In the Middle Pleistocene, brain size and height were comparable to modern humans. Like Neanderthals,H. heidelbergensis had a wide chest and robust frame.
Fire likely became an integral part of daily life after 400,000 years ago, and this roughly coincides with more permanent and widespread occupation of Europe (above45°N), and the appearance ofhafting technology to create spears.[1]H. heidelbergensis may have been able to carry out coordinated hunting strategies, and consequently they seem to have had a higher consumption of meat.
It is debated whether or not to constrainH. heidelbergensis to only Europe or to also include African and Asian specimens, and this is further confounded by thetype specimen (Mauer 1) being a jawbone, because jawbones feature few diagnostic traits and are generally missing among Middle Pleistocene specimens.
H. heidelbergensis was subsumed in 1950 as a subspecies ofH. erectus but today it is more widely classified as its own species.H. heidelbergensis is regarded as achronospecies, evolving from an African form ofH. erectus (sometimes calledH. ergaster).
The first fossil,Mauer 1 (a jawbone), was discovered by a worker inMauer, southeast ofHeidelberg, Germany, in 1907. It was formally described the next year by German anthropologistOtto Schoetensack, who made it thetype specimen of a new species,Homo heidelbergensis.[2] He split this off as a new species primarily because of the mandible's archaicness—in particular its enormous size—and it was the then-oldest human jaw in the European fossil record at 640,000 years old. The mandible is well preserved, missing only the leftpremolars, part of the first leftmolar, the tip of the leftcoronoid process (at the jaw hinge), and fragments of the mid-section: the jaw was found in two pieces and had to be glued together. It may have belonged to a young adult based on slight wearing on the 3rd molar.[3]
H. rhodesiensis andH. heidelbergensis were two of the many putative species ofMiddle PleistoceneHomo which were described throughout the first half of the 20th century. In the 1950s,Ernst Mayr entered the field of anthropology and, surveying a "bewildering diversity of names", decided to define only three species ofHomo: "H. transvaalensis" (theaustralopithecines),H. erectus (including the Mauer mandible, and various putative African and Asian taxa) andHomo sapiens (including anything younger thanH. erectus, such as modern humans andNeanderthals). Mayr defined them as a sequential lineage, with each species evolving into the next (chronospecies). Though later Mayr changed his opinion on the australopithecines (recognizingAustralopithecus), his view ofarchaic human diversity became widely adopted in the subsequent decades.[5]
ThoughH. erectus is still maintained as a highly variable, widespread, and long-lasting species, it is still much debated whether or not sinking all Middle Pleistocene remains into it is justifiable. Mayr's lumping ofH. heidelbergensis intoH. erectus was first opposed by American anthropologistFrancis Clark Howell in 1960.
In 1974, British physical anthropologistChris Stringer pointed out similarities between the Kabwe 1 and the GreekPetralona skulls to the skulls of modern humans (H. sapiens orH. s. sapiens) and Neanderthals (H. neanderthalensis orH. s. neanderthalensis). So, Stringer assigned them toHomo sapienssensu lato ("in the broad sense"), as ancestral to modern humans and Neanderthals. In 1979, Stringer and Finnish anthropologistBjörn Kurtén found that the Kabwe and Petralona skulls are associated with theCromerianindustry like the Mauer mandible, and thus postulated these three populations might be allied with each other. Though these fossils are poorly preserved and do not provide many comparable possible diagnostic traits (and likewise it was difficult at the time to properly define a unique species),[clarification needed] they argued that at least these Middle Pleistocene specimens should be allocated toH. (s.?) heidelbergensis or "H. (s.?) rhodesiensis" (depending on, respectively, the inclusion or exclusion of the Mauer mandible) to formally recognize their similarity.[6]
