Ceprano Man

Last updated
Argil
Ceprano updated reconstruction.jpg
Most recent reconstruction of Ceprano by Di Vincenzo et al. (2017).
Catalog no.No. 944/1
Common nameArgil
Species Homo heidelbergensis
Homo neanderthalensis
Age430-385 ka
Place discoverednear Ceprano, Frosinone, Italy
Date discoveredMarch 13, 1994
Discovered byConstruction crew

Ceprano Man, Argil, and Ceprano Calvarium, is a Middle Pleistocene archaic human fossil, a single skull cap (calvarium), accidentally unearthed in a highway construction project in 1994 near Ceprano in the Province of Frosinone, Italy. [1] [2] It was initially considered Homo cepranensis, Homo erectus , or possibly Homo antecessor ; but in recent studies, most regard it either as a form of Homo heidelbergensis sharing affinities with African forms, [3] [4] or an early morph of Neanderthal. [5]

Contents

History

During excavation in preparation for a highway on March 13, 1994, in the Campo Grande area near Ceprano, Italy, a partial hominin calvaria was discovered. Although damaged by a bulldozer, it was recognized, documented, and described by archeologist Italo Biddittu, who happened to be present when the fossil was discovered. [6] Mallegni et al. (2003) proposed the introduction of a new human species, dubbed Homo cepranensis, based on the fossil. As the specimen was believed to be around 700 ka, they believed that this specimen and Homo antecessor suggested a wave of dispersals into Europe 0.9-0.8 Ma through Iberia and the Middle East. [7] The most recent belief is that it is associated with Homo heidelbergensis or rhodesiensis , or that it is ancestral to Neanderthals. [5]

Dating

The fossil was first estimated to be between 690,000 and 900,000 years old determined on the basis of regional correlations and a series of absolute dates. [8] Taking the circumstances of the recovery of the fossil into account, Ascenzi (2001) noted that "an age between 800 and 900 ka is at present our best chronological estimate" based on "the absence in the sediments containing the cranium of any leucitic remnants of the more recent volcanic activity known in the region . . . and the presence above the cranium itself of a clear stratigraphic unconformity that marks" [9] After clarification of its geostratigraphic, biostratigraphic and archaeological relation to the well known and nearby Acheulean site of Fontana Ranuccio, dated to 487±6 ka, Muttoni et al. (2009) suggested that Ceprano is most likely about 450,000 years old. Manzi et al. (2010) agree with this, citing an age of 430 and 385 ka. [10]

Segre and Mallegni (2012) strongly retain their beliefs that the skull is 900-800 ka and is not the same age as the clay it was found in situ. [11] Di Vincenzo et al. (2017) explain that this thought process is based on the belief of secondary deposition into younger strata, though they believe otherwise based on renewed analysis and context of the find. They note that a lack of gnawing, weathering or abrasions induced by transport supports the theory that the skull was buried once by rising and falling water levels, which is evidenced by the pedofeatures of the clay it was found in situ . This would have dispersed the remaining skeleton and rapidly filled the cranium for fossilization. [12]

Description

The reconstruction of the skull made in 2000 by Clarke and tweaked by M.A. de Lumley and Mallegni features repositioning of the parietal, removal of dental plaster, midsagittal plane was established, added two zygomatic frontal processus previously missing, added an occipital fragment, and rid of unnecessary plaster and glue reinforcements. [13] DI Vincenzo et al. (2017) provided a virtual reconstruction wherein all plaster and glue was removed and the remains were repositioned to most closely fit their life position. They noticed misplacement and misalignment in the temporo-parietal region, left mastoid process, and occipital squama, and worked to correct some taphonomic distortion through retrodeformation and other methods. Most of this work is reflected in the vault rather than the face, and most of the peculiar aspects of the skull are now gone. For example, the single autapomorphy used to distinguish it as a new, valid species is a foreshortened vault, which when compared to the new reconstruction, appears typical of H. heidelbergensis. [12]

