Cranial and Postcranial Skeletal Remains from Easter Island

CRANIAL AND POSTCRANIAL SKELETAL REMAINS FROM EASTER ISLAND by RUPERT IVAN MURRILL University of Minnesota Press, Minn...

Author: Rupert Ivan Murrill

75 downloads 1146 Views 7MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

CRANIAL AND POSTCRANIAL SKELETAL REMAINS FROM EASTER ISLAND by RUPERT IVAN MURRILL

University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis

© Copyright 1968 by the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved Lithographed in the United States of America at the North Central Publishing Company, St. Paul 3

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 67-10609

PUBLISHED IN GREAT B R I T A I N , INDIA, AND PAKISTAN BY THE OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, LONDON, BOMBAY, AND KARACHI, AND IN CANADA BY THE COPP CLARK PUBLISHING CO. LIMITED, TORONTO

The publisher is indebted to Thor Heyerdahl for permission to publish here Professor Murrill's report; and also to Mr. Heyerdahl, to Bokforlaget Forum AB, the Swedish publisher of Mr. Heyerdahl's book, and its director, Mr. Adam Helms, and to Rand McNally & Company, the American publisher of Mr. Heyerdahl's book, for permission to use the plates of the tabular material which appeared in Professor Murrill's report in Volume 2, Miscellaneous Papers, Reports of the Norwegian Archaeological Expedition to Easter Island and the East Pacific, edited by Thor Heyerdahl and Edwin N. Ferdon, Jr. The material on pp. 52-53 is used by permission of Dr. Mildred Trotter. The drawing on the title page is adapted from a photograph courtesy of LAN — the Chilean International Airline.

To my father, FREDERICK. W I L L I A M M U R R I L L , vir sapiens, with love. Also to my former teachers, PROFESSORS T. F. MCILWRAITH and H. L. SHAPIRO, who led me so rewardingly along various anthropological paths

This page intentionally left blank

PREFACE

JLt\tLiJujnL \jitL IN 1955-56 Thor Heyerdahl organized and financed a private expedition to Polynesia. The main objective of the expedition was to initiate modern subsurface archaeology in central and eastern Polynesia, especially Easter Island. Successful attempts were made to study cultural stratigraphy in the archaeological remains on Easter Island, the sequence of masonry techniques, the origin of the statues, and the aberrant forms of masonry structures. Also samples were obtained for C-14 dates, pollen analysis, and blood group analysis. The four senior archaeologists were Mr. Edwin N. Ferdon, Museum of New Mexico; Dr. William Mulloy, Professor of Anthropology, University of Wyoming; Mr. Arne Skjolsvold, Department of Archaeology, Stavanger Museum; and Dr. Carlyle S. Smith, Professor and Curator of Anthropology, University of Kansas. I was not a member of the expedition. At the time I was a colleague of Professor Smith's, who suggested to Mr. Heyerdahl that I analyze the skeletal material from Easter Island. I agreed to do so. Accordingly the material was sent to the University of Kansas for me to study. The conclusions that I have arrived at, based on physical anthropology, and also on the evidence from linguistics, ethnology, and archaeology, apparently do not agree with conclusions reached elsewhere by various members of the expedition, as can be seen at the end of the last section of this study. I am grateful to Dr. Paul N. Arnesen, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Minnesota, for valuable advice in assessing the pathological specimens discussed in Chapter 5, Pathology.


CONTENTS

i. INTRODUCTION 3 The Sites, Amount of Skeletal Material, and Chronology, 3; Methods, 5 ii. M E T R I C A L AND M O R P H O L O G I C A L OBS E R V A T I O N S OF THE C R A N I A 7 Craniostat Drawings, 28 in. METRICAL AND MORPHOLOGICAL O B S E R V A T I O N S OF THE POSTCRANIA

33

iv. THE ESTIMATION OF STATURE 52 v. PATHOLOGY

55

vi. CLIMATE, WATER, SOIL, AND DIET

57

vn. C R A N I A L A N D P O S T C R A N I A L COMPARISONS WITH OTHER STUDIES 59 Earlier Easter Island Male Studies, 59; The Easter Island Male Physical Type: Middle and Late Periods, and Living, 59; Male Easter Island Crania Compared with Crania from Polynesia, Micronesia, Melanesia, and Australia, 62; The Validity of Comparing Male Easter Island Postcranial Remains with Those of Other Polynesians, 65 v i n . F O R M E R THEORIES AND A L E G E N D

66

ix. THE VALIDITY OF HEYERDAHL'S THEORY OF THE P O P U L A T I N G OF POLYNESIA 73 x. ABO BLOOD G R O U P GENE FREQUENCIES

77

xi. P O L Y N E S I A N M I G R A T I O N S WITH SPECIAL R E F E R E N C E TO EASTER ISLAND 80 The Linguistic Evidence, 80; The Ethnological and Archaeological Evidence, 81 APPENDICES A. Cranial Measurements, 87; B. Postcranial Measurements, 88

85

REFERENCES

91

INDEX

99


Cranial and Postcranial Skeletal Remains from Easter Island


a statue and yielded nine fragmentary and three complete skulls. Grave 2, found under a statue, contained three complete skulls (Smith, 1961, Fig. 3b). Grave 3 occurred in the platform as a rectangular cist. It contained three complete skulls. Grave 4, found between two fallen statues, had a complete skull. Graves 1-4 also contained various disarticulated unusable posteranial bones. Ahu Vinapu No. 2 is situated on the southern coast east of Rano Kao. All of the skeletal material came from the landward ramp and belongs chronologically to the Late period. The burial custom at this time was apparently to dry the cadavers on stone platforms in the vicinity or on wooden racks and then to break them up and deposit them on the ramp of the ahu either in the open or sometimes in spaces under the fallen statues. They were then covered with stones — usually boulders about a foot or more in diameter. As time went on other bundled cadavers were added by digging holes among the already deposited bundle burials. These were covered with additional stones. The stone pile on the ramp of the ahu was thus gradually added to until in some places it was upwards of five feet deep though in others it was a good deal more shallow. Continual disarrangement of earlier by later burials was the characteristic development so that at the time we excavated the site the picture was one of a pile of stones intermixed with bones on the ramp with no way of separating individual bundle burials. The bones were thus just taken out as we came to them. Most were so badly decomposed that they were useless for measurement and observation. I saved only those that I thought were useful and the others were buried at the site. The numbers on the skulls refer to the locations in the stone pile. . . . My feeling is that the various depths at which they occurred in the stone pile do not reflect any significant time difference that could be proven. I think the pile was established in a rather short time and the possibility of rearrangement of bones after their original deposition was too great to make evidence of this kind of value. Thus the numbers are without time significance. (Mulloy, personal communication, 1957.)

I INTRODUCTION

1 HE skeletal material from Easter Island analyzed in this study was collected in excavations directed by Dr. Carlyle S. Smith of the University of Kansas and Dr. William Mulloy of the University of Wyoming during the Norwegian archaeological expedition to Polynesia in 1955-56. The work done on Easter Island was noteworthy for two main reasons. First, the excavations were conducted in a first-rate scientific manner and second, carbon-14 dates were obtained for the first time on this island. The Sites, Amount of Skeletal Material, and Chronology Ami Tepeu (Fig. 1) is situated on the west coast of Easter Island north of the present village of Hangaroa and west of Rano Aroi. Grave 1, a burial cist, was found in the mantle of loose stones adjacent to the northernmost statue. It contained two skeletons in an extended position (Smith, 1961, PL lib). Grave 2, a burial cist, was found in the loose stone mantle between two of the statues. It contained the remains of eleven individuals in an extended position (see Smith, 1961, PI. Id, Fig. 6). Ahu Hekii is situated on the north coast overlooking Hanga-o-honu (Turtle Bay), a small cove on La Perouse Bay. Graves were found in the platform and sloping mantle. Grave 1 was found adjacent to

The usable material consisted of eleven individuals on the basis of the skulls, or thirteen individuals on the basis of the postcranial remains. The stratigraphy revealed by excavating different kinds of ahu and the various C-14 dates obtained by the expedition indicate three periods which have been dated as follows: The Early period ca. A.D. 400-

3

Figure 1. MAP OF EASTER ISLAND, SHOWING THE SITES OF SKELETAL MATERIAL

5

CRANIAL AND POSTCRANIAL SKELETAL REMAINS FROM EASTER ISLAND Table 1 CHRONOLOGY OF SKELETAL MATERIAL BY SEX Period

Site

Middle

Ahu Tepeu (Grave 2)

5

3

4

1

7

4

Late

Ahu Tepeu (Grave 1)

1

1

1

1

1

1

Ahu Hekii (Graves 1 —4) Ahu Vinapu No. 2 (Misc. Graves)

9 6

1

7 6

3

9 8

3

21

5

18

5

25

8

Calvarium M F

Individuals M F

Mandible M F

Postcranial

Time Span

Various bones, ca. A. D. 1100—1680 mixed Most of remainder of each skeleton None ca. A. D. 1680—1870 Various bones, mixed

Individual refers to crania (calvarium + associated mandible) or mandible alone, not postcranial remains. All the above are adult. Not included is one calvarium of a 6—12 years old, probably male, from Ahu Hekii.

the distribution of crania by sex, age and period. The number of females is too small to give significant results. The figures for men indicate that possibly the average age at death was higher for the Late-period males. It is important to know precisely which landmarks were used in different measurements; the measurements used, and the techniques, listed by author, are shown in Appendices A and B. All measurements and morphological observations in this study were done by myself. A few of these measurements need further explanation. With the exception of the measurement of infra-temporal fossa depth, all are of my own devising. Temporal Muscle Width. Measured parallel to the zygomatic arch, from the point where the sphenozygomatic suture meets the fronto-zygomatic suture to

1100, the Middle period ca. A.D. 1100-1680, and the Late period A.D. 1680-1868 (Smith, 1961, Vol. I, pp. 210-212, 393-396). Table 1 shows the chronology of the usable skeletal material by sex. None of the material is earlier than the Middle period, and most is from the Late period. I do not attribute any particular significance to the difference in numbers between the sexes or the fact that only one intact child's calvarium was obtained, since females' and especially children's, skeletal remains are fragile and less likely to survive. Methods The ages of all the crania in this study were assessed on the basis of endocranial suture closure even though this technique has been criticized (Singer, 1953; McKern and Stewart, 1957). Table 2 shows

Table 2 DISTRIBUTION OF CRANIA BY SEX AND AGE Period Sex AGE

Middle Male No %

Female No %

Late Male No

o/ /o

1

5.9

Female No %

infant (Up to 3 yrs) Child (4—6 yrs) Child (7— 12 yrs) Adolescent (13—17 yrs) Subadult (18—20 yrs) Young adult (21—35 yrs) Middle-aged adult (36—55 yrs) Old adult (56—75 yrs)

2 2 1

40.0 40.0 20.0

1 2

33.3 66.7

3 7 6

17.7 41.1 35.3

1 1

Total

5

100.0

3

100.0

17

100.0

2

50.0 50.0 100.0

6

CRANIAL AND POSTCRANIAL SKELETAL REMAINS FROM EASTER ISLAND

the extension superiorly of the supramastoid crest onto the parietal bone. Temporal Muscle Height. Measured perpendicular to temporal muscle width from the upper border of the zygomatic arch directly above the tuberculum articulare to the inferior temporal line. Infra-temporal Fossa Depth. Measured from the upper border of the zygomatic arch horizontally to the deepest point in the fossa on the greater wing of the sphenoid bone (Keen, 1951). Malar Height. Measured from zygomaxillare to the most inferior point of the left orbit. Malar Width. Measured from frontomalare temporale to the most inferior point of the left orbit. Malar Area. Equals malar height multiplied by malar width. Forehead Height. When on the median sagittal craniogram tracing a line is drawn through glabella parallel to the Frankfort Horizontal, and a perpendicular line is drawn from this glabella line to the top of the frontal perpendicular, the resulting perpendicular line is the forehead height.

Frontal Slope Angle. When a line is drawn joining the glabella and the top of the frontal perpendicular and then when from the latter a perpendicular line is dropped to the Frankfort Horizontal, the angle formed between these two lines is the frontal slope angle. The Cranial Capacity Technique. Based upon a waterproofed test skull (Tildesley, 1948). The test skull gave a cranial capacity of 1385 cc with water. On five consecutive days the cranial capacity of the test skull was obtained with mustard seed. The mustard seed was not tamped down. The average of these readings was 1432 cc. The cranial capacity recorded in subsequent tables, therefore, was obtained from the formula 1385/1432 X cranial capacity obtained with the mustard seed. This calculated cranial capacity was felt to be a more accurate indication of the actual cranial capacity. Mean Height Index. The mean height index is the basion-bregma height X 100/mean of the maximum length plus the maximum width (Stewart, 1942).

minority of the means differ by more than two standard deviations from the means of the grouped males. This evidence too favors the theory of a biological homogeneity or racial continuity from the Middle to the Late period. The metrical observations for the grouped males indicate the following: Cranial index. The cranial index of 70.82 falls into the long-headed category. Height of vault. The height-length index of 75.51 based on basion-bregma height is hypsicranial or high-vaulted. Similarly the auricular height ( vertex) length index of 65.00 is acrocranial or high-vaulted. The latter index is the better of the two because as Rogers (1954) has pointed out the auricular height is a valuable but often neglected measure. It is a better indicator of vault height than the basionbregma or the basion-vertex heights because it is more independent of fluctuating influences on the basilar part of the occipital bone, which in turn determines the relative position of basion. The fronto-parietal index is eurymetopic or a broad minimum frontal compared to the maximum width. Orbital Shape. The mean orbital index of 90.44 shows a hypsiconch or high orbit. Nose. The nasal index of 52.30 is chamaerrhine or wide. Facial Height. The total facial index of 85.87 is on the border of meso-to-euryprosopic or a medium to wide face compared to its length. This is doubtless a reflection of the "rocker" type mandible which will be described later. The upper facial index of 51.74 is on the border of mesene and euryene or a medium to wide face. Palate Shape. The external palatal index (maxilloalveolar) of 120.50 is brachyuranic or broad. The internal palatal index (palatal) of 80.68 is on the border of lepto- and mesostaphyline or medium to long, which indicates that the alveolar processes are relatively thick. Prognathism. The gnathic index of 95.10 is orthognathic as is the facial profile angle of 87.33°. The latter is the better indicator of prognathism since it is less, affected by any bending upward of the basilar part of the occipital bone (Rogers, 1954). The nasal profile angle is orthognathic and the alveolar profile angle is hyperorthognathic.

II METRICAL AND MORPHOLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS OF THE CRANIA

INDIVIDUAL measurements and indices, median sagittal craniogram measurements and indices, and angles by sex are shown in Tables 3A to 3D for the Middle period and Tables 4A to 4D for the Late period. I hereby make a plea that other Polynesian researchers publish individual measurements for eventual useful comparisons. The ranges and means for the Middle period are shown in Tables 5A to 5D and for the Late period in Tables 6A to 6D. Clearly the number of females is too small to allow significant results; therefore only the males will be used for this purpose. If one compares the male Middle period means with those of the Late period in Tables 3A-6D, it is obvious that they are remarkably alike. In my opinion, the males of the Middle and Late periods were products of the same gene pool. For this reason all the males were grouped together for a dispersion analysis of the cranial measurements, which are shown in Tables 7, 8, 9, and 10. If one compares the means of the measures of the Middle and Late period males with those of the males grouped together, it is quite clear that only a 7

Table 3 A AHU TEPEU (Grave 2). CRANIAL MEASUREMENTS CRANIUM NO SEX Cranial Capacity Maximum Length Ophyron-Occipital Length Maximum Width Minimum Frontal Basion-Bregma Auricular Height (Bregma) Auricular Height (Vertex) Endobasion-Nasion Endobasion-Prosthion Temporal Muscle Width. L. Temporal Muscle Height. L. Temporal Muscle Width. R. Temporal Muscle Height. R. Infra-Temporal Fossa Depth. L. Infra-Temporal Fossa Depth. R. Bizygomatic Malar Height Malar Width Malar Area Nasion-Upper Alveolar Point Nasion-Gnathion Nasal Height Nasal Width Nasalia Upper Width Nasalia Minimum Width Nasalia Lower Width Nasalia Length Orbital Height. L. Orbital Width. L. Orbital Height. R. Orbital Width. R. Interorbital Biorbital Palate Height External Palatal Length External Palatal Width Internal Palatal Length Internal Palatal Width Bimastoid (1) Bimastoid (2) Foramen Magnum Length Foramen Magnum Width Circumference Nasion-Opisthion Arc Nasion-Bregma Arc Bregma-Lambda Arc Lambda-Opisthion Arc Transverse Arc Symphyseal Height Mandibular Body Length (1) Mandibular Body Length (2) Thickness Mandibular Body (M2) Thickness Mandibular Body (PM2) Bigonial Width Bicondylar Width Bicoronoid Width Ascending Ramus Height. L. Ramus Minimum Width. L.

1 M

2 M

3 M

4 F

5 F

6 M

1,446

1,267

1,393

1,132

1,262

1,538

193 193 130 100 142 125 123 112 106

76 111 81 24 28 132 28 31 868 72 57 29 13 11 22 23 37 36 36 37 27

99

7 45 57 44 34 124 101 41 31 526 377 130 129 118 323

179 178 133 92 141 121 118 103 98 100 65 99 63 22 23 122 27 32 864 59 101 45 24 10 8 15 18 32 35 32 35 19 87 9 42 58

112 91 34 25 494 366 130 133 103 317 30 86 75 16 13 95 115 96 55 35

189 188 131 91 140 120 121 116 101 104 73 102 73 20 22 126 27 38

175 175 120 92 134 113 115 103 100 93 69 22 125 28 36

1,026

1,008

54 28 14 10 15 23 33 34 32 35 25 91

46 24 9 8 17 20 34 34 34 35 22 90

43 53

49 55 42 34 117

68

62

124 97 35 27 517 376 127 139 110 313

25 483 125 112 297

182 182 124 90 137 118 121 103 100 106 84 106 86 24 24 124 31 30 930 60

48 29 9 9 18 16 32 36 33 36 22 91 12 44 60 40 36 116 93 38 29 495 367 127 124 116 307

195 194 130 92 141 121 123 113 102 126 93 124 96 25

7 M

8 F

178 178 130 92

178 176 130 91

144

122

9 M

10 F

11 M

27 104 90 15 14 102 118 86 64 42

29 93 79 18 14 91 102 86 62 36

27 101 89 18 14 100 114 94 62 40

9 M

10 F

11 M

65.6 88.1 76.3

58.1 91.2 77.5

64.5 88.6 78.1

133

71 59 27 9 7 37 38 37 38 22 95 48 59 44 36 133 108 39 32 525 384 135 130 119 313 30 93 84 15 12 92 121 98 60 33

123

Nos 6 and 11 are 'rocker' mandibles. All individuals are adult.

Table 3B AHU TEPEU (Grave 2). CRANIAL INDICES CRANIUM NO SEX Cranial Height-Length Height-Width Auricular Height (Vertex)-Length (Max) Mean Height Fronto-Parietal Cranio-Facial Cranial Module L. Orbital R. Orbital Mean Orbital Interorbital Nasal Upper Facial Total Facial Zygo-Gonial Fronto-Gonial Zygo-Frontal External Palatal Internal Palatal Gnathic Foraminal Ramus Mandibular (1)* Mandibular (2)**

1

M 67.4 73.6 109.2 63.7 87.9 76.9 101.5 1 ,550.0 102.7 97.3 100.0 27.3 50.9 54.5

75.8 126.7 77.3 94.6 75.6

*Mandibular Body Length (1) / Bicondylar Width. **Mandibular Body Length (2) / Bicondylar Width.

2 M

3 M

74.3 78.3 106.0 65.9 90,4 69.2 91.7 1,513.0 91.4 91.4 91.4 21.8 53.3 48.4 82.8 77.9 103.3 75.4 138.1

69.3 73.7 106.9 64.0 87.5 69.5 96.2 1,537.0 97.1 91.4 94.3 27.5 51.9 54.0

95.1 73.5 63.6 74.8 65.2

87.1 77.1

72.2 123.3

A F 68.6 75.7 111.7 65.7 90.8 76.7 104:2

1,437.0 100.0 97.1 98.6 24.4 52.2 49.6

80.0 108.7 73.6 112.2 81.0 97.1

5 F

6 M

7 M

8 F

68.1 74.9 110.5 66.5 89.5 72.6 100.0 1,480.0 88.9 91.7 90.3 24.2 60.4 48.4

66.7 72.3 108.5 63.1 86.8 70.8 102.3 1,553.0 97.4 97.4 97.4 23.2 45.8 53.4

73.0

73.0

72.6 136.4 90.0 97.1 76.3

69.2 100.0 69.2 122.9 81.8 90.3 82.1 55.0 76.9 69.4

70.8

70.0


9

Table 3C AHU TEPEU (Grave 2). MEDIAN SAGITTAL CRANIOGRAM MEASUREMENTS AND INDICES CRANIUM NO SEX Measurements Nasion-Inion Calvarial Height Nasion-Foot of Bregma Perpendicular Nasion-Lambda Lambda Calvarial Height Nasion-Bregma Bregma-Lambda Lambda-Opisthion Frontal Perpendicular Parietal Perpendicular Occipital Perpendicular Basion-Prosthion Nasion-Prosthion Nasion-Basion Basion-Gnathion Forehead Height* Indices Calvarial Height (5) Bregma Position (6) Longitudinal Cranio-Facial (28) Vertical Cranio-Facial (30) Lambda Calvarial Height (31) Frontal Perpendicular (32) Parietal Perpendicular (33) Occipital Perpendicular (34)

im

2 M

3 M

4 F

5 f

6 M

184 105 59 183 72 115 118 99 29 22 29 103 69 109

162 107 46 167 78 111 118 87 27 24 24 95 58 102 99 40

179 110 56 180 75 113 120 93 25 29 26 102 61 113

164 101 56 167 64 109 101 99 27 18 26 97 60 101

167 108 51 175

100

187 107 65 185 73 119 116 97 27 23 30 101 69 112

45

33

43

41

61.5 31.3 54.0 43.6 41.7 22.1 24.2 28.0

61.6 34.1 55.4 44.8 38.3 24.8 17.8 26.3

64.7 30.5 52.7 40.9 40.6 22.3 16.8 27.8

57.2 34.8 51.8 48.9 39.5 22.7 19.8 30.9

41 57.1 32.1 53.4 48.6 39.3 25.2 18.6 29.3

66.0 28.4 53.1 41.1 46.7 24.3 20.3 27.6

71

112 113 97 25 19 27 96 56

*See definition under Methods. Numbers in parentheses refer to Wilder.

Table 3D AHU TEPEU (Grave 2) MEDIAN SAGITTAL CRANIOGRAM ANGLES CRANIUM NO SEX Br-Nas-In La-In-Nas Nas-Pros-F.H. (Facial Profile) Nas-Nasosp-F. H. (Nasal Profile) Nasosp-Pros-F. H. (Alveolar Profile) Nas-In-F. H. Nas-Apex Frontal Perp-Br Br-Apex Par Perp-La La-Apex Occ Perp-Opis Nas-Bas-Pros Nas-Bas-Gnath Gl-La and Bas-Nas Br-Pros and Bas-Nas Nas-Br and F. H. Br-Pros and F. H. Gl-La and Br-La Bas-Br and Bas-La Bas-Opis-F. H. Sphbas-Bas-F. H. La-Gl-In Gl-In-F. H. Frontal Slope*

1 M

2 M

3 M

4 F

5 F

6 M

59° 79° 89° 95° 62° 6° 127° 140° 119° 38°

66° 84° 86° 94° 61° 10° 127° 135° 122° 34° 61° 33° 93° 55° 66° 37° 55° + 1°

60° 81° 92 o 99° 59° 8° 133° 128° 122° 33°

59° 81° 86° 89° 75° 8° 127° 139° 125° 35°

63° 85° 87° 91° 59° 8° 131° 141° 122° 33°

57° 79° 90° 94° 73° 9" 131° 137° 116° 38°

31° 90° 52° 66° 34° 56° —6 ° 28° 19° 12° 20°

37° 90° 52° 64° 33° 47° — 1° 31° 24° 14° 16°

36° 90° 55° 65° 34° 53° + 1° 29° 23° 12° 16°

33° 91° 48° 63° 35° 52° — 7° 27° 19° 13° 20°

33° 91° 52° 66° 32° 53° — 1° 27° 20° 11° 15°

21° 15° 15°

*See definition under Methods. For angle abbreviations refer to Appendix A.

Foramen Magnum. This is of medium shape with an index of 84.40. Cranial Capacity. The cranial capacity figure of 1449.31 cc shown in Table 7 was based on a correction factor as described under Methods. Since some may object to this technique, the average was worked out for the cranial capacity obtained without using the correction factor. The results are 1498.44

cc ± 27.83; a= 111.33 ± 19.70 and the coefficient of variation = 7.43 ± 1.32. As a matter of interest the average cranial capacity based on the Lee Pearson "interracial" formula using auricular height (359.34 + 0.000365 X L X B X H) gives the figure 1490.69 cc, which is close to the average of 1498.44 cc. The cranial mode average of 1548.76 cc shows it is not an accurate indicator of cranial capacity.

Table 4A AHUS TEPEU (Grave 1) HEKII AND VINAPU (no 2). CRANIAL MEASUREMENTS CRANIUM NO SEX Cranial Capacity Maximum Length Ophyron-Occipital Length Maximum Width Minimum Frontal Basion-Bregma Auricular Height (Bregma) Auricular Height (Vertex) Endobasion-Nasion Endobasion-Prosthion Temporal Muscle Width L. Temporal Muscle Height. L. Temporal Muscle Width. R. Temporal Muscle Height. R. Infra-Temporal Fossa Depth. L. Infra-Temporal Fossa Depth. R. Bizygomatic Malar Height Malar Width Malar Area Nasion-Upper Alveolar Point Nasion-Gnathion Nasal Height Nasal Width Nasalia Upper Width Nasalia Minimum Width Nasalia Lower Width Nasalia Length Orbital Height. L. Orbital Width. L. Orbital Height. R. Orbital Width. R. Interorbital Biorbital Palate Height External Palatal Length External Palatal Width Internal Palatal Length Internal Palatal Width Bimastoid (1) Bimastoid (2) Foramen Magnum Length Foramen Magnum Width Circumference Nasion-Opisthion Arc Nasion-Bregma Arc Bregma-Lambda Arc Lambda-Opisthion Arc Transverse Arc Symphyseal Height Mandibular Body Length (1) Mandibular Body Length (2) Thickness Mandibular Body (M2) Thickness Mandibular Body (PM2) Bigonial Width Bicondylar Width Bicoronoid Width Ascending Ramus Height. L. Ramus Minimum Width: L.

AHU TEPEU (Gr. 1) 1 2 F M 1,190 172 170 122

180 180 135

137

153

97

118 121 100 101 112 79 109 81 24

2 M

3 M

4 M

5 M

6 M

7 M

8 M

185 183 128 91

1,567 199 195 135 97

121 122

124 128

1,504 195 193 128 101 145 124 124 113

1,644 202 198 139 95 143 125 127 114

111 86 111 85 22

110 83 105 80 22

115 82 115 86 23

119 80 114 81 22

1,451 185 185 134 102 143 124 123 105 107

1,373 176 175 139 97 133 114 118 106 103

77 100 77 22

75 100 79 25

1,596 188 187 139 99 142 121 121 102 95 97 73 95 72

1,277 185 184 130 95 140 121 122 109 107 99 83 96 81

23

24

20

22

23

18

142 32 39 1,248 71 117 54 27 10 9 21 22 35 39 33 40 24 99 15 55 65 44 37 140 120

136 30 38 1,140

140 28 33 924

122 29 32 928 59

52 27 14 13 19

50 27 10 8 15

34 39 35 38 25 101

35 38 37 40 20 98

136 26 31 806 76 125 55 25 10 8 18 32 37 39 37 39 20 95 16 55 65 45 37 126 105 37 36 510

1 M

24 130 32 36

1,152

63 101 49 28 8 8 19 21 31 37 31 37 25 98 10 47 60 40 36

114

92

35 29

488 355 112

135 108 316 27 94 83

15

11 92 114 94 58

37

AHU VINAPU (No 2)

AHU HEKII

119 32 34 1,088 69 110 49 26 8 7 17 21 34 39 34 39 23 97 11 50 51 42 35 118 122 97 40 30 503 366 131 120 122 140 113 340 312 33 32 94 98 85 17 18

143

112 110

39 35

541 393 131 131 131 320 35 97 86 16

106

530

545

132 30 35 1,050 64 112 47 24 10 8 16 21 30 36 30 36 28 98 14 56 61 49 34 122 98 33 28 510

135

141

128

69

24

14 52

62

43

37

38 382

139 108

324

59 41

132 111

40 30

326

102

350

123

109 118

30 107 92 17

322 29 103 89 14

307 35 98 81 16

22

9 M 183 181

94 141 107 102 104 83

10 M?

1 M

2 M

3 M

1,373 175

1,451 186 183 134 93 147 123 126 113 107 102 83 99

1,547 202 199 131 95 151 124 124 111 101 111 85 110

1,407 184 182

195 193

145 123 127 103 100

148 124 125 114 105

23

85

24

116 83 21

114 84 22

131

90 131

115 116

96 91

78 19

138 89

117 81

22

24

24

21

127 34 36 1,224 65

126 29 34 986

60

142 31 36 1,116 69

127

66

137 27 39 1,053 72

43 25 12 8 21

45 27 12 10 20

45

45

6 5

8 7

55 27 11 10 16

51 27 6 3 20

35 36 34 37 21 93

32 37 32 37 25 95

34 38

47 63 38 36 124 102 37 30 516 383 134 133 116 323

52 58 49 31 122 101 35 31 505 371 133 120 118 318

103

12

30 96 77 17

24

10

34 38 21

33 34 21

51

41

93 61

43

34

118

105

36

99

29 92 72 17

35 30 489 354 120 122 112 310

35 39 36 38 25 95 12 55 64 47 34 125 100 37 32 508 369 126 131 112 322

116

21

33 38 33 41 26 95 11 50 66 43 40 128 104 35 32 533 406 144 135 127 315 31 94 84 15

4 M

30 36 1,080 63 107 44 25 8 7 14 18 32

29 43 1,247 71 122 52 27 8 6 16 21 32

30 35 22

33 41 25

15 53 62 42 34 120 97 31 30

10 51 63 46 35 125 97 38 35

386 129 136 121

387 133 135 119

30 96 77 17

38 108 87 17

36

91

500

323

5 M

6 M

1,393 181 179 128 87 135 115 118 102 102 114 86 111 85 22

1,335 185 185 130 94 137 119 121 103 100 112 74 108 79 23

1,238

24

24

23

130 30 32 960 67

127 31 31 961 66

51 26 5 4 18 20 33 39 33 39 23 94 16 52 63 43 37 121

49 26 10 7 15 20 33 34 32 36 23 90 12 49 57 43 33 116

500

508

125 124

133 115

306

313

103 37 31

368 119

112

32 99 82 15

7 F

8 M

9 M

10 F

102

32 101 82 18

27 92 77 17

11 F

173 172 133 96 134 115 118 99 95 103 74 105 75

25 33 825 59 101 44 24 9 8 16 32 34 34 33 23 88 13 48 59 43 36 118 97 33 29 480 351 119 118 114 305 28

88

16

87

14

27 91 75 16

13

15

13

14

12

14

15

13

12

14

13

13

13

11

14

14

12

109 124 106 62 38

104 128

98 128 103 66 37

100 121 97 65 32

91 115 96 59 34

90

38

95 118 97 68 39

94 130 100 62 34

102 119 89 60 38

99 118 99 63 42

99 118 96 58 37

96 122 94 52 35

96 119 93 62 36

96 115 96 66 39

95 114 86 59 35

86 112 88 56 36

72 40

95 35

All individuals are adult except Ahu Hekii No. 10 (age 6—12). Ahu Vinapu No. 1 has an incised forehead region. Nos 1, 2, 5 from Ahu Hekii and Nos. 3 and 11 from Ahu Vinapu are 'rocker' mandibles.

Table 4B AHUS TEPEU (Grave 1) HEKII AND VINAPU (No. 2). CRANIAL INDICES CRANIUM NO SEX

AHU TEPEU (Or. 1) 1 2 F M

Cranial 70.9 75.0 Height-Length 79.7 85.0 Height-Width 112.3 113.3 Auricular Height (Vertex)- 70.3 Length (Max) Mean Height 93.2 97.1 Pronto-Parietal 79.5 Cranio-Facial 106.6 1,437.0 1,560.0 Cranial Module L. Orbital 83.8 R. Orbital 83.8 83.8 Mean Orbital Interorbital 25.5 Nasal 57.1 48.5 Upper Facial Total Facial 77.7 70.8 Zygo-Gonial Fronto-Gonial 94.8 Zygo-Frontal 74.6 External Palatal 127.7 90.0 Internal Palatal Gnathic 101.0 Foraminal 82.9 75.0 Ramus 63.8 Mandibular (1) 82.5 Mandibular (2) 72.8

AHU HEKII 1 M

2 M

69.2

67.8 71.5 105.9 65.9 64.3 71.1 93.0 87.2 87.2 87.2 23.7 53.1 58.0 92.4 79.8 104.4 76.5 102.0 83.3 57.4 83.1 72.0

AHU VINAPU (No. 2) 3 M

4 M

5 M

65.6 74.4 113.3 63.6

68.8 69.8 102.9 62.9

72.4 76.9 106.7 66.5

6 M

79.0 75.1 95.7 67.0

7 M

73.9 75.5 102.2 64.4

8 M

9 M

10 M?

1 M

2 M

3 M

70.3 75.7 107.7 65.9

77.0

74.9 74.9 100.0 66.3

72.0 79.0 109.7 67.7

64.9 74.8 115.3 61.4

75.0 78.4 105.1 69.0

85.6 89.7 84.4 86.9 88.9 89.8 83.9 71.9 78.9 68.3 76.1 69.8 71.2 73.1 105.2 106.3 100.7 98.5 97.8 87.8 97.7 1,593.0 1,560.0 1,623.0 1,543.0 1,497.0 1,563.0 1,517.0 89.7 87.2 92.1 97.2 86.5 83.3 94.9 82.5 92.1 92.5 83.3 94.9 91.9 86.5 86.1 89.7 92.3 83.3 94.9 94.6 86.5 24.2 24.8 20.4 28.6 21.1 22.6 26.3 50.0 51.9 54.0 51.1 45.5 58.1 60.0 50.0 50.7 48.5 55.9 48.4 51.2 82.4 84.4 84.8 91.9 76.8 74.3 74.2 73.5 74.6 112.4 96.1 103.1 109.5 91.9 81.1 74.8 6S.3 74.3 67.9 77.3 71.3 118.2 119.2 108.9 118.2 134.0 111.5 84.1 86.0 69.4 82.2 94.7 63.3 98.2 93.8 93.1 98.2 101.9 97.2 89.7 75.0 84.8 97.3 81.1 88.6 57.6 61.3 55.6 56.1 49.2 83.6 83.5 78.2 80.5 81.0 69.4 71.9 69.5 66.9 67.0

85.6 68.7

89.5 89.5 89.5 22.6 53.3 52.4 71.4 95.7 74.6 119.6 83.7 95.3

91.9 90.7 90.1 69.4 72.5 64.5 102.2 108.4 92.0 1 ,457.0 1,557.0 1,613.0 1,560.0 89.7 86.8 88.9 97.1 94.7 80.5 85.7 92.2 83.7 87.3 26.3 27.4 24.2 49.1 52.9 56.8 52.6 48.6 49.6 81.7 84.3 66.2 80.3 98.9 114.6 67.9 66.9 70.1 116.4 132.0 117.0 72.3 93.0 81.0 94.7 91.0 97.1 94.8 86.5 91.4 96.8 85.7 54.8 63.3 72.3 80.7 64.6 64.7

4 M

5 M

6 M

70.7 74.2 105.5 65.2

70.3 74.1 105.4 65.4

8 M

9 M

10 F

11 F

87.4 87.0 87.6 68.0 72.3 64.7 101.6 97.7 1,483.0 1,507.0 1,467.0 94.1 84.6 97.1 80.5 84.6 88.9 103.0 98.6 84.6 93.0 24.5 25.6 26.1 51.9 51.0 53.1 54.5 51.5 52.0 88.2 78.0 105.3 111.6 66.9 74.0 123.5 121.2 116.3 122.9 76.1 86.0 76.7 83.7 92.1 100.0 97.1 96.0 92.1 83.8 87.9 66.7 63.8 67.3 58.1 91.5 83.9 72.1 85.7 73.7 69.5 73.1

59.1 87.8 71.3

59.3 80.7 67.5

64.3 81.3 67.0

75.5 64.1

7 F

76.9 77.5 100.8 68.2

Table 4C AHUS TEPEU (Grave 1) HEKII AND VINAPU AHU TEPEU (Or. 1) CRANIUM NO 1 SEX F Measurements Nasion-Inion Calvarial Height Nasion-Foot of Bregma Perpendicular Nasion-Lambda Lambda Calvarial Height Nasion-Bregma Bregma- Lambda Lambda-Opisthion Frontal Perpendicular Parietal Perpendicular Occipital Perpendicular Basion-Prosthion Nasion-Prosthion Nasion-Basion Basion-Ggathion Forehead Height Indices Calvarial Height Bregma Position Longitudinal Cranio-Facial Vertical Cranio-Facial Lambda Calvarial Height Frontal Perpendicular Parietal Perpendicular Occipital Perpendicular

(No. 2) MEDIAN SAGITTAL CRANIOGRAM MEASUREMENTS AND INDICES

AHU HEKII

AHU VINAPU (No. 2)

1 M

2 M

3 M

4 M

5 M

6 M

7 M

8 M

9 M

1 M

2 M

3 M

4 M

5 M

165 102 43

172 107 62

183 115 54

180 113 57

189 114 68

163 109 48

165 105 57

160 114 45

166 108 55

171

173 110 57

185 115 61

166 116 49

182 110 62

166 108 51

174 104 58

157 100 49

165 73 100 1 19 93 22 28 24 97 62 98 100 37

175 72 117 109

184 70 115 116 104 24 24 33 109 67 111 110 44

185 79

167 60

173 75 113 116 96 27 26 28 94 57 103

175 63 114 110 101 29 21 25 105 62 107

172 75 108 121

30 20

24 21

33

40

187 74 119 120 98 27 25 28 101 65 111 106 47

165 64 103 106

38

177 79 116 121 100 2* 26 28 97 61 101 105 40

173 69 110 111 102 26 22 25 99 64 100

25

187 79 124 122 102 26 24 32 98 66 111 104 42

171 68 113 104

101 63 106

180 73 115 116 95 23 23 25 105 68 112

61.8 26.1 56.4 45.3 44.2 22.0 23.5 25.8

62.2 36.0

63.6 . 71.3 28.1 34.5 50.0 57.4 54.1 40.1 43.4 35.9 23.9 22.7 20.8 22.4 27.0 29.2

65.1 33.1 56.8 44.3 39.4 25.4 19.1 24.8

29.2 55.1 44.7 43.6 20.4

63.6 32.9 57.0 46.3 40.6 20.0 19.8 26.0

62.2 33.0 48.5 43.7 42.2 21.0 19.7 31.4

69.9 29.5 52.7 42.1 44.6 20.7 21.5 28.0

60.4 34.1 51.8 43.9 39.6 22.7 20.8 28.6

65.1 30.7 54.7 47.4 39.9 23.6 19.8 24.5

26 21 67 36

40.9 22.2 19.3

62.8 29.5 54.8 46.9 38.0 20.9 20.7 31.7

119

125

111

25

26

27

112

111

43

46

105 62 104 117 38

62.8 31.7 53.3 45.5 42.7 21.8 20.2 31.8

60.3 36.0

66.9 29.4 56.8 43.4

20.8

24.3

124 88

25 28 104 66

110

96 100

25

20 27

101 72 105 115 41

102

50

22

39

6 M

7 F

95

26

95 62 100 110 39

94 58 98 97 28

59.8 33.3 51.4 45.3 39.8 26.5 19.2

63.7 31.2 54.3 43.3 38.8 23.3 19.8 27.4

12


Mandible. This is best described under morphologyThe individual morphological observations are shown in Tables 11 and 12. FORM

The grouped males in Table 13 show mostly a pentagonid or ovoid shape in the norma verticalis and a characteristic haus-form shape in the norma occipitalis. FRONTAL REGION

Supraorbital Type. The supraorbital type is based on De Young's (1941) definitions for comparative purposes (Fig. 2). 1. The supraorbital ridges are confined to the region above the median halves of the orbits and are clear of the supraorbital margin. IB. Same as 1, but glabella is level with the supraorbital bulges, 1C. Distinct glabella thickening which extends toward the median angle of each orbit yet does not possess the kidney-bean shape of 1. 2. Median brow ridges are developed and also the external halves of the supraorbital margins, but not the supraorbital trigonum. 2B. Same as 2, but glabella is level with the supraorbital bulges. 2-3. Glabella generally has a slight depression between pronounced supraorbital bulges, which have spread to the supraorbital trigonum but not producing a continuous torus. 3. Continuous brow ridge from glabella to external angular process to produce a supraorbital torus. Most of the males fall into categories 1 or IB. However, it should be noted that 15.8 per cent fall into categories 2-3 and 3. Supraorbital Size. Most of the crania show a slight to medium development. Foramina Supraorbitale. Present in 68.4 per cent. Foramina Frontale. Present in 36.8 per cent. Glabella Type. This is based on the modified Broca scale (Martin, 1928, p. 873) which is also useful for comparative purposes (PI. 1, top). Most of the crania fall into category III, but categories V and VI - large to very large-each have 15.8 per cent. Frontal Bosses. These are mostly small.

Table 5A AHU TEPEU (Grave 2). AVERAGES OF CRANIAL MEASUREMENTS Male

Measurement Cranial Capacity Maximum Length Ophyron-Occipital Length Maximum Width Minimum Frontal Basion-Bregma Auricular Height (Bregma) Auricular Height (Vertex) Endobasion-Nasion Endobasion-Prosthion Temporal Muscle Width. L. Temporal Muscle Height. L. Temporal Muscle Width. R. Temporal Muscle Height. R. Infra-Temporal Fossa Depth. L. Infra-Tenporal Fossa Depth. R. Bizygomatic Malar Height Malar Width Malar Area Nasion-Upper Alveolar Point Nasion-Gnathion Nasal Height Nasal Width Nasalia Upper Width Nasalia Minimum Width Nasalia Lower Width Nasalia Length Orbital Height. L. Orbital Width. L. Orbital Height. R. Orbital Width. R. Interorbital Biorbital Palate Height External Palatal Length External Palatal Width Internal Palatal Length Internal Palatal Width Bimastoid (1) Bimastoid (2) Foramen Magnum Length Foramen Magnum Width Circumference Nasion-Opisthion Arc Nasion-Bregma Arc Bregma-Lambda Arc Lambda-Opisthion Arc Transverse Arc Symphyseal Height Mandibular Body Length (1) Mandibular Body Length (2) Thickness Mandibular Body (M2) Thickness Mandibular Body (PM2) Bigonial Width Bicondylar Width Bicoronoid Width Ascending Ramus Height. L. Ramus Minimum Width L.