Further work, most influentially by Stringer, palaeoanthropologistIan Tattersall, and human evolutionary biologist Phillip Rightmire reported further differences between Middle Pleistocene Afro-European specimens andH. erectussensu stricto ("in the strict sense", in this case, specimens from East Asia).[7] Consequently, Afro-European remains from 600 to 300 thousand years ago—most notably from Kabwe, Petralona,Bodo andArago—are often classified asH. heidelbergensis. In 2010, American physical anthropologistJeffrey H. Schwartz and Tattersall suggested classifying all Middle Pleistocene European as well as Asian specimens—namely fromDali andJinniushan in China—asH. heidelbergensis.[5] This model is not as universally accepted. After the 2010 identification of the genetic code of some unique archaic human species in Siberia, termed "Denisovans" pending diagnostic fossil finds, it is postulated that the Asian remains could represent that same species.[6] Thus, Middle Pleistocene Asian specimens, such as Dali Man or the IndianNarmada Man, remain enigmatic.[8] The paleontology institute atHeidelberg University, where the Mauer mandible has been kept since 1908, changed the label fromH. e. heidelbergensis toH. heidelbergensis in 2015.[9]
In 1976 atSima de los Huesos (SH) in theSierra de Atapuerca, Spain, Spanish paleontologistsEmiliano Aguirre, José María Basabe and Trinidad Torres began to excavate archaic human remains. Their investigation of the site was prompted by the finding of severalbear remains (Ursus deningeri) since the early 20th century by amateur cavers (which consequently destroyed some of the human remains in that section). By 1990, about 600 human remains were reported, and by 2004 the number had increased to roughly 4,000. These represent at least 28 individuals, of which possibly only one is a child, and the rest teenagers and young adults. The fossil assemblage is exceptionally complete, with whole corpses buried rapidly, and all bodily elements represented.[10] In 1997, Spanish palaeoanthropologistJuan Luis Arsuaga assigned these toH. heidelbergensis, but in 2014, he retracted this, stating that Neanderthal-like features present in the Mauer mandible are missing in theSH humans.[11]
In palaeoanthropology, theMiddle Pleistocene is often termed the "muddle in the middle" because the species-level classification ofarchaic human remains from this time period has been heavily debated. The ancestors of modern humans (Homo sapiens orH. s. sapiens) and Neanderthals (H. neanderthalensis orH. s. neanderthalensis) diverged during this time period, and until the late 2010sH. heidelbergensis was considered the most likelylast common ancestor (LCA), but this view is no longer generally accepted.[12] It is much debated if the nameH. heidelbergensis can be extended to Middle Pleistocene humans across the Old World, or if it is better to restrict it to just Europe. In the latter case, Middle Pleistocene African remains can be split off into "H. rhodesiensis".[13][14][15][16] In the latter view, "H. rhodesiensis" can either be seen as the direct ancestor of modern humans, or of "H. helmei" which evolved into modern humans.[17]
IIn 2021, Canadian anthropologist Mirjana Roksandic and colleagues recommended the complete dissolution ofH. heidelbergensis and "H. rhodesiensis", as the namerhodesiensis honours Englishdiamond magnateCecil Rhodes who disenfranchised the black population in southern Africa. They classified all EuropeanH. heidelbergensis asH. neanderthalensis, and synonymisedH. rhodesiensis with a new species they named "H. bodoensis" which includes all African specimens, and potentially some from the Levant and the Balkans which have no Neanderthal-derived traits (namely Ceprano, Mala Balanica, HaZore'a and Nadaouiyeh Aïn Askar).H. bodoensis is supposed to represent the immediate ancestor of modern humans, but does not include the LCA of modern humans and Neanderthals. They suggested the confusing morphology of the Middle Pleistocene was caused by periodicH. bodoensis migration events into Europe following population collapses after glacial cycles, interbreeding with surviving indigenous populations.[18] Their taxonomic recommendations were rejected by Stringer and others as they failed to explain how exactly their proposals would resolve anything, in addition to violating nomenclatural rules.[19][20]
H. heidelbergensis is thought to have descended from AfricanH. erectus — sometimes classified asHomo ergaster — during the firstearly expansions of hominins out of Africa beginning roughly 2 million years ago. Those that dispersed across Europe and stayed in Africa evolved intoH. heidelbergensis or speciated intoH. heidelbergensis in Europe and "H. rhodesiensis" in Africa, and those that dispersed across East Asia evolved intoH. erectus s. s.[3] The exact derivation from an ancestor species is obfuscated by a long gap in the human fossil record near the end of theEarly Pleistocene.[17] In 2016, Antonio Profico and colleagues suggested that 875,000-year-old skull materials from the Gombore II site of theMelka Kunture Formation, Ethiopia, represent atransitional morph betweenH. ergaster andH. heidelbergensis, and thus postulated thatH. heidelbergensis originated in Africa instead of Europe.[17]
