; that is, there is a tendency when 

 occipital flattening is pronounced, for the frontal flattening to be defi- 

 nite, but when occipital flattening is slight the frontal flattening 

 usually is indistinct or absent. However, frontal flattening is quite 



