^ ANTHROPOLOGY 4»1^^^^^ A CONTRTBTTTTONf TO SAMOAN SOMATOLOGY Memoirs of the Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum Volume VIII \' umber 2 WITT! l'.A\ \!'t ' UU^ii^ ' . i \!'l-:i)iTI« ;.\ PuBUCATioN Number i ^^um^mmm^.^^mm^^m j''»^ t^Myss-vvii^'^iWA., Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2008 with funding from IVIicrosoft Corporation http://www.archive.org/details/contributiontosaOOsullrich A CONTRIBUTION TO SAMOAN SOMATOLOGY By Louis R./Sullivan BASED ON THE FIELD STUDIES OF E. W. GIFFORD AND W. C. MCKERN Memoirs of the Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum Volume VIII — Number 2 WITH PLATES XXV-XXX BAYARD DOMINICK EXPEDITION Publication Number i honolulu, hawaii Bishop Museum Press 1921 \ A CONTRIBUTION TO SAMOAN SOMATOLOGY By LOUIS R. SULLIVAN Based on the field studies of E. W. Gifford and W. C. McKern. INTRODUCTION THE determination of the physical characters and of the racial affinities of the Polynesians is an essential part of the program of the Bayard Dominick Expedition. Through a cooperative arrangement between The American Museum of Natural History and the Bishop Museum this phase of the work, includ- ing detailed plans for field investigation and the analysis of results, has been placed in my hands. To insure uniformity of technique and consequent comparability of results, methods of taking measurements and of recording descriptive observations have been discussed with members of the Expedition, and so far as practicable actual field practice has been given imder my direction. The present paper is based on field studies made by E. W. Gifford and W. C. McKern while en route to the Tonga Islands. These men spent some time with me in Honolulu gaining familiarity with modern anthropometric methods, and T feel the greatest confidence in the care and accuracy with which their obser- vations have been recorded. The photographs were taken by Mr. Giflford and Mr. McKern; the necessarv mathematical computation including calculation of the indices were nerformed bv niv wife. Bessie P. Sullivan, and checked by me; and in the field Mrs. Delila S. Gifford rendered valuable assistance. The Museum acknowledges the cordial cooperation of Mr. R. W. Tate, Administrator of Western Samoa, of the officers of the Medical Department and the Department of Native Affairs, and of the Police. Although the series is too small to permit detailed statistical analyses and inadequate as a bases for generalization, the present great dearth of somatological data from the Polynesian culture area makes this material a welcome and important contribution. The data furnished by Giflford and McKern consists of body, head, and face measurements, accompanied by descriptive details of lOO natives of the Islands of Savaii and Upolu of the Samoan group. By nativitv the persons measured rep- resent nearly the entire coastal region of these two islands. Of the lOO measure- ments 7 were discarded because of admitted intermixtvire with European and Melanesian peoples or because of immaturitv. Of the 93 remaining adults who claimed to be full Samoan, 70 are male and 23 female. It is possible or even probable that several others are not full Samoan, but this can not be demonstrated stati'-ticallv. Types of full-blood and half-blood Samoans are shown in Plates xxv-xxx t3l sssi ANTHROP, 770 82 Memoirs Bernice P. Bishop Museum CHARACTERS NOT QUANTITATIVELY MEASURABLE Skin Color Skin color is very difficult to record accurately even with the help of color standards, all of which are admittedly inadequate. At the time this work was undertaken, von Luschan's "Hautfarben-Tafel," which is the most practical standard in use at present, was not available. Fritsch's standard, which is much less permanent and entirely impractical for field work, was therefore used, and the results were translated as nearly as possible into terms of von Luschan's scale. The observations were made in two places — an unexposed portion of the skin, preferably the inner side of the upper arm, and an exposed place, uniformly the cheek just below the zyomatic arches. For the unexposed skin the color ranges from number lo to number 24 of von Luschan's scale, numbers 14, 15, and 16 predominate. In the women the shades run about one degree lighter and num- bers 13, 14, and 15 predominate. For the exposed skin of the men numbers 15, 16. 