Homo erectus

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
"H. erectus" redirects here. For other uses, see H. erectus (disambiguation) and Homo erectus (disambiguation).

Homo erectus
Temporal range: 2–0.1 
Ma
↓
Early Pleistocene – Late Pleistocene[1]
Replica of the skull of Peking Man at the Paleozoological Museum of China
Scientific classification Edit this classification
Domain: Eukaryota
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Suborder: Haplorhini
Infraorder: Simiiformes
Family: Hominidae
Subfamily: Homininae
Tribe: Hominini
Genus: Homo
Species:
†H. erectus
Binomial name
†Homo erectus
(Dubois, 1893)
Synonyms

Homo erectus (

archaic human from the Pleistocene, with its earliest occurrence about 2 million years ago.[2] Its specimens are among the first recognizable members of the genus Homo
.

Several human species, such as

H. floresiensis[4] and possibly to H. luzonensis.[5] The last known population of H. erectus is H. e. soloensis from Java, around 117,000–108,000 years ago.[1]

H. erectus had a more modern gait and body proportions, and was the first human species to have exhibited a flat face, prominent nose, and possibly sparse body hair coverage. Though the species' brain size certainly exceeds that of ancestor species, capacity varied widely depending on the population. In earlier populations, brain development seemed to cease early in childhood, suggesting that offspring were largely self-sufficient at birth, thus limiting cognitive development through life. H. erectus was an

bovines or elephants, and suggest the development of predatory behavior and coordinated hunting. H. erectus is associated with the Acheulean stone tool industry, and is postulated to have been the earliest human ancestor capable of using fire,[7]
hunting and gathering in coordinated groups, caring for injured or sick group members, and possibly seafaring and art (though examples of art are controversial, and are otherwise rudimentary and few and far between).

H. erectus males and females may have been roughly the same size as each other (i.e. exhibited reduced sexual dimorphism), which could indicate monogamy in line with general trends exhibited in primates. Size, nonetheless, ranged widely from 146–185 cm (4 ft 9 in – 6 ft 1 in) in height and 40–68 kg (88–150 lb) in weight. It is unclear if H. erectus was anatomically capable of speech, though it is postulated they communicated using some proto-language.

Taxonomy

Naming

Further information: Java Man
Java Man at Naturalis

Contrary to the view

late Pliocene or early Pleistocene at the Trinil site along the Solo River, which he named Pithecanthropus erectus ("upright apeman") in 1893. He attempted unsuccessfully to convince the European scientific community that he had found an upright-walking ape-man. Given few fossils of ancient humans had even been discovered at the time, they largely dismissed his findings as a malformed non-human ape.[10]

The significance of these fossils would not be realized until the 1927 discovery of what Canadian paleoanthropologist Davidson Black called "Sinanthropus pekinensis" (Peking Man) at the Zhoukoudian cave near Beijing, China. Black lobbied across North America and Europe for funding to continue excavating the site,[11] which has since become the most productive H. erectus site in the world.[12] Continued interest in Java led to further H. erectus fossil discoveries at Ngandong (Solo Man) in 1931, Mojokerto (Java Man) in 1936, and Sangiran (Java Man) in 1937. The Sangiran site yielded the best preserved Java Man skull.[13] German paleoanthropologist Franz Weidenreich provided much of the detailed description of the Chinese specimens in several monographs. The original specimens were lost during the Second Sino-Japanese War after an attempt to smuggle them out of China for safekeeping. Only casts remain.

Similarities between Java Man and Peking Man led Ernst Mayr to rename both as Homo erectus in 1950. Throughout much of the 20th century, anthropologists debated the role of H. erectus in human evolution. Early in the century, due in part to the discoveries at Java and Zhoukoudian, the belief that modern humans first evolved in Asia was widely accepted. A few naturalists—Charles Darwin the most prominent among them—theorized that humans' earliest ancestors were African. Darwin had pointed out that chimpanzees and gorillas, humans' closest relatives, evolved and exist only in Africa.[14] Darwin did not include orangutans among the great apes of the Old World, likely because he thought of orangutans as primitive humans rather than apes.[15] While Darwin considered Africa as the most probable birthplace of human ancestors, he also made the following statement about the geographic location of human origins in his book The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex: "... it is useless to speculate on this subject; for two or three anthropomorphous apes, one the Dryopithecus …, existed in Europe during the Miocene age; and since so remote a period the earth has certainly undergone many great revolutions, and there has been ample time for migration on the largest scale." (1889, pp. 155-156).

In 1949, the species was reported in Swartkrans Cave, South Africa, by South African paleoanthropologists Robert Broom and John Talbot Robinson, who described it as "Telanthropus capensis".[16] Homo fossils have also been reported from nearby caves, but their species designation has been a tumultuous discussion. A few North African sites have additionally yielded H. erectus remains, which at first were classified as "Atlantanthropus mauritanicus" in 1951.[17] Beginning in the 1970s, propelled most notably by Richard Leakey, more were being unearthed in East Africa predominantly at the Koobi Fora site, Kenya, and Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania.[18]

Archaic human fossils unearthed across Europe used to be assigned to H. erectus, but have since been separated as H. heidelbergensis as a result of British physical anthropologist Chris Stringer's work.[19]

Evolution

Further information:
Early human expansions out of Africa
cleaver
finds

It has been proposed that H. erectus evolved from

reproductively isolated, and only this group developed into H. erectus (cladogenesis).[20]

Because the earliest remains of H. erectus are found in both Africa and East Asia (in China as early as 2.1 Mya,[21][22][23] in South Africa 2.04 Mya[2][24]), it is debated where H. erectus evolved. A 2011 study suggested that it was H. habilis who reached West Asia from Africa, that early H. erectus developed there, and that early H. erectus would then have dispersed from West Asia to East Asia (Peking Man), Southeast Asia (Java Man), back to Africa (Homo ergaster), and to Europe (Tautavel Man), eventually evolving into modern humans in Africa.[25][26] Others have suggested that H. erectus/H. ergaster developed in Africa, where it eventually evolved into modern humans.[27][28]

H. erectus had reached Sangiran, Java, by 1.5 Mya,[29] and a second and distinct wave of H. erectus had colonized Zhoukoudian, China, about 780 kya (thousand years ago). Early teeth from Sangiran are bigger and more similar to those of basal (ancestral) Western H. erectus and H. habilis than to those of the derived Zhoukoudian H. erectus. However, later Sangiran teeth seem to reduce in size, which could indicate a secondary colonization event of Java by the Zhoukoudian or some closely related population.[30]

Subspecies

"Wushan Man" was proposed as Homo erectus wushanensis, but is now thought to be based upon fossilized fragments of an extinct non-hominin ape.[31]

Since the discovery of Java Man in 1893, there has been a trend in paleoanthropology of reducing the number of proposed species of Homo, to the point where H. erectus includes all early (Lower Paleolithic) forms of Homo sufficiently derived from H. habilis and distinct from early H. heidelbergensis (in Africa also known as H. rhodesiensis).[32] It is sometimes considered as a wide-ranging, polymorphous species.[33]

