Krapina 1: A juvenile Neandertal from the early late Pleistocene of Croatia

• Published in: American journal of physical anthropology Vol. 111; no. 3; pp. 393 - 424
• Main Authors: Minugh-Purvis, Nancy, Radovčić, Jakov, Smith, Fred H.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: New York John Wiley & Sons, Inc 01.03.2000; Wiley-Liss
• Subjects: Animals; Anthropology, Physical; Biological Evolution; Child; craniofacial ontogeny; Croatia; Fossils; growth and development; hominid evolution; Hominidae - classification; Human paleontology; Humans; Mankind origin and evolution; Methodology and general studies; Neandertals; Prehistory and protohistory; Skull - anatomy & histology; Neanderthal; Europe; Croatia; Pathology; Mandible; Late Pleistocene; Growth; Morphology; Development; Human palaeontology; Child
• ISSN: 0002-9483; 1096-8644
• DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1096-8644(200003)111:3<393::AID-AJPA7>3.0.CO;2-U

The juvenile A Skull from Krapina, Croatia (Krapina 1) has been the subject of considerable debate since B. Škerlj first suggested that it might not be a Neandertal. Although widely known by its original designation, the Krapina A Skull was recatalogued, along with all of the Krapina hominids, in the 1980's (Radovčić, et al., [1988]. The Krapina Hominids: An Illustrated Catalog of Skeletal Collection. Zagreb; Mladost). It is now catalogued as Krapina 1 in the archives of the Hrvatski Prirodoslovni Muzej, Zagreb, Croatia. We present a detailed, morphometric analysis of this specimen, comparing it to other Krapina specimens, juvenile late Pleistocene hominids (including Neandertals), and subadult recent humans. This analysis demonstrates that Krapina 1 possesses morphological features that are primitive retentions; others that represent derived Neandertal specializations; and still others that are typical for all European late Pleistocene humans. Morphological features associated with the browridges are intermediate between Neandertal and early modern European form. Nevertheless, a thorough analysis of the morphology of this specimen, in ontogenetic and regional contexts, leads to the conclusion that it cannot be excluded from the Neandertal range of variation. We conclude that the most parsimonious explanation for this 130 ka specimen is that it should be regarded as a Neandertal. Am J Phys Anthropol 111:393–424, 2000. © 2000 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.