Perimortem versus postmortem damage: The recent case of Cioclovina 1.

OBJECTIVES

Kranioti, Grigorescu, and Harvati have recently described (PLoS One 2019, 14(7),e0216718) the breakage to the Cioclovina 1 earlier Upper Paleolithic cranium as indicating fatal interhuman blunt trauma. We have reassessed their analysis in terms of the specimen's condition at discovery, its current condition, and the post-discovery history of the cranium.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The original Cioclovina 1 neurocranium and currently associated pieces were visually assessed for the nature of the damage to them, and the records of its discovery, the original 1942 photographs, and their subsequent history in Bucharest were reviewed.

RESULTS

The damage to Cioclovina 1, attributed by Kranioti and colleagues to perimortem blunt trauma, was not present at the time of its 1940-41 discovery in the Peştera Cioclovina Uscată. The "trauma" is from the World War II bombing of the University of Bucharest and subsequent attempts to restore the cranium. The damage does not, and cannot, document interhuman violence in the Pleistocene.

CONCLUSIONS

Although other cases of antemortem and perimortem trauma are known from the earlier Upper Paleolithic, and Pleistocene humans more broadly, there is absolutely no evidence of perimortem trauma on the Cioclovina 1 cranium. Proper assessment of levels and patterns of human trauma in the Pleistocene must be based on the correct paleontological, taphonomic, and historical assessment of the fossil remains in question.