Yeah. I found it. A common dictionary allows for both definitions. The first one includes both facial and cranial bones. The second excludes the facial.
Is there anything about this particular find that would lead one to conclude it is not human?
1. okers
2. dunno - haven't looked at good images of the subject.
brain capacity, heavy supra-orbital ridge, other factors - all possible.
If it's human, it's the best human gap-filler between Homo erectus and "later Homo sapiens." Not sure if they mean Heidelbergensis or Idaltu. The next latest thing.
If you accept Homo erectus as human, no problem. If you don't, then why does this look so much like erectus and come right after it in time, etc.?