Female

No

Range

4 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 3 3 1 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

1,267—1,538 1,411.0 186.8 178—195 178—194 186.2 130.8 130—133 93.4 91—100 141.0 140—142 120—125 121.8 118—123 121.3 103—116 111.0 98—106 101.8 100—126 110.0 65—93 76.8 99—124 109.0 63—96 78.3 20—25 22.8 22—28 24.3 122—133 128.3 27—28 27.3 31—38 33.7 864—1,026 919.3 59—72 67.5 101.0 45—59 53.8 24—29 27.0 9—14 11.5 7—11 9.0 15—22 17.3 18—23 21.3 34.8 32—37 34—38 35.8 32—37 34.3 35—38 36.3 19—27 23.3 87—99 93.0 7—9

42—48 53—59 34—36 112—133 91—108 34—41 25—32 494—526 366—384 127—135 129—144 103—119 313—323 27—30 86—104 75—90 15—18 12—14 92—102 114—121 86—98 55—64 33—42

Mean

8.0

44.5 56.8 44.0 35.0 123.3 99.3 37.3 28.8 515.5 375.8 130.5 135.0 112.5 316.5 28.5 96.0 84.5 16.0 13.3 97.3 117.0 93.5 60.3 37.5

Range

No 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2

1,132—1,262 175—182 175—182 120—130 90—92 134—137 113—118 115—121

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 I 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 3 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

46—48 24—29

93—106 69—86 22—24 124—125 28—31 30—36 930—1,008 60—62

8—9

17—18 16—20 32—34 34—36 33—34 35—36 90—91 44—49 55—60 40—42 34—36 116—117 25—29 483-^95 123—127 112—124 297—307

Mean 1,197.0 178.3 177.7 124.7 91.0 135.5 115.5 118.0 103.0 100.0 106.0 84.0 99.5 77.5 23.0 24.0 124.5 29.5 33.0 969.0 61.0

47.0 26.5

9.0 8.5

17.5 18.0 33.0 35.0 33.5 35.5 22.0 90,5 12.0 46.5 57.5 41.0 35.0 116.5 93.0 38.0 27.0 489.0 367.0 125.0 119.3 116.0 302.0 29.0 93.0 79.0 18.0 14.0 91.0 102.0 86.0 62.0 36.0

Table SB AHU TEPEU (Grave 2). AVERAGES OF CRANIAL INDICES Male No

Cranial Height-Length Height-Width Auricular Height (Vertex)-Length (Max) Mean Height Fronto-Parietal Cranio-Facial Cranial Module L. Orbital R. Orbital Mean Orbital Interorbital Nasal Upper Facial Total Facial Zygo-Gonial Fronto-Gonial Zygo-Frontal External Palatal Internal Palatal Gnathic Foraminal Ramus Mandibular (1) Mandibular (2)

5 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 2 2 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 4

Female Range

66.7—74.3 72.3—78.3 106.0—108.5 63.1—65.9 86.8—90.4 69.2—76.9 91.7—102.3 1,513.0—1,553.0 91.4—102.7 91.4—97.4 91.4—100.0 21.8—27.5 45.8—53.3 48.4—54.5 69.2—77.9 100.0—103.3 69.2—75.8 122.9—138.1 77.3—81.8 87.1—95.1 73.5—82.1 55.0—65.6 74.8—88.6 65.2—78.1

Mean

70.1 74.5 107.7 64.2 88.2 71.4 97.9 1,538.3 97.2 94.4 95.8 25.0 50.5 52.6 82.8 73.6 101.7 73.2 127.8 79.6 91.8 77.1 62.2 82.1 72.3

No 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1

Range 68.1—73.0 74.9—75.7 110.5—111.7 65.7—66.5 89.5—90.8 72.6—76.7 100.0—104.2 1,437.0—1,480.0 88.9—100.0 91.7—97.1 90.3—98.6 24.2—24.4 52.2—60.4 48.4—49.6

72.6—73.6 112.2—136.4 81.0—90.0

Mean

69.9 75.3 111.1 66.1 90.1 74.7 102.1 1,458.5 94.5 94.4 94.5 24.3 56.3 49.0 80.0 108.7 73.1 124.3 85.5 97.1 76.3 58.1 91.2 77.5

Table 5C AHU TEPEU (Grave 2). AVERAGES OF MEDIAN SAGITTAL CRANIOGRAM MEASUREMENTS AND INDICES Male

Female

No

Range

Measurements Nasion-Inion Calvarial Height Nasion-Foot of Bregma Perpendicular Nasion-Lambda Lambda Calvarial Height Nasion-Bregma Bregma-Lambda Lambda-Opisthion Frontal Perpendicular Parietal Perpendicular Occipital Perpendicular Basion-Prosthion Nasion-Prosthion Nasion-Basion Basion-Gnathion Forehead Height

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 4

162—187 105—110 46—65 167—185 72—78 111—119 116—120 87—99 25—29 22—29 24—30 95—103 58—69 102—113

Indices Calvarial Height Bregma Position Longitudinal Cranio-Facial Vertical Cranio-Facial Lambda Calvarial Height Frontal Perpendicular Parietal Perpendicular Occipital Perpendicular

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

No

Range

Mean

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

164—167 101—108 51—56 167—175 64—71 109—112 101—113 97—99 25—27 18—19 26—27 96—97 56—60 100—101

165.5 104.5 53.5 171.0 67.5 110.5 107.0 98.0 26.0 18.5 26.5 96.5 58.0 100.5

40—45

178.0 107.3 56.5 178.8 74.5 114.5 118.0 94.0 27.0 24.5 27.3 100.3 64.3 109.0 99.0 41.8

2

33—43

38.0

57.1—66.0 28.4—34.8 51.8—54.0 41.1—48.9 39.3—46.7 22.1—25.2 18.6—24.2 27.6—30.9

60.5 31.7 53.1 45.6 41.8 23.6 20.7 29.0

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

61.6—64.7 30.5—34.1 52.7—55.4 40.9—44.8 38.3—40.6 22.3—24.8 16.8—17.8 26.3—27.8

63.2 32.3 54.1 42.9 39.5 23.6 17.3 27.1

Mean

Table 5D AHU TEPEU (Grave 2). AVERAGES OF MEDIAN SAGITTAL CRANIOGRAM ANGLES Male

Measurements Br-Nas-In La-In-Nas Nas-Pros-F. H. (Facial Profile) Nas-Nasosp-F. H. (Nasal Profile) Nasosp-Pros-F. H. (Alveolar Profile) Nas-In-F.H. Nas-Apex Frontal Perp-Br Br-Apex Par Perp-La La-Apex Occ Perp-Opis Nas-Bas-Pros Nas-Bas-Gnath Gl-La and Bas-Nas Br-Pros and Bas-Nas Nas-Br and F.H. Br-Pros and F.H. Gl-La and Br-La Bas-Br and Bas-La Bas-Opis-F.H. Sphbas-Bas-F.H. La-Gl-In Gl-In-F.H. Frontal Slope

Female

No

Range

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4

57°— 66° 79°— 84° 86°—92° 94°—99° 59°—73° 6°— 10° 127°— 133° 128°— 140° 116°— 122° 33°— 38°

Mean

60.5° 80.8° 89.3° 95.5° 63.8° 8.3° 129.5° 135.0° 119.8° 35.8° 61.0° 31°— 33° 32.5° 90°—93° 91.3° 48°— 55° 51.8° 63° — 66° 65.3° 32°—37° 34.5° 52°— 56° 54.0° + 1° to — 7° — 3.3° 27°— 28° 27.3° 19°— 21° 19.8° 11°— 15° 12.8° 15°— 20° 17.5°

No 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Range 59°— 63° 81°— 85° 86° — 87° 89°—91° 59°—75° 127°— 131 139°— 141° 122°— 125° 33°— 35° 36°— 37° 52°— 55° 64°— 65° 33°— 34° 47°— 53° + l ° t o — 1° 29°— 31° 23°— 24° 12°— 14°

Mean 61.0° 83.0° 86.5° 90.0° 67.0° 8.0° 129.0° 140.0° 123.5° 34.0° 36.5° 90.0° 53.5° 64.5° 33.5° 50.0° 0.0° 30.0° 23.5° 13.0° 16.0°

Table 6A AHUS TEPEU (Grave 1). HEKII AND VINAPU (No. 2). AVERAGES OF CRANIAL MEASUREMENTS Male

Cranial Capacity Maximum Length Ophyron-Occipital Length Maximum Width Minimum Frontal Basion-Bregma Auricular Height (Bregma) Auricular Height (Vertex) Endobasion-Nasion Endobasion-Prosthion Temporal Muscle Width. L. Temporal Muscle Height. L. Temporal Muscle Width. R. Temporal Muscle Height. R. Infra-Temporal Fossa Depth. L. Infra-Temporal Fossa Depth. R. Bizygomatic Malar Height Malar Width Malar Area Nasion-Upper Alveolar Point Nasion-Gnathion Nasal Height Nasal Width Nasalia Upper Width Nasalia Minimum Width Nasalia Lower Width Nasalia Length Orbital Height. L. Orbital Width. L. Orbital Height. R. Orbital Width. R. Interorbital Biorbital Palate Height External Palatal Length External Palatal Width Internal Palatal Length Internal Palatal Width Bimastoid (1) Bimastoid (2) Foramen Magnum Length Foramen Magnum Width Circumference Nasion-Opisthion Arc Nasion-Bregma Arc Bregma-Lambda Arc Lambda-Opisthion Arc Transverse Arc Symphyseal Height Mandibular Body Length (1) Mandibular Body Length (2) Thickness Mandibular Body (M2) Thickness Mandibular Body (PM2) Bigonial Width Bicondylar Width Bicoronoid Width Ascending Ramus Height. L. Ramus Minimum Width. L.

Female

No

Range

12 16 16 14 14 15 14 14 14 13 13 14 14 14 13 13 14 15 15 15 14 9 15 15 15 15 14 10 15 14 15 15 15 14 12 14 15 14 15 15 13 13 12 13 11 14 13 12 14 13 14 13 14 14 13 12 12 12 14

1,277—1,644 1,462.1 176—202 188.2 175—199 186.4 128—139 133.4 87—102 94.9 133—153 143.1 114—125 121.6 118—128 123.3 102—114 108.1 95—110 103.5 97—119 108.7 73—86 80.8 95—116 106.7 72—86 81.1 19—25 22.3 18—24 22.4 119—142 131.6 26—34 29.9 31—43 35.3 806—1,248 1,054.1 59—76 67.6 103—125 113.8 43—55 49.5 24—27 26.0 5—14 9.3 3—13 7.5 14—21 17.6 18—32 22.0 30—37 33.6 34—39 37.6 30—37 33.5 35—41 38.3 20—28 23.4 90—101 95.3 10—16 13.2 47—55 52.0 51—66 61.3 44.1 38—49 31—41 35.8 116—140 123.9 97—120 102.6 31—40 36.7 28—36 31.7 500—545 516.1 350—406 378.3 125—144 131.9 126.9 109—139 108—140 120.2 319.4 306—340 29—38 32.0 92—108 98.9 72—92 83.2 14—18 16.3 11 — 15 13.3 90—109 97.9 115—130 121.1 89—106 97.3 58—72 63.6 32—42 37.1

Mean

No

Range

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

1,190—1,238 1,214.0 172—173 172.5 170—172 171.0 122—133 127.5 85—97 91.5 134—137 135.5 115—118 116.5 118—121 119.5 99_100 99.5 95—101 98.0 103—112 107.5 74—79 76.5 105—109 107.0 75—81 78.0 24.0 23—24 23.5 130.0 25—32 28.5 33—36 34.5 825—1,152 988.5 59—63 61.0 101.0 46.5 44—49 24—28 26.0 8—9 8.5 8.0 17.5 16—19 21.0 31—32 31.5 34—37 35.5 31—34 32.5 35.0 33—37 23—25 24.0 93.0 88—98 11.5 10—13 47.5 47—48 59—60 59.5 40—43 41.5 36.0 114—118 116.0 92—97 94.5 33—35 34.0 29.0 480—488 484.0 351—355 353.0 112—119 115.5 118—135 126.5 108—114 111.0 305—316 310.5 27—28 27.3 88—94 91.3 75—83 78.3 15—17 16.0 11—14 12.5 86—96 92.3 112—122 115.5 86—94 90.5 52—58 56.3 35—37 35.8

Mean

Table 6B AHUS TEPEU (Grave 1), HEKII AND VINAPU (No. 2). AVERAGES OF CRANIAL INDICES Female

Male No

Cranial Height-Length Height-Width Auricular Height (Vertex)-Length (Max) Mean Height Pronto-Parietal Cranio-Facial Cranial Module L. Orbital R. Orbital Mean Orbital Interorbital Nasal Upper Facial Total Facial Zygo-Gonial Fronto-Gonial Zygo-Frontal External Palatal Internal Palatal Gnathic Foraminal Ramus Mandibular (1) Mandibular (2)

14 15 13 14 13 13 12 13 14 15 14 14 15 13 8 10 10 14 14 14 13 12 12 12 12

Range

Mean

64.9—79.0 71.1 69.8—85.0 75.8 95.7—115.3 106.8 61.4—69.0 65.2 83.9—97.1 88.7 64.5—78.9 71.3 87.8—108.4 99.3 1,483.0—1,623.0 1,552.0 83.3—97.2 89.6 80.5—94.9 87.7 83.3—94.9 88.9 20.4—28.6 24.5 45.5—60.0 52.8 48.4—58.0 51.5 81.7—92.4 86.3 66.2—80.3 74.9 91.9_114.6 103.2 66.9—81.1 72.3 102.0—134.0 118.4 63.3—94.7 80.8 91.0—101.9 96.1 75.0—97.3 86.8 58.6 49.2—66.7 72.3—91.5 82.7 64.6—73.7 69.5

No 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 4 3 4

Range 70.9—76.9 77.5—79.7 100.8—112.3 68.2—70.3 87.6—93.2 64.7—79.5 97.7—106.6 1,437.0—1,467.0 83.8—94.1 83.8—103.0 83.8—98.6 25.5—26.1 54.5—57.1

94.8—111.6 122.9—127.7 83.7—90.0 96.0—101.0 82.9—87.9 59.3—67.3 72.1—82.5 67.0—72.8

Mean

73.9 78.6 106.6 69.3 90.4 72.1 102.2 1 452.0 89.0 93.4 91.2 25.8 55.8 48.5 77.7 70.8 103.2 74.6 125.3 86.9 98.5 85.4 63.7 79.2 69.1

Table 6C AHUS TEPEU (Grave 1), HEKII AND VINAPU (No. 2). AVERAGES OF MEDIAN SAGITTAL CRANIOGRAM MEASUREMENTS AND INDICES Female

Male No

Range

Measurements Nasion-Inion Calvarial Height Nasion-Foot of Bregma Perpendicular Nasion-Lambda Lambda Calvarial Height Nasion-Bregma Bregma-Lambda Lambda-Opisthion Frontal Perpendicular Parietal Perpendicular Occipital Perpendicular Basion-Prosthion Nasion-Prosthion Nasion-Basion Basion-Gnathion Forehead Height

15 14 15 13 13 15 13 10 15 12 10 13 14 14 8 15

160—189 104—116 48—68 167—187 60—79 108—125 96—124 88—104 22—30 20—26 25—33 94—109 57—72 100—112 102—117 25—47

Indices Calvarial Height Bregma Position Longitudinal Cranio-Facial Vertical Cranio-Facial Lambda Calvarial Height Frontal Perpendicular Parietal Perpendicular Occipital Perpendicular

14 15 13 13 13 15 12 10

59.8—71.3 28.1—36.0 48.5—57.4 40.1—54.1 35.9—44.6 20.0—26.5 19.1—22.4 24.5—31.8

Mean

No

Range

Mean

173.0 110.6 55.6 177.5 72.5 115.3 114.3 98.7 25.9 23.1 27.9 101.2 64.4 106.7 108.6 39.4

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

157—165 100—102 43—49

97—100 28—37

161.0 101.0 46.0 165.0 68.5 101.5 112.5 94.0 23.0 24.5 25.0 95.5 60.0 98.0 98.5 32.5

64.0 32.1 53.9 45.2 40.8 22.5 20.3 28.3

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

61.8—63.7 26.1—31.2 54.3—56.4 43.3—45.3 38.8—44.2 22.0—23.3 19.8—23.5 25.8—27.4

62.8 28.7 55.4 44.3 41.5 22.7 21.7 26.6

64—73 100—103 106—119 93—95 22—24 21—28 24—26 94—97 58—62

Table 6D AHUS TEPEU (Grave 1), HEKII AND VINAPU (No. 2). AVERAGES OF MEDIAN SAGITTAL CRANIOGRAM ANGLES Female

Male No

Br-Nas-In La-In-Nas Nas-Pros-F.H (Facial Profile) Nas-Nasosp-F.H (Nasal Profile) Nasosp-Pros-F.H (Alveolar Profile) Nas-In-F.H. Nas-Apex Frontal Perp-Br Br-Apex Par Perp-La La-Apex Occ Perp-Opis Nas-Bas-Pr Nas-Bas-Gnath Gl-La and Bas-Nas Br-Pros and Bas-Nas Nas-Br and F.H. Br-Pros and F.H. Gl-La and Br-La Bas-Br and Bas-La Bas-Opis-F.H. Sphbas-Bas-F.H. La-Gl-In Gl-In-F.H. Frontal Slope

15 13 14 15 14 15 15 12 10 13 8 12 13 15 14 13 12 12 13 13 15 15

Range 57° —66° 76°— 87° 82°—94° 85°—98° 57°— 75° 5° — 12° 122°— 136° 133°— 139° 115°— 129° 33°—41° 61°— 69° 31°— 39° 89°—93° 47°_ 57° 6 1 ° —67 ° 32°—37° 45°— 56° — 12° to +1T 21°— 37° 19°—25° 9°_ 17° 10°—27°

Mean 61.1° 82.5° 86.8° 91.5° 64.9° 8.2° 130.6° 135.8° 120.6° 35.6° 64.6° 35.3° 90.9° 52.4° 64.6° 34.2° 51.1° — 0.8° 27.5° 21.7° 12.5° 17.7°

No

Range

Mean

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

62°— 64° 80°— 84°

63.0° 82.0° 86.0° 90.0° 72.0° 2.5° 130.0° 133.0° 123.5° 36.0° 61.5° 35.0° 93.0° 60.5° 69.5° 30.5° 53.0° + 3.0° 24.0° 20.5° 8.5° 10.0°

88°—92° 64°— 80° 1°— 4° 128°— 132° 129°— 137° 122°— 125° 35°—37° 60°— 63° 34°— 36° 92°—94° 57°_64° 67°—72° 30°—31° 50°— 56° — l ° t o + 7° 20°—28° 19°—22° 6°— 11° 8°— 12°

Table 7 ANALYSIS OF DISPERSION. CRANIAL MEASUREMENTS. TOTAL MALE SERIES

Cranial Capacity Maximum Length Ophyron-Occipital Length Maximum Width Minimum Frontal Basion-Bregma Auricular Height (Bregma) Auricular Height (Vertex) Endobasion-Nasion Endobasion-Prosthion Temporal Muscle Width. L. Temporal Muscle Height. L. Temporal Muscle Width. R. Temporal Muscle Height. R. Infra-Temporal Fossa Depth. L. Infra-Temporal Fossa Depth. R. Bizygomatic Malar Height Malar Width Malar Area Nasion-Upper Alveolar Point Nasion-Gnathion Nasal Height Nasal Width Nasalia Upper Width Nasalia Minimum Width Nasalia Lower Width Nasalia Length Orbital Height. L. Orbital Width. L. Orbital Height. R. Orbital Width. R. Interorbital Biorbital Palate Height External Palatal Length External Palatal Width Internal Palatal Length Internal Palatal Width Bimastoid (1) Bimastoid (2) Foramen Magnum Length Foramen Magnum Width Circumference Nasion-OpKistion Arc Nasion-Bregma Arc Bregma-Lambda Arc Lambda-Opisthion Arc Transverse Arc Symphyseal Height Mandibular Body Length (1) Mandibular Body Length (2) Thickness Mandibular Body (M2) Thickness Mandibular Body (PM2) Bigonial Width Bicondylar Width Bicoronoid Width Ascending Ramus Height. L. Ramus Minimum Width. L.

No

Range

Mean

16 21 21 19 19 19 18 18 18 17 16 18 18 18 17 16 18 18 18 18 18 10 19 19 19 19 17 13 19 18 19 19 19 18 14 18 19 16 17 19 17 17 16 17 15 18 18 16 18 17 18 17 18 18 17 16 16 16 18

1,267—1,644 176—202 175—199 128—139 87—102 133—153 114—125 118—128 102—116 95—110 97—126 65—93 95—124 63—96 19—25 18—28 119—142 26—34 31-^3 806—1,248 59—76 101—125 43—59 24—29 5—14 3—13 14—22 18—32 30—37 34—39 30—37 35—41 19—28 87—101 7—16 42—55 51—66 38—49 31—41 112—140 91—120 31—41 25—36 494—545 350—406 127—135 109—144 103—140 306—340 27—38 86—108 72—92 14—18 11—15 90—109 114—130 86—106 55—72 32—42

1,449.31 ± 26.78 187.86 ± 1.65 186.33 ± 1.51 132.74 ± 0.86 94.53 ± 0.90 142.63 ± 1.11 121.61 ± 0.72 122.83 ± 0.70 108.78 ± 1.12 103.06 ± 0.91 108.94 ± 1.98 79.89 ± 1.49 107.22 ± 1.85 80.44 ± 1.58 22.41 ± 0.37 22.75 ± 0.53 1 30.89 ± 1.59 29.44 ± 0.48 35.00 ± 0.78 1,031.61 ± 30.21 67.61 ± 1.03 11 2.50 ± 2.32 50.37 ± 1.04 26.21 ± 0.31 9.79 ± 0.57 7.84 ± 0.54 17.53 ± 0.60 21.85 ± 0.94 33.84 ± 043 37.22 ± 0.40 33.68 ± 0.49 37.84 ± 0.43 23.37 ± 0.56 94.78 ± 0.82 12.43 ± 0.70 50.33 ± 0.94 60.37 ± 0.90 44.06 ± 0.66 35.71 ± 0.57 123.79 ± 1.43 101.82 ± 1.56 36.82 ± 0.63 30.94 ± 0.70 51 5.94 ± 3.54 377.60 ± 3.36 131.56 ± 1.21 129.17 + 2.09 1 18.25 ± 2.16 318.72 ± 1.82 31.18± 0.68 98.27 ± 1.27 83.47 ± 1.33 16.22 ± 0.30 13.28± 0.25 97.76 ± 1.16 120.06 ± 1.21 96.31 ± 1.15 62.75 ± 1.00 37.17 ± 0.67

S.E. of Mean

S.D.

S.E. of S.D.

C.V. S.E. of C.V.

107. 13 7.57 6.92 3.77 3.94 4.83 3.06 2.99 4.73 3.73 7.93 6.31 7.85 6.70

± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ±

7.39 ± 1.30 4.03 ± 0.62 3.72 ± 0.57 2.84 ± 0.46 4.17 ± 0.67 3.38 ± 0.54 2.51 ± 0.42 2.43 ± 0.40 4.35 ± 0.72 3.62 ± 0.62 7.27 ± 1.28 7.89 ± 1.31 7.32 ± 1.22 8.33 ± 1.39 6.85 ± 1.17 9.26 ± 1.63 5. 16 ±0.86 6.91 ± 1.15 9.48 ± 1.58 12.42± 2.06 6.47 ± 1.07 6.52± 1.46 9.00 ± 1.46 5.19 ± 0.84 25.58 ±4.14 29.91 ± 4.85 14.13 ± 2.42 15.53± 3.04 5.53 ± 0.89 4.61 ± 0.76 6.32 ± 1.02 4.94 ± 0.80 10.41 ± 1.68 3.68 ± 0.61 21.00± 3.97 7.89 ± 1.31 6.52 ± 1.05 6.03 ± 1.06 6.64 ± 1.14 5.04 ± 0.81 6.33 ± 1.08 7.11 ± 1.22 9.03 ± 1.59 2.83 ± 0.48 3.44 ± 0.62 3.89 ± 0.64 6.87 ± 1.14 7.32 ± 1.29 2.42 ± 0.40 8.95 ± 1.53 5.48 ± 0.91 6.55 ± 1.12 7.84 ± 1.30 7.86 ± 1.31 4.89 ± 0.83 4.03 ±0.71 4.80 ± 0.85 6.36 ± 1.12 7.68 ± 1.28

18.94 1.17 1.07 0.61 0.64 0.78 0.51 0.50 0.79 0.64 1.40 1.05 1.31 1.12 1.54± 0.26 2.1 1± 0.37 6.75 ± 1.12 2.03 ± 0.34 3.32± 0.55 128.18 + 21.36 4.37 ± 0.73 7.34 ± 1.64 4.53 ± 0.74 1.36 + 0.22 2.50 ± 0.41 2.35 ± 0.38 2.48 ± 0.42 3.39 ± 0.67 1.87± 0.30 1.72± 0.29 2.13 ± 0.35 1.87± 0.30 2.43 + 0.39 3.49 ± 0.58 2.61 + 0.49 3.79 ± 0.66 3.94 ± 0.64 2.66 ± 0.47 2.37 ± 0.41 6.24 ± 1.01 6.45 ± 1.11 2.62 ± 0.45 2.79 ± 0.49 14.59 ± 2.50 13.00 ± 2.37 5.12 ± 0.85 8.88 ± 1.48 8.66 ± 1.53 7.72 ± 1.29 2.79 ± 0.48 5.39± 0.89 5.47 + 0.94 1.27 ± 0.21 1.04± 0.17 4.78 ± 0.82 4.84 + 0.86 4.62 + 0.82 3.99 ± 0.71 2.85 ± 0.48

Table 8 ANALYSIS OF DISPERSION. CRANIAL INDICES. TOTAL MALE SERIES No 19 Cranial Height-Length 19 Height-Width 17 Auricular Height (Vertex) — Length (Max) 18 Mean Height 17 Pronto-Parietal 18 Cranio-Facial 16 17 Cranial Module L. Orbital 18 R. Orbital 19 Mean Orbital 18 Interorbital 18 Nasal 19 Upper Facial 17 Total Facial 9 12 Zygo-Gonial 12 Fronto-Gonial 18 Zygo-Frontal External Palatal 18 16 Internal Palatal Gnathic 17 16 Foraminal 16 Ramus Mandibular (1) 16 Mandibular (2) 16

Range 64.9—79.0 69.8—85.0 95.7—115.3 61.4—69.0 83.9—97.1 64.5—78.9 87.8—108.4 1,483.0—1,623.0 83.3—102.7 80.5—97.4 83.3—100.0 20.4—28.6 45.5—60.0 48.4—58.0 81.7—92.4 66.2—80.3 91.9_114.6 66.9—81.1 102.0—138.1 63.3—94.7 87.1—101.9 73.5—97.3 49.2—66.7 72.3—91.5 64.6—78.1

S.E. of Mean

S.D. S.E. of S.D.

70.82 + 0.81 75.51 ± 0.73 107.01 ± 1.08 65.00 ± 0.42 88.58 + 0.73 71.35 ±0.78 98.85 ± 1.30 1,548.76 ±9.01 91.29± 1.23 89.09 ± 1.20 90.44 ± 1.12 24.56 ± 0.54 52.30 ± 0.79 5 1.74 ±0.65 85.87± 1.26 74.68 ± 1.17 102.93 ± 1.90 72.47 ± 0.94 120.50± 2.00 80.68 ± 1 .96 95.10 ± 0.87 84.40 ± 1.89 59.48 ± 1.17 82.51 ± 1.27 70. 16 ±0.96

3.56 ± 0.57 3.19 ± 0.51 4.48 ± 0.76 1.81 ± 0.30 3.03 ± 0.52 3.32 ± 0.55 5.38 ± 0.92 37.16 ± 6.37 5.25 + 0.87 5.24 + 0.85 4.75 ± 0.79 2.29 ± 0.38 3.47 ± 0.56 2.71 ± 0.46 3.78 ± 0.89 4.06 ± 0.82 6.59+ 1.34 4.00 + 0.66 8.50 ± 1.41 7.84 ± 1.38 3.60 ± 0.61 7.58 ± 1.34 4.69 ± 0.82 5.09 ± 0.90 3.85 ± 0.68

Mean

C.V. S.E. of C.V. 5.04 4.23 4.19 2.80 3.42 4.65 5.45 2.40 5.75 5.89 5.25 9.36 6.64 5.24 4.41 5.44 6.41 5.52 7.06 9.72 3.79 8.99 7.89 6.17 5.49

± 0.81 ± 0.69 ±0.71 ± 0.46 ± 0.58 ± 0.77 ± 0.93 ± 0.41 + 0,95 ± 0.95 ± 0.87 ± 1.56 ± 1 .07 ± 0.90 ± 1.04 ± 1.11 ± 1.31 ± 0.92 ± 1.17 ± 1.72 ± 0.64 ± 1.58 ± 1.39 ± 1.09 ± 0.97

Table 9 ANALYSIS OF DISPERSION. MEDIAN SAGITTAL CRANIOGRAM. MEASUREMENTS AND INDICES. TOTAL MALE SERIES No

Range

Measurements Nasion-Inion Calvarial Height Nasion-Foot of Bregma Perpendicular Nasion-Latnbda Lambda Calvarial Height Nasion-Bregma Bregma-Lambda Lambda-Opisthion Frontal Perpendicular Parietal Perpendicular Occipital Perpendicular Basion-Prosthion Nasion-Prosthion Nasion-Basion Basion-Gnathion Forehead Height

19 18 19 17 17 19 17 14 19 16 14 17 18 18 9 19

160—189 104—116 46—68 167—187 60—79 108—125 96—124 87—104 22—30 20—29 24—33 94—109 57—72 100—113 99—117 25—47

174.05 ± 2.08 109.83 ± 0.88 55.79 ± 1.43 1 77.76 ± 1.58 72.94 ± 1.15 115.11 ± 1.02 1 15.18 ± 1.70 97.36 ± 1.31 26.11 ±0.45 23.44 ± 0.59 27.71 ± 0.69 100.94 ± 0.99 64.39 ± 0.91 1 07.22 ± 1.06 107.56 ± 1.87 39.89 ± 1.11

Indices Calvarial Height Bregma Position Longditudinal Cranio-Facial Vertical Cranio-Facial Lambda Calvarial Height Frontal Perpendicular Parietal Perpendicular Occipital Perpendicular

18 19 17 17 17 19 16 14

57.1—71.3 28.1—36.0 48.5—57.4 40.1—54.1 35.9—46.7 20.0—26.5 18.6—24.2 24.5—31.8

63.21 ± 0.87 31.97 ± 0.55 53.68 ± 0.59 45.28 ± 0.78 41.04± 0.61 22.69 ± 0.41 20.38 ± 0.33 28.48 ± 0.62

Mean S.E. of Mean

S.D. S.E. of S.D.

C.V. S.E. of C.V.

± 1.47 ± 0.62 ± 1.01 ± 1.12 ± 0.81 ± 0.72 ± 1.20 ± 0.92 ± 0.32 ± 0.42 ± 0.49 ± 0.70 ± 0.65 ± 0.75 ± 1.32 ± 0.78

5.22 ± 0.84 3.38 ± 0.56 11.16± 1.81 3.66 ± 0.62 6.51 ± 1.11 3.87 ± 0.62 6.08 ± 1.04 5.03 ± 0.95 7.55 ± 1.22 10.12 ± 1.79 9.29 ± 1.75 4.06 ± 0.69 6.02 ± 1.00 4.21 ± 0.70 5.21 ± 1.22 12.09 ± 1.96

3.69 ± 0.61 2.43 ± 0.39 2.46 ± 0.42 3.22 ± 0.55 2.54 ± 0.43 1.82 ±0.29 1.35 ± 0.23 2.32 ± 0.44

5.85 ± 0.97 7.62 ± 1.23 4.58 ± 0.78 7.12± 1.22 6.20 ± 1.06 8.03 ± 1.30 6.63 ± 1.17 8.18 ± 1.54

9.09 3.72 6.23 6.50 4.75 4.46 7.00 4.89 1.97 2.37 2.58 4.09 3.87 4.52 5.60 4.82

Table 10 ANALYSIS OF DISPERSION. MEDIAN SAGITTAL CRANIOGRAM ANGLES. TOTAL MALE SERIES No

Br-Nas-In La-In-Nas Nas-Pros-F.H (Facial Profile) Nas-Nasosp-F.H (Nasal Profile) Nasosp-Pros-F.H (Alveolar Profile) Nas-In-F.H. Nas-Apex Frontal Perp-Br Br-Apex Par Perp-La La-Apex Occ Perp-Opis Nas-Bas-Pr Nas-Bas-Gnath Gl-La and Bas-Nas Br-Pros and Bas-Nas Nas-Br and F.H. Br-Pros and F.H. Gl-La and Br-La Bas-Br and Bas-La Sphbas-Bas-F.H. La-Gl-In Gl-In-F.H. Frontal Slope

19 17 18 19 18 19 19 16 14 17 9 16 17 19 18 17 16 16 17 19 19

Range (°) Mean (°) S.E. of Mean 57—66 76—87 82—94 85—99 57—75 5—12 122—136 128—140 115—129 33—41 61—69 31—39 89—93 47—57 61—67 32—37 45—56 21—37 19—25 9—17 10—27

60.95 ± 0.66 82.12 ± 0.72 87.33 ± 0.77 92.37 ± 0.82 64.67 ±1.31 8.21 ± 0.46 130.37 ±0.92 135.56 ± 0.64 120.36 ± 1.15 35.65 ± 0.48 64.22 ± 0.98 34.56 ± 0.57 91. 00 ±0.33 52.26 ± 0.61 64.72 ± 0.40 34.29 ± 0.40 51.81 ± 0.74 27.50 ± 1.04 21.24± 0.44 12.58 ± 0.50 17.68 ± 1.09

S.D. S.E. of S.D.

C.V. S.E. of C.V.

2.87 ± 0.47 2.99 ± 0.51 3.28 ± 0.55 3.56 ± 0.58 5.56 ± 0.93 1.99 ±0.32 4.03 ± 0.65 2.57 ± 0.45 4.29 ± 0.81 2.00 ± 0.34 2.94 ± 0.69 2.29 ± 0.40 1.37 ± 0.24 2.65 ± 0.43 1.69 ±0.28 1.64 ± 0.28 2.96 ± 0.52 4.17 ± 0.74 1.80 ±0.31 2. 16 ±0.35 4.75 ± 0.77

4.72 ± 0.76 3.64 ± 0.62 3.76 ± 0.62 3.85 ± 0.62 8.59 ± 1.43 24.22 ± 3.92 3.09 ± 0.49 1.90 ±0.33 3.56 ± 0.67 5.61 ± 0.96 4.57 ± 1.07 6.63 ± 1.17 1.51 ±0.25 5.08 ± 0.82 2.62 ± 0.43 4.77 ± 0.81 5.72 ± 1.01 15.16 ±2.68 8.47 ± 1.45 17.17 ± 2.78 26.84 ± 4.35

Table 11 AHU TEPEU (Grave 2). MORPHOLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS No SEX

1 M

2 M

3 M

4 F

5 F

6 M

7 M

8 F

Form Norma verticalis Norma occipitalis

Pentagonid Hausform

Pentagonid Hayrick

Sphenoid Hayrick

Ovoid Hausform

Ovoid Hausform

Ovoid Hausform

Pentagoid Hausform

Pentagoid Hayrick

Frontal region 1 Supraorbital type Supraorbital size Supraorbital foramina

IA Slight Absent

IA Medium L &.R for.

IB Slight L & R for.

1C Slight L for. front

IIB Medium

II Small Present Absent

V Small Absent Present

IB Medium L & R for. R. for. front V Small Absent Absent

Ill Small Absent Absent

III Small Absent Absent

R. for. front IV Small Small Absent Present

Slight Slight Medium Absent

Medium Slight Medium Absent

Marked Slight Medium Absent

Medium Slight Small Absent

Marked Absent Medium Absent

Medium Slight Small Absent

Medium Absent Medium

Marked Absent Medium

Medium Medium

Medium Large Sph-Par Sph-Par

Large Small

Large Small Sph-Par Sph-Par

Medium Medium Sph-Par

Medium Small

Sph-Par

Medium Medium Sph-Par Sph-Par

Slight Small Medium Mound Slight

Absent Absent Small Mound Slight

Absent Small Small Ridge Slight

Absent Large Small Ridge Medium

Medium Medium Small Ridge

Slight Small Small Mound

L. 1

L &R Many Absent Absent Absent Absent

L &R Many Absent Few (1—3) Absent Absent

Glabella type2 Bosses Metopism Supranasal suture (N)3 Parietal region Sagittal elevation Postcoronal depression Bosses Parietal notch bone Temporal region Mastoids Supramastoid crest4 Pterion type. L. Pterion type. R.4

Sph-Par

Large Medium Sph-Par Sph-Par

Occipital region Lambdoid flattening Inion size Torus Torus shape Ruggedness

Absent Absent Small Mound Slight

Medium Small Small Ridge Slight

Wormian bones Lambdoid

R. 1

L &R Many

Coronal Sagittal Occipito-mastoid Other Basilar region Palate shape Palatine torus External pterygoid plate Glenoid fossa depth Postglenoid process Tympanic plate Petrous depression Dehiscences Auditory meatus Condyle elevation Spina Angularis sphenoidei. L. Spina angularis sphenoidei. R. Posterior condyloid foramen Precondylar tubercles6

Absent Absent Absent

Few (1—3) Absent Absent %

Absent Absent Absent Absent

Parabolic Medium Large Medium Medium Thin Absent Absent Round Medium Marked Marked Bilateral Discrete (I) Small. Bilateral. Completely fused Non-faceted

Parabolic Absent

Parabolic Absent

Medium Small Thick Slight Absent Oval High Small Small Right Absent

Shallow Medium Present Oval Medium Marked Marked Absent

Parabolic Small U Absent Absent Large Large Medium Medium Small Small Thin Thin Slight Absent Absent Present Round Round Low Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Bilateral Bilateral Continous (II) Absent Medium. Bilateral. Nonfused. R. faceted

L &R Many Few (1— 3j

IB Medium R. for. R. for. front IV Small

Sph-Par

Absent Absent

Absent Parabolic Absent Medium Medium Medium Slight Absent Round Low Marked Marked Bilateral Absent

Medium Small Oval

Present Oval

9 M

10 F

11 M

Table 11 (cont.) AHU TEPEU (Grave 2). MORPHOLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS No SEX Orbital region Orbital shape Orbital inclination Infraorbital suture. L. Infraorbital suture. R. Suborbital fossa Orbito-maxillary frontal suture. L.6 Orbito-maxillary frontal suture. R.°

1 M

2 M

3 M

4 F

5 F

6 M

Square Slight Absent Absent Medium Normal A type

Square Medium Fac-Orb Absent Small Normal Normal

Square Medium Fac-Orb Fac-Orb Deep

Square Medium Absent Facial Medium Normal Normal

Rhomboid Medium Absent Absent Small

Normal

Rhomboid Medium Fac-Orb Fac-Orb Small Normal Normal

Malar region Malars size Lateral projection Anterior projection

Medium Slight Medium

Medium Slight Slight

Large Medium Slight



Medium

Slight

Marked

Medium

Slight

Medium Low

Medium Concave

Medium Medium Medium Concave

Wide High Medium Concave

Sharp Present Medium Under Absent

Nasal region Nasion depression Nasal root height Nasal root width Nasal bridge height Nasal bridge width Nasal profile Nasal Fossa Nasal Nasal

sills praenasalis spine bone growth'

Calvarium interior Direction of supr. sag. sinus (R)8 Mandible Mandible size Chin form Chin projection Genial tubercles Mylohyoid ridge8 Mylohyoid arch Torus Sigmoid notch depth Pterygoid attachment Eversion of gonions 'Rocker'" 1

Low

Low

Low

Absent Absent Medium Normal

Medium Absent Medium Normal

Medium Present Medium Under

Absent Medium Medium Medium Wide Concavoconvex Absent Absent Small Normal

Present

Present

Absent

Absent

Low

Medium Triangular Medium Medium Slight Absent Absent Medium Medium Slight Absent

Medium Medium Wide Concave

7 M

8 F

9 M

10 F

11 M

Slight Slight

Low

Narrow

Dull Present

Present

Present

Medium Median Medium Medium Slight Absent Absent Medium Medium Inverted Present

de Young. — 2 Broca (in Martin). •— 3 Ashley-Montagu. — 4 Murphy. — 5 Broman. — ° Thomson — ' Birdsell. — 8 Laughlin. — * Marshall & Snow.

Large Median Medium Slight Medium Present Absent Medium Medium Medium Absent

Medium Median Neutral Absent Medium Present Absent Medium Medium Inverted Absent

Medium Median Medium Medium Medium Absent Absent Medium Small Slight Present


21

Figure 2. SUPRAORBITAL TYPE, BASED ON DE YOUNG'S (1941) DEFINITIONS

Metopism. 11.1 per cent of the males exhibit this feature (PI. 1, lower left). Supranasal Suture (N). The persistence of the supranasal portion of the medio-frontal suture occurs in 38.9 per cent of the males (PI. 1, lower right).

Supramastoid Crest Size. The majority show a medium to large size. Pterion Type-Left ft or Right (Murphy, 1956). Mostly sphenoparietal.

PARIETAL REGION

Lambdoid Flattening. The majority show a slight to medium flattening. Inion Size. 61.9 per cent have a small to medium size. Occipital Torus Size. Mostly small to medium in size. Occipital Torus Shape. Almost evenly distributed between ridge or mound shape. Occipital Ruggedness. The nuchal area is mainly of a medium ruggedness.

Sagittal Elevation. There is a characteristic medium to marked elevation. Postcoronal Depression. Slight to distinct in 65 per cent of the males.

Parietal Bosses. Mostly medium. Parietal Notch Bone. Completely absent. TEMPORAL REGION

Mastoid Size. 42.9 per cent are large.

OCCIPITAL REGION

Table 12 AHU TEPEU (Grave 1). HEKII AND VINAPU (No. 2). MORPHOLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS a SEX

AHU TEPEU (Or. 1) 1 2 F M

AHU HEKII 1 2 M M

3 M

4 M

5 M

6 M

7 M

8 M

Form Norma verticalis Norma occipitalis

Ovoid Spheroid

Brisoid Hayrick

Ovoid Hausform

Ovoid Hausform

Brisoid Hausform

Pentagonid Hausform

Pentagonid Hausform

Rhomboid Hayrick

Pentagonid Hausform

IA Medium L. for. L & R. for front III Small Absent Absent

II—III Marked L. for. L. & R. for front VI Smal . Absent Present

HA Medium L. & R. for front V Small Absent Present

HI Marked R. for.

IA Slight R. for.

1C Very slight L. for.

VI Small Absent Absent

Ill Small Present Absent

IA Slight L & R for. L. for. front III Small Absent Present


IB Slight L & R for. L for. front III Small Absent Absent

Frontal region Supraorbital type Supraorbital size Supraorbital foramin

Pentagoid Hayrick

Glabella type Bosses Mepotism Supranasal suture (N)

IB Slight L. notch R. for. front III Small Present Absent

Parietal region Sagittal elevatin Postcoronal depression Bosses Parietal notch bone

Slight Absent Small Absent

Slight Absent Small Absent

Marked Absent Medium Absent

Marked Absent Small Absent



Medium Distinct Medium Absent

Very marked Distinct Large Absent

Slight Distinct Large Absent


Large Medium

Medium Medium


Large Medium Sph-Par Sph-Par


Large Medium


Large Large

Medium Small Sph-Par Sph-Par


Absent Large Absent

Absent Medium Small Ridge Medium

Medium Absent Absent Slight

Slight Small Small Mound Slight

Temporal region Mastoids Supramastoid crest Pterion type. L. Pterion type. R. Epipteric type. L. Epipteric type. R. Occipital region Lambdoid flattening Inion size Torus Torus shape Ruggedness

II II

Slight Small Medium Mound Medium

Absent Medium Medium Mound Medium

Slight Small Medium Mound Medium

L &R Many Absent

L&R Many

Absent

Coronal Sagittal Occipito-mastoid Other

Few (1—3) Absent Absent

Absent Absent


Wormian bones Lambdoid

Basilar region Palate shape Palatine torus External pterygoid plate Glenoid fossa depth Postglenoid process Tympanic plate Petrous depression Dehiscences Auditory meatus Condyle elevation Spina angularis sphenoidei. L. Spina angularis sphenoidei. R. Posterior condyloid foramen Precondylar tubercles

Small U Absent Medium Medium Medium Thin Slight Absent Ellipse Medium Medium Medium Right Discrete (I) Small. Bilateral Completely fused. Faceted (L&R)

Medium

Absent

Small U Absent Medium Small Medium

Medium Medium Thin

Absent Round Medium

Present Oval Medium Medium

III VI*

Sph-Par I

Slight Absent Small Ridge Medium

Medium Medium Ridge Medium

Small Medium Mound Medium

L &R. 1

Absent

L&R Many L&R Many Few (1—3) Absent Absent

L & R. 1

L. 1

Absent

Absent

Absent Left Absent

Absent Absent Absent Parabolic Absent

Absent Absent

Absent Absent

Right Absent


Large U Absent Large Medium Medium Medium Absent Absent Ellipse High Medium Medium Left Absent

Small U Absent Large Medium Small Thin Slight Absent Round High Marked Marked

Small U Absent Medium Medium Medium Medium Slight Absent Oval Medium Medium Medium Bilateral Absent

Small U Absent Very large Medium Medium Thin Slight Present Round High Marked Marked Bilateral Absent

Large U Absent Medium Deep Large Thin Medium Absent Oval Medium Medium Medium Absent Absent

Parabolic Absent Large Medium Medium Thin Medium Absent Oval Medium Marked Marked Right Absent

Oblong Slight Facial Facial Small Normal Normal

Rhomboid Medium Absent Absent Small Normal

Square Slight Absent Absent Small

Oblong Medium Fac-Orb Fac-Orb Absent Normal Normal

Rhomboid Marked Fac-Orb Fac-Orb Small Normal

Round Slight Fac-Orb Fac-Orb Small Normal Normal

Rhomboid Medium Absent Absent Medium Normal Normal

Discrete (I) Small. Single (R). N on- faceted.

Medium Small Medium Absent Round High Small Small Bilateral Absent

Orbital region Orbital shape Orbital inclination Infraorbital suture. L. Infraorbital suture. R. Suborbital fossa Orbito-maxillary frontal suture. L. Orbito-maxillary frontal suture. R.

Oblong Medium Absent Absent Medium E type E type

Rhomboid Medium Absent

Malar region Malars size Lateral projection Anterior projection



Large Slight Slight


Medium Slight Absent

Small Slight Slight


Small Slight Medium

Medium Medium Medium

Nasal region Nasion depression Nasal root height Nasal root width Nasal bridge height Nasal bridge width Nasal profile

Slight Low Narrow Low Wide Concave

Slight Low Medium Low Medium Concave

Over

Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Concavoconvex Medium Present Large Normal


Medium Present Small Normal

Slight Low Medium Medium Medium Concaveconvex Dull Absent Medium Under

Medium Low Medium Very Low Medium Concave

Sharp Present Medium Under

Absent Medium Wide Low Wide Concavoconvex Medium Absent Large Over

Marked Low Medium Medium Medium Concave

Nasal Fossa Nasal Nasal

Mart ed Low Medium Medium Medium Concavoconvex Medium Present Medium Normal

Dull Absent Medium Under

Absent Absent Large Normal

Absent

Present

Present

Present

Absent

Present

Large Median Medium Medium Medium Absent Absent Medium Medium Inverted Absent

Very large Triangular Marked Marked Slight Present Absent Medium Small Inverted Present

Medium Triangular Slight Medium Medium Absent Absent Medium Small Inverted Absent

Medium Median Medium Slight Medium Absent Absent Shallow Medium Inverted Absent

sills Praenasalis spine bone growth

Small

Caharium interior Direction of supr. sag. sinus (R)

Present

Present

Absent

Present

Mandible Mandible size Chin form Chin projection Genial tubercles Mylohyoid ridge Mylohyoid arch Torus Sigmoid notch depth Pterygoid attachment Eversion of gonions 'Rocker'

Medium Triangular Neutral Medium Medium Absent Absent Medium Medium Neutral Absent

Medium Triangular Slight Absent Slight

Medium Median Medium Marked Marked Absent Absent Medium Medium Inverted Present

Large Median Medium Slight Slight Present Absent Medium Marked Neutral Present

Absent

"Epipteric bone articulates with frontal, parietal, and sphenoid bones.