Paleopathology

The specimen preserves several injuries, The first is a deep, wide recess infiltrating deep the left greater wing of the sphenotemporal suture on the sphenoidal sinus, which was found but not reported early in Ceprano's literature history. Second, a healed depression on the right brow. This was probably caused by an altercation with a large animal, where the skull was butted and fractured; this is more plausible than another, more popular explanation that the blow was inflicted by another human wielding a stick (thus being, hypothetically, murder). They hypothesized that the individual was a young adult man (gender stated without evidence) whose activities consisted of hunting for themself or the group, and was "bold and aggressive" based on the accumulation of injuries. The fracture healed, suggesting that it did not cause death and the congenital malformation on the skull was not restrictive or painful enough to limit the subject's physical abilities. [14]

Classification

Ascenzi et al. (1996) argue that the similarity to Chinese H. erectus and assignment to Homo heidelbergensis based on provenance (as Mauer cannot be compared to Ceprano) cannot justify attribution to any other species. [15] Ascenzi and Segre (1997) compared an early cranial reconstruction with the Gran Dolina fossils and concluded that it was "late Homo erectus", being one of the latest occurrences of the species and earliest Italian hominin. This allocation was supported by them with vault profile data and metrics. However, Ascenzi and Segre also consider specimens such as Montmaurin, Arago, Petralona and Vertesszolos as H. erectus or a similar taxon. They suggested that Tighenif No. 3 mandible is a good fit for the skull, and hinted that connection between it and North Africa may be evident. [16]

Clarke (2000) suggested that inconsistencies with minimal fontal breadth may be individual or geographic variation, and not taxonomically informative. [17] Ascenzi et al. (2000) followed the cranial reconstruction by Clarke (2000) and modifications by M.A. de Lumley to reinforce assignment to H. erectus based on the tori, cranial capacity, bone thickness, and occipital profile angle. [13]

Manzi et al. (2001) pose the possibility that it may be an adult Homo antecessor , but do not make the referral based on the reasoning that no elements from Gran Dolina match in age or completeness to directly compare with Ceprano. They also state that a less parsimonious explanation would be the accommodation of two contemporary species, as they find the specimen is not referrable to Homo erectus, H. ergaster , H. heidelbergensis, or H. rhodesiensis. In fact, they recommend creation of a new name to represent a transition from late African to early European fossils. They also suggest that Early Pleistocene dispersals toted a new morphology that was lost, possibly by other Acheulean-using hominins. [1]

Mallegni et al. (2003) noticed a lack of Homo heidelbergensis frontal morphology was similar to the Daka specimen, and as such they were recovered as sister individuals in their cladistic analysis. They propose that the Bouri population was the source for later European populations, and the resulting species did not contribute to the genomes of later Middle Pleistocene (MP) hominins. They also suggested that similarity with Homo rhodesiensis fossils may be reflective of an ancestral-descendant phylogenetic relationship; and since the fossil was appearing so distinct they named Homo cepranensis with the calvarium as the holotype and only specimen. [7]

Bruner et al. (2007) recognize that the characters of the specimen exhibits a mix of early African and later European features, enough to be potentially distinct or, alternatively, considered a ancestral of Homo heidelbergensis . However, they caution other workers that no direct comparisons can yet be made based on fossil record incompleteness. [18] Mounier et al. (2011) have identified the fossil as "an appropriate ancestral stock of [H. heidelbergensis] . . . preceding the appearance of regional autapomorphic features." They suggested that the specimen could be "an appropriate 'counterpart'" to the current, inadequate holotype due to its preservation and morphology. They also suggest ancestry with Neanderthals. [5]

Segre and Mallegni (2012) retain use of Homo cepranensis and dispute redating of the site. [11] Freidline et al. (2012) follow suit with the opinion of Guipert (2005). Guipert (2005) digitally reconstructed several hominin fossils exhibiting extreme degrees of distortion, including the cranial remains from Arago. In their results, both teams draw similar conclusions that the Ceprano calvarium and the Arago hominins are closest in morphology. [19] [20]

