Source: American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 39, No. 4, Part 1 (Oct. - Dec., 1937), pp. 720-721 Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the American Anthropological Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/662450 . Accessed: 19/04/2011 10:33 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. Blackwell Publishing and American Anthropological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Anthropologist. http://www.jstor.org DISCUSSION AND CORRESPONDENCE CRANIAL DEFORMITY IN THE PUEBLO AREA In the January-March issue of this journal, T. D. Stewart' has pointed out certain peculiarities of the cranial deformation found in the skulls from the Lowry Ruins.2 According to him, this deformation is of the "lambdoid," not of the "oc- cipital" type. Different from the flattening found in skulls from Pecos Pueblo, it resembles closely that found in the Chaco Canyon. Thus, the cranial deformation "fits in with the cultural evidence." It is always gratifying to learn that one's description has enabled others inde- pendently to draw conclusions about matters beyond the scope of his original text. For the problem foremost in the writer's mind was that of the racial affinities of the people inhabiting the Lowry area. This he has tried to solve as best he could by "the more spectacular methods of the Pearsonian school," to quote Stewart once more. Next to racial affinities, however, cranial deformation did intrigue the writer and he discussed its mechanical aspects and its influence on the size of the brain on pp. 166-74. But following Stewart's suggestions, we find that the flattening of the Lowry skulls (as stated in the report, all of them were deformed, but only five were sufficiently well preserved for a detailed examination) does not entirely cor- respond to Hooton's description of "lambdoid ' deformation in his report on the Pecos Pueblo.3 Hooton in fact said: "In most instances ... [it] is certainly not caused by artificial deformation. . . . It can be seen in many crania from European and non-European peoples of the present day. It is especially noticeable in the skulls of Armenoids and Finns" (p. 38). Hooton further states that the flattened area forms an angle of about 350-45' with the Frankfurt plane. The deformation of the Lowry skulls appeared to the writer to correspond better to Hooton's occipital flattening. A comparison of Lowry skull No. 47,619 with the Pecos Pueblo skulls Nos. 59,911, or 60,076 will make this clear. But since this flattening does not affect the occipital bone as much as the region above it, and since the term "lamb- doid deformation" had already been used, "obelionic flattening" appeared best to differentiate the Lowry type from the true occipital flattening as shown, e.g. by Pecos Pueblo No. 60,320. If the obelion is marked on the contours of the Lowry skulls, it will be seen that it is closer to the center of the flattened area than the lambda. With the few skulls at the writer's disposal he did not feel justified in going deeper into an analysis of cranial deformation than he actually did. In explaining 1 Different Types of Cranial Deformity in the Pueblo Area (American Anthropologist, Vol. 39, pp. 169-71, 1937). 2 Paul S. Martin, Lowry Ruin in Southwestern Colorado; Masonry of Lowry Ruin and of the Southwest, by Lawrence Roys; Skeletal Material from the Lowry Area, by Gerhardt von Bonin (Anthropological Series, Field Museum of Natural History, Vol. 23, No. 1, 1936). a E. A. Hooton, The Indians of Pecos Pueblo, A Study of Their Skeletal Remains (New Haven, 1930). 720 DISCUSSION AND CORRESPONDENCE 721 it by the action of a cradleboard, he did feel uncomfortable, for, as Stewart rightly remarks, the obelion is "rather high." I am grateful to Dr Stewart for having called the attention of anthropologists to an interesting point which had escaped my notice. It should be clearly under- stood, however, that such morphological observations will shed no light on problems of racial affinities, nor can it be said that the various types of artificial flattening have been defined in an entirely satisfactory way. Obviously, we are in need of further data and more detailed methods of analysis. The promised report by Stewart on the human remains from Chaco Canyon will be eagerly awaited. In the meantime, Dr Stewart deserves our gratitude for having shown how fruitful a cooperation between cultural and physical anthropology can be. G. VON BONIN UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS CHICAGO, ILLINOIS MAMMOTH OR "STIFF-LEGGED BEAR" In consequence of Dr W. D. Strong's paper on North American Traditions Sug- gesting a Knowledge of the Mammoth,' Dr F. G. Speck2 and Dr T. Michelson3 have discussed other versions of the myth'among the Montagnais, Naskapi, Cree, Ojibwa, and Penobscot. Dr Strong considers the Naskapi monster Katcheetohfiskw as reminiscent of the mammoth, because of his elephantine size, large ears, and man- eating tendencies. Drs Speck and Michelson cite versions among the Naskapi, Cree, and Montagnais showing that the monster was referable to the Ursidae. He is described as a "stiff-jointed bear of very large size, being man-eating, and having a head and ears like a bear." Both Speck and Michelson agree that the monster bear is purely mythical, and not reminiscent of the mammoth or mastodon. How- ever, the three writers do not attempt an explanation of the tale in terms of aboriginal beliefs. In the course of field work4 last summer among the Penobscot Indians of Maine, the underlying concept of the whole series of myths seemingly became apparent. One of my Penobscot informants, Andrew Dana,5 dictated his grandfather's version of the myth. A synopsis of this is given in translation below. The correct Penobscot term for the monster is Wa'skwekkehs (called by my in- formant the "Great Hairless Bear"), which I have been unable to annalyze satis- factorily.6 1 American Anthropologist, Vol. 36, pp. 81-84, 1934. 2 Ibid., Vol. 37, pp. 159-63, 1935. 3 Ibid., Vol. 38, pp. 141-43, 1936. 4 I am indebted to Professor Edward Sapir and Dr Morris Swadesh of Yale University for encouragement in this work. 5 His knowledge of Penobscot culture was obtained largely from his grandfather, Frank Dana (1845-1924), a Penobscot of the old school. I Wa)skwekkehs is the shortened form of original *wa'skwekkehso; the dropping of the final vowel being the result of the change of an appellative into a proper or personal name.
(The American Ethnological Society, Monograph 43) June Helm, Jacob Gruber, Nancy Oestreich Lurie, Ross Parmenter, Ronald P. Rohner - Pioneers of American Anthropology - The Us