A hf IJ D 3 13
constricted, quite deep. Ml and 2 have thick postcin-
gula, large hypocones. Root bifurcation very low on
buccal side of RM1; was even lower (if present at all)
on RM2.
Lower teeth relatively small and worn; anterior
roots short and slender. 12s and Cs have large lingual
tubercles. Cs also bear margocristids. Crowns of ante-
rior teeth not angled back on roots. P1 bigger than
P2, with large anterior and posterior foveae. Cingulid
surrounding anterior fovea on P1 separated from
lingual swelling by vertical groove. P2 has small ante-
rior and large posterior foveae. All molars bulbous
buccally; round in outline; have trigonid basins and
large, centrally emplaced hypoconulids. On RM1,
bifurcation of roots visible well below neck.
Amud 7
Child. Pile of fragments, from which occipital has
been reconstructed, with L petrosal attached. Also pre-
sent is mandibular corpus, part of L ramus; deciduous
teeth in crypts.
Occipital was broad, not tall, with incipient
“chignon.” Very hard to discern any trace of suprainiac
depression, if any was present at all. Lambdoid suture
not noticeably arced. Faint beginnings of transverse
sulcus detectable internally. Foramen magnum very
long and oval, with lateral parts fused to nuchal plane.
Superior and inferior arms of condylar canal almost
touching; have not coalesced with basiocciput. Hy-
pophyseal fossa was probably not greatly excavated.
Dorsum sellae was small. Preserved L petrosal quite
broad. Arcuate eminence very prominent and domed.
Region of subarcuate fossa completely closed over and
not depressed. Judging from remaining inferior part of
petrosal, tympanic ring was quite large. Some sinus
development adjacent to canals of inner ear.
Front of lower jaw very broad, flat from side to
side. No sign of mental trigon. Symphyseal profile
vertical. Seen from below, bone of symphyseal region
uniformly thick; thinner than bone of corpora behind.
Posteriorly facing digastric fossa preserved on the R.
Inferior marginal tubercles well developed and widelyspaced; lie just in front of mental foramen. Corpus
deepens forward to tubercles. Ramus short and in-
wardly deflected. Huge, pyramidal medial pterygoid
tubercles just below level of mandibular foramen.
Mylohyoid line strong and descending.
Probably no teeth had penetrated gums, except
possibly dils. Some morphology of dml visible.
Protoconid and metaconid tips distinct, but broadly
joined at their bases. Anteriorly directed proto-
cristid would have been prominent. Trigonid was
probably not closed off. Hypoconulid tiny and
spike-like. There may have been a centroconid in
talonid basin. Outline of dm2 visible through matrix
covering it. Trigonid basin large, surrounded by
stout paracristid running between protoconid and
metaconid. Talonid basin broad; could have borne
centroconid. Small hypoconulid lies at central part
of distal margin of basin.REFERENCES
Griin, R. and C. Stringer. 1991. Electron spin resonance
dating and the evolution of modern humans. ArchaeometryHolloway, R. 2000. Brain. In: E. Delson et al. (eds), Ency-
clopedia of Human Evolution and Prehistory. New York,
Garland Publishing, pp. 141-149.
Rak, Y. W., et al. 1994. A Neandertal infant from Amud
Cave, 1srael.J. Hum Evol. 26: 313-324.
Schwartz, J. H. and I. Tattersall. 2000. The human chin
revisited: What is it and who has it? J. Hum. Evol. 38:Suzuki, H. and F. Takai (eds). 1970. The Amud Man and
His Cave Site. Tokyo, University of Tokyo Press.
Trinkaus, E. 1984. Western Asia. In: F. Smith and F. Spencer
(eds), The Origins OfModern Humans. New York, Alan R.
Liss, pp. 251-325.33: 153-199.367-409.Repository
The Rockefeller Museum, Jerusalem, Israel.