190 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83 



As to sex, were it not for the heavy supraorbital arch, No. i would 

 be identifiable as a female. Such identification would conform with 

 the characteristics of all the bones that may definitely be attributed 

 to this subject, except the skull, and even this is rather feminine 

 except in the lower frontal region. The upper as well as the lower 

 jaw belonging to this skull is, for early man, rather weak, the teeth 

 rather small ; the humeri are feminine rather than masculine, both in 

 their strength and in the proportion of the distal extremity ; the head 

 of the radius and that of the ulna, belonging to this subject, are quite 

 feminine, and so is the piece of the clavicle. The subject may how- 

 ever have been a short and weak male. 



Morphologically the two skeletons, more particularly the two 

 crania, show features of such interest and importance to anthropology 

 that they deserve all possible attention. The vault of skull No. i, and 

 the skeletal parts of both individuals, are thoroughly Neanderthal in 

 character ; but the jaws, teeth, and the vault of skull No. 2 represent 

 nothing less than a bridge from the Neanderthal type to recent man. 



THE CRANIA 



The vault: Looked at from above or from the side, or from the 

 front or back, the two Spy skulls show without question the same 

 identical basic type, which is the type of the Neanderthal skull and 

 Neanderthal crania in general. But there is a vast difference in the 

 development of the two crania. The supraorbital arches, while much 

 alike, are somewhat heavier and somewhat more protruding forward 

 in skull No. i than in No. 2. In No. i they are of nearly the same 

 thickness throughout ; in No. 2 they distinctly diminish in thickness 

 from their median third outward. In both cases there was a per- 

 ceptible depression for the glabella, so that viewed from the front 

 there are really two supraorbital arches rather than one continuous 

 arch, though connected below the glabella. The glabellar depression 

 is broader in No. 2 than in No. i, and the superior outline of the 

 supraorbital ridge presents more of a curve, sloping gradually down- 

 ward, in its outer lialf than is the case in No. i. The superior border 

 of the orbits, dull in No. i is sharj^er and better defined in No. 2. 



In all of its characters the supraorbital arch of No. i is much like 

 that in the Neanderthal cranium, though less thick ; in No. 2 the 

 arch, while still of the same type, is distinctly advanced toward modern 

 forms. The depression between the supraorbital arch and the fore- 

 head is very marked in No. i, being in general even more hol- 

 lowed out than in the Neanderthal skull ; in No. 2 there is still a 