Dull

9 M

10 M?

AHU VINAPU (No. 2) 1 2 M M

Ovoid Hausform

Ovoid Hausform

Pentagonid Hausform

IB Medium Rfor.

L & R for.

Ill Small

Absent Medium Small Stellate

3 M

4 M

5 M

6 M

7 F

Ovoid Hausform

Pentagoid Hayrick

Ovoid Hausform

Ovoid Hausform

Ovoid Hausform

Pentagoid Hausform

IIA Medium L. for.

II—III Marked Absent

IB Slight Absent

IA Medium Absent

IA Slight L & R for.

IB Slight L. for.


II Medium Absent Present

IV Small Absent Absent

VI Medium Absent Absent

III Small Absent Absent

III Small Absent Present


Ill Small Absent Present

II Small Absent Absent

Slight Absent Medium Absent

Makred Distinct Medium Absent

Marked Distinct Medium Absent

Medium Distinct Large Absent


Medium Distinct Small Absent

Medium Absent Medium

Slight Distinct Large Absent

Medium Small

Large Large Stellate



Medium Medium

Medium Small

Large Medium

Sph-Par

Sph-Par

Medium Small Sph-Par Sph-Par

Medium Large Absent

Slight Medium Small Ridge Medium

Slight Large Medium Ridge Medium

Slight Medium Small Ridge Slight

Slight Absent Medium Mound

Slight Absent Absent

L &R. Many

L. 1

L &R Many

L &R Many

L &R Many L &R. 1

L. 1

Left Absent

Few (1—3) L &R Absent

Absent L &R Absent

Absent Absent

Parabolic Absent Large Medium Small Thin Slight Abseiit Oval High Marked Marked Bilateral Absent

Parabolic Absent Large Medium Small Medium Medium Absent Oval High Marked Marked Left Discrete (I) Small. Bi lateral. Completely fused. Nonfaceted.

Parabolic Absent Very large Medium Large Thin Medium Absent Round High Marked Marked Absent Discrete (I) Medium. Bilateral. Completely fused. Faceted (L)

Small U Absent Medium Deep Small Medium Marked Absent Oval Medium Marked Marked

Square Medium Fac-Orb Fac-Orb Medium Normal Normal

Rhomboid Medium Fac-Orb Fac-Orb Medium

II

Sph-Par II

Small Medium Mound

Slight Small Small Mound Slight

Slight Medium Small Ridge Medium

L &R. 1 L. 1 R. 3 1

Absent Small U Absent Medium Small Medium Medium Absent Round Medium Medium Absent

Absent

Large Shallow Small Medium Absent Absent Round Medium Medium Medium Right Absent

Rhomboid Marked Absent Absent Small

Rhomboid Marked

Normal

Normal


Absent Absent

Medium

Parabolic Absent

Parabolic Absent Large Medium Deep Medium Medium Medium Thin Medium Slight Absent Absent Round Oval High Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Bilateral Right Continuous Absent (II) Medium Single (R). Non-faceted

I I

10 F

11 F

Large Median Marked Medium Slight Present Absent Medium Small Inverted Absent

Large Triangular Medium Slight Medium Present Absent Medium Medium Medium Absent

Medium

Medium Triangular Medium Medium Marked Absent Absent Medium Medium Inverted Present

Absent

Absent Absent 2 Inca bones Absent Absent

Absent

Small U Absent Medium Medium Small Medium Slight Absent Oval High Marked Marked Right Absent

Oblong Medium Absent Absent Medium Normal

Oblong Slight Absent Absent Small Normal Normal

Rhomboid Medium Fac-Orb Absent

Rhomboid Medium Absent Absent Small Normal Normal

Small Slight Medium


Large Slight Slight

Large Medium Marked



Small Medium Slight


Slight Low Narrow Low Narrow

Slight Low Medium Low Medium

Slight Low Medium Medium Medium

Marked Low Narrow Low Medium Concave


Slight Low Narrow Low Medium Concave

Slight Low Medium Medium Medium Concave

Absent Low Medium Low Medium Concave

Sharp Present Large

Medium Medium

Dull Absent Medium

Dull Absent Large Normal

Dull Absent Small Under

Dull Absent Large Under

Slight Low Narrow Low Medium Concavoconvex Dull Absent Large Normal

Medium Present Medium Normal

Dull Absent

Present

Present

Present

Absent

Present

Absent

Present

Present

Medium Median Slight Marked Medium Absent Absent Medium Small Inverted Absent

Medium Triangular Medium Slight Slight Absent Absent Shallow Medium Slight Present

Large Triangular Medium Slight Medium Present Absent Medium Marked Slight Absent

Medium Triangular Medium Medium Medium Absent Absent Medium Marked Medium Absent

Small Median Medium Medium Marked Absent Absent Shallow Medium Inverted Absent

Medium Triangular Slight Medium Marked Present Absent Medium Medium Medium Absent

9 M

Slight

Rhoimboid Medium Absent Absent Small

Fac-Orb Medium

8 M

Normal

Medium Medium Slight Absent Absent Medium Small Neutral Absent

Table 13 MORPHOLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS: MALES HORIZON

EARLY

LATE

OBSERVATION

No

No

%

Form-Norma Verticalis Ovoid Pentagonid Rhomboid Sphenoid Brisoid Totals

1

20.0

5

Form-Norma Occipitalis Hausform Hayrick Totals Supraorbital Type

IA IB 1C IIA IIB

11—III III

Totals

%

HORIZON

EARLY

LATE

%

OBSERVATION

No

No

38.1 42.9

Parietal Notch Bone Absent Present Totals

COMBINED No

100.1

7 6 1

43.8 37.5

100.0

2 16

12.5 100.1

8 9 1 1 3 21

3 2 5

60.0 40.0 100.0

12 4 16

75.0 25.0 100.0

15 6 21

71.4 28.6 100.0

2 1

50.0 25.0

5 4 1 2

33.3 26.7

36.8 26.3

2 1 15

13.3

7 5 1 2 1 2 1 19

1 3

20.0 60.0

1

25.0

4

100.0

Supraorbital Size Very slight Slight Medium Marked Totals

1 3

25.0 75.0

4

Foramina Supraorbitale (L or R) Absent Present Totals Foramina Frontale (L or R) Absent Present Totals

100.0

1 6 5 3 15

2 2 4

50.0 50.0 100.0

2 2 4

50.0 50.0 100.0

6.3

6.7

13.3

6.7

100.0

6.7

4.8 4.8 9.5

5.3

10.5 5.3

10.5

5.3

100.0

5.3

40.0 33.3 20.0 100.0

1 7 8 3 19

36.8 42.1 15.8 100.0

4 11 15

26.7 73.3 100.0

6 13 19

31.6 68.4 100.0

10 5 15

66.7 33.3 100.0

12 7 19

63.2 36.8 100.0

Glabella Type

I II III IV V VI

1

25.0

1 2

25.0 50.0

Totals

4

100.0

Frontal Bosses Small Medium Totals

5

100.0

5

Metopism Absent Present Totals Supranasal Suture (N) Absent Present Totals

10 1 1 3 15

100.0

14 1 15

3 1 4

75.0 25.0 100.0

2 2 4

Sagittal Elevation Slight Medium Marked Very marked Totals

66.7

6.7 6.7

20.0 100.1

93.3

1 10 2 3 3 19

5.3

52.6 10.5 15.8 15.8 100.0 95.0

%

%

COMBINED No

%

4

100.0

15

100.0

19

100.0

4

100.0

15

100.0

19

100.0

Mast aids Size Medium Large Totals

3 2 5

60.0 40.0 100.0

9 7 16

56.3 43.8 100.1

12 9 21

57.1 42.9 100.0

Supramastoid Crest Size Small Medium Large Totals

1 3 1 5

20.0 60.0 20.0 100.0

5 9 2 16

31.3 56.3 12.5 100.1

6 12 3 21

28.6 57.1 14.3 100.0

4

100.0

4

100.0

8 2 3 13

61.5 15.4 23.1 100.0

12 2 3 17

70.6 11.8 17.6 100.0

75.0 25.0 100.0

13 3 16

81.3 18.8 100.1

Pterion Type Left Spheno-parietal Stellate Epipteric Totals Pterion Type Right Spheno-parietal Epipteric Totals

4

100.0

4

100.0

9 3 12

Lambdoid Flattening Absent Slight Medium Totals

2 1 2 5

40.0 20.0 40.0 100.0

3 8 2 13

23.1 61.5 15.4 100.0

5 9 4 18

27.8 50.0 22.2 100.0

Inion Size Absent Small Medium Large Totals

1 2 1 1 5

20.0 40.0 20.0 20.0 100.0

3 4 6 3 16

18.8 25.0 37.5 18.8 100.1

4 6 7 4 21

19.0 28.6 33.3 19.0 99.9

Occipital Torus Size Absent Small Medium Totals

4 1 5

80.0 20.0 100.0

3 6 7 16

18.8 37.5 43.8 100.1

3 10 8 21

14.3 47.6 38.1 100.0

Occipital Torus Shape Ridge Mound Totals

3 2 5

60.0 40.0 100.0

7 6 13

53.8 46.2 100.0

10 8 18

55.6 44.4 100.0

Occipital Ruggedness Slight Medium Totals

3 1 4

75.0 25.0 100.0

3 11 14

21.4 78.6 100.0

6 12 18

33.3 66.7 100.0

1 3 6

10

10.0 30.0 60.0 100.0

1 5 8

14

7.1 35.7 57.1 99.9

57.1 28.6 14.3 100.0

5 2 1 8

62.5 25.0 12.5 100.0

100.0

6.7

19 1 20

100.0

13 1 14

92.9 7.1 100.0

16 2 18

88.9 11.1 100.0

Wormian Bones, Lambdoid Absent Few Many Totals

2 2 4

50.0 50.0 100.0

50.0 50.0 100.0

9 5 14

64.3 35.7 100.0

11 7 18

61.1 38.9 100.0

Wormian Bones. Coronal Absent 1

100.0

1 3 1

20.0 60.0 20.0

1

100.0

4 2 1 7

7.1

5

100.0

1 6 6 1 14

100.0

2 9 7 1 19

10.5 47.4 36.8

Many Totals

100.0

Few

2 2 4

50.0 50.0 100.0

7 2 9

77.8 22.2 100.0

9 4 13

69.2 30.8 100.0

Postcoronal Depression Absent Slight Distinct Totals

1 4

20.0 80.0

6

40.0

9 15

60.0 100.0

Wormian Bones. Occ-Mast Absent Present Totals

100.0

100.0

35.0 20.0 45.0 100.0

3

5

7 4 9 20

3

100.0

9 5 14

64.3 35.7 100.0

12 5 17

70.6 29.4 100.0

Parietal Bosses Small Medium Large Totals

1 4

20.0 80.0

5 7 3 15

33.3 46.7 20.0 100.0

6 11 3 20

30.0 55.0 15.0 100.0

4

100.0

14

93.3

18

94.7

100.0

1 15

6.7

1 19

100.0

5

100.0

42.9 42.9

7.1

5.0

5.3

Few

Wormian Bones. Sagittal Absent Totals

Inca Bones Absent Bipartite Totals

4

100.0

5.3

Table 13 (cont.) MORPHOLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS: MALES HORIZON

EARLY

LATE

OBSERVATION

No

%

No

%

COMBINED No %

7 6 2 15

46.7 40.0 13.3 100.0

11 6 2 19

57.9 31.6 10.5 100.0

15

100.0

15

100.0

18 1 19

94.7 5.3 100.0

3 6 2 11

27.3 54.5 18.2 100.0

3 7 2 12

25.0 58.3 16.7 100.0

13 3 16

81.3 18.8 100.1

1 16 3 20

5.0 80.0 15.0 100.0

7 7 2 16

43.8 43.8 12.5 100.1

8 9 2 19

42.1 47.4 10.5 100.0

8 8

50.0 50.0

16

100.0

9 9 1 19

47.4 47.4 5.3 100.1

Palate Shape Parabolic Small U Large U Totals

4

100.0

4

100.0

Palatine Torus Absent Medium Totals

3 1 4

75.0 25.0 100.0

External Pterygoid Plate Medium 1 Large Very large 1 Totals Glenoid Fossa Depth Shallow Medium Deep Totals Postglenoid Process Small Medium Large Totals Tympanic Plate Thin Medium Thick Totals

100.0 100.0

1 3

25.0 75.0

4

100.0

1 2

33.3 66.7

3

100.0

1 1 1 3

33.3 33.3 33.3 99.9

Petrous Depression Absent Slight Medium Marked Totals

1 2 1

25.0 50.0 25.0

4

Dehiscences Absent Present Totals Auditory Meatus Round Oval Ellipse Totals Condyle Elevation Low Medium High Totals Spina Angularis Sphenoidei Small Medium Marked Totals Posterior Condyloid Foramen Absent Left Right Bilateral Totals Precondylar Tubercles Absent Type I Unilateral Bilateral Type II Unilateral Bilateral Totals

100.0

1 5 6 1 13

7.7 38.5 46.2 7.7 100.1

2 7 7 1 17

11.8 41.2 41.2 5.9 100.1

3 1 4

75.0 25.0 100.0

14 2 16

87.5 12.5 100.0

17 3 20

85.0 15.0 100.0

2 3

40.0 60.0

5

100.0

7 8 1 16

43.8 50.0 6.3 100.1

9 11 1 21

42.9 52.4 4.8 100.1

1 2 1 4

25.0 50.0 25.0 100.0

6 8 14

42.9 57.1 100.0

1 8 9 18

5.6 44.4 50.0 100.0

1

25.0

3 4

75.0 100.0

1 7 7 15

6.7 46.7 46.7 100.1

2 7 10 19

10.5 36.8 52.6 100.1

18.2 18.2 18.2 45.5 100.1

2 2 3 7 14

14.3 14.3 21.4 50.0 100.0

1 2 3

33.3 66.7 100.0

2 2 2 5 11

3

75.0

10

71.4

13

72.2

1

25.0

1 2

7.1 14.3

1 3

5.6 16.7

1

7.1

1

5.6

14

99.9

18

100.1

4

100.0

HORIZON

EARLY

LATE

OBSERVATION

No

%

No

1 3

25.0 75.0

4

100.0

8 2 4 1 15

53.3 13.3 26.7 6.7 100.0

9 5 4 1 19

47.4 26.3 21.1 5.3 100.1

1 3

25.0 75.0

4

100.0

4 9 2 15

26.7 60.0 13.3 100.0

5 12 2 19

26.3 63.2 10.5 100.0

Infraorbital Suture. Left Absent Facial Facio-orbital Totals

2

50.0

2 4

50.0 100.0

9 1 4 14

64.3 7.1 28.6 100.0

11 1 6 18

61.1 5.6 33.3 100.0

Infraorbital Suture. Right Absent Facial Facio-orbital Totals

3

75.0

1 4

25.0 100.0

8 1 5 14

57.1 7.1 35.7 99.9

11 1 6 18

61.1 5.6 33.3 100.0

Suborbital Fossa Absent Small Medium Deep Totals

2 1 1 4

50.0 25.0 25.0 100.0

2 10 3

13.3 66.7 20.0

15

100.0

2 12 4 1 19

10.5 63.2 21.1 5.3 100.1

Orb-Max Frontal Suture. Left 2 Normal 2 Totals

100.0 100.0

9 9

100.0 100.0

11 11

100.0 100.0

Orb-Max Frontal Suture. Right 2 Normal 1 A type Totals 3

66.7 33.3 100.0

9

100.0

9

100.0

11 1 12

91.7 8.3 100.0

Molars Size Small Medium Large Totals

3 1 4

75.0 25.0 100.0

3 9 2 14

21.4 64.3 14.3 100.0

3 12 3 18

16.7 66.7 16.7 100.1

Lateral Malar Projection Slight Medium Totals

2 1 3

66.7 33.3 100.0

11 4 16

73.3 26.7 100.0

13 5 18

72.2 27.8 100.0

6.7 46.7 40.0 6.7 100.1

1 10 7 1 19

5.3 52.6 36.8 5.3 100.0

Orbital Shape Rhomboid Square Oblong Round Totals Orbital Inclination Slight Medium Marked Totals

fo

COMBINED No %

Anterior Malar Projection Absent Slight Medium Marked Totals

3 1

75.0 25.0

4

100.0

1 7 6 1 15

Nasion Depression Absent Slight Medium Marked Totals

2 1 1 4

50.0 25.0 25.0 100.0

1 9 2 3 15

6.7 60.0 13.3 20.0 100.0

1 11 3 4 19

5.3 57.9 15.8 ?1.1 100.1

Nasal Root Height Low Medium Totals

4

100.0

4

100.0

13 2 15

86.7 13.3 100.0

17 2 19

89.5 10.5 100.0

Nasal Root Width Narrow Medium Wide Totals

1 2 1 4

25.0 50.0 25.0 100.0

4 10 1 15

26.7 66.7 6.7 100.1

5 12 2 19

26.3 63.2 10.5 100.0

26

CRANIAL AND POSTCRANIAL SKELETAL REMAINS FROM EASTER ISLAND Table 13 (cont.) MORPHOLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS: MALES

HORIZON

EARLY

LATE

OBSERVATION

No

No

Nasal Bridge Height Very low Low

Medium High Totals Nasal Bridge Width Narrow Medium Wide Totals Nasal Profile Concave Co rca vo-con vex Totals Nasal Sills Absent Dull Medium Sharp Totals Fossa Praenasalis Absent Present Totals Nasal Spine Small Medium Large Totals Nasal Bone Growth Normal Under Over Totals Right Sup. Sag. Sinus Absent Present Totals Mandible Size Medium Large Very large Totals

1 1 1 3

3 3

%

33.3 33.3 33.3 99.9

100.0 100.0

%

1 8 6

53.3 40.0

15

100.0

1 13 1 15

6.7

6.7 86.7 6.7 100.1

COMBINED °/

No 1 9 7 1 18

1 16 1 18

5.6 50.0 38.9 5.6

100.1 5.6 88.9 5.6 100.1

3

100.0

3

100.0

8 5 13

61.5 38.5 100.0

11 5 16

68.8 31.3 100.1

1 1 1 1 4

25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 100.0

1 8 5 1 15

6.7

2 9 6 2 19

10.5 47.4 31.6 10.5 100.0

53.3 33.3

6.7

100.0

HORIZON

EARLY

LATE

OBSERVATION

No

%

No

Chin Form Median Triangular Totals

3 1 4

75.0 25.0 100.0

Chin Projection Slight Medium Marked Totals

4

100.0

4

100.0

Genial Tubercles Absent Slight Medium Marked Totals Mylohyoid Ridge Slight Medium Marked Totals

1 3

25.0 75.0

4

100.0

4 6 3 13

30.8 46.2 23.1 100.0

5 9 3 17

29.4 52.9 17.6 99.9

7 1 2 3

53.8 7.7 15.4 23.1 100.0

8 1 4 4

17

47.1 5.9 23.5 23.5 100.0

11 6 17

64.7 35.3 100.0

3

100.0

Inca Bones. Bipartite inca bones are present in 5.3 per cent. BASILAR REGION

Palate Shape. Mostly parabolic in shape or like a small U. Palatine Torus. Present in medium form in 5.3 per cent. External Pterygoid Plates. The majority are large to very large. Glenoid Fossa Depth. 95 per cent are medium to deep. Postglenoid Process. Mainly small to medium. Tympanic Plate. 94.8 per cent thin to medium.

100.0

11.8 88.2 100.0

Pterygoid Attachment Small Medium Marked Totals

100.0

4

5 7 2 14

2 15 17

56.3 31.3 12.5 100.1

99.9

50.0 50.0

15.4 84.6 1000

9 5 2 16

100.0

38.9 50.0 11.1 100.0

2 2

2 11 13

53.8 30.8 15.4 100.0

4

7 9 2 18

100.0

100.0 100.0

7 4 2 13

5.6

35.7 50.0 14.3 100.0

4

4 4

66.7 33.3

7.1

11.1 27.8 44.4 16.7 100.0

100.0 100.0

2 1

61.1 33.3

2 5 8 3 18

18 18

100.0

11 6 1 18

7.1

75.0

100.0 100.0

3

57.1 35.7

35.7 35.7 21.4 99.9

25.0

14 14

Sigmoid Notch Depth Shallow Medium Totals

8 5 1 14

1 5 5 3 14

1 3

100.0 100.0

11.8 47.1 41.2 100.0

75.0 25.0

22.2 66.7 11.1 100.0

4 4

2 8 7 17

3 1

4

Mandibular Torus Absent Totals

14.3 35.7 50.0 100.0

30.0 70.0 100.0

12 2 18

58.8 41.2 100.0

2 5 7 14

6

28.6 57.1 14.3 100.0

10

100.0

14 20

8 2 14

7 17

3

33.3 66.7 100.0

4

53.8 46.2 100.0

61.1 38.9 100.0

5

50.0 50.0 100.0

7

7 18

10 15

9 9 18

6 13

11

20.0 80.0 100.0

42.9 57.1 100.

75.0 25.0 100.0

64.3 35.7 100.0

1

6 8 14

3

5 14

4 5

%

1 4

50.0 50.0 100.0

9

%

Mylohyoid Arch Absent Present Totals

2 4

2

COMBINED

No

Eversion of Gonions Inverted Neutral Slight Medium Totals

1

25.0

2 1

4

50.0 25.0 100.0

13

'Rocker' Type Mandible Absent 2 2 Present Totals 4

50.0 50.0 100.0

9 4 13

69.2 30.8 100.0

Petrous Depression. 82.4 per cent slight to medium. Dehiscences. Present in 15 per cent. Auditory Meatus. Mainly round or oval. Condyle Elevations. 94.4 per cent are medium to high. Spina Angularis Sphenoidei. 89.4 per cent are medium to marked. Posterior Condyloid Foramen. 14.3 per cent left, 21.4 per cent right, 50.0 per cent bilateral. Precondylar Tubercles (Broman, 1957). Type I — unilateral 5.6 per cent, bilateral 16.7 per cent; Type II — unilateral 5.6 per cent. Thus 27.8 per cent exhibit precondyler tubercles.


27

Plate 1. GLABELLA TYPE. ACROSS THE TOP ARE CATEGORIES II-VI, BASED ON THE MODIFIED BROCA SCALE AND SHOWN HERE FOR COMPARATIVE PURPOSES. METOPISM AT LOWER LEFT; SUPRANASAL SUTURE (N) AT LOWER RIGHT.

ORBITAL REGION

NASAL REGION

Orbital Shape. Mostly rhomboid in shape. Orbital Inclination. Mainly medium. Infra-orbital Suture —Left or Right. 33.3 per cent are facio-orbital, 5.6 per cent facial. Suborbital Fossa. Mostly small to medium. Orbito-maxillary Frontal Suture (Thomson, 1890). The A type (lachrymal separated from ethmoid by an accessory bone) is present in 8.3 per cent of the right orbit.

Nasion Depression. Mostly slight but marked in 21.1 per cent. Nasal Root Height. Mainly low. Nasal Root Width. Mostly narrow to medium. Nasal Bridge Height. 88.9 per cent low to medium. Nasal Bridge Width. Mainly medium in width. Nasal Profile. Mostly concave. Nasal Sills. Dull to medium in 79.0 per cent. Fossa Praenasalis. Present in 38.9 per cent. Nasal Spine. Medium to large in 88.3 per cent. Nasal Bone Growth (Birdsell, 1951). Normal — 56.3 per cent, under —31.3 per cent, over—12.5 per cent.

MALAR REGION

Malar Size. The majority of malars are medium in size. Lateral Malar Projection. Lateral projection slight in 72.2 per cent. Anterior Malar Projection. Slight to medium in 89.4 per cent.

CALVARIUM INTERIOR

Right Superior Sagittal Sinus (Laughlin and J0rgensen, 1956). Present in 70.0 per cent.

28


MANDIBLE

Mandible Size. Medium to large in 94.4 per cent. Chin Form. Evenly distributed between median and triangular. Chin Projection. In most cases is medium. Genial Tubercles. Mainly slight to medium. Mylohyoid Ridge. Slight to medium in 88.9 per cent. Mylohyoid Arch (Laughlin and Jfirgensen, 1956). Present in 41.2 per cent. Mandibular Torus. Completely absent. a depth Pterygoid Attachment. Mainly small to medium.medium

Eversion of Gonions. The majority are inverted, although 47.0 per cent show a slight to medium eversion.

Plate 2. "ROCKER" MANDIBLES.

"Rocker"-Type Mandible. "In such a mandible the inferior margin of the mandibular body is convex downward. As a result, the bone may teeter like a rocking chair if placed on a table top and depressed and released either on the chin or the top of the ramus." (Marshall and Snow, 1956b, p. 414.) This characteristic Polynesian feature is present in 35.3 per cent of the Easter Island males (PI. 2). Craniostat Drawings Three views were drawn: norma lateralis, norma facialis, and norma verticalis on a modified Western Reserve Craniostat. Two skulls of each sex were selected to show the opposite ends of the range of measurements, thus giving an indication of the amount of variation within this physical type. Figure 3b and Plate 3 represent a male individual. The skull is hyperdolicocranic with a cranial index of 67.8. The auricular height (vertex)-length index is 64.3 or hypsicranial. Norma lateralis shows little prognathism. The supraorbital type is II-III and the size is marked. Inion size is large. Nasion depression is marked and the nasal profile is concavo-convex. The malars are large. Norma facialis shows a wide upper face with a slight orbital inclination. The nose is mesorrhine with an index of 50.0. Norma verticalis indicates a long ovoid shape with the zygomatic arches projecting laterally to the cranial contour. Figure 3a and Plate 4 represent another male. The skull is on the border of meso- and dolicocrany with a cranial index of 75.0. The auricular height (vertex)-length index is 69.0, very hypsicranial. Norma lateralis shows little if any prognathism. The supraorbital type is IB and the size is slight. Inion size is medium. Nasion depression is slight and the nasal profile is concave. The malars are large. Norma facialis indicates a wide upper face with a slight orbital inclination. The nose is chamaerrhine with an index of 56.8. Norma verticalis shows a pentagonid shape. Figure 3d and Plate 5 represent a female. The skull is hyperdolicocranic with a cranial index of 68.1. The auricular height (vertex)-length index is 66.5 or hypsicranial. Norma lateralis shows little prognathism. The supraorbital type is 1C and the size is slight. Inion size is small. Nasion depression is absent and the nasal profile is concavo-convex. The

Figure 3. MALE AND FEMALE SKULLS

Plate 3. MALE HYPERDOLICOCRANIC SKULL. TOP LEFT, NORM A LATERALIS; TOP RIGHT, NORMA FACIALIS; BOTTOM LEFT, NORMA VERTICALIS; BOTTOM RIGHT, NORMA OCCIPITALIS.

Plate 4. MALE SKULL ON THE BORDER OF MESO- AND DOLICOCRANY. TOP LEFT, NORMA LATERALIS; TOP RIGHT, NORMA FACIALIS; BOTTOM LEFT, NORMA VERTICALIS; BOTTOM RIGHT, NORMA OCCIPITALIS.

a TOP RIGHT, NORMA FACIALIS; BOTTOM LEFT, NORMA VERTICALIS; BOTTOM RIGHT, NORMA OCCIPITALIS.

Plate 6. FEMALE MESOCRANIAL SKULL. TOP LEFT, NORMA LATERALIS; TOP RIGHT, NORMA FACIALIS; BOTTOM LEFT, NORMA VERTICALIS; BOTTOM RIGHT, NORMA OCCIPITALIS.

32


malars are of medium size. Norma facialis shows a wide face, with a medium orbital inclination. The nose is chamaerrhine with an index of 60.4. Norma verticalis indicates a long ovoid shape with the zygomatic arches projecting laterally to the cranial contour. Figure 3c and Plate 6 represent another female. The skull is mesocranial with a cranial index of 76.9. The auricular height (vertex)-length index is 68.2 or very hypsicranial. Norma lateralis indicates con-

siderable alveolar prognathism. The supraorbital type, size, and inion are absent. Nasion depression is absent and the nasal profile is concave. The malars are medium in size. Norma facialis shows a wide face even though the left zygomatic arch is broken. There is a medium orbital inclination. The nose is chamaerrhine with an index of 54.5. Norma verticalis shows a pentagonid shape. So few teeth were present that no attempt was made to analyze them.

The metrical and morphological observations for the grouped males (unless otherwise stated) show the following: Clavicle. This is of short to medium length, the left clavicle, 140.0 mm, being a little longer than the right, 138.6 mm. Both left and right clavicles are mostly slender in size and have a medium curvature. Scapula. The scapular index of 65.5 indicates a scapula of narrow to medium width (morphological length) compared to length (morphological width). The vertebral border is mainly convex. The scapular notch is medium to deep, and the teres process is slight. The clavicle width of 138.6-140.0 mm and the scapular width of 98.0 mm indicate shoulders which were probably not broad. Humerus. The length, 318.7 mm (L) and 317.8 mm (R) torsion angle, 155.2° (L) and 151.3° (R), and bi-epicondylar width, 57.8 mm (L) and 58.1 mm (R) are all medium, as was the general robusticity. Radius and Ulna. Both are of medium length, radius 246.2 mm (L) and 246.4 mm (R), ulna 266.0 mm (L) and 262.0 mm (R), and of medium robusticity. Radio-humeral Index. The one male index (No. 2) of 77.5 falls into the mesati-kerkic group, thus the radius is of medium length compared to the humerus length. Hand. The male skeleton (No. 2) from Ahu Tepeu, Grave 1 had most of the bones of the hand present with the exception of the carpus, which allows one to make some estimate of the proportions of the hand. The right hand index (base width of metacarpals II-IV X 100/length of metacarpal III-(-phalanx 1 + 2 + 3) is 32.9, or a narrow to medium width compared to the length of the hand. The right palmar index (base width of metacarpals II-IV X 100/length of metacarpal III) is 79.7, which is mesocheiric, that is to say neither narrow nor wide. The right digital index (length of metacarpal III X 100/length of phalanx 1+2 + 3 of digit III) is 70.4, indicating a medium length of the palm compared with that of the free fingers. The robusticity index of the right metacarpals, II-V: 36.2, 36.2, 31.1, 33.3, indicates rather slender metacarpals. The same is true of all the other male metacarpals (numbers 69, 70, 72, 74, 76, 77, 78). The right thumb index (total length of thumb X 100/

Ill METRICAL AND MORPHOLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS OF THE POSTCRANIA

JLU B L I S H E D datable postcranial skeletal material from Polynesia is rare; I therefore again plead that individual postcranial measurements be published for comparative purposes. The individual postcranial measurements, indices, and observations by sex are shown in Table 14 for the Middle period and in Table 15 for the Late period. There are more bones from the Late period; however, the total remains are not numerous. The ranges and means for the Middle period are shown in Table 16, for the Late period in Table 17. In general the male remains are more numerous. The males were again grouped together for dispersion analysis; the results are shown in Table 18. If one compares the means of the measures of the Middle and Late period males with those of the males grouped together, in only one case —that of the maximum diameter of the head of the right humerus —do the means differ by more than two standard deviations from the means of the grouped males. Thus the postcranial remains also favor the existence of a racial continuity from the Middle to Late period. 33

a AHU TEPEU (Grave 2). POSTCRANIAL MEASUREMENTS INDICES AND OBSERVATIONS Clavicle NO 59 SEX F SIDE L Maximum Length 126 Strength Medium Curvature Slight

59 F R 127 Medium Slight

60 F R 124 Slender Slight

61 F R 123 Slender Slight

Scaoula

NO

13

14

Humerus NO SEX SIDE Maximum Length Maximum Head Diameter Mid-shaft Diam Antero-post Mid-shaft Diam Medio-lat Mid-shaft Max Thickness Mid-shaft Min Thickness Bi-epicondylar Width Torsion Angle Humeral Flattness Index

26 F L 254 39 15 16 16 12

SEX M F SJDE R R Mnrnhnloeical Width 15S 144 Morphological Length 92 97 Infraspinous Fossa Width 117 108 Radius Supraspinous Fossa Width 56 46 NO 26 53 Infraspinous Fossa Width (Proj) 106 104 SEX F M Supraspinous Fossa Width (Proj) 45 41 SIDE L R Scapular Index 59.4 67.4 Maximum Length 186 252 Infraspinous Index 127.2 111.3 Supraspinous Index 60.9 47.4 Ulna Infraspinous Index (Proj) 115.2 107.2 J^Q 26 26 Supraspinous Index (Proj) 48.9 42.3 SEX F F Vertebral Border Convex Convex SIDE L R Scapular Notch Deep Slight Maximum Length 202 203 Teres Process Slight Slight NO means code number. Also similar code numbers mean the bones belong to the same skeleton. VERTEBRAL COLUMN REGION VERTEBRA SEX

THORACIC 4 5 M2 M2

Anterior Body Height 17 17 Posterior Body Height 17 18 Superior Sagittal Diam. 17 21 Superior Transverse Diam. 24 24 Inferior Sagittal Diam. 20 20 Inferior Transverse Diam. 25 25 Vert. For. Sagittal Diam. 15 15 Vert. For. Transverse Diam. 17 17 Lumbar Index Total Lumbar Index M! = No. 63 M 2 = No. 64. In No. 64 thoraco-lumbar of spina bifida, spondyloschisis, non-pathological fusion Sacrum NO SEX Maximum Height (a) Maximum Width (b) Width (Frontal) (c) Sacral Index (b/a) Sacral Index (c/a) Curvature Sacral Segments Type

15* M 126 111 107 88.1 84.9 Slight 5 Hypobasal

20 M 106 101 98 95.3 92.5 Slight 5 Hypobasal

6 M2

7 M2

8 M2

Mt

16 17 21 25 22 26 15 17

18 18 23 25 24 27 15 18

18 19 24 27 25 29 15 18

22 23 30 34 34 38 17 17

54 F L 220

55 F L 227

56 F R 216

57 F R 217

47 M L 278

47 M R 278

48 M L 265

157° 73.7

49 M

R

257

M2

10 M t M2

11 M, M 2

M!

18 19 24 28 26 30 15 17

23 24 34 37 32 40 15 17

23 25 33 39 35 46 16 18

24 28 31 45 30 45 19 21

18 19 26 30 27 35 15 17

19 21 30 34 27 38 15 18

12

M2

20 24 30 39 26 37 17 19

45 F L

45 F R

46 F R

42 17 15 17 15 51

41 16 17 17 14 50

88.2

82.4

42 15 20 20 13 51 166° 65.0

50 F L 246

50 F R 245

51 F R 237

295

52 F R 234

LUMBAR 1 2 M2 M2 23 26 27 39 27 41 18 22 113.0

23 27 32 42 32 42 17 24 117.4

3 M2

4 M2

5

M2

Ma

25 28 34 45 34 48 17 24 112.0

25 26 36 48 34 49 17 23

24

26

108.3

23 36 49 33 50 17 26

88.5

107.4 facet transition occurs at LI. No evidence of articular facet asymmetry sacralization of L5 or lumbarization of SI. In vertebrae present no evidence or additional ribs. (Allbrook).

21 F 92 113 108 122.8 117.4 Medium 5 Homobasal

* This Sacrum goes with vertebral column No. 64.

9

42 M R 333 49 21 26 26 20 62 143° 76.9

44 F R 299 40 15 18 19 14 51

75.0

26 F R 256 37 15 16 17 13 50 163° 76.5


Pelvis NO SEX SIDE Innominate Height Innominate Width Innominate Index Mean Innominate Index Max. Pelvic Width Pelvic Inlet Sag. Diam. Pelvic Inlet Tr. Diam. Pelvic Inlet Index Sciatic Notch Height Sciatic Notch Width Sciatic Notch Post. Seg. Brim Shape Preauricular Sulcus Subpubic Angle Ischia Pubic Symphysis Phase* Age Range (e) = estimated.

15 M L 203 155 76.4

25 47 17

76.6 265 (e) 117(e) 126(e) 92.9 (e)

15 M R 203 156 76.8

16 F L 176 127

31 45 19

21 50 20

Heart Medium Medium Converging VIII or IX 38.0—50.5

*Brooks-Ahmed Modification.

72.2

16 F R 175 126

72.1

17 F L 206

18 M R 202 145

19 M L 223 148

25 48 23

28 52 20

35 43 11

Slight

Slight

72.0

20 48 21

Medium

71.8

66.4

a AHU TEPEU (Grave 2). POSTCRANIAL MEASUREMENTS, INDICES, AND OBSERVATIONS Femur NO SEX SIDE Maximum Length Bicondylar Length Trochant. Obi. Length Max. Diam. of Head Subtroch. Diam. Antero-post. Subtroch. Diam. Medio-lat. Mid-shaft Diam. Antero-post. Mid-shaft Diam. Medio-lat. Bicondylar Width Collo-Diaph. Angle Condylo-Diaph. Angle Torsion Angle Platymeric Index Pilastric Index Robusticity Index Crista Hypotrochanterica Third Trochanter Bowing of Shaft Tibia

NO SEX

SIDE Maximum Length Bicondylar Length Nut. For. Antero-post. Diam Nut. For. Medio-lat. Diam. Retroversion Angle Platycnemic Index External Condyle Squatting Facets Fibula

NO SEX

SIDE Maximum Length

23 M L 472 470 443 49 26 34 34 28 85 130° 81° 17° 76.5 121.4 13.2

23 M R 470 467 437 46 26 31 33 27 83 133° 80° 22° 83.9 122.0 12.8

Slight

Slight

26 F L 298 295 27 19

26 F R 294 292 26 19

24 M L 444 441 407 43 22 31 26 25 77 126° 76° 31° 71.0 104.0 11.6 Slight Absent Slight

24 M R 449 446 411 43 22 32 26 26 79 127° 78° 27° 68.8 100.0 11.7 Medium Absent Slight

25 F L 412 411 390 40 20 30 25 25 72 132° 83° 27° 66.7 100.0 12.2 Marked Slight Medium

33 M L 394 390 39 28

33 M R 391 388 38 27

34 M L 399 397 36 28

25 F R 408 404 376 42 20 30 25 23 72 143° 81° 49° 66.7 108.7 11.9 Slight

26 L l

364 362 336 39 19 26 22 21 69 134° 80° 36° 73.1 104.8 11.9 Slight Absent Medium Slight

34 M R 399 396 34 28

35

m m

27 M l 440 439 412

27 M r 437 436 414

24 33 30 26 77 135° 79° 27° 72.7 115.4 12.8 Medium

Medium

24 33 30 26 76 132° 82° 29° 72.7 115.4 12.8 Slight Absent Medium

35

36

36

358 356 32 25 12° 78.1 Flat Marked

328 323 30 21

m m

356 355 35 26 16° 12° 82.4 74.3 73.1 70.4 71.8 71.1 77.8 Flat Flat SI. Convex Flat Medium Medium Medium Marked Medium Medium 65 F R 322

26 F r 363 362 335 38 19 26 22 21 67 145° 84° 35° 73.1 104.8 11.9 Slight Absent Slight

69 F R 282

Talus

NO SEX

SIDE Length (a) Width Height Length-Width Index Length-Height Index Trochlea Length Trochlea Post. Width Trochlea Ant. Width Length of Head and Neck (b) Head + Neck-Total Length Index (b/a) Head Length Head Width Fac. Artie. Post. Length Fac. Artie. Post. Width Fac. Artie. Post. Depth Angle of Neck to Body Angle of Torsion of Head Angle of Head with Horiz. Plane See Appendix B for measurements of foot

62 M R 48 40 30

83.3 62.5

31 21 30 19

39.6

31 21 32 21 5 32° 46° 39°

Calcaneus NO SEX

SIDE Maximum Length Middle Width Least Width Height Width-Length Index Height-Length Index Tub. Calc. Height Tub. Calc. Width Length of Heel Length of Heel-Total Length Index Fac. Artie. Post. Calc Length Fac. Artie. Post. Calc . Width Fac. Artie. Post. Calc Angle Cuboid Artie. Height Cuboid Artie. Width External Tubercle Astragular Facets

58 M R 73 39 21 39

53.4 53.4

44 29 35

47.9

27 20 59° 23 22

SI. Separated Fused

f f

f f

333 328 30 23 9° 70.0 76.7 SI. Con vex SI. Convex V. Marked Marked

28 M l 472 465 430 51 25 35 32 28 88 135° 75° 20° 71.4 114.3 12.9 Medium Absent Slight 37

m m

364 357 35 24

29

M

l 436 434

30 M r 424 422 397 40 23 30 28 24

31 F l 409 408

32 F l

76.7 115.4 12.9

76.7 116.7 12.3 Absent

Slight

Slight

Slight

403 396 366 41 20 30 24 23 72 135° 76° 40° 66.7 104.3 11.9 Slight Absent Medium

23 30 30 26 75 132° 80°

37

144° 83°

19 29 23 23 65 135° 80° 29° 65.5 100.0 11.3

m m

m m

38

39

40

362 356 37 24

358 357 34 29

336 334 30 21

347 335 28 23

68.6 64.9 85.3 SI. Convex SI. Convex Flat Medium Medium

f f

f f

70.0

82.1

Medium

Slight

41 Ff Lf 349 343 30 21

70.0 Flat Slight

Table 15 AHUS TEPEU (Grave 1) AND VINAPU (No. 2). POSTCRANIAL MEASUREMENTS, INDICES, AND OBSERVATIONS Sternum NO SEX Manubrium Length (M) Mesosternum Length (B) M+B Width (SI) Width (S3) Manibrium-Corpus Index (M/B x 100) Mesosternal Rel. Width Index (S1/S3 x 100) Clavicle NO SEX SIDE Maximum Length Strength Curvature Scapula NO SEX SIDE Morphological Width Morphological Length Infraspinous Fossa Width Supraspinous Fossa Width Infraspinous Fossa Width (Proj) Supraspinous Fossa Width (Projj Scapular Index Infraspinous Index Supraspinous Index Infraspinous Index (Proj) Supraspinous Index (Proj) Vertebral Border Scapular Notch Teres Process Humerus NO SEX SIDE Maximum Length Maximum Head Diameter Mid-shaft Diam. Antero-post. Mid-shaft Diam. Medio-lat. Mid-shaft Max. Thickness Mid-shaft Min. Thickness Bi-epicondylar Width Torsion Angle Humeral Flattness Index Radius NO SEX SIDE Maximum Length Radio-Humeral Index Ulna NO SEX SIDE Maximum Length

AHU VINAPU (No. 2) 87 M 43 111 154 27 33 38.7 81.8

88 M 44 101 145 30 30 43.6 100.0

89 F 49 89 138 26 33 55.1 78.8

90 F 47 71 118 28 32 66.2 87.5

AHU TEPEU (Gr. 1)

AHU VINAPU (No. 2)

1 F L 132 Medium Slight

20 M L 140 Medium Medium

1 F R

Medium Slight

20 M R 141 Medium Medium

21 M L 145 Slender Medium

21 M R 146 Slender Medium






13 M R 153 101 112 54 106 48 66.0 110.9 53.5 105.0 47.5 Convex Medium Slight

14 F L 133 92 95 46 93 41 69.2 103.3 50.0 101.1 44.6 Convex Absent Slight

14 F R 134 93 98 42 95 39 69.4 105.4 45.2 102.2 41.9 Convex Absent Slight

15 M L 142 98 106 54 101 41 69.0 108.2 55.1 103.1 41.8 Convex Medium Slight

16 M R 145 101 101 45 107 39 69.7 100.0 44.6 105.9 38.6 Straight Absent V. slight

17 F L 135 97 97 48 93 40 71.9 100.0 49.5 95.9 41.2 Convex Slight

18 F L 132 89 94 50 90 42 67.4 105.6 56.2 101.1 47.2 Convex Medium Medium

19 M R 140 94 108 49 102 38 67.1 114.9 52.1 108.5 40.4 Straight Medium Slight



AHU VINAPU (No. 2) 12 M L 152 103 119 52 113 41 67.8 115.5 50.5 109.7 39.8 Convex Deep Slight

12 M R 156 102 118 57 110 47 65.4 115.7 55.9 107.8 46.1 Convex Deep Slight

AHU TEPEU (Gr. 1) 1 F L 288 38 17 19 19 15 58 152° 78.9

1 F R 293 37 18 18 18 15 56

2 M L 306 41 20 23 23 17

83.3

73.9

AHU TEPEU (Gr. 1) 1 F L 228 79.2

1 F R 231 78.8

2 M L 237 77.5

AHU TEPEU (Gr. 1) 1 F L 242

1 F R 241

2 M L 257

13 M L 101 57

56.4 Convex Deep

AHU VINAPU (No. 2) 91 91 M M L R 322 319 44 44 20 18 20 19 21 22 16 15 58 59 144° 139° 71.4 72.7

92 M L 336 46 18 24 24 16 57 168° 66.7

93 M L 326 45 19 21 21 16 59 156° 76.2

94 M L 330 43 18 21 21 16 59 154° 76.2

95 M R 331 44 19 26 26 18 56 153° 69.2

96 M L 316 42 16 18 19 13 56 163° 68.4

96 M R 317 43 17 18 19 13 56 166° 68.4

97 M L 309 45 19 20 20 15 60 152° 75.0

98 M R 299 45 21 23 24 18 59 153° 75.0

99 M L 305 42 19 21 21 15 56 150° 71.4

99 M R 308 43 19 21 22 15 57 154° 68.2

100 F L 293 40 16 18 20 13 51 174° 65.0

115 M L 253

116 M L 249

117 M R 250

118 M R 238

119 F L 231

119 F R 232

120 F L 213

120 F R 213

121 F L 218

106 M L 265

106 M R 264

107 M L 252

107 M R 254

108 F L 233

108 F R 230

109 M R 255

110 M R 248

111 F R 237

100 F R 292 40 15 20 20 14 55 172° 70.0

AHU VINAPU (No. 2) 113 M L 248

113 M R 246

114 M L 245

114 M R 245


104 M R 276

105 M L 266

105 M R 264

112 F L 242

101 F L 280 39 15 19 19 12 50 158° 63.2

101 F R 280 38 15 17 20 13 49 166° 65.0

102 F L 273 38 16 18 19 13 51 152° 68.4

103 F R 281 40 15 18 19 13 53 159° 68.4

26 27 F F L L 126 120 Slender Medium Medium Medium

Table 15 (cont.) AHUS TEPEU (Grave 1) AND VINAPU (No. 2). POSTCRANIAL MEASUREMENTS, INDICES, AND OBSERVATIONS AHU TEPEU (Gr. 1)

Hand

1 F I METACARPAL NO L SIDE 46 Maximum Length (a) Mid-point of Shaft Width 10 7 Mid-point of Shaft Height 27 Least Circumference (b) 58.7 Index of Robusticity (b/a) 14 Base Width 13 Base Height Head Width 13 12 Head Height See Appendix B for measurements of hand NO SEX

1 F II L 62 7 7 23 37.1 14 15 12 12

1 F III L 59 6 8 23 39.0 12 13 12 12

AHU VINAPU (No. 2)

1 F IV L 55 5 6 18 32.7 11 10 9 10

1 F II R 62 7 7 22

2 M I L 49 10 8 28

2 M III L 70 7 8 25

2 M I R 48 10 8 29

2 M II R 69 8 8 25

2 M III R 69 7 8 25

15 16 12 12

14 15 15 12

13 17 13 13

13 14

18 17 13 13

14 18 14 14

35.5

57.1

60.4

35.7

36.2

36.2

68 M I L 50 10 8 30 60.0 15 15 15 12

2 2 M M V IV R R 61 57 6 7 6 7 19 19 31. 1 33.3 11 12 12 10 12 11 12 13

69 M II L 68 9 7 26 38.2 14 18 13 15

70 M II L 65 8 7 25 38.5 17 18 15 14

71 F II L 62 8 7 24 38.7 14 16 12 13

72 M III L 68 8 8 25 36.8 13 16 13 13

73 F III L 59 7 7 23 39.0 13 15 12 12

74 M IV L 62 6 6 19 30.6 11 12 12 13

75 F IV L 54 6 6 17 31.5 9 10 10 11

76 M II R 70 9 7 26 37.1 16 19 13 15

77 78 M M II II R R 64 65 8 8 8 7 26 25 40.6 38.5 18 19 16 15 14 14 14

AHU TEPEU (Grave 1) PROXIMAL

Hand

1 NO F SEX III PHALANX NO L SIDE 44 Maximum Length (a) 9 Mid-point of Shaft Width 6 Mid-point of Shaft Height 24 Mid-point of Shaft Circumf. (b) 54.5 Index of Robusticity (b/a) Base Width 14 11 Base Height 10 Head Width 7 Max. Head Height See Appendix B for measurements of hand AHU

1 F IV L 42 8 6 24 57.1 13 11 10 7

MIDDLE

1 F V L 32 8 5 21 65.6 14 10 11 8

1 F II R 39 8 6 22 56.4 14 10 10 7

1 F II L 23 6 4 19

1 F III L 29 7 5 20

11 9 8 5

12 10 9 5

11 9 9 5

82.6

SEX

M,

69.0

68.0

PROXIMAL

1 F V L 18 5 4 16

1 F III L 20 7 5 19

1 F IV L 17 4 3 12

9 7 7 4

13 7

9 6

88.9

95.0

1 F V L 15 4 3 9 60.0 8 5

70.6

2 M II L 42 9 6 25 59.5 15 11 12 7

2 M I L 32 8 6 22 68.8 15 11 12 8

MilDOLE

2 M IV L 45 8 6 24 53.3 14 12 13 8

2 M V L 37 8 5 21 56.8 14 10 10 6

2 M II R 43 9 6 25 58.1 16 12 12 8

2 M III R 48 9 7 25 52.1 16 13 13 8

2 M III R 30 9 5 21 70.0 13 9 10 6

DISTAL 2 M I R 26 8 5 21 80.8 15 18

2 M III R 20 5 4 15 75.0 11 7

VINAPU (No. 2). VERTEBRAL COLUMN

CERVICAL

REGION VERTEBRA

DISTAL 1 F IV L 25 6 4 17

Mo

1

2 M3

F!

