|
... second however much wear has reduced these teeth to looking like 4 cusps when they might have originally had 5. In any case Houghton remarks that third molars are often absent or reduced in size in the Maori examples, the Burial 1 third molar is larger than all others and may have as many as 7 cusps. The lower second and third molars in the Burial 1 example show remarkably little wear due to the fact that the upper molars have fallen out (see Diagram 13.21).. Another detail concerning teeth mentioned by Houghton is their length. The Burial 1, lower second molar, may be as much as 11.4mm in length this is very large compared with the statistical information condensed into graphic form in Houghton's Fig 4.20. While the third molar from Burial 1, measures to be around 12.3 mm. The upper first molars are actually wider than long in the normal plan of things and are anyway longer than most teeth in Houghton's graph. The relevance of statistical information of this type may not be great, as an above average sized person will not probably conform to any of the averages. The point can be made however that as far as teeth are concerned those of Burial 1, stand out in their larger than average size. This fact also confirms the larger than average bone size, large teeth could only fit in a large jaw, comparative diagrams show the Burial 1 mandible to be proportionately larger than the New Zealand Maori examples of Houghton. This is perhaps incorrectly stated as a comparison of the skulls shows that the Maori form is quite different to the Burial 1 skull in a number of ways, that will not be easily reconciled by a simple augmentation of proportion. I would not be surprised if the Burial 1 skull was quite removed from the Maori as there seems too many distinctive differences in the various arrangements of bone. What is the amount of variation that one could normally expect in the skulls from one racially uniform population? This is the next question and until I have more information further speculation rather premature. One of the most obvious differences between the New Zealand material as presented by Houghton and the HOOURA Burial appears in the mandible, Houghton stresses the term 'rocker jaw' and although the Burial 1 mandible may be of the 'rocker jaw' family, it shows a decided departure from the New Zealand examples. I have illustrated these differences in the Comparative Diagrams 13.26 and 13.27. At present it would appear as though the Tubuai jaw conforms to a straighter, longer line, and thus dub the jaw a 'long line jaw" this is also in consideration of the teeth. As detailed above the teeth from the Burial 1 skull being larger would demand a jaw bone that may be as much as 15mm longer than the New Zealand model where the third molar is absent. |
| Go to Comparative Implementology | go to ATIAHARA.ORG |