Due to such a wide range of variation, it has been suggested that the ancient

Dmanisi, Georgia has the smallest brain capacity of any known Pleistocene hominin (about 600 cc), and its inclusion in the species would greatly expand the range of variation of H. erectus to perhaps include species as H. rudolfensis, H. gautengensis, H. ergaster, and perhaps H. habilis.[36] However, a 2015 study suggested that H. georgicus represents an earlier, more primitive species of Homo derived from an older dispersal of hominins from Africa, with H. ergaster/erectus possibly deriving from a later dispersal.[37] H. georgicus is sometimes not even regarded as H. erectus.[38][39]

It is debated whether the African H. e. ergaster is a separate species (and that H. erectus evolved in Asia, then migrated to Africa),

H. erectus soloensis in Java an estimated 117-108 kya.[1]

  • Sima de los Huesos.[44]
  • H. e. capensis (Broom 1917): A variant of "Homo capensis",[45] a taxon erected from a skull from South Africa formally classified as a type of "race" but is now considered a representative of the Khoisan.[46]
  • H. e. chenchiawoensis: A name utilized in a 2007 review of Chinese archeology; the text suggests that it and gongwanglingensis are contenders in taxonomy[47] (despite this name not appearing in the literature).
  • H. e. erectus (Dubois 1891):[48] The Javanese specimens of H. erectus were once classified as a distinct subspecies in the 1970s. The cranium from Trinil is the holotype.[49]
  • ICZN.[51]
  • H. e. georgicus (Gabounia 1991):[52] This hypothetical subspecific designation unites the D2600 cranium with the remainder of the Dmanisi sample, a connection that was, at the time, controversial and was only suggested if the single-species hypothesis could be proven true.[53]
  • H. e. gongwanglingensis: A name utilized in a 2007 review of Chinese archeology; the text suggests that it and chenchiawoensis are contenders in taxonomy.[47] Rukang (1992) notes that this taxon was born in a "subspecies fever".[54]
  • H. e. habilis (Leakey, Tobias, and Napier 1964): D.R. Hughes believed that the Olduvai specimens were not distinct enough to be assigned to Australopithecus, so he created this taxon, as an early variation of H. erectus.[55]
  • H. e. heidelbergensis (Schoetensack 1908): This taxon was used as an alternative to standard H. heidelbergensis during the middle 20th century, and it was used as a Eurocentric devision of the wider Middle Pleistocene hominin morph.[56]
  • H. e. hexianensis (Huang 1982): Established based on the Hexian cranium.[57]
  • H. e. hungaricus (Naddeo 2023): A Hungarian paper submitted to a conference lists this subspecies as an alternate name for the Vertesszöllös remains.[58]
  • H. e. lantianensis (Ju-Kang 1964): Based on hominin fossils discovered in Lantian, originally named as a species of Sinanthropus and then reclassified as a subspecies.[59]
  • OH 9. The replacement name is louisleakeyi.[60] It received limited use as a subspecies.[61]
  • Homo sapiens, and Howell (1999) did not assign the species to a genus.[62]
  • H. e. mauritanicus (Arambourg 1954): A subspecies that received limited use as a descriptor for the cranial and mandibular material discovered at Tighenif.[61]
  • H. e. narmadensis (Sonakia 1984): The name given to the Narmada cranium.[63]
  • H. e. newyorkensis (Laitman and Tattersall 2001): A name based on the Sambungmacan 3 cranium.[64]
  • H. e. ngandongensis (Sartono 1976): A name that was used in the process of splitting Pithecanthropus into many subspecies.[65]
  • H. e. olduvaiensis: A subspecies that described the OH 9 cranium, compared to the Bilzingsleben cranial fragments.[66]
  • H. e. pekinensis (Black and Zdansky 1927): Originally assigned the type of Sinanthropus based on a single molar.[67] Antón and Middleton (2023) suggested that Zhoukoudian and Nanjing may be referrable under this name if they exhibit enough discontinuity from H. erectus proper.[50]
  • H. e. reilingensis (Czarnetzki 1989): Referring to a single cranial fragment, this subspecies is now considered a member of the Neanderthal lineage.[68]
  • H. e. soloensis (Oppenoorth 1932): The original name devised by Oppenoorth for the Ngandong crania.[69]
  • Arago, with many preferring allocation to Homo heidelbergensis.[70] The remains were determined not to be H. erectus by Antón and Middleton (2023).[50]
  • H. e. trinilensis (Sartono 1976): A tentative classification scheme, thus making the name conditional and unable for use.[71]
  • H. e. wadjakensis (Dubois 1921): A species established by Eugene Dubois based on the Wajak skulls.[72] Pramujiono classified these materials as a subspecies, and incorrectly self-published the name as wajakensis.[73]
  • H. e. wushanensis (Huang and Fang 1991): Originally conceived as a hominin, the remains this taxon is founded on are more likely referred to Ponginae.[74][75]
  • H. e. yuanmouensis (Li et al. 1977): Based on hominin remains[76] that Antón and Middleton (2023) suggest do not belong to the taxon H. erectus, although they do not provide an alternate classification.[50]
Transcaucasus
)

Descendants and synonyms

Homo erectus is the most long-lived species of Homo, having survived for almost two million years. By contrast,

Homo sapiens
emerged about a third of a million years ago.

Regarding many

subspecies
of H. erectus or H. sapiens or as separate species.

Meganthropus, based on fossils found in Java, dated to between 1.4 and 0.9 Mya, was tentatively grouped with H. erectus in contrast to earlier interpretations of it as a giant species of early human[32] although older literature has placed the fossils outside of Homo altogether.[79] However, Zanolli et al. (2019) judged Meganthropus to be a distinct genus of extinct ape.[80]

Anatomy

Head

Skull of H. e. pekinensis showing a flat face, pronounced brow ridge, and a sagittal keel

Homo erectus featured a flat face compared to earlier hominins; pronounced brow ridge; and a low, flat skull.[81][82] The presence of sagittal, frontal, and coronal keels, which are small crests that run along these suture lines, has been proposed to be evidence of significant thickening of the skull, specifically the cranial vault. CT scan analyses reveal this to not be the case. However, the squamous part of occipital bone, particularly the internal occipital crest, at the rear of the skull is notably thicker than that of modern humans, likely a basal (ancestral) trait.[82][83] The fossil record indicates that H. erectus was the first human species to have featured a projecting nose, which is generally thought to have evolved in response to breathing dry air in order to retain moisture.[84] American psychologist Lucia Jacobs hypothesized that the projecting nose instead allowed for distinguishing the direction different smells come from (stereo olfaction) to facilitate navigation and long-distance migration.[85]

The average brain size of Asian H. erectus is about 1,000 cc (61 cu in). However, markedly smaller specimens have been found in Dmanisi, Georgia (H. e. georgicus); Koobi Fora and Olorgesailie, Kenya; and possibly Gona, Ethiopia. Overall, H. erectus brain size varies from 546–1,251 cc (33.3–76.3 cu in),[86] which is greater than the range of variation seen in modern humans and chimps, though less than that of gorillas.[citation needed]

Homo erectus reconstruction, Natural History Museum, London.