According to genetic analysis, the LCA of modern humans and Neanderthal split into a modern human line, and a Neanderthal/Denisovan line, and the latter later split into Neanderthal and Denisovans. According tonuclear DNA analysis, the 430,000-year-oldSH humans are more closely related to Neanderthals than Denisovans (and that the Neanderthal/Denisovan, and thus the modern human/Neanderthal split, had already occurred), suggesting the modern human/Neanderthal LCA had existed long before many European specimens typically assigned toH. heidelbergensis did, such as the Arago and Petralona materials.[21]
In 1997, Spanish archaeologistJosé María Bermúdez de Castro, Arsuaga, and colleagues described the roughly million-year-oldH. antecessor fromGran Dolina, Sierra de Atapuerca, and suggested supplanting this species in the place ofH. heidelbergensis for the LCA between modern humans and Neanderthals, withH. heidelbergensis descending from it and being a strictly European species ancestral to only Neanderthals.[22] They later recanted.[23] In 2020, Dutch molecular palaeoanthropologist Frido Welker and colleagues analysed ancient proteins collected from anH. antecessor tooth found that it was a member of a sister lineage to the LCA rather than being the LCA itself (that is,H. heidelbergensis did not derive fromH. antecessor).[24]
Human dispersal beyond45°N seems to have been quite limited during theLower Palaeolithic, with evidence of short-lived dispersals northward beginning after a million years ago. Beginning 700,000 years ago, more permanent populations seem to have persisted across the line coinciding with the spread ofhand axe technology across Europe, possibly associated with the dispersal ofH. heidelbergensis and behavioural shifts to cope with the cold climate. Such occupation becomes much more frequent after 500,000 years ago.[25]
In 2023, a genomics analysis of over 3,000 living individuals indicated thatHomo sapiens' ancestral population was reduced to less than 1,300 individuals between 800,000 and 900,000 years ago. Prof Giorgio Manzi, an anthropologist at Sapienza University of Rome, suggested that thisbottleneck could have triggered the evolution ofHomo heidelbergensis.[26][27]
In comparison to Early PleistoceneH. erectus/ergaster, Middle Pleistocene humans have a much more modern human-like face. The nasal opening is set completely vertically in the skull, and theanterior nasal sill can be crested or sometimes a prominent spine. Theincisive canals (on theroof of the mouth) open near the teeth, and are orientated like those of more recent human species. Thefrontal bone is broad, theparietal bone can be expanded, and thesquamous part of temporal bone is high and arched, which could all be related to increasing brain size. Thesphenoid bone features a spine extending downwards, and thearticular tubercle on the underside of the skull can jut out prominently as the surface behind the jaw hinge is otherwise quite flat.[28]
In 2004, Rightmire estimated the brain volumes of ten Middle Pleistocene humans variously attributable toH. heidelbergensis—from Kabwe, Bodo, Ndutu, Dali, Jinniushan, Petralona, Steinheim, Arago, and two from SH. This set gives an average volume of about 1,206 cc, ranging from 1,100 to 1,390 cc. He also averaged the brain volumes of 30H. erectus/ergaster specimens, spanning nearly 1.5 million years from across East Asia and Africa, as 973 cc, and thus concluded a significant jump in brain size, though conceded brain size was extremely variable ranging from 727 to 1,231 cc depending on the time period, geographic region, and even between individuals within the same population (the last one probably due to notable sexual dimorphism with males much bigger than females).[28] In comparison, for modern humans, brain size averages 1,270 cc for males and 1,130 cc for females;[29] and for Neanderthals 1,600 cc for males and 1,300 cc for females.[30][31][32]
