Bob,
I've found some information about your question: In "Portrait of the Artist as a Child" (the Lagar Velho monograph), chapter 17 ("The Cranial Morphology, by Eric Trinkaus), quoting from the section sub-titled "The Occipital Bone" pp. 271-272:
"Just superior of the level of the superior nuchal line and just to the right of midline, there is an irregularly oval area of bone which is moderately porous and pitted and consists in part of a new layer of dense bone laid down on the exocranial surface (Fig. 17-14). The area is at least 15.5 mm wide (it is broken away medially and ca. 11 mm high. It does not raise up the adjacent exocranial surface, and the middle of the area is concave along the postmortem break of the bone. The surface of this oval area of bone is very similar to that seen in juvenile specimens with a suprainiac fossa, although such fossae among Neandertal juveniles are frequently more distinctly concave. This surface morphology is very different from the smooth surface associated with the absence of a suprainiac fossa."
"Suprainiac fossae are present among 100% of adult European Neandertals (N=16) and occur as well (although less pronounced on average) among Near Eastern specimens of this group (Hublin, 1978a; Santa Luca, 1978; Trinkaus, 1983). They are oval in shape, sometimes double, variable in size and degree of concavity, and associated with the absence of an external occipital protuberance. They are usually considered to be one of the most derived and distinctive morphological features (autapomorphies) of the Neandertals (Santa Luca, 1978; Hublin, 1978b), emerging during the Middle Pleistocene in Europe and adjacent areas of Asia (Hublin, 1978b; Dean et al., 1998; Stringer and Hublin, 1999). However, porous or pitted depressions above inion are present among European Upper Paleolithic early modern humans (Frayer, 1993; Sladek, 2000; Trinkaus, pers. observ.), but they are usually associated with a prominent external occipital protuberance and are subtriangular in shape. However, one Late Upper Paleolithic specimen (Rond-du-Barry 8) exhibits a distinct oval suprainiac fossa, well within the range of Neandertal fossae."
"In addition, oval suprainiac fossae are present in several European and Western Asian immature Neandertal specimens from infancy through adolescence, including Amud 7, La Ferrassie 8, Dederiyeh 2, La Quina 18, Subalyuk 2, Roc de Marsal 1; Engis 2 and Teshik-Tash 1, as well as the late Middle Pleistocene juvenile La Chaise-Suard occipital. However, they vary in their degree of expression, with some (e.g., Engis 2, La Ferrassie 8 and La Quina 18) having well developed ones and others (e.g., Subalyuk 2) less well-defined fossae (Tillier, 1983a; Pap et al., 1996). Such a fossa or porous/pitted area is absent from the Skhul 1 and Qafzeh 11 crania, but an oval area of slightly pitted bone ca. 27 mm wide and ca. 16 mm high is present just above inion on the Qafzeh 10 occipital bone. It is not possible to determine whether they were present on the Predmosti juvenile specimens, but the two immature early Upper Paleolithic early modern human occipital bones available, Malladetes 1 and Mladec 3, lack any trace of a suprainiac fossa."
"The morphology of this incomplete suprainiac region on Lagar Velho 1 is therefore very close to that seen in juvenile Neandertals and contrasts with the available European early modern human juveniles preserving the region."
Very interesting. Getting back to your question, Trinkaus seems to say here that suprainiac fossae in Near Eastern Neandertals is present but "less pronounced on average" when compared with fossae of 'classic' Western European Neandertals. The presence of an intermediately concave oval pitted depression on the Lagar Velho occipital (as described in paragraph 1 quoted above) is very suggestive. Fig. 17-14 in the monograph is a very detailed view of this region of the LV 1 occipital.
I need to study this issue further.
Dar
