528 ANNUAL REPORT SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, 1961 



Nasal shape and size are indicated by a fragment of the left side 

 extending from the nasofrontal suture to the midportion of the 

 nasal aperture (fig. 4). A convincing orientation of this fragment 

 can be made aroimd a nasal aperture of the same size and shape as that 

 of Shanidar I. In this connection it is important to note that the 

 region between the lower medial corner of the left orbit and the upper 

 left margin of the nasal aperture is preserved and shows the "inflated" 

 form so typical of these primitive faces and so unlike the troughlike 

 form seen here in modern man. Furthermore, it was possible to work 

 out the form of the floor of the nasal cavity (pi. 8, fig. 1, and text 

 fig. 5) and to discover that this floor is depressed just as in Shanidar I. 



Figure S. — Stereographic drawing of fragment shown in plate 8, figure 1, showing how 

 the latter would appear in sagittal section with an incisor tooth in place. 



Likely, also, the lower margin of the nasal aperture was fairly dis- 

 tinct as in Shanidar I ; in other words, a nasal gutter is absent. 



Turning now to the side of the face (fig. 3), we see some differences 

 between Shanidar II and Shanidar I. The orbital process of the 

 malar bone is broad and heavy looking in Shanidar II, slender and 

 gracile in Shanidar I. The temporal border of the malar is indented 

 at an acute angle in Shanidar I, at nearly a right angle in Shanidar II. 

 The whole zygomatic arch is heavier in Shanidar II. Added to all 

 this is a difference in the form of the body of the malar in the two 

 specimens: In Shanidar II this part is rounded and prominent, in 

 Shanidar I it is flat. Less obvious in figure 3 is the fact that the 

 infratemporal surface of the maxilla is curved from side to side in 

 Shanidar II, but flattened in Shanidar I. These variations probably 

 compensate for one another insofar as the size of the maxillary sinus 

 is concerned. In both specimens this sinus is immense. 



Figure 3 shows one other marked difference, namely, the presence 

 of large alveolar exostoses in Shanidar II and their absence in Shani- 

 dar I. Plate 8, figure 2, shows how symmetrical the exostoses are on 

 the two sides. It would seem that such exostoses bear no relationship 

 to the process of mastication, since the teeth of Shanidar II are much 