Mt

M2

Mt

3

M2

M,

4 M,

M!

5

M8

Mi

12 15 10 13 10 14 Anterior Body Height 36 39 Anterior Height (Total) 21 23 Anterior Body Height 13 13 13 12 14 13 Posterior Body Height 16 15 15 17 15 1.6 Superior Sagittal Diam. 16 19 15 17 16 17 Inferior Sagittal Diam. 22 22 23 23 25 23 Inferior Transverse Diam. 13 12 20 14 12 12 13 30 30 28 24 17 Vert. For. Sag. Diam. 23 22 23 22 23 22 23 23 33 29 29 27 Vert. For. Tr. Diam. 80 77 81 77 Maximum Tr. Diam. 45 41 41 37 Maximum Sag. Diam. M! = No. 122, Ms = No. 123, M3 = No. 124, F, = No. 125. No. 122 (Mi). Atlas vertebra has posterior tubercle of spine and cervical spinous process is non-bifid. Cervical spinous process is bifid-bifurcate bifid-cleft in vertebrae 2 5 6 . Vertebra 7 has duplicate transverse foramina both sides (left and right). No. 123 (M2). Cervical spinous process is bifid-bifurcate in vetebrae 2, 3, 4, 6; bifid-cleft in vertebra 5; non-bifid in vetebrae 1, 7. No. 124 (M3). Atlas has incomplete fusion of posterior arch and canalized lateral mass.

6

7

M2

M,

M2

12

12

13

13

12 16 17 24 13 24

12 18 20 26 13 24

14 17 16 29 14 23

13 19 19 28 13 23

in vertebrae 3, 4, 7;

AHU VINAPU (No. 2) VERTEBRAL COLUMN REGION VERTEBRA SEX

THORACIC 1 2 3 4

5

6

7

M! M! M, M, M t MI

M, M 3

8 M t M2 M3

17 16 16 33 17 34 15 21

20 21 26 33 27 35 18 16

20 21 27 34 28 38 16 15

19 18 17 28 20 34 16 17

18 18 20 30 22 32 17 16

18 19 21 29 22 29 18 16

18 18 22 29 22 33 17 16

19 20 23 30 25 32 17 16

19 21 25 26 27 29 16 15

19 19 28 34 30 36 16 16

20 22 27 29 30 33 17 15

9 M! M 2 M 3

22 22 27 35 28 39 16 15

18 20 28 35 29 39 16 17

20 22 31 32 30 33 16 15

10

M! M 2 M 3

21 23 29 39 30 43 16 14

21 20 28 39 30 42 16 17

22 22 32 34 31 37 15 15

11 Mi M 2 M 3 21 25 29 42 29 45 15 15

21 22 30 41 31 45 17 19

22 24 32 38 33 43 16 17

12

M! M 2 M 3

24 26 30 45 31 47 19 19

22 23 31 44 32 46 18 20

25 26 34 41 34 45 18 21

LUMBAR 1 M 2 M3 22 25 24 29 33 34 45 45 36 35 49 48 17 19 21 21 109.1 116.0

2 M 2 M3 20 24 36 47 37 50 14 21 120.0

3 M 2 M3

27 26 28 26 32 36 49 48 35 32 51 51 16 17 21 23 103.7 100.0

M2

4

29 23 29 25 36 39 49 49 37 40 52 51 15 15 21 20 100.0 108.7

M3 26 26 37 49 36 53 16 22 100.0

5 M3 27 24 37 51 38 54 15 23

M3

Anterior Body Height Posterior Body Height Superior Sag. Diam. Superior Tr. Diam. Inferior Sag. Diam. Inferior Tr. Diam. Vert. For. Sag. Diam. Vert. For. Tr. Diam. 88.9 Lumbar Index I 101.5 Total Lumbar Index MI = No. 126, Ms = No. 127, M 3 = No. 128. In vertebrae present no evidence of spina bifida, spondyloschisis, non-pathological fusion or additional ribs in Nos. 126 (MO, 127 (M 2 ) or 128 (M3). In No. 127 (M 2 ) thoraco-lumbar facet transition occurs at LI; in No. 128 (M3) at LI. No evidence of articular facet asymmetry in Nos. 127 (M,) or 128 (M,;.

Table 15 (cont.) AHUS TEPEU (Grave 1) AND VINAPU (No. 2). POSTCRANIAL MEASUREMENTS, INDICES, AND OBSERVATIONS AHU VINAPU (No. 2) VERTEBRAL COLUMN REGION VERTEBRA SEX

THORACIC 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 F2 F, F, F, F, F, F, F, F 2 F, F 2

Anterior Body Height Posterior Body Height Superior Sag. Diam. Superior Tr. Diam. Inferior Sag. Diam. Inferior Tr. Diam. Vert. For. Sag. Diam. Vert. For. Tr. Diam. Lumbar Index Total Lumbar Index

16 18 16 16 18 19 25 24 19 20 26 27 15 15 15 15

17 17 19 17 17 18 21 22 24 25 26 29 22 23 24 26 30 31 15 15 15 16 15 15

19 20 18 19 24 24 28 30 23 24 29 34 16 15 16 14

21 20 24 26 15 14

20 22 27 36 24 38 17 16

21 24 26 37 26 41 16 15

LUMBAR 1 F, F2 F3

23 24 25 38 25 41 19 18

F!

23 24 27 27 27 27 29 28 33 40 39 49 31 28 33 46 43 52 18 19 15 18 18 20 117.4112.5100.0

2 F2

3 F2

F,

F3

24 26 25 26 29 27 33 32 30 48 44 43 31 35 29 54 47 47 17 15 17 21 18 20 108.3 108.0 111.5

p

F2

25 25 27 26 27 25 31 32 37 46 46 54 31 32 39 49 47 58 14 17 15 19 20 21 104.0 100.0 100.0

4

F3

24 26 22 27 34 36 53 47 32 34 54 49 15 19 23 22 91.7 103.8

F2

5

26 21 32 49 32 51 19 27 80.8

F3 27 20 34 50 33 55 19 30 74.1

F2

F3

98.4

97.7

F! = No. 129, F 2 = No. 130, F3 = No. 131. In vertebrae present no evidence of spina bifida, spondyloschisis, non-pathological fusion or additional ribs in Nos. 129 (F,), 130 (F2) or 131 (F3). In No. 129 (Fj) thoracolumbar facet transition occurs at LI, in No. 130 (F2) at T12. No evidence of articular facet asymmetry in Nos. 129 (Fj) or 130 (F2). No evidence of sacralization of L5 or lumbarization of SI in Nos. 130 (F2) or 131 (F3).

Sacrum NO SEX Maximum Height (a) Maximum Width (b) Width (Frontal) (c) Sacral Index (b/a) Sacral Index (c/a) Curvature Sacral Segments Type

AHU TEPEU (Gr. 1)

AHU VINAPU (No. 2)

1 F 109 111 105 101.8 96.3 Medium 5 Hypobasal


2 M 135 117 108 86.7 80.0 Medium 6 Hypobasal

29* F 98 116 110 118.4 112.2 Marked 5 Hyperbasal

34 M 120 112 105 93.3 87.5 Slight 6 Hypobasal

35** F 87 100 97 114.9 111.5 Medium 5 Homobasal

* This sacrum goes with vertebral column No. 131 (F3). ** This sacrum goes with vertebral column No. 130 (F2).

Pelvis NO SEX SIDE Innominate Height Innominate Width Innominate Index Mean Innominate Index Max. Pelvic. Width Pelvic Inlet Sag. Diam. Pelvic Inlet Tr. Diam. Pelvic Inlet Index Sciatic Notch Height Sciatic Notch Width Sciatic Notch Post. Seg. Brim Shape Preauricular Sulcus Subpubic Angle Ischia Pubic Symphysis Phase* Age Range

AHU TEPEU (Gr. 1) 1 F R 201 149 74.1

2 M L 205

23 38 10

28 45 8

Absent

Slight

(e) = estimated * = Brooks-Ahmed Modification

III or IV 21.5—26.0

AHU VINAPU (No. 2) 28 28 F F L R 185 185 139 142 75.1 76.8 76.0 254 (e) 98 (e) 128(e) 76.6 (e) 28 29 46 48 20 25 Broad Oval Medium Marked Diverging VIII or IX 38.0—50.5

29 F L 201 148 73.6

29 F R 203 145 71.4

30 F L 201 145 72.1 71.2

30 F R 202 142 70.3

31 M L 226 152 67.3 68.3

31 M R 224 155 69.2

32 M L 209 155 74.2 74.3

32 M R 207 154 74.4

33 M R 200 142 71.0

27 53 24

26 55 23

27 49 23

26 49 21

25 41 8

28 42 11

31 37 13

28 39 12

25 38 6

72.5 255 (e) Hl(e) 126 (e) 88.1 (e)

Heart Medium Marked

VIII 38.0—42.0

Slight VIII or IX 38.0—50.5

Absent

Absent

Absent

IX 42.0—50.5

Converging IX 42.0—50.5

VIII 38.0—42.0

Table 15 (cont.) AHUS TEPEU (Grave 1) AND VINAPU (No. 2). POSTCRANIAL MEASUREMENTS, INDICES, AND OBSERVATIONS Femur NO SEX SIDE Maximum Length Bicondylar Length Trochant. Obi. Length Max. Diam. of Head Subtroch. Diam. Antero-post. Subtroch. Diam. Medio-lat. Mid-shaft Diam. Antero-post. Mid-shaft Diam. Medio-lat. Bicondylar Width Collo-Diaph. Angle Condylo-Diaph. Angle Torsion Angle Platymeric Index Pilastric Index Humero-Femoral Index Robusticity Index Crista Hypotrochanterica Third Trochanter Bowing of Shaft Patella NO SEX SIDE Maximum Height Maximum Width Maximum Thickness Height-Width Index

AHU TEPEU (Grave 1)

AHU VINAPU (No. 2)

1 F L 423 419 392

1 F R 419 416 394

2 M L 436 433 407

2 M R 432 431 410

36 M L 473 467 436

36 M R 473 468 436

37 M L 482 478 449

37 M R 478 475 446

38 M L 458 452 412

38 M R 458 452 411

39 M L 439 435 414

39 M R 441 438 420

40 M L 422 418 393

40 M R 421 417 394

41 F L 406 404 389

41 F R 407 404 390

42 F L 403 400 376

42 F R 403 400 376

43 M R 426 423 400

44 F L 420 414 392

40 20

40 20

44 24

45 24

46 21

46 22

44 25

44 25

49 19

49 21

41 20

43 20

46 23

46 23

41 20

41 20

41 21

40 21

42 23

39 19 29

30

28

32

32

33

33

34

34

29

30

30

30

32

32

29

29

27

27

31

23

23

30

30

26

27

33

32

29

27

25

25

30

30

25

27

24

24

28

30

21

22

25

24

26

25

27

27

23

22

25

24

26

24

24

23

23

24

24

22

73 125° 80°

74 136° 80°

79 115° 78°

78 120° 77°

76 126° 76°

77 135° 80°

82 136" 80°

81 137° 80°

78 142° 80°

76 144° 79°

76 133° 81°

76 135° 83°

76 131° 80°

78 132° 80°

69 126° 82°

69 135° 84°

65 129° 79°

65 135° 81°

77 135° 82°

73 138° 80°

34° 66.7 109.5 68.7

34° 71.4 104.5 70.4

25° 75.0 120.0 70.7

32° 75.0 125.0

28° 63.6 100.0

28° 66.7 108.0

23° 73.5 122.2

30° 73.5 118.5

33° 65.5 126.1

31° 70.0 122.7

22° 66.7 100.0

25° 66.7 104.2

28° 71.9 115.4

29° 71.9 125.0

25° 69.0 104.2

28° 69.0 117.4

24° 77.8 104.3

17° 77.8 100.0

29° 74.2 116.7

36° 65.5 136.4

12.5 Slight

11.1 Slight

11.1 Slight

12.6 12.4 11.5 10.8 11.5 Medium Medium Medium Medium Slight

11.2 Slight

13.4 12.9 12.1 12.4 11.8 12.0 12.3 Medium Medium Medium Medium Marked Marked Slight

10.5 10.8 12.7 Marked Medium

Absent Absent Slight Slight

Absent Absent Absent Medium Medium Slight Slight

Absent Absent Absent Slight Slight Slight Medium Medium Absent Absent Absent Absent Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Marked Marked Medium Medium Slight Slight

AHU TEPEU (Gr. 1)

AHU VINAPU (No. 2)

1 F L 41 41 20 100.0

84 M R 43 42 19 102.4

1 F R 40 43 20 93.0

2 M R 42 42 21 100.0

AHU TEPEU (Grave 1) Tibia 1 2 1 NO F F M SEX SIDE L R L 358 384 Maximum Length 356 382 Bicondylar Length 33 33 Nut. For. Antero-post. Diam. 32 22 27 Nut. For. Medio-lat Diam. 22 24 ° 25° 9° Retroversion Angle 66.7 81.8 68.8 Platycnemic Index 85.6 88.2 Tibio-Femoral Index SI. SI. External Condyle SI. Convt,x Convex Convex Absent Medium Squatting Facets

12.6 Slight

Absent Absent Medium Medium

85 M R 47 48 23 97.9

AHU VINAPU (No. 2) 2 M R 380 379 32 27 8° 84.4 87.9

Medium

4 5 M L 367 363 35 22 11° 62.9

4 5 M R 366 363 38 23 15° 60.5

4 6 M L 369 366 35 23 13° 65.7


47 F L 340 337 31 22

71.0

Medium

47 F R 342 339 29 23 13° 79.3

48 F L 315 312 28 20 5° 71.4

48 F R 317 315 28 21 12° 75.0

Slight

Slight

AHU TEPEU (Gr. 1) Fibula NO SEX SIDE Maximum Length


49 M L 390

50 M L 381

51 F L 333

52 F R 359

Table 15 (cont.) AHUS TEPEU (Grave 1) AND VINAPU (No. 2). POSTCRANIAL MEASUREMENTS, INDICES, AND OBSERVATIONS FOOT

AHU TEPEU (Grave 1) AHU VINAPU (No. 2)

Talus NO 1 1 2 F M SEX F R L SIDE L Length (a) 47 48 59 39 45 Width 38 29 32 Height 29 Length-Width Index 80.9 81.3 76.3 Length-Height Index 61.7 60.4 54.2 28 33 Trochlea Length 27 21 29 Trochlea Post. Width 20 26 36 Trochlea Ant. Width 25 Length of Head and Neck (b) 17 17 23 Head + Neck — Total Length Index (b/a) 36.2 35.4 39.0 30 32 Head Length 29 Head Width 19 19 24 31 37 Fac. Artie. Post. Length 32 19 23 Fac. Artie. Post. Width 19 5 5 Fac. Artie. Post. Depth 6 Angle of Neck to Body 25° 34° 34° Angle of Torsion of Head 45° 50° 39° Angle of Head with Horizontal Plane 33° 42° 33° See Appendix (B) for measurements of foot. FOOT OS Naviculare NO SEX SIDE Width Height Post. Facet Length Post. Facet Width Post. Facet Depth Width Artie. Surface for Cuneiforms Thickness Facet for Cuneiform III Facet for Cuneiform I Tuberosity Antero-post. Diam. Thickness (Dorso-Vent. Diam.) * See McCown and Keith p. 37. FOOT CUNEIFORM BONES

2 M R 57 44 33 77.2 57.9 34 30 35 24

55 M L 60 47 35 78.3 58.3 35 23 35 23

56 M L 52 40 31 76.9 59.6 33 22 29 18

82 M L 48 41 30 85.4 62.5 32

42.1 32 23 36 23 5 32° 38°

38.3 39 25 37 22 6 28° 43°

34.6 33 24 32 22 6 33° 44°

41.7 35 30 32 19 5 21° 40°

34°

30°

32°

38°

28 20

83 F R 48 38 30 79.2 62.5 30 19 27

29 20 5

AHU TEPEU (Grave 1) Calcaneus NO SEX SIDE Maximum Length Middle Width Least Width Height Width-Length Index Height-Length Index Tub. Calc. Height Tub. Calc. Width Length of Heel Length of Heel-Total Length Index Fac. Artie. Post. Calc. Length Fac. Artie. Post. Calc. Width Fac. Artie. Post. Calc. Angle Cuboid Artie. Height Cuboid Artie. Width Ext. Tubercle Astragular Facets

AHU TEPEU (Gr. 1)

AHU TEPEU (Gr. 1)

1 F R 35 26 23 20 5

2 M L 41 27 28 22 6

2 M R 41 26 28 22 6

30

33

34

9 17

14 18

14 20

16 13

18 14

19 14

Cuboid NO SEX SIDE Upper Medial Length Middle Medial Length Lower Medial Length Lateral Border Length Post. Artie. Surface Height* Post. Artie. Surface Width Ant. Artie. Surface Height Ant. Artie. Surface Width Depth of Groove — Peroneal Tendon Length of Lateral Border-Upper Medial Border Index

AHU TEPEU (Grave 1)

1 1

1 F R 24 23 22 14 28 12

2 M L

2 M R 28 27 22 17 32 14

NO SEX F SIDE L Upper Length 25 25 Prox. Artie. Height 23 Max. Prox. Width 22 20 Distal Artie. Height 14 Distal Width 28 14 Width-Height Index of Distal 12 Artie. ' Ratio Upper Medial to Upper 43.8 42.9 42.9 Lateral Bon Border See McCown and Keith p. 37. Also see Appendix B for measurements of foot. NO SEX SIDE Lower Length Upper Length Prox. Artie. Height Prox (Max). Artie. Width Distal Artie. Height (a) Distal Artie. Width* (b) Width-Height Index of Distal Artie (b/a)

1 F L 66 40 23 37 60.6 56.1 43 24 33 50.0 27 19 61° 22 23 Sl.Sep Partly Fused

1 F L 27 27 32 14 24 22 15 21

1 F R 27 27 33 15 23 22 15 22

2 M L 33 32 38 17 24 29 19 26

1 F R 65 38 23 38 58.5 58.5 44 25 33 50.8 27 19 63° 22 23 Sl.Sep Partly Fused

2 M L 84 45 27 47 53.6 56.0 55 32 42 50.0 32 23 66° 31 25 Sl.Sep Fused

2 M R 85 45 26 47 52.9 55.3 55 33 40 47.1 33 23 63° 30 24 Sl.Sep Fused

53 M R 76 40 21 39 52.6 51.3 42 26 34 44.7 29 20 53°

86 M R 31 28 37 15 21 25 17 20

3

2

3

4

55.6

51.5

48.4

2 M L 19 20 20 22 16 72.7

2 M R 19 21 20 23 16 69.6

III

II

54 M R 72 42 22 42 58.3 58.3 45 30 3/ 51.4 30 22 62° 27 21

23 Sl.Sep Sep. Sep.

AHU VINAPU (No. 2)

51.9

1 F L 17 18 15 18 14 77.8

AHU VINAPU (No. 2)

1 F R 21 14 11 22 14 63.6

2 M L 26 15 12 22 15 68.2

2 M R 26 16 12 24 14 58.3

82.6 (19/23)

85.2 (23/27)

85.2

79 M L 72 41 21 40 56.9 55.6 46 31 37 51.4 27 20 45°

Fused Sep.

80 M L 80 40 22 41 50.0 51.3 49

81 M R 86 46 22 43 53.5 50.0 47 28 39 39 48.8 45.3 29 28 23 25 60° 53° 28 24 23 22 Sl.Sep Sl.Sep Partly Sep Fused

Table 15 (cont.) AHUS TEPEU (Grave 1) AND VINAPU (No. 2). POSTCRANIAL MEASUREMENTS, INDICES, AND OBSERVATIONS AHU Foot N O 1 SEX F METATARSAL NO II SIDE L Maximum Length (a) 65 Mid-shaft Width (b) 7 Mid-shaft Height 7 Base With 14 Base Height 18 Head Width 9 Head Height 12 Length-Width Index (b/a) 108 * Greatest length. Nos. 60, 61,

AHU

TEPEU (Grave 1)

1 1 F F IV V L L 64 66* 6 9 7 7 13 22 22 14 8 8 14 12 94 136 63 and 64,

1 1 1 1 F F F F I II III IV R R R R 57 68 64 64 12 7 6 5 8 12 8 7 18 14 12 10 27 20 20 16 18 9 7 8 20 14 14 12 2 1 2 103 94 7 8 65, 66 possibly belong

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 M M M M M M M I II III II III IV V L L L L R R R 82 78 77 75* 67 82 77 10 8 7 7 14 8 7 9 9 10 8 13 10 10 17 15 12 22 20 17 15 16 22 20 18 29 22 20 11 10 10 10 24 11 10 18 18 17 13 22 18 17 n o 9.8 9.0 9.1 n.i 20.9 9.8 9.1 to the same individual and to No. 57. 1 F V R 69* 9 7 21 14 9 12

2 M IV R 76 7 10 12 18 11 17

9.?

2 M V R

10 8 22 17

VINAPU (No. 2)

5 7 5 7 M M I I L R 66 67 14 14 13 13 19 20 31 31 24 24 24 25 ?1 ?

20.9

2 M I L

2 M II L

2 M III L

2 M II R

2 M III R

2 M IV R

33 23 19 15 10 19 12 9

31 13 12 7 7 10 7 6

29 12 12 7 7 10 7 6

31 13 12 7 7 10 7 6

30 12 11 7 7 10 7 6

30 12 12 7 7 10 6 5

29 21 10 10

58 F I R 56 12 13 18 26 22 20 21.4

59 F I R 53 12 12 18 26 19 18 22.6

67 M II L 74 8 10 17 23 10 17 10.8

60 M III L 69 7 10 12 18 9 15 10.1

AHU TEPEU Grave 1)

AHU TEPEU (Grave 1) N O 1 1 SEX F F DIGIT I I SIDE L R Proximal Phalanx Maximum Length 30 Prox. End Width 17 Prox. End Height 15 Mid-point Shaft Width 11 Mid-point Shaft Height 8 Distal End Width 14 Distal End Height (Max) 9 Distal End Height (Midline) 6 Distal Phalanx Maximum Length 21 Prox. End Width 17 Prox. End Height (Max) 8 Prox. End Height (Midline) 7 I = Great Toe. II —IV = Other Digits. See Appendix B for measurements of foot.

58 F I L 57 12 13 17 28 21 20 21.1

Reconstructed foot NO SEX SIDE Length of Tarsus (a) Width of Tarsus (b) Post. Width of Tarsus Ant. Width of Foot Tarso-Metatarsal I Length Tarso-Metatarsal II Length Tarso-Metatarsal III Length Tarso-Metatarsal IV Length Tarso-Metatarsal V Length Tub. Calc. to Head of Phalanx I Tarsus-Length Index [a/Length of Metatarsal II (68)] Tarsus-Width Index (b/Length of Metatarsal II)

1 F R 101 55 39 89 166 168 163 157 144 193 148.5

80.9

2 M L 126 62 47 211 200 192 175

153.7

75.6

61 M IV L 71 7 9 12 20 10 15 9.9

62 F IV L 66 5 9 13 19 9 15 7.6

63 M V L 71* 11 9 19 13 9 14 15.5

64 M III R 67 7 10 12 17 9 12 10.4

65 M IV R 72 7 10 15 20 9 16 9.7

66 M V R 70* 10 8 20 13 9 14 14.3

Table 16 AHU TEPEU (Grave 2). AVERAGES OF POSTCRANIAL MEASUREMENTS AND INDICES Male Side

No

Range

Mean

Clavicle Maximum Length

Humerus Maximum Length

49.0

R

1

21.0

R

1

26.0

R

1

26.0

R

1

20.0

R R

1 1

62.0 143.0°

R

1

76.9

R

1

252.0

L R

3 2

186—227 216—217

211.0 216.5

L R

2 2

265—278 257—278

271.5 267.5

L R

2 4

202—246 203—245

224.0 229.8

2 2 2 2 2

106—126 101—111 98—107 88.1—95.3 84.9—92.5

116.0 106.0 102.5 91.7 88.7

2 2 2 2 2

92—93 107—113 102—108 115.1—122.8 109.7—117.4

92.5 110.0 105.0 119.0 113.6

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

203—223 202—203 148—155 145—156 66.4—76.4 71.8—76.8 25—35 28—31 43—47 45—52 11—17 19—20

213.0 202.5 151.5 150.5 71.4 74.3 30.0 29.5 45.0 48.5 14.0 19.5

2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1

176—206

191.0 175.0 127.0 126.0 72.2 72.0 23.0 20.0 49.0 48.0 21.5 21.0

Radius Maximum Length

Sacrum Maximum Height (a) Maximum Width (b) Width (Frontal) (c) Sacral Index (b/a) Sacral Index (c/a)

Sciatic Notch Width Sciatic Notch Post. Seg.

50—51 157°— 166° 75.0—88.2 65.0—82.4

254.0 283.3 40.5 40.0 16.0 15.3 15.5 17.8 16.5 18.3 13.5 13.5 51.0 50.5 162.0' 81.6 74.4

126.0 124.7

1

Bi-epicondylar Width

Sciatic Notch Height

1 3 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 1 4 3 2 4

123—127

R

Mid-shaft Min. Thickness

Innominate Index

1 3

L R L R L R L R L R L R L R R L R

Mid-shaft Max. Thickness

Innominate Width

L R

333.0

Mid-shaft Diam. Medio-lat.

Pelvis Innominate Height

Mean

1

Mid-shaft Diam. Antero-post.

Ulna Maximum Length

Range

R

Maximum Head Diam.

Torsion Angle Humeral Flatness Index

Female Side No

L R L R L R L R L R L R


256—299 39—42 37—42 15—17 15—16 15—16 16—20 16—17 17—20 12—15 13—14

21—25 48—50 20—23

Table 16 (cont.) AHU TEPEU (Grave 2). AVERAGES OF POSTCRANIAL MEASUREMENTS AND INDICES Male Side Femur Maximum Length Bicondylar Length Trochanteric Obi. Length Maximum Diam. of Head Subtroch. Diam. Antero-post. Subtroch. Diam. Medio-lat. Mid-shaft Diam. Antero-post. Mid-shaft Diam. Medio-lat. Bicondylar Width Collo-Diaph. Angle Condylo-Diaph. Angle Torsion Angle Platymeric Index Pilastric Index Robusticity Index

Tibia Maximum Length Bicondylar Length Nut. For. Antero-post.Diam. Nut. For. Medio-lat. Diam. Platycnemic Index

Fibula Maximum Length

L R L R L R L R L R L R L R L R L R L R L R L R L R L R L R

L R L R L R L R L R

Female No

Range

Mean

Side

No

Range

Mean

4 4 3 5 4 5 4 5 4

436—472 424—470 434—470 422—467 407—443 397—437 43—51 40—46 22—26 22—26 30—34 30—33 26—34 26—33 25—28 24—27 75—88 76—83 126°— 135° 127°— 144° 75°— 81° 78°— 83° 17°— 31° 22°—29° 71.0—76.7 68.8—83.9 104.0—121.4 100.0—122.2 11.6—13.2 11.7—12.8

452.8 445.0 449.8 442.8 423.0 414.8 47.7 43.0 24.0 23.8 32.6 31.5 30.4 29.3 26.6 25.8 80.4 79.3 131.6° 134.0° 78.2° 80.8° 23.8° 26.0° 73.7 75.4 114.1 113.6 12.7 12.4

L R L R L R L R L R L R L R L R L R L R L R L R L R L R L R

4 2 4 2 3 2 3 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2

364-412 363—408 362—411 362—404 336— 3SO 335—376 39—41 38—42 19—20 19—20 26—30 26—30 22—25 22—25 21—25 21—23 65—72 67—72 132°— 135° 143°— 145° 76°— 83° 81°— 84° 27°— 40° 35°— 49° 65.5—73.1 66.7—73.1 100.0—104.8 104.8—108.7 11.3—12.2

397.0 385.5 394.3 383.0 364.0 355.5 40.0 40.0 19.5 19.5 28.8 28.0 23.5 23.5 23.0 22.0 69.5 69.5 134.0° 144.0° 79.8° 82.5° 33.0° 42.0° 68.0 69.9 102.3 106.8 11.8 11.9

4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5

356—399 358—399 355—397 356—396 35—39 32—38 24—28 24—29 68.6—77.8 64.9—85.3

378.3 373.6 374.8 370.6 36.3 35.0 26.5 26.6 73.1 76.4

L R L R L R L R L R

4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3

298—349 294—347 295—343 292—335 27—30 26—30 19—21 19—23 70.0—70.4 73.1—82.1

327.8 324.7 323.8 318.3 29.3 28.0 20.5 21.7 70.1 77.3

R

2

282—322

302.0

5 4 5 4 4 4 3 3 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 3 5 4 5

Table 17 AHUS TEPEU (Grave 1) AND VINAPU No. 2. AVERAGES OF POSTCRANIAL MEASUREMENTS AND INDICES Male Side Sternum Manubrium Length (M) Mesosternum Length (B) M+ B Width (SI) Width (S3) Manubrium-Corpus Index Mesosternal Rel. Width Index


Scapula Morphological Width Morphological Length Infraspinous Fossa Width Supraspinous Fossa Width Infraspinous Fossa Width (Proj) Supraspinous Fossa Width (Proj) Scapular Index Infraspinous Index Supraspinous Index Infraspinous Index (Proj) Supraspinous Index (Proj)

Humerus Maximum Length Maximum Head Diam. Mid-shaft Diam. Antero-post. Mid-shaft Diam. Medio-lat. Mid-shaft Max. Thickness

No

Range

Mean

2 2 2 2 2 2 2

43—44 101—111 145—154 27—30 30—33 38.7—43.6 81.8—100.0

43.5 106.0 149.5 28.5 31.5 41.2 90.9

L R

5 6

138—145 133—146

140.0 138.7

L R L R L R L R L R L R L R L R L R L R L R

2 4 3 4 2 4 3 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 3 4 2 4 2 4

142—152 140—156 98—103 94—102 106—119 101—118 52—57 45—57 101—113 102—110

L R L R L R L R L R

8 5 8 5 8 5 8 5 8 5

Female Side No

Range

Mean

2 2 2 2 2 2 2

47—49 71—89 118—138 26—28 32—33 55.1—66.2 78.8—87.5

48.0 80.0 128.0 27.0 32.5 60.7 83.2

L

3

120—132

126.0

L R L R L R L R L R L R L R L R L R L R L R

3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1

132—135

38—48 67.8—69.0 65.4—69.7 108.2—115.5 100.0—115.7 50.5—56.4 44.6—55.9 103.1—109.7 105.0—108.5 39.8—41.8 38.6—47.5

147.0 148.5 100.7 99.5 112.5 109.8 54.3 51.3 107.0 106.3 41.0 43.0 68.4 67.1 111.0 110.4 54.0 51.5 106.4 106.8 40.8 43.2

133.3 134.0 92.3 93.0 95.3 98.0 48.0 42.0 92.0 95.0 41.0 39.0 69.5 69.4 103.0 105.4 51.9 45.2 99.4 102.2 44.3 41.9

305—336 299—331 41—46 43—45 16—20 17—21 18—24 18—26 19—24 19—26

318.8 314.8 43.5 43.8 18.4 19.2 21.0 21.4 21.3 22.6

L R L R L R L R L R

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

89—97 94—97 46—50 90—93 40-^2 67.4—71.9 100.0—105.6 49.5—56.2 95.9—101.1 41.2-47.2

273—293 280—293 38-40 37—40 15—17 15—18 18—19 17—20 19—20 18—20

283.5 286.5 38.8 38.8 16.0 15.8 18.5 18.3 19.3 19.3

Table 17 (cont.) AHUS TEPEU (Grave 1) AND VINAPU No. 2. AVERAGES OF POSTCRANIAL MEASUREMENTS AND INDICES Male Side No Mid-shaft Min. Thickness Bi-epicondylar Width Torsion Angle Humeral Flatness Index Radius Maximum Length Ulna Maximum Length

Innominate Width Innominate Index Sciatic Notch Height Sciatic Notch Width Sciatic Notch Post. Seg. Femur Maximum Length Bicondylar Length Trochanteric Obi. Length Maximum Diam. of Head Sobtroch. Diam. Antero-post.

Mean

Female Side No

Range

Mean

L R L R L R L R

8 5 7 5 7 5 8 5

13—17 13—18 56—60 56—59 144°— 168° 139°— 166° 66.7—76.2 68.2—70.0

15.4 16.0 57.9 57.4 155.3° 153.0° 72.4 70.7

L R L R L R L R

4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4

12—15 13—15 50—58 49—56 152°— 174° 159°— 172° 63.2—78.9 65.0—83.3

13.3 13.8 52.5 53.3 159.0° 165.7° 68.9 71.7

L R

5 4

237—253 238—250

246.4 244.8

L R

4 3

213—231 213—232

222.5 225.3

L R

5 6

252—279 248—276

263.8 260.2

L R

3 3

233—242 230—241

239.0 236.0

2 2 2 2 2

120—135 112—117 105—108 86.7—93.3 80.0—87.5

127.5 114.5 106.5 90.0 83.4

4 4 4 4 4

87—109 100—116 97—110 101.8—118.4 96.3—112.2

99.3 109.5 105.0 110.7 106.2


3 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

205—226 200—224 152—155 142—155 67.3—74.2 69.2—74.4 25—31 25—28 37—45 38—42 8—13 6—12

213.3 210.3 153.5 150.3 70.8 71.5 28.0 27.0 41.0 39.7 9.7 9.7


3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4

185—201 185—203 139—148 142—149 72.1—75.1 70.3—76.8 27—28 23—29 46—53 38—55 20—24 10—25

195.7 197.8 144.0 144.5 73.6 73.2 27.3 26.0 49.3 47.5 22.3 19.8

L R L R L R L R L R

6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7

422-^82 421-^78 418—478 417—475 393—449 400-^46 41-^9 42-^9 19—25 20—25

451.7 447.0 447.2 443.4 418.5 416.7 45.0 45.0 22.0 22.6

L R L R L R L R L R

4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3

403—423 403^19 400-^19 400-^16 376—392 376—394 39—41 40—41 19—21 21—21

413.0 409.7 409.3 406.7 387.3 386.7 40.3 40.3 20.0 20.3

Sacrum Maximum Height (a) Maximum Width (b) Width (Frontal) (c) Sacral Index (b/a) Sacral Index (c/a) Pelvis Innominate Height

Range

46

CRANIAL AND POSTCRANIAL SKELETAL REMAINS FROM EASTER ISLAND Table 17 (cont.) AHUS TEPEU (GRAVE 1) AND VINAPU No. 2. AVERAGES OF POSTCRANIAL MEASUREMENTS AND INDICES

Subtroch. Diam. Medio-lat. Mid-shaft Diam. Antero-post. Mid-shaft Diam. Medio-lat. Bicondylar Width Collo-Diaph. Angle Condylo-Diaph. Angle Torsion Angle Platymeric Index Pilastric Index Robusticity Index

Tibia Maximum Length Bicondylar Length Nut. For. Antero-post. Diam. Nut. For. Medio-lat. Diam. Platycnemic Index

Male Side

No

L R L R L R L R L R L R L R L R L R L R

6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7

29—34 30—34 25—33 25—32 23—27 22—27 76—82 76—81 115°— 142° 120°— 144° 76°— 81° 77°— 83° 22°— 33° 25°— 32° 63.6—75.0 66.7—75.0 100.0—126.1 104.2—125.0 11.1—13.4 10.8—12.9

31.7 31.7 28.8 28.4 25.3 24.3 77.8 77.6 130.5° 134.0° 79.2° 80.1° 26.5° 29.1° 69.4 71.1 114.0 117.2 12.1 11.9

L R L R L R L R L R L R L R L R L R L R

4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3

27—30 27—29 23—30 23—27 21—24 22—24 65—73 65—74 125°— 138° 135°— 136° 79°— 82° 80°—84° 24°— 36° 17°— 34° 65.5—77.8 69.0—77.8 104.2—136.4 100.0—117.4 10.5—12.6 10.8—12.4

28.8 28.0 25.5 24.7 22.5 23.0 70.0 69.3 129.5° 135.3° 80.3° 81.7° 29.8° 26.3° 69.8 72.7 113.6 107.3 11.8 11.7

L R L R L R L R L R

3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2

367—384 366—380 363—382 363—379 33—35 32—38 22—27 23—27 62.9—81.8 60.5—84.4

373.3 373.0 370.3 371.0 34.3 35.0 24.0 25.0 70.1 72.5

L R L R L R L R L R

2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

315—340 317—358 312—337 315—356 28—31 28—33 20—22 21—23 68.8—71.4 66.7—79.3

327.5 339.0 324.5 336.7 30.3 30.0 21.3 22.0 70.4 73.7

Range

total length of digit III) of No. 2 is 63.5, which shows that the total thumb length is neither short nor long compared with the total length of digit III. The robusticity index of 57.1 for the left metacarpal I and 60.4 for the right show a medium robusticity. However, regarding variation, it must be remembered that this hand represents only one individual; furthermore, his other long bones, with the exception of the tibiae, indicate dimensions falling at the lower end of the range of the grouped males. Vertebral Column. The male measurements are shown in Tables 14 and 15. The remains consist of two males from the Middle and six from the Late period. In the Middle period No. 63 consists of ver-

Mean

Female Side No

Range

Mean

tebrae thoracic 9 to thoracic 12, No. 64 of thoracic 4 to lumbar 5 -f- the sacrum. In the Late period No. 122 consists of vertebrae cervical 1 to 7, No. 123 of cervical 1 to 7, and No. 124 of cervical 1. No. 126 consists of vertebrae thoracic 1 to thoracic 12, No. 127 of thoracic 8 to lumbar 4, and No. 128 of thoracic 7 to lumbar 5. The fourth cervical vertebra, taken as a representative vertebra in No. 122 and 123 shows fairly large dimensions for the height of body, inferior sagittal diameter, and inferior transverse diameter. If one adds up the heights of the bodies of the third to seventh cervical vertebrae, the figures are 64 mm and 65 mm which approximates the mean measure-

Table 18 ANALYSIS OF DISPERSION. POSTCRANIAL MEASUREMENTS AND INDICES. TOTAL MALE SERIES.


Scapula Morphological Width Morphological Length Infraspinous Fossa Width Supraspinous Fosa Width Scapular Index Infraspinous Index Supraspinous Index Humerus Maximum Length Maximum Head Diam. Mid-shaft Diam. Antero-post. Mid-shaft Diam. Medio-lat. Bi-epicondylar Width Torsion Angle (°) Humeral Flatness Index

Radius Maximum Length

Vina Maximum Length

Side

No

L R

5 6

R R R R R R R

Mean S.E. of Mean

S.D. S.E. of S.D.

