[8] Taking the circumstances of the recovery of the fossil into account, Ascenzi (2001) noted that "an age between 800 and 900 ka is at present our best chronological estimate" based on "the absence in the sediments containing the cranium of any leucitic remnants of the more recent volcanic activity known in the region .
and the presence above the cranium itself of a clear stratigraphic unconformity that marks"[9] After clarification of its geostratigraphic, biostratigraphic and archaeological relation to the well known and nearby Acheulean site of Fontana Ranuccio, dated to 487±6 ka, Muttoni et al. (2009) suggested that Ceprano is most likely about 450,000 years old.
They note that a lack of gnawing, weathering or abrasions induced by transport supports the theory that the skull was buried once by rising and falling water levels, which is evidenced by the pedofeatures of the clay it was found in situ.
[13] DI Vincenzo et al. (2017) provided a virtual reconstruction wherein all plaster and glue was removed and the remains were repositioned to most closely fit their life position.
They noticed misplacement and misalignment in the temporo-parietal region, left mastoid process, and occipital squama, and worked to correct some taphonomic distortion through retrodeformation and other methods.
This was probably caused by an altercation with a large animal, where the skull was butted and fractured; this is more plausible than another, more popular explanation that the blow was inflicted by another human wielding a stick (thus being, hypothetically, murder).
They hypothesized that the individual was a young adult man (gender stated without evidence) whose activities consisted of hunting for themself or the group, and was "bold and aggressive" based on the accumulation of injuries.
The fracture healed, suggesting that it did not cause death and the congenital malformation on the skull was not restrictive or painful enough to limit the subject's physical abilities.
[14] Ascenzi et al. (1996) argue that the similarity to Chinese H. erectus and assignment to Homo heidelbergensis based on provenance (as Mauer cannot be compared to Ceprano) cannot justify attribution to any other species.
[15] Ascenzi and Segre (1997) compared an early cranial reconstruction with the Gran Dolina fossils and concluded that it was "late Homo erectus", being one of the latest occurrences of the species and earliest Italian hominin.
[13] Manzi et al. (2001) pose the possibility that it may be an adult Homo antecessor, but do not make the referral based on the reasoning that no elements from Gran Dolina match in age or completeness to directly compare with Ceprano.
[1] Mallegni et al. (2003) noticed a lack of Homo heidelbergensis frontal morphology was similar to the Daka specimen, and as such they were recovered as sister individuals in their cladistic analysis.
[7] Bruner et al. (2007) recognize that the characters of the specimen exhibits a mix of early African and later European features, enough to be potentially distinct or, alternatively, considered an ancestral of Homo heidelbergensis.
The second incorporates this, using the following: H. h. heidelbergensis (Ceprano, Mauer, Arago, ?Hexian, Melka Kunture 2–3), daliensis (Dali, Denisova, Jinniushan, Narmada), rhodesiensis (Broken Hill, Irhoud, Florisbad, Eliye Springs, Ngaloba, Omo Kibish II), and steinheimensis (Steinheim, Petralona, Reilingen, Swanscombe, Sima).
[12] Manzi (2021) elaborates that the specimen is a lost morphology that lived in a refugium in Italy (much like the Neanderthal from Altamura[22]) and retained plesiomorphic traits for an extended duration.
The skull was discovered in clays of a gray-green color above a travertine and with scattered nodular calcium carbonate concretions, mixed with yellow sands, and diffused with Ferromanganese.