Manzi (2016) suggested that the species Homo heidelbergensis is the best descriptor for the calvaria, and further proposed two modes of classification. One uses a single species under that name with Ceprano being having ancestral characters, but noticed that subspecific distinctions may be made. The second incorporates this, using the following: H. h. heidelbergensis (Ceprano, Mauer, Arago, ?Hexian, Melka Kunture 2–3), daliensis (Dali, Denisova, Jinniushan, Narmada), rhodesiensis (Broken Hill, Irhoud, Florisbad, Eliye Springs, Ngaloba, Omo Kibish II), and steinheimensis (Steinheim, Petralona, Reilingen, Swanscombe, Sima). [21] Di Vincenzo et al. (2017) found with their new reconstruction that it is typical of H. heidelbergensis, specifically Broken Hill and Petralona. They suggest that it is ancestral to the neanderthalensis- sapiens -Denisovan clade. [12]

Manzi (2021) elaborates that the specimen is a lost morphology that lived in a refugium in Italy (much like the Neanderthal from Altamura [22] ) and retained plesiomorphic traits for an extended duration. This suite of old traits gave rise to the MP hominin diversity observed, but was absorbed. Manzi, again, recommends H. h. heidelbergensis for the specimen. [4] The description of the Harbin skull suggests that it is associated specifically with H. rhodesiensis. [23] Roksandic et al. (2022) considered it for inclusion in their Homo bodoensis , but this term was agreed to be valueless and does not comply with ICZN naming conventions. [24] They suggest that it may have contributed to Arago and Petralona, among other specimens. [3]

Technology

Lithics at Ceprano tend to be located higher up and in volcanic sediment. Choppers are more common than lithics at the Castro dei Volschi facie, and overlie the choppers found at Arce Fontana Liri. They are 458-385 ka (as low as 200 ka) in age, which was, at the time, much younger than the cranium. [16] It is suggested that these populations dispersed during the late Early Pleistocene with Mode I technologies and their morphology was lost by other Acheulean-using hominins. [1]

Paleoecology

The Ceprano calvarium was discovered in the Camp Grande area by what is now a highway. It was associated with bone and lithic Acheulean artifacts and faunal remains, such as the straight-tusked elephant (Palaeoloxodon antiquus), the narrow-nosed rhinoceros (Stephanorhinus hemitoechus), Hippopotamus sp., the giant deer Praemegaceros verticornis , the fallow deer Dama clactoniana , beavers , aurochs (Bos primigenius), and the European pond turtle (Emys orbicularis). Pleistocene fossils occur in strata that is around 50 meters in thickness. The Ceprano basin splits into two sections: one of 22 meters in fluvial-colluvial facies with gravels and sands intercalacted with clays, and one of 24 meters with distinct limno-marsh facies, clays and silts. Further, six groups are split. The furthest to the top holds Acheulean and is common in aurochs and Palaeoloxodon. The skull was discovered in clays of a gray-green color above a travertine and with scattered nodular calcium carbonate concretions, mixed with yellow sands, and diffused with Ferromanganese. The area would have probably been forested due to the clay corresponding to a fluvial period that is in relation to terminal tectonics. [16] It lived during the MIS 11, a warm stage at Lirino Lake, which was a refugium for archaic morphologies. [10] [4] It was buried once in a perilacustrine environment by rising and lowering water, scattering the skeleton and filling the cranium. [12]

See also

Related Research Articles

<i>Homo heidelbergensis</i> Extinct species of archaic human

Homo heidelbergensis is an extinct species or subspecies of archaic human which existed during the Middle Pleistocene. It was subsumed as a subspecies of H. erectus in 1950 as H. e. heidelbergensis, but towards the end of the century, it was more widely classified as its own species. It is debated whether or not to constrain H. heidelbergensis to only Europe or to also include African and Asian specimens, and this is further confounded by the type specimen being a jawbone, because jawbones feature few diagnostic traits and are generally missing among Middle Pleistocene specimens. Thus, it is debated if some of these specimens could be split off into their own species or a subspecies of H. erectus. Because the classification is so disputed, the Middle Pleistocene is often called the "muddle in the middle".

