524 



ANNUAL REPORT SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, 1961 



In plate 4, figure 1, and plate 6, figure 2, outline drawings of the 

 corresponding views of Shanidar I have been added for comparison. 

 In both lateral and superior aspects, as these drawings show, the two 

 jaws are remarkably similar, discounting the differences in tooth wear 

 due to age differentials.^ Shanidar II has a sturdier right coronoid 

 process, but then Shanidar I has an almost equally sturdy process on 

 the left side. Shanidar II also has a somewhat more prominent 

 gonial angle (with a little more lateral flare that does not show in the 

 illustrations) and a shallower sigmoid notch. The difference in angu- 

 lation of the condyles is especially noteworthy, as is the difference in 

 thickness of the rami. Actually, Shanidar II is slightly larger and 

 heavier throughout the rami. 



Plate 6, figure 2, should be compared with the similarly constructed 

 figure 164 in McCown and Keith (1939), here reproduced as figure 1. 



Figure 1. — McCown and Keith's (1939) figure 164 showing the superior aspect of the 

 lower jaws of Tabun I (A), Tabun II (B), Skhul V (C), and Krapina J after Kramberger 

 (D). Y-Y, postmolar transverse axis; c, tip of coronoid process. (Reproduced by 

 permission.) 



In the latter figure all the Mount Carmel specimens have their coro- 

 noid processes touching the postmolar transverse axis, indicating a 

 much more forward tilt to the processes in those specimens. Also, 

 the anterior tooth-carrying portion is relatively longer than the 

 posterior muscular portion in the Mount Carmel specimens, whereas 

 the two portions are about equal in the Shanidar specimens. 



The following figures (in millimeters) give some idea of how the 

 Shanidar jaws compare in size with each other and with other 



* Judging from tooth wear and arthritis, Shanidar II could not have been over 30 years 

 of age ; Shanidar I was probably at least 40 years of age. Both are thought to be males. 



