View source for History:Ceprano Man

{{short description|Prehistoric human skull cap from Italy}}
{{infobox fossil
| image = Ceprano_updated_reconstruction.jpg
|common name=Argil|caption=Most recent reconstruction of Ceprano by Di Vincenzo et al. (2017).|alt=Most recent reconstruction of Ceprano by Di Vincenzo et al. (2017).|catalog number=No. 944/1|species=''[[Biology:Homo heidelbergensis|Homo heidelbergensis]]<br />Homo neanderthalensis''|age=430-385 ka|place discovered=near Ceprano, Frosinone, Italy|date discovered=March 13, 1994|discovered by=Construction crew}}

'''Ceprano Man''', '''Argil''', and '''Ceprano Calvarium''', is a [[Earth:Middle Pleistocene|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.<ref name=":4">{{cite journal |title= A cranium for the earliest Europeans: Phylogenetic position of the hominid from Ceprano, Italy |pmc=55569 | pmid=11504953 |doi=10.1073/pnas.151259998 |volume=98 |issue=17 |date=August 2001 |journal=Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. |pages=10011–6 | last1 = Manzi | first1 = G | last2 = Mallegni | first2 = F | last3 = Ascenzi | first3 = A|bibcode=2001PNAS...9810011M |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=4doajFJmvSsC&q=Italo+Biddittu&pg=PA25 |title= The Origin of Humankind: Conference Proceedings of the International edited by Massimiliano Aloisi |access-date=December 10, 2015|isbn= 9781586030308 |last1= Aloisi |first1= Massimiliano |year= 2000 |publisher= IOS Press }}</ref> It was initially considered '''''Homo cepranensis''''', ''[[Biology:Homo erectus|Homo erectus]]'', or possibly ''[[Biology:Homo antecessor|Homo antecessor]]''; but in recent studies, most regard it either as a form of ''[[Biology:Homo heidelbergensis|Homo heidelbergensis]]'' sharing affinities with African forms,<ref name=":9" /><ref name=":5" /> or an early morph of [[Biology:Neanderthal|Neanderthal]].<ref name=":8" />

== History ==
During excavation in preparation for a [[Engineering:Highway|highway]] on March 13, 1994, in the Campo Grande area near Ceprano, Italy, a partial [[Biology:Hominini|hominin]] calvaria was discovered. Although damaged by a [[Engineering:Bulldozer|bulldozer]], it was recognized, documented, and described by archeologist Italo Biddittu, who happened to be present when the fossil was discovered.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.nostraitalia.it/en/largil-luomo-piu-antico-deuropa/ |title=THE ARGIL, THE OLDEST MAN IN EUROPE |publisher=nostra italia |access-date=December 10, 2015 |archive-date=December 23, 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151223121801/http://www.nostraitalia.it/en/largil-luomo-piu-antico-deuropa/ |url-status=dead }}</ref> Mallegni ''et al.'' (2003) proposed the introduction of a new [[Biology:Human|human]] species, dubbed ''Homo cepranensis'', based on the [[Biology:Fossil|fossil]]. As the specimen was believed to be around 700 ka, they believed that this specimen and ''[[Biology:Homo antecessor|Homo antecessor]]'' suggested a wave of dispersals into Europe 0.9-0.8 Ma through Iberia and the [[Place:Middle East|Middle East]].<ref name=":0">{{cite journal |last1=Mallegni |first1=F |author9=Mallegni, F |year=2003 |title=''Homo cepranensis'' sp. nov. and the evolution of African-European Middle Pleistocene hominids |journal=Comptes Rendus Palevol |volume=2 |issue=2 |pages=153–159 |bibcode=2003CRPal...2..153M |doi=10.1016/S1631-0683(03)00015-0 |issn=1631-0683}}</ref> The most recent belief is that it is associated with ''[[Biology:Homo heidelbergensis|Homo heidelbergensis]]'' or ''[[Biology:Homo rhodesiensis|rhodesiensis]]'', or that it is ancestral to [[Biology:Neanderthal|Neanderthal]]s.<ref name=":8" />