In 2009, palaeontologists Aurélien Mounier, François Marchal and Silvana Condemi published the first differential diagnosis ofH. heidelbergensis using the Mauer mandible, as well as material from Tighennif, Algeria; SH, Spain; Arago, France; andMontmaurin, France. They listed the diagnostic traits as: a reduced chin, a notch in thesubmental space (near the throat), parallel upper and lower boundaries of the mandible in side-view, severalmental foramina (small holes for blood vessels) near the cheek teeth, a horizontalretromolar space (a gap behind the molars), a gutter between the molars and theramus (which juts up to connect with the skull), an overall long jaw, a deepfossa (a depression) for themasseter muscle (which closes the jaw), a smallgonial angle (the angle between the body of the mandible and the ramus), an extensive planum alveolare (the distance from the frontmost tooth socket to the back of the jaw), a developed planum triangulare (near the jaw hinge), and amylohyoid line originating at the level of the third molar.[3]
Trends in body size through the Middle Pleistocene are obscured due to a general lack of limb bones and non-skull (post-cranial) remains. Based on the lengths of variouslong bones, theSH humans averaged roughly 169.5 cm (5 ft 7 in) for males and 157.7 cm (5 ft 2 in) for females, with maximums of respectively 177 cm (5 ft 10 in) and 160 cm (5 ft 3 in). The height of a female partial skeleton from Jinniushan is estimated to have been quite tall at roughly 165 cm (5 ft 5 in) in life, much taller than theSH females. A tibia from Kabwe is typically estimated to have been 181.2 cm (5 ft 11 in), among the tallest Middle Pleistocene specimens, but it is possible this individual was either unusually large or had a much longer tibia tofemur ratio than expected.
If these specimens are representative of their respective continents, they would suggest that above-medium to tall people were prevalent throughout the Middle Pleistocene Old World. If this is the case, then most all populations of any archaic human species would have generally averaged to 165–170 cm (5 ft 5 in – 5 ft 7 in) in height.Early modern humans were notably taller, with theSkhul and Qafzeh remains averaging 185.1 cm (6 ft 1 in) for males and 169.8 cm (5 ft 7 in) for females, an average of 177.5 cm (5 ft 10 in), possibly to increase the energy-efficiency of long-distance travel with longer legs.[33]
A conspicuously massive proximal (upper half) femur was recovered from Berg Aukas Mine, Namibia, about 20 km (12 mi) east ofGrootfontein. It was originally estimated to have been from a male as much as 93 kg (205 lb) in life, but its exorbitant size is now proposed to be the consequence of an extraordinarily vigorous early-life activity level while an otherwise ordinary person was maturing. If so, the individual from the Berg Aukas Mine would probably have had proportions similar to Kabwe 1.[34]
Homo heidelbergensis – forensic facial reconstruction
The humanbody plan had evolved inH. ergaster, and characterises all laterHomo species, but among the more derived members there are two distinct morphs: A narrow-chested and gracile build like modern humans, and a broader-chested and robust build like Neanderthals. It was once assumed that the Neanderthal build was unique to Neanderthals based on the gracileH. ergaster partial skeleton "KNM WT-15000" ("Turkana Boy"), but the discovery of some Middle Pleistocene skeletal elements (though generally fragmentary and few and far between) seems to suggest Middle Pleistocene humans overall featured a more Neanderthal morph. Thus, the modern human morph may be unique to modern humans, evolving quite recently. This is most clearly demonstrated in the exceptionally well-preservedSH assemblage. Based on skull robustness, it was assumed Middle Pleistocene humans featured a high degree ofsexual dimorphism, but theSH humans demonstrate a modern humanlike level.[35]
TheSH humans and other Middle PleistoceneHomo have a more basal pelvis and femur (more similar to earlierHomo than Neanderthals). The overall broad and elliptical pelvis is broader, taller and thicker (expanded anteroposteriorly) than those of Neanderthals or modern humans, and retains an anteriorly located acetabulocristal buttress (which supports theiliac crests during hip abduction), a well defined supraacetabular groove (between the hip socket and the ilium), and a thin and rectangularsuperior pubic ramus (as opposed to the thick, stout one in modern humans). The foot of all archaic humans has a tallertrochlea of the ankle bone, making the ankle more flexible (specifically dorsiflexion and plantarflexion).[35]
On the left side of its face, an SH skull (Skull 5) presents the oldest-known case oforbital cellulitis (eye infection which developed from anabscess in the mouth). This probably causedsepsis, killing the individual.[36][37][38]