<i>Meganthropus</i> Hominin fossil

Meganthropus is an extinct genus of non-hominin hominid ape, known from the Pleistocene of Indonesia. It is known from a series of large jaw and skull fragments found at the Sangiran site near Surakarta in Central Java, Indonesia, alongside several isolated teeth. The genus has a long and convoluted taxonomic history. The original fossils were ascribed to a new species, Meganthropus palaeojavanicus, and for a long time was considered invalid, with the genus name being used as an informal name for the fossils.

<i>Homo</i> Genus of hominins that includes humans and their closest extinct relatives

Homo is a genus of great ape that emerged from the genus Australopithecus and encompasses only a single extant species, Homo sapiens, along with a number of extinct species classified as either ancestral or closely related to modern humans; these include Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalensis. The oldest member of the genus is Homo habilis, with records of just over 2 million years ago. Homo, together with the genus Paranthropus, is probably most closely related to the species Australopithecus africanus within Australopithecus. The closest living relatives of Homo are of the genus Pan, with the ancestors of Pan and Homo estimated to have diverged around 5.7-11 million years ago during the Late Miocene.

<i>Homo rhodesiensis</i> Species of primate (fossil)

Homo rhodesiensis is the species name proposed by Arthur Smith Woodward (1921) to classify Kabwe 1, a Middle Stone Age fossil recovered from Broken Hill mine in Kabwe, Northern Rhodesia. In 2020, the skull was dated to 324,000 to 274,000 years ago. Other similar older specimens also exist.

Human taxonomy is the classification of the human species within zoological taxonomy. The systematic genus, Homo, is designed to include both anatomically modern humans and extinct varieties of archaic humans. Current humans have been designated as subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens, differentiated, according to some, from the direct ancestor, Homo sapiens idaltu.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Archaic humans</span> Extinct relatives of modern humans

Archaic humans is a broad category denoting all species of the genus Homo that are not Homo sapiens. Among the earliest modern human remains are those from Jebel Irhoud in Morocco, Florisbad in South Africa (259 ka),, Omo-Kibish I in southern Ethiopia ., and Apidima Cave in Southern Greece. Some examples of archaic humans include H. antecessor (1200–770 ka), H. bodoensis (1200–300 ka), H. heidelbergensis (600–200 ka), Neanderthals, H. rhodesiensis (300–125 ka) and Denisovans.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dali Man</span> Hominin fossil

Dali man is the remains of a late Homo erectus or archaic Homo sapiens who lived in the late-mid Pleistocene epoch. The remains comprise a complete fossilized skull, which was discovered by Liu Shuntang in 1978 in Dali County, Shaanxi Province, China.

<i>Homo erectus</i> Extinct species of archaic human

Homo erectus is an extinct species of archaic human from the Pleistocene, with its earliest occurrence about 2 million years ago. Its specimens are among the first recognizable members of the genus Homo.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Samu (fossil)</span> Hominin fossil

Samu is the nickname given to a fragmentary Middle Pleistocene human occipital, also known as Vertesszolos Man or Vertesszolos occipital, discovered in Vértesszőlős, Central Transdanubia, Hungary.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bouri Formation</span> Archeological area in Afar Region, Ethiopia

The Bouri Formation is a sequence of sedimentary deposits that is the source of australopithecine and Homo fossils, artifacts, and bones of large mammals with cut marks from butchery with tools by early hominins. It is located in the Middle Awash Valley, in Ethiopia, East Africa, and is a part of the Afar Depression that has provided rich human fossil sites such as Gona and Hadar.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Daka skull</span> Homo erectus calvaria, discovered in the Ethiopian Rift Valley in 1997

The Daka calvaria, otherwise known as the Dakaskull, or specimen number BOU-VP-2/66, is a Homo erectus specimen from the Daka Member of the Bouri Formation in the Middle Awash Study Area of the Ethiopian Rift Valley.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tautavel Man</span> Homo erectus fossil

