Homo pekinensis

Please do not edit this article unless this tag is removed, to avoid edit clashes. If the page has not been edited in a while, ask an admin what you should do.
The text on this page may have grammatical errors, incomplete data, broken images features and/or incorrect formatting.

## Statistics

### Height

144-173 centimeters (4-5 feet, 9-8 inches)

*Homo erectus* is an extinct species of hominid that lived in Tanzania and Eurasia from the Middle to Late Pleistocene.

## History

In 1921 near Beijing (romanticized 'Peking'), Johan Gunnar Andersson and his students Otto Zdansky and Walter Granger, during a lesson on working at Chinese sites at the 'Chicken Bone Hill', were advised by local quarry men to excavate Longgushan, finding the first human teeth at the site that year. These were reported in 1926. The following year, Bergir Bohlin found another tooth. The same year. Wēng Wénhào made an agreement with Zhoukoudian scientists; in 1928, the Chinese government stopped exportation of Chinese artifacts to the west, viewing this as imperialist, and foreigners were encouraged to research these in the country. In 1929, Davidson Black persuaded his employer, Peking Union Medical College, the Geological Survey of China (lead by Wēng) and the Rockefeller Foundation to find the Cenozoic Research Laboratory and excavation. Later the same year, Péi Wénzhōng discovered a complete skullcap and Zhoukoudian was found to be valuable, with a cache of remains, fire use and tools. This makes it the most productive *H. erectus* site. In 1936, 4 more skullcaps were found, excavated over 11 days in November (overseen by Jiǎ Lánpō) They employed 10-100 local labourers (depending on the stage), paid 5-6 jiao/day. They also employed prominent researchers, and after the death of Black, Weidenreich had fled Nazi Germany to carry on his study. In 1941, WWII caused all remains and tools to be loaded into two wooden footlockers that would be moved to the USA by the United States Marine Corps to the SS President Harrison (from PUMC) at a dock from Qinhuangdao Port and to the American Museum Museum of Natural History. On way to the port, the ship was attacked by Japanese warships and it ran aground. Many attempts to retrieve the crates, offering large cash rewards, were imitated but nothing has been found.

Rumours range from the cargo hold of the Awa Maru, an American ship that sunk, ground into Chinese medicine, robbery against American/Japanese groups (especially during Resist America), and others. Richard Bowen, a marine, recalls discovering a bone-filled box from a foxhole next to barracks in Qinhuangdaeo while the city was under siege by the CCP Eighth Route Army. If this is correct, the most likely location of the boxes is 39°55′4″N 119°34′0″E, underneath roads, a warehouse or a parking lot. 4 of the original teeth are still held by the Paleontological Museum of Uppsala University, Sweden. In 1941, Zhoukoudian excavation halted until the Chinese Civil War concluded in 1949. In 1949, 1951, 1958-1960, 1966 and 1978-1981, fieldwork continued, being meticulous, even sieving out fragments as small as a centimeter. Excavation here is thus considered mostly complete. Each specimen was picked up and set in a basket for a team of technicians to sort and check for validity, with excess earth passed to sieve. The Mao era (especially 1950-1951) shows the Peking material restructuring Chinese identity under a new government, linking socialism with evolution. It was taught at every level to introduce Marxism and to overturn superstition, tradition and creation myth. Scientists were compelled to fit it into communism. In the Cultural Revolution, intellectuals were persecuted into labourers, impeding research. This changed in 1970.