A male SH pelvis (Pelvis 1), based on joint degeneration, may have lived for more than 45 years, making him one of the oldest examples of this demographic in the human fossil record. The frequency of 45-plus individuals gradually increases with time, but has overall remained quite low throughout the Palaeolithic. He similarly had the age-related maladies lumbarkyphosis (excessive curving of thelumbar vertebrae of the lower back), L5–S1spondylolisthesis (misalignment of the last lumbar vertebra with the firstsacral vertebra), andBaastrup disease on L4 and 5 (enlargement of the spinous processes). These would have produced lower back pain, significantly limiting movement, and may be evidence of group care.[39]
An adolescent SH skull (Cranium 14) was diagnosed with lambdoid single suture craniosynostosis (immature closing of the leftlambdoid suture, leading to skull deformities as development continued). This is a rare condition, occurring in less than 6 out of every 200,000 individuals in modern humans. The individual died around the age of 10, suggesting it was not abandoned due its deformity as has been done in historical times, and received the same quality of care as any other child.[40]
Enamel hypoplasia on the teeth is used to determine bouts of nutritional stress. At a rate of 40% for the SH humans, this is significantly higher than exhibited in the earlier South AfricanhomininParanthropus robustus atSwartkrans (30.6%) orSterkfontein (12.1%). Nonetheless, Neanderthals suffered even higher rates and more intense bouts of hypoplasia, but it is unclear if this is because Neanderthals were less capable of exploiting natural resources, or because they lived in harsher environments. A peak at 3½ years of age may be correlated with weaning age. In Neanderthals this peak was at 4 years, and many modern hunter gatherers also wean at about 4 years of age.[41]
Middle Pleistocene communities in general seem to have eaten big game at a higher frequency than predecessors, with meat becoming an essential dietary component.[42] In Europe,Homo heidelbergensis is known to have consumed the largestmegafauna species present in the region, thestraight-tusked elephant (which has been found at numerous sites with cut marks and/or stone tools indicating butchery)[43] and rhinoceroses belonging to the genusStephanorhinus.[44] At theSchöningen spear horizon in Germany, there is extensive evidence for the butchery of horses.[45] At theBoxgrove site in England, there is evidence for the butchery ofroe deer, horse and rhinoceros.[44] The inhabitants ofTerra Amata in France seem to have been mainly eating deer, but also elephants, boar, ibex, rhino andaurochs. African sites commonly yield bovine and horse bones. Though carcasses may have simply been scavenged, some Afro-European sites show specific targeting of a single species, which more likely indicates active hunting; for example:Olorgesailie, Kenya, which has yielded over 50 to 60 individual baboons (Theropithecus oswaldi); and Torralba and Ambrona in Spain which have an abundance of elephant bones (though also rhino and large hoofed mammals). The increase in meat subsistence could indicate the development of group hunting strategies in the Middle Pleistocene. For instance, at Torralba and Ambrona, the animals may have been run into swamplands before being killed, entailing encircling and driving by a large group of hunters in a coordinated and organised attack. Exploitation of aquatic environments is generally quite lacking, despite some sites being in close proximity to the ocean, lakes or rivers.[42]
Plants were probably also frequently consumed, including seasonally available ones; however, the extent of their exploitation is unclear as they do not fossilise as well as animal bones. At the Schöningen site in Germany, it is estimated that over 200 plant species in the vicinity were either edible raw or when cooked, though relatively few have actually been found at the site itself.[46]
Upper Palaeolithic modern humans are well known for having etched engravings seemingly with symbolic value. As of 2018, only 27 Middle and Lower Palaeolithic objects have been postulated to have symbolic etching, out of which some have been refuted as having been caused by natural or otherwise non-symbolic phenomena (such as the fossilisation or excavation processes). The Lower Palaeolithic ones are: a 400,000 to 350,000 years old bone fromBilzingsleben, Germany; three 380,000-year-old pebbles from Terra Amata; a 250,000-year-old pebble fromMarkkleeberg, Germany; 18 roughly 200,000-year-old pebbles fromLazaret (near Terra Amata); a roughly 200,000-year-old lithic fromGrotte de l'Observatoire, Monaco and a 200- to 130-thousand-year-old pebble fromBaume Bonne, France.[47]