C.V. S.E. of C.V

138—145 133—146

140.00 ± 1.17 138.67 ± 1.71

2.61 ± 0.82 4.19 ± 1.21

1.86 ± 0.59 3.02 ± 0.87

5 5 5 5 5 5 5

140—156 92—102 101—118 45—57 59.4—69.7 100.0—127.2 44.6—60.9

149.80 ± 2.79 98.00 ± 1.85 11 1.20 ±2.79 52.20 ± 2.03 65.52 ± 1.51 113.74 ±3.92 53.40 ± 2.38

6.24 ± 4.15 ± 6.24 ± 4.53 ± 3.39 ± 8.75 ± 5.32 ±

1.97 1.31 1.97 1.43 1.07 2.76 1.68

4.17 ± 1.32 4.23 ± 1.34 5.61 ± 1.77 8.69 ± 2.74 5.18 ± 1.63 7.69 ± 2.43 9.97 ±3.15

L R L R L R L R L R L R L R

8 6 8 6 8 6 8 6 7 6 7 6 8 6

305—336 299—333 41—46 43—49 16—20 17—21 18—24 18—26 56—60 56—62 144—168 139—166 66.7—76.2 68.2—76.9

318.75 ± 3.84 317.83 ± 4.88 43.50 ± 0.59 44.67 ± 0.84 18.38 ± 0.39 19.50 ± 0.57 21.00 ±0.61 22.17 ± 1.28 57.85 ± 0.63 58.16 ± 0.93 155.28 ± 2.86 151.33 ± 3.56 72.40 ±1.17 71.73 ± 1.40

10.85 ± 2.71 11. 95 ±3.45 1.66 ± 0.41 2.05 ± 0.59 1.11 ±0.28 1.38 ± 0.40 1.73 ± 0.43 3.13 ± 0.90 1.68 ±0.44 2.29 ± 0.66 7.57 ± 2.02 8.71 ± 2.51 3.32 ± 0.83 3.44 ± 0.99

3.40 ± 0.85 3.76 ± 1.08 3.81 ± 0.95 4.60 ± 1.32 6.05 ± 1.51 7.10 ±2.04 8.25 ± 2.06 14.13 ± 4.07 2.90 ± 0.77 3.93 ± 1.13 4.87 ± 1.30 5.75 ± 1.66 4.58 ± 1.14 4.79 ± 1.38

L R

5 5

238—252 237—253

246.40 ± 2.39 246.20 ± 2.16

5.35 ± 1.69 4.83 ± 1.53

2.17 ± 0.69 1.96 ±0.62

L R

7 8

252—279 248—278

266.00 ± 3.48 262.00 ±3.52

9.20 ± 2.46 9.96 ± 2.49

3.46 ± 0.92 3.80 ± 0.95

4 4 4

106—135 101—117 86.7—95.3

121.75 ± 5.27 110.25 ±2.90 90.85 ± 1.77

10.54 ± 3.73 5.80 ± 2.05 3.55 ± 1.25

8.66 ± 3.06 5.26 ± 1.86 3.91 ± 1.38

5 5 4 5 4 5

203—226 200—224 145—156 142—156 66.4—76.4 69.2—76.8

213.20 ± 4.24 207.20 ± 3.89 1 52.50 ± 1.44 150.40 ± 2.57 71.07 ±2.19 72.64 ± 1.19

Sacrum Maximum Height (a) Maximum Width (b) Sacral Index (b/a) Pelvis Innominate Height Innominate Width Innominate Index

L R L R L R

Range

9.47 ± 8.70 ± 2.87 ± 5.75 ± 4.38 ± 2.66 ±

3.00 2.75 1.02 1.82 1.55 0.84

4.44 ± 1.40 4.20 ± 1.32 1.88 ±0.66 3.82 ± 1.20 6.16 ±2.18 3.66 ± 1.15

48

CRANIAL AND POSTCRANIAL SKELETAL REMAINS FROM EASTER ISLAND Table 18 (cont.) ANALYSIS OF DISPERSION. POSTCRANIAL MEASUREMENTS AND INDICES. TOTAL MALE SERIES (Cont.)

Femur Maximum Length Bicondylar Length Trochanteric Oblique Length Maximum Diam. of Head Substroch. Diam. Antero-post. Subtroch. Diam. Medio-lat. Mid-shaft Diam. Antero-post. Mid-shaft Diam. Medio-lat. Bicondylar Width Torsion Angle (°) Platymeric Index Pilastric Index Robusticity Index

Tibia Maximum Length Bicondylar Length Nut. For. Antero-post.Diam. Nut. For. Medio-lat. Diam. Platycnemic Index

Side

No

Range

Mean S.E. of Mean

S.D. S.E. of S.D

C.V. S.E. of C.V.

L R L R L R L R L R L R L R L R L R L R L R L R L R

11 11 11 11 10 11 9 10 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 11 11

422—482 421—478 418—478 417—475 393—449 394—446 41—51 40—49 19—26 20—26 29—34 26—34 25—34 25—33 23—28 22—27 75—88 76—83 17—33 22—32 63.6—76.7 66.7—83.9 100.0—126.1 100.0—125.0 11.1—13.4 10.8—12.9

452.18 ± 5.72 446.27 ± 5.96 448.36 ± 5.51 443.18 ± 5.79 420.30 ± 5.43 41 6.00 ±4.94 45.89 ± 1.02 44.40 ± 0.76 22.91 ± 0.64 23.00 ± 0.50 32.09 ± 0.55 31.64 ± 0.39 29.55 ± 0.84 28.73 ± 0.72 25.91 ± 0.42 24.82 ± 0.44 79.00 ± 1.21 78.10 ±0.69 25.40 ± 1.49 28.20 ± 0.87 71.31 ± 1.25 72.73 ± 1.42 114.01 ±2.61 11 5.85 ±2.45 12.38 ± 0.23 12.07 ± 0.22

18.99 ±4.05 19.75 ± 4.21 18.26 ±3.89 19.19 ± 4.09 17.19 ± 3.84 16.37 ± 3.49 3.07 ± 0.72 2.42 ± 0.54 2.11 ±0.45 1.65 ±0.35 1.83 ±0.39 1.30 ±0.28 2.78 ± 0.59 2.38 ± 0.51 1.38 ±0.29 1.47 ±0.31 4.02 ± 0.85 2.21 ± 0.49 4.71 ± 1.05 2.78 ± 0.62 4.17 ± 0.88 4.71 ± 1.00 8.64 ± 1.84 8.11 ± 1.72 0.79 ± 0.16 0.75 ±0.16

4.20 ± 0.89 4.43 ± 0.94 4.07 ± 0.86 4.33 ± 0.92 4.08 ± 0.91 3.93 ± 0.83 6.69 ± 1.58 5.44 ± 1.22 9.20 ±1.96 7.18 ± 1.53 5.71 ± 1.22 4. 10 ±0.87 9.39 ± 2.00 8.28 ± 1.76 5.32 ± 1.13 5.91 ± 1.26 5.08 ± 1.08 2.82 ± 0.63 18.54 ± 4.14 9.85 ± 2.21 5.85 ± 1.24 6.48 ± 1.38 7.57 ± 1.61 7.00 ± 1.49 6.38 ± 1.36 6.21 ± 1.32

L R L R L R L R L R

7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7

356—399 358—399 355—397 356—396 33—39 32—38 22—28 23—29 62.9—81.8 60.5—85.3

376. 14 ±5.70 373.43 ± 5.83 372.85 ± 5.92 370.71 ± 5.91 35.43 ± 0.63 35.00 ± 0.93 25.43 ± 0.85 26.14 ± 0.77 71. 84 ±2.34 75.24 ± 3.45

15.08 ± 4.03 15.44 ± 4.12 15.63 ± 4.17 15.62 ±4.17 1.68 ± 0.45 2.45 ± 0.65 2.26 ± 0.60 2.03 ± 0.54 6.19 ± 1.65 9.14 ± 2.44

4.01 ± 1.07 4.13 ± 1.10 4.19 ± 1.12 4.21 ± 1.12 4.74 ± 1.27 7.00 ± 1.87 8.88 ± 2.37 7.77 ± 2.07 8.63 ± 2.30 12.16 ±3.25

ment of 68.4 mm (male-f-female!)

for European

males (Martin, 1928).

assessment of the length and proportions of the various segments of the vertebral column. The mean

The total anterior body heights of vertebrae tho-

height of the bodies of vertebrae cervical 3-7 of

racic 1 to 12 of No. 126 gives the figure 237 mm

numbers 122 and 123 is 64.5 mm. The body height

which falls in between the figures 243 mm given by

of the vertebrae thoracic 1-12 in No. 126 above is

Martin (1928) for European (male -f- female!) and

237.0 mm. The body height of the vertebrae lumbar

233 mm for Japanese. Although the numbers in-

1-5 averaged of numbers 64 and 128 is 127.5 mm.

volved are small it was of some interest to make an

If one adds 35 mm for the heights of the atlas and

CRANIAL AND POSTCRANIAL SKELETAL REMAINS FROM EASTER ISLAND axis (McCown and Keith, 1939, p. 103) the total is 464.0 mm. "In the living spine about three-fourths of the height is formed by the bony bodies and the remaining fourth by the invertebral discs" (McCown and Keith, 1939, p. 103). Thus to obtain the actual height of the pre-sacral column one must add here 154.6 mm to give a living height of 618.6 mm. "The average pre-sacral height in European males is about 619 mm" (McCown and Keith, 1939, p. 103). In Europeans the cervical region usually forms 15.3 per cent of the combined heights of the vertebral bodies (excluding the atlas and axis), the thoracic region 53.4, and the lumbar 31.3 per cent (Martin, 1928, p. 1079). Using 429.0 mm as the combined heights of the vertebral bodies and 64.0 mm, 237.0 mm, and 127.0 mm as the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar heights as above, the percentages are 14.9, 55.2, and 29.6, indicating slightly shorter cervical and lumbar regions compared with Europeans. The relative proportions of the lumbar vertebrae can be shown in the following manner. One can combine the two body heights to get a mean body height and also the width and dorso-ventral (superior and inferior sagittal) measurements. Then one can combine the measurements of all the vertebrae to give an ideal lumbar vertebra. This was done for vertebrae lumbar 1 to 5 of numbers 64 and 128. The width of the mean lumbar vertebra is 47.6 mm, the height is 26.0 mm and the dorso-ventral measurement is 34.2 mm. Thus the height is 54.6 per cent of the width and the dorso-ventral diameter is 71.8 per cent of the width. The average lumbar index for vertebrae lumbar 1 to 5 of numbers 64 and 128 is as follows: lumbar 1-114.5, 2-110.5, 3-106.0, 4-104.1, and 5-88.7. The average total lumbar index is 104.4, showing presumably little or no anterior convexity, but it must be remembered that much of the lumbar curvature is determined by the shape of the intervertebral discs and tension of the intervertebral ligaments. The morphological observations on the vertebral column are shown in Tables 14 and 15. Pelvis. The average innominate heights of 213.2 (L) and 207.2 (R), and widths of 152.5 (L) and 150.4 (R), are not absolutely large, the width in fact being somewhat narrow. The innominate indices

49

thus are 71.1 (L) and 72.6 (R). Sacro-sciatic notches average 28.0 mm X 42.0 mm (L) and 28.0 mm X 43.0 mm (R), with posterior segment 11.0 mm (L) and 13.0mm (R), using the Letterman (1941) technique. These are definitely male proportions. In skeleton No. 2 the left innominate height X 100/left femoral length is 47.0 or a medium innominate height compared with the femoral length. In No. 15 the estimated bi-iliac width is 265.0 mm which is small; the innominate height X 100/bi-iliac width (estimated) is 76.6; and the estimated pelvic inlet index is 92.9 or mesatipellic. The average of the two estimated female pelvic inlet indices (numbers 28 and 29) is 82.3 or platypellic. Morphological observations indicate for the males absent to slight pre-auricular sulci, a medium sub-pubic arch and converging ischia. The pubic symphysis phase is mainly in the 42-50 year age range. The average sacrum height, 121.7 mm, and width, 110.2 mm, are fairly large absolute figures, giving a sacral index of 90.85 or dolicohieric. Morphological observations show for the males a predominant slight curvature, 5 or 6 sacral segments, and a hypobasal type. In general the male pelves showed a medium over-all robusticity. Femur. The maximum length figures for the males are 452.1 mm (L) and 446.2 mm (R). The maximum head diameters are 45.8 mm (L) and 44.4 mm (R). The torsion angle figures are 25.4° (L) and 28.2° (R), which are fairly high. The platymeric indices are 71.3 (L) and 72.7 (R), exhibiting very little transverse thickening in the upper shaft. The pilastric indices of 114.0 (L) and 115.8 (R) show a fair degree of pilastering of the linea aspera. The average of the index bicondylar width X 100/maximum length of the femur gives the figure 18.6 (L) and 17.4 (R). Thus the distal end of the femur is of moderate width compared with its length. The robusticity indices are 12.3 (L) and 12.0 (R), which indicate a medium robusticity. Morphological observations indicate predominantly a slight to medium development of the crista hypotrochanterica, an absent third trochanter, and a slight to medium bowing of the femoral shaft. The right patella shows a fair average height of 44.0 mm, width of 44.0 mm, thickness of 21.0 mm, and height-width index of 100.1. Tibia. The maximum length figures are 376.1 mm

50


(L) and 373.4 mm (R), which are greater than the mean length of 365.0 mm for modern European males (Martin, 1928). The platycnemic indices are 71.8 (L) and 75.2 (R), indicating a relatively low degree of medio-lateral flatness of the shaft or eurycnemia. Concerning platycnemia McCown and Keith (1939, p. 47) state that It is produced by the formation of a bony pilastre formed on the hinder aspect of the shaft and laid down between the medial margin of the shaft and the interosseous border. It leads to an increase of the antero-posterior diameter . . . the tibial pilastre is formed between the areas which give origin to tibialis posterior (laterally) and the flexor digitorum longus (medially). Although we can offer an anatomical explanation of the tibial pilastre (and platycnemia) we are still at a loss to explain its functional utility. A medium head retroversion is indicated in the average retroversion angle figures of 12.2° (L) and 11.6° (R). Skeleton No. 2 shows tibial-femoral indices of 88.2 (L) and 87.9 (R); thus the tibia is relatively long compared with the femur. Morphological observations indicate that the external condyle is either flat or has a slight convexity and the squatting facets are predominantly medium in development. Fibula. The maximum length mean for three left male fibulae is 377.6 mm. These fibulae were all deeply fluted. Foot as a Whole. It is not often that one has enough foot bones to reconstruct the foot. However, this was possible to a large extent in the case of female skeleton No. 1, and male skeleton No. 2, both from Ahu Tepeu, Grave 1 (see PI. 7). In Table 15 under Reconstructed Foot it can be seen that the male (left) tarso-metatarsal II length is 211.0 mm and for the female (right) 168.0 mm. The left male proximal phalanx (II) length is 31.0 mm. I have estimated the middle and distal phalangeal (II) lengths to be 26.0 mm, thus giving a phalanges of digit II length of 57.0 mm for the male. For the female I estimated a length of 52.0 mm. Therefore, the estimated male total foot length is 268.0 mm and for the female 220.0 mm. Now the male tarsus width is 62.0 mm and the female 55.0 mm. Thus the length-width index is 23.1 for the male and 25.0 for the female, suggesting relatively narrow

Plate 7. RECONSTRUCTED MALE FOOT; AHU TEPEU, GRAVE 1.

feet for their length. The estimated absolute total length of 268.0 mm for the male is a surprisingly large figure considering the relative general shortness of his other long bones.

CRANIAL AND POSTCRANIAL SKELETAL REMAINS FROM EASTER ISLAND The tarsal length of the male is 126.0 mm, that of the female 101.0 mm. Hence the tarsus-total fool length index is 47.0 for the male and 45.9 for the female. The phalanges of digit II-total foot length index gives a male index of 21.3 and female 23.6. For the female the tarso-metatarsal I to tarso-metatarsal II length index is 98.8. The tarso-metatarsal IV to tarso-metatarsal II length index for the male is 91.0 and the female 93.5. The tarso-metatarsal V to tarso-metatarsal II length index is 82.9 for the male and 85.7 for the female. In this case, then, the degeneration in length of the fourth and fifth digits is greater in the male. Talus. The four male right tali show the following averages. The length-width index is 79.2, the lengthheight index is 58.7. Martin (1928) gives corresponding figures of 82.7 (sex?) and 60.8 (sex?) for Maori. The angle of the neck to the body is 29.0°, a much higher figure than the mean angle of 17.8 (sex?) given by Martin for Europeans. The angle of the head with the horizontal plane is 33.3° whereas in modern Europeans the mean is 40° (Martin, 1928). Head + neck to total length index is 38.4 Calcaneus. The means of five male right calcanei are as follows. The absolute length of 78.4 mm and width of 40.4 mm are medium dimensions, giving a middle width-length index of 54.1. However, the least width-length index is 28.6, which is lower than the mean of 35.7 (sex?) for Europeans given by Martin (1928). Thus the Easter Island calcanei are apparently narrow for their length. The height-length index is 53.7. The heel to total length index is 47. thus the heel is long. Os Naviculare. Dimensions of the male (No. 2) os naviculare are medium with the exception of the antero-posterior diameter of the tuberosity, 18.0 mm (L), 19.0 mm (R), and the thickness of the facet

51

for cuneiform III, 14.0 mm (L and R), which are large. Cuboid. All the dimensions of the male left (No. 2) and right (No. 86) cuboid are medium in size; the upper medial length 33.0 mm (L) and 31.0 mm (R), the lateral border length 17.0 (L) and 15.0 mm (R), and the length of lateral border to upper medial border index is 51.5 (L) and 48.4 (R). Cuneiform Bones. Worth mentioning here are the rather low figures for the width-height index of the distal articulation for cuneiform I (R) of No. 2 which is 43.8, and the same index for cuneiform III, 68.2 (L) and 58.3 (R). Metatarsal Bones. The male mean absolute length of metatarsal I is 66.0 mm (L) and 67.0 mm (R). These figures exceed the mean 60.2 mm given for Europeans by Martin (1928). The length-width index is 21.2 (L) and 20.9 (R), indicating narrow widths compared with lengths. If one designated the mid-shaft width -f mid-shaft height X 100/maximum length as a robusticity index, the figures are 40.9 (L) and 40.3 (R). The mean male maximum length for metatarsals II-V are as follows: II-78.0 mm (L), 82.0 mm (R); III-73.0 mm (L), 73.0 mm (R); IV-74.0 mm (L), 74.0 mm (R); V-73.0 mm (L), 70.0 mm (R). All of these are larger than means given for Europeans by Martin (1928). Using the length of metatarsal III as 100.0, the lengths of the other metatarsals can be expressed as percentages of the length of metatarsal III. These percentages are 90.4 (L) and 91.8 (R) for metatarsal I, 106.8 (L) and 112.3 (R) for metatarsal II, 101.4 (L and R) for metatarsal IV, and 100.0 (L) and 95.9 (R) for metatarsal V. These figures indicate, though we must keep in mind the small numbers involved, a long metatarsal IV compared with III. The metatarsal V measurements of maximum length included the tuberosity.

skeletonization of American casualties of the Korean war. In this study equations were devised suitable for White, Negro, "Mongoloid," and Mexican males. Certain statements regarding stature estimation made by various authors are very pertinent and worth reproducing here. Telkka (1950, p. 105) stated that In 1928 Martin gave the ratios of the lengths of the limbs and the whole stature of different peoples: The relative length of the upper limbs of males (in percentage of the whole stature) varies from 43.1 to 48.3, and that of the lower limbs from 46.2 to 52.7. When examining these ratios one cannot avoid noticing that the ethnical variations are so perceptible as to make the tables which are based on one race in many cases inapplicable to another race, without having to allow for the error caused by this ethnical variation alone.

IV THE ESTIMATION OF STATURE

Trotter and Gleser (1952) have the following criticisms to make. Regarding Pearson's use of Rollet's data, Pearson's sample was composed almost entirely of middle-aged or old individuals averaging about sixty years. On the basis of his equations stature for a young adult population such as, for example, French military males would be estimated almost 2 cm too short due to the aging factor alone. (P. 502.) Telkka's equations suffer from . . . the smallness of the sample, the possible sampling bias in cadaver material, the transformation of cadaver measurements to living stature and the uncontrolled age factor. . . . Dupertuis and Hadden utilized reasonably large samples each with an adequate range of stature excepting the White males. But their samples were drawn from the lower socio-economic level, no allowance was made for change in stature from aging, and it was assumed that Todd's measurements of cadaver stature represent living stature. . . . In applying formulae derived from data of a particular group to bone measurements from another population the possibility of differences in the relationship between bone length and stature for the two populations must be recognized. (P. 503.)

1 H E whole question of estimating stature must be approached with some caution. As late as 1950, Telkka (1950, p. 104) stated that "In 1888 Rollet published his paper 'La Mensuration des os longs des membres,' which has become classical in this field. The tables compiled later on and based on his measurements are perhaps the ones most frequently used even today." The tables referred to here are the later work of Manouvrier (1893) and Pearson (1898). In 1950 Telkka devised regression equations for estimating stature, based on skeletons from the collections of the Department of Anatomy, Helsinki University. In 1951 Dupertuis and Hadden published regression equations based on White and Negro, male and female skeletons from macerated cadavers whose heights had previously been measured. The material was from the Western Reserve University School of Medicine. These authors assumed that their cadaveric stature was equivalent to living stature. In 1952 Trotter and Gleser published regression equations based on the comparison of lengths of long bones with the known living stature of male American military subjects, White and Negro, from World War II. These authors also included in this report regression equations based on White and Negro, male and female skeletons from the Terry Anatomical Collection, Washington University. In 1958 the same authors reported regression equations based on male measurements of stature during life and bones after

This statement supports Telkka's statement above. Trotter and Gleser (1958, p. 119). "Do not combine formulae obtained by different investigators, based on different races or populations in different geographical areas, nor pertinent to different generations. . . . Do not estimate stature by determining the average of estimates obtained from several equations, each of which is based on a different bone or 52


on a combination of bones." But doing either the first or the second does not reduce the error of estimate. They also state (1958, p. 119) that "In all studies of bone length-stature relationship the lower limb bones have been shown to have lengths which are correlated more highly with stature than have the upper limb bones. Therefore, it can be stated as a general rule that in no case should length of upper limb bones be used in the estimation of stature unless no lower limb bone is available." In the Easter Island sample Ahu Tepeu Grave 2 yielded the skeletons of a male and a female. However, for the rest of the sample it is not possible to say which long bones went with a particular skull. For this reason and because of Trotter and Gleser's statement quoted just above I decided to use only the femur in the estimation of stature. The results are shown in Table 19. Though Pearson used long bone lengths of the right side, I have used his formulae for both left and right femur in this sample. Telkka's corrections for left and right femur were used in his formulae, but 2 cm was not subtracted from each estimation. The same was done in using the Dupertuis and Hadden formulae. Trotter and Gleser (1952, p. 476) believe it is not necessary "to make an adjustment when only one bone of a pair is available for stature estimation." Since Trotter and Gleser make allowance for the age factor, the same was attempted in the Easter Island sample as follows. The two skeletons from Ahu Tepeu Grave 2 are in Trotter and Gleser's age category of 18-30; hence no adjustment for age is necessary here. The rest of the crania, with which the remaining long bones were associated, were then used to work out an average age. This was done by taking the midpoint of each age category (see Table 2), multiplying by the number of crania falling into this category, adding these results, and working out an average as follows. For the males age 28 X 3 = 84, age 45 X 5 = 225, age 65 X 3 = 195; 504/11 = 45.8 years. For the females age 28 X 1 = 28, age 4 5 X 3 = 135; 163/4 = 40.8 years. Trotter and Gleser (1952) state that to estimate stature of individuals older than 18-30 years of age, subtract .06 (age in years — 30) cm. Therefore, the correction factor here for the males is .06 (45.8 — 30) = 0.94 cm, for the females 0.6 (40.8 — 30) = 0.64 cm.

53

a

c

It must be emphasized that in this sample the number of femora used is small. For the males, left or right, the number is 11. For the females, left 8, right 5. Thus, any interpretation of stature estimation in this case should be a cautious one. Nevertheless the results are interesting. For the males, the estimated mean stature, using the Pearson formula, is 166.3 cm (L) and 165.2 cm (R); by the Telkka formula 168.6 cm (L) and 167.6 cm (R). If one subtracts 2 cm as Telkka suggests to arrive at living stature the results are 166.6 cm (L) and 165.6 cm (R), almost identical with the Pearson results. The Dupertuis and Hadden formula gives 172.7 cm (L) and 171.5 cm (R). The Trotter and Gleser White formula gives 169.6 cm (L) and 168.2 cm (R), their Negro formula 166.3 cm (L) and 165.1 cm (R), again almost identical with the Pearson formula. Using the Pearson formula, the results for females are 151.6 cm (L) and 150.6 cm (R). The Telkka formula gives 154.3 cm (L) and 153.5 cm (R), or, subtracting 2 cm, 152.3 cm (L) and 151.5 cm (R). The Dupertuis and Hadden formula gives 156.9 cm (L) and 155.8 cm (R). The Trotter and Gleser White formula gives 153.6 cm (L) and 152.4 cm (R), their Negro formula 151.6 cm (L) and 150.4 cm (R), almost identical with the Pearson formula. It is interesting here to note that Roggeveen (1908, p. 15) described Easter Islanders in 1722 as "big in stature." G. A. Forster (1777, p. 564) writing of his March, 1774, visit to Easter Island and concerning only a hundred or a hundred and fifty natives who assembled when he landed, says: "They were inferior in stature to the natives of the Society and Friendly Isles, and to those of New Zealand, there being not a single person amongst them, who might be reckoned tall." Of some ten or twelve women in the crowd he says that they "were very small and slender limbed . . . " Beechey (1832, p. 51) states, "our estimate of the average height of the people [presumably males] was 5 feet 7% inches" (or 171.5 cm). Now which mean estimate is likely to be the most correct? Bormida (1951b), in his study of the mean

living stature of adult "pure" Easter Islanders, gives the figure 172.4 cm (N=17) and 161.0 cm for females (N=18). Trotter and Gleser's (1958) male formulae were based on American Whites with a mean living stature of 173.95 cm and American Negroes with 173.43 cm. The mean White female cadaver stature was 160.68 cm, and the Negro 160.89 cm. The Dupertuis and Hadden formulae were based on American Whites with a mean cadaver stature of 172.96 cm (male) and 160.96 cm (female). Telkka's formulae are based on Finns with a mean cadaver stature of 169.4 cm (male) and 156.8 cm (female). Pearson's formulae are based on French cadavers with a corrected mean stature of 165.0 cm (male) and 152.3 cm (female). However, both Telkka and Trotter and Gleser, as stated above, have pointed out that the relation between leg length and stature is also important. The ratio of sitting height to stature of World War I troops gives 52.6 for American Whites and 50.8 for American Negroes (Herskovits, 1930). Bormida gives 51.9 for Easter Island males and 53.6 for the females. It would thus appear that in applying available formulae to the Easter Island sample the White formulae would be more accurate. Of the White male formulae in Table 19 it is my opinion that the Pearson and Telkka formulae, applied to the present Easter Island sample, give mean stature estimates that are too low. The correct mean stature estimate then, may lie between the 169.6 cm (L) and 168.2 cm (R) derived from the Trotter and Gleser formula and the 172.7 cm (L) and 171.5 cm (R) derived from Dupertuis and Hadden. The same can be said for the females, 153.6 cm (L) and 152.4 (R) derived from the Trotter and Gleser formula and 156.9 cm (L) and 155.8 cm (R) derived from the Dupertuis and Hadden formula. The latter estimated mean statures are considerably lower than the 161.0 cm of Bormida's living Easter Island females. The reason for this could be that the small size of the female femoral sample in my study caused a nonrepresentative result.

Thoracic and Lumbar Vertebrae, Adult Female. The twelfth thoracic and first lumbar vertebrae show anterior bilateral medium-sized bony osteophytes arising from the superior border of the body. The second lumbar vertebra has a unilateral (right) similar osteophyte arising from the superior border. The third lumbar vertebra has a similar osteophyte, unilateral (left), arising from the inferior border. Fourth Lumbar Vertebra, Adult Female. Small anterior unilateral osteophyte arising from the superior border of the body. Lumbar Vertebrae, Adult Female. Third lumbar vertebra has a medium sized unilateral (right) osteophyte arising from the inferior border of the body. The fourth lumbar vertebra has bilateral (right side large) osteophytes arising from the superior border of the body (PI. 8, middle right); 5-7 represent osteophytosis of the spine, spondylitis deformans (Benecke), or spondylosis deformans (Schmorl). Adult Right Fibula, Male. The shaft at about a third up from its lower end shows a marked bowing, which may have been caused by rickets (PI. 8, top right). However, Scott (1893) in his study of the Maori skeletons mentions the curved shaft of the fibula and says it may be due to a squatting posture. None of the crania and mandibles examined showed any evidence of alveolar abscesses. It will be observed that four or five of the above specimens are arthritic. Probably the total sample number of individuals of both sexes represented by various bones is forty-three. Four or five out of fortythree gives percentages of 9.3 or 11.6 with some form of arthritis. Whether these figures are actually representative of the Easter Island population is hard to say because of the small size of the sample and because Ahu Hekii crania were not accompanied by any postcranial remains (Table 1). The spinal osteophytosis may be due to prolapse or degeneration of the intervertebral discs, possibly associated with greater age. The etiology of rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis perhaps being a spinal form of rheumatoid arthritis, is unknown, although infection may play some part, according to Collins (1949). The infection might have been streptococcal or possibly tubercular (specimen 3 above). Also a hereditary predisposition is possible, particularly in a small inbred population such as existed on Easter Island.

V PATHOLOGY y

rioGERS (1954) has pointed out that dry bone material can yield only limited information about the general health of a population. This is particularly true here because of the small size of the sample and the lack of certain bones — vertebral columns, for example. But there are eight pathological specimens, probably representing eight individuals: Adult Male Cranium. Hypertrophic lipping of the left and right processus clinoideus posterior of the dorsum sellae, probably owing to age. About 2.5 cm above the left orbit on the frontal bone is a triangular depression, which is perhaps the result of a depressed fracture, or possibly due to yaws (PI. 8, middle left; see also Brothwell, 1963, PI. 10, B and C). Adult Left Humerus, Probably Male. Marked bending medially of the upper end of shaft, the result of a fracture, substantiated in an X-ray picture. The hole seen opposite the maximum bending in the illustration is not a lesion. (PI. 8, top left.) Adult Right Tibia, Male. The head of the fibula is fused to the head of the tibia. This may be a case of tuberculous arthritis. (PI. 8, top middle.) Two Thoracic Vertebrae, Adult, Sex Unknown. The articular facets are not fused and the intervertebral foramen can be clearly seen. The ligamentum longitudinale anterius has become ossified on the anterior right side of the vertebral bodies. This is a case of ankylosing spondylitis or spondylitis ossificans ligamentosa. (PI. 8, left and right bottom.) 55

Plate 8. BONE PATHOLOGIES.

Aguera (1908, p. 90) in 1770 says that "The country inland . . . appeared to us to be fertile, as we observed . . . various valleys and plains . . . quite covered with greenery as far down as the sea beach, showing the fertility of the country." Forster (1777, p. 598), who accompanied Cook, speaks of "the barren refractory soil of their island." La Perouse (1799, p. 323) wrote of his 1786 visit: "Scarcely a tenth part of the island is cultivated, and I am persuaded that three days' labour of each Indian is sufficient to procure subsistence for a year." He also says that "The ground is cultivated with great skill. The natives collect the grass and other vegetables, which they heap together and burn for the sake of the ashes, as a manure." (P. 328.) Beechey (1832, p. 41) says, "the valleys were well cultivated, and showed that the island required only a due proportion of moisture and labour to produce a luxuriant vegetation." Skottsberg (1928) has pointed out that the soil was of good quality and fertile when properly cultivated, and that in prehistoric and early historic times extensive plantations supported a population of several thousand people. Tradition attributes to the first colonists, led by Hotu-matua, the introduction of taro, sweet potatoes, yams, bananas, sugar cane, ti (cordyline fruticosa), turmeric, gourds, arrowroot, nightshade, and paper mulberry trees (Metraux, 1940). The plants were cultivated and flourished. Coconuts and seedlings of the breadfruit tree must also have been brought, but they did not survive the Easter Island climate. Bananas and other plants that could not withstand the cold blast of the sea winds were grown in sunken gardens. Metraux (1957, p. 65) says that "The future harvests were preserved from theft, and even from the impatience or greed of their owners, by a tabu pronounced by the king himself or by some priest of the royal line." Chickens, pigs, and dogs were undoubtedly brought, but only the chickens survived the journey. Black rats also were introduced and were regarded as a delicacy. Fishing was in the past important. Thomson (1889) mentions bonito, albicore, ray, dolphin, porpoise, swordfish, shark, rockfish, eels, turtles, crayfish and shellfish. Metraux (1957) speaks of tunny, and of

VI CLIMATE, WATER, SOIL, AND DIET

1 HE

climate of Easter Island is very mild and equable. Skottsberg (1928) gives a mean annual temperature of 67°F (19.7°C) for 1912-13. There are constantly blowing winds and noticeably cold nights. The annual rainfall for the years 1901-05 and 1912-13 averaged 50 inches. Some years are very wet, and some very dry; there are no prolonged droughts, and heavy downpours are by no means rare. Metraux (1957, p. 65) states that "Drinking water has always been a difficult problem for the natives. Easter Island has no river . . . the rain quickly soaks into the porous soil and forms underground water tables that flow into the sea at beach level . . . unfortunately, these rivulets emerge so close to the sea that their water is brackish." He found a few springs of low output and fresh-water lakes at the bottom of craters. The natives drank the brackish water but mainly quenched their thirst with the juice of sugar cane. The early voyagers' accounts of the soil and cultivation are of some interest. Roggeveen (1908, p. 21) wrote of his 1722 visit: "This place, as far as its rich soil and good climate are concerned, is such that it might be made into an earthly Paradise, if it were properly worked and cultivated." 57

58


women and girls making daily visits to the beaches to gather sea urchins, crabs, and sea slugs. He also says (p. 67) that "In ancient times fish were the object of a tabu during all the months of the southern winter." It occurs to me that this might partly explain the cannibalism that was prevalent, since Metraux (1957, p. 103) says "cannibalism was not exclusively a religious rite or the expression of an urge for revenge: it was also induced by a simple liking for human flesh that could impel a man to kill for no other reason than his desire for fresh meat." Food was cooked in a pit with a fire at the bottom, that is to say in a typical Polynesian umu or underground oven. This method of cooking results in succulent food. Metraux (1957, p. 72) points out that although it is hard to determine the proportion of each foodstuff in the daily menu, nevertheless "the diet of the ancient Easter Islanders seems to have been very well balanced and not to have been lacking in any element essential to health." The upper strata of society such as the ariki-mau or great chief, the ivi-atua or priests, the ariki-paka or nobles, and the matatoa or warriors in times past may have had more and better food than those lower in the social scale. Also the best agricultural land was doubtless concentrated along the coast (Sahlins, 1958) possibly producing dietary differences between inland and coastline. Various collections of Easter Island crania contain skulls that have engraved designs of different shapes on the frontal bone. It is believed that these are the crania possibly of warriors or perhaps more likely ariki (Brown, 1924). In the present sample there is one such skull, namely No. 1 from Ahu Vinapu (PI. 9). If one compares the measurements and indices of this skull, as shown in Tables 4A-4D, with the means of all the males, shown in Tables 7-10, one can see that all the incised skull means do not differ by more than two standard deviations from the means of the total male sample. This would favor the conclusion that skulls of the ariki did not differ significantly from the rest of the population. However, in this case only one ariki skull has been used in the comparison and thus the conclusion may or may not be true. Finally, I share with Metraux the belief that the

Plate 9. ENGRAVED SKULL.

general population of both sexes must have been quite adequately nourished. This is based on the dietary evidence noted above, the stature attained especially by the males, which has already been discussed, the fact that early voyagers described the Easter Islanders they saw as well-built, and the pathological evidence already mentioned.

VII CRANIAL AND POSTc ccc CRANIALllll COMPARISONS WITH OTHER STUDIES

THE main Easter Island samples antedating the present one that have been described are as follows (all numbers include both sexes): De Quatrefages and Hamy (1882), 54, collected by Pinart; Volz (1895), 49, collected by Geiseler; Meyer and Jablonowski (1901), 24, part of Volz's sample; Von Bonin (1931), 79, collected by Weisser, Routledge, and Lord Crawford; Petri (1936), 16, collected by Weisser; Henckel (1939), 8, collected by Wilhelm; Imbelloni 1951, Chilean sample, 61, collected by various individuals, and also his total sample. Only Henckel's sample includes some postcranial remains. Imbelloni's total sample includes his Chilean sample of Easter Island crania (which was obtained from various museums and a convent in Chile), all the above Easter Island samples, and some isolated Easter Island crania. Earlier Easter Island Male Studies All of the above samples except Henckel's are studies only of crania. Only for Henckel's sample is the exact locality known from which the crania and postcranial remains were obtained. In no case is there any certainty whatsoever regarding the dating of the skeletal material; this is not surprising in view of the relatively recent use of the C-14 dating tech-

nique. In most cases little information is given concerning morphological observations. All this means that one should be cautious in using and interpreting any of the above samples. Since the above strictures are equally true of all other Polynesian samples, one should also be cautious in the use and interpretation of such samples for comparative purposes. Even though the dating of other Easter Island samples is not known, it is of some interest to compare some of them. I have selected Imbelloni's Chilean sample of Easter Island crania and Von Benin's sample, Imbelloni's total sample, and my own. Eleven cranial indices of these samples are compared in Table 20. Also various measurements and angles obtained from the median sagittal craniogram are compared for my sample and that of Imbelloni's Chilean sample (I am much indebted to Dr. Imbelloni for supplying me with his original data). One is struck at once with the remarkable similarity of the cranial indices in the different samples, with the exception of the orbital index in the Von Bonin sample, which may be due to a difference in measuring technique. The same similarity can be seen in the median sagittal craniogram measurements and indices. Now the skeletal remains in my sample, as already stated, come from the Middle and Late periods. I have already demonstrated that Easter Island physical type did not differ in these two periods. // the other samples also come from the same periods then their similarity indicates a remarkable homogeneity for the Easter Island physical type in the Middle and Late periods. //, on the other hand, all the samples other than my own also include crania from the Early period, this would be an argument in favor of the similarity of the Easter Island physical type from the Early to Late periods. However, the latter speculation cannot be proved until actual skeletal remains are obtained from Easter Island that are known definitely to come from the Early period.

The Easter Island Male Physical Type: Middle and Late Periods, and Living In their excellent article on Polynesian craniology Marshall and Snow (1956b) have the following to say concerning the morphology of Polynesian crania. 59

6

c

The morphological study of Polynesian crania appears to be as important as many metrical and statistical analyses. Regardless of whether they be from New Zealand, Hawaii or Tahiti . . . from Tonga or Mangareva . . . Polynesian crania appear to be remarkably distinctive . . . in its morphological totality, a Polynesian cranium distinctly differs from a Melanesian or Micronesian cranium. The most striking peculiarity of Polynesian cranial samples is the characteristic "rocker jaw." (P. 414.) The "type" Polynesian male cranium has the rocker jaw, an exceptionally flat temporal area coupled with large parietal bosses [their Table 1 shows mostly small to medium parietal bosses], which leads to a "rhomboid" form, a variable degree of flattening at lambda [mostly absent to small in their Table 1], marked nuchal muscularity, relatively sloping frontal area, large mastoids, and supramastoid crests, a prominent glabella and medium to large brow ridges, concave-convex nasalia . . . (p. 414).

The Polynesian face, as reflected in those from Mokapu, Oahu, Hawaii, has a narrow forehead, but orbits, noses and faces of average proportions . . . the Polynesian malars are typically large in size with considerable anterior prominence (p. 415). Nasal fossae with interesting double rounded sills to the lower margins of the nasal apertures [fossa praenasalis], are common. Nasal spines are of a small to average size. Another common characteristic is the narrow-rooted nature of the nose bones. Both upper and lower jaws are large in size, show little anterior projection. (P. 416.) Compared with the above morphology what is the morphological configuration of this Easter Island male sample? I refer the reader to Table 13 and to the above paragraphs. First and foremost, 35.3 per cent of the Easter Island male sample has the "rocker" type mandible. Parietal bosses are mainly small to medium and the cranial form in the norma verticalis is ovoid or

Table 20 COMPARISON OF MEANS OF EASTER ISLAND SAMPLES. MALES Indices

No.

Imbelloni Chilean sample

No.

Von Bonin

No.

Imbelloni Total sample

No.

Murrill sample

Cranial Height-Length Height-Width Pronto-Parietal Cranio-Facial Upper Face Orbital Nasal Internal Palatal Gnathic Foramen Magnum

30 29 29 28 29 24 30 29 23 27 26

71.1 76.1 106.8 72.1 98.8 50.2 90.1 53.2 78.4 93.6 82.8

60 62 38 60

70.1 75.1 108.1 69.9

52 42 44 20

51.8 80.0 51.0 78.9

115 114 107 100 96 88 108 106 62

70.5 72.8 106.2 70.9 101.9 51.5 87.2 52.0 83.7

19 19 17 18 16 17 19 18 16 17 16

70.8 75.5 107.0 71.3 98.8 51.7 90.4 52.3 80.6 95.1 84.4

MEDIAN SAGITTAL CRANIOGRAM. MALES

Nasion-Bregma Bregma-Lambda Lambda-Opisthion Nasion-Opisthion Arc Transverse Arc Glabella Angle (Br-Gl-Ba) Bregma Angle (Gl-Br-La) Lambda Angle (Br-La-Ba) Basion Angle (Gl-Ba-La)

No.

Imbelloni Chilean sample

No.

Murrill sample

26 26 26 28 24 25 26 25 25

114.0 117.5 97.5 377.3 316.9 78.30 105.3° 74.1° 101.2°

19 17 14 15 18 18 17 16 16

115.1 115.1 97.3 377.6 318.7 77.1 107.7C 74.6c 99.6C


Figure 4. FRONTAL OUTLINES OF MALES FROM HAWAII AND EASTER ISLAND COMPARED

pentagonid rather than rhomboid. The lambdoid flattening is mainly slight to small, nuchal muscularity is mostly medium. The frontal area is relatively sloping, although not so much as in the Mokapu Hawaiian male (Fig. 4). The frontal slope and frontal curvature angles are 17.6° and 130.3°. The mastoids are medium to large, supramastoid crests mostly medium to large, glabella is mostly medium to large, the supraorbital ridge is medium to marked in 57.9 per cent, and the nasal profile is mainly concave. In general, the Easter Island face has a narrow forehead with orbits, nose, and face of average proportions. The malars are mostly medium to large with slight to medium anterior malar projection. The lower margin of the nasal aperture shows the presence of the fossa praenasalis in 38.9 per cent of the males. Nasal spines are mainly small to medium. Nasal root width is narrow to medium in 89.5 per cent. The mandible is mostly medium to large in size. The facial profile angle is 87.3° or orthognathous. Of interest here is the presence of precondylar tubercles in 27.8 per cent of the Easter Island sample. Marshall (1955) shows, for the larger male

61

samples he lists, the following male figures: adult Maori 13.8, Chatham Islands (Moriori?) 20.0, Hawaii (Mokapu) 11.2, Tahiti 12.5, or a range of 11.2-20.0 for Polynesia; Fiji 11.1; and Guam 20.0. These figures include precondylar tubercles of the types I and II of Brown (1957). The latter's figures of types I and II for American White and Negro males are 10.1 and 7.1 per cent. Another interesting character is the persistence of the supranasal portion (N) of the medio-frental suture. Ashley Montagu (1937) examined some 2104 adult skulls (sex?) of forty different groups of mankind; 44 skulls, or 2.1 per cent, had N. Of the 44 skulls, 32 or 72.7 per cent were from Polynesian populations. The character is present in 38.9 per cent of the Easter Island males. De Young (1941) examined additional Polynesian groups for this character. His figures, which include those of Ashley Montagu, show a range of 1.6-21.2 per cent. His figure for Guam, Micronesia, is 30.0 per cent. Ashley Montagu's only figure for Melanesia (New Caledonia) is 11.1 per cent, based on a sample of 9 individuals. Thus the figure for Easter Island in this sample is the highest of the Polynesian populations. Ashley Montagu (1937) also shows a range of 0.9-1.5 per cent for metopism for different Polynesian populations (sex?). The Easter Island male figure is 11.1 per cent. Thus it can be seen that the morphology of the Easter Island male cranium of the Middle and Late periods is indubitably Polynesian. Table 21 shows a comparison of the male Easter Island crania and height with the male living Easter Islander, using the data of Shapiro (1940b). The difference in the maximum length and width measurements and the cephalic (cranial) index is what one would expect if one takes into consideration the increase in the direction of brachycephaly that has occurred in Polynesia (Marshall and Snow, 1956b), in this case a post-Late period phenomenon and a change from 70.8 to 74.6 (Shapiro, 1940a) or 76.3 (Bormida, 1951b). The differences between the crania and the living in the minimum frontal, bizygomatic, bigonial, and total face height are about what one would expect in this case if one considers tissue thickness. Also, both samples are small, which might introduce flue-

62

CRANIAL AND POSTCRANIAL SKELETAL REMAINS FROM EASTER ISLAND Table 21

A COMPARISON OF THE MEANS OF MALE EASTER ISLAND CRANIA AND HEIGHT WITH THE MALE LIVING EASTER ISLANDER Murrill Crania 18—21

No.

