600 FOSSILS ATTRIBUTED TO GENUS HOMO: SOME GENERAL NOTES
thins laterally beyond midorbit, but thickens again
toward the zygomaticofrontal suture; and that possi-
bly there was a very large retromolar space. Omo 2
may or may not have had a bipartite brow, but it defi-
nitely fails in the other basic Homo sapiens characters.
Additionally, the frontal poles did not extend over the
orbits, and the subarcuate fossa is closed off. The
Singa skull has extremely swollen parietal eminences
(cf. Boskop) and lacks bipartite brows. There is a
long, horizontal parietomastoid suture, and the
squamosal is primitively long. The vaginal process
terminates medial to the styloid region, and the ecto-
tympanic tubes are extremely short. The occipital is
quite tall; but it is also very broad, and its nuchal
plane undercuts the occipital horizontally, straight
across. The subarcuate fossa is not closed over and
the frontal lobes penetrate forward all the way over
the orbital cones; these two last characters, however,
are the only derived ones that overlap with Homo
sapiens, and we are clearly not dealing with our own
detailed morphology here. The Eliye Springs cra-
nium from Kenya resembles the Boskop morph in its
relatively small face combined with a long but very
broad cranium. None of these eastern African fossils,
any more than those those from South Africa dis-
cussed above, can convincingly be interpreted as early
variants of Homo sapiens as we know it today.
The Mousterian hominids of the sites of Jebel
Qafzeh and Skhiil have long been regarded as lying on
the very edge of modern Homo sapiens-if, indeed, they
are not already there (see Klein, 2000; Wolpoff, 2000).
However, most of them-including all of those from
Skhiil-do show substantial morphological
peculiarities when viewed in this perspective. In the
Skhiil population, the brows are continuous from side
to side and are rather bar-like, in what is apparently an
autapomorphic conformation. In Skhiil V (as in Homo
sapiens), the vaginal process contacts the mastoid
process on one side. However, in contrast to Homo sapi-
ens, there is a long parietomastoid suture; there is a
symphyseal bulge rather than a keel; and, seen from be-
low, the mandibular bone is more or less even in thick-
ness across the symphysis and on to the corpora. There
is a retromolar space and a large, forwardly jutting face.
The lower third molar is large and long, and the ecto-
tympanic tube is short and incompletely ossified later-
ally The lower first molar of SkhUl I has a primitively
huge trigonid basin; and, as in Neanderthals, the very
large talonid basin possesses a deflecting wrinkle (a fea-
ture rarely seen in living Homo sapiens).
As noted above, the Jebel Qdzeh hominids fall
into two groups. Qafzeh 1, 2, 9, and 11 are clearly
Homo sapiens, but the rest are equally clearly not: cer-
tainly not Homo sapiens as we are familiar with this
species today. These latter Qafzeh specimens all show
superior orbital margins that are continuous across
glabella and are not bipartite; the vaginal process fades
out before reaching the meatus; the styloid processes are
very medially placed; and the stylomastoid foramina lie
lateral to those processes. The superior nuchal line rises
slightly higher laterally than at its midpoint, but is
barely raised along its length. In the mandible, much as
in SkhUl, there is a teardrop-shaped bulge low down
on the external symphysis, but no keel.
Such morphologies serve to distinguish many of
the Levantine Mousterians clearly from Homo sapiens.
It thus hardly needs remarking that there is a great
deal of morphological variety among the fossils just
mentioned that paleoanthropologists would be unwise
to ignore in future studies.OTHER MEMBERS OF THE
YRCHAIC HOMO SAPIENS” GROUP
FROM THE LEVANT AND AFFUCA
We have covered, under other rubrics, some of the
specimens that it has been fashionable to assign to
“archaic Homo sapiens.” However, there are several other
important specimens-mainly from Africa-that we
have not yet addressed. These include the Israeli frontal
from Zuttiyeh; the Florisbad anterior cranium from
South Africa; the Ngaloba and Ndutu crania from Tan-
zania, and the Sale cranial rear and Tighenif mandibles
from north Africa.
The Zuttiyeh hominid shows several features that
seem to indicate Neanderthal affinities, although
other comparisons have been made. Thus the an-
terior squamosal suture is elevated, demarcating ante-
rior and posterior temporal fossae; and the frontal
rises well posterior to the smoothly rolled supraorbital
tori that diminish only slightly laterally Glabella is
flat relative to nasion, and the nasal bones are project-
ing. The maxillary sinus invades the body of the zy-
goma and the medial orbital wall, and the sphenoid
sinus is more extensive than in Homo sapiens. The pro-
jecting malar sweeps back, and the preserved orbit is
of “aviator glasses” shape. There seems to be little
reason to broaden out comparisons further than the
Neanderthals in determining the affinities of this
specimen.