== 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 [[Physics:Absolute dating|absolute dates]].<ref>{{cite journal |title= Pleistocene magnetochronology of early hominin sites at Ceprano and Fontana Ranuccio, Italy |doi=10.1016/j.epsl.2009.06.032 |bibcode=2009E&PSL.286..255M |volume=286 |issue= 1–2 |journal=Earth and Planetary Science Letters |pages=255–268|year= 2009 |last1= Muttoni |first1= Giovanni |last2= Scardia |first2= Giancarlo |last3= Kent |first3= Dennis V. |last4= Swisher |first4= Carl C. |last5= Manzi |first5= Giorgio |hdl= 2434/164132 |hdl-access= free }}</ref> 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 [[Physics:Chronology|chronological]] estimate" based on "the absence in the sediments containing the cranium of any [[Earth:Leucitite|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"<ref>{{cite web|url= http://kabwe1.tumblr.com/post/18440466219/ceprano-calvaria |title= Ceprano calvaria | publisher= tumblr |access-date=December 10, 2015}}</ref> After clarification of its geostratigraphic, [[Earth:Biostratigraphy|biostratigraphic]] and [[Earth:Archaeology|archaeological]] relation to the well known and nearby [[Engineering:Acheulean|Acheulean]] site of Fontana Ranuccio, dated to {{val|487|6|u=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.<ref name=":3">{{Cite journal |last1=Manzi |first1=Giorgio |last2=Magri |first2=Donatella |last3=Milli |first3=Salvatore |last4=Palombo |first4=Maria Rita |last5=Margari |first5=Vasiliki |last6=Celiberti |first6=Vincenzo |last7=Barbieri |first7=Mario |last8=Barbieri |first8=Maurizio |last9=Melis |first9=Rita T. |last10=Rubini |first10=Mauro |last11=Ruffo |first11=Massimo |last12=Saracino |first12=Barbara |last13=Tzedakis |first13=Polychronis C. |last14=Zarattini |first14=Annalisa |last15=Biddittu |first15=Italo |date=2010 |title=The new chronology of the Ceprano calvarium (Italy) |url=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0047248410001405 |journal=Journal of Human Evolution |language=en |volume=59 |issue=5 |pages=580–585 |doi=10.1016/j.jhevol.2010.06.010|pmid=20832845 }}</ref>

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''.<ref name=":6">{{Cite journal |last=Segre |first=Aldo |date=2012 |title=On the Environment and Age of Homo Cepranensis |url=https://www.torrossa.com/en/resources/an/2626525 |journal=Rivista di scienze preistoriche |volume=LXII |issue=LXII |language=en |pages=5–7 |doi=10.1400/206927}}</ref> Di Vincenzo ''et al.'' (2017) explain that this thought process is based on the belief of secondary [[Earth:Deposition (geology)|deposition]] into younger [[Earth:Stratum|strata]], though they believe otherwise based on renewed analysis and context of the find. They note that a lack of gnawing, [[Earth:Weathering|weathering]] or [[Earth:Abrasion (geology)|abrasions]] induced by transport supports the theory that the [[Biology:Skull|skull]] was buried once by rising and falling [[Water level|water level]]s, which is evidenced by the pedofeatures of the [[Earth:Clay|clay]] it was found ''[[Biology:In situ|in situ]]''. This would have dispersed the remaining [[Biology:Skeleton|skeleton]] and rapidly filled the cranium for fossilization.<ref name=":7">{{Cite journal |last1=Di Vincenzo |first1=Fabio |last2=Profico |first2=Antonio |last3=Bernardini |first3=Federico |last4=Cerroni |first4=Vittorio |last5=Dreossi |first5=Diego |last6=Schlager |first6=Stefan |last7=Zaio |first7=Paola |last8=Benazzi |first8=Stefano |last9=Biddittu |first9=Italo |last10=Rubini |first10=Mauro |last11=Tuniz |first11=Claudio |last12=Manzi |first12=Giorgio |date=2017-10-25 |title=Digital reconstruction of the Ceprano calvarium (Italy), and implications for its interpretation |journal=Scientific Reports |language=en |volume=7 |issue=1 |page=13974 |doi=10.1038/s41598-017-14437-2 |issn=2045-2322 |pmc=5656598 |pmid=29070804|bibcode=2017NatSR...713974D }}</ref>