In an article published in 2021 titled "Interpopulational variation in human brain size: Implications for hominin cognitive phylogeny," it was found that the brain size of Asian H. erectus over the last 600,000 years overlaps significantly with modern human populations. Significantly, some small brained modern populations showed greater affinity with H. erectus than they did with other large brained and large bodied modern populations. The paper points out methodological flaws in current understanding of brain size increase in human evolution, where species averages are compared with fossils, which overlooks interpopulational variation. It also overlooks the fact that some modern populations have not seen any dramatic brain size increase relative to H. erectus with most of the increase occurring in northern populations, which has the result of obscuring interpopulational variation. As the authors write '...the increase in the mean of H. sapiens cranial capacity is to a large extent due to an increase in the upper limit with a much less pronounced increase in the lower limit relative to our H. erectus sample. And this increase in the upper limit seems to be more pronounced in northern populations – which may be a result of correlated increases in body size in addition to climatic factors'. Consequently, the authors argue that purely based on brain size similarities, Asian H. erectus could be re-classified as a subspecies of H. sapiens, that is H. sapiens soloensis - as was suggested by earlier authors.[87]

Dentally, H. erectus have the thinnest

bite force or chewing, meaning their jaws could produce unusually powerful stresses while eating, but the practical application of this is unclear. Nonetheless, the mandibular bodies of H. erectus are somewhat thinner than those of early Homo. The premolars and molars also have a higher frequency of pits than H. habilis, suggesting H. erectus ate more brittle foods (which cause pitting). These all indicate that the H. erectus mouth was less capable of processing hard foods and more at shearing through tougher foods, thus reducing the variety of foods it could process, likely as a response to tool use.[88]

Body

Skeleton and reconstruction of Turkana Boy by Mauricio Antón

Like modern humans, H. erectus varied widely in size, ranging from 146–185 cm (4 ft 9 in – 6 ft 1 in) in height and 40–68 kg (88–150 lb) in weight, thought to be due to regional differences in climate, mortality rates, or nutrition.[89][90] Among primates, this marked of a response to environmental stressors (phenotypic plasticity) is only demonstrated in modern humans.[91][92][93]

Like modern humans and unlike other

great apes, there does not seem to have been a great size disparity between H. erectus males and females (size-specific sexual dimorphism), though there is not much fossil data regarding this.[94] Brain size in two adults from Koobi Fora measured 848 and 804 cc (51.7 and 49.1 cu in),[86] and another significantly smaller adult measured 691 cc (42.2 cu in), which could possibly indicate sexual dimorphism, though sex was undetermined.[20] Another case that depicts the difficulty of assigning sex to the fossil record is a few samples taken in Olduvai Gorge. In 1960, in Olduvai Gorge two skulls identified as OH12 and OH9, were found to be that of H. erectus with a cranial capacities of 1000 cc and 700 cc.[95] It is unclear if sexual dimorphism is at play here since the remains are fragmentary.[95] If H. erectus did not exhibit sexual dimorphism, then it is possible that they were the first in the human line to do so, though the fragmentary fossil record for earlier species makes this unclear. If yes, then there was a substantial and sudden increase in female height.[96] Certain features of sexual dimorphism are often identified in the possibility of determining sex such as lack of muscle marking.[97]

Reconstruction of a female H. erectus

H. erectus had about the same limb configurations and proportions as modern humans, implying humanlike locomotion,

thoracic vertebrae, but this has since been revised, and the specimen is now considered to have exhibited a humanlike curvature of the spine (lordosis) and the same number of respective vertebrae.[101]

It is largely unclear when human ancestors lost most of their body hair. Genetic analysis suggests that high activity in the

UV radiation.[102] It is possible that exposed skin only became maladaptive in the Pleistocene, because the increasing tilt of the Earth (which also caused the ice ages) would have increased solar radiation bombardment- which would suggest that hairlessness first emerged in the australopithecines.[103] However, australopithecines seem to have lived at much higher, much colder elevations—typically 1,000–1,600 m (3,300–5,200 ft) where the nighttime temperature can drop to 10 or 5 °C (50 or 41 °F)—so they may have required hair to stay warm, unlike early Homo which inhabited lower, hotter elevations.[104] Populations in higher latitudes potentially developed lighter skin to prevent vitamin D deficiency.[105] A 500–300 kya H. erectus specimen from Turkey was diagnosed with the earliest known case of tuberculous meningitis, which is typically exacerbated in dark-skinned people living in higher latitudes due to vitamin D deficiency.[106] Hairlessness is generally thought to have facilitated sweating,[107] but reduction of parasite load and sexual selection have also been proposed.[108][109]

Metabolism

Front view of the Mojokerto child skull

The 1.8 Ma

secondary altriciality—an extended childhood and long period of dependency due to the great amount of time required for brain maturation—evolved much later in human evolution, perhaps in the modern human/Neanderthal last common ancestor.[110] It was previously believed that, based on the narrow pelvis of Turkana boy, H. erectus could only safely deliver a baby with a brain volume of about 230 cc (14 cu in), equating to a similar brain growth rate as modern humans to achieve the average adult brain size of 600–1,067 cc (36.6–65.1 cu in). However, a 1.8 Ma female pelvis from Gona, Ethiopia, shows that H. erectus babies with a brain volume of 310 cc (19 cu in) could have been safely delivered, which is 34–36% the mean adult size, compared to 40% in chimps and 28% in modern humans. This more aligns with the conclusions drawn from the Mojokerto child.[94] A faster development rate could indicate a lower expected lifespan.[111]

Based on an average mass of 63 kg (139 lb) for males and 52.3 kg (115 lb) for females, the daily energy expenditure (DEE)—the amount of calories metabolized in one day—was estimated to be about 2271.8 and 1909.5

kcal, respectively. This is similar to that of earlier Homo, despite a marked increase in activity and migratory capacity, likely because the longer legs of H. erectus were more energy-efficient in long-distance movement. Nonetheless, the estimate for H. erectus females is 84% higher than that for Australopithecus females, possibly due to an increased body size and a decreased growth rate.[112] A 2011 study, assuming high energy or dietary fat requirements based on the abundance of large game animals at H. erectus sites, calculated a DEE of 2,700–3,400 kcal of which 27–44% derived from fat, and 44–62% of the fat from animal sources. In comparison, modern humans with a similar activity level have a DEE of 2,450 calories, of which 33% derives from fat, and 49% of the fat from animals.[113]