Shapiro Living 22

Maximum Length Maximum Width Minimum Frontal Bizygomatic Bigonial Upper Face Height Total Face Height Cephalic (Cranial) Index Pronto-Parietal Index Zygo-Frontal Index Zygo-Gonial Index Upper Face Height Index Total Face Height Index Cranio-Facial Index Stature

199.0 187.8 132.7 148.4 94.5 101.5 130.8 141.3 97.7 107.4 67.6 67.8* 122.0 112.5 74.6 70.8 68.3 71.3 72.4 71.8 76.0 74.6 51.7 47.5* 85.8 86.4 95.2 98.5 173.3 168,.2—172.7

* Figures taken from Bormida's sample (1951 b).

tuations having nothing to do with tissue thickness. (Shapiro, personal communication, 1960.) The similarity in stature is of considerable interest. Also morphological traits such as skin color, hair form, width of nose, and lip thickness of the living Easter Islander fall well within Polynesian limits (Shapiro, 1940b). Once again the Easter Islander of the Middle and Late Periods indicates his Polynesian affinity. Male Easter Island Crania Compared with Crania from Polynesia, Micronesia, Melanesia, and Australia Table 22 compares thirteen measurements and ten indices of the crania of Easter Island with available published Polynesian samples from the islands of New Zealand (Maori), Chatham (Moriori), Marquesas, Cook, Society, Hawaii, Tonga-Samoa; a Micronesian sample from Guam; a Melanesian sample from Santa Cruz, and an Australian sample (see Fig. 5). The mean deviation of the measurements and indices of each sample from that of Easter Island is shown. Once again one must remember that in all the

population samples used in this comparison, with the exception of the Easter Island sample, the actual site from which the crania came is in general not known: the dating of the crania is also unknown, although presumably the crania predate European contact; no morphological observations are included or postcranial remains and, finally, the numbers involved in ten of the eleven samples are small. Thus there is little point in using complex statistics. Also, to complicate matters, Snow has remarked that "our big problem throughout the Pacific and with populations of all East Asia centers about the custom of head-shaping, a cultural mark. Certainly in Hawaii this was common. I have reason to believe that most cranial series measured by most of the older authorities . . . contain deformed skulls — the result of the head-shaping practice common in all the area." (Personal communication, 1960.) Nevertheless it is interesting that the comparison reveals the following. The mean deviation from Easter Island in Polynesia ranges from 3.59 to 8.19, with the figure of 6.64 from Guam (Micronesia) falling within this range. The largest mean deviation figures are 10.95 from Santa Cruz (Melanesia), and 11.73 from Australia. These figures indicate a certain degree of homogeneity in Polynesia of the measurements and indices in question, with Easter Island deviating the least from the Society or Cook Islands, and the most from Santa Cruz (Melanesia) or Australia. This cranial comparison, then, though we must keep in mind its limitations, reaffirms from a metrical point of view Easter Island's Polynesian affinity, denies its Melanesian or Australian affinity, and suggests a Polynesian-Micronesian affinity, admittedly on the basis of only one Micronesian sample. I might add that in a D2 statistical technique study Marshall (unpublished manuscript) states: Almost as striking as the similarities of Tahitian crania to all other oceanic crania are the contrasting dissimilarities of Easter Island crania . . . Easter Island crania differ more from several other Polynesian series than do the culturally and "racially" distinct Melanesian Fijians . . . Yet, considered within the same set of data, almost as dramatic is a strange degree of similarity between Easter Island, Tahiti, and the far distant Melanesian series from Fiji. He later points out, however, that "There may

Table 22 COMPARISON OF MEAN CRANIAL MEASUREMENTS AND INDICES OF EASTER ISLAND WITH OTHER ISLANDS. MALES Polynesia Easter Island

New Zealand1 (Maori)

Chatham2 Mar(Moriori) quesas3

Author No.

Murrill 21

Wagner 40

Thomson Wagner 35 21

Cranial Capacity Maximum Length Maximum Width Basion-Bregma Basion-Prosthion Bizygomatic Upper Face Height Orbital Height Nasal Height Nasal Width Internal Palatal Length Internal Palatal Width Facial Profile Angle Cranial .Index Height-Length Index Height-Width Index Pronto-Parietal Index Cranio-Facial Index Upper Facial Index Nasal Index Internal Palatal Index Parietal-Frontal Arc Index Occipital-Parietal Arc Index

1,498.0 187.8 132.7 142.6 103.0 130.8 67.6 33.7 50.3 26.2 44.0 35.7 87.3° 70.8 75.5 107.0 71.3 98.8 51.7 52.3 80.6 98.2 90.3

1,435.0 186.1 137.1 137.9 101.2 137.7 70.2 35.8 54.9 26.1 47.2 42.4 83.0° 73.7 74.1 100.7 68.9 100.5 51.1 47.9 89.7 96.3 96.4

1,422.0 186.9 141.4 135.9 100.9 137.4 76.4 37.3 57.3 25.3 50.2 38.9

76.1 72.8 96.1 67.4 97.2 55.6 43.9 77.5 97.1 98.9

1,475.0 184.7 141.4 137.0 103.2 136.1 73.6 36.3 57.4 25.5 47.2 41.9 82.4° 76.7 74.2 97.0 66.9 96.3 53.9 44.4 89.1 95.0 94.3

Cook4

Society*

Von Luschan 12

Von Luschan 18

1,451.0 186.3 136.4 138.8 104.3 128.1 68.5 33.0

1,487.0 185.8 139.1 140.9 104.5 136.5 70.4 34.8

26.0 49.7 41.8

25.5 49.5 41.1

73.3 73.0 101.9 70.1 93.9 53.6

74.9 74.9 100.5 67.6 98.1 51.4

84.6 98.1 92.9

83.8 94.4 95.6

Hawaii6

Wagner 56 1,465.0 182.5 143.1 141.2 103.2 136.6 70.4 34.8 53.5 26.2 47.0 43.0 83.9° 78.5 77.5 98.8 65.9 95.0 52.2 49.0 89.0 94.2 93.5

TongaSamoa7

Micronesia

Melanesia

Guam8

Santa Cruz9 Australia10

Krause Quetrefages &Hamy Marshall 27 18 1,461.0 181.0 143.2 142.9

137.0 36.0 55.0 26.0

79.1 79.0 99.8 67.4 95.1 47.3

1,429.0* 180.5 140.5 143.6 100.4 137.6 71.9 34.8 51.0 26.5 54.8** 66.4**

78.5 79.5 + 102.2+ 68.8 + 97.9+ 52.2 + 51.9 + 121.1**

93.8 93.3

23 16 20 22 23 20 No. of characters 23 20 6.68 8.19 4.92 3.59 5.36 6.64 Mean Deviation 6.21 5.50 1 N.E. Coast of North Island and various localities of N and S Islands. — 2 Chatham Islands. — 3 Fatuhiva, Nukuhiva, Ohivao, Uahuka, Hivaoa. — * Mangaia, Rarotonga,. — 5 Tahiti, Moorea, Raiatea. — 6 Havaii, Oahu, Owhyee(?) — 7 Opolu, various Tongan Islands. — 8 Guam. — ' Santa Cruz.10 North Australia, Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia. — * Figure is from Marianne Islands (Schlaginhaufen). — ** External measurement and Index. + Calculated from means of measurements.

Australia

Speiser 29

Wagner 103

1,338.0 185.6 126.8 134.8 107.5 131.3 64.2 32.6 47.5 27.4 53.4 42.6 74.4° 68.4 72.8 106.7 73.6 103.7 48.7 57.0 80.2 105.8 85.3

1,294,0 186.6 130.8 133.8 103.7 135.1 69.9 33.7 50.5 27.2 51.9 40.4 17.9° 70.1 71.8 102.4 73.2 103.5 51.1 54.0 77.9 99.4 87.6

23 10.95

23 11.73

Figure 5. MAP OF AREA FROM WHICH SAMPLES OF CRANIA WERE TAKEN. POLYNESIAN TRIANGLE IS MARKED


65

have been a continuous interchange of genes between local groups or subgroups, as in the case of Tahiti, or there may have been marked genetic isolation, as might well have been the case in Easter Island." If this is true, any Easter Island-Melanesian similarity may be quite accidental and have no genetic significance. Besides, Marshall is not using any morphological characters in his analysis, such as the important "rocker" mandible. Without knowledge of the provenience and dating of the crania, the use of such a complicated statistical technique is indeed debatable. The latter point is, in my opinion, of considerable importance and has been clearly stated by Roberts (1954), who maintains that it is risky to use D2 in the initial stages of an analysis for the following reasons.

ters; or (b) to differential direct or indirect environmental modification of the phenotypic characters during ontogeny (the groups being genotypically identical); it is probable that most morphological features are the expression of interactions between both genetic and environmental components. The second group must be considered and allowed for in discussing questions of racial affinity, which in the final analysis must rest on the first group. D2 removes some of the difficulties complicating discussion of multivariate differences, but can it be said to have touched this essential problem? The awesome computations must not be allowed to distract attention from the fact that a table of D2 values relating to samples living in different localities may only indicate that the samples do inhabit different localities! As obtained in all studies yet published, a matrix of D2 values does not necessarily indicate degrees of racial affinity.

The slight recompense for the amount of computing time involved is the first criticism. At the expense of considerable time and labour, information about the data is augmented by the sum of the differences in metrical characters after their intercorrelations have been allowed for, by the size of these differences relative to each other, and by the probability of their occurrence. But how great a gain is this? The object most frequently envisaged in the use of metrical features is the establishment of racial affinities and non-affinities. Metrical differences between groups may be due (a) to differences in genotype, arising from differential hybridization, or from drift in the case of non-adaptive "neutral" characters (if such exist), or from selection in adaptive charac-

The Validity of Comparing Male Easter Island Postcranial Remains with Those of Other Polynesians The comparative published Polynesian postcranial remains of a usable sample size are almost nonexistent. About the only published sample is of Maori remains (Scott, 1893). In this case it is not clear if the postcranial remains belonged to his Maori cranial sample, or from which island of New Zealand they were obtained; nor is the material reliably dated. Therefore, at this stage, I believe it is wisest to wait until there are better published samples for comparative purposes.

racial likeness, which employs only metrical observations and thus omits morphology, decided that the Easter Islander had no racial affinity to such fringe races as the Maori, Moriori, or Ainu. Morant, in a note to Von Benin's paper, and also using the coefficient of racial likeness, concluded that Easter Island and Loyalty Island (Melanesia) crania resembled each other. On this point Shapiro (1940a, p. 7) has the following to say: "the Loyalty group is not especially characteristic of Melanesians and their relationship with certain Polynesians may as well be explained on the basis of Polynesian admixture with the Loyalty Islanders as on the assumption of a Melanesian addition to the Polynesian groups." Wagner (1937), also using the coefficient of racial likeness, had some interesting comments to make regarding Polynesia: In several characters the Polynesian races combine into a natural craniological group which differs rather sharply from the Australian, Tasmanian, Melanesian (S.E.) and Papuan. . . . the proportions of the three parts of the sagittal are, orbital and nasal indices, profile angles and palatal index. (Pp. 143-144.) Everyone who works with Polynesian skulls will come across isolated specimens with striking Melanesian features. But it is a question . . . of prime importance whether it is justifiable to pick out particular skulls (dolicocephalic), and treat these separately as Melanesian mixture types. (P. 154.)

VIII FORMER THEORIES AND A LEGEND

JDASING their assertion on cranial, height-length, and height-width indices, De Quatrefages and Hamy (1882) saw Melanesian traits in several Easter Island crania. Volz (1895), using the above indices and mainly such a morphological observation as the size of the supraorbital ridge, concluded that the main components of the Easter Islander were Melanesian, Polynesian, and Australian. Meyer and Jablonowski (1901) did not agree with the idea of a Melanesian element in the Easter Island crania; on the contrary, they believed they were Polynesian. Dixon (1923, p. 380) on the basis of the cranial, lengthheight and nasal indices, concluded that the Easter Island population was composed of "Proto-Negroids" mainly, "the minority being made up of the Caspian, Proto-Anstraloid and Palae-Alpine in nearly equal proportions" — a veritable witches' brew! These scientists' methods of analysis, which use cranial types based on a few indices to represent the racial components of a population, omit morphology and are outmoded. As Shapiro (1940a, p. 12) has stated, "Such statistical figments are moved about in an arbitrary manner to account for variations and to establish relationships with equivalent figments similarly arrived at in other areas." Von Bonin (1931), using Pearson's coefficient of

The Easter Island cranium in particular, he pointed out, is long, narrow, and high, and the three main indices are similar to the Loyalty Islands and New Caledonia (Melanesia). However, the mean values for the three components of the sagittal arc and the corresponding indices fall within the Polynesian limits. And the same is true of the various measurements and indices of the facial part of the skull. . . . The nasal index . . . the mean values of 51.0 for males and 52.5 for females are indeed the highest among the Polynesian figures, but they are clearly less than those for certain Melanesian groups. . . . More surprising is the profile angle. The Easter Islanders are more orthognathous than the Maori, Moriori, Marquesans and Sandwich Islanders. (Pp. 160-161.) I would also point out that the Easter Island external palatal (maxillo-alveolar) index falls into the Polynesian range. 66


Finally, Wagner (p. 162) stated that "One cannot avoid the conclusion that the Polynesian races have branched out and given rise to characteristic skull types. I believe it probable that this process has had more influence than mixture with a foreign Melanesian element." Henckel (1939), on the basis of only eight crania, believed that the Easter Islanders were mainly Melanesian. Imbelloni (1951) favored the idea of an earlier Negroid and later Polynesian migration to Easter Island. Most of these authors believe in a Melanesian element as well as a Polynesian one in the Easter Islander. On the basis of metrical observations only, Wagner points out clearly the Polynesian affinity of Easter Island crania. I agree with him and would add that the morphological observations which I have described in some detail confirm this conclusion. I repeat, however, that my sample from Easter Island has crania only from the Middle and Late periods. Finally, if there was a definite Melanesian element in the Easter Island population, why is there so little trace of characteristic Melanesian morphological traits in the living Easter Islander (Shapiro, 1940a)? The legend of the war between the Long-ears (Hanau-eepe) and the Short-ears (Hanau-momoko) is well-known to anyone familiar with Easter Island ethnology. Briefly, for reasons not exactly clear, the Long-ears took refuge in the Eastern headland or Poike. They dug a ditch across the headland and filled it with brushwood for a fire. A Long-ear told his Short-ear wife that the ditch was to become an oven for the Short-ears. The wife told the Short-ears of the Long-ears' plan, and betrayed her husband by helping the Short-ears to reach a position behind the Long-ears. The Short-ears then chased the Long-ears — men, women, and children — into the burning ditch and all were killed except two men who escaped to a cave. The Short-ears followed, killing one of the survivors and leaving only one Long-ear alive. There has been some doubt about whether a battle actually ever occurred, but apparently it did, according to one of the carbon-14 dates obtained. Smith (1961, p. 212) says that "The legendary war between the Hanau-momoku and the Hanau-eepe is

67

dated at A.D. 1676 ± 100 years on the basis of sample K-501 which was taken from the burned layer in the fill of the Poike Ditch . . . where the decisive battle took place." Metraux's (1940) informant said the Long-ears and Short-ears were part of Hotu-matua's crew. Since Hotu-matua was the leader of the Polynesian immigrants, the Long-ears and Short-ears must both, in this version, have been Polynesian. Routledge (1919) was impressed with the Negroid (Melanesian) element in Easter Island crania, and although she did not actually say that the Long-ears were Negroid and antedated a later Polynesian wave, one gets the impression she may have thought so. Wilhelm and Sandoval (1956) maintained that the Hanau-eepe were corpulent and long-eared (?) and arrived after the Hanau-momoko who were slender and came with Hotu-Matua. Later the Hanaumomoko also lengthened their ears. Even today, they go on, the descendants of the Hanau-momoko are tranquil, whereas the descendants of the Hanaueepe are dynamic and restless. The remainder of the report is even more confusing. I gather from their genealogical research that the descendants of the Hanau-eepe are only of blood type O, and the descendants of the tribes Mini, Tupahotu, and Marama Raa (Hanau-momoko?) are of both blood types, O and A. What all this is supposed to prove escapes me. (See my discussion of blood types on pp. 77-79 and Tables 23-25 below.) Heyerdahl (1960, p. 345) identifies the Long-ears as Peruvians (white men with red hair?) antedating the Short-ears who were Polynesians (Indians of the northwest coast of America?). The latter arrived at Easter Island only during the last century before the coming of the Europeans. Elsewhere Heyerdahl (1961, p. 37) mentions Knoche's statement that the Short-ears arrived at Easter Island in the middle of the thirteenth or fourteenth century. The above will suffice to show the general confusion that exists regarding the legend. I have already had occasion to point out that the physical type on Easter Island from the Middle and Late periods (after about A.D. 1100) was Polynesian. It is extremely unlikely that the Early-period population was Negroid. It appears that in A.D. 1676± 100 there was a

68


battle at the Poike ditch, between, it is said, Longears and Short-ears, with, mark you, one Long-ear survivor. And yet when Captain Cook visited Easter Island on his second voyage to the South Seas (177275) he saw numerous individuals with distended earlobes. Either there was more than one Long-ear survivor of the battle, or the Short-ears took over

this custom, or the battle took place after Cook's visit (Suggs, 1960b). If the legend is basically accurate, as well as the C-14 date for it, and although the problem is unsolved, it is my opinion that the Long-ears and the Short-ears were both Polynesians and that more than one Long-ear survived.

Table 23 BLOOD GROUPS

Results

1 2 3

Bone Sample

Sex

Presumptive Blood Type

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

F M M M F F M M M M F F M M M M M

A(?) A(?) B B 0 A(?) 0 B(?) B A B(?) B(?) 0 B 0 B 0

No. Tested

Blood Groups No. 0

A

B

21 32 32

12 12 23

3 7 3

6 13 6

or 0 or 0

or 0 or 0 or 0 or 0

Bone Sample

Sex

Presumptive Blood Type

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 33

M M M M F F F F M M M M M M M

B(?) or 0 B(?) or 0 A 0 A(?) or 0 0 0 0 0 B B(?) or 0 A 0 B(?) or 0 0

Total 32

Blood Group %

Gene Frequencies

0

A

B

r

q

q

D/6

57.14 37.50 71.88

14.29 21.88 9.38

28.57 40.63 18.75

.755 .612 .847

.089 .158 .053

.169 .271 .104

.60 1.28 .40

1. Omitting presumptive blood types A (?) or 0 and B (?) or 0. 2. Accepting A (?) as A and B (?) as B. 3. Accepting A (?) and B (?) as 0.

Table 24 A B O BLOOD GROUP GENE FREQUENCIES

1. East Asia Japanese S. Chinese Siamese

No.

A (p)

B(q)

0(r)

400 250 213

.274 .165 .148

.175 .139 .257

.555 .681 .595

2. Indonesia Filipinos Java 20 Indonesian Islands Range

382 262 239

.152 .178 .130 .130— .178

.181 .180 .133 .133— .181

.671 .642 .737 .642— .737

3. Micronesia Palau Truk Gilbert Marshall Range

191 117 159 678

.143 .319 .382 .136 .136— .382

.104 .195 .278 .135 .104— .278

.753 .486 .340 .729 .340— .753

260 753 77 455 123 2690 112 172 558 310

.115 .164 .297 .197 .168 .240 .146 .117 .206 .206 .115— .297

.177 .104 .252 .160 .102 .120 .136 .069 .059 .106 .059— .252

.708 .733 .451 .642 .729 .641 .718 .815 .735 .688 .451— .815

4. Melanesia New Britain (Central) Rabaul (North) Bainings (North) Papua Coast New Guinea (Central) New Guinea (West) Admiralty New Hebrides New Caledonia, Loyalty and Pine Islands Fiji Range 5. Australia Palm Island, Queensland Yarrabah, Queensland Monamona, Queensland Coast of Queensland, N. Territory and N-W of W. Australia S-W of W. Australia Inland areas, Menindee, Oodnadatta, Alice Springs Laverton-Wartburton, Range Area, W. Australia Range 6. Polynesia Tuamotus Australs Mangareva Easter Island New Zealand (Maoris) Kapingamarangi Hawaii Tahiti Cook Islands W. Samoa Am. Samoa Range

137 101 96 452

.176 .185 .209 .218

.022 .020 .021 0

.797 .790 .764 .782

106 197 102

.280 .331 .343 .176— .343

0 0 0 0— .022

.720 .669 .657 .657— .797

176 33 29 21 267 46 413 124 269 51 500

.315 .166 .357 .423 .352 .250 .382 .376 .314 .244 .103 .103— .423

0 0 0 0 .004 0 .018 .039 .039 .100 .118 0— .118

.695 .834 .643 .577 .642 .750 .604 .596 .647 .642 .766 .577— .834

Table 24 (cont.) A B O BLOOD GROUP GENE FREQUENCIES

No. 7. North America Utes Kwakiutl Navaho Blackfeet Shoshone Flatheads Chippewa Range 8. South America Guajiros, Venezuela Guahibos, Venezuela Carib, Surinam Pijao, Columbia Paez, Columbia Caramenta, Columbia Total Audidos, Ecuador Jivaros, Ecuador Quechauas and Aymaras, Peru Kalapalo, Brazil Ramkokamekra, Brazil Maca, Paraguay Chunupi, Argentina Choroti, Argentina Onas, Yamanas and Alakalufs, Chile Range

Ranges Indonesia Micronesia Melanesia Australia Polynesia N. America S. America Easter Island 1. 2. 3. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

A (p)

B(q)

0(r)

138 123 359 115 60 258 161

.013 .063 .125 .515 .264 .250 .642 .013—642.

0 .013 0 0 .011 .032 0 0— .032

.695 .834 .875 .485 .718 .718 .935 .485— .987

152 76 177 439 246 142 8112 111 500 81 280 111 282 147 34

.019 0 .011 .018 .020 .032 .019 0 .015 0 .016 .004 .023 .055 0 0— .055

.006 0 .011 .001 .016 .007 .007 0 .005 0 .034 .009 .001 0 0 0— .034

.973 1.000 .977 .980 .963 .960 .973 1.000 .979 1.000 .949 .986 .974 .944 1.000 .944—1.000

A(p)

B(q)

0(r)

.130— .178 .136— .382 .115— .297 .176— .343 .103—423 .013— .642 0— .055

.133— .181 .104— .278 .025— .252 0— .022 0— .118 0— .032 0— .034

.642— .737 .340— .753 .451— .815 .657— .797 .577— .834 .485— .987 .944—1.000

.089 .158 .053

.169 .271 .104

.755 .612 .847

Simmons and Graydon (1951 a). Simmons and Graydon (1951 a). Simmons, Graydon and Semple (1953). Simmons, Graydon and Semple (1953); Simmons, Graydon, Semple, Malcolm (1954); Simmons, Graydon and Avias (1949); Simmons, Gajdusek and Larkin (1960). Wilson, Graydon, Simmons and Bryce (1944). Simmons, Graydon, Semple and Fry (1955). Boyd (1953), Mourant (1954 b). Salzano (1957).

Table 25 MN AND RH BLOOD GROUP GENE FREQUENCIES No.

m

n

No.

R1

R2

R°

Rz

400 250 213

.540 .630 .662

.460 .370 .338

*180

.702 .760 .755

.277 .195 .112

0

0

.040 .111

.005 .022

2. Indonesia Filipinos Java 20 Indonesian Islands Range

382 262 239

.510 .632 .435 .435—632

.490 .368 .565 .368—565

101 205 100

3. Micronesia Palau Truk Gilbert Marshall Range

191 117 159 678

.338 .342 .389 .222 .222—.389

.662 .658 .611 .778 .611— .778

260 753 77 455 123

.233

.777

1. East Asia Japanese S. Chinese Siamese

4. Melanesia New Britain (Central) Rabual (north) Bainings (north) Papua Coast New Guinea (Central) New Guinea (West) Admiralty New Hebrides New Caledonia Loyalty and Pine Islands Fiji Range 5. Australia Port Hedland, Broome, Derby, Lyndham, Darwin, Bathurst and Melville. Islands; Woorabinda, Cherbourg, Menindee, Oodnadatta, Alice Springs Oodnadatta, Woorabinda, Yarrabah, Alice Springs, Lake Tyers, Victoria, Point Mcleay, Roper River Haast's Bluff Range 6. Polynesia Mangareva Easter Island New Zealand (Maoris) Kapingamarangi Cook Islands Range

2690

112 172 558 310

649

0 .133 .081 .053 .339 .302 .297 .326 0— .339 .297

1.000 .867 .919 .947 .661 .698 .703

.674 .661—1.000

250 213

.88

.08

.03

.01

.837

.086

.065

.012

.81

.13

.04

.81— .88

.08— .13

.03— .065

181 116 159 678

.936 .830 .691 .952 .691— .952

.026 .125 .233 .042 .026— .233

.038 .045 .076 .007 .007— .076

0 0 0 0 0

260 753 77 455 123

.931

.042

.027

0

.818 .945 .801 .932 .940 .786 .833

.168 .020 .129 .048 .030 .129 .107

.014 .020 .070 .020 .030 .009 .054

0

.840 .786—945

.050 .020— .168

.110 .009—070

234

.564

.201

.085

.021

.069 .021— .069

2690

112 172 558 110

.02 .01— .02

.015

0 0 0 0 .004

0 0— .015

.703

125

.236 .236— .297

.764 .703—764

105

.560 .560— .564

.252 .201— .252

.119 .085—119

22 51 180 46 269

.50 .33 .525 .71 .587 .33— .71

.50 .67 .475 .29 .413 .29— .67

22 51 180 46 267

.43 .34 .465 .75 .516 .34— .75

.57 .66 .486 .24 .459 .24— .66

0 0 .027 .01 .025 0— .027

0 0 0 0 0 0

a MN AND RH BLOOD GROUP GENE FREQUENCIES No.

7. N. America Utes British Columbia, Indians (Coastal) Navaho Blackfeet Chippewa Range 8. S. America Caiuas, Brazil Tucanos, Brazil Ramkokamerka, Brazil Bororos, Brazil Chunupis, Argentina Mapuches, Chile Range

Ranges Indonesia Micronesia Melanesia Australia Polynesia N. America S. America

m

n

.760 .770 .917 .747

.240 .230 .083 .253

.747— .917

.083— .253

134 68 236

.909 .699 .648

.091 .301 .352

282 144

.876 .694 .648—.909

.124 .306 .091—.352

104 300 361 95

ro

r rz

.476 .607 .356

0 .067 .069

0 .008 .058

.337 .318— .524

.530 .356— .607

0 0— .069

.020 0— .058

135

.507

.493

0

0

103

.529

.471

0

0

258

.632 .507—.632

.239 .239—.493

.118 0—.118

.011 0—.011

R1

R2

104 256 305

.524 .318 .326

161

No.

m

n n

R1

R2

.435— .632 .222— .289 0— .339 .236— .297 .33— .71 .747— .917 .648— .909

.368— .565 .611— .778 .661— .1.000 .703— .764 .29— .67 .083— .253 .091— .352

.81— .88 .691— .952 .786— .945 .560— .564 .34— .75 .318— .524 .507— .632

.08— .13 .026— .233 .020— .168 .201— .252 .24— .66 .356— .607 .239— .493

R°

.03— .065 .007—076. .009— .070 .085— .119 0— .027 0— .069 0— .118

Rz

.01— .02 0 0— .015 .021— .069 0 0— .058 0.—Oil

1. Simmons and Graydon (1951 a). * Miller and Taguchi sample (1945), quoted by Simmons and Graydon (1951 a). 2. Simmons and Graydon (1951 a). 3. Simmons, Graydon, and Semple (1953) 4. Simmons, Graydon and Semple (1953); Simmons, Graydon, Semple and Malcolm (1954); Simmons, Graydon and Avias (1949); Simmons, Gajdusek and Larkin (1960). 5. Wilson, Graydon, Simmons and Bryce (1944); Simmons and Graydon (1948); Simmons, Semple, Cleland and Casley-Smith (1957 a). 6. Simmons, Graydon, Semple and Fry (1955); Simmons, Graydon, Semple and Taylor (1951); Simmons and Graydon (1957). 7. Boyd (1953); Mourant (1954 b). 8. Salzano (1957).

IX THE VALIDITY OF HEYERDAHL'S THEORY OF THE POPULATING OF POLYNESIA

I G A T H E R that Heyerdahl (1952) believes that there were two separate migrations from the American mainland into Polynesia. The first consisted of people from a pre-Inca civilization centered near Lake Titicaca and the Peruvian coast below; these people were apparently Caucasoids, whose original home was possibly northwestern Africa or the Canary Islands! The second consisted of people who left the northwest coast of North America, specifically the Kwakiutl or Nootka area, voyaged to Hawaii, and from there populated the rest of Polynesia. The migration to Hawaii occurred about A.D. 1000. Presumably, then, this second migratory wave of people mixed with and engulfed genetically the people of the first migration. I am concerned here mainly with the evidence from physical anthropology for Heyerdahl's theory. Almost the only skeletal evidence he gives for his second migration is to compare the cranial index of eleven males and sixteen females from different areas of the Northwest Coast Indians as given by Hrdlicka (1944) with the cephalic index of six Polynesian groups as given by Shapiro (1940b). The male aver73

age Northwest Coast Indian cranial index was 81.1 and the average cephalic index for the male Polynesian groups 81.2. Obviously, apart from comparing the dead with the living in this case, to use only the cranial index of the dead Northwest Coast Indians is simply insufficient. Heyerdahl's main evidence for the first migration seems to be the Paracas Necropolis Indian mummies from Peru: "it can safely be said that nothing discovered in the Paracas caves argues against the hypothesis that a foreign Caucasian-like race entered into the culture complex of pre-Inca Peru" (1952, p. 324). Heyerdahl used the studies of Paracas Indian skeletons by Stewart (1943) and of Paracas Indian mummy hair by Trotter (1943). Apparently he was much impressed by the fact that the ten male Paracas skeletons had longer femora (maximum length L 431 mm, R 429 mm) than femora from five hundred skeletons from Pachacamac on the Central Coast (L 414 mm, R 410 mm), femora from two hundred skeletons from Chicama on the North Coast (L 418 mm, R 413 mm), or femora from fifty-two skeletons from Pancarcancha in the Southern highlands (L 401 mm, R 395 mm). Also, the crania from Paracas had narrow facial features. Heyerdahl was equally impressed with the fact that the Paracas mummies, eight males and two females, had "hair in varying shades of brown, fine in texture, and occasionally wavy" (1952, p. 325). He says a page earlier, "neither stature, cranial [the Paracas crania were artificially deformed!] and facial indices, nor hair, have been found to concur with the familiar norm of local Indians" (1952, p. 324). The above constitutes his evidence that the migrants were Caucasoid. Actually Trotter said that the hair in general was rusty brown. However, though two samples had a wavy hair form, the mean hair form index (smallest diameter X 100/greatest diameter) of 81.81 was midway between the 79.77 of Mesa Verde Indians and the 82.81 of Basket Maker Indians. Moreover, 81.81 is within the range of indices for Zuni, Navajo, Hopi, and Maya Indians: 80.4685.04. In cross-sectional area the Paracas hair was small when compared with other Indians', but larger than Dutch hair. I have considered it worthwhile to assess the

74


validity of Heyerdahl's theory from a skeletal point of view. Table 26 shows the means of male cranial and postcranial measurements, indices, and angles of Hawaiians, Nootka, Kwakiutl, Society Islanders, Easter Islanders, and Paracas mummies. Once again there are certain limitations. The Hawaiian material is prehistoric (A.D. 1150-1750; Snow, personal communication). The Easter Island material falls into the ca. 1100-1868 A.D. date range, and the Paracas material is said to be 306 B.C. ± 200 (Arnold and Libby, 1951) or A.D. 206 ±90 by the carbon dioxide method (Broecker et al, 1956). The Nootka, Kwakiutl, and Society Island materials, to the best of my knowledge, have not been dated; possibly they are prehistoric. Morphological observations are lacking for the Society Island and Paracas crania. Oetteking (1930) gives average morphological observations for the crania showing the "koskimo" type of artificial deformation; his group includes other tribes besides the Kwakiutl and Nootka, such as the Nimkish, Koskimo, and Clayoquot. Postcranial measurements and indices are lacking for the Nootka, Kwakiutl, and Society Islanders. Cranial measurements and indices are limited because the Paracas, Nootka, and Kwakiutl crania were artificially deformed. Nevertheless, the comparison in Table 26 is interesting. Since Heyerdahl maintains that his second migratory wave populated Polynesia from Hawaii, I have calculated the mean cranial and total mean deviation of the various populations from the Hawaiian figures. It can be seen immediately, despite the fewer Society Island measurements, that the Hawaiians are closer to the Society Islanders than to the Nootka or the Kwakiutl. True, the Easter Island figure falls into the range of the Nootka and Kwakiutl figures, but the Nootka-Kwakiutl ("Koskimo") and Hawaiian morphological observations have not yet been mentioned. The Paracas mean cranial and total mean deviations are by far the largest figures, indicating little if any similarity between Paracas and Society or Easter Islanders. Table 27 shows the morphological observations of the Nootka-Kwakiutl ("Koskimo"), Hawaiians, and Easter Islanders. Of those features which can be compared in the three groups, seven out of twelve, or

58.3 per cent, are most common in the Hawaiians and Easter Islanders. In the remaining HawaiianEaster Islander comparisons, twenty out of twentythree or 86.9 per cent are similar. Thus on the basis of morphological observations there can be no question of the Hawaiian-Easter Islander affinity; both are obviously Polynesian. Table 26 shows that the maximum length of the Paracas femur (L 431.0 mm, R 429.0 mm) is considerably less than that of the Easter Islanders (L 452.1 mm, R 446.2 mm): the Paracas people were not so tall as Easter Islanders. Also, as mentioned above, Heyerdahl did not believe that the Paracas people were similar to local Indians. Table 28 compares the measurements and indices of Paracas mummies given by Stewart (1943) with Peruvian Central Coast Incised (850-500 B.C.; Mason, 1957) and Late Chancay (A.D. 1300-1500; Bennett, 1946) skeletal material (Newman, 1947), and Easter Island. The mean cranial deviations from the Paracas mummies of both the Incised and Late Chancay are very similar, and much less than that for Easter Islanders. Furthermore, the Incised and Late Chancay similarity — mean cranial deviation 0.78 —suggests, according to Newman, "the virtual absence of statistically significant differences between the Incised and Late Chancay male series" (1947, p. 22). From a skeletal point of view, therefore, not only are the Paracas mummies similar to the early Peruvian Central Coast Indians but the latter remained relatively unchanging over a fairly long period. I cannot, for this reason, conclude that the Paracas mummies were Caucasoids; on the contrary, they were similar to other Peruvian Indians. Heyerdahl (1952) maintains that since there is ample evidence to support the Aztec and Inca tradition that European-like peoples lived in parts of America before the Spaniards, the burden of proof and explanation rests with those who believe that prehistoric America was strictly the home of Mongol types. I would say that the burden of proof, from the point of view of physical anthropology, still rests with Heyerdahl to conclusively show particularly that his first migratory wave of people into Polynesia was from the American mainland and was composed of Caucasoids.

a MEANS OF MALE CRANIAL AND POSTCRANIAL MEASUREMENTS, INDICES, AND ANGLES OF HAWAIIANS, NOOTKA, KWAKIUTL, SOCIETY ISLANDERS, EASTER ISLANDERS AND PARACAS MUMMIES No.

Hawaii1 No. Nootka2 No. Kwakiutl3

Cranial measurements Minimum Frontal Nasion — Upper Alveolar Point Bizygomatic Width Endobasion — Prosthion Endobasion — Nasion Left Orbital Height Nasal Height Nasal Width External Palatal Length External Palatal Width

132 125 136 112 121 125 127 131 121 120

95.6 71.9 138.3 104.4* 106.8* 35.0 55.0 26.2 55.6 65.8

8 9 8 7 8 8 9 9 7 8

91.1 70.7 138.6 100.3* 98.1* 35.6 51.3 24.7 54.7 64.5

42 41 37 42 42 40 42 41 41 40

95.3 77.7 140.2 101.4* 101.9* 37.7 54.1 24.1 54.1 65.4

Indices Upper Facial Nasal External Palatal

120 128 112

52.1 48.0 117.9

8 9 9

51.3 48.1 116.8

41 40 39

55.5 44.7 120.8

Angles Facial Alveolar

106 102

84.2° 65.0°

R Humerus. Maximum Length L R Radius. Maximum Length L R L Ulna. Maximum Length R L Femur. Maximum Length R Pilastric Index L R Platymeric Index L R Tibia. Maximum Length L R L Platycnemic Index R Total Mean deviation

79.1 72.3° 2.76

Mean cranial deviation Postcranial measurements, Indices Clavicle. Maximum Length L

8 8

65 67 72 71 58 62 62 75 63 63 75 71 77 72 61 69 76 76

149.1 147.9 320.2 320.8 248.0 248.5 266.1 266.9 443.3 441.9 85.6 84.3 71.6 71.6 363.8 363.5 65.3 66.8

41 41

81.8° 76.4°

3.14

No. Society4

No. Easter Island5

No.

Paracas6

19 18 18 17 18 19 19 19 18 19

94.5 67.6 130.8 103.0 108.7 33.8 50.3 26.2 50.3 60.3

12 9 12 11 12 12 12 12 9 9

85.4 75.8 136.2 100.5 99.4 36.1** 52.4 23.1 56.1 70.4

51.7 52.3 120.5

9 12 9

55.6 44.2 125.6

10 10

67.0° 53.5°

16 15 12

70.4 136.5 104.5*

17

34.8

17

25.5

15

51.4

17 19 18

14

82.8°

18 18

87.3° 64.6°

2.87

0.94

5 6 8 6 5 5 7 8 11 11 11 11 11 11 7 7 7 7

140.0 138.6 318.7 317.8 246.4 246.2 266.0 262.0 452.1 446.2 114.0 115.8 71.3 72.7 376.1 373.4 71.8 75.2 5.36

5.55

8 9 10 10 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 11 9 11 10

152.0 158.0 302.0 308.0 233.0 233.0 249.0 248.0 431.0 429.0 90.3 88.1 73.6 71.8 357.0 358.0 67.3 65.6 7.53

By kind permission of C. Snow and the Bernice P. Biishop Museum, Honolulu. — 2 & 3 Oetteking. - — 4 Von Luschan. — 5 Murrill.— Stewart. * Basion used. ** Mean orbital height.

1 6

Table 27 MORPHOLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS OF MALE 'KOSKIMO' HAWAIIANS AND EASTER ISLANDERS

Supraorbital type Metopism Supranasal Suture (N) Mastoid size Supraraastoid Crest Size (Large) Epipteric Bones Left Right Occipital Torus Size Inca Bones Palate Shape Palatine Torus Suborbital Fossa Nasal Bridge Width (Wide) Fossa Praenasalis Mandible Size Mandibular Torus

NootkaKwakiutl ('Koskimo')

Hawaii1

Easter Island

Median 2.2 % 1.1 %° Medium 25.0 %

Divided 0.6 %* 26.0 %* Medium 65.1 %

Divided 11.1 % 38.9 % Medium 14.3 %

0.9 1.9 Medium Absent Parabolic 75.2%! Medium 70.1 %

— — Small-Medium 17.0% Hyperbolic 33.6 % Medium

17.6 % 18.8 % Small 5.3 % Parabolic 5.3 % Small 5.6 %

17.3 % Medium Absent

— Medium-Large 5.6%

38.9 % Medium-Large Absent

Medium-Large Small Medium- Large Small-Medium Slight-Medium 61.4%

Medium-Large Small Medium-Large Small-Medium Slight-Medium 55.6 %

39.8 % Medium Small-Medium Thin-Medium Medium-Large 68.7 %

28% Medium Small-Medium Thin-Medium Medium-Large 73.7 %

Slight-Medium Medium-Large Slight-Medium Slight-Medium Slight-Medium Small-Medium Dull-Medium Receding-Small Medium Slight-Medium 48 %

Slight-Medium Medium-Large Medium- Large Slight-Medium Slight-Medium Medium-Large Dull-Medium Slight-Medium Medium Slight-Medium 35.3 %

—

Supraorbital Size Frontal Bosses Sagittal Elevation Parietal Bosses Lambdoid Flattening Occipital Torus Shape (Ridge) Wormian Bones (Few) Glenoid Fossa Depth Postglenoid Process Tympanic Plate Thickness Condyle Elevation Orbital Shape (Rhomboid or square) Orbital Inclination Malar Size Lateral Malar Projection Anterior Malar Projection Nasion Depression Nasal Spine Size Nasal Sills Chin Projection Mylohyoid Ridge Genial Tubercles 'Rocker' Type Mandible 1. By kind permission of C. Snow and Honolulu. * From de Young's Analysis of Mokapu

the Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Crania.

Table 28 MEANS OF MALE CRANIAL MEASUREMENTS AND INDICES OF PARACAS MUMMIES, PERUVIAN CENTRAL COAST INCISED AND LATE CHANCAY, AND EASTER ISLAND

No.

Paracas

No.

Incised

No.

Late Chancay

No.