== Description ==
The reconstruction of the skull made in 2000 by Clarke and tweaked by M.A. de Lumley and Mallegni features repositioning of the [[Biology:Parietal bone|parietal]], removal of dental plaster, midsagittal plane was established, added two [[Biology:Zygomatic bone|zygomatic]] frontal processus previously missing, added an occipital fragment, and rid of unnecessary [[Chemistry:Plaster|plaster]] and glue reinforcements.<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal |last1=Ascenzi |first1=A. |last2=Mallegni |first2=F. |last3=Manzi |first3=G. |last4=Segre |first4=A.G. |last5=Segre Naldini |first5=E. |date=2000 |title=A re-appraisal of Ceprano calvaria affinities with Homo erectus, after the new reconstruction |url=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0047248400904251 |journal=Journal of Human Evolution |language=en |volume=39 |issue=4 |pages=443–450 |doi=10.1006/jhev.2000.0425|pmid=11006051 }}</ref> 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 [[Biology:Cranial vault|vault]] rather than the [[Medicine:Face|face]], and most of the peculiar aspects of the skull are now gone. For example, the single [[Biology:Autapomorphy|autapomorphy]] used to distinguish it as a new, valid [[Biology:Species|species]] is a foreshortened vault, which when compared to the new reconstruction, appears typical of ''H. heidelbergensis''.<ref name=":7" />

=== 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 [[Medicine:Brow ridge|brow]]. This was probably caused by an altercation with a large [[Biology:Animal|animal]], where the skull was butted and [[Medicine:Bone fracture|fractured]]; this is more plausible than another, more popular explanation that the blow was inflicted by another [[Biology:Human|human]] wielding a stick (thus being, hypothetically, [[Social:Murder|murder]]). They hypothesized that the individual was a young adult [[Biology:Man|man]] ([[Biology:Gender|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 [[Biology:Death|death]] and the congenital malformation on the skull was not restrictive or [[Medicine:Pain|pain]]ful enough to limit the subject's physical abilities.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Ascenzi |first1=A. |last2=Benvenuti |first2=A. |last3=Segre |first3=A. G. |date=1997 |title=On the paleopathologic findings exhibited by the late Homo erectus of Ceprano, Italy |url=http://link.springer.com/10.1007/BF02438068 |journal=Human Evolution |language=en |volume=12 |issue=3 |pages=189–196 |doi=10.1007/BF02438068 |s2cid=85237113 |issn=0393-9375}}</ref>

== Classification ==
{{Human timeline}}
Ascenzi ''et al.'' (1996) argue that the similarity to Chinese ''[[Biology:Homo erectus|H. erectus]]'' and assignment to ''Homo heidelbergensis'' based on provenance (as Mauer cannot be compared to Ceprano) cannot justify attribution to any other species.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Ascenzi |first1=A. |last2=Biddittu |first2=I. |last3=Cassoli |first3=P.F. |last4=Segre |first4=A.G. |last5=Segre-Naldini |first5=E. |date=1996 |title=A calvarium of late '''''Homo erectus''''' from Ceprano, Italy |url=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S004724849690069X |journal=Journal of Human Evolution |language=en |volume=31 |issue=5 |pages=409–423 |doi=10.1006/jhev.1996.0069}}</ref> 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 [[Metric space|metrics]]. However, Ascenzi and Segre also consider specimens such as Montmaurin, [[Biology:Tautavel Man|Arago]], [[Biology:Petralona skull|Petralona]] and Vertesszolos as ''H. erectus'' or a similar [[Biology:Taxon|taxon]]. They suggested that Tighenif No. 3 mandible is a good fit for the skull, and hinted that [[Biology:Phylogenetics|connection]] between it and [[Place:North Africa|North Africa]] may be evident.<ref name=":1" />