Bone thickness

cortical bone

The

medullary canal in the long bones (where the bone marrow is stored, in the limbs) is extremely narrowed (medullary stenosis). This degree of thickening is usually exhibited in semi-aquatic animals which used their heavy (pachyosteosclerotic) bones as ballasts to help them sink, induced by hypothyroidism. Male specimens have thicker cortical bone than females.[115]

It is largely unclear what function this could have served. All pathological inducers would leave scarring or some other indicator not normally exhibited in H. erectus. Before more complete skeletons were discovered, Weidenreich suggested H. erectus was a gigantic species, thickened bone required to support the massive weight. It was hypothesized that intense physical activity could have induced bone thickening, but in 1970, human biologist

congenital condition in modern humans induced by hyper-apposition. In 1985, biological anthropologist Gail Kennedy argued for resorption as a result of hyperparathyroidism caused by hypocalcemia (calcium deficiency), a consequence of a dietary shift to low-calcium meat. Kennedy could not explain why the calcium metabolism of H. erectus never adjusted.[115] In 1985, American paleoanthropologist Mary Doria Russell and colleagues argued the supraorbital torus is a response to withstanding major bending moment which localizes in that region when significant force is applied through the front teeth, such as while using the mouth as a third hand to carry objects.[116]

In 2004, Noel Boaz and Russel Ciochon suggested it was a result of a cultural practice, wherein H. erectus would fight each other with fists, stones, or clubs to settle disputes or battle for mates, since the skull is reinforced in key areas. The mandible is quite robust, capable of absorbing heavy blows (no "glass jaw"); the heavy brow ridge protects the eyes, and transitions into a bar covering the ears, connecting all the way in the back of the skull, meaning blows to any of these regions can be effectively dissipated across the skull; and the sagittal keel protects the top of the braincase. Many skullcaps bear usually debilitating fractures, such as the Peking Man skull X, yet they can show signs of surviving and healing. Anthropologist

Australian Aboriginal skull, a result of a ritual popular in central and southeast Australian tribes where adversaries would wack each other with waddies (sticks) until knockout.[114]

Culture

Social structure

Diagram of fossil trackways from 2 sites near Ileret, Kenya

The only fossil evidence regarding H. erectus group composition comes from 4 sites outside of Ileret, Kenya, where 97 footprints made 1.5 Mya were likely left by a group of at least 20 individuals. One of these trackways, based on the size of the footprints, may have been an entirely male group, which could indicate they were some specialised task group, such as a hunting or foraging party, or a border patrol. If correct, this would also indicate sexual division of labour, which distinguishes human societies from those of other great apes and social mammalian carnivores. In modern hunter gatherer societies who target large prey items, typically male parties are dispatched to bring down these high-risk animals, and, due to the low success rate, female parties focus on more predictable foods.[99] Based on modern day savanna chimp and baboon group composition and behavior, H. erectus ergaster may have lived in large, multi-male groups in order to defend against large savanna predators in the open and exposed environment.[117] However, dispersal patterns indicate that H. erectus generally avoided areas with high carnivore density.[118] It is possible that male–male bonding and male–female friendships were important societal aspects.[117]

Because H. erectus children had faster brain growth rates, H. erectus likely did not exhibit the same degree of maternal investment or child-rearing behaviours as modern humans.[94]

Because H. erectus males and females are thought to have been about the same size compared to other great apes (exhibit less size-specific sexual dimorphism), it is generally hypothesised that they lived in a monogamous society, as reduced sexual dimorphism in primates is typically correlated with this mating system.[96] However, it is unclear if H. erectus did in fact exhibit humanlike rates of sexual dimorphism.[20] If they did, then it would mean only female height increased from the ancestor species, which could have been caused by a shift in female fertility or diet, and/or reduced pressure on males for large size. This in turn could imply a shift in female behavior which made it difficult for males to maintain a harem, and vice versa.[119]

Food

Increasing brain size is often directly associated with a meatier diet and resultant higher caloric intake.

Human entomophagy and therefore an increase in protein consumption through insects has also been proposed as a possible cause. However, it is also possible that the energy-expensive guts decreased in size in H. erectus, because the large ape gut is used to synthesize fat by fermenting plant matter which was replaced by dietary animal fat, allowing more energy to be diverted to brain growth. This would have increased brain size indirectly while maintaining the same caloric requirements of ancestor species. H. erectus may have also been the first to use a hunting and gathering food collecting strategy as a response to the increasing dependence on meat. With an emphasis on teamwork, division of labor, and food sharing, hunting and gathering was a dramatically different subsistence strategy from previous modes.[88][113]

H. erectus ate primarily large game, such as the straight-tusked elephant (above)

H. erectus sites frequently are associated with assemblages of medium- to large-sized game, namely

alcelaphins, featured increasingly prominently in the diet of these hominins.[122] At the 1.5 Mya Trinil H. K. site, Java, H. erectus likely gathered fish and shellfish.[123]

Dentally, H. erectus mouths were not as versatile as those of ancestor species, capable of processing a narrower range of foods. However, tools were likely used to process hard foods, thus affecting the chewing apparatus, and this combination may have instead increased dietary flexibility (though this does not equate to a highly varied diet). Such versatility may have permitted H. erectus to inhabit a range of different environments, and migrate beyond Africa.[88]

In 1999, British anthropologist Richard Wrangham proposed the "cooking hypothesis" which states that H. erectus speciated from the ancestral H. habilis because of fire usage and cooking 2 million years ago to explain the rapid doubling of brain size between these two species in only a 500,000 year timespan, and the sudden appearance of the typical human body plan. Cooking makes protein more easily digestible, speeds up nutrient absorption, and destroys food-borne pathogens, which would have increased the environment's natural carrying capacity, allowing group size to expand, causing selective pressure for sociality, requiring greater brain function.[124][125] However, the fossil record does not associate the emergence of H. erectus with fire usage nor with any technological breakthrough for that matter, and cooking likely did not become a common practice until after 400 kya.[88][113]

Java Man's dispersal through Southeast Asia coincides with the

extirpation of the giant turtle Megalochelys, possibly due to overhunting as the turtle would have been an easy, slow-moving target which could have been stored for quite some time.[126]

Technology

Tool production

cordiform axe

H. erectus is credited with inventing the

cleavers).[129] Though larger and heavier, these hand axes had sharper, chiseled edges.[130] They were likely multi-purpose tools, used in variety of activities such as cutting meat, wood, or edible plants.[131] In 1979, American paleontologist Thomas Wynn stated that Acheulean technology required operational intelligence (foresight and planning), being markedly more complex than Oldowan technology which included lithics of unstandardized shape, cross-sections, and symmetry. Based on this, he concluded that there is not a significant disparity in intelligence between H. erectus and modern humans and that, for the last 300,000 years, increasing intelligence has not been a major influencer of cultural evolution.[132] However, a 1 year old H. erectus specimen shows that this species lacked an extended childhood required for greater brain development, indicating lower cognitive capabilities.[110] A few sites, likely due to occupation over several generations, features hand axes en masse, such as at Melka Kunture, Ethiopia; Olorgesailie, Kenya; Isimila, Tanzania; and Kalambo Falls, Zambia.[131]

