| Males | Females | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Igloo | Seward Peninsula and northwestern Eskimo | Yukon Eskimo | Igloo | Seward Peninsula and northwestern Eskimo | Yukon Eskimo | |
| Humerus: | (35) | (100) | (16) | (27) | (83) | (16) |
| Length-maximum | 31.17 | 31.17 | 32.10 | 28.41 | 28.82 | 28.31 |
| At middle: | ||||||
| Diameter, major | 2.47 | 2.46 | 2.33 | 2.11 | 2.15 | 2.07 |
| Diameter, minor | 1.86 | 1.85 | 1.80 | 1.60 | 1.62 | 1.51 |
| Index | 75.2 | 75.1 | 78.2 | 76.1 | 75.1 | 73.2 |
| Radius: | (31) | (37) | (16) | (17) | (24) | (16) |
| Length, maximum | 23.53 | 23.50 | 23.44 | 20.98 | 21.35 | 20.18 |
| Radio-humeral index | 75.5 | 75.4 | 73 | 73.8 | 74 | 71.3 |
| Femur: | (33) | (60) | (22) | (25) | (31) | (27) |
| Length, bicondylar | 43.86 | 43.46 | 43.78 | 40.31 | 40.44 | 41.11 |
| Humero-femoral index | 71.1 | 71.7 | 73 | 70.5 | 71.3 | 69 |
| At middle: | ||||||
| Diameter, antero-posterior | 3.37 | 3.21 | 3.05 | 2.88 | 2.88 | 2.74 |
| Diameter, lateral | 2.90 | 2.72 | 2.67 | 2.51 | 2.56 | 2.44 |
| Index | 86.1 | 84.8 | 87.6 | 87.3 | 88.9 | 88.8 |
| At upper flattening: | ||||||
| Diameter, maximum | 3.51 | 3.32 | 3.31 | 3.09 | 3.06 | 3.02 |
| Diameter, minimum | 2.71 | 2.59 | 2.57 | 2.30 | 2.40 | 2.27 |
| Index | 77.2 | 78.1 | 77.4 | 74.4 | 78.4 | 75.4 |
| Tibia: | (29) | (79) | (22) | (24) | (36) | (27) |
| Length in position | 35.60 | 35.52 | 35.14 | 31.94 | 32.50 | 32.01 |
| Tibio-femoral index | 81.2 | 81.7 | 80.3 | 79.2 | 80.4 | 79.8 |
| At middle: | ||||||
| Diameter, antero-posterior | 3.26 | 3.19 | 3.16 | 2.80 | 2.75 | 2.61 |
| Diameter, lateral | 2.20 | 2.16 | 2.15 | 1.87 | 1.92 | 1.90 |
| Index | 67.5 | 67.8 | 68.3 | 66.7 | 70 | 72.8 |
The above table shows some remarkable and interesting conditions.
The first of the most apparent facts is that the type of the Yukon Eskimo stands well apart from both of the other series in a number of essentials, showing that it is not very nearly related and that it may be left out of consideration.
On the other hand the long bones from the Seward Peninsula and the northwest coast, especially those of the males, show very closely to those of the Igloo group. The male bones of the two series are almost identical, except that the Igloo bones are somewhat stronger.
Such close resemblances can hardly be fortuitous. They speak strongly for the basic identity of the old Igloo people with those of at least parts of the Seward Peninsula and parts of the northwest coast. If we take the bones from the Seward Peninsula alone (see p. [314]) it is found that these resemblances still hold.
The evidence thus shown constitutes a strong indication that the old Igloo group may be inherently related to that part of the Eskimo population of Seward Peninsula which shows the long and narrow skull; but the data offer no light on the questions as to whether the Igloo group may have been derived from that of the Seward Peninsula or vice versa, and on the true relation of either or both of these to the Eskimo of Baffin Land, Greenland, and Labrador.
To definitely decide the problem of the Igloo group there are needed data on the long bones of the northeasterners; in the second place it is highly desirable to know how large and how ancient was the group of the narrow-headed people on the Seward Peninsula and Sledge Island; and in the third place it is important that the cultural history of the two groups be known as thoroughly as possible. All of which are tasks for the future.
The possibility of a development of the Igloo cranial type on the northwest coast itself can not be denied, in view of the facts that all its characteristics are within the ranges of normal individual variations on that coast, and that similar developments have evidently been realized elsewhere. But in such a case it would be logical to expect, locally or not far away, some ancestry of the group, and the group would not probably be limited to a little spot and a few scores of persons. Had the group developed incidentally from a physically exceptional family, it could not be expected to have been anywhere nearly as uniform as the group under consideration. The high degree of uniformity of the Igloo contingent speaks for a well accomplished differentiation; and as there is no other trace of this in the conditions near Barrow, and there are no ruins denoting a long occupation, the evidence is against a local development and for an immigration of the group. A coming of a small-sized contingent from the Seward Peninsula would be easy; its coming from Greenland or Labrador or Baffin Land would surely be difficult, but not impossible to the Eskimo, who is known to have been a traveler.
Whatever may be the eventual solution of the Igloo problem, it is plain that the presence of that group near Barrow, together with the presence of evidently closely related groups in a part of the Seward Peninsula and again in the far east of the Eskimo region, offers much food for thought and investigation. The most plausible possibility would seem to be a relatively late (within the present millennium) coming of a physically already well differentiated small group, from either the south or the east, with a relatively short settlement at the Barrow site, some local multiplication in numbers, and then extinction partly through disease, partly perhaps through absorption into a stronger and newer contingent derived from the western people.