SKULL OF SHANIDAR II — STEWART 525 



Neanderthals as reported by McCown and Keith (1939, pp. 211, 

 229-230) : 



Shanidar Tabun Skhtll La 



Chapelle 



I II II IV V VI 



Bicondylar width 144. (156. 0)(130. 0)(132. 0)(132. 0) 147.0 



M,-M2 width 70.2 (72.5) 66.2 



Minimum width of 



ascending ramus "40.0 44.0 40.0 (42.5) 36.2(42.0) 43.0 



Height of symphysis 37.0 37.0 (42.0) 42.5 36.5 36.0 



Height of ramus at M3-_ "34.0 "34.0 38.5 35.5 34.5 



" On left; 42.0 on right. 

 ► On right; 35.0 on left. 



Plate 7, figures 1 and 2, show the inner side of the lower jaws of 

 Shanidar II and I, respectively. Obviously, the basic morphological 

 pattern is the same for both specimens. All the elements that Keith 

 stressed in connection with the Mount Carmel jaws (McCown and 

 Keith, 1939, p, 226, fig. 161) are well developed here, and especially 

 what he called the lingual supramarginal sulcus. In Shanidar I this 

 sulcus is so deep that the external surface of the ascending ramus 

 becomes convex. The contrary is the case in Shanidar II. 



Visible in these views also is the form of the mylohyoid canal. 

 Although it is open in Shanidar I and is visible for a distance of 

 23 mm. below the mandibular foramen, in Shanidar II it enters a 

 5-mm.-long tunnel about 11 mm. below the foramen. ^Vliether in 

 Shanidar II this canal was symmetrical on the two sides, as in 

 Shanidar I, cannot, of course, be determined. The differing shapes 

 of the lingula, the bone flange shielding the medial side of the mandi- 

 bular foramen, is also apparent. 



Just as important as the differences between these lower jaws are 

 the differences between their two sides; in other words, their 

 asymmetries. Lacking numerous specimens from the same strati- 

 graphic level for comparison, we gain some insight into individual 

 variation from whatever asymmetries exist. From what remains of 

 the jaw of Shanidar II, and this means mainly external surfaces, it 

 seems clear that the ascending rami were fairly symmetrical, the main 

 difference between the two sides being a greater external concavity 

 on the right. The coronoid processes and sigmoid notches are very 

 much alike in this specimen. By contrast, the jaw of Shanidar I is 

 quite asymmetrical posteriorly. The supramarginal sulcus noted on 

 the inner side of the right ramus as being extraordinarily deep is 

 represented on the left side by one that is shallow. Correspondingly, 

 whereas the external surface of the ascending ramus is convex on the 

 right, it is concave on the left. Perhaps these morphological differ- 

 ences explain the far greater development of marginal tubercles in this 