In the mid-19th century, French archaeologistJacques Boucher de Crèvecœur de Perthes began excavation at St. Acheul,Amiens, France, (the area where the Acheulian was defined), and, in addition to hand axes, reported perforated sponge fossils (Porosphaera globularis) which he considered to have been decorative beads. This claim was completely ignored. In 1894, English archaeologistWorthington George Smith discovered 200 similar perforated fossils inBedfordshire, England, and also speculated that their function was beads, though he made no reference to Boucher de Perthes' find, possibly because he was unaware of it. In 2005, Robert Bednarik reexamined the material, and concluded that—because all the BedfordshireP. globularis fossils are sub-spherical and range 10–18 mm (0.39–0.71 in) in diameter, despite this species having a highly variable shape—they were deliberately chosen. They appear to have been bored through completely or almost completely by some parasitic creature (i. e., through natural processes), and were then percussed on what would have been the more closed-off end to fully open the hole. He also found wear facets which he speculated were begotten from clacking against other beads when they were strung together and worn as a necklace.[48] In 2009, Solange Rigaud, Francisco d'Errico and colleagues noticed that the modified areas are lighter in colour than the unmodifed, suggesting they were inflicted much more recently such as during excavation. They were also unconvinced that the fossils could be confidently associated with the Acheulian artefacts from the sites, and suggested that—as an alternative to archaic human activity—apparent size-selection could have been caused by either natural geological processes or 19th-century collectors favouring this specific form.[49]
Early modern humans and late Neanderthals (the latter especially after 60,000 years ago) made wide use of redochre for presumably symbolic purposes as it produces a blood-like colour, though ochre can also have a functional medicinal application. Beyond these two species, ochre usage is recorded atOlduvai Gorge, Tanzania, where two red ochre lumps have been found; Ambrona where an ochre slab was trimmed down into a specific shape; and Terra Amata where 75 ochre pieces were heated to achieve a wide colour range from yellow to red-brown to red. These may exemplify early and isolated instances of colour preference and colour categorisation, and such practices may not have been normalised yet.[50]
In 2006, Eudald Carbonell and Marina Mosquera suggested the Sima de los Huesos (SH) hominins were buried by people rather than being the victims of some catastrophic event such as a cave-in, because young children and infants are absent which would be unexpected if this were a single and complete family unit. The SH humans are conspicuously associated with only a single stone tool, a carefully crafted hand axe made of high-qualityquartzite (rarely used in the region), and so Carbonell and Mosquera postulated this was purposefully and symbolically placed with the bodies as some kind of grave good. Supposed evidence of symbolic graves would not surface for another 300,000 years.[51]
The Lower Palaeolithic (Early Stone Age) comprises theOldowan which was replaced by theAcheulian, which is characterised by the production of mostly symmetricalhand axes. The Acheulian has a timespan of about a million years, and such technological stagnation has typically been ascribed to comparatively limited cognitive abilities which significantly reduced innovative capacity, such as a deficit in cognitive fluidity,working memory, or a social system compatible with apprenticeship. Nonetheless, the Acheulian does seem to subtly change over time, and is typically split up into Early Acheulian and Late Acheulian, the latter becoming especially popular after 600 to 500 thousand years ago. Late Acheulian technology never crossed over east of theMovius Line into East Asia, which is generally believed to be due to either some major deficit in cultural transmission (namely smaller population size in the East)[52] or simplypreservation bias as far fewer stone tool assemblages are found east of the line.[53]