The earliest record of Acheulean technology comes from

West Turkana, Kenya 1.76 Mya. Oldowan lithics are also known from the site, and the two seemed to coexist for some time. The earliest records of Acheulean technology outside of Africa date to no older than 1 Mya, indicating it only became widespread after some secondary H. erectus dispersal from Africa.[130]

On Java, H. erectus produced tools from shells at Sangiran[133] and Trinil.[134] Spherical stones, measuring 6–12 cm (2.4–4.7 in) in diameter, are frequently found in African and Chinese Lower Paleolithic sites, and were potentially used as bolas; if correct, this would indicate string and cordage technology.[135]

Fire

See also: Control of fire by early humans

H. erectus is credited as the first human ancestor to have used fire, though the timing of this invention is debated mainly because campfires very rarely and very poorly preserve over long periods of time, let alone thousands or millions of years. The earliest claimed fire sites are in Kenya, FxJj20 at Koobi Fora[136][124][137] and GnJi 1/6E in the Chemoigut Formation, as far back as 1.5 Mya,[124][137] and in South Africa, Wonderwerk Cave, 1.7 Mya.[138] The first firekeepers are thought to have simply transported to caves and maintained naturally occurring fires for extended periods of time or only sporadically when the opportunity arose. Maintaining fires would require firekeepers to have knowledge on slow-burning materials such as dung.[124] Fire becomes markedly more abundant in the wider archaeological record after 400,000–300,000 years ago, which can be explained as some advancement in fire management techniques took place at this time[124] or human ancestors only opportunistically used fire until this time.[137][139][88][113] It is possible that firestarting was invented and lost and reinvented multiple times and independently by different communities rather than being invented in one place and spreading throughout the world.[139] The earliest evidence of hearths comes from Gesher Benot Ya'aqov, Israel, over 700,000 years ago, where fire is recorded in multiple layers in an area close to water, both uncharacteristic of natural fires.[125]

Artificial lighting may have led to increased waking hours—modern humans have about a 16-hour waking period, whereas other apes are generally awake from only sunup to sundown—and these additional hours were probably used for socializing. Because of this, fire usage is probably also linked to the origin of language.[124][125] Artificial lighting may have also made sleeping on the ground instead of the trees possible by keeping terrestrial predators at bay.[125]

Migration into the frigid climate of Ice Age Europe may have only been possible because of fire, but evidence of fire usage in Europe until about 400–300,000 years ago is notably absent.[137] If these early European H. erectus did not have fire, it is largely unclear how they stayed warm, avoided predators, and prepared animal fat and meat for consumption. There was also a lower likelihood of naturally occurring fires due to lightning being less common in areas further north. It is possible that they only knew how to maintain fires in certain settings in the landscapes and prepared food some distance away from home, meaning evidence of fire and evidence of hominin activity are spaced far apart.[125] Alternatively, H. erectus may have only pushed farther north during warmer interglacial periods—thus not requiring fire, food storage, or clothing technology—[140] and their dispersal patterns indicate they generally stayed in warmer lower-to-middle latitudes.[118] It is debated if the H. e. pekinensis inhabitants of Zhoukoudian, Northern China, were capable of controlling fires as early as 770 kya to stay warm in what may have been a relatively cold climate.[141]

Construction

Reconstruction of a Terra Amata dwelling[142]

In 1962, a 366 cm × 427 cm × 30 cm (12 ft × 14 ft × 1 ft) circle made with volcanic rocks was discovered in Olduvai Gorge. At 61–76 cm (2–2.5 ft) intervals, rocks were piled up to 15–23 cm (6–9 in) high. British palaeoanthropologist Mary Leakey suggested the rock piles were used to support poles stuck into the ground, possibly to support a windbreak or a rough hut. Some modern day nomadic tribes build similar low-lying rock walls to build temporary shelters upon, bending upright branches as poles and using grasses or animal hide as a screen.[143] Dating to 1.75 Mya, it is the oldest claimed evidence of architecture.[144]

In Europe, evidence of constructed dwelling structures dating to or following the

Cromerian Interglacial. This dwelling's base measured about 3 m × 4 m (9.8 ft × 13.1 ft) on the exterior and 3 m × 2 m (9.8 ft × 6.6 ft) on the interior, and is considered to have been a firm surface hut, probably with a vaulted roof made of thick branches or thin poles, supported by a foundation of big rocks and earth, and likely functioned as a winter base camp.[145]

The earliest evidence of cave habitation is Wonderwerk Cave, South Africa, about 1.6 Mya, but evidence of cave use globally is sporadic until about 600 kya.[146]

Clothing

Reconstruction of Turkana boy with light clothing by Adrie and Alfons Kennis at the Neanderthal Museum

It is largely unclear when clothing was invented, with the earliest estimate stretching as far back as 3 Mya to compensate for a lack of insulating body hair.

body lice (the latter can only inhabit clothed individuals) for modern humans diverged about 170 kya, well before modern humans left Africa, meaning clothes were already well in use before encountering cold climates. One of the first uses of animal hide is thought to have been for clothing, and the oldest hide scrapers date to about 780 kya, though this is not indicative of clothing.[147]

Seafaring

Acheulean artifacts discovered on isolated islands that were never connected to land in the Pleistocene may show seafaring by H. erectus as early as 1 Mya in Indonesia. They had arrived on the islands of Flores, Timor, and Roti, which would have necessitated crossing the Lombok Strait (the Wallace Line), at least before 800 kya. It is also possible they were the first European mariners as well and crossed the Strait of Gibraltar between North Africa and Spain. A 2021 genetic analysis of these island populations of H. erectus found no evidence of interbreeding with modern humans.[148] Seafaring capability would show H. erectus had a great capacity for planning, likely months in advance of the trip.[149][150]

Similarly,

Huxley Line.[151]

Healthcare

Skull of a toothless H. e. georgicus

The earliest probable example of infirming sick group members is a 1.77 Mya H. e. georgicus specimen who had lost all but one tooth due to age or

gum disease, the earliest example of severe chewing impairment, yet still survived for several years afterwards. However, it is possible australopithecines were capable of caring for debilitated group members.[152] Unable to chew, this H. e. georgicus individual probably ate soft plant or animal foods possibly with assistance from other group members. High-latitude groups are thought to have been predominantly carnivorous, eating soft tissue such as bone marrow or brains, which may have increased survival rates for toothless individuals.[153]

The 1.5 Mya Turkana boy was diagnosed with juvenile spinal disc herniation, and, because this specimen was still growing, this caused some scoliosis (abnormal curving of the spine). These usually cause recurrent lower back pain and sciatica (pain running down the leg), and likely restricted Turkana boy in walking, bending, and other daily activities. The specimen appears to have survived into adolescence, which evidences advanced group care.[154]