Because males, females, children, tools and fire use are found in many layers, it assumed that occupation lasts for hundreds of thousands of years. Henri Breuil (1929) suggested that the cranium-to-postcranium ratio was too large to be natural, suggesting that these populations were cannibalistic headhunters, either being from the same species or a more 'advanced' species Marcellin Boule (1937) thought the skulls were too primitive and the remains too advanced to be a single species, suggesting the 'more evolved' species were cannibalizing the others and produced the tools. Weidenreich suggests that they were of the same species but later came to the inclusion of foul play based on extensive pathologies; while the remains are very scarred and injured, he also suggests use of blubs and other tools caused these during bone marrow collection. This is evidenced by breakage by the bases and lengthwise splits in the femora to harvest brains and marrow, respectively. This became popular, but Péi (1929) suggested these were done by hyaenas. Helmuth Zapfe, pioneer in taphonomy, finds parallels between the Peking Man and cow bones at the Vienna Zoo. In 1941, Weidenreich conceded, that the epiphyses breakage was caused by hyaenas, but was unconvinced that the femoral and skull breakage was caused by the same, sticking to the cannibal hypothesis. Weidenreich and his assistant Lucille Swan (1937) attempted to reconstruct the full Peking skull using Skull XI and Skull XII/III because a male(?) maxilla would not be found until 1943. Ian Tattersall and Gary Sawyer (1996) revised their reconstruction by using casts of male specimens and teeth, accurately restoring the full thing (except for the bottom margin of the piriform aperture. They deflated the cheeks, inflated the lateral margins of the supraorbital torus, increased midface prognathism and reduced subnasal prognathism.

## Description

*H. erectus* is typically known from various derivation stages; the oldest are the Javan remains, the transitionary forms include Peking and some of the most derived forms are the Solo remains, but the latter may be classified as *Homo soloensis*. The temporal lobes were considerably smaller then *Homo sapiens*; this area controls memory, emotions, hearing, sociability and language, so any change in size could alter each of these. The Mojokerto child shows 72-84% of average adult brain size, having a growth trajectory similar to hominids rather than *Homo sapiens*. Thus, *H. erectus* was probably not cognitively comparable to *Homo sapiens*, with secondary altriciality evolving much later. A total energy expenditure (TEE) or 2271.8 and 1909.5 kcal was found from an average mass of 63 kilograms (male) and 52.3 kilograms (female). This is similar to early *Homo*, contrary to a marked increase in activity and migratory capacity due to longer legs is observed. *H. erectus* women are 84% higher than those of *Australopithecus*, probably due to a larger size and lowered growth rate. In 2011, assuming high energy or dietary fat requirements due to large game found at *H. erectus* sites, a TEE of 2700-3400 kcal was found, with 27-44% from animal fat; the latter is higher and the former is lower than *Homo sapiens*.

### Classic forms

Weidenreich diagnoses the Peking skull, as low and long with the breadth being widest at the ear level and sharply reduces at the receding forehead, Marked postorbital constriction is seen and the neurocranium has an ellipsoid shape. The skull is circumcised by a torus, especially the brow and the occipital torus. They have an eminence projecting above the brow, developed at varying degrees, which is not seen in any population. The eye socket was likely a small opening based on related taxa and the nasals are double the width of the average derived *Homo sapiens*. The orbits are wide, the superior orbital fissure was likely a small opening rather than a slit, the nasals were not as wide as Neanderthals and the nose was likely short and broad. A sagittal keel runs down the midline and is highest at the coronal suture intersection, receding near the obelion and depressing on either side and accentuating parietal eminence. The temporal lines arc in pairs across both sides and often merge into a ridge near the midline, the squamous of the temporal is low, the temporal fossa is relatively narrow and the mastoid has a high crest that overshadows the ear canal, accentuating it and bending inwards and bending stronger in males. There is no true postglenoid process, but only a broad-based triangular projection. The zygomatics project far and are high (up to 65 millimeters), and would be visible from the top-down. The occipital torus extends in a relatively straight line that laterally curves down into an end, is bordered by sulci at the top and bottom margins (indicating muscle attachment), the bottom margin gradually fades and the midpoint has an occipital bun. The foramen magnum was narrower. The skull was thickened by tori and the braincase, the former being rare to be fully developed in all bone layers.