Tautavel Man refers to the archaic humans which—from approximately 550,000 to 400,000 years ago—inhabited the Caune de l’Arago, a limestone cave in Tautavel, France. They are generally grouped as part of a long and highly variable lineage of transitional morphs which inhabited the Middle Pleistocene of Europe, and would eventually evolve into the Neanderthals. They have been variably assigned to either H. (s.?) heidelbergensis, or as a European subspecies of H. erectus as H. e. tautavelensis. The skull is reconstructed based on the specimens Arago 21 and 47, and it is, to a degree, more characteristic of what might be considered a typical H. erectus morphology than a typical H. heidelbergensis morphology. The brain capacity is 1,166 cc. They seem to have had an overall robust skeleton. Average height may have been 166 cm.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ndutu cranium</span> Hominin fossil

The Ndutu skull is the partial cranium of a hominin that has been assigned variously to late Homo erectus, Homo rhodesiensis, and early Homo sapiens, from the Middle Pleistocene, found at Lake Ndutu in northern Tanzania.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cave of Aroeira</span> Cave and archaeological site in Portugal

The Cave of Aroeira is an archaeological and paleoanthropological site in the Portuguese Estremadura Limestone Massif. The cave is located in the village of Almonda, in the civil parish of Zibreira, in the municipality of Torres Novas in the district of Santarém. The cave contained stones from the Paleolithic Acheulean culture, and the skull of Homo heidelbergensis, circa 400,000 years old. The discovery of Aroeira 3 was announced in spring 2017 - the earliest human trace in Portugal.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Kabwe 1</span> Hominin fossil

Kabwe 1, also known as the Broken Hill skull and Rhodesian Man, is a Middle Paleolithic fossil assigned by Arthur Smith Woodward in 1921 as the type specimen for Homo rhodesiensis, now mostly considered a synonym of Homo heidelbergensis.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Archaeological site of Atapuerca</span> Archaeological site in northern Spain, rich in human fossils

The archaeological site of Atapuerca is located in the province of Burgos in the north of Spain and is notable for its evidence of early human occupation. Bone fragments from around 800,000 years ago, found in its Gran Dolina cavern, provide the oldest known evidence of hominid settlement in Western Europe and of hominid cannibalism anywhere in the world.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sambungmacan crania</span> Series of hominin fossils discovered in Indonesia

The hominin remains discovered at Sambungmacan are a series of four archaic human fossils assigned to Homo erectus and discovered in Java. The first is the calvarium is Sm 1, the second is a tibial fragment Sm 2, and the third and fourth are calvaria Sm 3 and Sm 4. Laitman and Tattersall (2001) suggested naming Sm 3, the second calvarium in the series, Homo erectus newyorkensis, but later sources do not agree with this taxonomic scheme.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Salé cranium</span> Enigmatic Middle Pleistocene hominin specimen

The Salé cranium is a pathological specimen of enigmatic Middle Pleistocene hominin discovered from Salé, Morocco by quarrymen in 1971. Since its discovery, the specimen has variously been classified as Homo sapiens, Homo erectus, Homo rhodesiensis/bodoensis, or Homo heidelbergensis. Its pathological condition and mosaic anatomy has proved difficult to classify. It was discovered with few faunal fossils and no lithics, tentatively dated to 400 ka by some sources.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Kocabaş cranium</span> Damaged Homo erectus calvarium.

The Kocabaş cranium is the damaged calvarium fossil of a young Homo erectus discovered near the village of Kocabaş, located in the Denizli Province of Turkey by quarry workers in 2002.

