276 AFRICA
common in Member 2 than in Member 1, although
in both, Paranthopus remains are far more abundant
than those of Homo. Member 3 has produced no
Homo fossils, with the possible exception of a single
phalanx.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT
The lithics from Members 1-3 are clearly similar
throughout; all belong to an Oldowan/mode 1 tradi-
tion (Clark, 1993), although it is possible that some
bifaces come from Members 2 and 3. Members 1-3
have produced some 60 use-polished bone pieces and
horn cores that were evidently used as digging imple-
ments (Brain, 1981; Brain and Shipman, 1993); in
Member 3, there are abundant fragments of burned
bone that had been heated to temperatures typical of
campfires (Brain and Sillen, 1988). Association of the
tools with specific hominids is conjectural, but it has
been suggested that not all of these tools were the
work of Homo (Susman, 1988).
PREVIOUS DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES
In 1949, Broom and Robinson described the Member
2 SK 15 mandible (which they recognized as more
closely resembling Homo than Paranthopus) as the
holotype of the species Telanthropus capensis. Subse-
quent authors have regarded this specimen as Homo.
In 1950, Broom and Robinson described another ho-
minid mandibular fragment (SK 45, Member 1) as
nonaustralopithecine; and in 1953, Robinson assigned
a maxillary fragment (SK 80, Member 1) to T
capensis. At the same time, he referred some upper
facial and temporal pieces (SK 847, Member 1) to
Paranthopus. In 1970, Clarke et al. pointed out that
SK 80 and SK 847 were, in fact, parts of the same in-
dividual of early Homo, which took the combined des-
ignation of SK 847. In 1977, Clarke (1977a) asssigned
SK 847 to Homo sp. indet., but later (1990) referred it
to the same species as the Turkana specimen KNM-
ER 3733, for which he preferred the designation
Homo leakeyi. Also in 1977, Clarke (1977b) assigned
both the Member 1 juvenile cranium SK 27, and two
upper premolars of similar provenance (SK 2635) that
had originally been described as Paranthopus, to
Homo. Continuing excavations in Members 1 and 2
produced a dozen or so craniodental fragments repre-
senting six more individuals of Homo. These have
been described by Grine (1989, 1993), who refrained
from proposing a species attribution. Various postcra-nial fragments of Homo (including SK 18b, a partial
radius apparently associated with SK 15) have also
been recovered from Members 1 and 2; they have re-
cently been reviewed by Susman (1993), who assigns
them to Homo erectus (presumably sensu lato).MORPHOLOGY
We assign most of the Swartkrans materials previ-
ously assigned to Homo to one or another of two prin-
cipal morphs; however, some of these fossils appear to
lie outside of these two groupings, and are described
separately.Morph 1
SK 15 (“Telanthropus” mandible). Partial mandible
lacking R ramus and most of L; Quite small; and
somewhat twisted laterally. Contains LM1 and 2,
RM2 and 3, and alveoli for front teeth.
Corpora quite shallow; as preserved on the L, ta-
per quickly to inferior margin below molar roots. Cor-
pus uniform in height from front to back. Symphysis
broken and twisted, especially externally. Bone com-
plete just to L side of midline; subalveolar region flat
and slightly receding. On the R, in region of C root,
bone is slightly swollen outward. Internally the
postincisal “plane” is long, rather concave, and moder-
ately steep in profile before descending more vertically
to a very shallow genial surface (lacks genial tubercles
or pit). Mental foramen moderate in size; lies under
P1 and 2, and well above inferior margin. Below Ml
and posteriorly, corpus is almost as b/l thick as s/i tall.
Very broad gutter lateral to posterior molars. On the
L, gonial region lacks muscle scars except for slight
ridge on inferior border of smoothly curved angle; an-
gle slightly inwardly deflected. On both sides, inter-
nally, gonial region is marked by a row of pterygoid
tubercles that grow larger upward to level of tooth
row. Mandibular foramina preserved on both sides. L
less damaged; it is relatively large, compressed, ovoid
in circumference, points almost straight back, and lies
well above level of tooth row. Base of lingula dam-
aged. No evidence of mylohyoid line or distinct sub-
mandibular depression. Root of anterior margin of
ramus lies very anteriorly, below Ml; not possible to
determine at what level it rose vertically, but ramus
was probably quite long a/p.
L 11-C alveoli sheared off. I alveoli very com-
pressed m/d. Anterior tooth region restricted between
Cs. On the R, C alveolus very deep, massively ovoid,