17, or 18 predominate. Again, the color of the women runs about one shade lighter, in most being number 14, 15, or 16. In terms of black and white the color ranges from very light flesh yellow to deep brown. A slightly yellowish medium brown predominates. Hair For hair form the following choice of adjectives was made: straight, low waves, deep waves, curly, frizzly, woolly. It was agreed not to judge by the general eflfect, but to examine individual hairs. In addition hair samples were collected and the results checked up in the laboratorv. The conception of the various terms agreed upon correspond to the following letters in Martin's Schema der Haarform, ("Lehrbuch der Anthropologic," fig. 52, page 189): straight=a, b, c; low waves=d; deep waves=e; curly==f; frizzly no equal, but refers to the fine deep waves so common where intermixture with woolly-haired people has taken place : woolly = g, h, i ; tufted or spiral = k, 1. • The chief diflferences are due to the fact that our classification was not so minute as Martin's and that we distinguished between fine straight hair and wavy hair. The results are shown in Table I. The choice of terms for hair color was black, dark brown, reddish brown, light brown, blond, golden, red, gray. Attention was given to the prevalence of customs of artificial bleaching The results show that the practice of bleaching the hair with lime is still in vogue to some extent. The details are given in Table IT. I4I Sullivan — Samoan Somatology 83 TABLE I- HAIR FORM Male Female Number Per Number Per persons cent persons cent Straight 38 55.1 11 47.8 Low waves 19 27.5 9 39.1 Deep waves 7 10.1 2 8.8 Curly 4 5.8 .0 Frizzly 1 1.4 1 4.3 Woolly .0 .0 Total 69 23 TABLE II. HAIR COLOR Male Female Number Per Number Per persons cent persons cent Black 64 91.4 13 56.9 Dark brown.... 3(2)^ 4.3(2.8) 2(4) 8.8(17.4) Reddi.sh brown.... .0 0(3) .0(13.0) Light brown.... 0(1) .0(1.4) 0(1) .0( 4.3) Blond .0 .0 Golden .0 .0 Red .0 .0 Gray .0 .0 .0 Total 70 23 The amount and distribution of the beard was carefully noted. The choice of terminology was : none, scant, medium, heavy. The beard was considered as divided into three parts: upper cheek (from the hair line to an imaginary line bisecting the angle of the mandible), lower cheek (from the point where the imagi- nary line bisects the angle of the mandible to a point immediately below the corner of the mouth), and the chin. The observations resulted as follows: TABLE III. BEARD : UPPER CHEEK- None 7 Scant 32 Medium 22 Heavy 8 -MALES ONLY. Number Per persons cent 10.1 46.3 31.9 11.5 Total 69 TABLE IV. BEARD : LOWER CHEEK — MALES ONLY. Number Per persons cent None 10 14.5 Scant 30 43.3 Medium 16 23.2 Heavy 13 18.8 Total 69 TABLE V. beard: chin — MALES ONLY. Number persons None 00 Scant 16 Medium 19 Heavy 34 Total 69 Per cent .0 23.2 27.5 49.2 TABLE VI. HAIR ON CHEST — MALES ONLY. Number Per persons cent None 40 59.7 Scant 15 22.3 Medium 10 14.9 Heavy 2 3.0 Total 67 TABLE VII. HAIR ON FOREARM — MALES ONLY Number Per persons cent None 2 3.0 Scant 13 19.1 Mediiun 24 35.3 Heavy 29 42.6 Total 68 TABLE VIII. HAIR ON LEGS — MALES ONLY. Number Per persons cent None .0 Scant 5 7.2 Medium 29 42.0 Heavy 35 50.7 Total 69 * The figures in parentheses show the numbers and averages for lime-bleached hair. [5] 84 Memoirs Bernice P. Bishop Museum Eye The following descriptive terms were used for eye color : black, dark brown, light brown, blue, gray, blue-brown, gray-brown. Black was used for the very heavily pigmented brown eye which on casual examination appears black. Blue- brown and gray-brown were employed to designate those very light brown eyes which are often termed green or hazel. The basic color is either a blue or a gray with a discontinuous distribution of brown pigment either radiating from around the pupil or