252 



BULLETIN 183, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM 



wellians to Woodland (Algonkian ?) groups, and Newman and Snow 

 (1942) have done the same for the Shell mound group, but so far the 

 Hopewellians and Shell mound peoples seem not to have been compared 

 directly. 



Although Hooton felt that the grade of deformity in the Turner se- 

 ries did not affect the dimensions of the vault, I cannot help but be- 

 lieve that this factor accounts for the brachycranic element that he 

 detects in his primary series. Eliminating these individuals, we get a 

 comparable range in all three series : 



* Approximately. 



Only one of the Porter mound specimens (350562, C. I. 80.0) is outside 

 this range, whereas the Marksville specimen has a cranial index around 

 69 or 70. 



In head height, indicially but not ab.solutely, these groups rank with 

 the highest on the continent (cf. Stewart, 1940b; Collins, 1941). It 

 should be noted also that the difference between basion-bregma height 

 and porion-bregma height in the Kansas City mound series is 2.2 cm. 

 on the average, but individual cases range from 2.2 to 2.7 cm. In the 

 Alabama Shell mound crania there is about the same average difference 

 Avhen correction is made for vertical auricular height. 



If the cranial module is taken as a measure of general head size, then 

 the Hopewellians appear to be somewhat small. In this respect they 

 approach the Shell mound people of Alabama, which in turn are inter- 

 mediate between the culturally related groups from Kentucky and 

 Louisiana (cf. Collins, 1941, table 1). 



As already stated, the minimum frontal diameter is unusually small. 

 If we omit one female (Hansen 3) because of probable deformity, and 

 include the three females in which this diameter is approximated, we 

 get ranges that are similar to those for the Turner group (see below). 



At the time Hooton prepared his Turner report (1922) there was 

 little comparative material available, yet he pointed out that such 

 a small average diameter is unusual for Indians. Judged from more 

 recent studies, it would seem that this diameter, as well as the range, 



