JI?BEL QAFZEH 321
(Yokoyama et al., 1997). An early stage 5 age for the
hominids thus seems confirmed.ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT
Too few artifacts have been recovered from levels C-E
and 7-9 to characterize the industry represented more
precisely than as Upper Paleolithic (Vandermeersch,
1981). The Middle Paleolithic assemblages of levels
XVII-XXIV resemble the Levantine Mousterian of
Tabiin C and SkhUl B, with heavy use of centripetal
core preparation and numerous large, oval flakes, and
a dominance of scrapers giving way to points higher
in the sequence. Some of the skeletons (Qafzeh 8, 9,
10, and 11) appear to have been deliberately buried,
most of them very low in the deposits. Indeed, one
grave, most unusually for a Mousterian occurrence,
seems to have been excavated into the bedrock itself.
This is the grave of the Qafzeh 11 child, which also
appears to have been buried holding fallow deer
antlers against its chest, an equally unusual Mouster-
ian finding (Vandermeersch, 1970,1971).
PREVIOUS DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES
Given the Mousterian associations of Qafzeh 3 and
later Qafzeh hominids, some authors (e.g., Brose and
Wolpoff, 1971) have tried to see them as Neanderthals,
a morphologically indefensible position. The over-
whelming consensus has been, however, that these are
anatomically modern or near-modern Homo sapiens
(e.g., Vandermeersch, 1981; Howells, 1974; Stringer,
1974; Trinkaus, 1984). Perhaps surprisingly, little atten-
tion has been paid to variation within the Qdzeh
assemblage, and these hominids are clearly overdue for
re-evaluation. As a start, Schwartz and Tattersall (2000)
have pointed to significant contrasts in mandibular
symphyseal morphology within the Qafzeh series, only
the adults Qafzeh 8 and 9 and the subadult Qafzeh 11
showing a characteristically Homo sapiens chin structure
(and, as pointed out below, supraciliary architecture).
Holloway (2000) quotes a cranial capacity of 1568 ml
for Qafzeh 6; Vandermeersch (1981) estimates 1508 ml
for Qafzeh 9.MORPHOLOGY
The Qafzeh sample appears to sort into two morphs.
Specimens referred here to Morph 1 (Qafzeh 3, 5, 6,
7, 8) are broadly distinguished (when the relevant
region is preserved) from Morph 2 (Qafzeh 1, 2, 9,
11) by having continuous supraorbital tori that areconfluent across glabella and a symphyseal region that
bears a midline mound that thins toward the inferior
margin. Morph 2 has a bipartite brow and a symphy-
seal region adorned with a central keel, mental fossae,
and an inferiorly thickening mental trigon. Since
there are not very many specimens, they will be
described individually.Morph 1
Qufieh 3. Consists of a very fragmentary calotte
(Q3-3); a highly damaged mastoid region with
apparently associated parietal region (Q3-227); partial
R petrosal (Q3-135); very partial and crushed maxilla
with M1 and may be L12 or LC, both highly worn
(Q3-205); and a posterior maxillary fragment with
LM3 (Q3-196). Also the L gonial region of mandible
(Q3-70) and R gonial angle (Q3-116).
ZPH1973-3. Partial calotte missing L supra-orbital
region, other large parts of frontal and large portions
of parietal, especially in middle and on L. Very thick
boned, especially posteriorly. As recon-structed,
cranium appears to have been relatively short,
moderately broad, and rather domed. In profile,
frontal rise slightly set back from supraorbital margin
and glabella with no posttoral sulcus. When viewed
from above, glabella indented in midline; supraorbital
margin angles back slightly from it. Glabellar region
was rather pronounced and broad; overhangs nasion,
which is located rather high up. R supraorbital region
preserved; confluent with glabella and as tall s/i
(creating torus-like structure). Supraorbital notch very
medially placed and indented when viewed from
above. Torus-like supraorbital margin thins laterally
and becomes flatter superiorly well lateral to
supraorbital notch. Roof of orbit flows around into
supraorbital margin. Interorbital region very broad.
Temporal ridge would have left posterior rim of
zygomatic process of frontal quite high up; runs
upward quite steeply. Damage and weathering
obscures posterior course of temporal lines. As seen
on the L, frontal sinus is broad behind glabella,
expanded quite far superiorly, and extended laterally at
least to midline of orbit. Sinus does not appear to
connect with preserved tips of anterior ethmoid air
cells. Internally, frontal crest is huge.IPH Q3-116. R gonial angle sliver. Weak muscle
scarring internally; margins slightly reflected outward;
angle appears marginally truncated.