distributed in specks throughout the iris. TABLE IX. EYE COLOR. Male Female Number Per Number Per persons cent persons cent Black 2 2.9 3 13.0 Dark brown 67 97.1 19 82.6 Light brown .0 1 4.3 Blue .0 .0 Gray .0 .0 Blue-brown .0 .0 Gray-brown .0 .0 Total 69 2Z The terminology used to designate the condition of the conjunctiva was clear, speckled, yellow, dull, blood-shot. It was found, however, that with the exception of "clear" all the other terms might sometimes be applied to a single eye. For this reason the data have been tabulated under two heads only, "clear," and "unclear," unclear including speckled, yellow, and dull muddy eyes. "Blood-shot" was not represented. TABLE X. CONDITION OF CONJUNCTIVA Male Female Number Per Number Per persons cent persons cent Clear 16 23.5 10 45.4 Unclear 52 76.5 12 54.6 Total 68 22 TABLE XI. THE MONGOLOID OR EPICANTHIC EYE FOLD Male Female Number Per Number Per persons cent persons cent Absent 47 68.1 11 47.8 Trace 19 27.5 10 43.4 Medium 2 2.8 2 8.8 Marked 1 1.4 .0 Total 69 23 Nose The elevation of the nasal bridge from the face was estimated in terms of low, medium or high. The European nose was the conception of high. As a rule the contour of the nostrils in man is nearly oval. The method adopted in describ- ing the nostrils is based on an imaginary long axis through the oval and its orien- tation in relation to the facial plane. In most Europeans the long axes of the nos- trils point directly forward in an antero-posterior direction from the facial plane [6] Stillivan — Sam oan Somatology 85 (fig. 1, A). In negroes the long axis runs parallel to the plane of the face in a transverse direction (fig. i, C). In mongoloid peoples the axes point obliquely forward (fig. i, B). A ^ B C FIGURE I. Types of nostrils: A, antero-posterior ; B, oblique; C, transverse. TABLE XII. NASAL BRIDGE Male Female Number Per Number Per persons cent persons cent Low 15 21.4 13 56.9 Medium 45 64.3 9 39.1 High 10 14.3 1 4.3 Total 70 23 TABLE XIII. DIRECTION OF THE LONG AXIS OP THE NOSTRILS Male Female Number Per Number Per persons cent persons cent Antero-posterior.. 2 2.9 .0 Oblique 39 57.3 9 39.1 Transverse 27 39.7 14 60.9 Total 69 23 Ear The terminology used for the ear lobe was: none, small separate, small attached, large separate, large attached. The distribution follows: TABLE XIV. EAR LOBE Male Female Number Per Number Per persons cent persons cent None .. 7 10.4 .0 Small separate . ... 26 38.8 6 26.1 Small attached . .. 23 34.3 13 56.5 Large separate . ... 10 14.9 3 13.0 Large attached . 1 1.4 1 4.3 Total ... 67 23 The extent of the roll of the helix of the ear was noted. The helix was roughly divided into three parts designated as the first-third, the second-third, and the total helix. The first-third refers to that portion of the helix terminating in the vicinity of the superaurale, the second-third extends from this point to a point just below the ix)sition of the tuberculare. [7] 86 Memoirs Bernice P. Bishop Museum TABLE XV. ROLL OF THE HELIX Male Female Number Per Number Per persons Helix flat Helix rolled thru first-third 13 Helix rolled thru second-third -.. 30 Helix rolled thru entire 24 Total 67 cent .0 persons . cent .0 19.4 11 47.8 44.7 7 30.4 35.8 5 21.7 TABLE XVL DARWIN S TUBERCLE Male Number Per persons cent Absent 53 81.5 Present 12 18.4 Total 65 23 (Only well-marked tubercles were recorded.) Female Number persons 18 5 23 Per cent 78.2 21.7 Teeth The upper incisor teeth were examined for the purpose of noting the pres- ence or absence of that type which Hrdhcka has aptly described as "shovel-shaped." The peculiarity referred to is located on the lingual surface of the upper incisor teeth. An upgrowth from the cingulum branches near the gingival border and extends along the lateral and mesial border of the tooth, forming a rim and leaving a concavity or depression in the lingual surface. The lingual surface of such a tooth presents an appearance not vmlike that of a coal shovel. Examples of this type of tooth are most often found in American Indians, Malays, Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, and other Mongoloid types. TABLE XVn. SHOVEL-SHAPED UPPER INCISORS MESIAL INCISORS Male Female Number Per persons cent Absent 45 68.2 Trace 17 25.7 Marked 4 6.0 Total 66 21 Number Per persons cent 16 76.2 3 14.3 2 9.5 LATERAL INCISORS Male Number Per persons cent Absent 33 51.5 Trace 22 34.3 Marked 9 14.1 Total 64 Female Number Per persons cent 12 57.1 5 23.8 4 19.0 21 TABLE XVIII. SLOPE OF THE FOREHEAD Male Female Number Per Number persons cent persons Vertical 29 40.0 18 Moderate slope.... 