The transition is indicated by the production of smaller, thinner, and more symmetrical hand axes (though thicker, less refined ones were still produced). At the 500,000-year-oldBoxgrove site in England—an exceptionally well-preserved site with abundance of tool remains—thinning may have been produced by striking the hand axe near-perpendicularly with a softhammer, possible with the invention of prepared platforms for tool making. The Boxgrove knappers also left behind largelithic flakes leftover from making hand axes, possibly with the intention of recycling them into other tools later. Late Acheulian sites elsewhere pre-preparedlithic cores ("Large Flake Blanks", LFB) in a variety of ways before shaping them into tools, making prepared platforms unnecessary. LFB Acheulian spreads out of Africa into West and South Asia before a million years ago and is present in Southern Europe after 600,000 years ago, but northern Europe (and theLevant after 700,000 years ago) made use of soft hammers as they mainly made use of small, thickflint nodules. The first prepared platforms in Africa come from the 450,000-year-oldFauresmith industry, transitional between theEarly Stone Age (Acheulian) and theMiddle Stone Age.[52]
With either method, knappers (tool makers) would have had to have produced some item indirectly related to creating the desired product (hierarchical organisation), which could represent a major cognitive development. Experiments with modern humans have shown that platform preparation cannot be learned through purely observational learning, unlike earlier techniques, and could be indicative of well developed teaching methods as well asself-regulated learning. At Boxgrove, the knappers used not only stone but also bone and antler to make hammers, and the use of such a wide range of raw materials could speak to advanced planning capabilities as stoneworking requires a much different skillset to work and gather materials for than boneworking.[52]
TheKapthurin Formation, Kenya, has yielded the oldest evidence of blade and bladelet technology, dating to 545 to 509 thousand years ago. This technology is rare even in the Middle Palaeolithic, and is typically associated withUpper Palaeolithic modern humans. It is unclear if this is part of a long blade-making tradition, or if blade technology was lost and reinvented several times by multiple different human species.[54]
Despite apparent pushes into colder climates, evidence of fire is scarce in the archaeological record until 400 to 300 thousand years ago. Though it is possible fire remnants simply degraded, long and overall undisturbed occupation sequences such as at Arago or Gran Dolina conspicuously lack convincing evidence of fire usage. This pattern could possibly indicate the invention of ignition technology or improved fire maintenance techniques at this time, and that fire was not an integral part of people's lives before then in Europe. In Africa, on the other hand, humans may have been able to frequently scavenge fire as early as 1.6 million years ago from natural wildfires, which occur much more often in Africa, thus possibly (more or less) regularly using fire. The oldest established continuous fire site beyond Africa is the 780,000-year-oldGesher Benot Ya'aqov, Israel.[55]
In Europe, evidence of constructed dwelling structures—classified as firm surface huts with solid foundations built in areas mostly sheltered from the weather—has been recorded since theCromerian Interglacial, the earliest example a 700,000-year-old stone foundation fromPřezletice, Czech Republic. This dwelling probably featured a vaulted roof made of thick branches or thin poles, supported by a foundation of big rocks and earth. Other such dwellings have been postulated to have existed during or following theHolstein Interglacial (which began 424,000 years ago) in Bilzingsleben, Germany;Terra Amata, France; andFermanville andSaint-Germain-des-Vaux inNormandy. These were probably occupied during the winter, and, averaging only 3.5 m × 3 m (11.5 ft × 9.8 ft) in area, they were probably only used for sleeping in, while other activities (including firekeeping) seem to have been done outside. Less-permanent tent technology may have been present in Europe in the Lower Paleolithic.[56]