Peking has a very defined canine juga, there is subnasal prognathism, the upper jaw commonly has exostoses in the molar region, there is a rugose palate (unlike Java remains), the mandible was robust and lack chins, the extramolar sulci bordering the cheek side are broad and some mandibles bear a torus on the lingual or multiple mental foramina. The dental arches are U-shaped, the incisors have an eminence on the base, ringer-like ridges are on the lingual and shoveling on the upper incisors (most common in modern Chinese people), mandibular incisors are narrow, the teeth are large and obtrusive (unlike Weidenreich's original reconstruction, having peg-like teeth), the premolars are ellipse-shapes and asymmetrical, the P3 has three roots, the molar crowns have several extraneous ridges (making a dendrite-like enamel-dentine junction, typical of 'classics'), the M1 is elongate and the M2 is round. The cranial capacities of seven Peking skulls have a range of 850-1225 and an average of 1029. This makes them big-brained. Encephalization quotients typically score from 3 to 4 in Asian *H. erectus*, assuming a weight of about 50 kilograms (110 pounds). The endocast is ovoid from the top, the frontal lobe is narrowed, the parietal lobes are depressed unlike Javan remains, derived *Homo sapiens* and *Homo ergaster* (though this is seemingly variable in the Peking populations), the temporal lobes are narrow and slender, the occipital lobes are flattened dorsoventrally and strongly project backwards (variable in modern forms) and the cerebellum is not as globular and the lobes diverge more strongly from the midline than other basal *Homo*. The long bones had thickened corticals and narrowed medullary cavities, with Peking appearing to have more robust humeri than *Homo ergaster*. At maximum midshaft constriction, the femoral walls take 9/10s of the interior space, with exorbitant thickness sharply reducing above the greater trochanter for the lateral walls. The medial walls are 3x as thick as derived *Homo sapiens*. The 2 main cancellous strips of the femoral head are not present, likely due to intense cortical thickening.

    The external of the humerus seems modern and has exceptional muscle attachments and a more slender shaft. The lunate is modern though it is smaller and broader. The femur is mostly consistent with the external of modern forms, though it is much stouter, fformer, slenderer and straighter, with the maximum curvature occurring nearer to the knee and the femoral neck liekly being truncated. The subtrochanteric crest ends up the greater trochanter with a bony growth like Neanderthals and the anteroposterior diameter is smaller than transverse. These are not outside the range of modern forms but are quite rare. The torso is poorly known but the limbs and clavicles were proportionally similar and thus the rest of the body is assumed to as well. Weidenreich (1938) reconstructed a presumed female femur to be 400 millimeters long, creating a height of 152 centimeters, speculating males were averaging 164. In 1944, he reconstructed a presumed male femur to be 407 millimeters long, finding a height of 156 centimeters, findign a female height of 144 centimeters. Song Xing (2018) estimated the living weight of Humeri II and III to be 53.6 kilograms, Femur ! to be 54.8 kilograms, IV to be 54.3 kilograms and VI being 51.6 kilograms. Weidenreich assumed all of these were males. Northern populations tend to be shorter than tropical ones.

## Paleobiology

### Conflict

 File:Erectus.png  The cortical is very thick, seen most in East Asia *H. erectus*. *H. erectus* skullcaps are sometimes confused for testudine carapaces, with medullary stenosis. Thickening like this is seen in semi-aquatic animals, who use these to sink. Males have thicker corticals than females; however, it is unknown what these were used for, with no evidence for pathology. It was suggested by Weidenreich that *H. erectus* was a massive species based on more complete specimens, with thick bone to support weight and was prompted by more activity, However, Stanley Marion Garn (1970) disproved these via low correlation with *Homo sapiens*, noting different races bear different cortical thickening, finding a genetic cause rather than environmental. It is unknown if increased bone formation or decreased resorption caused this, but Garn notes stenosis is similar to the congenital condition in *Homo sapiens* via hyper-apposition. Gail Kennedy (1985) argues resorption is a result of hyperparathyroidism via hypocalcemia caused by a low-calcium meat dietary shift. However, it was left unexplained why the calcium metabolism was left unadjusted. Mary Doria Russell et al. (1985) argue the large brow ridge is a result of withstanding large bending stresses that localize in the region when the front teeth exert large force, such as carrying objects. Noel Boaz and Russel Ciochon (2004) suggest it was a result of culture, where they may fight with fists, stones or clubs to resolve conflict and/or find a mate, since certain aspects of the crania are reinforced. The mandible is robust, absorbing heavy blows, with a heavy brow protecting the eyes and, to an extent, the ears. Any blows to this area could have dissolved into the skull, with the sagittal keel protecting the braincase; many skullcaps near debilitating fracturing, but show evidence of healing and survival, as in Peking Man skull X. Peter Brown suggests a similar reason for the unusual thickening in Aboriginal Australians, since they engage in intraspecific combat wherein members compete to knock opponents unconscious via repeated waddy strikes to the skull.

