596 FOSSILS ATTRIBUTED TO GENUS HOMO: SOME GENERAL NOTES
subsquare with a straight superior margin. The
partially preserved zygoma is relatively small and
turned strongly back along the side of the skull, and
also angles inward and down, suggesting a narrow
lower face; the frontal rise is quite steep. These mor-
phologies do not appear to place this specimen close
to the group we have just discussed, although they
are characteristic of some members of the Nean-
derthal clade (see below). The Vtrteszollos occipital
has a horizontal occipital “torus,” and thus is remi-
niscent, in this feature, of Petralona. As also seen in
the Saldanha specimen, the nuchal plane in the
Verteszollos fossil is less horizontal than in Petralona.
The large-skulled Yunxian specimens from east-
central China also warrant mention here, if only to
note that the EV 9002 fossil shows a left brow region
that would have twisted up, back and laterally, as in
members of the Petralona-Arago-Kabwe etc. group.
The Maba partial calotte also shows a steeper frontal
rise than is typical of the latter grouping, with a more
rounded right orbit and a different conformation of
the continuously curved supraorbital region; in these
features, Maba is more comparable with Narmada.
Finally, we must mention the fragmentary Bilz-
ingsleben hominids, which pose a particular problem
because the two reconstructed individuals from this
site appear to display significant differences from one
another. In Individual 1 the supraorbital regions are
tall s/i, smoothly rolled, and the orbital roof curves
smoothly into the superior orbital margin, with a
longer posttoral plane behind. In Individual 2 the
supraorbitals are less tall, have a much sharper corner
from the orbital roof into the superior margin, and
the posttoral plane is shorter, with a steeper frontal
rise. In the rear of the skull, Individual 1 shows a
continuous and uniformly protrusive angulation
from side to side right across the occiput, while the
occipital fragment of Individual 2 shows a totally
different conformation in which the superior nuchal
line describes a sweeping curve from the left side to
redescend well before the midline.
This brief overview of materials that have at one
time or another been referred to Homo heidelbergensis
(or discussed in connection with it) emphasizes a
fundamental structural similarity among most of
them. At the same time, however, it shows that a
lower-level morphological partitioning exists among
these basically similar forms, especially in terms of
internal cranial features and occipital morphology.
This difficult distribution of characters will have to
be taken into account in future systematic analyses of
this group.THE NEANDERTHALS AND RELATED FORMS
For most of the past century, many have chosen to
discuss the Neanderthals within as linear as possible
a schema of human evolution, regardless of whether
the preference was to include these distinctive ho-
minids as an independent species or to see them as a
variant of Homo sapiens. Pre-Wurm European fossils
that appeared to have some, but not all, of the fea-
tures typical of Neanderthals were often referred to
as “preneanderthals” or “protoneanderthals,” or were
accommodated into a “presapiens” construct (see
discussion in Tattersall, 1995). Examination of the
morphological evidence presented in the first two
volumes of this series points, however, to an alterna-
tive interpretation (see Schwartz and Tattersall,
1996a). In this alternative view, the Neanderthals
and fossils resembling them were not simply seg-
ments of a linear progression but, rather, formed part
of an endemic European hominid clade that had its
origins perhaps at some time around 500 Ka. Homo
neanderthalensis is simply the best-known and last-
surviving species of this clade. The origin of the
larger group is probably to be sought within the as-
semblage of fossil material often attributed to Homo
heidelbergensis (see above), or among as-yet-unknown
related forms.
Morphologically, Homo neanderthalensis is well
defined, and we also have a fair perspective on mor-
phological variation within this species (see particu-
larly Schwartz and Tattersall, in press). European and
western Asian specimens listed in Volumes 1 and 2 of
this series with unquestioned Neanderthal attribution
include: Amud, Archi, Biache, Columbeira, Engis 2,
Feldhofer, Figueira Brava, Gibraltar (Devil’s Tower
and Forbes’ Quarry), Guattari, Hortus, Kebara, Krap-
ina, Kulna, La Chapelle, La Ferrassie, La Naulette,
La Quina, Le Moustier, Ochoz, Pech de l’Aze, Re-
gourdou, Roc de Marsal, Saccopastore, St-Cesaire,
Sakajia, Scladina, Shanidar, Tabiin C1, Sipka, Spy,
Subalyuk, Teshik-Tash, Vindija G, and Zafarraya.
The Swanscombe specimen from England also has
convincingly Neanderthal features including a
suprainiac depression and a horizontal occipital
“torus” that is weakly undercut below. Here we also
attribute the Ehringsdorf crania to Homo nean-
derthalensis, but only provisionally. The affinities
of these German materials from Weimar require