The 1,000–700 kya Java man specimen presents a noticeable

strata). Livestock that grazes on volcanic ash ridden fields typically die of acute intoxication within a few days or weeks.[155]

Art and rituals

See also: Prehistoric art
Engraved Pseudodon shell DUB1006-fL from Trinil, Java
Replicas of the "Venus of Tan-Tan" (left) and "Venus of Berekhat Ram" (right)

An engraved Pseudodon shell DUB1006-fL with geometric markings could possibly be evidence of the earliest art-making, dating back to 546–436 kya. Art-making capabilities could be considered evidence of symbolic thinking, which is associated with modern cognition and behavior.[134][156][157][158] In 1976, American archeologist Alexander Marshack asserted that engraved lines on an ox rib, associated with Acheulean lithics, from Pech de l'Azé, France, are similar to a meander design found in modern human Upper Paleolithic cave art.[159] Three ostrich eggshell beads associated with Achuelian lithics were found in northwestern Africa, the earliest disc beads ever found, and Acheulian disc beads have also been found in France and Israel.[149] The Middle Pleistocene "Venus of Tan-Tan" and "Venus of Berekhat Ram" are postulated to been crafted by H. erectus to resemble a human form. They were mostly formed by natural weathering, but slightly modified to emphasize certain grooves to suggest hairline, limbs, and eyes.[160][161] The former has traces of pigments on the front side, possibly indicating it was colored.[160]

H. erectus was also the earliest human to have intentionally collected red-colored pigments, namely

Ambrona, Spain—which dates to 424–374 kya—were suggested to have been struck by a hammerstone and purposefully shaped and trimmed.[162][159] At Terra Amata, France—which dates to 425–400 or 355–325 kya—red, yellow, and brown ochres were recovered in association with pole structures; ochre was probably heated to achieve such a wide color range.[162][163] As it is unclear if H. erectus could have used ochre for any practical application, ochre collection might indicate that H. erectus was the earliest human to have exhibited a sense of aesthetics and to think beyond simply survival. Later human species are postulated to have used ochre as body paint, but in the case of H. erectus, it is contested if body paint was used so early in time. Further, it is unclear if these few examples are not simply isolated incidents of ochre use, as ochre is much more prevalent in Middle and Upper Paleolithic sites attributed to Neanderthals and H. sapiens.[164][159]

In 1935, Jewish-German anthropologist Franz Weidenreich speculated that the inhabitants of the Chinese Zhoukoudian Peking Man site were members of some Lower Paleolithic Skull Cult because the skulls all showed fatal blows to the head, breaking in of the foramen magnum at the base of the skull, by-and-large lack of preserved facial aspects, an apparently consistent pattern of breaking on the mandible, and a lack of post-cranial remains (elements that are not the skull). He believed that the inhabitants were headhunters, and smashed open the skulls and ate the brains of their victims.[165][159] However, scavenging animals and natural forces such as flooding can also inflict the same kind of damage to skulls,[159] and there is not enough evidence to suggest manhunting or cannibalism.[166]

In 1999, British science writers Marek Kohn and Steven Mithen said that many hand axes exhibit no wear and were produced en masse, and concluded that these symmetrical, tear-drop shaped lithics functioned primarily as display tools so males could prove their fitness to females in some courting ritual, and were discarded afterwards.[167] However, an apparent lack of reported wearing is likely due to a lack of use-wear studies, and only a few sites yield an exorbitant sum of hand axes likely due to gradual accumulation over generations instead of mass production.[131]

Language

In 1984, the vertebral column of the 1.6 Mya adolescent

skeletal dysplasia and scoliosis.[168] In 2006, American anthropologist Marc Meyer and colleagues described a 1.8 Mya H. e. georgicus specimen as having a spine within the range of variation of modern human spines, contending that Turkana boy had spinal stenosis and was thus not representative of the species. Also, because he considered H. e. georgicus ancestral to all non-African H. erectus, Meyer concluded that the respiratory muscles of all H. erectus (at least non-H. ergaster) would not have impeded vocalisation or speech production.[169] However, in 2013 and 2014, anthropologist Regula Schiess and colleagues concluded that there is no evidence of any congenital defects in Turkana boy, and considered the specimen representative of the species.[170][171]

Neurologically, all Homo have similarly configured brains, and, likewise, the Broca's and Wernicke's areas (in charge of sentence formulation and speech production in modern humans) of H. erectus were comparable to those of modern humans. However, this is not indicative of anything in terms of speech capability as even large chimpanzees can have similarly expanded Broca's area, and it is unclear if these areas served as language centers in archaic humans.[172] A 1-year-old H. erectus specimen shows that an extended childhood to allow for brain growth, which is a prerequisite in language acquisition, was not exhibited in this species.[110]

The

Sima de los Huesos Cave is like that of modern humans,[175] and another specimen from the same area shows an auditory capacity sensitive enough to pick up human speech.[176]

Extinction

The last known occurrence of Homo erectus is 117,000–108,000 years ago in

Java according to a study published in 2019.[1]

In 2020 researchers reported that Homo erectus and Homo heidelbergensis lost more than half of their climate niche – climate they were adapted to – with no corresponding reduction in physical range, just before extinction and that climate change played a substantial role in extinctions of past Homo species.[177][178][179]

Fossils

Homo erectus KNM ER 3733 actual skull

The lower cave of China's Zhoukoudian Cave is one of the most important archaeological sites worldwide.[180] There have been remains of 45 Homo erectus individuals found and thousands of tools recovered.[180] Most of these remains were lost during World War 2, with the exception of two postcranial elements that were rediscovered in China in 1951 and four human teeth from 'Dragon Bone Hill'.[180]

New evidence has shown that Homo erectus does not have uniquely thick vault bones, as was previously thought.[181] Testing showed that neither Asian nor African Homo erectus had uniquely large vault bones.[181]

Individual fossils

Some of the major Homo erectus fossils:

Phylogeny

A cladogram of Homo erectus is as follows.[186] It is indicated how many million years ago the clades diverged.

Homo (2.85)

Homo habilis (†1.7 Mya)

Homo erectus s.l. (2.3)
(2.1)

H. gautengensis
(†1.9)

Dmanisi (†1.8)

(2.0)

Turkana (†1.7)

(1.8)

Olduvai Hominids
(†1.5)

Asian H. e. (1.6)

Sangiran (†1.4)

(1.4)
(1.1)
(0.8)

Nanjing Man (†0.6)

Peking Man (†0.5)

(0.9)

Hexian
(†0.5)

(0.6)

Sambungmacan (†0.2)

Ngandong
(†0.1)

Homo sapiens
))

Homo erectus was originally African. The extant Homo heidelbergensis (

Homo sapiens), which was originally African, emerged within the Asian Homo erectus. Contemporary groups appear to have been interbreeding, so any phylogeny like this only gives a coarse impression of the evolution of Homo, and extinct lineage may have partially continued in other groupings. Not included are other contemporary groups such as Homo floresiensis, Homo naledi, Homo luzonensis, Homo rudolfensis, Australopithecus sediba, Australopithecus africanus, and Paranthropus
.

