Deep Memory · source record · paper

Hoa Hakananai'a: a new study of an Easter Island statue in the British Museum

Mike Pitts; James Miles; Hembo Pagi; Graeme Earl · 2014

AI-verified citationSRC-PITTS-2014

identifier / locator: doi:10.1017/S0003581514000201
url: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquaries-journal/article/abs/hoa-hakananaia-a-new-study-of-an-easter-island-statue-in-the-british-museum/E27FFA7F4380AEFA9ECD0861613D6AC7
verification note: text retrieved and shown to the drafter on 2026-09-19 (run 2026-09-19-draft-deep-memory-121715); passages checked by the verify verb
reliability notes: Peer-reviewed, The Antiquaries Journal 94 (2014): 291–321.
Only the abstract (English, French, German) and the reference list were retrievable; the body is paywalled. Statements below are abstract-level.
The abstract gives a relative sequence (base, pukau, komari, bas-reliefs) and no absolute date for the statue's manufacture.

Evidence drawn from this source

Supports· moderateDEEP-E068

Pitts et al. abstract: komari added, then bas-relief carvings succeeding them — part 2

what the source states: Petroglyphs consisting of two komari, stylised female genitalia, "were subsequently added" to the statue after its original making.
what we infer: The published study gives the relative sequence statue → komari → bas-reliefs, which supports the claim that the birdman carvings postdate the statue's manufacture and the claim that the back carries komari. It gives no absolute date.
limitations: Abstract only; the survey's reasoning is in the paywalled body.
Relative sequence only; no dates.
Second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-19, run 2026-09-19-verify-deep-memory-122700, verify-v6) found the passage bears on DEEP-C059, a proposed claim not admitted at intake ('On Hoa Hakananai'a the two komari petroglyphs were carved before th…') and not on DEEP-C062; the link dropped at intake: The quoted abstract text accurately states that komari were added after the statue's making and preceded the bas-relief birdman carvings, which supports the sequencing claims C059 and a proposed claim not admitted at intake ('On Hoa Hakananai'a the two komari petroglyphs were carved before th…'), but the passage says nothing about the komari's location on the back of the statue, so it does not bear on C062 as stated. The locator range (sentences 2-4) is slightly broad but does capture the relevant sentences 3-4.

Mike Pitts (2014)AI-verified citationDEEP-C059

Supports· moderateDEEP-E069

Pitts et al. abstract: komari added, then bas-relief carvings succeeding them — part 3

what the source states: Succeeding the komari were bas-relief carvings, "here interpreted as a single composition that narrates" the island's birdman myth.
what we infer: The published study gives the relative sequence statue → komari → bas-reliefs, which supports the claim that the birdman carvings postdate the statue's manufacture and the claim that the back carries komari. It gives no absolute date.
limitations: Abstract only; the survey's reasoning is in the paywalled body.
Relative sequence only; no dates.
Second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-19, run 2026-09-19-verify-deep-memory-122700, verify-v6) found the passage bears in different directions on the claims the record named; this record carries "supports" toward DEEP-C059, a proposed claim not admitted at intake ('On Hoa Hakananai'a the two komari petroglyphs were carved before th…'), the rest went to a record of its own at intake: The quoted abstract text establishes the sequence komari-before-bas-relief and, by implication of both being later additions, supports that the birdman carvings post-date the statue's manufacture (C059) and directly supports the komari-before-reliefs ordering (a proposed claim not admitted at intake ('On Hoa Hakananai'a the two komari petroglyphs were carved before th…')). However, the quoted material never states that the komari or reliefs are on the statue's back specifically, so it does not itself establish C062's claim about the back bearing komari, making it context rather than direct support for that claim.

Mike Pitts (2014)AI-verified citationDEEP-C059

Context· moderateDEEP-E070

Pitts et al. abstract: komari added, then bas-relief carvings succeeding them — part 3 — toward DEEP-C062

what the source states: Succeeding the komari were bas-relief carvings, "here interpreted as a single composition that narrates" the island's birdman myth.
what we infer: The published study gives the relative sequence statue → komari → bas-reliefs, which supports the claim that the birdman carvings postdate the statue's manufacture and the claim that the back carries komari. It gives no absolute date.
limitations: Abstract only; the survey's reasoning is in the paywalled body.
Relative sequence only; no dates.
Second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-19, run 2026-09-19-verify-deep-memory-122700, verify-v6) found the passage bears in different directions on the claims the record named; this record carries "context" toward DEEP-C062, the rest went to a record of its own at intake: The quoted abstract text establishes the sequence komari-before-bas-relief and, by implication of both being later additions, supports that the birdman carvings post-date the statue's manufacture (C059) and directly supports the komari-before-reliefs ordering (a proposed claim not admitted at intake ('On Hoa Hakananai'a the two komari petroglyphs were carved before th…')). However, the quoted material never states that the komari or reliefs are on the statue's back specifically, so it does not itself establish C062's claim about the back bearing komari, making it context rather than direct support for that claim.

Mike Pitts (2014)AI-verified citationDEEP-C062

Supports· moderateDEEP-E071

Pitts et al. read the reliefs as a composition narrating the birdman myth as recorded in the 19th–20th centuries — part 1

what the source states: The bas-relief carvings on Hoa Hakananai'a are interpreted as a single composition that "narrates the island's birdman myth as recorded in the nineteenth" and early twentieth centuries.
what we infer: The comparison text for the Rapa Nui birdmen is ethnohistoric, recorded two to three centuries after the carving at the earliest; the study does not read the reliefs against any prehistoric text.
limitations: Abstract only.

Mike Pitts (2014)AI-verified citationDEEP-C080

Supports· moderateDEEP-E072

Pitts et al. read the reliefs as a composition narrating the birdman myth as recorded in the 19th–20th centuries — part 2

what the source states: This reading of the bas-reliefs "is supported by photographs of Hoa Hakananai'a taken in Chile in 1868".
what we infer: The comparison text for the Rapa Nui birdmen is ethnohistoric, recorded two to three centuries after the carving at the earliest; the study does not read the reliefs against any prehistoric text.
limitations: Abstract only.

Mike Pitts (2014)AI-verified citationDEEP-C080

Context· weakDEEP-E073

Pitts et al. abstract gives no manufacture date and does not itemise the tern, paddles, ring or girdle — part 2

what the source states: The abstract characterises the bas-relief carvings as "a single composition that narrates the island's birdman myth" without enumerating individual motifs.
what we infer: Absence from an abstract is not absence from the paper; these motifs and the date, if the study treats them, are in the unread body or in the British Museum record (Oc1869,1005.1), which was not reached. Zero diagnosticity toward the claims; recorded so that the gap is visible.
limitations: Negative evidence from an abstract only.

Mike Pitts (2014)AI-verified citationDEEP-C058 DEEP-C060 DEEP-C061 DEEP-C063 DEEP-C064

Context· weakDEEP-E074

Pitts et al. abstract gives no manufacture date and does not itemise the tern, paddles, ring or girdle — part 3

what the source states: The abstract gives no absolute date for the statue, referring only relatively to the myth "as recorded in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries" and to events of 1868.
what we infer: Absence from an abstract is not absence from the paper; these motifs and the date, if the study treats them, are in the unread body or in the British Museum record (Oc1869,1005.1), which was not reached. Zero diagnosticity toward the claims; recorded so that the gap is visible.
limitations: Negative evidence from an abstract only.

Mike Pitts (2014)AI-verified citationDEEP-C058 DEEP-C060 DEEP-C061 DEEP-C063 DEEP-C064