Clarke (2000) suggested that inconsistencies with minimal fontal breadth may be individual or geographic variation, and not [[Biology:Taxonomy|taxonomically]] informative.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Clarke |first=R.J. |date=2000 |title=A corrected reconstruction and interpretation of the Homo erectus calvaria from Ceprano, Italy |url=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0047248400904263 |journal=Journal of Human Evolution |language=en |volume=39 |issue=4 |pages=433–442 |doi=10.1006/jhev.2000.0426|pmid=11006050 }}</ref> 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, [[Biology:Brain size|cranial capacity]], bone thickness, and occipital profile angle.<ref name=":2" />

Manzi ''et al.'' (2001) pose the possibility that it may be an adult ''[[Biology:Homo antecessor|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 [[Earth:Africa|Africa]]n to early [[Earth:Europe|Europe]]an fossils. They also suggest that [[Earth:Early Pleistocene|Early Pleistocene]] dispersals toted a new [[Biology:Morphology|morphology]] that was lost, possibly by other Acheulean-using hominins.<ref name=":4" />

Mallegni ''et al.'' (2003) noticed a lack of ''[[Biology:Homo heidelbergensis|Homo heidelbergensis]]'' frontal morphology was similar to the Daka specimen, and as such they were recovered as sister individuals in their [[Biology:Cladistics|cladistic]] analysis. They propose that the [[Earth:Bouri Formation|Bouri]] population was the source for later European populations, and the resulting species did not contribute to the [[Biology:Genome|genome]]s of later [[Earth:Middle Pleistocene|Middle Pleistocene]] (MP) hominins. They also suggested that similarity with ''[[Biology:Homo rhodesiensis|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 [[Biology:Holotype|holotype]] and only specimen.<ref name=":0" />

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 ''[[Biology:Homo heidelbergensis|Homo heidelbergensis]]''. However, they caution other workers that no direct comparisons can yet be made based on [[Biology:Fossil|fossil record]] incompleteness.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Bruner |first1=Emiliano |last2=Manzi |first2=Giorgio |date=2007 |title=Landmark-based shape analysis of the archaicHomo calvarium from Ceprano (Italy) |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.20545 |journal=American Journal of Physical Anthropology |language=en |volume=132 |issue=3 |pages=355–366 |doi=10.1002/ajpa.20545|pmid=17177181 }}</ref> 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 [[Biology:Holotype|holotype]] due to its preservation and morphology. They also suggest ancestry with Neanderthals.<ref name=":8">{{Cite journal |last1=Mounier |first1=Aurélien |last2=Condemi |first2=Silvana |last3=Manzi |first3=Giorgio |date=April 20, 2011 |title=The Stem Species of Our Species: A Place for the Archaic Human Cranium from Ceprano, Italy |journal=PLOS ONE |volume=6 |issue=4 |pages=e18821 |bibcode=2011PLoSO...618821M |doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0018821 |pmc=3080388 |pmid=21533096 |doi-access=free}}</ref>

Segre and Mallegni (2012) retain use of ''Homo cepranensis'' and dispute redating of the site.<ref name=":6" /> Freidline ''et al.'' (2012) follow suit with the opinion of Guipert (2005). Guipert (2005) digitally reconstructed several hominin fossils exhibiting extreme degrees of [[Physics:Distortion|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.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Freidline |first1=S. E. |last2=Gunz |first2=P. |last3=Janković |first3=I. |last4=Harvati |first4=K. |last5=Hublin |first5=J. J. |date=2012-02-01 |title=A comprehensive morphometric analysis of the frontal and zygomatic bone of the Zuttiyeh fossil from Israel |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004724841100220X |journal=Journal of Human Evolution |language=en |volume=62 |issue=2 |pages=225–241 |doi=10.1016/j.jhevol.2011.11.005 |pmid=22176924 |issn=0047-2484}}</ref><ref>{{Cite thesis |title=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 |url=https://www.theses.fr/2005AIX30050 |publisher=Aix-Marseille 3 |date=2005-01-01 |degree=These de doctorat |first=Gaspard |last=Guipert}}</ref>

