In1978,twowell-preservedfossilhumancraniawerediscoveredat the Apidima site, a karstic cave complex in the Mani peninsula(southernPeloponnese;Fig.1),duringexcavationsbytheUniversityof Athens Medical School (Pitsios, 1995; Harvati and Delson, 1999;Harvati et al., 2009). Together with the Petralona cranium, the Api-dima specimens represent the most important paleoanthropolog-ical finds in Greece, and some of the most significant human fossildiscoveries in south-eastern Europe, a region whose paleoanthro-pological record remains relatively unexplored. However, despitetheir importance, these specimens remain obscure; little has beenpublished about them in the international literature, and detaileddescription and documentation are still pending.Ofthetwospecimens,Apidima2isthebetterpreserved,thoughsomewhat distorted and showing multiple cracks (Fig. 2A). Theoccipital bone, parts of the temporals, as well as all of the teeth andpartofthepalate,areallabsent.Afragmentof therightmandibularramus ispreserved, attachedtotheencasingmatrixand cranium inroughly anatomical position. Apidima 2 has been described asshowing an elongated, low vault with a pronounced supra-orbitaltorus, a wide interorbital breadth, large rounded orbits, no caninefossa, a large nasal aperture, and a prognathic face (Harvati andDelson, 1999; Geanacos, 2001; Pitsios, 2002; Harvati et al., 2009).It is relatively gracile, and has been considered a female (Harvatiand Delson, 1999; Pitsios, 2002; Harvati et al., 2009). Neanderthalaffinities have been noted and the specimen has been proposed torepresent a pre-Neanderthal. Of particular interest is its possiblerelationship with the Petralona cranium from Northern Greece(Fig.2B),andthesuggestionthatApidima2mayrepresentafemaleHomo heidelbergensis comparable to Petralona in geological age.Apidima 1 is less complete and preserves only the posterior part ofthe neuro- and basicranium.Attempts at identifying Apidima 2 to taxon have been stymiedby the lack of both detailed description and extensive metric data.On the basis of its general morphology, Pitsios (1999) suggestedthat Apidima 2 lies on the Neanderthal lineage and proposed thename Homo (sapiens) teanarius (Pitsios, 1995). Harvati and Delson(1999) suggested affinities with H. heidelbergensis (s.l.). Nineosteometric measurements published in a forensic report byKoutselinis et al. (1995) have been used as variables in previousmetric analyses by Manolis (1996) and, more recently, by Harvatiet al. (2009). Both studies were inconclusive in their results,placing Apidima 2 either in an area of overlap between H. hei-delbergensis (s.l.) and early anatomically modern humans (Manolis,1996), or between Homo neanderthalensis and H. heidelbergensis(s.l.) (Harvati et al., 2009).Given the importance of the Apidima specimens and the smallamount of information on them that currently exists, we re-examine the metric data published for Apidima 2. We 1) test theoriginal nine reported measurements for possible error associatedwith distortion; 2) correct the measurements for size, so that wecan examine shape differences; and 3) take into account as manymeasurements and Middle-Late Pleistocene specimens as possible,inordertoachievethebestresolutionforclassifyingApidima2.Wereview the geology and chronology of the site in light of recent re-evaluation of regional geomorphologyand discuss the implicationsof our findings for the interpretation of the Apidima remains.Materials and methodsOurcomparativesamplecomprisesnineteenfossilhumancrania(Table 1) on which all of the variables known for Apidima 2 can bemeasured (Table 2). Most data were collected by one of us (CS),although some were taken from the literature (Trinkaus, pers.comm.,forShanidar1;Arsuaga etal.,1997).Forthepurposesofouranalyses, we grouped the European Middle Pleistocene specimens