590 FOSSILS ATTRIBUTED TO GEN~JS HOMO: SOME GENERAL NOTES
features of this specimen may suggest alternative in-
terpretations. Such features include the configuration
of the nuchal ridge and the parietal notch, and the po-
sition of the foramen spinosum within the temporal:
all primitive conditions seen in Australopitbecus.
From the region immediately to the east of Lake
Turkana in northern Kenya has come a plethora of
fossils that have also been attributed to early forms of
Homo, notably Homo babilis (KNM-ER 1813) and
Homo rudolfensis (ER 1470) (see Wood, 1992).
Whether all of these specimens properly fit the
description of a member of the monophyletic clade
that includes the type species Homo sapiens might be
questioned; and indeed, there have been recent moves
to exclude at least ER 1470 from the genus Homo
(M. Leakey et al., 2001). The descriptions provided in
this volume and elsewhere (e.g., Wood, 1991) make it
clear that the East Turkana material allocated to “early
Homo” species is far from morphologically uniform,
and that a substantial amount of systematic diversity is
embraced by this assemblage. It is clear that consider-
able future effort will be needed to sort out how many
species are represented and which of them are justifi-
ably included in a monophyletic genus Homo. On the
other hand, some of them might well be groupable
with forms widely regarded as more “advanced.” Thus,
for example, the KNM-ER 1813 cranium that is gen-
erally assigned to Homo babilis actually resembles in
many features the cranium of the KNM-WT 15000
fossil that has usually been referred to Homo erectus or
Homo ergaster. Such features include a remarkable
similarity in the cheek teeth and the shape of the
dental arcade, plus the general skull shape, the long,
sloping nasoalveolar clivus, and the long, narrow nasal
aperture.
Schrenk et al. (1993) described a mandible from
deposits in the Chiwondo Beds of Uraha, Malawi, as
belonging to Homo rudolfensis. These authors took this
step largely because of close resemblances they per-
ceived between their fossil and the mandible KNM-
ER 1802 that had been ascribed to this species by
Wood (1992). Clearly, the necessity to re-evaluate the
affinities of the East Turkana specimens applies equ-
ally to the Malawi fossil now that the systematics of
the former have been cast into doubt.
Other “early Homo’’ specimens include the A.L.
666-1 palate described by Kimbel et al. (1997). These
authors have correctly pointed out that this specimen
is distinctly different dentally from fossils ascribed
to established australopith taxa. Nonetheless, the
question remains as to whether, like other “early
Homo,” it is properly referred to a monophyletic genus
that also perforce includes Homo sapiens. Indeed, this
specimen highlights the complexities with which the
early hominid fossil record presents us, possessing as it
does a very primitive and Australopitbecus-like config-
uration of the nasoalveolar clivus relative to the palate.
The posterior pole of the clivus in A.L. 666-1 extends
greatly over the anterior part of the hard palate, with a
steep drop from the former to the latter. This is a con-
figuration that is not seen in Homo sapiens and other
taxa, e.g., Homo erectus and Homo neandertbalensis,
that more convincingly belong to its immediate
clade.
Only a few South African fossils have been explic-
itly, if provisionally, referred to any member of the
“early Homo” group. Of these, only one was specifically
referred to Homo habilis (Hughes and Tobias, 1977).
This is the StW 53 fossil from an infill within Mem-
ber 4 of Sterkfontein, the classic australopith site in
Gauteng (then Transvaal). Kuman and Clarke (2000)
have plausibly concluded that StW 53 is in fact an
Australopitbecus, with a braincase very similar to that
of Sts 5, widely taken to be the iconic exemplar of
A. afiicanus. This turnaround in interpretation reveals
once again how influential the tendency has been to
associate putative toolmaking with membership in
Homo; for StW 53 was long considered to be the
maker of the stone tools found in Sterkfontein Mem-
ber 5, the deposit from which it was initially believed
to be derived (it actually derives from an artifact-free
infill in Member 4: Kuman and Clarke, 2000). Still,
the fact that a comparison was made in this case
between South and East African materials is in itself
encouraging, for comparative frameworks have too
often been restricted to local or regional areas, and too
little attention has been paid to geographically wider
detailed comparisons. It is almost certain that more
intensive comparison of the southern and eastern
African hominid records would yield major systematic
dividends. Other South African fossils allocated at
various times to “early Homo” are mostly fragmentary.
They include the StW 80 mandibular piece from
Sterkfontein (Kuman and Clarke, ZOOO), the SK 847
partial cranium, and the “Telanthropus” mandible SK
15, which has the narrow anterior tooth region and the
long, steep postincisal plane characteristic of australop-
iths. They also include the isolated teeth from
Swartkrans described by Grine (1993). The affinities
of this whole group would benefit from reappraisal.