568 ANNUAL REPORT SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, 1959 
others, the deformed skull of a Chinook “chief,” ? which he sent to 
his friend and fellow townsman Samuel G. Morton, the father of 
American physical anthropology. In planning his monumental 
“Crania Americana” (1839), in which this Chinook skull appears as 
plate 48, Morton took into account the methods of the then new science 
of phrenology, giving a series of measurements taken according to that 
system. However, Morton did not feel qualified to evaluate the meas- 
urements, and George Combe, whose essay on phrenology is included 
in the book, states only generalities without reference to particular 
crania. It is noteworthy, on the other hand, that Morton segregated 
the phrenological measurements of the “Flatheads of Columbia river,” 
seemingly implying thereby some doubt as to whether phrenological 
principles applied in such cases. Be this as it may, it is amusing, 
now that phrenology is discredited, to see how the deformed skull of 
Townsend’s Chinook “chief” rated in comparison with the normally 
shaped skull of a Swiss (pp. 268, 277) : 
Chinook Swiss Chinook Swiss 
Amativeness) 22225222 5222=- 2a y et LO CHLityes se a = ees 4.1 4.5 
Philoprogenitiveness ~_---_ 8.2 38.6] Benevolence _--___-_-___- 4.1 5.0 
INdhesiveness|=2 222s S25 S900 4.4 | (Causalityo es ee os eee 8.95 4.8 
Self-esteem= 2's ees Zh Gy GE} a bvehhwGh el iin = 8.85 4.4 
Approbativeness_-_.----_~ 41650. “40 (Orders. 32-28 2 eee 3.75 4.2 
Mirmness==22 esse eee: 4° “5; ©)|| Secretiveness ==——=-—=-—— = o.2. a4 
Conscientiousness_______-_- 456 142.9) |(Cautlousness 2222 ae 4.4 4,55 
Veneration £25 320 4.4 5.0] Destructiveness__________ 2. (ae 2585 
HO pect sees hy as tael la 4.3 4.8] Combativeness___________ S16) as 
Marvelousness_____.__—___ 4.05 4.9 
Is it because of the deformity that the Chinook rates below the Swiss 
in every item of this list, except the last—combativeness ? 
After this diversion, it is desirable to return once more to John 
Townsend and Samuel Morton. Because of the friendship between 
7™Townsend’s accompanying memorandum (Morton, 1839, pp. 208-209) reads as fol- 
lows: “The skull of the Chinouk is that of a high chief, as was manifest in the superior 
style in which his canoe was decked out, the unusual fineness of the wrappings with which 
the body was covered, and the evident care and attention which had been bestowed on 
the whole arrangement.” 
Townsend (1839, pp. 255-256) records the visit to the cemetery as follows: 
“30th [September].—I visited to-day some cemeteries in the neighborhood of the fort, 
and obtained the skuils of four Indians. Some of the bodies were simply deposited in 
on stakes driven into the earth. In these instances it was not difficult to procure the 
eanoes, raised five or six feet from the ground, either in the forks of trees, or supported 
skulls without disarranging the fabric; but more frequently, they were nailed in boxes, 
or covered by a small canoe, which was turned bottom upwards, and placed in a larger 
one, and the whole covered by strips of bark, carefully arranged over them. It was then 
necessary to use the utmost caution in removing the covering, and also to be careful to 
leave every thing in the same state in which it was found.... 
“The corpses of the several different tribes which are buried here, are known by differ- 
ence in the structure of their canoes; and the sarcophagi of the chiefs from those of the 
common people, by the greater care which has been manifested in the arrangement of the 
tomb.” 
Considering that Townsend was acquainted with Gairdner (cf. pp. 229, 233), it is sur- 
prising that he makes no mention here of the latter’s visit to Comcomly’s grave. For 
that matter it is more surprising that he does not mention Comcomly. 
