522 ANNUAL REPORT SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, 1961 



I saw the skull for the second time in early June 1960, when the 

 expedition arrived in Baghdad, and, with the gracious consent of the 

 museum authorities, worked on it almost daily from then until the 

 middle of July. The first step was to detach and reassemble the lower 

 jaw. Next, the vertebrae were detached, separated, and individually 

 reassembled.^ At this stage it became apparent that the posterior part 

 of the left side of the skull was very little more than adherent left 

 scapula (pi. 3, fig. 2).^ This, too, was detached, but left for later 

 study. Nothing now remained except the skull proper and it was 

 taken apart first in the right rear, then at the left top, and finally in 

 the front midline. Only at this stage, when so many facial parts, in- 

 cluding the upper front teeth, were seen to be missing, did I suspect 

 that a collection of loose pieces was preserved separately in the 

 museum. This turned out to be the case, and their inclusion in the 

 study increased the information obtained. 



I was right in my original impression about the restorational pos- 

 sibilities of the skull. Many parts were missing ; others were broken 

 into such small pieces that they could not be reassembled, especially 

 since usually the imier and outer tables had separated through the 

 diploe. Most discouraging of all, however, was the tenacity of the 

 plastic cement which locked together the whole broken mass, including 

 remnants of earth and bone meal. By contrast, the loose fragments 

 stored separately, being in their original state, required almost no 

 cleaning and could be fitted together rapidly. At times I thought 

 that areas of the skull had warped, but what seems like warping may 

 be an irreducible cement-preserved set of the fragments. In trying to 

 correct these malpositioned parts it was discouraging, after soaking off 

 a piece of bone with acetone, to fiind it still encased in a sticky envelope 

 of cement and then in the course of brushing off the remaining cement 

 to have the bone crumble into little pieces. Under these circumstances 

 it seemed better to leave undisturbed the areas where fragments fit 

 reasonably well together. Also, of course, I had to assume when I 

 could not prove otherwise that the pieces belonged where I found 

 them. To some extent, therefore, I attribute my failure in satisfacto- 

 rily restoring this specimen to the presence of the cement. This state- 

 ment is not intended as criticism of the preparatorial work on this 

 specimen. Probably any other method of handling would have 

 yielded much less information. 



Before considering the findings, it may be helpful to explain the 

 curious position of the skull in relation to the vertebrae and left 

 scapula. I would judge that sometime after death the skull rolled or 



» A description of the cervical vertebrae appears in the volume honoring Adolph H. 

 Schultz (Stewart, 1962). 



• This and Bubsequent photographs were made by Antran Evan In 1960, using a lens of 

 shorter focal length. 



