178 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM vol.93 



geographical segregation of these characters is evident. In spite of 

 this there has been remarkably little effort to define clearly the nu- 

 merous physical types that have been named. This circumstance 

 introduces an element of subjectivity into the matter mid makes it 

 difficult for others to judge the validity of published statements con- 

 cerning (he identification of types. Consequently, the whole science 

 is threatened with a meaningless jargon. 



Unfortunately, such classifications have a way of catching the 

 imagination, so whatever misconceptions they introduce are likely 

 to be disseminated widely. Already these types, which grade into 

 one another, are being visualized as distinct entities. This in turn 

 becomes an argument for the polygenesis of the American Indian. 



CONCLUSIONS 



Having dealt so extensively with a generalization associated with 

 the basic material of this study, it is desirable that all the conclusions 

 be summarized here. 



First, I shall point out that the Cupisnique and Mochica skeletal 

 remains, here described for the first time in some detail, are inadequate 

 for satisfactory metrical comparison. The only obvious physical 

 difference between the two groups is the fronto-occipital deformity — 

 a cultural trait registered in bone — which is present in the Cupisnique 

 group alone. However, in view of the scarcity of data on culturally 

 associated skeletal material from Peru, I feel that even the present 

 record is a contribution. 



In expanding this study to include the miscellaneous undated skulls 

 from the Chicama-Moche-Virii region, I have attempted to answer two 

 questions: (1) How does the homogeneity of the undeformed series 

 compare with that of other populations? and (2) Were the people 

 who deformed their heads of the same skull type as those who did not 

 follow this custom ? The answer to the first of these questions seems 

 to be that the miscellaneous undeformed Chicama series is about as 

 homogeneous as the American undeformed crania available for com- 

 parison from one culture or site. 



As for the second question, I have concluded that there are certain 

 significant differences between the deformed and undeformed series 

 that are independent of deformity. There is a possibility, therefore, 

 that these differences likewise may distinguish the Cupisnique and 

 Mochica groups. 



Finally, I have used the undeformed Chicama series as an example 

 of the Pueblo-Andid physical type, defined by Imbelloni, for the 

 purpose of carrying out metrical comparisons with a representative 

 Pueblo series, as well as with series representing other physical types. 

 My conclusion is that, as it stands now, this classification of American 



