S HA N I D A R 349
At least some of the Shanidar hominids appear to
represent burials, and indeed the most famous archae-
ological feature of the cave is the flexed “flower burial”
of the large male Shanidar 4, inferred (controversially)
from the large quantities of pollen (from spring flow-
ers) recovered from soil samples taken around this in-
dividual. Behaviorally, perhaps the most suggestive ev-
idence of all to have emerged from Shanidar is the
remarkable survival to an advanced age of the
Shanidar 1 individual, who possessed a possibly con-
genital withered arm (e.g., Trinkaus, 1983). Add’ ition- ’
ally, Trinkaus (1983) suggests that the Shanidar 1 and
5 individuals had undergone artificial cranial deforma-
tion, although this seems unlikely.
PREVIOUS DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES
Senyurek (1959) proposed that the only Shanidar ho-
minid then known, the Shanidar 7 child, should be
placed in the new subspecies Homo sapiens shanidarensis.
Subsequent authors have, however, been unanimous in
identifying the Shanidar D population as Neanderthal
(e.g., Stewart, 1958, 1961, 1964; Solecki, 1960). The
most comprehensive review of the Shanidar D ho-
minids is that of Trinkaus (1983); this author draws
attention to morphological variability in the sample, but
finds “stasis through time” (p. 441) in everything but
midfacial prognathism. He emphasizes “close morpho-
logical affinities to the Near Eastern and European Ne-
andertals” (p. 436), and favors allocation to Homo sapiens
neunderthalensis. Holloway (2000) quotes a cranial
capacity of 1600 ml for Shanidar 1.MORPHOLOGY
The following descriptions of the Shanidar 1 skull
and the Shanidar 5 cranium are based on casts and
photographs.Shanidar 1
Highly reconstructed cranium with restoration of
much of neurocranium, glabellar and interorbital
regions, nasals, and L malar and maxillary regions.
Restoration is such as to cast doubt on any literal
description of these regions. Much of L parietal and
some of L squamosal missing. Much detail obscured
in cast. Also an almost complete mandible of same
individual. All teeth present in upper jaw; in
mandible, 11s missing. All teeth extremely worn, with
some damage.Cranium large and long. In side profile, the short
frontal slope emerges from a moderately alp long
posttoral plane that is continuous across glabella.
Frontal rise turns into a rather flat curve which is al-
most continuous to a point quite far behind mastoid
region, where the profile curves down steeply, contin-
uing across lambda to about halfway down occipital
plane before curving gently down and forward to the
pronounced superior nuchal line. Nuchal plane angled
quite strongly forward; slightly undercuts occipital
plane. Viewed from behind the skull is quite tall,
widest at the somewhat swollen supramastoid regions,
and is relatively rounded in outline. Seen from above,
the long cranium tapers forward gently from the
supramastoid regions to the very shallow postorbital
constrictions. A mound-like glabellar region protrudes
in front of the supraorbital tori, which (as fully pre-
served on R) retreat modestly laterally. Viewed from
front, the face appears tall and narrow; the lower face,
especially, tapers downward. Inferior margin of ante-
rior root of zygoma slants steeply up and out, origi-
nating well above region of Ml and 2.
Glabellar and interorbital regions very broad. Ante-
rior surface of glabellar region smooth; flows laterally
into supraorbital tori. Glabellar region shallowly concave
superiorly and not as tall s/i as tori. Moderately long
postglabellar plane continuous with laterally lengthen-
ing posttoral planes. As preserved fdly on the R, ante-
rior surface of torus tall s/i and uniformly thick to
midpoint of orbit, tapering beyond. Smooth anterior
surface of torus corners slightly onto posttoral plane.
Also on the R is a long, oblique, medially placed supra-
orbital notch. On both sides, inferolateral corner of orbit
distended downward, producing “aviator glasses” shape.
Preserved portions of lower face indicate it was an-
teriorly projecting, puf@, and retreated strongly to
sides. Preserved R infraorbital foramen relatively large,
downwardly facing; lies noticeably below inferior or-
bital margin. Nasal aperture was apparently tall and
narrow; lateral crests continuous inferiorly with dam-
aged anterior nasal spine. There may have been a very
small prenasal fossa on either side of anterior nasal
spine. Photographs show, internally, a large medial
projection (partially preserved on L). Nasoalveolar
clivus is moderately long and relatively vertical; a thin
crest descends from anterior nasal spine along its mid-
line. As seen on the R, zygoma is relatively small; its
outer surface faces quite laterally. As indicated on the
R, zygomatic arch became markedly thinner toward its
posterior root. Posterior root lies well in front of the