SKULL OF SHANIDAR II — STEWART 523 



was forced backward on the thorax and came to rest on its right side 

 with the occiput between the spinous processes of the upper thoracic 

 vertebrae and the inner side of the left scapula. In the course of this 

 unnatural movement the atlas became detached from the foramen 

 magnum and, still alined with the other vertebrae, came to rest against 

 the pterygoids and between the ascending rami of the lower jaw. 

 Since with the skull in this position the face was toward the excava- 

 tion, it is understandable why the latter was the part first encountered 

 and hence why it was damaged. 



I spent the last 2 weeks of July 1960 at the cave helping to recover 

 the rest of the postcranial skeleton of Shanidar II. Unfortunately, 

 only a few more vertebrae — three thoracic and four lumbar — parts of 

 three ribs, and the left tibia and fibula were found. Obviously, there- 

 fore, this was a partial or disturbed burial. 



As the pictures show, the right side of the skull and lower jaw is 

 better preserved than the left side. The same is true of the skull and 

 lower jaw of Shanidar I. For this reason most of the comparisons 

 will be made from this point of view. 



LOWER JAW 



Plate 5 and plate 6, figure 1, and the corresponding interpretative 

 drawings made on a stereograph (pi. 4 and pi. 6, fig. 2) show the form 

 of the lower jaw as reconstructed. From these it is evident that no 

 connection remained between the right and left halves in the symphys- 

 eal region. In orienting the two halves, the amount of space needed 

 for the missing central incisors was estimated and the preserved bot- 

 tom midpoint of the symphysis was oriented in relation to the mid- 

 point of the tooth row.* Also, there vras no clear connection between 

 the left horizontal and ascending rami, and these parts had to be 

 oriented visually. In trying to achieve a symmetrical-looking jaw, 

 reasonable dimensions were sacrificed, with the result that probably 

 the posterior part of the dental arch is too wide and the condyles too 

 far apart, mainly because the sides of the jaw are a little too much 

 i])clined outward at the top (or inclined inward at the bottom). It 

 should be added that almost the whole inner left side and the fore- 

 part of the inner right side were missing and had to be reconstructed 

 with a filler compound (Savogran), either by reference to the intact 

 side or by reference to the jaw of Shanidar I. No accuracy is claimed 

 for the result. Note, too, that although both coronoid processes are 

 intact, the tops and foreparts of both condyles have had to be recon- 

 structed. The resulting shapes are only approximate. In spite of 

 such deficiencies, I believe the lateral views of the jaw cannot be far 

 wrong. 



* A fragment of the lower left central Incisor turned up In the loose fragments after the 

 reconstruction of the lower jaw was finished and the illustrations completed. 



