Lewis suggests[297] that the tribes depending largely on the hunt, would be better supplied with skins for clothing than those subsisting generally on fish, and that in most of the plateau region, the scanty vegetation makes clothing from plant materials difficult, if not practically out of the question. In this connection, it will be remembered that this carving of antler which gives us our general archaeological information regarding ancient costume, comes from the higher or hunting region of the valley. It will also be remembered that sage brush and other plant materials were used for clothing in the Thompson River region to the north, where the vegetation is nearly as scanty as in the Yakima Valley.
Perhaps some suggestion as to the sex of the individual which this figure was intended to represent may be gleaned from the fact that in the Nez Perce region the costume of the men differed greatly from that of the women. The former wore moccasins, leggings, breech clout, shirt, blanket, and also the war-bonnet, while the latter wore moccasins, a long loose gown and a fez-shaped cap made of basketry, also occasionally leggings and less decoration on their costume than on that of the men. The ornamentation consisted of fringes, bead and quill work, shells, elk teeth, beads, and copper.[298] The men's clothing was decorated with fringes, and some with beads, porcupine quills and paint. Considering this figure from these facts it would seem that it was clearly intended to represent a man.
Some feathers of the flicker (202-8243) were found in grave No. 34 (3) in a rock-slide near the mouth of Cherry Creek. One of them had bound to its tip a little piece of fabric, another a bit of fur. These may have been part of a costume or ceremonial paraphernalia.
Of the different articles of clothing worn by the Nez Perce, Lewis says,[299] "These are formed of various skins and are in all respects like those particularly described of the Shoshones." Along the Columbia, the similarity was not so complete,[300] but as far down as the Upper Chinook many articles described as similar to those of the Shoshone were found.[301] All these, however, they declared were, obtained by trade from other tribes and from those who sometimes visit the Missouri.[302] According to Lewis,[303] the clothing and equipment of the Shoshone living on Lemhi and Salmon Rivers in Idaho were much the same as the Plains type, and it is quite probable that they had formerly lived farther east. There are two certain indications that this extensive introduction of eastern clothing took place about the time of Lewis and Clark's visit. When they went down the Columbia in 1805, they found the women wore quite a different dress, consisting merely of a breech clout of buckskin with occasionally the addition of a small robe of skin.[304] This is exactly the same dress as was worn by the Chinook women above the mouth of the Willamette.[305] When these explorers returned up the Columbia the following year they found the Indians particularly the women, much better dressed, and in the eastern or Shoshone style.[306] A few years later, Cox[307] mentioned the older type of dress as found only among a few miserable tribes along the Columbia, above the mouth of the Yakima.[308]
Deformation. All of the skulls secured in this area by our party showed antero-posterior deformation, although not so extreme as is found in the Lower Columbia region. Accompanying this in many cases was a concave depression in the anterior parietal region. The flattening of the head was practised to a limited extent by tribes living along the Columbia River above the Chinook, but limited, according to Lewis, almost entirely to the women, and gradually died out towards the east.[309]
FOOTNOTES:
[245] Teit (a), Fig. 131c.
[246] Cf. Smith (d), Fig. 117.
[247] Smith (c), p. 423, Teit (a), p. 188.
[248] Spinden, p. 195.