Perimortem versus postmortem damage: The recent case of Cioclovina 1

Abstract

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 postdiscovery 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.

Cioclovina fractures: Reply to Soficaru and Trinkaus: Perimortem versus postmortem damage: The recent case of Cioclovina 1, Am J Phys Anthropol 2020 172, 135–139

“…In their criticism of our article, Soficaru and Trinkaus (2020) do not address the fracture patterns, nor do they employ any paleopathological or forensic criteria to counter our arguments.…”

“…Instead, they rely on a number of illustrations of the specimen, as well as a radiograph, that they present as reproductions of the images published in the original description (Rainer & Simionescu, 1942). These illustrations appear not to show the fractures, therefore, Soficaru and Trinkaus (2020) argue that the specimen must have been broken after the Rainer and Simionescu (1942) study was published.…”

“…1. Both the original figures and those presented by Soficaru and Trinkaus (2020) are of low quality. Contrary to these authors' statements, the relevant views of the images presented are out of focus, and features like sutures are not clearly visible along their entire length (see Figures 1-3; the images we provide from Rainer and Simionescu (1942) are based on high-resolution scans of the original publication and their low quality is not due to the copying process).…”

“…The authors do not explain the origin of these differences (Figures 1-3). Soficaru and Trinkaus (2020), casting further doubt on the reliability of these illustrations.…”

“…wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Anton_Neagu); rather, he was most likely living with his family in his native town of Giurgiu some 65 km away. Rainer and Simionescu (1942); Plate I, Figure 1); Center: The image identified by Soficaru and Trinkaus (2020) (Figure 1(b)) as the left lateral view from Rainer and Simionescu (1942); letter "[b]" from Soficaru & Trinkaus, 2020). It is clearly not the same image; Bottom: Left lateral view of the Cioclovina CT scan (obtained by Kranioti et al, 2011).…”