41 58.5 3 Low 1 1.5 Total 71 21 Per cent 85.7 14.3 TABLE XIX. DEVELOPMENT OF THE GLABELLA Male Female Number Per Number Per persons cent persons cent Smooth 20 29.4 23 100.0 Medium 38 55.8 .0 Prominent 10 14.7 .0 Total 68 23 [8] Sullivan — Samoan Somatology 87 TABLE XX. THICKNESS OF THE LIPS Male Female Number Per Number Per persons cent persons cent Thin .0 1 4.3 Medium 65 92.8 21 91.4 Thick 5 7.1 1 4.3 Total 70 23 TABLE XXI. PROCXATHISM — UPPER FACIAL PROFILE Male Female Number Per Number Per persons cent persons cent None 38 56.7 16 69.6 Slight 16 23.8 3 13.0 Medium 12 17.8 4 17.4 Marked 1 1.4 .0 Total 67 23 ABSOLUTE MEASUREMENTS TABLE XXII STATURE (without SHOES) Number Centimeters i\ UlUUCI male 155 .... 6 .... 7 8 .... 9 .... 160 1 2 4 3 4 1 165 3 6 6 7 5 8 1 9 6 170 1 1 4 2 6 3 6 4 4 175 4 6 6 7 2 8 3 9 2 180 2 1 2 2 3 4 1 Male Total 69 Average .... 171.7 S.D 5.25 E 0.63 \'. in per cent 3.05 Number female 2 2 1 2 1 4 1 5 1 2 1 1 Female 23 161.2 4.92 1.02 3.05 table xxiii maximum head length (glabella-opisthocranium) ,,-„■_ . Number Number Millimeters ^^j^ j^^^,^ 173 .... 1 4 1 1 3 1 175 6 7 1 8 9 180 1 1 2 1 3 2 4 2 185 5 6 4 7 3 8 3 9 5 190 5- 1 4 2 3 3 7 4 4 195 4 6 5 7 1 8 3 9 1 200 1 1 2 3 1 4 205 1 Male Total 68 .•\verage .... 190.6 S.D 5.69 E 69 V. in per cent 2.98 [9] 2 4 2 2 2 2 1 1 Female 23 183.0 5.22 1.08 2.85 table XXIV MAXIMUM HEAD WIDTH Millimeters 140 1 2 3 4 145 6 7 8 9 150 1 2 3 4 155 6 7 8 9 160 1 2 3 4 165 6 7 8 9 Male Total 68 Average 154.8 S.D 4.46 E 54 V. in per cent .. 2.88 Number Number male female .... 1 1 1 2 1 2 4 1 5 3 2 2 4 2 2 1 2 7 1 5 1 8 1 5 9 1 5 3 .... 3 3 .... 1 .... .... 1 1 .... Female 23 148.1 3.87 .80 2.61 88 Memoirs Bernicc P. Bishop Museum TABLE XXV MINIMUM FRONTAL Millimeters Number male 90 1 . 1 1 2 2 3 2 4 1 95 2 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 3 100 5 1 5 2 5 3 2 4 4 — 105 3 6 6 7 7 . 8 4 9 1 — 110 3 11 4 12 13 1 14 2 lis 16 17 18 1 19 Number female Male Total 68 Average 103.4 S.D 5.98 E 72 V. in per cent 5.78 2 1 2 1 1 3 1 2 3 3 1 2 1 Female 23 101.5 3.96 .82 3.90 t.kcle xxvi maximum face width (bizvgomatic diameter) Millimeters iNumoer male 130 1 2 3 4 .... 135 6 1 7 1 8 5 9 2 140 3 1 4 2 2 3 5 4 6 145 7 6 5 7 4 8 6 9 150 3 1 5 2 1 3 3 4 1 155 6 3 7 8 1 9 1 Male Total 69 Average .... 145.9 S.D 5.23 E 63 Y. in per cent 3.59 Number female 1 3 3 1 1 4 1 3 1 2 2 Female 23 136.5 3.79 .79 2.77 TABLE XXVII BIGONIAL DIAMETER Millimeters iNumoer male AuniDcr female 89 .... 1 90 1 2 "i 1 3 4 1 1 95 1 6 3 1 7 1 3 8 5 9 4 2 100 5 5 1 4 2 2 2 2 ■ 3 4 1 4 2 1 105 4 2 6 8 7 4 8 4 9 3 .... 110 4 11 12 3 13 14 1 .... 115 1 16 1 17 1 18 19 .... 120 1 1 2 3 1 4 .... .Male Female Total 67 23 Average .— 104.6 99.0 S.D 5.13 3.93 E 62 .82 V. in per cent 4.90 3.96 [lO] Sullivan — Samoan Somatology 89 tadle xxviii. anatomical face height (nasion to gnathion) ,,.,,. . Number Millimeters „,^,^ Number female 110 1 11 1 12 13 14 ... 1 115 1 1 16 3 17 18 1 2 19 1 120 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 4 4 1 125 3 6 5 7 2 8 1 9 4 130 2 1 5 2 3 3 5 1 4 3 135 5 1 6 6 7 2 8 1 9 p .... 140 2 1 2 .... 2 2 3 2 4 145 1 Male Female Total 69 23 Average 131.1 121.1 S.D 6.56 .79 6.41 E. 1.33 V. in per cent 5.00 5.30 TABLE XXIX. 1 MOSE HEIGHT (nasion to subnasale) Number Number limeters male female 45 1 6 7 8 1 9 1 50 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 1 4 4 1 2 55 3 2 6 2 2 7 4 8. 10 9 7 2 60 11 1 1 10 1 2 5 2 3 4 65 6 7 8 9 2 2 3 2 2 1 Male Female Total 69 23 Average 59.8 54.3 S.D 3.64 4.53 E 43 .94 V. in per cent 6.09 8.34 [ 11 1 90 Memoirs Bernice P. Bishop Museum TABLE XXX NASAL WIDTH (MAXIMUM DISTAl) i..;„;^„j^„ Number Number Millimeters ^^^^ j^^^,^ 34 .... 