IntroductionThe fossil human calvarium known as Ceprano (Latium, Italy) iscommonly dated to 800e900 ka, on the basis of geological andstratigraphical inferences (Ascenzi et al., 1996, 2000). This chro-nology appeared somehow consistent with the “archaic”morphology of the calvarium and its peculiar combination offeatures, which gave rise to a controversial taxonomic identity(Ascenzietal.,1996,2000;Clarke,2000;Manzietal.,2001;Mallegniet al., 2003; Bruner and Manzi, 2005, 2007). A re-evaluation of thislate Early Pleistocene chronology has been advanced by Muttoniet al. (2009) on the basis of paleomagnetic data. This hypothesis istested here, based on the combined evaluation of the multidisci-plinary evidence collected during recent systematic excavations.The specimen was discovered on 13 March 1994 within a claylevel partly destroyed by bulldozers working for a new road ina locality known as Campogrande (Fig. 1), about 3 km SW ofCeprano and 100 km SE of Rome, in Central Italy (for review andreferences see Manzi, 2004). The sediment containing the cranialfragments yielded more than 50 fragments. However, the craniumremainedincompletebecauseneitherportionsof thefacenorteethwere retrieved.The geological history of the Campogrande area was initiallyreferred to two main stratigraphic complexes (Ascenzi et al., 1996,2000; Ascenzi and Segre, 1997a,b): 1) upper fluvio-colluvialdeposits, with variable occurrence of volcanoclastic products (lateEarly to Middle Pleistocene); 2) lower lacustrine deposits, withoutvolcanoclastic products (roughly predating 1.0 Ma). The layercontaining the human calvarium was considered to belong to thelower portion of the upper stratigraphic complex. Its chronologywas inferred as more ancient than the Acheulean site of FontanaRanuccio, near Anagni (458 5.7 ka; Segre and Ascenzi, 1984),possiblyolderthan700ka,adatecorrespondingtothebeginningofthe volcanic activity in the region (Fornaseri, 1985).Given the presence in the Ceprano basin of various LowerPaleolithic assemblages, the archaic features of the calvarium andits hypothetical chronological position were considered in associ-ation with Mode 1, or Oldowan, techno-complexes (Biddittu,1984;Ascenzietal.,1996,2000).Mode1Paleolithicintheareacomefromvarious localities, including Arce, Castro de’ Volsci, Fontana Liri(Biddittu, 1972, 1974), as well as from the Campogrande area itself(see SOM-1), whose assemblages are characterized by flint orlimestone pebble-tools (mostly choppers, chopping-tools andpercussion tools), by debitage with hammerstone flakes, and byrelatively frequent cores, with a low degree of exploitation, mostoften unifacial, and high frequencyof cortical striking platforms. Asfor Mode 2 or Acheulean assemblages, new recent data (excava-tions 2001e2006; see below) have made it possible to bettercharacterize the material from Campogrande. These materials arenot numerically rich, but they yield evidence of each production