The Narmada Human, originally the Narmada Man, is a species of extinct human that lived in central India during the Middle and Late Pleistocene. From a skull cup discovered from the bank of the Narmada River in Madhya Pradesh in 1982, the discoverer, Arun Sonakia classified it was an archaic human and gave the name Narmada Man, with the scientific name H. erectus narmadensis. Analysis of additional fossils from the same location in 1997 indicated that the individual could be a female, hence, a revised name, Narmada Human, was introduced. It remains the oldest human species in India.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Manzi, G; Mallegni, F; Ascenzi, A (August 2001). "A cranium for the earliest Europeans: Phylogenetic position of the hominid from Ceprano, Italy". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 98 (17): 10011–6. Bibcode:2001PNAS...9810011M. doi: 10.1073/pnas.151259998 . PMC   55569 . PMID   11504953.
  2. ↑ Aloisi, Massimiliano (2000). The Origin of Humankind: Conference Proceedings of the International edited by Massimiliano Aloisi. IOS Press. ISBN   9781586030308 . Retrieved December 10, 2015.
  3. 1 2 Roksandic, Mirjana; Radović, Predrag; Wu, Xiu-Jie; Bae, Christopher J. (2022). "Resolving the "muddle in the middle": The case for Homo bodoensis sp. nov". Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews. 31 (1): 20–29. doi:10.1002/evan.21929. ISSN   1060-1538. PMC   9297855 . PMID   34710249.
  4. 1 2 3 Manzi, Giorgio (2021). "Ceprano (a "transitional" Homo calvarium)" (PDF). In J. Vonk; T. K. Shackelford (eds.). Encyclopedia of Animal Cognition and Behavior. Springer Nature Switzerland AG. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-47829-6_2101-1 (inactive 2024-09-12).{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of September 2024 (link)
  5. 1 2 3 Mounier, Aurélien; Condemi, Silvana; Manzi, Giorgio (April 20, 2011). "The Stem Species of Our Species: A Place for the Archaic Human Cranium from Ceprano, Italy". PLOS ONE. 6 (4): e18821. Bibcode:2011PLoSO...618821M. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0018821 . PMC   3080388 . PMID   21533096.
  6. ↑ "THE ARGIL, THE OLDEST MAN IN EUROPE". nostra italia. Archived from the original on December 23, 2015. Retrieved December 10, 2015.
  7. 1 2 Mallegni, F (2003). "Homo cepranensis sp. nov. and the evolution of African-European Middle Pleistocene hominids". Comptes Rendus Palevol . 2 (2): 153–159. Bibcode:2003CRPal...2..153M. doi:10.1016/S1631-0683(03)00015-0. ISSN   1631-0683.
  8. ↑ Muttoni, Giovanni; Scardia, Giancarlo; Kent, Dennis V.; Swisher, Carl C.; Manzi, Giorgio (2009). "Pleistocene magnetochronology of early hominin sites at Ceprano and Fontana Ranuccio, Italy". Earth and Planetary Science Letters. 286 (1–2): 255–268. Bibcode:2009E&PSL.286..255M. doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2009.06.032. hdl: 2434/164132 .
  9. ↑ "Ceprano calvaria". tumblr. Retrieved December 10, 2015.
  10. 1 2 Manzi, Giorgio; Magri, Donatella; Milli, Salvatore; Palombo, Maria Rita; Margari, Vasiliki; Celiberti, Vincenzo; Barbieri, Mario; Barbieri, Maurizio; Melis, Rita T.; Rubini, Mauro; Ruffo, Massimo; Saracino, Barbara; Tzedakis, Polychronis C.; Zarattini, Annalisa; Biddittu, Italo (2010). "The new chronology of the Ceprano calvarium (Italy)". Journal of Human Evolution. 59 (5): 580–585. doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2010.06.010. PMID   20832845.
  11. 1 2 Segre, Aldo (2012). "On the Environment and Age of Homo Cepranensis". Rivista di scienze preistoriche. LXII (LXII): 5–7. doi:10.1400/206927.
  12. 1 2 3 4 Di Vincenzo, Fabio; Profico, Antonio; Bernardini, Federico; Cerroni, Vittorio; Dreossi, Diego; Schlager, Stefan; Zaio, Paola; Benazzi, Stefano; Biddittu, Italo; Rubini, Mauro; Tuniz, Claudio; Manzi, Giorgio (2017-10-25). "Digital reconstruction of the Ceprano calvarium (Italy), and implications for its interpretation". Scientific Reports. 7 (1): 13974. Bibcode:2017NatSR...713974D. doi:10.1038/s41598-017-14437-2. ISSN   2045-2322. PMC   5656598 . PMID   29070804.
