FOSSILS ATTRIBUTED TO GENUS HOMO: SOME GENERAL NOTES 599
(1863) on, to embrace what is by now a bewilderingly
diverse assortment of morphologies. In this process,
“archaic Homo sapiens” has been an indispensable
ingredient. However, if we are to make any progress in
sorting out this variety, it will be essential to acknowl-
edge from the start that such diversity is, at least to
some extent, taxic as well as morphological.
Largely because the emphasis among biological
anthropologists has traditionally been on what divides
our species rather than on what unites it, Homo sapiens
has managed to elude satisfactory morphological defi-
nition up to this point. Recently we have, at one time
or another, pointed to nine features of the skull that
do appear among hominoids to be autapomorphic for
Homo sapiens (Schwartz and Tattersall 1996,20OOa,b):
extension of the tall, sheet-like vaginal process to the
lateral margin of the ectotympanic tube; the approxi-
mation of this process to the mastoid process; extreme
lateral placement of the styloid process, the stylomas-
toid foramen lying posteromedially at its base; the
narrow, high occipital plane of the occipital bone; the
retention into the adult of a discernible arcuate emi-
nence; fully segmented cranial sutures, with some
segments deeply interdigitated; the bipartite brow;
symphyseal region of the mandible as seen from below
thicker than the corpora on either side; and the
unique inverted-T-shaped chin. Additional such apo-
morphies might include a non-closed off subarcuate
fossa and also, as suggested by Arsuaga et al. (1997),
an inferior orbital plane that tilts down and back from
the inferior orbital margin. Applying these characters
automatically excludes the bulk of ancient fossils that
have been assigned to Homo sapiens, and raises the is-
sue of what should be done with them systematically.
We do not propose to address this fraught question
directly here, but we do want to note briefly some of
the sequelae of restricting the concept of Homo sapiens
to those organisms possessing the characteristics of
the living species.
Of the fossil hominids presented in Volumes 1
and 2 of this series, only the following fit this
narrower morphological definition of Homo sapiens in
whatever parts are preserved: Abri Pataud, Brno,
Border Cave 1 and 2, Chancelade, Combe Capelle,
Cro-Magnon, Dar es Soltane, Dolni Vestonice, Engis
1, Grimaldi, Hahnofersand, Haua Fteah, Isturitz,
Jebel Qafzeh (1, 2, 9 and ll), Klasies River Mouth
(one specimen only: AP 6222), Liujiang, Mladec,
Pavlov, Predmosti, Svitavka, Tuinplaas, Velika Pecina,
Vogelherd, Wajak, Zhoukoudian Upper Cave, and
Zlaty Kun. Most of these hominids have Upper
Paleolithic (or Late Stone Age) associations, and are
relatively recent in date.
If we define Homo sapiens on the basis of the
apparent apomorphies that we have enumerated, we
are left with a relatively large contingent of forms
that have in the past been identified as ‘(modern
Homo sapiens” (more or less) but that fall short of this
narrower definition. These hominids include: Border
Cave 5, Boskop, Cave of Hearths, Fish Hoek, Klasies
River Mouth (almost all specimens, see above), Omo
Kibish 1 and 2, Singa, Jebel Qafzeh (other than those
given above), and Skhiil.
Many of the fossils just mentioned compose a
distinct South African group that does not possess bi-
partite brows or a keeled external symphyseal region
of the mandible. This group includes the Klasies River
Mouth, Fish Hoek, Boskop and Border Cave speci-
mens just noted, and possibly also Cave of Hearths
(although this last fragmentary specimen might fit the
Homo sapiens definition were more of it known). In
Fish Hoek, there is a nonbipartite supraorbital region,
large frontal bosses, and no keeling of the symphysis
(although there is a broad median swelling). Further-
more, the vaginal process and stylomastoid pit do not
conform to the Homo sapiens condition, and the man-
dible bears a retromolar space and a medial pterygoid
tubercle. In Boskop, there are distinct parietal bosses,
as well as probable nonbipartite brows and a non-
keeled symphysis. The Klasies River mandibles in this
group (highly variable in size, but often tiny, with very
small teeth) show some minor midline swelling of the
external symphysis low down, but there is clearly no
chin as strictly defined (see Schwartz and Tattersall,
2000b). The single supraciliary element shows no sug-
gestion of a distinct glabellar butterfly or of a retreat-
ing lateral plate. The Border Cave 5 mandible is
small, with a swelling low on the symphysis, but no
detectable keel. This particular array of cranio-
mandibular conformations clearly warrants closer
analysis; but it is already evident that in this group
we are not dealing with Homo sapiens as it is familiar
to us today.
From further north in Africa, the Omo 1 recon-
structed cranium resembles Homo sapiens in its tall
occipital plane and in having a lambdoid suture that
peaks at lambda. It is distinct from Homo sapiens,
however, in that the occipital plane is undercut by a
transverse horizontal sulcus; the mandible is Klasies-
like in the symphyseal region; the supraorbital margin