### Tools

Chinese archeology is considered stagnant and generally not categorized to the extent African and European artifacts are. There is, however, a supposed industrial divide that Hallam L. Movius (1944) calls the "Movius Line", where the bifacial Acheulean separates from the Levallois and Mousterian. Rare and crude bifaces from the Middle Pleistocene of East Asia suggest otherwise, being explained as: Acheulean invented in Africa after East Asian dispersal, but this would require separation for nearly 2 million years, which is unlikely; East Asia having poorer quality materials such as quartz and quartzite, though some Chinese localities yield bifaces from these materials and the region is not completely devoid of them; East Asian populations used biodegradable bamboo for chopping tools, but this is difficult to test; or that East Asia had a lower population density and left few tools, but demography is difficult to test in fossils. Zhoukoudian Locality 1 has more than 100,000 lithic pieces. Péi and Zhang partitioned (1979) split this into three stages to highlight technological advancement; an early stage with a simple hammer and anvil, producing large flakes from soft minerals such as sandstone weighting up to 50 grams (1.8 ounces) and measuring 60 millimeters from Later 11; a middle stage with a bipolar technique, making smaller flakes up to 20 grams (0.71 ounces) and 40 millimeters long; and a late stage above Layer 5 with smaller flakes made of harder and more quality quartz, flint and other cobble. Quartz was collected some distance from the cave from granite outcrops by hills and riverbeds. They manufactured simple flakes, scrapers, choppers, points, burins and awls (the last three towards the end of occupation). These techniques made highly nonuniform tools, and Binford was skeptical of any technological advancement. There is slim to none evidence for bone modification into tools. It was once thought that the Peking populations were the first to manufacture tools (by Péi) or if there were unknown, more archaic hominins that made tools (by Jiǎ). Western scholars such as Louis Leakey discovered earlier tools in 1931, with radiometric dating in the 1960s finding the Oldowan to be even earlier

Péi (1929) oversaw excavation at Quartz Horizon 2 of Zhoukoudian and reported burned bones, stones, ash and redbud charcoal as evidence of fire use by the Peking Man, which was widely accepted. In 1935, further excavation of Layers 4-5 revealed more burned stone, asha and hackberry seeds. Ash was deposited in horizontal and vertical patches, similar to hearths. Binford and Ho (1985) doubt that Zhoukoudian was inhabited and suggests that burning was caused by forest fires fueled by bat guano. Binford, the next year, interpreted burned horse teeth as head roasting, however. Weiner, Goldberg et al. (1998) foudn no evidence of siliceous aggregates in Layers 1 or 10, concluding that burned material washed into the cave. IVPP immediately responded, with Wu Xinzhi argueing that his data was too small. In 2001, Goldberg, Weiner et al. concluded that the ash layers are reworked loessic silts and that charcoal was misinterpreted carbon-rich sediments that are organic and decomposed in standing water. However, Shen et al. (2004) sported a massive fire from Layer 10, ostensibly dating to 770 kya (during a glacial period) and that these populations would have needed to control fire to survive these conditions. Moahua Zhong et al. (2014) report elements associated with siliceous aggregates in Layers 4 and 6, doubted their analysis of Layer 10. A 2022 study cemented the use of controlled fire in Layer 4 of Zhoukoudian based on 15 recovered bones bearing microscopic burn marks above the temperature of over 600°C. Burned wood from Trinil in the layers of the Java Man, 500-830 kya, have been discovered. However, Central Java is volcanic, and charring may have resulted from wildfires and other natural events, so there is no evidence of fire control at this site. However, it has been proposed that they did use fire here, and that frequent natural fires may have allowed opportunistic use that did not imprint in the fossil record.

