572 ANNUAL REPORT SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, 1959 
With this explanation it should be clear that table 1 combines angles 
and ratios derived from figure 2 with whatever comparative data is 
supplied by Oetteking. Since the latter has confirmed Boas’s finding 
that within the Northwest coast complex of deformity types “Chi- 
nook” differs markedly from “Cowichan” and “Koskimo,” this table 
shows (1) that the Chinook tribe really practiced the general type of 
deformity thus designated, and (2) that the Chinook cradles did not 
mould the head uniformly. Of course, infants’ heads differ to begin 
with, and handmade cradles vary in their proportions and details, 
so it should come as no surprise that head flattening within a tribe 
varies In intensity. 
TaBLE 1.—Angles and ratios derived from the Klaatsch-Oetteking craniotrigonometric 
scheme (fig. 2) 
“Chinook” ranget 
Angle or ratio Com- | No. 462 No. 
comly 4473* 
Male Female 
a 
Degrees | Degrees | Degrees | Degrees | Degrees 
Central angle of Klaatsch__-_-_ 94 99 *101 93-105 | 93-107 
AnaleaVNin ons ee- eee sees 32 35 sak | | A HS ees 
ATI LORVIGB cee ae eee eae 82 93 278) ee a ae ee | eee 
ANGI; VSI ea". seen es oo ae 54 61 750! [oo o8 oe see 
Angle'of Gh; to BH’ ..2 222-22 11 19 fia: 7-18 8-19 
Angle‘of B Brito WH’-2 2222 83 79 £90 78-92 79-93 
Angle of NIB to/ Bil’ 2 Ness 22 28 23 $28 | 23-35 25-35 
Angle of BO to EE’_---___-- 13 1 t—2 |+14--—15 |+-7-—10 
Angle of NBr to EE’_______-_ 46 49 t44 40-55 38-53 
AnglerofG Bros’. 24-5 Se ile 10 {20 13-33 10-29 
Angle of OL to EE’_-____-_-- 118 103 $120 | 105-130 |102-123 
Frontal height ratio. ______-- 10. 8 ihik, ¢ ZO (5012. 
Parietal height ratio.______-- 29.9 20. 0 FOZ Ml | eee oe ae | See 
Occipital height ratio. ______- 28. 1 43.6 t2ANSNC 2 ae ee 
*Oetteking, 1930, fig. 1, p. 19 of text; an adult (?) female. 
{Oetteking, 1930, p. 78 of table of measurements; 58 males, 26 females (not all 
measurable). 
tOetteking, 1930, p. 76 of table of measurements. 
Table 2 adds many of the standard measurements and indices for 
Comcomly and No. 462 and includes, for comparison, Oetteking’s 
“Chinook” ranges. Both skulls fall within his male range, but No. 
462 tends to be in the lower part of this range. Indeed, were it not 
for the documentation and the evidence that Oetteking regarded many 
of his small skulls as males, I would be disposed to doubt the sex 
identification of No. 462. I have no such doubts regarding the sex 
of Comcomly’s skull. 
Does Comcomly’s skull tell anything about his age? Plates 3 and 
4 show that the joints between the bones of the vault (sutures) are 
still visible, but are bridged over in many places. Significantly, the 
