May 2 1, 1874J 



NA TURE 



47 



these is brachyccphalic, the other is dolichocephahc, but 

 they both present distinct traces of artficial distortion. 

 TJiis fact is conclusive." So says Dr. Davis. But con- 

 clusive of what? So far as I can see, it is simply 

 conclusive as to the fact that both skulls have been arti- 

 ficially distorted. He then quotes Professor Wymann, of 

 Boston, who, after an examination of the specimens 

 referred to by me, settles the question thus summarily : 

 "The upshot of the whole is, the crania do not confirm 

 Dr. Wilson's statement. One of Dr. Wilson's points — in 

 fact it is his chief point — is, that skulls are natural because 

 they are symmetrical ; and that it is ne.xt to impossible 

 that a distorted skull should be other than unsym- 

 metrical." 



The thing I find most conclusive in all this is, that 

 Dr. Davis and his correspondent both accredit me with 

 inferences or opinions of their own, utterly inconsistent 

 with my published views. So far am I from affirming 

 " skulls are natural because they are symmetrical," that 

 when my two critics have leisure to extend their reading 

 to pp. 500-512 of the volume they refer to (" Prehistoric 

 Man "), they will find many natural causes specified as 

 tending to modify and distort the human skull. They 

 will also find in the notes reference to papers in the 

 Canadian Journal, and elsewhere, in which various 

 aspects of this question have been repeatedly discussed. 

 Dr. Davis has, 1 believe, received copies of all of those 

 from myself ; but, at any rate, there is one which can 

 scarcely have escaped his attention — " On the Physical 

 Characteristics of the Ancient and Modern Celt." It was 

 published in the Canadian ypurnal in 1864, reprinted in 

 the Antli)Opoloi;ical 'Journal soon after, and became the 

 subject of a good deal of reference in the famous copy- 

 right action of "Pike v. Nicholas." In this the explicit 

 statement is repeated : "The normal human head may 

 be assumed to present a perfect correspondence in its two 

 hemispheres ; Ijut very slight investigation will suffice to 

 convince the observer thatyi'W //rvV/o examfilcs satisfy tlie 

 requirements of such a theoretical standard. Not only is 

 inequality in the two sides of frequent occurrence, but a 

 perfectly symmetrical liead is the exception rather than 

 the rule." There is no possibility of mistaking the 

 opinion thus expressed. It was published by me so long 

 ago as 1862 {Can. Journ. vii. 414), and is repeated in sub- 

 stance in the very work from which Drs. Davis and 

 Wymann profess to derive their absolutely contradictory 

 dictum as " one of Dr. Wilson's points — in fact his chief 

 point ! ' 



But over and above all this, in the previous paper 

 results derived from a careful study of eleven hundred 

 and four English and French head-forms arc set forth 

 with this conclusion : " It thus appears that the tendency 

 to unsymmctrical deformity is nearly as three to one ; and 

 that in the abnormal head the tendency towards excess 

 of development towards the left is upwards of two to 

 one." This tendency, it is further added, is more deci- 

 dedly manifest in the brachycephahc than in the doli- 

 chocephalic head (77V/. Anthropid. Journ. vol. iii. p. 82). 

 The views thus repeatedly set forth, and supported by 

 such proofs, are certainly not open to any charge of am- 

 biguity. It is somewhat amusing, therefore, to find two 

 such high authorities as Dr. Davis and his Boston cor- 

 respondent summarising the whole, in this off-hand 

 fashion, in a communication to a scientific body : " The 

 upshot of the whole is," that, according to Dr. Wilson, 

 " the skulls arc natural because they are symmetrical, and 

 that it is next to impossible that a distorted skull should 

 be other than unsymmctrical." 