  13. 1 2 Ascenzi, A.; Mallegni, F.; Manzi, G.; Segre, A.G.; Segre Naldini, E. (2000). "A re-appraisal of Ceprano calvaria affinities with Homo erectus, after the new reconstruction". Journal of Human Evolution. 39 (4): 443–450. doi:10.1006/jhev.2000.0425. PMID   11006051.
  14. ↑ Ascenzi, A.; Benvenuti, A.; Segre, A. G. (1997). "On the paleopathologic findings exhibited by the late Homo erectus of Ceprano, Italy". Human Evolution. 12 (3): 189–196. doi:10.1007/BF02438068. ISSN   0393-9375. S2CID   85237113.
  15. ↑ Ascenzi, A.; Biddittu, I.; Cassoli, P.F.; Segre, A.G.; Segre-Naldini, E. (1996). "A calvarium of late Homo erectus from Ceprano, Italy". Journal of Human Evolution. 31 (5): 409–423. doi:10.1006/jhev.1996.0069.
  16. 1 2 3 Ascenzi, Antonio; Segre, Aldo G. (1997). "Resti di cranio umano del pleistocene medio-inferiore a ceprano". Rendiconti Lincei (in Italian). 8 (1): 39–67. doi:10.1007/BF03002252. ISSN   1120-6349. S2CID   127360103.
  17. ↑ Clarke, R.J. (2000). "A corrected reconstruction and interpretation of the Homo erectus calvaria from Ceprano, Italy". Journal of Human Evolution. 39 (4): 433–442. doi:10.1006/jhev.2000.0426. PMID   11006050.
  18. ↑ Bruner, Emiliano; Manzi, Giorgio (2007). "Landmark-based shape analysis of the archaicHomo calvarium from Ceprano (Italy)". American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 132 (3): 355–366. doi:10.1002/ajpa.20545. PMID   17177181.
  19. ↑ Freidline, S. E.; Gunz, P.; Janković, I.; Harvati, K.; Hublin, J. J. (2012-02-01). "A comprehensive morphometric analysis of the frontal and zygomatic bone of the Zuttiyeh fossil from Israel". Journal of Human Evolution. 62 (2): 225–241. doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2011.11.005. ISSN   0047-2484. PMID   22176924.
  20. ↑ Guipert, Gaspard (2005-01-01). Reconstitution et position phylétique des restes crâniens de l'homme de Tautavel (Arago 21-47) et de Biache-Saint-Vaast 2 : apports de l'imagerie et de l'analyse tridimensionnelles (These de doctorat thesis). Aix-Marseille 3.
  21. ↑ Manzi, Giorgio (2016). "Humans of the Middle Pleistocene: The controversial calvarium from Ceprano (Italy) and its significance for the origin and variability of Homo heidelbergensis". Quaternary International. 411: 254–261. Bibcode:2016QuInt.411..254M. doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2015.12.047.
  22. ↑ Profico, Antonio; Buzi, Costantino; Di Vincenzo, Fabio; Boggioni, Marco; Borsato, Andrea; Boschian, Giovanni; Marchi, Damiano; Micheli, Mario; Cecchi, Jacopo Moggi; Samadelli, Marco; Tafuri, Mary Anne; Arsuaga, Juan Luis; Manzi, Giorgio (2023). "Virtual excavation and analysis of the early Neanderthal cranium from Altamura (Italy)". Communications Biology. 6 (1): 316. doi:10.1038/s42003-023-04644-1. ISSN   2399-3642. PMC   10039001 . PMID   36964200.
  23. ↑ Ni, Xijun; Ji, Qiang; Wu, Wensheng; Shao, Qingfeng; Ji, Yannan; Zhang, Chi; Liang, Lei; Ge, Junyi; Guo, Zhen; Li, Jinhua; Li, Qiang; Grün, Rainer; Stringer, Chris (2021-08-28). "Massive cranium from Harbin in northeastern China establishes a new Middle Pleistocene human lineage". The Innovation. 2 (3): 100130. Bibcode:2021Innov...200130N. doi:10.1016/j.xinn.2021.100130. ISSN   2666-6758. PMC   8454562 . PMID   34557770.
  24. ↑ Delson, Eric; Stringer, Chris (2022). "The naming of Homo bodoensis by Roksandic and colleagues does not resolve issues surrounding Middle Pleistocene human evolution". Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews. 31 (5): 233–236. doi:10.1002/evan.21950. ISSN   1060-1538. PMID   35758557. S2CID   250070886.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.