1 35 6 7 8 9 40 1 2 3 4 45 6 7 8 9 50 1 1 5 6 9 12 9 9 7 3 3 3 Male Total 69 Average 43.8 S.D 2.59 E 31 V. in per cent 5.91 1 9 4 3 1 3 1 Female 23 41.2 2.56 .90 6.21 TARLE XXXI EAR HEIGHT (maximum TOT.VL) Number male Millimeters 55 6 7 8 9 60 1 2 3 4 65 6 7 8 9 70 1 2 3 4 1 1 1 2 3 5 6 5 9 5 5 2 7 8 2 3 2 75 6 2 Male Total 69 Average 66.1 S.D 4.23 E 50 V. in per cent 6.39 Number female 1 1 1 7 3 1 1 3 2 1 2 Female 23 61.2 3.33 .69 5.44 TABLE XXXII EAR WIDTH (maximum) Millimeters Number male Number female 29 1 .... 30 3 1 1 5 3 2 5 3 8 5 4 13 1 35 8 4 6 9 1 7 7 1 8 6 1 9 1 1 40 5 1 1 2 1 3 4 .... .... Male Female Total 68 23 .A.verage .... 35.2 33.6 S.D 2.76 2.30 E 33 .48 V. in per cent 7.84 6.84 [12] Sullivan — Sam oan Som at ology 91 INDICES AND PROPORTIONS Head Indices TABLE XXXIII CEPHALIC OR LENGTH-BREADTH INDEX Index 74 2 Number male Number female 75 6 7 8 9 80 1 2 3 4 85 6 7 8 9 2 1 6 7 11 7 9 5 4 5 3 4 2 3 1 4 3 4 4 2 1 1 Male Total 68 Average 81.3 S.D 3.53 E .42 V. in per cent 4.34 Female 23 80.8 2.98 .62 3.68 TABLE XXXIV TRANSVERSE FRONTO-PARIETAL INDEX ( Minimum frontal x 100 ) ( Maximum head width ) Number Number Index male female 55 6 7 i ■*— 8 1 .... 9 1 .... 60 3 1 2 1 3 5 i' 4 6 65 5 2 6 6 4 7 7 2 8 9 3 9 11 2 70 3 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 4 2 2 Male Female Total 68 23 Average 66.8 68.8 S.D 3.30 3.12 E 40 .65 V. in per cent 4.94 4.54 [13] 92 Memoirs Bernice P. Bishop Museum Face Indices TABLE XXXV CEPHALO-FACIAL INDEX ( maximum face width x ICK) ) ( maximum head Number Index male 85 6 1 7 8 2 9 1 90 1 1 4 2 8 3 10 4 12 95 8 6 7 7 7 8 3 9 2 100 1 1 2 1 3 4 .... width ) Male Total 68 Average 94.2 S.D 2.84 E 34 V. in per cent 3.01 Number female 1 2 4 2 5 2 2 1 2 1 1 Female 23 92.4 2.63 .54 2.84 TABLE XXXVI ,TUGO-M.A.NDIBULAR INDEX ( bigonial diameter x 100 ) TABLE XXXVII JUGO-FRONTAL INDEX (minimum frontal diameterxlOO) ( maximum face width ) ( maximum face width ) Number Number Number Number Index male female Index male female 60 60 1 1 2 1 .... 2 "i 3 .... 3 1 4 1 4 2 .... 65 2 65 1 6 1 6 3 .... 7 3 2 7 2 .... 8 7 4 8 6 9 4 1 9 6 i 70 3 70 7 3 1 8 2 1 9 1 2 11 1 2 3 3 7 2 3 10 3 4 4 4 8 S 75 5 5 75 ~5 3 6 3 5 6 1 2 7 2 7 8 ■ 2 1 8 2 2 9 2 9 1 80 80 2 1 1 .... 2 1 2 1 3 3 .... .... 4 .... 4 .... .... Male •"emale Male Female Total 67 2Z Total 68 23 Average .... 71.7 72.5 .\verage .... 70.9 74.5 S.D. 3.84 3.50 .73 S.D 3.55 3.34 E 46 E 43 .69 V. in per cent 5.42 4.83 V. in per cent 5.01 4.49 [ 14] Sullivan — Samoan Somatology 93 TABLB XXXVIII table XXXIX ANATOMICAL FACIAL INDEX | NASAL INDEX (garson) ( anatomical face height x lOO ) Index Number male ( maximum face width ) 60 T„, 6 4 ii 7 6 2 8 7 2 9 1 1 — ~ 60 1 C 1 1 G 2 1 1 3 4 .... 65 6 7 8 9 .... 70 1 1 .... .... 2 3 .... 4 .... .... Male Female Total 68 23 .'\verage .... 53.3 54.9 S.D 3.79 .46 4.53 E .94 V. in per cent 7.11 8.25 94 Memoirs Bernice P. Bishop Museum SUMMARY OF SOMATOLOGICAL CHARACTERS OF SAMOANS Table XLI. Characters Not Quantitatively Measurable CHARACTER Skin color (Unexposed part) Hair form MALE Hair color FEMALE Medium yellowish-brown Medium yellowish brown von Luschan's Nos. 14, 15, 16. von Luschan's Nos. 13, 14, 15. Straight 55.1% Low waves 27.5% Straight 47.8% Low waves 39.1% Black 91.4 Black 56.9, dark brown 8.8 34.7% bleached Amount of beard : Upper cheek Lower cheek Chin Scant 46.3, medium 31.9 Scant 43.3, medium 23.2 Medium 27.5, heavy 49.2 Amount of hair : Chest Forearm Leg Eye color Conjunctiva Epicanthic eye fold None 59.7, scant 22.3 Medium 35.3, heavy 42.6 Medium 42.0, heavy 50.7 Dark brown 97. 