How funny. You cannot find the proof can you? Nothing is called archaic anything (as I have already told you) they are always called by the species name (I am talking among scientists of course, not evolutionists). Also a species name does not change just because of the date of the find. That is not science. Science changes the species name when the characteristics change. However, you are still bantering words instead of doing what you should have done when I questioned you first on this:
That would make this the third thread I've filled up with archaic Homo sapiens skulls just to answer you on this point. Why is this necessary?
Ah, but wait! Now you're saying "after 200,000 years ago," not before? Are you declaring a skinny gap from 200,000 years ago to 120,000 years ago? Or would anything after 200,000 years ago do? You forgot the upper limit on your gap. How about some skulls from last week?.
Earlier, your gap was from 400,000 years ago (the approximate end of H. erectus) to 100,000 years ago. Has your position evolved?
Your gaps are getting smaller than the error bars in dating most of these skulls. I don't see where that helps you.
But settle down and just tell us what you're trying to tell us.