526 ANNUAL REPORT SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, 1961 



area on the right side, as compared with the left. The differences in 

 the coronoid processes have already been mentioned. 



Several features cannot be compared in detail owing to the location 

 of breakage in Shanidar II. For instance, almost complete loss of 

 bone in the symphyseal area makes it impossible to determine whether 

 the same cross-sectional shape existed as in Shanidar I (fig. 2). 



Figure 2. — Outline of sagittal section through mandibular symphysis of Shanidar I com- 

 pared with the same section of three other specimens supplied by McCown and Keith 

 (1939, figs. 143, 144, 148). 



However, the small piece of symphyseal base that is preserved shows 

 sculpturing (digastric fossa) comparable to that of Shanidar I. Nor 

 is it certain that lateral infracondylar tubercles existed in Shanidar 

 II, although the conformation of the remaining part of the right 

 condyle would suggest it. On the other hand, breakage has just spared 

 most, if not all, of the mental foramina. It is positive, therefore, 

 that whereas Shanidar I has a single large foramen on each side, 

 Shanidar II, like many Neanderthalers, has multiple foramina: at 

 least two on the right and three on the left. 



UPPER FACE 



Damage to the midline of the face at the time of discovery, as 

 already explained, together with the crushing that took place in 

 ancient times, greatly restricted the possibilities of reconstruction 

 in this area. Nevertheless, very fortunately it has been possible 

 to learn a great deal about the original form. In general, there can 

 be little doubt that it was a Neanderthal face like that of Shanidar I, 

 but with certain differences. From several unconnected pieces of 

 the supraorbital ridges, these structures appear to be every bit as 

 heavy as those of Shanidar I, and likely of much the same form. 



