|
... upper jaw appears all that remains of the skull, this is however most certainly due to other causes than bone deterioration, as the tough bony plates of the skull should outlast almost all of the other bones, here there is no sign of these bones. In removing the sand from the area where the skull should have been, the first parts discovered were the teeth, only a few of these teeth latterly proved to be attached to a very fragile and crumbling upper jaw. The skull was therefore expected directly below, however it was never found.. In as much as an electric wire was placed directly above the remains, it is assumed that a shallow trench was dug but that it never disturbed the remains which were fully 10cm below. Perhaps the skull was displaced by this work however no dark soil intruded the remains and they were covered with the same slightly discoloured sand as in Burial 1 which was free of humus. Probably the most remarkable thing about these burials is the utter absence of any artifacts, while any sign of clothing, hair, fingernails etc has long since vanished. None of the pearl-shell ornaments observed by Morrison, no adzes as at Wairau Bar. Saturday, 31st of March, 1990 The day has been spent detailing the various bones from Burial 1. These have been measured and illustrated with the aid of the computer. A number of observations can be reported. After repeated measurement and careful examination I am forced to conclude that the femur does not wholly conform to P. Houghton's Polynesian model. The amount of bow in the Tubuai femur is very comparable with the European femur. (See the diagram on page 22). Also Houghton's Fig 3.7 Illustrates the difference between the European and Polynesian femur as viewed from their top. I have measured this angular difference in the Tubuai femur, it amounts to about 23 degrees which is again very similar to the European femur. In Houghton's Fig 3.5 and 3.6 we see two comparisons which do however correspond. The cross-section of the upper part of the femur in the Tubuai specimen is a irregular oval, comparable with the Polynesian example as well as the characteristic oval fovea found on both the Tubuai and the typical Polynesian femur head. Therefore two characteristics match while two do not and these differences may be diagnostically significant. Similarly in Houghton's Fig. 3.3 he has illustrated the curved nature of the Polynesian ulna, the Tubuai specimen does not demonstrate such a bowed form. I have measured most of the significant parts of the bones which could be considered complete, this information may be of some importance in comparative studies. |
| Go to Comparative Implementology | go to ATIAHARA.ORG |