The appearance of repeated fire usage—earliest in Europe from Beeches Pit, England, and Schöningen, Germany—roughly coincides withhafting technology (attaching stone points to spears) best exemplified by theSchöningen spears.[55] These nine wooden spears and spear fragments—in addition to a lance, and a double-pointed stick—date to 300,000 years ago and were preserved along a lakeside. The spears vary from 2.9–4.7 cm (1.1–1.9 in) in diameter, and may have been 210–240 cm (7–8 ft) long, overall similar to present day competitive javelins. The spears were made of softspruce wood, except for spear 4 which was (also soft)pine wood.[1] This contrasts with theClacton spearhead fromClacton-on-Sea, England, perhaps roughly 100,000 years older, which was made of hardyew wood. The Schöningen spears may have had a range of up to 35 m (115 ft),[1] though would have been more effective short range within about 5 m (16 ft), making them effective distance weapons either against prey or predators. Besides these two localities, the only other site which provides solid evidence of European spear technology is the 120,000-year-oldLehringen site, district ofVerden, inLower Saxony, Germany, where a 238 cm (8 ft) yew spear was apparently lodged in an elephant.[57] In Africa, 500,000-year-old points fromKathu Pan 1, South Africa, may have been hafted onto spears. Judging by indirect evidence, a horsescapula from the 500,000-year-old Boxgrove shows a puncture wound consistent with a spear wound. Evidence of hafting (in both Europe and Africa) becomes much more common after 300,000 years.[58]
The SH humans had a modern humanlikehyoid bone (which supports the tongue), andmiddle ear bones capable of finely distinguishing frequencies within the range of normal human speech. Judging by dental striations, they seem to have been predominantly right-handed, andhandedness is related to thelateralisation of brain function, typically associated with language processing in modern humans. So, it is postulated that this population was speaking with someearly form of language.[51][59][60] Nonetheless, these traits do not absolutely prove the existence of language and humanlike speech, and its presence so early in time despite such anatomical arguments has been primarily opposed by cognitive scientistPhilip Lieberman.[59]
^"Homo heidelbergensis" (in German). Sammlung des Instituts für Geowissenschaften. Retrieved29 November 2015.Hierzu zählte noch im Jahr 2010 auch das Geologisch-Paläontologische Institut der Universität Heidelberg, das den Unterkiefer seit 1908 verwahrt und ihn alsHomo erectus heidelbergensis auswies. Inzwischen wird er jedoch auch in Heidelberg alsHomo heidelbergensis bezeichnet, siehe [In 2010, this also included the Geological-Palaeontological Institute of the University of Heidelberg, which has kept the lower jaw since 1908 and identified it asHomo erectus heidelbergensis. In the meantime, however, it is also referred to asHomo heidelbergensis in Heidelberg, see]
^Stringer, Chris; Crete, Lucia (2022). "Mapping Interactions of Homo neanderthalis and Homo sapiens From the Fossil and Genetic Records".PaleoAnthropology (2):402–403.ISSN1545-0031.
^de Castro, J.-M. B. (May 23, 2015). "Homo antecessor: The state of the art eighteen years later".Quaternary International.433:22–31.doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2015.03.049.... a speciation event could have occurred in Africa/Western Eurasia, originating a newHomo clade [...]Homo antecessor [...] could be a side branch of this clade placed at the westernmost region of the Eurasian continent.
^Stringer, C. (1984). "Human evolution and biological adaptation in the Pleistocene". InFoley, R. (ed.).Hominid evolution and community ecology. Academic Press.ISBN978-0-12-261920-5.
^Holloway, R. L. (1985). "The poor brain ofHomo sapiens neanderthalensis: see what you please". In Delson, E. (ed.).Ancestors: The hard evidence. Alan R. Liss.ISBN978-0-471-84376-4.
^Churchill, S.E.;Berger, L.R.; Hartstone-Rose, A.; Zondo, B.H. (2012). "17 – Body size in African Middle PleistoceneHomo". In Reynolds, Sally C.; Gallagher, Andrew (eds.).Part III – Modern human origins: patterns and processes. African Genesis. Vol. III §17. pp. 325–326.doi:10.1017/CBO9781139096164.021.ISBN9781139096164.
^Gracia-Téllez, Ana; Arsuaga, Juan-Luis; Martínez, Ignacio; Martín-Francés, Laura; Martinón-Torres, María; Bermúdez De Castro, José-María; Bonmatí, Alejandro; Lira, Jaime (8 May 2013). "Orofacial pathology in Homo heidelbergensis: The case of Skull 5 from the Sima de los Huesos site (Atapuerca, Spain)".Quaternary International.295:83–93.Bibcode:2013QuInt.295...83G.doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2012.02.005.ISSN1040-6182.
^abcCarbonell, E.; Mosquera, M. (2006). "The emergence of a symbolic behaviour: the sepulchral pit of Sima de los Huesos, Sierra de Atapuerca, Burgos, Spain".Comptes Rendus Palevol.5 (1–2):155–160.Bibcode:2006CRPal...5..155C.doi:10.1016/j.crpv.2005.11.010.
_at_G%25C3%25B6teborgs_Naturhistoriska_Museum_8733.jpg)
.jpg)