1 Black 13.0, dark brown 82.6 Speckled, yellowish 76.5 Speckled, yellowish 54.6 Absent 68.1, trace 27.5 Absent 47.8, trace 43.4 Nasal bridge Medium height 64.3 Low 56.9, medium 39.1 Long axes of nostrils Oblique 57.3, transverse 39.7 Oblique 39.1, transverse 60.9 Slope of forehead Vertical 40.0 Moderate slope 58.5 Vertical 85.7 Development of glabella Medium 55.8 Smooth 100.0 Lips : thickness Medium 92.8 Medium 91.4 Prognathism None 56.7, slight 23.8 None 69.6, slight 13.0 Ear-lobe Small : separate 38.8, Attached 34.3 Small: separate 26.1, Attached 56.5 Helix rolled Two-thirds 44.7 Total 35.8 First-third 47.8 Two-thirds 30.4 Shovel-shaped incisor Tooth: Upper mesials Upper laterals Absent 68.2, trace 25.7 Absent 51.5, trace 34.3 Absent 76.2, trace 14.3 Absent 57.1, trace 23.8 [i6] Sullivan — Samoan Somatology 95 Table XLII. Anthropometric Characters MALE 67 TO 70 PERSONS FEMALE 20 TO 23 PERSONS Character Average E. S.D. v. in % Average E. S.D. V. in % Stature (cm.) 171.7 .63 5.25 3.05 161.2 1.02 4.92 3.05 Head lenj^^th (mm.) 190.6 .69 5.69 2.98 183.0 1.08 5.22 2.85 Head width 154.8 .54 4.46 2.88 148.1 .80 3.87 2.61 Miniimini frontal diameter 103.4 .72 5.98 5.78 101.5 .82 3.96 3.90 Maximum face width 145.9 .63 5.23 3.59 136.5 .79 3.79 2.77 Bigonial diameter 104.6 .62 5.13 4.90 99.0 .82 3.93 3.96 Anatomical face height 131.1 .79 6.56 5.00 121.1 1.33 6.41 5.30 Nose height 59.8 .43 3.64 6.09 54.3 .94 4.53 8.34 Nose width 43.8 .31 2.59 5.91 41.2 .90 2.56 6.21 Ear height 66.1 .50 4.23 6.39 61.2 .69 Z.2,2, 5.44 Ear width 35.2 .33 2.76 7.84 33.6 .48 2.30 6.84 CephaHc index 81.3 .42 3.53 4.34 80.8 .62 2.98 3.68 Fronto-parietal index 66.8 .40 3.30 4.94 68.8 .65 3.12 4.54 Cepiialo- facial index 94.2 .34 2.84 3.01 92.4 .54 2.63 2.84 Jugo-mandibular index 71.7 .46 3.84 5.42 72.5 .72, 3.50 4.83 Jugo-frontal index 70.9 .43 3.55 5.01 74.5 .69 3.34 4.49 Anatomical face index 89.9 .59 4.87 5.42 89.8 1.05 5.03 5.60 Nasal index 73.6 .70 5.86 7.96 76.3 1.66 7.99 10.47 Physiognomic ear index 53.3 .46 3.79 7.11 54.9 .94 4.53 8.25 DISCUSSION The results speak for themselves and need little discussion. Attention should be called to the fact that the average anatomical face height and the average nasal height as given in these tables stand very high in the total range for these two measurements. In fact they are among the very highest values so far recorded. As we have no comparative data on this matter and as these two dimensions are diffi- cult to take, the results should be regarded as merely tentative. While it is obvious that the Polynesians have massive faces, it is not so obvious that they exceed all other peoples in these measurements. Although I have every confidence in the accuracy of these measurements as a whole, I am convinced from my own experience that when dealing with anatomical face height and nasal height a generous allow- ance must be made for individual differences in technique. The nasion is particu- larly hard to locate if the nasal bridge is low. As the amount of fleshy tissue on the chin varies considerably in different persons, the same degree of pressure may yield quite different results. Furthermore when taking face height it is absolutely necessary to be sure that the teeth are in proper occlusion, for even when the mouth is closed and the lips together, the teeth are not necessarily in occlusion. The non- occlusion of the teeth adds from 4 to 8 millimeters to the anatomical face height. While the probabilities are that these two measurements were properly taken, attention is called to these chances for mismeasurement. As previously mentioned comparative data from Samoa is practically non- existent. Deniker, on the basis of 25 male Samoans, gives the average stature as 172.6 centimeters or slightly greater than our average of 171.7. His cephalic index is also somewhat higher — 82.7 as compared with our 81.2. Our average is much lower than others previously recorded for this area. Deniker gives the [17] 96 Memoirs Bernice P. Bishop Museum Tongan average as 82.6, Tahitian average 85.5, Marquesan average 85.5. Our average for the nasal index is very much lower than that of Collignon for Poly- nesians in general (73.6 and 89.8), but the discrepancy is probably due to a differ- ent technique. Our series is noteworthy for its homogeneity. Taken character for char- acter the variability is very small. As compared with a series of pure Sioux Indians and another series of Sioux-White half-bloods, the coefficient of variation for nearly every character is appreciably smaller than that of either of these groups. Table XLIII. Coefficient of Variation — Males Only Samoan Sioux Sioux Pure Pure Half-bloods Stature 3.05 3.27 3.92 Head length 2.98 3.16 2.72 Head width 2.88 3.47 3.20 Face width 3.59 3.65 3.83 Face height 5.00 5.12 5.23 Nasal height 6.09 6.75 6.48 Nasal width 5.91 8.07 8.08 Cephalic index 4.34 4.03 3.33 Cephalo-facial index •. 