Manzi (2016) suggested that the species ''Homo heidelbergensis'' is the best descriptor for the calvaria, and further proposed two modes of [[Classification|classification]]. One uses a single species under that name with Ceprano being having ancestral characters, but noticed that [[Biology:Subspecific name|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), [[Biology:Homo rhodesiensis|''rhodesiensis'']] (Broken Hill, [[Biology:Jebel Irhoud|Irhoud]], Florisbad, Eliye Springs, Ngaloba, Omo Kibish II), and ''steinheimensis'' (Steinheim, Petralona, Reilingen, Swanscombe, Sima).<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Manzi |first=Giorgio |date=2016 |title=Humans of the Middle Pleistocene: The controversial calvarium from Ceprano (Italy) and its significance for the origin and variability of Homo heidelbergensis |url=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S104061821501441X |journal=Quaternary International |language=en |volume=411 |pages=254–261 |doi=10.1016/j.quaint.2015.12.047|bibcode=2016QuInt.411..254M }}</ref> 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''-''[[Biology:Human|sapiens]]''-[[History:Denisovan|Denisovan]] [[Biology:Clade|clade]].<ref name=":7" />

Manzi (2021) elaborates that the specimen is a lost morphology that lived in a [[Biology:Refugium (population biology)|refugium]] in Italy (much like the Neanderthal from [[Biology:Altamura Man|Altamura]]<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Profico |first1=Antonio |last2=Buzi |first2=Costantino |last3=Di Vincenzo |first3=Fabio |last4=Boggioni |first4=Marco |last5=Borsato |first5=Andrea |last6=Boschian |first6=Giovanni |last7=Marchi |first7=Damiano |last8=Micheli |first8=Mario |last9=Cecchi |first9=Jacopo Moggi |last10=Samadelli |first10=Marco |last11=Tafuri |first11=Mary Anne |last12=Arsuaga |first12=Juan Luis |last13=Manzi |first13=Giorgio |date=2023 |title=Virtual excavation and analysis of the early Neanderthal cranium from Altamura (Italy) |journal=Communications Biology |language=en |volume=6 |issue=1 |page=316 |doi=10.1038/s42003-023-04644-1 |issn=2399-3642 |pmc=10039001 |pmid=36964200}}</ref>) and retained [[Biology:Plesiomorphy and symplesiomorphy|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.<ref name=":5">{{Cite book |last=Manzi |first=Giorgio |date=2021 |chapter=Ceprano (a "transitional" ''Homo'' calvarium) |title=Encyclopedia of Animal Cognition and Behavior |editor=J. Vonk |editor2=T. K. Shackelford |chapter-url=https://corsidilaurea.uniroma1.it/sites/default/files/2021_manzi_encyclop_animal_cb_ceprano_as_hheid.pdf |doi=10.1007/978-3-319-47829-6_2101-1|doi-broken-date=2023-08-12 |publisher=Springer Nature Switzerland AG }}</ref> The description of the [[Biography:Homo longi|Harbin skull]] suggests that it is associated specifically with ''[[Biology:Homo rhodesiensis|H. rhodesiensis]].<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Ni |first1=Xijun |last2=Ji |first2=Qiang |last3=Wu |first3=Wensheng |last4=Shao |first4=Qingfeng |last5=Ji |first5=Yannan |last6=Zhang |first6=Chi |last7=Liang |first7=Lei |last8=Ge |first8=Junyi |last9=Guo |first9=Zhen |last10=Li |first10=Jinhua |last11=Li |first11=Qiang |last12=Grün |first12=Rainer |last13=Stringer |first13=Chris |date=2021-08-28 |title=Massive cranium from Harbin in northeastern China establishes a new Middle Pleistocene human lineage |journal=The Innovation |language=English |volume=2 |issue=3 |page=100130 |bibcode=2021Innov...200130N |doi=10.1016/j.xinn.2021.100130 |issn=2666-6758 |pmc=8454562 |pmid=34557770}}</ref>'' 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.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Delson |first1=Eric |last2=Stringer |first2=Chris |date=2022 |title=The naming of Homo bodoensis by Roksandic and colleagues does not resolve issues surrounding Middle Pleistocene human evolution |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/evan.21950 |journal=Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews |language=en |volume=31 |issue=5 |pages=233–236 |doi=10.1002/evan.21950 |pmid=35758557 |s2cid=250070886 |issn=1060-1538}}</ref> They suggest that it may have contributed to Arago and Petralona, among other specimens.<ref name=":9">{{Cite journal |last1=Roksandic |first1=Mirjana |last2=Radović |first2=Predrag |last3=Wu |first3=Xiu-Jie |last4=Bae |first4=Christopher J. |date=2022 |title=Resolving the "muddle in the middle": The case for Homo bodoensis sp. nov. |journal=Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews |language=en |volume=31 |issue=1 |pages=20–29 |doi=10.1002/evan.21929 |issn=1060-1538 |pmc=9297855 |pmid=34710249}}</ref>

