THE ORIGIN AND ANTIQUITY OF THE ESKIMO COLLINS 451 



Norton Sound — a much closer resemblance appears; they are much 

 closer both in measurements and indices to these other Alaskan 

 Eskimos than to the Algonkians (Collins, 1945). Similarly, though 

 in cranial and facial measurements the Pre-Aleut are very close to 

 the Sioux Indians, there are sufficient resemblances to the Bering Sea 

 Eskimos to cast doubt on Hrdlicka's statement (1945, p. 579) that the 

 Pre-Aleut "were definitely not Eskimo, nor even their very close 

 relations." It must be remembered that the modern Aleuts spoke 

 a divergent Eskimo dialect and possessed a culture that was basically 

 Eskimo, while the Koniag were actually Eskimos, both linguistically 

 and culturally ; the fact that these two modern groups differed phys- 

 ically from the highly specialized long-headed Eskimo type of north 

 Alaska and Greenland is merely indicative of the great physical 

 diversity that exists within the Eskimo stock. The Pre-Koniag and 

 Pre-Aleut, with their longer, narrower, and higher heads and faces, 

 were more Eskimoid than their successors, thereby indicating that in 

 earlier times there was a greater degree of physical unity among the 

 Eskimo than at present. 



Despite the fact that the Pre-Aleut were more Eskimoid than the 

 later Aleuts, their remarkably close metrical resemblance to the Sioux 

 must be recognized, even if it cannot be explained, and the same is 

 true for the close similarity between the Seward-Barrow Eskimos 

 and Huron Indians pointed out by Shapiro. In the measurements 

 used for comparison the Hurons are actually closer to the far-away 

 Point Barrow Eskimos (average difference only 0.99 mm.) than they 

 are to their Iroquoian kinsmen in New York or to the neighboring 

 Algonkian Indians of New York, Massachusetts, and Maine (average 

 difference of 1.89 mm.). No one would think of suggesting that the 

 Huron Indians for this reason were more closely related genetically 

 to Point Barrow Eskimos than to other Iroquois. That the measure- 

 ments themselves point to such an anomalous result is sufficient reason 

 for questioning the validity of this method of comparison. The 

 explanation, I suggest, is that the comparisons are not complete. If, 

 instead of comparing tables of measurements, an anthropologist had 

 before him the actual skulls, he would have no difficulty in distinguish- 

 ing between Eskimos and Hurons, Pre-Koniag and Algonkians, and 

 Pre-Aleuts and Sioux. Each paired series would differ markedly 

 in such morphological features as contour of the skull, size and shape 

 of the nasal bones, slope of the malars, shape and, usually, size of the 

 orbits, size and shape of the mandible, and thickness of the tympanic 

 plate. In Eskimo skulls, whether long or short, these features, 

 though difficult to express in metrical terms, have a characteristic and 

 easily recognized appearance. It has often been asserted that mor- 

 phological characters of this kind are adaptive modifications that 

 have resulted from vigorous use of the jaws and teeth. This, how- 