Gallery

  • Homo erectus tautavelensis skull.
    Homo erectus tautavelensis
     skull.
  • Replica of lower jaws of Homo erectus from Tautavel, France.
    Replica of lower jaws of Homo erectus from Tautavel, France.
  • Calvaria "Sangiran II" original, collection Koenigswald, Senckenberg Museum.
    Senckenberg Museum
    .
  • A reconstruction based on evidence from the Daka Member, Ethiopia
    A reconstruction based on evidence from the Daka Member, Ethiopia
  • Original fossils of Pithecanthropus erectus (now Homo erectus) found in Java in 1891.
    Original fossils of Pithecanthropus erectus (now Homo erectus) found in Java in 1891.

See also

General:

References

  1. ^
    S2CID 209410644
    .
  2. ^
    PMID 32241925
    .
  3. PMID 27457542
    .
  4. S2CID 205249218
    .
  5. S2CID 106411053
    .
  6. PMID 33675083
    .
  7. S2CID 253522354
    .
  8. ^ Theunissen 2012, p. 6.
  9. ^ Theunissen 2012, p. 33.
  10. S2CID 23308894
    .
  11. ^ Sigmon 1981, p. 64.
  12. ISBN 978-1-4419-0466-9
    .
  13. S2CID 241324984
    .
  14. ISBN 978-0-8014-2085-6
    .
  15. S2CID 20089470
    .
  16. PMID 20466364
    .
  17. ^ Sigmon 1981, p. 231.
  18. ^ Sigmon 1981, p. 193.
  19. doi:10.1016/j.anthro.2015.06.001
    .
  20. ^
    S2CID 35845
    .
  21. S2CID 49670311
    .
  22. S2CID 188286436
    .
  23. S2CID 132479732
    .
  24. ^ "Our direct human ancestor Homo erectus is older than we thought". EurekAlert. AAAS.
  25. PMID 21646521
    .
  26. doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2010.04.012
    .
  27. S2CID 26701026
    .
  28. S2CID 4432263
    .
  29. PMID 36347897
    .
  30. PMID 21783226
    .
  31. S2CID 205047272
    .
  32. ^
    PMID 15761880
    .
  33. S2CID 88314849
    .
  34. S2CID 20435482
    .
  35. National Geographic. Archived from the original
    on 6 June 2021. Retrieved 6 June 2021.
  36. ^ Sample I (17 October 2013). "Skull of Homo erectus throws story of human evolution into disarray". The Guardian.
  37. S2CID 73528018. Archived from the original
    (PDF) on 14 January 2020.
  38. PMID 28438318
    .
  39. S2CID 240090147
    .
  40. ISBN 978-3-642-39978-7
    .
  41. ISBN 978-0-8133-3482-0.[page needed
    ]
  42. PMID 18635247
    .
  43. ISSN 0047-2484
    .
  44. S2CID 4321154
    .
  45. JSTOR 41449277
    .
  46. JSTOR 2795854
    .
  47. ^
    ISBN 978-7-5334-3641-4
    .
  48. ^ E, Dubois (1891). "Palaeontologische onderzoekingen op Java". Verslag van het Mijnwezen 3^e/4^e Kwartaal: 12–15.
  49. ISBN 978-3-11-081069-1
    .
  50. ^
    PMID 37030994
    .
  51. S2CID 36578190
    .
  52. ISSN 1631-0683
    .
  53. PMID 16271745
    .
  54. ISSN 1000-3193
    .
  55. JSTOR 23735461
    .
  56. S2CID 17449909
    .
  57. ^ W, Huang (1982). "Preliminary study on the fossil hominid skull and fauna of Hexian, Anhui". Vertebrata PalAsiatica. 20: plate 1.
  58. ^ Naddeo, Michelangelo (2023). "Az ősi magyar jelképrendszer keresése" (PDF). Acta Historica Hungaricus. 38.
  59. ^ Woo, J.-K. (1964). "The Hominid Skull of Lantian, Shenshi" (PDF). Vertebrata PalAsiatica. 10 (1).
  60. PMID 10600324
    .
  61. ^
    JSTOR 41449277
    .
  62. ^ "Homo erectus mapaensis Kurth, 1965". Paleo Core. 2023. Retrieved 7 August 2023.
  63. JSTOR 678879
    .
  64. S2CID 35310160
    .
  65. ^ SARTONO R (1976). The Javanese Pleistocene Hominids: A Re-Appraisal.
  66. JSTOR 26294532
    .
  67. ^ D, Black (1927). "On a lower molar hominid tooth from the Chou Kou Tien deposit". Palaeont.Sinica, Ser.D. 7: 1–29.
  68. PMID 9614635
    .
  69. ^ Oppenoorth, W.F.F. (1932). "Homo (Javanthropus) soloensis. Ein plistocene mensch van Java". Wetenschappelijke Mededeelingen. 20: 49–75.
  70. ^ Guipert, Gaspard (30 November 2005). Reconstitution et position phylétique des restes crâniens de l'Homme de Tautavel (Arago 21-47) et de Biache-Saint-Vaast 2. Apports de l'imagerie et de l'analyse tridimensionnelle (phdthesis thesis) (in French). Université Paul Cézanne - Aix-Marseille III.
  71. ^ Sartono, S. (1980). "On the Javanese Pleistocene hominids: A reappraisal". Abstracts of the IUSPP Nice.
  72. Bibcode:1921KNAB...23.1013D
    .
  73. ^ Pramujiono, Agung. "BERBAGAI PANDANGAN ASAL BANGSA DAN BAHASA INDONESIA: DARI KAJIAN LINGUSITIK HISTORIS KOMPARATIF SAMPAI ARKEOLINGUISTIK DAN PALEOLINGUISTIK". Academia.edu.
  74. ISSN 1040-6182
    .
  75. S2CID 102353734
    .
  76. ^ Chengzhi, Hu (1973). "Yunnan Yuanmou faxian de yuanren yachi huashi". Dizhi Xuebao. 1: 65–71.
  77. ^ There was long-standing uncertainty whether H. floresiensis should be considered close to H. erectus, close to H. sapiens, or an altogether separate species. In 2017, it was suggested on morphological grounds that H. floresiensis is a sister species to either H. habilis or to a minimally habilis-erectus-ergaster-sapiens clade, and its line much more ancient than Homo erectus itself. Argue D, Groves CP, Lee MS, Jungers WL (June 2017). "The affinities of Homo floresiensis based on phylogenetic analyses of cranial, dental, and postcranial characters". Journal of Human Evolution. 107: 107–133.
    PMID 28438318
    .
  78. PMID 1776655
    .
  79. ^ Krantz, G.S. (1975). "An explanation for the diastema of Javan erectus Skull IV". In: Paleoanthropology, Morphology and Paleoecology. La Hague: Mouton, 361–372.
  80. S2CID 102353734
    .
  81. S2CID 20437090
    .
  82. ^
    doi:10.4000/bmsap.1528
    .
  83. PMID 26767964
    .
  84. PMID 3133950
    .
  85. PMID 30728230
    .
  86. ^
    PMID 27298467