== Technology ==
Lithics at Ceprano tend to be located higher up and in [[Earth:Volcano|volcanic]] sediment. [[Engineering:Chopper (archaeology)|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.<ref name=":1" /> 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.<ref name=":4" />

== Paleoecology ==
The Ceprano calvarium was discovered in the Camp Grande area by what is now a highway. It was associated with bone and [[Engineering:Lithic reduction|lithic]] [[Engineering:Acheulean|Acheulean]] [[Social:Artifact (archaeology)|artifacts]] and faunal remains, such as ''Palaeoloxodon antiquus'', ''Stephanorhinus hemitoecus'', ''[[Biology:Hippopotamus|Hippopotamus]]'' sp., ''Megaceroides verticornis'', ''Dama clactoniana'', ''[[Biology:Beaver|Castor]]'', [[Biology:Unio (bivalve)|''Unio (Auricolaria) sinuata'']]'','' ''Bos primigenius'', and ''Enys 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 [[Earth:Facies|facies]], [[Earth:Clay|clay]]s and [[Earth:Silt|silt]]s. Further, six [[Earth:Group (stratigraphy)|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 [[Earth:Travertine|travertine]] and with scattered nodular [[Chemistry:Calcium carbonate|calcium carbonate]] [[Earth:Concretion|concretion]]s, mixed with yellow sands, and diffused with [[Chemistry:Ferromanganese|Ferromanganese]]. The area would have probably been [[Earth:Forest|forest]]ed due to the clay corresponding to a [[Earth:Fluvial processes|fluvial period]] that is in relation to [[Earth:Tectonics|terminal tectonics]].<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal |last1=Ascenzi |first1=Antonio |last2=Segre |first2=Aldo G. |date=1997 |title=Resti di cranio umano del pleistocene medio-inferiore a ceprano |url=http://link.springer.com/10.1007/BF03002252 |journal=Rendiconti Lincei |language=it |volume=8 |issue=1 |pages=39–67 |doi=10.1007/BF03002252 |s2cid=127360103 |issn=1120-6349}}</ref> It lived during the MIS 11, a warm stage at Lirino Lake, which was a refugium for archaic morphologies.<ref name=":3" /><ref name=":5" /> It was buried once in a perilacustrine environment by rising and lowering water, scattering the skeleton and filling the cranium.<ref name=":7" />

==See also==
* [[Biology:Altamura Man|Altamura Man]] (other Italian hominin in refugium)
* [[Biology:Archaic humans|Archaic humans]]
* ''[[Biology:Homo heidelbergensis|Homo heidelbergensis]]''
* [[Earth:Middle Pleistocene|Middle Pleistocene]]

==References==
{{Reflist}}

==External links==
* [http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-evolution-timeline-interactive Human Timeline (Interactive)] – Smithsonian, National Museum of Natural History (August 2016).

{{Human_Evolution}}
{{Taxonbar|from=Q494278}}

[[Category:Paleolithic Europe]]

{{Sourceattribution|Ceprano Man}}