Easter Island

Cranial measurements Minimum Frontal Nasion-Upper Alveolar Point Bizygomatic Width Endobasion-Prosthion Endobasion-Nasion Left Orbital Height Nasal Height Nasal Width External Palatal Length External Palatal Width

12 9 12 11 12 12 12 12 9 9

85.4 75.8 136.2 100.5 99.4 36.1* 52.4 23.1 56.1 70.4

10 10 11 14 13 14 14 9 8

72.0 137.5 96.9 95.2 35.1 50.5 23.7 54.7 66.1

37 35 40 36 41 41 41 41 32 26

93.2 71.3 137.5 97.3 98.3 35.1 50.6 23.7 54.3 66.8

19 18 18 17 18 19 19 19 18 19

94.5 67.6 130.8 103.0 108.7 33.8 50.3 26.2 50.3 60.3

Indices Upper Facial Nasal External Palatal

9 12 9

55.6 44.2 125.6

7 14 7

52.4 47.3 120.2

35 41 21

52.0 46.9 123.4

17 19 18

51.7 52.3 120.5

Mean Cranial Deviation

2.81

2.70

7.09

Hekii, 26-33. These samples I gave to Professor Charles A. Leone of the Department of Zoology, University of Kansas, who had kindly consented to do the necessary laboratory work. I am concerned here only with the results shown in Table 23. Unfortunately there is some doubt about the actual blood group of some of the samples, as their presumptive blood types indicate; this means that more than one possibility exists concerning the results. Three gene frequency results were therefore calculated, as shown in Table 23. Result number one omits the presumptive blood types A(?), or O and B(?), or O. Result number two accepts A(?) as A and B(?) as B. Result number three accepts A(?) and B(?) as O. I gather that Leone and his assistant Caskey would probably favor the last possibility. This attempt to discover the blood groups is a good object lesson. Quite apart from the possible errors mentioned by Thieme and Otten above, and the small size of the Easter Island sample, one is faced here with at least three possibilities in interpreting the results, which raises the question whether one can use these results at all. This point, as well as the interpretation of these results, will be discussed below. I should state at the outset that I believe it a grave mistake in physical anthropology, when trying to trace the migrations of various races or attempting to determine the racial affiliation of a particular population, to rely only on blood group gene frequencies. One should not omit the product of the genotype and various environments, the phenotype — in other words, the morphological and metrical observations. Furthermore one should not rely only on physical anthropology but should also pay attention to evidence from the other divisions of anthropology, linguistics, ethnology, and archaeology; the latter are almost if not entirely absent from the earlier Easter Island craniological studies. There are numerous pitfalls in the use of blood group gene frequencies. Suggs (1960b) makes a startling revelation about the collecting of blood samples on the island of Nuku Hiva, Marquesas, during Heyerdahl's 1956 expedition to Polynesia. Suggs, who was on the island at the time of the collection, maintains that of the twenty-four Marquesan

X ABO BLOOD GROUP GENE FREQUENCIES

ALTHOUGH Smith (1960) is rather optimistic about using paleoserology as a tool for the anthropological study of gene flow in the past, others, such as Thieme and Otten (1957), are somewhat less enthusiastic. In fact the latter have said: The accuracy of bone typing is seen to rest upon the amount and chemical integrity of antigenic remains in bone, undestroyed and untransformed by bacterial enzymes, and upon the reliability and specificity of indicator tests. The inhibition test has been seen to offer numerous potentialities for error in unequal or total destruction of test antisera by contaminants present, in unequal non-specific absorption leading to false interpretations, the presence of adventitious antigenic elements which cannot be distinguished from blood group substances, and the possibility of the influence of bacterial enzymes upon the test-cells themselves. (P. 395.) Another point to keep in mind is one made by Laughlin (1951); namely, that gene frequencies from large populations are more reliable than those from small populations, because small populations are more subject to genetic drift or accidental loss of genes. In spite of these reservations I thought it would be worthwhile to try to discover the ABO blood group gene frequencies of the total Easter Island sample. I obtained bone samples from either long bones or skull fragments representing separate individuals and numbered as follows: Ahu Tepeu Grave 1, 1-2; Grave 2, 3-12; Ahu Vinapu, 13-25; Ahu 77

78


blood donors only two were of pure Polynesian ancestry. I cannot resist repeating his description of one of the donors, Tahia by name. Dear Tahia went along for the ride, so to speak, and gave a cc. or two of vital fluid to science. It would be difficult to describe her actual ancestry in a brief fashion. She is the granddaughter of a Castilian Spaniard, Alvarado by name, who jumped ship in the Marquesas to live out his life there, and left behind a sizable number of progeny and a wicked reputation. Her father, half Marquesan, married a woman who was also a half-breed herself, with the result that Tahia and her sisters were endowed with a light skin and completely European features. If her blood type resembles that of any pure Polynesian, it does so by sheer chance, because she is genetically and physically half European. (P. 215.) This account may or may not be true. But I am sure that such individuals as Tahia have been included elsewhere in the world, probably unintentionally, in supposedly pure native samples. Simmons, Graydon, and Semple (1953) in a blood group genetical survey in Micronesia of Palauans, Trukese, and Kapingas said nothing about the ancestry of the Palauans. The forty-six Kapingamarangians were not from Kapingamarangi, but were living on Ponape, where I did some research in 1947. The authors remark of the Kapingamarangians that "there were five brother-sister combinations and several half-brothers and sisters in the group" (1953, p. 4). Simmons, Graydon, Semple, and Fry (1955), in a blood group genetical survey of Cook Islanders say that "the first lot of blood samples was collected without critical anthropological selection on Rarotonga . . . The second lot in which some attempt at selection was made consisted of samples collected on Rarotonga . . . and samples collected on Aitutaki . . . The samples were all taken from adult individuals who, on preliminary questioning, were thought[!] to be unmixed Cook Islanders." (P. 66, 8.) The same paper points out that probably only 41 per cent of the Cook Islanders are of unmixed origin. Salzano (1957), in a paper on South American Indian blood groups, pointed out that "the model utilized for the calculation of the gene frequencies assumes random mating, absence of selection, genetic equilibrium, and an infinitely large population. It is evident that in almost the totality of the cases studied

one or more of these requirements was not fulfilled." He goes on to say that one should also beware of "inadequate sampling, with the inclusion of a considerable number of genetically related individuals." (P. 574.) The above examples are sufficient to suggest not that one should throw out the blood group evidence as a nightmare of uncontrollable variables, but that if one is going to use such evidence he should do so with some caution. I have already described how the blood groups were secured from the present Easter Island sample. The three possible gene frequency results are shown in Table 23. It must be emphasized that I am dealing here only with the ABO blood group system because as yet it is not possible to get results for the MN and Rh blood group systems from ancient skeletal remains. Thus one obviously faces an initial handicap, not to mention the pitfalls described above. Be that as it may, I have tabulated in Table 24 the ABO blood group gene frequencies for various recent tribes or island populations from East Asia, Indonesia, Micronesia, Melanesia, Australia, Polynesia, North and South America; also the ranges of each gene frequency are shown and the three possible Easter Island results which are from the approximate time period of ca. A.D. 1100-1868. If we take Easter Island result number two, it is rather close to the Siamese figures. Result number one is closest to, roughly in this order, Melanesia, Micronesia, Indonesia, and Polynesia. Result number three is closest to Polynesia, Melanesia, and Micronesia. None of the results is particularly close to the Americas, especially South America. Of greater interest is that as one moves from East Asia to Polynesia there is a rough decrease of the average B gene frequency: Siam .257, Indonesia .164, Micronesia .178, Melanesia .128, Western Polynesia .100-. 118, and Eastern Polynesia O. The B gene frequencies for Australia and North and South America are almost O; the A gene frequencies roughly increase. Because there is now considerable evidence that the original home of the Polynesians was in Southeast Asia (Suggs, 1960b), one could assume that when the early Polynesians migrated east to Oceania they possessed group B, contrary to the opinion of


Simmons et al. (1955) who believe they lacked it "because of its absence in widely scattered groups of people in the area" (p. 671). They also believe that where group B is present in Polynesia, it came mainly from Micronesia and/or Melanesia. Now Polynesia is an area par excellence favoring microevolution. Through the mechanisms of isolation on islands; random genetic drift; the decimation of atoll populations because of tidal waves, hurricanes, drought, or canoes being lost at sea during offshore voyages (Vayda, 1959); varied ecological conditions; and class-structured societies that inhibited random mating, the B gene could have disappeared after a time from some Polynesian island populations, accounting for the lack of this gene today, particularly in Eastern Polynesia. The Easter Island blood group gene frequency results of this study, if they have any real validity, show the presence of group B in the period ca. A.D. 1100-1868. If Easter Islanders originally came from the Cook, Society, or Marquesan Islands, then the populations of these islands must also have formerly possessed group B; the Cook and Tahiti Islands, in fact, still show some signs of it. However, after A.D. 1868 the Easter Islanders show no group B (Shapiro, 1940), but his small sample represented the Easter Island "pure" Polynesian survivors who could easily not have possessed the group B; indeed one sample from Easter Island did possess some group B (Rahm, 1931-32). It is thus debatable whether one should agree with Graydon (1951) that the Polynesian is clearly closer to the American Indian than to either the Melanesian or Micronesian in respect to A, B, and O groups. What is needed to prove or disprove these speculations are ABO blood group gene frequencies from datable skeletal remains from other parts of Polynesia, Micronesia, Indonesia, and Southeast Asia. It is also worth pointing out that blood group polymorphism may be due largely to natural selection; similarity in gene frequencies may show convergence owing to similar environments (Mourant, 1954). There is, in fact, evidence for the ABO genes being selected by the environment. The method by which selection operates in this case is perhaps not so much malignant or degenerative diseases as various infectious diseases, "particularly since those act

79

in the early years of life and thus have a greater selective effect" (Livingstone, 1960, p. 24). Table 25 shows the MN and Rh blood group gene frequencies for various recent tribes or island populations from East Asia, Indonesia, Micronesia, Melanesia, Australia, Polynesia, and North and South America; the ranges of each gene frequency are also shown. The ranges of the M and N gene frequencies of Polynesia are closest to those of Indonesia, and the figures for the South Chinese and Siamese fall into the Polynesian ranges, though the last are not close to either North or South Americans. The ranges of the Rh gene frequencies of Polynesia are closest to North America and South America, and the Japanese frequencies fall into the Polynesian ranges. However, the Australian frequencies are close to South America. Incidentally, the South American Rh gene frequency figures to date do not agree with the statement of Simmons et al. (1955) that "the broad picture which emerges from an examination of the Rh frequencies . . . for most American Indian populations is generally the higher frequency of R2 (cDE) as compared with R1 (CDe)" (p. 685). There is really not enough comparative material yet on the blood groups P, Lea, Fya, and K. The figures we have for Lea show what may be significant differences between Polynesians and American Indians. The Diego blood group has been found in 2 to over 50 per cent of South American Indian groups, North American Indians, Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans. Polynesians, Australian aborigines, Papuans, New Britain natives, Eskimos from the eastern Canadian Arctic, and Caucasians do not have it, (Won et al., 1960), nor do various west African tribes from the Ivory Coast and Liberia or Asiatic Indians (Gershowitz, 1959). In my opinion the North and South American and Australian Rh gene frequency similarities to Polynesia are the result of microevolution, particularly isolation, random genetic drift, and varied ecological conditions. In other words, I believe on the above evidence of the ABO, MN, Rh, and Diego blood group systems that the Polynesians and American Indians came from the same gene pool and that the pool was, in all probability, in East Asia.

the original homeland for the combined eastern and western groups of Polynesian languages in the west, and language evidence suggests Tonga as being that home. [See also Elbert, 1953, p. 169.] . . . In comparing 202 basic words, it was found that Hawaii shared 76% of them in common with Tahiti, 71% with New Zealand, 70% with the Marquesas Islands, and 64% with Easter Island. With the more distantly related languages of western Polynesia, that is, of Samoa and Tonga, the Hawaiian language shared 59% with Samoa and 49% with Tonga. [See Elbert, 1953, p. 159.] We now see that Hawaii and Tahiti still shared 76% (a loss of 24%), of vocabulary in common after a separation of at least 1,000 years, i.e., A.D. 950, from carbon dating in Hawaii, to A.D. 1950. When comparing the Tahitian vocabulary with its Samoan equivalent, Elbert found 60% of the vocabulary still shared in common. Assuming that the loss in the Tahitian vocabulary of 24% in 1,000 years was at a constant rate, a 40% loss on the part of the Tahitian language would mean a separation of 1,800 years. This would place the separation of the Tahitian language from Samoa at A.D. 150. [Actually the earliest radiocarbon date (Suggs, 1960a) so far for Hawaii is A.D. 128 ± 200.] . . . To estimate how long the Tahitian language has been separated from Tonga, the possible home of the proto-Polynesian language, we note the difference between the Tahitian and Tonga languages as being a 48% loss of shared vocabulary. Again, assuming the same rate of loss for the Tahitian vocabulary, or 24% in 1,000 years, this would indicate a separation from the Tongan language of 2,500 years, or back to B.C. 550. It follows that if the above approximates what happened, we should allow at the very least another thousand years for the formation of the proto-Polynesian language, i.e., the language which gave rise to the Polynesian family of languages and set them apart from the other branches of the far-flung MalayoPolynesian family of languages. So, we should be prepared to think of Polynesia as already occupied at its western border by the people who were to shape the proto-Polynesian language, by B.C. 1,500, or earlier. [See Suggs, 1960b.] While this is just a hypothesis, remaining to be proved, disproved, or modified, the historical perspective introduced by considering the amount of language change, time involved in the change, and direction of spread, calls for a revision of thinking concerning the entry into Polynesia of the ancestors of the Polynesians. Were the Polynesian speaking people of migrant groups directly from Indonesia, we should find a stronger relationship between Polyne-

XI POLYNESIAN MIGRATIONSss WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO EASTER ISLAND sss

I DO not intend to cover exhaustively the evidence from the fields of linguistics, ethnology, and archaeology for Polynesian migrations, but only to point out some important conclusions that have been reached in these fields. The Linguistic Evidence Emory (1959b) has the following to say: The Hawaiian language is not only extremely close to the Tahitian, but to all the languages spoken by the native inhabitants of the islands of eastern Polynesia, and only a little less closely related to a western Polynesian group of languages, i.e, those of Samoa, Tonga, and their nearby islands. Possession of characteristics which these related languages of eastern Polynesia share uniquely would indicate a common home within eastern Polynesia. Both eastern and western groups of languages together for the same reason must also have had a common home, most probably within Polynesia. Evidence points strongly to Tahiti, the geographical center of eastern Polynesia, as being that home within eastern Polynesia for the eastern group of languages. It can be demonstrated that basic words were carried from west to east in Polynesia and then southward to New Zealand and northward to Hawaii. This fact places 80

CRANIAL AND POSTCRANIAL SKELETAL REMAINS FROM EASTER ISLAND sian and some languages in Indonesia than we find between Polynesian and languages on islands which lie between Polynesia and Indonesia. The strongest relationships, however, are with the islands in between (Grace, 1955, pp. 338-339). Evidence indicates a gradual movement of language from Indonesia to Polynesia over a long period of time. Therefore, it seems reasonable to view the arrival of man in Polynesia as having taken place through the migrations of a few small groups of canoe-borne people from islands not far to the west of Polynesia. These several groups formed the nucleus of the population which was to arise out of their descendants, and these original groups need not have come from one single island or an identical ethnic group of people. Physically the original groups need not have been entirely typical of the larger community from which they stemmed. In fact, happenstances might have resulted in those who came being on the whole, for example, considerably taller, or of lighter skin. [Italics mine; this would explain the "fair" Polynesians that both early European travelers in Oceania and Heyerdahl have described as similar to Caucasoids.] In any event, a hybrid people were formed and moved out through Polynesia, establishing on all the islands of Polynesia populations so much alike that we are not surprised at Dr. Harry Shapiro's summary of data assembled up to 1943, that the Polynesian population possesses a fundamental unity in physical appearance which necessarily implies derivation from a basic physical community. [See Shapiro, 1943.] . . . What now appears most likely is that people of somewhat diverse origins came together in a western archipelago in the Polynesian area about B.C. 1,500, and, in comparative isolation, their descendants, their language, and their culture took on the features which the Polynesians now share in common and which give them their distinctive characteristics. These early Polynesians then moved eastward to the Tahitian archipelago where again, in isolation except for an occasional stray seagoing canoe from the west or a drifting raft from Peru, language and culture took on shapes which were later dispersed by migrant groups eastward as far as Easter Island, southward to New Zealand, and northward to Hawaii, arriving at these terminal points after the beginning of the Christian year. In 1963 Emory, in a paper on settlement pattern and time involved as indicated by vocabulary agreements, says: "We have seen that Easter Island has a vocabulary, which in all probability came from the Marquesas [italics mine], and which, through the amount of its divergence and its retention of a proto-

81

Polynesian glottal, appears to have broken away from East Polynesia before the Hawaiian or the Maori. This indicates the Marquesas as a very early dispersal area." (P. 97.) Of interest here also are the recent publications of Barthel (1958a,b), who unraveled the Easter Island rongorongo script — apparently not just an assemblage of signs but a structure for which Barthel has worked out grammatical rules. He believes the Easter Island script is not unique —that it was formerly more widespread in Polynesia (see also Heyerdahl et al, 1965). As Suggs (1960b) says . . . There are scattered cryptic references to such a script's existing in the Marquesas and also in Tahiti, and the late J. Frank Stimson, a student of Polynesian philology for over fifty years, claimed to have obtained evidence of such a script in the Austral Islands (Raivavae, Tubuai, Rapa Iti). This indicates that writing was probably once part of the Polynesian cultural heritage everywhere, although its use was restricted, of course, to the priestly and upper classes for ceremonial purposes only . . . As a closely guarded secret of the powerful priests, the script may have escaped notice until its custodians took its secret to their graves. Although produced in wood on Easter Island, it was evidently written on highly perishable bark cloth in Tahiti, and on leaves in the Australs." (P. 45.) The Ethnological and Archaeological Evidence Metraux's (1940, 1957) analysis of Easter Island culture has shown conclusively that it is Polynesian. This being the case, what part of Polynesia did the Easter Islanders come from? Metraux (1957) favors the Marquesas on the basis of such Marquesas-Easter Island similarities as temple structures, whole-body tattooing, the motif in art of the tiki or human figure with large eyes, and the use by chanters as mnemonic aids of the objects symbolized in the chants. As the result of the recent stratigraphic archaeology carried out by Suggs (1960b) in the Marquesas, Easter Island-Marquesas similarities in artifact types are now apparent in the following examples: the oval or circular cross-section adzes and quadrangular section untanged adzes; rotating and incurved point fishhooks; stone squid-lure weights and large, knobbed net weights; oval houses and temples: "the early temple structure on the Ha'atuatua site could

82


represent the basic temple type from which the later Easter Island sanctuaries developed" (Suggs, 1960b, p. 175). The radiocarbon date for the Ha'atuatua Site is 120 B.C. ± 120 (Suggs, 1960b, p. 112). Also concerning Easter Island, Smith (1961) says that "the discovery of the enclosed court at Vinapu and its identification with the Early period reveals, then, a hitherto unrecognized relationship between Easter Island and cultural centers farther to the west" (p. 218; italics mine). Suggs discovered human skeletons he definitely calls Polynesian at the Ha'atuatua Site. I therefore look forward to the publication of the description of these datable remains, since it is possible, as the above evidence indicates, that Easter Islanders may have come from the Marquesas. From his own work in the Marquesas, Suggs (1960b) concludes that the settlers of the Marquesas probably arrived in the second century B.C. As he says: On the basis of the artifact types characterizing their cultural assemblage they originated in an island of Western Polynesia. This island was either in close contact with Melanesians or the culture of Western Polynesia had not been differentiated sufficiently from the Melanesian culture, for pottery, adzes, rind peelers, and ornaments are of the Melanesian type . . . the voyage of discovery was well equipped, carrying domestic plants and animals. (P. 116.) From archaeological work done on Fiji by Gifford (1951), and on New Caledonia by Gifford and Shutler (1956), Suggs (1960b) states that "the evidence at hand indicates that by approximately 1000 B.C., at least, the fringe areas of Polynesia (i.e., Melanesia) were already occupied by Malayo-Polynesian speakers bearing the antecedents of Polynesian culture" (p. 72). He also believes that the Polynesians originated on the coast of Asia. My own feeling is, however, that he has given little or no attention to Micronesia as a possible gateway to Polynesia, possibly owing to the lack of datable skeletal material and the paucity of stratigraphical archaeology in Micronesia. Finally, Duff (1959, p. 122) in a recent study of adze types, says that "nothing equivalent to the Polynesian-Indonesian-South Chinese tanged adze has been recorded from the American continent . . .

Plotted on a map, the American records are seen to be a continuous extension of the North Asiatic grooved adze, following the North Pacific littoral, while the Polynesian forms clearly suggest a transPacific extension of the South Chinese-Indonesian stepped adze." Duff does not agree with Sharp's (1957) theory of accidental voyages within Polynesia, with its implication of a chaotic pattern of culture traits, because of the clear-cut distinction between western and eastern Polynesian adze types. Duff believes radial diffusion occurred in eastern Polynesia; he thus lends support to traditional theories of the existence of such cultural centers as the Society Islands. It is worth noting that Ferdon (1961) is impressed with the following trait or complex parallels between Easter Island and particularly South America: the prepared plaza with ceremonial structures on two or more sides, the technique of fitting masonry blocks, stone houses, prepared solar observation devices, bird man cult, rongorongo mnemonic script, cremation, paintings and petroglyphs of reed rafts with masts and sails, and the weeping eye motif. Actually only the stone houses, a bird man cult, and the weeping eye motif are absent elsewhere in Polynesia. There are Polynesian parallels for the rest even though they are not in exactly the same form. Furthermore, all this merely proves what Kroeber (1948) once said: "isolated items like these cannot establish the flow or origin of whole cultures" (p. 785). I would add that I certainly do not deny sporadic contacts with South America, but the migration of peoples to occupy an area and later establish a cultural configuration is another matter. Obviously, the above parallels are drawn from archaeology and ethnology, ignoring both linguistics and physical anthropology. Finally, in a rather lengthy addendum to the shorter version of this study Heyerdahl (Vol. 2, Miscellaneous Papers, 1965) criticizes the latter in regard to the following points. The evidence for the skeletal remains from the Middle period comes from Ahu Tepeu, grave 2, and consists of "nine extended burials" (p. 327). The C-14 date for the grave 2 remains is A.D. 1629 ± 150 years. Heyerdahl states that "When Murrill in his tables (Tables 1 and 2) and text gives some of our


skeletal material a time span of ca. A. D. 1100-1680, covering the entire Middle Period, his time brackets add more than half a millenium [sic] for which he lacks any foundation in facts, and he thus suggests an important antiquity for which there is no reasonable support in available data" (p. 327). In other words, the nine extended burials (actually eleven individuals) do not constitute a representative sample of the population, and the dating puts the sample at the end of the Middle period, perhaps even into the Late period. All this is quite true, but it is equally true that the total skeletal sample constituted only thirty-three individuals, and if only "nine" datable extended burials are available so far for the Middle period, then one can only assume that they are representative, until further finds, analysis, and dating possibly prove that one is wrong. Furthermore, the dating could be A.D. 1629-150 or A.r>. 1479, which is fairly close to the middle of the Middle period. Heyerdahl also states that "cremation burials [are] . . . a markedly non-Polynesian practice" (p. 326). Concerning this point Bowen (1961) maintains that there is historical evidence for cremation on the Hawaiian island of Oahu in the early nineteenth century, for example: Both sexes were possibly cremated, as both females and males attended the king and, since not only the attendant but his or her entire family [italics mine] could be punished, all ages were possibly subject. Cremation is associated with the kanaka class. It may also have been used for members of other classes who broke kapu, but seems particularly associated with the attendants of ali'i. (P. 78.) Also, in a recent personal communication, Bowen (1965) wrote me that: Some new evidence has turned up ... namely the remains of a cremation on the windward side of Oahu, at a coastal site now located on Bellows Air Force Base property. As yet, I have not found the time to investigate these charred bone fragments carefully except to say that there seems to be only one individual involved. It was located in a shallow pit in beach sand and seems to have been subjected to considerable heat, as there is extensive checking, cracking, and discoloration — although there is little distortion. The cremation may be prehistoric or it may represent a historic carry-over of the same Hawaiian philosophy regarding this form of disposal.

83

However, no artifacts or other associated materials were present to give any clues to its age. Nor do I know whether an entire body was burned or simply an entire skeleton. I tend to favor the former idea, since bones of the hands and feet are present and these are usually neglected in secondary manipulation of human remains. Bowen says further that: As for Heyerdahl's comment that cremation is a non Polynesian practice, the Hawaiian evidence refutes this. Until my work on Hawaiian disposal of the dead, however, with its many very complex aspects, this was not recognized by people interested in Hawaiiana. This was simply because no one had combed the literature attempting to ascertain what all the types of disposal were. The evidence is clearly there, once someone begins looking for it. And now, we also have archaeological evidence — and more will probably be forthcoming. Heyerdahl rightly points out that burial customs on Easter Island were extremely heterogeneous, ahu entombment being only one of many local burial practices. Some lineages, or population groups, practiced cremation burials . . . some practiced secondary burial in thick-walled, narrowchambered and boat-shaped tombs misnamed in modern times hare moa . . . some placed [sic] extended burial in a roomy type of corbeled stone house . . . while still others simply deposited their dead in fissures and caves. However, he also states that "It is thus fully possible that ahu burial was restricted to one particular cultural tradition, or population group." (P. 464.) I gather from the rest of the addendum that since cremation burials existed in the Middle and possibly in the Early periods, and since he states that cremation burials are non-Polynesian, he is implying that those people who practiced cremation burials were not Polynesian. I cannot, unfortunately, accept this point of view until we have skeletal remains from the Early period to analyze. It is well known, as my colleague Dr. Elden Johnson has pointed out to me regarding mound burials, that types of burial can vary within one mound and such variation does not necessarily mean the existence of different populations. On Easter Island certain types of burial may have been restricted to certain social classes within the same population. The evidence from physical anthropology shows that the Easter Island physical type of the Middle

84


and Late periods is definitely Polynesian. Skeletal remains from the Early period of Easter Island are not yet at hand. When they have been excavated and analyzed, I, for one, will be very much surprised if they are not Polynesian in physical type. The evi-

dence from linguistics, ethnology, and archaeology, which of course should not be omitted, indicates that the Easter Island culture is Polynesian, and that the Easter Islanders may have come from the Marquesas Islands in Polynesia.

Appendices


APPENDIX A

CRANIAL MEASUREMENTS

Cranial Measurements

Martin

Cranial Capacity Maximum Length 1 Maximum Width 8 Minimum Frontal 9 Basion-Bregma 17 Auricular Height-Vertex Endobasion-Nasion Endobasion-Prosthion Bizygomatic 45 Malar Height Malar Width Nasion-Prosthion (Upper Alveolar Point) Nasion-Gnathion 47 Nasal Height 55 Nasal Width 54 Nasalia-Upper Width 57(2) Nasalia-Minimum Width 57 Nasalia-Lower Width 57(3) Nasalia Length 56 Orbital Height Orbital Width Interorbital 50 Biorbital Palate Height 64 External Palatal Length 60 External Palatal Width 61 Internal Palatal Length 62 Internal Palatal Width 63 Bimastoid (1) Bimastoid (2) 13 Foramen Magnum Length (Endobasion-Opisthion) Foramen Magnum Width 16 Circumference 23


Martin

Nasion-Opisthion Arc Nasion-Bregma Arc . Bregma-Lambda Arc Lambda-Opisthion Arc Transverse Arc . . . Symphyseal Height Mandibular Body Length (1) . . Mandibular Body Length (2) . . Bigonial Bicoronoid Bicondylar Width Ascending Ramus Height (Left) . Ramus Minimum Width (Left) . Thickness Mandibular Body (M 2 ) Thickness Mandibular Body (PM2)

25 26 27 28 24 69

MEDIAN SAGITTAL CRANIOGRAM Calvarial Height Calvarial Base Nasion-Foot of Bregma Perpendicular Lambda Calvarial Height Nasion-Inion Nasion-Lambda Glabella-Inion Glabella-Lambda Nasion-Bregma Bregma-Lambda Lambda-Opisthion Frontal Perpendicular Parietal Perpendicular Occipital Perpendicular Basion-Prosthion Nasion-Prosthion Forehead Height

Other Welcker-Murrill

Hooton (c') ( a ) Hrdlicka (13) Hrdlicka (15) Newman Murrill

ANGLES Frontal Inclination (BregmaNasion-Inion) Occipital Inclination (LambdaInion-Nasion) Facial Profile (Nasion-ProsthionFrankfort Horizontal) Nasal Profile (Nasion-Nasospinale-Frankfort Horizontal) Alveolar Profile (NasospinaleProsthion-Frankfort Horizontal) Calvarial Base (Nasion-InionFrankfort Horizontal) Frontal Curvature (Nasion-Apex Frontal Perpendicular-Bregma) Parietal Curvature (Bregma-Apex Parietal Perpendicular-Lambda) Occipital Curvature (LambdaApex Occipital PerpendicularOpisthion) Superior Facial Length (NasionBasion-Prosthion) Facial Length (Nasion-BasionGnathion)

Hrdlicka (11)

Hrdlicka (16) Hrdlicka (17) Hooton (s)

Wilder (7)

87

68 66 65(1) 65 70 71 (a)

Other

Hrdlicka (24) (1)

Hrdlicka (26)

Wilder (48) Wilder (33) Wilder (50) Wilder (49)

Wilder (51) Wilder (52) Wilder (53) Murrill

Wilder (3) Wilder (4) Wilder (5) Wilder (6) Wilder (7) Wilder (9) Wilder (11) Wilder (12) Wilder (13) Wilder (15) Wilder (16)

88

CRANIAL AND POSTCRANIAL SKELETAL REMAINS FROM EASTER ISLAND Martin


Other

Wilder (10)

Murrill

APPENDIX B

POSTCRANIAL MEASUREMENTS Martin

STERNUM Manubrium Length (M) Mesosternum Length (B Width 1 (SI) Width 3 (S3) CLAVICLE, Maximum Length . . SCAPULA Morphological Width Morphological Length Infra-Spinous Fossa Width Supra-Spinous Fossa Width Infra-Spinous Fossa Width (Projective) Supra-Spinous Fossa Width (Protective)

Martin

HUMERUS Maximum Length Maximum Head Diameter Mid-Shaft Diameter, AnteroPosterior Mid-Shaft Diameter, MedioLateral Mid-Shaft Maximum Thickness Mid-Shaft Minimum Thickness Bi-epicondylar Width Torsion Angle

Glabella-Lambda and BasionNasion Bregma-Prosthion and BasionNasion Nasion-Bregma and Frankfort Horizontal Bregma-Prosthion and Frankfort Horizontal Glabella-Lambda and BregmaLambda Basion-Bregma and BasionLambda Foramen Magnum (Basion-Opisthion-Frankfort Horizontal) Sphenobasion-Basion and Frankfort Horizontal Lambda-Glabella-Inion Glabella-Inion-Frankfort Horizontal Frontal Slope

Postcranial Measurements


Other Ashley Ashley Ashley Ashley

1 1

5a 6a 5 6

Hrdlicka

1 6c 6b 5 6 4

RADIUS, Maximum Length

1

ULNA, Maximum Length . . .

1

HAND Metacarpals Maximum Length (excluding spine of Metacarpal III) Midpoint of Shaft Width Midpoint of Shaft Height Least Circumference Base Width Base Height Head Width (excluding lateral tuberosities of Metacarpals II-V) Head Height (Width = Transverse, Height = Dorso-Ventral)

Other

Wilder (1)

McCown & Keith McCown & Keith McCown & Keith

McCown & Keith McCown & Keith McCown & Keith McCown & Keith McCown & Keith

Proximal Phalanges, Same as above except Midpoint of Shaft Circumference taken instead of Least Circumference, and Head Height =r Maximum Head Height . .

McCown & Keith

Middle and Distal Phalanges, Same as for Proximal Phalanges

McCown & Keith

VERTEBRAL COLUMN (Excluding Sacrum) Anterior Body Height 1 la Anterior Height — Total (Axis) 1b Anterior Body Height (Axis) Posterior Body Height 2 4 Superior Sagittal Diameter 7 Superior Transverse Diameter 5 Inferior Sagittal Diameter 8 Inferior Transverse Diameter Vertebral Foramen Sagittal Diameter 10 Vertebral Foramen Transverse Diameter 11 Maximum Transverse Diameter (Atlas) (Maximum Diameter between Tips of Transverse Processes) Murrill Maximum Sagittal Diameter (Atlas) (Maximum Sagittal Diame-

CRANIAL AND POSTCRANIAL SKELETAL REMAINS FROM EASTER ISLAND Postcranial Measurements

Martin

ter between Tips of Anterior and Posterior Tuberculum) . . SACRUM Maximum Height Maximum Width Width (Frontal)

Murrill

5

PELVIS Innominate Height Innominate Width Maximum Pelvic Width 2 Pelvic Inlet Sagittal Diameter . . 23 Pelvic Inlet Transverse Diameter 24 Sciatic Notch Height Sciatic Notch Width Sciatic Notch Posterior Segment FEMUR Maximum Length Bicondylar Length Trochanteric Oblique Length Maximum Diameter of Head . . Subtronchanteric Diameter, Antero-Posterior Subtrochanteric Diameter, Medio-Lateral Mid-Shaft Diameter, Antero-Posterior Mid-Shaft Diameter, Medio-Lateral Bicondylar Width Collo-Diaphyseal Angle Condylo-Diaphyseal Angle Torsion Angle PATELLA Maximum Height Maximum Width Maximum Thickness

1 2 4

Hrdlicka Hrdlicka

Letterman Letterman Letterman

Parsons

9 6 7 21

Wilder (1) Wilder (2) Wilder (3)

1 2 3 Hrdlicka Hrdlicka Wilder (6) Wilder (7) Wilder (1) 1

FOOT Talus Length Width Height Trochlea Length Trochlea Posterior Width . Trochlea Anterior Width Length of Head and Neck

Hrdlicka Hrdlicka

10

TIBIA Maximum Length Bicondylar Length Nutritive Foramen, Antero-Posterior Diameter Nutritive Foramen, Medio-Lateral Diameter Retroversion Angle FIBULA, Maximum Length

Other

1 2 3 4 5(1) 5(2) 8


Martin

89 Other

Head Length 9 Head Width 10 Facies Articularis Posterior Length 12 Facies Articularis Posterior Width 13 Facies Articularis Posterior Depth 14 Angle of Neck to Body . . .16 Angle of Torsion of Head 17 Angle of Head with Horizontal Plane 17(a) Calcaneus Maximum Length Middle Width Least Width Height Tuber Calcanei (Heel) Height Tuber Calcanei (Heel) Width . Length of Heel (that proportion of total length falling behind border of posterior articular facet) Facies Articularis Posterior Length Facies Articularis Posterior Width Facies Articularis Posterior Angle Facies Articularis Cuboidea Height Facies Articularis Cuboidea Width

1 2 3 4 7 8

McCown & Keith 9 10 14 13 12

Os Navicnlare Width 1 Height 2 Posterior Facet Length 3 Posterior Facet Width 4 Posterior Facet Depth 5 Width Articular Surface for Cuneiforms 6 Thickness Facet for Cuneiform III 7 Thickness Facet for Cuneiform I 8 Tuberosity Antero-Posterior Diameter Tuberosity Dorso-Ventral Diameter Cuboid Length Upper Medial Aspect Length Middle Medial Aspect Length Lower Medial Aspect Length Lateral Border Posterior Articular Surface Height Posterior Articular Surface Width Anterior Articular Surface Height

1

2

McCown & Keith McCown & Keith

McCown & Keith McCown & Keith, p. 37 McCown & Keith McCown & Keith McCown & Keith

90



Martin

Anterior Articular Surface Width Depth of Groove Peroneal Tendon


Cuneiform I Lower Length 1 Upper Length 3 Proximal Articular Height 4 Proximal (Maximum) Articular Width Distal Articular Height 5 Distal Articular Width Cuneiforms II and III Upper Length Proximal Articular Height Maximum Proximal Width Distal Articular Height Distal Width Metatarsals Maximum Length Midpoint of Shaft Width Midpoint of Shaft Height Base Width Base Height Head Width (excluding lateral tuberosities for Metatarsals II-V) Head Height (Width = Transverse, Height — Dorso-ventral)

Other

1 4 3 1,2 3 4 6 7 8

9




Martin

Great Toe, Proximal Phalanx Maximum Length Proximal End Width Proximal E n d Height Midpoint of Shaft Width Midpoint of Shaft Height Distal End Width Distal End Height (maximum) Distal End Height (in midline)

McCown & Keith McCown & Keith McCown & Keith McCown & Keith McCown & Keith McCown & Keith Murrill Murrill

Great Toe, Distal Phalanx Maximum Length Proximal End Width Proximal End Height (maximum) Proximal End Height (in midline) FOOT —RECONSTRUCTED Length of Tarsus Width of Tarsus Posterior Width o f Tarsus Anterior Width o f Foot Tarso-Metatarsal I Length* Tarso-Metatarsal II Length* Tarso-Metatarsal III Length* . Tarso-Metatarsal IV Length* . Tarso-Metatarsal V Length* Tuber Calcanei to Head of Phalanx I

Other

McCown & Keith McCown & Keith Murrill Murrill

1 2 2(1) 4

McCown & Keith McCown & Keith McCown & Keith McCown & Keith McCown & Keith Murrill

* Midpoint of posterior margin of Tuber Calcanei to midpoint of distal margin of head of metatarsal bone.

References


of Vessels Used by the Maori of New Zealand in Former Times, with Some Description of Those of the Isles of the Pacific, and a Brief Account of the Peopling of New Zealand. Dominion Museum, New Zealand, Bull. 7:1312, 1925. Birdsell, J. B. The Problem of the Early Peopling of the Americas as Viewed from Asia. In Papers on the Physical Anthropology of the American Indian. New York: Viking Fund, Inc., pp. 1-68, 1951. Bormida, M. Algunas luces sobre la penumbrosa historia de Pascua antes de 1722. Buenos Aires: Runa, 4:5-62, 1951a. . Somatologia de la Isla de Pascua. Buenos Aires: Runa, 4:178-222, 1951b. Bowen, R. N. Hawaiian Disposal of the Dead. University of Hawaii, M.A. thesis, 266 pp., 1961. . Personal Communication, 1965. Boyd, W. C. Blood Groups. Tabulae Biologicae, 17:113240, 1939. . Genetics and the Races of Man. Boston: Little Brown and Co., 1953. -. Gene Frequencies in Anthropology: Simple Methods. Am. J. Phys. Anth., 12:241-251, 1954. Broecker, W. S., J. L. Kulp, and C. S. Tucek. Lamont Natural Radiocarbon Measurements, III. Science, 124:154165, 1956. Broman, G. E. Precondylar Tubercles in American Whites and Negroes. Am. J. Phys. Anth., 15:125-133, 1957. Brooks, S. T. Skeletal Age at Death. The Reliability of Cranial and Pubic Age Indicators. Am. J. Phys. Anth., 13:567-597, 1955. Brothwell, D. R. Digging Up Bones. London: British Museum, Natural History, 1963. Brown, J. M. The Riddle of the Pacific. London: T. Fisher Unwin Ltd., 1924. Buck, Sir P. H. (Te Rangi Hiroa). Maori Somatology. J. Polyn. Soc., 31:37-41, 145-153, 159-170, 1922; 32:2128, 189-199, 1923. . Vikings of the Sunrise. New York: F. A. Stokes Co., 1938. Collins, D. H. The Pathology of Articular and Spinal Diseases. London: E. Arnold and Co., 1949. Cook, J. A Voyage towards the South Pole and round the World (1772-75). Vol. 1, 2nd ed., London, 1777. Davis, J. B. Thesaurus Craniorum. London, 1867. De Quatrefages, A. Sur les races Moriori (lies Chatham) et Maori (Nouvelle Zeelande). Rev. d'Anthrop., 3:95-108, 1874. , and E. T. Hamy. Crania Ethnica. Paris, 1882. De Young, J. E. Preliminary Measurements of the Hawaiian Cranium with an Emphasis upon the Frontal Region. University of Hawaii, thesis, 1-128, 1941. Dixon, R. B. The Racial History of Man. New York: C. Scribner's Sons, 1923. Douglas, R., and J. M. Staveley. The Blood Groups of Cook Islanders. J. Polyn. Soc., 68:14-20, 1959. Duckworth, W. L. H. On a Collection of Crania, with Two Skeletons of the Moriori, or Aborigines of the Chatham Islands. J. Anth. Inst., 30: 141-152, 1900. Duff, R. The Moa-hunter Period of Maori Culture. Canterbury Mus. Bull. No. 1, 1956. . Neolithic Adzes of Eastern Polynesia. In Anthropology in the South Seas, essays presented to H. D. Skinner. New Plymouth, New Zealand: T. Avery and Sons Ltd., pp. 121-147, 1959. Dunn, L. C. An Anthropometric Study of Hawaiians of Pure and Mixed Blood. Papers of Peabody Museum of Harvard University, 11:91-211, 1928.

REFERENCES

Abbie, A. A. Metrical Characters of a Central Australian Tribe. Oceania, 27:220-243, 1957. , and W. R. Adey. The Non-metrical Characters of a Central Australian Tribe. Oceania, 25:198-207, 1955. Aegerter, E., and J. A. Kirkpatrick. Orthopedic Diseases. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Co., 1958. Agiiera y Infanzon, F. A. de. Journal of the Principal Occurrences during the Voyage of the Frigate "Santa Rosalia" in the Year 1770. Cambridge: Hakluyt Society, 2nd ser., No. 13, 1908. Allbrook, D. B. The East African Vertebral Column. A Study in Racial Variability. Am. J. Phys. Anth., 13:489511, 1955. Archer, V. W. The Osseous System. Chicago: Year Book Publishers, 1947. Arnold, J. R., and W. F. Libby. Radiocarbon Dates. Science, 113:111-120, 1951. Ashley, G. T. The Human Sternum. The Influence of Sex and Age on Its Measurements. J. Forensic Med., 3:27-43, 1956. Ashley Montagu, M. F. The Anthropological Significance of the Pterion in Primates. Am. J. Phys. Anth., 18:159336, 1933. . The Medio-frontal Suture and the Problem of Metopism in the Primates. J. Roy. Anth. Inst., 67:157-201, 1937. Barthel, T. The "Talking Boards" of Easter Island. Scientific American, 198:61-68, 1958a. . Grundlagen zur Entzifferung der Osterinselschrift. Abhandlung aus dem Gebiet der Auslandskunde. Universitat Hamburg, Vol. 64, 1958b. -. Review of T. Heyerdahl and E. N. Ferdon's Archaeology of Easter Island. Am. Anth., 65:421-425, 1963. Beechey, F. W. Narrative of a Voyage to the Pacific and Bering's Strait. Philadelphia, 1932. Bennett, W. C. Archeology of Kauai. B. P. Bishop Mus. Bull. 80:1-156, 1931. . The Andean Highlands: An Introduction. Bur. Am. Ethn. Handbook of South American Indians, 2:1-147, 1946. Best, E. The Maori Canoe. An Account of Various Types

93

94


Dupertuis, C. W., and J. A. Hadden. On the Reconstruction of Stature from Long Bones. Am. J. Phys. Anth., 9:15-53, 1951. Elbert, S. H. Internal Relationships of Polynesian Languages and Dialects. Southwestern J. Anth., 9:147-173, 1953. Emory, K. P. Stone Remains in the Society Islands. B. P. Bishop Mus. Bull. 116:1-182, 1933. . Archaeology of Mangareva and Neighboring Atolls. B. P. Bishop Mus. Bull. 163:1-76, 1939. -. Polynesian Stone Remains. In Studies in the Anthropology of Oceania and Asia, presented in memory of R. B. Dixon. Papers of Peabody Museum of Harvard University, 20:9-21, 1943. -. Origin of the Hawaiians. J. Polyn. Soc., 68:29-35, 1959b. -. East Polynesian Relationships. J. Polyn. Soc., 72:78-100, 1963. -, and Y. Sinoto. Radiocarbon Dates Significant for Pacific Anthropology. Pac. Sci. Assoc. Inform. Bull., 11:3, supplement, 1-15, 1959a. Ewing, J. F. Hyperbrachycephaly as Influenced by Cultural Conditioning. Papers of Peabody Museum of Harvard University, 23:2, 1-99, 1950. Fenner, F. J. The Australian Aboriginal Skull: Its Nonmetrical Morphological Characters. Tr. Roy. Soc. South Australia, 63: pt. 2, 248-306, 1939. Ferdon, E. N. Notes on the Present-day Easter Islanders. Southwestern J. Anth., 13:223-238, 1957. . A Summary of the Excavated Record of Easter Island, Prehistory, pp. 527-535. In T. Heyerdahl, and E. N. Ferdon, eds. Reports of the Norwegian Archaeological Expedition to Easter Island and the East Pacific. Vol. 1. Archaeology of Easter Island. Monog. School Am. Res. and Mus. New Mexico, No. 24, pt. 1, 1961. -. Polynesian Origins. Science, 141:449-505, 1963. Flower, Sir W. Catalogue of the Specimens Illustrating the Osteology and Dentition of Vertebrated Animals, Recent and Extinct, Contained in the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, pt. 1, Man., 127-137, 1879. Forster, G. A. Voyage around the World in H.B.M.'s Sloop "Resolution" (1772-75). London, 1777. Gejvall, N.-G. Cremations. In D. Brothwell and E. Higgs. Science in Archaeology. A Comprehensive Survey of Progress and Research. Bristol: Thames and Hudson, 1963. Gershowitz, H. The Diego Factor among Asiatic Indians, Apaches, and West African Negroes; Blood Types of Asiatic Indians and Apaches. Am. J. Phys. Anth., 17:195200, 1959. Gifford, E. W. Archaeological Excavations in Fiji. Univ. Calif. Anth. Rec., 13:3, 189-288, 1951. —: , and D. S. Gifford. Archaeological Excavations in Yap. Univ. Calif. Anth. Rec., 18:2, 149-206, 1959. Gifford, E. W., and D. Shutler. Archaeological Excavations in New Caledonia. Univ. Calif. Anth. Rec., 18:1, 1-148, 1956. Glass, B. On the Evidence of Random Genetic Drift in Human Populations. Am. I. Phys. Anth., 14:541-555, 1956. Gonzalez, Don Felipe. The Voyage of ... to Easter Island in 1770-1. Cambridge: Hakluyt Society, 2nd ser., Vol. 13, 1908. Grace, G. W., Subgrouping of Malayo-Polynesian: A Report of Tentative Findings. Am. Anth., 57:337-339, 1955. Gray, M. P. A Method for Reducing Non-specific Reactions in the Typing of Human Skeletal Material. Am. I. Phys. Anth., 16:135-139, 1958.

Graydon, J. J. Blood Groups and the Polynesians. Mankind. 4:329-339, 1951. Greulich, W. W., and H. Thorns. The Dimensions of the Pelvic Inlet of 789 White Females. Anat. Rec., 72:45-51, 1938. . An X-ray Study of Male Pelvis. Anat. Rec., 75:289299, 1939. Hambley, W. D. Craniometry of New Guinea. Anth. Ser., Field Museum Natural History, Chicago, 25:87-286, 1940. Henckel, O. Contribuciones al estudio de la Antropologia Chilena IX. Observaciones antropologicas acerca de la Isla de Pascua. Bol. Soc. Biol.-de Conception (Chile), 13:83-105, 1939. Herskovits, M. J. The Anthropometry of the American Negro. New York: Columbia University Press, 1930. Heyerdahl, T. American Indians in the Pacific. London: G. Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1952. . Aku-Aku. New York: Pocket Books, Inc., Rand McNally and Co., 1960. -. An Introduction to Easter Island: Geography. In Heyerdahl, T. and E. N. Ferdon, eds. Reports of the Norwegian Archaeological Expedition to Easter Island and the East Pacific. Vol. 1. Archaeology of Easter Island. Monog. School Am. Res. and Mus. New Mexico, No. 24, pt. 1. 1961, pp. 21-33, Vol. 2. Miscellaneous Papers. Monog. School Am. Res. and Mus. New Mexico, the Kon-Tiki Museum (Oslo, Norway), No. 24, pt. 2, 1965. Hooton, E. A. Up from the Ape. New York: Macmillan Co., 1946. Howells, W. W. Anthropometry and Blood Types in Fiji and the Solomon Islands. Anth. Papers, Am. Mus. Nat. His., 33: pt. 4, 283-339, 1933. Hrdlicka, A. Catalog of Human Crania in the United States National Museum Collections. Non-Eskimo People of the Northwest Coast, Alaska, and Siberia. Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus., 94:1-172, 1944. . Practical Anthropometry. Philadelphia: Wistar Institute, 1952. Hunt, E. E. A View of Somatology and Serology in Micronesia. Am. J. Phys. Anth., 8:157-184, 1950. Imbelloni, J. Craneologia de la Isla de Pascua. Buenos Aires: Runa, 4:223-281, 1951. Keen, E. N. Estimation of Stature from Long Bones. A Discussion of Its Reliability. I. Forensic Med., 1:46-51, 1953. Keen, J. A. A Study of the Differences between Male and Female Skulls. Am. J. Phys. Anth., 8:65-79, 1950. Krause, R. Ein beitrag zur kunde der Siidsee-Volker, Part IV, Verzeichniss der Schadel und skelete. Die Ethn.Anthrop. Abteilung des Mus. Godeffry. Hamburg, pp. 545-665, 1881. Kroeber, A. L. Anthropology. New York: Harcourt Brace and Co., 1948. Kulp, J. L., H. W. Feely, and E. T. Lansing. Lament Natural Radiocarbon Measurements, I. Science, 114:565-568, 1951. Lanier, R. R. Some Factors to be Considered in the Study of Lumbosacral Fusion. Am. I. Phys. Anth., 12:363-371, 1954. La Perouse, J. F. de G. A Voyage Round the World Performed in the Years 1785, 1786, 1787 and 1788. Orig. ed. Paris, 1797; English trans., London, 1799. Laughlin, W. S. The Alaska Gateway Viewed from the Aleutian Islands. In Papers on the Physical Anthropology of the American Indian. New York: Viking Fund, Inc., pp. 98-126, 1951. , and J. B. J0rgensen. Isolate Variation in Green-

CRANIAL AND POSTCRANIAL SKELETAL REMAINS FROM EASTER ISLAND landic Eskimo Crania. Acta Genet, et Statist. Medica, 6:3-12, 1956. Layrisse, M. Anthropological Considerations of the Diego (Dia) Antigen. Am. J. Phys. Anth., 16:173-186, 1958. Letterman, G. S. The Greater Sciatic Notch in American Whites and Negroes. Am. J. Phys. Anth., 28:99-116, 1941. Livingstone, F. B. Natural Selection, Disease, and Ongoing Human Evolution, as Illustrated by the ABO Blood Groups. In The Processes of Ongoing Human Evolution. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, pp. 17-27, 1960. McCown, T. D., and Sir A. Keith. The Stone Age of Mount Carmel. The Fossil Human Remains from the LevalloisoMousterian II. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1939. McKern, T. W., and T. D. Stewart. Skeletal Age Changes in Young American Males. Headquarters Quartermaster Development Command, Technical Report EP-45, Natick, Mass., 1957. Manouvrier, L. La Determination de la taille d'apres les grands os des membres. Mem. Soc. d'Anthrop. de Paris, Ser. 2, 4:347-401, 1893. Marshall, D. S. Precondylar Tubercle Incidence Rates. Am. I. Phys. Anth., 13:147-152, 1955. . The Settlement of Polynesia. Scientific American, 195:59-72, 1956a. -. Polynesian Relationships. New Cranial and Linguistic Indicators. Unpublished MS. -, and C. E. Snow. An Evaluation of Polynesian Craniology. Am. I. Phys. Anth., 14:405-427, 1956b. Martin, R. Lehrbuch der Anthropologie. Jena: Verlag von G. Fischer, 1928. Mason, J. A. The Ancient Civilizations of Peru. London: Pelican Books, 1957. Metraux, A. Ethnology of Easter Island. B. P. Bishop Mus. Bull. 160:1-432, 1940. . Easter Island. A Stone-age Civilization of the Pacific. New York: Oxford University Press, 1957. Meyer, A. B., and J. lablonowski. 24 Menschen-Schadel von der Oster Insel. Konigl Zool. und Anthrop-Ethnogr. Mus. zn Dresden, Abh. und Ber., 9:4, 1901. Mollison, T. Beitrag zur Kraniologie und Osteologie der Maori. Zeitschr. Morph. u. Anthrop., 11:529-595, 1908. Motulsky, A. G. Metabolic Polymorphisms and the Role of Infectious Diseases in Human Evolution. In The Processes of Ongoing Human Evolution. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, pp. 28-62, 1960. Mourant, A. E. The Distribution of the Human Blood Groups. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas, 1954. Murphy, T. The Pterion in the Australian Aborigine. Am. I. Phys. Anth., 14:225-244, 1956. Newman, M. T. Indian Skeletal Material from the Central Coast of Peru, with a synopsis of the archaeology by Gordon R. Wiley. Papers of Peabody Museum of Harvard University, 27:4, 1-71, 1947. Oetteking, B. On the Morphological Significance of Certain Cranio-vertebral Variations. Anat. Rec., 25:339-353, 1923. . Craniology of the North Pacific Coast. Mem. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 11:1-391, 1930. Pearson, K. On the Reconstruction of the Stature of Prehistoric Races. Philos.-Tr. Roy. Soc., Ser. A (Mathematical), 192:169-244, 1898. , and I. Bell. A Study of the Long Bones of the English Skeleton. Pt. I. The Femur. Drap Co. Mem., Biom. Ser., 10:1-224, 1919. Petri, H. Eine Schadelserie von der Osterinsel. Mitteil, Anthrop. Ges. Wien., 66:17-29, 1936. Pinart, A. Exploration de 1'Ile de Paques. Bull. Soc. Geog. de Paris, 16:193-213, 1878.