    .
  87. doi:10.2478/anre-2021-0029
    .
  88. ^
    doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123153
    .
  89. ISBN 9780674600751
    . Retrieved 2 October 2022.
  90. S2CID 84442763
    .
  91. ^
    PMID 27298467
    .
  92. S2CID 30188239
    .
  93. PMID 27298467
    .
  94. ^
    S2CID 22191315
    .
  95. ^
    OCLC 647137093
    .
  96. ^
    S2CID 84095311
    .
  97. ^ "Rightmire GP. The Evolution of Homo Erectus: Comparative Anatomical Studies of an Extinct Human Species. Cambridge University Press; 1990". search.library.ucr.edu. Retrieved 5 May 2022.
  98. PMID 17977577
    .
  99. ^
    PMID 27403790
    .
  100. ^ Roach, & Richmond. (2015). "Clavicle length, throwing performance and the reconstruction of the Homo erectus shoulder". Journal of Human Evolution, 80(C), 107–113.
  101. PMID 21868059
    .
  102. S2CID 224795768
    .
  103. ^
    S2CID 143004288
    .
  104. PMID 27178459
    .
  105. PMID 23035389
    .
  106. ^
    PMID 18067194
    .
  107. S2CID 3921318
    .
  108. ISBN 978-94-017-0443-4
    .
  109. S2CID 84164968
    .
  110. ^
    S2CID 4428043
    .
  111. PMID 15252198
    .
  112. PMID 16780923
    .
  113. ^
    PMID 22174868
    .
  114. ^ a b Boaz N, Ciochon R (2004). "Headstrong Hominids". Natural History. 113 (1): 28–34.
  115. ^
    doi:10.1016/S0047-2484(85)80052-X
    .
  116. S2CID 146857927
    .
  117. ^
    PMID 28688456
    .
  118. ^
    PMID 27260171
    .
  119. S2CID 17850676
    .
  120. PMID 27930293
    .
  121. PMID 20534542
    .
  122. doi:10.1016/j.palaeo.2017.05.001
    .
  123. PMID 19683789
    .
  124. ^
    PMID 27216521
    .
  125. ^
    S2CID 163033909
    .
  126. ISBN 978-0-9653540-9-7
    .
  127. ISBN 978-0-395-87274-1.[page needed
    ]
  128. PMID 12494313
    .
  129. PMID 27298475
    .
  130. ^
    S2CID 4419567
    .
  131. ^ a b c Nowell A, Chang ML (2009). "The Case Against Sexual Selection as an Explanation of Handaxe Morphology" (PDF). PaleoAnthropology: 77–88.
  132. JSTOR 2801865
    .
  133. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2006.03.013
    .
  134. ^
    S2CID 4461751
    .
  135. ISBN 9789810224691
    .
  136. S2CID 148948219
    .
  137. ^
    PMID 21402905
    .
  138. S2CID 144176681
    .
  139. ^
    S2CID 165025762
    .
  140. PMID 14666536
    .
  141. S2CID 93590269
    .
  142. ^ Musée de Préhistoire Terra Amata. "Le site acheuléen de Terra Amata" [The Acheulean site of Terra Amata]. Musée de Préhistoire Terra Amata (in French). Retrieved 10 June 2022.
  143. ISBN 9780521077231
    .
  144. ISBN 9780415228329
    .
  145. JSTOR 26294864
    .
  146. ^ Ullman M, Hovers E, Goren-Inbar N, Frumkin A (2013). "Levantine cave dwellers: geographic and environmental aspects of early humans use of caves, case study from Wadi Amud, northern Israel". International Congress of Speleology. 1.
  147. PMID 20823373
    .
  148. ^ "New evidence in search for the mysterious Denisovans". ScienceDaily. 23 March 2021. Retrieved 30 March 2021.
  149. ^
    JSTOR 26294895
    .
  150. doi:10.1111/j.1095-9270.1998.tb00797.x
    .
  151. S2CID 106411053
    .
  152. doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2018.08.011
    .
  153. S2CID 52800194
    .
  154. S2CID 11534863
    .
  155. PMID 4984453
    .
  156. PMID 19487016
    .
  157. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2011.10.032
    .
  158. S2CID 164153158
    .
  159. ^
    ISBN 978-0-8165-1336-9
    .
  160. ^
    PMID 19900185
    .
  161. S2CID 163138037
    .
  162. ^
    ISBN 978-0-19-966533-4
    .
  163. ISBN 978-2-222-01968-8
    .
  164. S2CID 88099778
    .
  165. doi:10.1111/j.1755-6724.1935.mp14004001.x
    .
  166. S2CID 147164100
    .
  167. S2CID 162903453
    .
  168. ^ Latimer B, Ohman J (2001). "Axial dysplasia in Homo erectus". Journal of Human Evolution. 40.
  169. ^ Meyer M, Lordkipanidze D, Vekua A (2006). Language and empathy in Homo erectus: Behaviors suggested by a modern spinal cord from Dmanisi, but not Nariokotome. Annual meeting of the Paleoanthroplogy Society. San Juan, Puerto Rico.
  170. PMID 23283736
    .
  171. PMID 24491377
    .
  172. ISBN 978-3-902666-52-9
    .
  173. PMID 19149203
    .
  174. PMID 26635694
    .
  175. PMID 17804038
    .
  176. PMID 15213327
    .
  177. ^ Padmanaban D (6 November 2020). "Climate Change May Have Been a Major Driver of Ancient Hominin Extinctions". SAPIENS. Retrieved 9 November 2020.
  178. ^ "Climate change likely drove early human species to extinction, modeling study suggests". phys.org. Retrieved 9 November 2020.
  179. ISSN 2590-3330
    .
  180. ^ a b c Zanolli, Clément, et al. "Inner Tooth Morphology of Homo Erectus from Zhoukoudian. New Evidence from an Old Collection Housed at Uppsala University, Sweden." Journal of Human Evolution, vol. 116, Mar. 2018, pp. 1–13.
  181. ^ a b Copes, Lynn E., and William H. Kimbel. "Cranial Vault Thickness in Primates: Homo Erectus Does Not Have Uniquely Thick Vault Bones." Journal of Human Evolution, vol. 90, Jan. 2016, pp. 120–134.
  182. S2CID 25438682
    .
  183. PMID 8610161
    .
  184. ^ Schuster AM (September–October 1998). "New Skull from Eritrea". Archaeology. Retrieved 3 October 2015.
  185. S2CID 214763272
    .
  186. PMID 34557770
    .

Further reading

External links

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Homo erectus.
Wikispecies has information related to Homo erectus.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homo_erectus&oldid=1219092742"