By what process such opinions have been arrived at, 

 and then accredited to mc, 1 need not attempt to guess ; 

 but one thing unaccountably overlooked is the distinction 

 on which 1 insist, between undesigned natural deform- 

 ation, traceable to such simple causes as the one-sided 

 pressure of the mother's breast, of the cradle-board, <S:c., 



and purposed modifications of the head, such as those 

 practised at the present day among the Flatheads on the 

 Columbia river. Three points on which I have insisted, 

 not without evidence in their support, are : That the 

 shape of the human head may not only be designedly 

 altered by artificial means ; but that it is much more fre- 

 quently modified undesignedly, and rendered strikingly 

 unsymmetrical, in infancy ; while a third source, that 

 of posthumous distortion, has also to be kept in view. 



So far as to the general question. The specific one 

 sought to be determined is the universality of a brachy- 

 cephahc Peruvian type of head ; or, as I have asserted, 

 the occurrence of well-defined dolichocephalic heads in 

 ancient Peruvian cemeteries. Dr. Davis informs the 

 Anthropological Institute that my view was combated by 

 him in his "Thesaurus Craniorum" (1867), and indeed it 

 is with a view to the substantiation of "the criticisms of 

 Dr. Wilson's statements in the ' Thesaurus,' " p. 246, that 

 Dr. Wymann's " upshot of the whole" is produced. As 

 one of the subscribers to Dr. Davis's valuable Catalogue, 

 as well as a contributor to his collection of crania, I am 

 familiar with the work, and with the pages specially set 

 apart for my correction. I have had it, indeed, for years in 

 my possession, without thinking that it needed refutation. 

 I recommend any readers interested in the question to 

 turn to the aforesaid p. 246, and read the curious narra- 

 tive of Dr. Davis's conversion, in consequence of the 

 receipt of a " skull next to unique in Europe," which be- 

 longs to " the long-headed race " of Peruvians, but yet is 

 decidedly not long, or only long-headed " in a conven- 

 tional sense," whatever that may mean. 



I still believe it to be a fact, confirmed by my exami- 

 nation of examples referred to, that there is a well-defined 

 dolichocephalic type of Peruvian cranium, although a 

 brachycephahc type is the prevalent one. I have on 

 three different occasions visited Philadelphia with the 

 express object of studying the Morton collection there. 

 One result has been to lead me to form a clear idea as to 

 the source of Dr. Morton's later views. He had asserted 

 the predominance of one uniform cranial type throughout 

 the New World. " The long-headed Peruvians " were a 

 disturbing element in this otherwise universal law. When 

 therefore he turned to the examples in his own collection, 

 and detected evidence of malformation by art in skulls 

 which he had previously recognised as exceptions to his 

 comprehensive theory, he welcomed the conclusion it 

 suggested to his mind " that all these variously formed 

 heads were originally of the same rounded shape." Dr. 

 Davis informs us that he has obtained two Peruvian 

 skulls formerly in Dr. Morton's collection, "a specimen of 

 each kind," i.e. I presume, an occipitally flattened, and 

 an elongated skull, both of the prevalent brachycephahc 

 type. He has also the Titicaca skull already referred to, 

 long, and yet not long, except " in a conventional sense." 

 Possibly both Dr. Morton's and Dr. Davis's views are 

 correct deductions from such premisses. 



If a skull of the brachycephahc type, common to many 

 American tribes (such as the Peruvian skull figured by 

 Prof. Busk, vol.iii.pl. 7, "Journ. Anthropol. Inst."), is 

 subjected to extreme depression of the frontal bone, with 

 corresponding affection of the parieto-occipital region by 

 the action of the cradle-board, such a form results as is 

 shown in Fig. 78, p. 245, of Dr. Davis's " Thesaurus Crani- 

 orum." Examples of this are not rare. Here, if the 

 length is measured from the projecting base of the frontal 

 bone, immediately above the nasal suture, to the extreme 

 posterior point, that will fall, rot on the occipital bone, 

 but nearly mid- way between the lamboidal and coronal 

 sutures. Such a measurement is the actual extreme 

 length of the modified skull ; but if it is accepted as the 

 I true longitudinal diameter, without reference to the dis- 

 placement of the points of measurement in the normal 

 , head, it is manifestly deceptive. It is, in fact, nearly 

 I equivalent to the substitution of the diagonal of a 



