Landmark‐based shape analysis of the archaic Homo calvarium from Ceprano (Italy)

Abstract

The Ceprano calvarium represents one of the most important sources of information about both the dynamics of the earliest hominid dispersal toward Europe and the evolution of the genus Homo in the early-to-middle Pleistocene. In this paper, the midsagittal vault profile and the 3D frontal bone morphology of Ceprano are investigated comparatively, using landmark coordinates and Procrustes superimposition. In fact, despite the fact that the skull appears partially distorted by diagenetic pressures (thus precluding a comprehensive landmark-based analysis), some aspects of the overall morphology are suitable for consideration in terms of geometric morphometrics. The midsagittal profile shows an archaic shape, comparable with the H. ergaster/erectus range of variation because of the fronto-parietal flattening, the development of the supraorbital and nuchal structures, and the occurrence of a slightly larger occipital bone. By contrast, the frontal bone displays a derived 3D shape that, mostly because of the widening of the frontal squama, appears comparable with the Afro-European variation of the Middle Pleistocene (i.e., H. heidelbergensis/rhodesiensis). Taking into account the unique morphological pattern displayed by Ceprano, its role as a link between early Homo and the Middle Pleistocene populations of Europe and Africa is not falsified. Thus, when aspects of the Ceprano's morphology are described within the analytical framework provided by geometric morphometrics, the relationships between Ceprano and the subsequent Afro-European fossil record are emphasized, suggesting the occurrence of an ancestral stock of H. heidelbergensis/rhodesiensis that is properly represented by the Italian specimen.

Neurocranial evolution in modern humans: the case of Jebel Irhoud 1

“…If one considers only the vault morphology, the intermediate position of Jebel Irhoud in morphospace is further emphasized. Although constantly midway between modern and non-modern groups, it clusters again with Qafzeh 9 when considering eight basic neurocranial landmarks (Bruner and Manzi, 2007). Nonetheless, when using a more complete anatomical configuration of 18 landmarks, Jebel Irhoud 1 clusters with Shanidar, Sima de los Huesos 4, and Sima de los Huesos 5 (Manzi et al, 2000).…”

“…Quantitative analyses of the frontal bone have demonstrated that among human species this cranial element displays a remarkable similarity, and differences are often negligible when comparisons include the whole frontal squama (Bruner and Manzi, 2007;Athreya, 2009). Likewise, in an analysis of ectocranial and endocranial profiles of the midsagittal section of the frontal bone, Bookstein et al (1999) found that most of the differences between human species were determined by disparities in the size and shape of the browridge rather than the frontal squama.…”

The Stem Species of Our Species: A Place for the Archaic Human Cranium from Ceprano, Italy

“…By contrast, the peculiar morphology of the Ceprano calvarium has no equivalent in Europe or elsewhere and its taxonomic status has been so far controversial, being alternatively viewed as a “late” H. erectus [4], [10], a possible adult individual of H. antecessor [5], or the holotype of a new species named H. cepranensis [11]. A number of studies [5], [12]–[14] also highlighted phenetic links with Mid-Pleistocene fossils from Africa (e.g. Kabwe 1) and Europe (e.g.…”

“…Overall, Ceprano has been compared to 42 fossils from Africa and Eurasia ranging from ∼1.8 Ma to ∼12 ka (Table 1) and to 68 Holocene modern humans (see, Table S1). A comparison of the Ceprano calvarium with such an extensive sample, especially considering the H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens specimens, was never carried out before [5], [14].…”

If the skull fits: magnetic resonance imaging and microcomputed tomography for combined analysis of brain and skull phenotypes in the mouse

“…Comparison of ancient and modern hominid craniums has allowed inferences about shape changes over the course of evolution (17)(18)(19). The changes reveal that morphological features do not evolve in isolation, but in linked modules (26,94), such that an elongated face, for instance, tends to be accompanied by characteristic changes in the cranial base (86).…”