3.01 3.35 3.40 Facial index 5.42 5.78 6.22 Nasal index 7.96 10.25 10.23 Considering the group as a unit there seems to be very little Melanesian blood in evidence. On the basis of cultural or linguistic evidence it is common to assume a large amount of Melanesian blood in all Polynesian groups. If such blood exists it should be easily demonstrable. Melanesian intermixture should result in lower stature, longer heads, broader noses, shorter ears, more curly, frizzly, and woolly hair, a smaller transverse fronto-parietal index, a lower, nar- rower face, greater prognathism and a heavier development of the glabella and supra-orbital region. In none of these characters does this Samoan series approach very near to the prevailing Melanesian type or types. As to the general affinities of the Samoans, it seems wiser to wait for more comparative data before taking any definite stand as to their relationships to other Polynesians or to mankind as a whole. In view of the fact that it is becoming more and more common to describe the Polynesians as of European racial affini- ties, it seems desirable to keep this point in mind in summarizing the facts brought out by the material from Samoa at hand. Frequently a single character is chosen as a criterion, but there is nothing in our available somatological data to warrant such proceedure. If any one character is taken as a criterion and the classification carried out to the logical end on that basis, the results are ludicrous. More often than not it is naively assumed that nature has kindly provided us with absolute criteria of race. Some rely on hair form, some on nose form, while others prefer head form or skin color. Granting that all of these characters are valuable in their proper sphere, it is useless and futile to argue as to which is the most reliable test. While hair form might work admirably as a basis of classification for the greater part of mankind, it would just as probably lead astray if used inflexibly. [18] Sullivan — Sanioan Somatology 97 For i"he present it seems wiser to take into consideration the totality of characters available. To do otherwise is to assume the solution of our problem in advance. Our problem is not "On the assumption that hair form is an absolute test of race, to what race does the Samoan belong?" but rather, "In the light of all the available facts where shall we place the Samoan in the scale of mankind?" Where we place him will also vary with our conception of the relationships of the various groups of mankind to one another. The prevailing classifications of mankind are the results of two schools of workers. One school is engaged in separating manlcind into as many groups as possible, and the other in attempting to point out relationships and to include all mankind in the fewest groups possible. Since the same material is necessary to accomplish both of these ends, the work is equally valuable. In the end we shall doubtless concur in a happy medium. For myself, I find no serious difficulty in assigning the greater proportion of mankind to one of four great races : the European or white, the Mongoloid or yellow-brown, the Negro, and the Australian. With this conception of races and the material at hand as a basis I have attempted to analyze the somatological characters of the Samoans and to designate the race to which each character pointed. This designation of race does not mean that I believe or infer that the particular character referred to has had such an origin, but that, considering, the range of each character for mankind as a whole, the detail in question most nearly approaches the average of the race designated. Naturally, many characters which vary indiscriminately