S,\Lfi 255
lateral to base of medial pterygoid plate. On both
sides, foramen ovale lies below region of lateral ptery-
goid plate and is well enclosed in sphenoid.
Preserved posterior portion of sagittal suture shal-
lowly interdigitated; appears to be partially seg-
mented. Coronal suture totally obliterated. However
close the preserved frontal lay to the supraorbital
region, it bears no trace of a frontal sinus.
Maxilla
L fragment, small; preserves bone only above region of
partial I1 alveolus through anterior root of Ml. Verti-
cal sulcus in region between I1 and 2 roots. Dental ar-
cade was very narrow and apparently smoothly curved
across front and very divergent toward rear. Indication
above M1 that floor of maxillary sinus sloped quite
steeply posteriorly. Preserved partial RI1 alveolus not
very tall s/i; is wide b/l. I2 crown would have been
markedly smaller than the 11; preserves deep lingual
crease suggesting margocristae. C moderately stout
rooted; probably bore crown of moderate size; lingual
swelling suggests some excavation of this surface. P1
and 2 subequal in b/l width. P1 slightly longer m/d,
especially across buccal side, which is somewhat dis-
tended mesially. P2 narrower m/d buccally than lin-
gually. Both Ps appear very large relative to the C and
the tiny 12. Preserved and subsquare Ml and 2 much
wider b/l than the Ps. Ml slightly wider b/l than M2,
which may have been slightly longer m/d; both three
rooted. Buccal cusps well delineated on both molars;
are subequal on Ml. On M2, metacone smaller than
paracone. M1 and 2 apparently had thick postcingu-
lum running down side of metacone to small hypocone
region. Ml and 2 protocones appear to have been very
large and (at least on M2) to have distended the tooth
a bit lingually. M1 and 2 trigon basins were small and
somewhat buccally placed. Preserved RM3 only has
distal part of highly worn crown. M3 metacone region
appears to be truncated, with lingual surface angled so
protocone region is more pronounced than small
hypocone region. This specimen is plausibly from same
individual as neurocranium.REFERENCES
Brauer, G. 1984. A craniological approach to the origin of
anatomically modern Homo supiens in Africa and its im-
plications for the appearance of modern Europeans. In:
F. Smith and F. Spencer (eds), The Origins $Modern
Humans. New York, Alan R. Liss, pp. 327-410.
Hublin, J.-J. 1985. Human fossils from the North African
Middle Pleistocene and the origin of Homo supiens. In:
E. Delson (ed), Ancestors: The Hard Evidence. New York,
Alan R. Liss, pp. 283-288.
Jaeger, J.-J. 1975. The mammalian faunas and hominid fossils
of the Middle Pleistocene of the Maghreb. In: K. Butzer
and G. Isaac (eds), After the AustralopitAecines. The Hague,
Mouton, pp. 399-418.
Wolpoff, M. 1980. Puleoanthropology. New York, Knopf.Repository
Laboratoire d’Anthropologie Biologique, Universite de
Bordeaux 1,33405 Talence, France.