95

Poll, H. Ueber schaedel und skelete der bewohner der Chatham-Inseln. Zeitschr. f. Morph. u. Anthrop., 5:1134, 1903. Rahm, P. G. Observaciones sobre los grupos sanguineos en la Isla de Pascua. Bol. Soc. de Biol.-de Conception (Chile), 5/6:59-62, 1931-32. Ray, L. J. Metrical and Non-metrical Features of the Clavicle of the Australian Aboriginal. Am. I. Phys. Anth., 17:217-226, 1959. Riesenfeld, A. The Racial Characteristics of the Early "Polynesians" in Melanesia. Man., 50:25-28, 1950. Roberts, D. F. The Cretans. A Geographical Analysis of Some Aspects of Their Physical Anthropology. J. Roy. Anth. Inst., 84:145-157, 1954. Rogers, S. L. Paa-ko. Archaeological Chronicle of an Indian Village in North Central New Mexico. Pt. 6. The Physical Type of the Paa-ko Population. Monog. School Am. Res., Santa Fe, N.M., No. 19, pt. 4, 1-48, 1954. Roggeveen, M. J. (1722) Extract from the Official Log of the Voyage of Mynheer Jacob Roggeveen (1721-22). Cambridge: Hakluyt Society, 2nd Ser., 13, 1908. Routledge, C. S. The Mystery of Easter Island. London: printed by Hazell, Watson, and Viney and sold by Sifton Praed and Co. Ltd., 1919. Sahlins, M. D. Social Stratification in Polynesia. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1958. Salzano, F. M. The Blood Groups of South American Indians. Am. J. Phys. Anth., 15:555-579, 1957. Schlaginhaufen, O. Uber eine Schadelserie von den Marianen. Jahrbuch 1905. St. Gallisch. Naturv. Gesellsch. St. Gallen, 1906. Schofield, G. Metric and Morphological Features of the Femur of the New Zealand Maori. J. Roy. Anth. Inst., 89:89-105, 1959. Scott, J. H. Contribution to the Osteology of the Aborigines of New Zealand and the Chatham Islands. Tr. New Zealand Inst., 26:1-64, 1893. Shapiro, H. L. Descendants of the Mutineers of the Bounty. B. P. Bishop Mus. Mem., 11: No. 1, 3-106, 1929. . The Physical Anthropology of the Society Islanders. B. P. Bishop Mus. Mem., 11: No. 4, 275-311, 1930. -. Physical Characteristics of the Ontong-Javanese: A Contribution to the Study of the Non-Melanesian Elements in Melanesia. Anth. Papers, Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 33: pt. 3, 231-278, 1933. -. The Heritage of the Bounty. New York: Simon and Schuster Co., 1936a. -. The Physical Anthropology of the Maori-Moriori. J. Polyn. Soc., 49:1-15, 1940a. -. The Physical Relationships of the Easter Islanders. B. P. Bishop Mus. Bull., 160:24-30, 1940b. -. Distribution of Blood Groups in Polynesia. Am. J. Phys. Anth., 24:409-416, 1940c. -. The Anthropometry of Pukapuka. Anth. Papers, Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 38: pt. 3, 145-168, 1942. -. Physical Differentiation in Polynesia. In Studies in the Anthropology of Oceania and Asia, presented in memory of R. B. Dixon. Papers of Peabody Museum of Harvard University, 20:3-8, 1943. -. Les lies Marquises. Nat. Hist., 67: pt. 1, 208-214; pt. 2, 262-270, 1958. -, and P. H. Buck. Physical Characters of the Cook Islanders. B. P. Bishop Mus. Mem., 12: No. 1, 3-35, 1936b. Sharp, A. Ancient Voyagers in the Pacific. London: Pelican Books, 1957. Simmons, R. T. A Report on Blood Group Genetical Surveys in Eastern Asia, Indonesia, Melanesia, Micronesia, Poly-

96

cranialandpostcranialskeletalremainsfromeasterisland

nesia and Australia in the Study of Man. Anthropos., 51:500-512, 1956. -. The Diego (Di a ) Blood Group: Tests in Some Pacific Peoples. Nature, 179:970-971, 1957b. -, D. C. Gajdusek, and L. C. Larkin. A Blood Group Genetical Survey in New Britain. Am. J. Phys. Anth., 18:101-108, 1960. Simmons, R. T., and J. J. Graydon. The Rh Blood Types in Australian Aborigines. Med. J. Australia, 2:113-119, 1948. . A Comparison of the Blood Groups, Subgroups, M-N and Rh Types Found in Java with Those Found in Other Parts of Indonesia, Together with a Summary of the Evidence for North-South Gradients in the Values for the Blood Genes q, m, and R1. Med. J. Australia, 1:173-179, 1951a. -. A Blood Group Genetical Survey in Eastern and Central Polynesians. Am. J. Phys. Anth., 15:357-366, 1957c. -, J. Avias, and E. J. Williams. Blood-group, M-N Type and Rh Type Frequencies in New Caledonians and the Loyalty and Pine Islanders. Med. J. Australia, 1:733740, 1949. Simmons, R. T., J. J. Graydon, and N. M. Semple. A Further Blood Genetical Survey in Micronesia: Palauans, Trukese and Kapingas. Med. J. Australia, 2:589-596, 1953. , and E. I. Fry. A Blood Group Genetical Survey in Cook Islanders, Polynesia, and Comparisons with American Indians. Am. J. Phys. Anth., 13:667-690, 1955. Simmons, R. T., J. J. Graydon, N. M. Semple, and S. Malcolm. A Blood Group Genetical Survey in New Hebrideans at Efate. Med. J. Australia, 1:547-551, 1954. Simmons, R. T., J. J. Graydon, N. M. Semple, and C. N. D. Taylor. Blood, Taste, and Secretion. A Genetical Survey in Maoris. Med. J. Australia, 1:425-431, 1951b. Simmons, R. T., N. M. Semple, J. B. Cleland, and J. R. Casley-Smith. A Blood Group Genetical Survey in Australian Aborigines at Haast's Bluff, Central Australia. Am. J. Phys. Anth., 15:547-553, 1957a. Singer, R. Estimation of Age from Cranial Suture Closure. A Report of Its Unreliability. J. Forensic Med., 1:46524659, 1953. Skottsberg, C. The Natural History of Juan Fernandez and Easter Island, 2; pt. 4, Ch. 17, Uppsala, 1928. Smith, C. S. A Temporal Sequence Derived from Certain Ahu. In T. Heyerdahl and E. N. Ferdon, eds. Reports of the Norwegian Archaeological Expedition to Easter Island and the East Pacific. Vol. 1. Archaeology of Easter Island. Monog. School Am. Res. and Mus. New Mexico, No. 24, pt. 1, pp. 181-219, 1961. Smith, H. I. Shell-heaps of the Lower Fraser River. Mem. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 4: pt. 4, pp. 133-191, 1900-09. . Archeology of the Gulf of Georgia and Puget Sound. Mem. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 4: pt. 6, pp. 301-441, 1900-09. Smith, M. Blood Groups of the Ancient Dead. Science, 131:699-702, 1960. Smith, S. P. Hawaii, The Original Home of the Maori. London: Whitcombe and Tombs, Ltd., 1910. Speiser, E. A. Anthropologische messungen aus den St. Cruz-Inseln. Archiv. f. Anthrop., 19:89-146, 1923. Stein, I., R. O. Stein, and M. L. Beller. Living Bone in Health and Disease. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1955. Stewart, T. D. Anthropometric Nomenclature. II. The Indices of Head Height. Am. J. Phys. Anth., 29:23-39, 1942. . Skeletal Remains from Paracas, Peru. Am. J. Phys. Anth., 1:47-63, 1943.

. Sex Determination of the Skeleton by Guess and by Measurement. Am. J. Phys. Anth., 12:385-392, 1954. -, and A. Spoehr. Evidence on the Paleopathology of Yaws. Bull. History of Medicine, 26: No. 6, 538-553, 1952. Suggs, R. C. Historical Traditions and Archeology in Polynesia. Am. Anth., 62:764-773, 1960a. . The Island Civilizations of Polynesia. New York: Mentor Books, 1960b. -. The Archeology of Nuku Hiva, Marquesas Islands, French Polynesia. Anth. Papers, Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 49: pt. 1, 1-205, 1961. -. Reply to E. N. Ferdon's Polynesian Origins. Science, 142:1252-1255, 1963. Sullivan, L. R. Contribution to Samoan Somatology. B. P. Bishop Mus. Mem., 7: No. 2, 81-98, 1921. . Contribution to Tongan Somatology. B. P. Bishop Mus. Mem., 7: No. 4, 233-240, 1922. -. Marquesan Somatology with Comparative Notes on Samoa and Tonga. B. P. Bishop Mus. Mem., 9: No. 2, 141-249, 1923. -. Observations on Hawaiian Somatology. B. P. Bishop Mus. Mem., 9: No. 4, 269-342, 1927. Telkka, A. On the Prediction of Human Stature from the Long Bones. Acta Anatomica, 9:103-117, 1950. Tessier, R. Etude demographique sur les etablissements francais de 1'Oceania. Bull. Soc. d'Etudes Oceaniennes, No. 102, 6-31, 1953. Thieme, F. P., and C. M. Otten. The Unreliability of Blood Typing Aged Bone. Am. J. Phys. Anth., 15:387-397, 1957. , and H. E. Sutton. A Blood Typing of Human Skull Fragments from the Pleistocene. Am. J. Phys. Anth., 14:437-443, 1956. Thompson, E. Y. A Study of the Crania of the Moriori, or Aborigines of the Chatham Islands. Biometrika, 11:83135, 1915-17. Thomson, A. The Orbito-Maxillary Frontal Suture in Man and the Apes, with Notes on the Varieties of the Human Lachrymal Bone. J. Anat. and Phys., 24:349-357, 1890. Thomson, W. J. Te Pito te Henua or Easter Island. U.S. Nat. Mus. Ann. Report, pp. 447-552, 1889. Tildesley, M. L. The Waterproofing of a Test Skull and Measurement of Its Water Capacity. Man., 48: No. 55, 50-52, 1948. Tobin, W. J., and T. D. Stewart. Gross Osteopathology. The Upper End of the Femur. Ch. 7. Am. Acad. Orthop. Surgeons, Instructional Course Lectures, 10:213-223, 1953a. . Gross Osteopology of Arthritis. In Clinical Orthopaedics. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Co., No. 2, 167183, 1953b. Trotter, M. Hair from Paracas Indian Mummies. Am. J. Phys. Anth., 1:69-75, 1943. , O. H. Duggins, and F. M. Setzler. Hair of Australian Aborigines (Arnhem Land). Am. J. Phys. Anth., 14:649-659, 1956. Trotter, M., and G. C. Gleser. Estimation of Stature from Long Bones of American Whites and Negroes. Am. J. Phys. Anth., 10:463-514, 1952. . A Re-evaluation of Estimation of Stature Eased on Measurements of Stature Taken during Life and of Long Bones after Death. Am. J. Phys. Anth., 16:79-123, 1958. Turner, Sir W. Report on the Human Skeletons Collected during the Voyage of H.M.S. Challenger, in the Years

CRANIAL AND POSTCRANIAL SKELETAL REMAINS FROM EASTER ISLAND 1873-1876. The Crania. Zoology 10, London: Longmans and Co., 1884. Vayda, A. P. Polynesian Culture Distributions in New Perspective. Am. Anth., 61:817-828, 1959. Volz, W. Beitrage zur Anthropologie der Suedsee. Arch. F. Anthrop., 23:97-169, 1895. Von Bonin, G. A Contribution to the Craniology of the Easter Islanders. Biometrika, 23:249-270, 1931. Von Luschan, F. Sammlung Baessler, Schadel von Polynesischen Inseln. Veroff. a. d. Kgl. Mus. f. Volkerkunde, 12, Berlin, 1907. Wagner, K. The Craniology of the Oceanic Races. Schifter, Utgitt, Av. Det. Norske. Videnskaps-Academi i. Oslo, 1. Mat-Naturv. Klasse. No. 2, 7-193, 1937. Weckler, J. E. Polynesians, Explorers of the Pacific. Smithsonian Inst. War Background Studies No. 6, 1-77, 1943. Weidenreich, F. The External Tubercle of the Human Tuber Calcanei. Anth. Papers of F. Weidenreich, 1939-48, Viking Fund, Inc., pp. 99-113, 1949. Weisbach, A. Der Maori-Schaedel. Mitteil, Anthrop. Ges. Wien., 20:32-37, 1890. Wilder, H. H. A Laboratory Manual of Anthropometry. Philadelphia: P. Blakiston's Son and Co., 1920. Wilhelm, O., and L. Sandoval. Genealogias y sero-anthro-

97

pologia de los Pascuenses. Bol. Soc. Biol.-de Concepcion (Chile), 31:119-139, 1956. Wilson, H., J. J. Graydon, R. T. Simmons, and L. M. Bryce. The Blood Groups of Australian Aborigines. Med. J. Australia, 2:581-589, 1944. Won, C. D., H. S. Shin, S. W. Kim, J. Swanson, and G. A. Matson. Distribution of Hereditary Blood Factors among Koreans Residing in Seoul, Korea. Am. J. Phys. Anth., 18:115-124, 1960. Wood Jones, F. The Polynesian Race. A Question of Anthropometric Method. Man., 30:60-64, 1930. . The Non-metrical Morphological Characters of the Skull as Criteria for Racial Diagnosis. Part II. The Nonmetrical Morphological Characters of the Hawaiian Skull. J. Anat. (London), 65:368-378, 193la. -. The Non-metrical Morphological Characters of the Skull as Criteria for Racial Diagnosis. Part III. The Nonmetrical Morphological Characters of the Skulls of Prehistoric Inhabitants of Guam. J. Anat. (London), 65:438445, 193 Ib. Zuckerkandl, E. Cranien der Novara-Sammlung. Reise der Oesterreichschen Fregatte Novarn. Anthrop. Theil. Erste Abteilung, ans. d. Kais. Koenig. Hof. U. Staatsdr. Vienna, 1875.


Index


Ariki-paka (nobles), 58 Arrowroot, crop on Easter Island, 57 Arthritis, pathological evidence of in Easter Islanders, 55 Asia, possible source of Polynesian migrations, 82 Asiatic Indians, blood groups of, 79 Auditory meatus, in grouped males, 26 Austral Islands, 81 Australia: crania from compared with those from Easter Island, 62, 63; traits of seen in Easter Islanders, 66; blood groups of populations from, 69, 70, 71-72, 78, 79 Aztecs, tradition of about European-like peoples in America, 74

x index INDEX

Bananas, crop on Easter Island, 57 Barthel, Thomas S., unraveled rongorongo script, 81 Basilar region, data on described, 26 Basket Maker Indians, hair index of, 73 Beechey, F. W.: quoted on stature of Easter Islanders, 54; quoted on fertility of Easter Island, 57 Bellows Air Force Base, 83 Biological homogeneity, see Racial continuity Blood group gene frequencies, see Blood types, typing Blood types, typing: of living Easter Islanders, 67, 68; of MurrilFs sample, 68, 77, 78; frequencies in selected populations compared, 69-70, 71-72; drawbacks of typing of ancient bone, 77, 77-78; selection of by environment, 79 Bormida, M., estimation of stature of Easter Islanders by, 54 Bowen, R. N., quoted on cremation in Hawaii, 83 Broca scale, modified, used for glabella type, 12, 27 Burial customs on Easter Island: 83; Mulloy quoted on, 3; Heyerdahl quoted on, 83

ABO blood group system: 68-72, 77-79; evidence from that Polynesians from East Asia, 79 Adzes: similarities of on Easter Island and Marquesas, 81; types of from various areas compared with Polynesian, 82 Africa, northwestern possibly original home of migrants to Easter Island, 73 Age, distribution of crania by, 5 Agriculture, on Easter Island, 57, 58 Aguera y Infanzon, F. A. de, quoted on fertility of Easter Island, 57 Ahu, entombment in one of many burial practices, 3, 83. See also Ahus Hekii, Tepeu, Vinapu Ahu Hekii: location of, 3, 4; crania from, 3, 55; measurements and indices of crania from, 10-12, 15-16; morphological observations on crania from, 22-23; blood typing of bones from, 77 Ahu Tepeu: 3, 53, 82; location of, 3, 4; measurements and indices of crania from, 8-9, 10-12, 13-14, 15-16, 19-20; morphological observations on crania from, 22-23; bones of the hand from, 33; measurements and indices of postcrania from, 34-35, 36-41, 42-43, 44-46; bones of foot from, 50; blood typing of bones from, 77 Ahu Vinapu: location of, 3, 4; measurements and indices of crania from, 10-12, 15-16; morphological observations on crania from, 22-23; measurements and indices of postcrania from, 36-41, 44-46; engraved skull from, 58; blood typing of bones from, 77; enclosed court from Early period at, 82 Ainu, relation of to Easter Islanders, 66 Aitutaki Island, blood group genetical survey on, 78 A li'i, 83 American Indians: blood groups of, 70, 72, 79; adzes like those of North Asia, unlike those of South Asia and Polynesia, 82 Americans, skeletons of white and Negro used in estimation of stature, 52, 54 Archaeology, evidence from that Easter Islanders from Polynesia, 81-83,84 Ariki-mau (great chief), 58

Calcaneus, for grouped males, 51 Carbon-14 dating: of skeletal materials from Easter Island, 3, 3-5; technique of too recent for most samples from Easter Island, 59; evidence from of war between Longand Short-ears, 67, 68; of material from Hawaii, 80; of remains from Ahu Tepeu, 82-83 Calvarium interior, data on described, 27 Canary Islands, possibly original home of migrants to Easter Island, 73 Carbon dioxide method of dating, used on Paracas mummies, 74 Caskey, Carolyn, assisted in blood typing of Easter Island sample, 77 Caucasoids: Heyerdahl's theory of migration of to Polynesia, 73, 74; blood group of, 79 Chatham Islands, crania from compared with those from Easter Island, 61,62, 63 Chicama, femura from, 73 Chickens, on Easter Island, 57 Children, few skeletal remains of, 5 Chilean sample from Easter Island, Imbelloni's, 59, 60 Chin form, for grouped males, 28 Chin projection, for grouped males, 28 Chinese: gene frequencies of fall into Polynesian ranges, 79; adzes of like Polynesian, 82 Clavicle, for grouped males, 33 Clayoquot tribe, 74 Collins, D. H., on rheumatoid arthritis, 55 Condyle elevations, in grouped males, 26 Cook, Captain James, visit of to Easter Island, 57, 68 Cook Islands: crania from compared with those from Easter Island, 62, 63; blood group genetical survey on, 78, 79 Cooking, method of on Easter Island, 58 101

102


Cranial capacity: technique of measuring, 6, 9; for grouped males, 9 Cranial index, for grouped males, 7 Craniostat drawings: 29; discussed, 28-32 Cranium, of adult male: described, 55; illustrated, 56 Crawford, Lord, 59 Cremation burials, in Polynesia, 83 Crops, on Easter Island, 57 Cuboid, for grouped males, 51 Cuneiform bones, for grouped males, 51 Dehiscences, in grouped males, 26 De Quatrefages, A., and E. T. Hamy, sample of from Easter Island, 59, 66 De Young, J. E., cranial research of, 61 Diego blood group system, 79 Disease, on Easter Island, 55 Dispersion analysis: of male cranial measurements, 7, 17-18; for morphological observations on male crania, 24-26; for male postcranial measurements and indices, 33, 4748 Dixon, R. B., conclusions of about source of Easter Island population, 66 Duff, R., quoted on adze types, 82 Dupertuis, C. W., and J. A. Hadden, regression equations of for stature, 52, 53, 54 Dutch, hair index of, 73 Early period: 24-25; defined, 3-5; no skeletal remains dated definitely for, 59, 67, 83, 84; unlikely that population of Negroid, 67; enclosed court from at Ahu Vinapu, 82; possible cremation burial in, 83 East Asia, blood groups of populations from, 69-70, 71-72, 78,79 Easter Island, map of, 4 Elbert, S. H., 80 Emory, K. P., quoted on the languages of Polynesia, 80-81, 81 Endocranial suture closure, technique of, ages of crania assessed by, 5 Eskimos, from eastern Canadian Arctic, blood group of, 79 Ethnology, evidence from that Easter Islanders from Polynesia, 81-83, 84 Europeans: measurements of vertebrae of, 48, 49; male tibia of compared with Easter Islander's, 50; measurements of bones of feet of, 51 External pterygoid plates, for grouped males, 26 Facial height, for grouped males, 7 Females: few skeletal remains of, 5, 7; skulls of analyzed, 28, 32; skulls of illustrated, 29, 31 Femura: for grouped males, 49; from various sources compared, 73, 74 Ferdon, Edwin N., Jr., noted trait parallels between Easter Island and South America, 82 Fibula: for grouped males, 50; curved, 55; of adult male described and illustrated, 55, 56 Fiji Islands: crania from, 61, 62; occupied by Malayo-Polynesian speakers, 82 Finns, skeletons of used in estimation of stature, 54 Fishing, on Easter Island, 57-58 Foot: reconstructed male foot illustrated, 50; enough bones to reconstruct male and female, 50-51; measurements of European,51 Foramen magnum, for grouped males, 9 Foramina frontale, for grouped males, 12 Foramina supraorbitale, for grouped males, 12

Forehead height, measurement of, 6 Form-norma verticalis and -norma occipitalis, 12 Forster, Johann Georg Adam: quoted on stature of Easter Islanders, 54; quoted on soil of Easter Island, 57 Fossa praenasalis, for grouped males, 27 Frenchmen, skeletons of used in estimation of stature, 54 Friendly Islands, see Tonga Islands Frontal bosses, for grouped males, 12 Frontal region, data on discussed, 12, 21 Frontal slope angle, measurement of, 6 Fry, E. I., see Simmons, Roy T. Geiseler, Kapitanlieutenant, 59 Genial tubercles, for grouped males, 28 Gifford, E. W.: 82; and D. Shutler, 82 Glabella type: for grouped males, 12; based on modified Broca scale, 12,27 Glenoid fossa depth, for grouped males, 26 Gleser, G. C., see Trotter, Mildred Gonions, eversion of, for grouped males, 28 Gourds, crop on Easter Island, 57 Graydon, J. J., theory of of relation of Polynesian to American Indian, 79. See also Simmons, Roy T. Guam, crania from: 61; compared with those from Easter Island, 62, 63 Ha'atuatua Site, in Marquesas, 81-82 Hadden, J. A., see Dupertuis, C. W. Hair index, of various groups, 73 Hamy, E. T., see De Quatrefages, A. Hanau-eepe, see Long-ears Hanau-momoko, see Short-ears Hand, for grouped males, 33, 46 Hanga-o-honu (Turtle Bay), 3 Hangaroa, 3 "Hare moa," 83 Hawaii: crania from, 60, 61; frontal outlines of males from compared with those from Easter Island, 61; head-shaping in, 62; crania and postcrania from compared with those from Easter Island, 62, 63, 74, 75, 76; role of in Heyerdahl's theory of populating of Polynesia, 73; relation of language of to other Polynesian languages, 80, 81; cremation in, 83 Helsinki University, skeletal collection of, 52 Henckel, O., sample of from Easter Island, 59, 67 Heyerdahl, Thor: 81; expedition of to Polynesia, 3, 77; theories of about Long- and Short-ears, 67; theory of of populating of Polynesia, 73-74; critique by of Murrill's interpretation of skeletal remains from Easter Island, 8283; quoted on cremation and burial customs, 83 Hopi Indians, hair index of, 73 Hotu-matua, leader of Polynesian migration to Easter Island, 57,67 Hrdlicka, Ales, cranial data of, 73 Humerus: for grouped males, 33; of adult described and illustrated, 55, 56 Imbelloni, J., sample of from Easter Island, 59, 67 Inca bones, for grouped males, 26 Incas, tradition of about European-like peoples of America, 74 Indonesia: blood groups of populations from, 69-70, 71-72, 78, 79; relation of language of to Polynesian languages, 80-81; adze of like Polynesian, 82 Infra-orbital suture — left or right, for grouped males, 27 Infra-temporal fossa depth, measurement of, 5, 6 Inion size, for grouped males, 21

CRANIAL AND POSTCRANIAL SKELETAL REMAINS FROM EASTER ISLAND Ivi-atua (priests), 58 Ivory Coast, blood group of tribes from, 79 Jablonowski, J., see Meyer, A. B. Japanese: measurements of vertebrae of, 48; gene frequencies of fall into Polynesian ranges, 79 Johnson, Elden, 83 Kanaka class, 83 Kapingamarangi, blood group genetical survey of, 78 Kapu, 83 Keith, Sir Arthur, see McCown, T. D. Knoche, W., 67 Korean war, skeletons from used to calculate stature, 52 Koreans, Diego blood group in, 79 Koskimo tribe: 74; crania from compared with Easter Islanders', 74, 76 Kroeber, A. L., quoted, 82 Kwakiutl: theory of migration from to Polynesia, 73; crania from compared with those from Easter Island, 74, 75, 76 La Perouse, Jean Francois de Galaup, quoted on agriculture of Easter Island, 57 La Perouse Bay, 3 Lambdoid flattening, for grouped males, 21 Late Chancay Indians, 74, 76 Late period: 83; average age of males of, 5; defined, 5; skeletal material from, 5, 67; measurements and indices of crania from, 7, 10-12, 15-16; means of male crania and postcrania from compared with that from Middle period, 7, 33; morphological observations on male crania from, 24-26; postcranial measurements and indices from, 33, 36-41, 44-46; Murrill's sample from, 59; male physical type of like Polynesian, 59-62, 67, 83; crania from like Polynesian, 61, 62 Laughlin, W. S., on reliability of gene frequencies, 77 Lee Pearson "interracial" formula, used to measure cranial capacity, 9 Leone, Charles A., performed blood typing of Murrill's sample, 77 Letterman technique, used to measure sacro-sciatic notches, 49 Liberia, blood groups of tribes from, 79 Linguistics, evidence from that Easter Islanders from Polynesia, 80-81,84 Livingstone, F. B., quoted on blood gene selection by environment, 79 Long-ears (Hanau-eepe): war of with Short-ears, 67; legends and theories about discussed, 67-68 Loyalty Islands, crania of, 66 McCown, T. D., and Sir Arthur Keith, quoted, 49, 50 Malar area, measurement of, 6 Malar height, measurement of, 6 Malar projection: lateral, 27; anterior, 27 Malar region, data on described, 27 Malar size, for grouped males, 27 Malar width, measurement of, 6 Malayo-Polynesian, family of languages, 80, 82 Mandible: 12; data on described, 28; size for grouped males, 28. See also "Rocker" mandible Mandibular torus, absent in grouped males, 28 Mangareva, crania from, 60 Manouvrier, L., tables of for estimation of stature, 52 Maori Islands: measurement of talus from, 51; curved fibula in skeletons of, 55; precondylar tubercles in skeletons of, 61; crania from compared with those from Easter Island,

103

62, 63; only published postcranial sample from, 65; relation of population of to Easter Islanders, 66; language of, 81 Marama tribe, blood types of descendants of, 67 Marquesas Islands: crania from compared with those from Easter Island, 62, 63, 66; collection of blood samples on, 77-78, 79; language of probably carried to Easter Island, 80, 81; script in, 81; possible source of Easter Islanders, 81, 84; date of settling of, 82 Marshall, D. S.: on Polynesian precondylar tubercles, 61; quoted on crania from Polynesia, 62, 65; and C. E. Snow, quoted on morphology of Polynesian crania, 59-60 Martin, R., various skeletal measurements by, 48, 51, 52 Mastoid size, for grouped males, 21 Matatoa (warriors), 58 Maya Indians, hair index of, 73 Mean height index, described, 6 Median sagittal craniogram measurements, indices, and angles, 9, 11, 12,14,16,18 Melanesia: crania from compared with Polynesian, 60, 62, 65; crania from, 61; traits of population of seen in Easter Islanders, 66; blood groups of populations from, 69-70, 71-72, 78, 79; relation of to early Polynesian culture, 82 Mesa Verde Indians, hair index of, 73 Metacarpels, index of used to determine size of hand, 33, 46 Metatarsal bones, for grouped males, 51 Metopism: for grouped males, 21; illustrated, 27 Metraux, A.: quoted on water and crops on Easter Island, 57; on war between Long- and Short-ears, 67; analysis by of Easter Island culture, 81 Mexicans, equations for determining stature of, 52 Meyer, A. B., and J. Jablonowski, sample of from Easter Island, 59, 66 Micronesia: crania from compared with Polynesian, 60, 62; crania from, 61; blood groups of populations from, 6970, 71-72, 78, 79; possible migratory gateway to Polynesia, 82 Middle period: defined, 5; skeletal material from, 5, 67, 83-84; measurements and indices of crania from, 7, 8-9, 1314; crania and postcrania from compared with that from Late period, 7, 33; postcranial measurements and indices from, 33, 34—35, 42-43, 46; Murrill's sample from, 59; male physical type of like Polynesian, 59-62, 67, 83; crania from like Polynesian, 61, 62; cremation burial in, 83 Miru tribe, blood types of descendants of, 67 MN blood group system, 78, 79 Mongol types, in America, 74 Montagu, Ashley, cranial research of, 61 Morant, A. E., on racial likeness of Easter Islanders, 66 Moriori Island: crania from compared with those from Easter Island, 62, 63; relation of population of to Easter Islanders, 66 Morphological observations: of crania, 7-32; of individual crania, 12, 19-20, 22-23, 24-26; of postcrania, 33-51; of individual postcrania, 34-35, 36-41; of Easter Islanders compared with other selected groups, 74, 75, 76 Mulloy, William, 3 Murrill, Rupert Ivan, 82 Mylohyoid ridge, for grouped males, 28 Nasal bone growth, for grouped males, 27 Nasal bridge height and width, for grouped males, 27 Nasal profile, for grouped males, 27 Nasal region, data on described, 27 Nasal root height and width, for grouped males, 27 Nasal sills, for grouped males, 27

104


Nasal spine, for grouped males, 27 Nasion depression, for grouped males, 27 Navajo Indians, hair index of, 73 Negroes, Negroid: skeletons of used to calculate stature, 52, 54; crania from, 61; unlikely element in Easter Island population, 67 New Britain, blood group of natives of, 79 New Caledonia: crania of compared with those from Easter Island, 61, 66; occupied by Malayo-Polynesian speakers, 82 New Zealand: 54; crania from compared with those from Easter Island, 60, 62, 63; language of, 80, 81 Newman, M. T., quoted on Peruvian skeletal remains, 74 Nightshade, crop on Easter Island, 57 Nimkish tribe, 74 Nootka: theory of migration from to Polynesia, 73; crania from compared with those from Easter Island, 74, 75, 76 Norma facialis: craniostat drawings of, 28, 29; illustrated, 29, 30,31 Norma lateralis: craniostat drawings of, 28, 29; illustrated, 29,30,31 Norma occipitalis, illustrated, 30, 31 Norma verticalis: craniostat drawings of, 28, 29; illustrated, 29,30,31 North America: blood groups of populations from, 70, 72, 78, 79; crania of Indians from compared with Polynesian, 73, 79; theory of migration from to Polynesia, 73. See also American Indians Norwegian Archaeological Expedition to Easter Island and the East Pacific, 3 Nose, for grouped males, 7 Nuku Hiva Island, collection of blood samples on, 77-78 Oahu, cremation on, 83 Occipital region, data on discussed, 21 Occipital ruggedness, for grouped males, 21 Occipital torus shape, for grouped males, 21 Occipital torus size, for grouped males, 21 Oetteking, B., morphological observations of, 74 Orbital inclination, for grouped males, 27 Orbital region, data on described, 27 Orbital shape, for grouped males, 7, 27 Orbito-maxillary frontal suture, for grouped males, 27 Os naviculare, for grouped males, 51 Otten, C. M., see Thieme, F. P. Pachacamac, femora from, 73 Palate shape, for grouped males, 7, 26 Palatine torus, for grouped males, 26 Palauans, blood group genetical survey of, 69, 78 Pancarcancha, femura from, 73 Paper mulberry trees, on Easter Island, 57 Papua Coast: crania from, 66; blood group of population of, 69,79 Paracas Necropolis Indian mummies: 73; hair index of, 73; femura from, 73, 74; crania and postcrania of compared with Easter Islanders', 74, 75,76 Parietal bosses, for grouped males, 21 Parietal notch bone, for grouped males, 21 Parietal region, data on discussed, 21 Pearson, K.: "interracial" formula of used to measure cranial capacity, 9; tables of for estimation of stature, 52, 53, 54; coefficient of racial likeness of, 66 Pelvis, for grouped males, 49 Peru: 81; Heyerdahl's theory of migration from to Polynesia, 67,73 Peruvian Central Coast Incised Indians, 74, 76

Petri, H., sample of from Easter Island, 59 Petrous depression, for grouped males, 26 Pinart, Alphonse-L., 59 Poike (Eastern headland of Easter Island): 67; battle of Longand Short-ears at, 67, 67-68 Polynesia: physical type of, 28, 55, 59-62, 66, 67, 74, 81, 83; crania of discussed, 59-62; triangle of illustrated, 64; so little published on postcrania from that comparison with Easter Island impossible, 65; traits of in Easter Islanders, 66, 67, 74; blood groups of populations from, 69-70, 7172, 78, 79; Heyerdahl's 7956 expedition to, 77; theory of migrations to from Southeast Asia, 78-79; theory of linguistic development in, 80-81, 82; evidence suggests Easter Islanders from, 83-84 Ponape, 78 Postcoronal depression, for grouped males, 21 Posterior condyloid foramen, for grouped males, 26 Postglenoid process, for grouped males, 26 Precondylar tubercles: for grouped males, 26; Polynesian trait, 61 Prognathism, for grouped males, 7 "Proto-Negroids," in Dixon's theory, 66 Pterion type — left or right, for grouped males, 21 Pterygoid attachment, for grouped males, 28 Racial continuity, from Middle to Late period: 59; cranial evidence for, 7; postcranial evidence for, 33 Radiocarbon date, see Carbon-14 dating Radio-humeral index, for grouped males, 33 Radius, for grouped males, 33 Raivavae. 81 Rano Aroi, 3 Rapalti, 81 Rarotonga Island, blood group genetical survey on, 78 Rats, black, on Easter Island, 57 Rh blood group system, 78, 79 Right superior sagittal sinus, for grouped males, 27 Roberts, D. F., quoted on use of D2 in initial stages of analysis, 65 "Rocker" mandible: and facial height, 7; described and illustrated, 28; in grouped males, 28; characteristic of Polynesians, 28, 60; omitted from Marshall's analysis, 65 Rogers, S. L., on dry bone material, 55 Roggeveen, M. I.: quoted on stature of Easter Islanders, 54; quoted on climate of Easter Island, 57 Rollet, 52 Rongorongo script: discussed, 81; like that of South America, 82 Routledge, C. S.: 59; implied that Long-ears might have been Negroid, 67 Sacrum, for grouped males, 49 Sagittal elevation, for grouped males, 21 Salzano, F. M., quoted on blood typing, 78 Samoa: crania from compared with those from Easter Island, 62, 63; language of, 80 Sandoval, L., see Wilhelm, O. Sandwich Islands, crania from compared with those from Easter Island, 66 Santa Cruz Islands, crania from compared with those from Easter Island, 62, 63 Scapula, for grouped males, 33 Scott, I. H.: on curved fibula, 55; published only sample from Maori, 65 Semple, N. M., see Simmons, Roy T. Sex: chronology of skeletal material by, 5; distribution of crania by, 5; variations by in cranial remains, 7, 8-9, 10-

CRANIAL AND POSTCRANIAL SKELETAL REMAINS FROM EASTER ISLAND 12, 13-14, 15-16; postcranial measurements and indices by, 33, 34-35, 36-41; diet of both adequate, 58 Shapiro, H. L.: data of on living Easter Islanders, 61; data of compared with Murrill's, 61-62; quoted on racial components of Easter Island population, 66; cranial data of, 73; summary by of data on Polynesian physical type, 81 Sharp, A., theory of of accidental voyages within Polynesia, 82 Short-ears (Hanau-momoko): war of with Long-ears, 67; legends and theories about discussed, 67-68 Shutler, D., see Gifford, E. W. Siam, gene frequencies from fall into Polynesian ranges, 78, 79 Sigmoid notch depth, for grouped males, 28 Simmons, Roy T., J. J. Graydon, and N. M. Semple: blood group genetical surveys of, 78; and E. I. Fry, quoted, 79 Skottsberg, C., on climate and soil of Easter Island, 57 Skulls: discussed, 28, 32; illustrated, 29, 30, 31; engraved, 58 Smith, Carlyle S.: 3; quoted on war between Short- and Long-ears, 67 Smith, M., view of paleoserology, 77 Snow, C. E., quoted on head-shaping. See also Marshall, D. S. Society Islands: 54; crania from compared with those from Easter Island, 62, 63, 74, 75; blood groups on, 79; possible Polynesian cultural center, 82 South America: blood groups of populations from, 70, 72, 78, 79; theory of migration from to Polynesia, 73; sporadic contacts with Polynesia possible, 82 Southeast Asia, evidence for Polynesians' being originally from, 78-79 Spina angularis sphenoidei, for grouped males, 26 Spinal osteophytosis, in Easter Islanders, 55 Stature, estimation of: literature on, 52-53; for Easter Islanders by various formulae, 53, 53-54 Stewart, T. D., skeletal research of, 73, 74 Stimson, I. Frank, 81 Suborbital fossa, for grouped males, 27 Sugar cane, crop on Easter Island, 57 Suggs, R. C.: on pitfalls of blood group gene frequencies, 7778; on rongorongo script, 81; work of in stratigraphic archaeology in the Marquesas, 81-82; quoted on settling of Marquesas, 82 Supramastoid crest size, for grouped males, 21 Supranasal suture: for grouped males, 21; illustrated, 27 Supraorbital size, for grouped males, 12 Supraorbital type: defined and discussed, 12; for grouped males, 12; De Young's definition of, 12, 21; illustrated, 21 Sweet potatoes, crop on Easter Island, 57 Tahiti: crania from, 60, 61; crania from compared with those from Easter Island, 62, 65; blood groups on, 79; relation of language of to other Polynesian languages, 80, 81; script in, 81 Talus: for grouped males, 51; of Maori, 51 Taro, crop on Easter Island, 57 Tasmania, crania of, 66 Tattooing, on Easter Island and Marquesas, 81 Teeth, few present, 32

105

Telkka, A.: on estimating stature, 52; formula of used in estimation of stature, 53, 54 Temple structures, on Easter Island and Marquesas, 81, 81-82 Temporal muscle height, measurement of, 6 Temporal muscle width, measurement of, 5-6 Temporal region, data on discussed, 21 Terry Anatomical Collection, used by Trotter and Gleser, 52 Thieme, F. P., and C. M. Otten, quoted on blood typing of ancient bone, 77 Ti (cordyline fruticosa), crop on Easter Island, 57 Tibia: for grouped males, 49-50; of European male, 50; of adult male described and illustrated, 55, 56 Tiki, in Easter Island and Marquesan art, 81 Titicaca, Lake, 73 Todd, T. W., 52 Tonga Islands: 54; crania from, 60; crania from compared with those from Easter Island, 62, 63; relation of language of to other Polynesian languages, 80 Trotter, Mildred: and G. C. Gleser, quoted on estimating stature, 52, 52-53; and Gleser, formula of used in estimate of stature, 53, 54; research of on mummy hair, 73 Trukese, blood group genetical survey of, 78 Tubuai, 81 Tupahotu tribe, blood types of descendants of, 67 Turmeric, crop on Easter Island, 57 Turtle Bay, 3 Tympanic plate, for grouped males, 26 Ulna, for grouped males, 33 University of Kansas, 3, 77 University of Wyoming, 3 Vault, height of: for grouped males, 7; technique of measuring, 7 Vertebrae, lumbar, of adult female: described, 55; illustrated, 56 Vertebrae, thoracic, of adult and of adult female: described, 55; illustrated, 56 Vertebral column: male measurements of, 34-35, 36-41; for grouped males, 46, 48-49; in Europeans, 48, 49; calculation of height of, 48-49 Volz, W., sample of from Easter Island, 59, 66 Von Bonin, G., sample of from Easter Island, 59, 60, 66 Wagner, K, quoted on Polynesian crania, 66, 67 Washington University, skeletal collection of, 52 Weisser, 59 Western Reserve Craniostat, used for male and female skulls, 28 Western Reserve University, provision of skeletons by for determining stature, 52 Wilhelm, O.: 59; and L. Sandoval, theories about Longand Short-ears, 67 World War I, troops from used in estimation of stature, 54 Yams, crop on Easter Island, 57 Zuni Indians, hair index of, 73

Cranial and Postcranial Skeletal Remains from Easter Island

Easter Island

Chile & Easter Island

Mortuary practices and skeletal remains at Teotihuacán

The Mystery of Easter Island

Mysteries and Discoveries of Archaeoastronomy: From Giza to Easter Island

Easter Island (Lost Worlds and Mysterious Civilizations)

Mysteries and Discoveries of Archaeoastronomy: From Giza to Easter Island

Mysteries and Discoveries of Archaeoastronomy, from Giza to Easter Island

Frommer's Chile & Easter Island (Frommer's Complete)

Chile & Easter Island (Eyewitness Travel Guides)

Frommer's Chile & Easter Island (Frommer's Complete)

Frommer's Chile & Easter Island (Frommer's Complete)

Remains

Remains

Easter Promises

Cranial Osteopathy: Principles and Practice

Black Easter

Easter Parade

Cranial Manipulation: Theory and Practice

Frommer's Chile & Easter Island (Frommer's Complete Guides)

Easter Promises-Desert Rose, Bluegrass Easter

Easter Promises-Desert Rose, Bluegrass Easter

Faunal Remains from Klasies River Mouth

Mortal Remains

Mortal Remains

Mortal Remains

Remains Silent

Mortal Remains

Questionable Remains

Cranial and Postcranial Skeletal Remains from Easter Island

Easter Island

Chile & Easter Island

Mortuary practices and skeletal remains at Teotihuacán

The Mystery of Easter Island

Mysteries and Discoveries of Archaeoastronomy: From Giza to Easter Island

Easter Island (Lost Worlds and Mysterious Civilizations)

Mysteries and Discoveries of Archaeoastronomy: From Giza to Easter Island

Mysteries and Discoveries of Archaeoastronomy, from Giza to Easter Island

Frommer's Chile & Easter Island (Frommer's Complete)

Chile & Easter Island (Eyewitness Travel Guides)

Frommer's Chile & Easter Island (Frommer's Complete)

Frommer's Chile & Easter Island (Frommer's Complete)

Remains

Remains

Easter Promises

Cranial Osteopathy: Principles and Practice

Black Easter

Easter Parade

Cranial Manipulation: Theory and Practice

Frommer's Chile & Easter Island (Frommer's Complete Guides)

Easter Promises-Desert Rose, Bluegrass Easter

Easter Promises-Desert Rose, Bluegrass Easter

Faunal Remains from Klasies River Mouth

Mortal Remains

Mortal Remains

Mortal Remains

Remains Silent

Mortal Remains

Questionable Remains

Recommend Documents