from race to race and even within a given race have been omitted. In this list are included stature, cephalic index, and facial index, as well as several other characters on which we have insufficient data or knowledge for such determinations. The list follows : Table XLIV. Analysis of Samoan Characteristics Racial Character Affinities Skin color Mongoloid Hair texture European Hair form European Hair color Mongoloid-European Eye color Mongoloid Conjunctiva Mongoloid-Negroid Amount of beard Mongoloid Hair on chest Mongoloid Hair on arms European-Mongoloid Hair on legs European-Mongoloid Absence of eye fold European Nasal bridge Mongoloid-European Nostrils Mongoloid-Negroid Lips Mongoloid Prognathism European Incisor teeth European Face width Mongoloid Bigonial diameter : Mongoloid Jugo-frontal index Mongoloid-European Cephalo-facial index Mongoloid Nasal index Mongoloid Ear height Mongoloid Chin Mongoloid Total Mongoloid 11 European 5 Mongoloid-European 5 Mongoloid-Negroid 2 [19I 98 Memoirs Bernice P. Bishop Museum On the basis of this Hst I am inchned to regard the Samoans as most closely allied to the Mongoloid race of mankind, and to assume that the differences are probably due either to a slightly. dififerent evolution since the time of their separa- tion and isolation from the parental stock, or to the retention in the Samoans of a primitive character which through different evolutionary processes has been lost in most of the Mongoloid types. I think it unlikely that the differences are due to racial intermixture. Take the single character of hair form for an example. When we think of Mongoloid hair, we invariably think of stiff, coarse, black hair, though as a matter of fact such hair is one extreme of the variation of hair form in man and most probably an end form in evolution. It seems more probable that the primitive hair form in man was at least slightly wavy, and that woolly and spiral hair present one end of an extreme specialization, and the coarse, stiff, straight hair the other end. Another outstanding difference between the Samoans and Mongols in general is the low frequency of the shovel-shaped upper incisor tooth. On the other hand it seems reasonable to assume that the Polynesians at one time had this primitive Mongoloid characteristic and have lost it in part in their recent evo- lutionary history. The incisor teeth in this group have paralleled the tendency of the incisor teeth in European man and have become smaller in size. The absence of this incisor fold is due to a tendency in mankind to a reduction in dentition and is not the result of racial intermixure. My observation leads me to believe that ihe presence of this character is not one to disappear in mixed peoples. Cer- tainly a fairly high percentage of the part-Hawaiian population have the incisor fold In more than one Mongol group this characteristic is tending to disappear, if that can be inferred from lower frequency. In conclusion we may say at least that it is far more difficult to reconcile European racial origin for the Samoans and Polynesians in general, than it is to assume Mongoloid affinities and origins. Although the results of the present discussion must be considered as some- what tentative because of the small amount of available data, it is nevertheless time that anthropologists should discontinue the practise of speaking vaguely of European origins for the Polynesians and begin to cite the specific characteristics that lead to their conclusions. Likewise there seems to be little benefit in referrin to Melanesian admixture, unless we point out specifically and statistically those characters which point in this direction. It is not fair to assume that the facts upon which one's opinions are based are generally known. Scientists who have the privilege of working in inaccessible localities owe it to their colleagues to be as specific as possible in giving the reasons for their generalizations. f3 [20] z w o z < o tn 'J a: ^ 9 ~ OS 2 ° . z z < z .. < Z lO Z D z -~^ 3C *^ c (15 O it! o J2 b/0 o Pi 7. d n I .J u. a oq c u he O o Oh I/) z < o < I