### Art

Hand and foot print impressions from the 200,000 year-old Tibetan Plateau may represent evidence of parietal art produced by two children 7 and 12 years old. However, it is unknown which species produced these prints; the authors suggested Denisovans may have, but also note *Homo erectus* lived in the region, so their identification is left vague. These artworks are the first hominin evidence at Quesang. The prints are made of travertine, which forms a sort of sludge when first deposited. This would have allowed for the children to easily stick their hands and feet into the substance, which would harden when deprived of water. Personal ornaments coated in ochre (now worn away) are known from Zhoukoudian.

### Society

Friedrich Engels (1884) published a book that suggested that primitive communism, an idea that would gain popularity, was used by populations such as the Peking Man that would not have had any social division (such as states, groups or classes), shared resources and would have still anchored a strong society that gave rise to modern humans. He also suggested that men hunted and women gathered. This would then be supported by Joseph Stalin in 1976 and were compatible with Maoist ideology, but restrictive for scientists. Those such as Liú Xián (1950) and the Hundred Flowers Campaign (1956-57) spoke out about this idea and their opinions of communism. In the West, scholars focused on intelligence rather than labour based primarily after Jane Goodall's great ape research. However, this time had greatly converging ideas. It was found that the Peking populations, like others, had a short lifespan; out of a 38 individual sample, 15 died before the age of 14 (39.5%), 3 died around 30 years (7%), 3 died from 40-50 years (7%) and 1 died from 50-60 years (2.6%) The age of 16 individuals (43%) were not obtained.

## Classification

—Eugène Dubois (1932)
When Dubois first published his finds in 1894, his central claim was that his *Pithecanthropus* was a "missing link", though many disagreed and critics claimed they were of a bipedal ape or a primitive human. These criticisms made sense for the time, since hominid fossils were thought to be variants of outdated racial categories. Dubois allowed several scientists examine his fossils during several European conferences in the 1890s, where they thought it may have been an offshoot species of the human lineage that descended from apes but evolved into *Homo sapiens*. This imposed itself and was popular until the 1940s. The bipedalism of gibbons made Dubois believe that they were not only closely related, but why he stated the Java Man was like a "giant gibbon". Dubois was bitter about critics and locked the fossils in a trunk until 1923, when he allowed Ales Hrdlicka of the Smithsonian to examine the remains. In 1932, Dubois published a rebuttal that the remains resembled a gibbon, which has been misinterpreted as a retraction but was instead meant to convey being transitional. Dubois thought evolution occurred in leaps, which he posited would double the brain/body ratio with each stage. With this, expanded would have to prove that the brain size was intermediate between ancestor and descendant, which was a problem because the brain size of the Trinil specimen was not (being about 2/3 rather than 1/2). At this time, Out-of-Asia was a popular theory and so was the notion that gibbons were related to humans and thought that Trinil had longer arms, was up to 100 kilograms heavy and had an expanded upper chest, which he thought made it a perfect candidate. He reaffirmed this in 1932. Weidenreich's work on the Peking Man suggested that these two populations were interbreeding, with Ernst Mayr reclassifying them as a single species, *H. erectus*. This was presented by Mayr at the Cold Spring Harbor Symposium in 1950, and the genera *Sinanthropus*, *Pithecanthropus*, *Plesianthropus*, *Paranthropus*, *Javanthropus* and several others were subsumed into *Homo*, with no more than a single species existing at once. In the 1970s, the Peking and Trinil specimens would be known as *H. e. pekinensis* and *H. e. erectus* respectively, though this model was dropped after for including all 'classics' as just *H. erectus*.

In 1927, Black coined *Sinanthropus* to hold Zhoukoudian remains, which would eventually be suggested for merge into *H. erectus*. This model uses the informal genera *Protanthropus*. *Eoanthropus* and *Sinanthropus* that would then evolve into *Homo* in Africa, which would support the Out-of-Asia hypothesis, which has now been discounted. The Peking Man was used as a symbol of national pride and antiquity, as a tool used to support this hypothesis that would grow more popular. Weidenreich pushed it to be ancestral to the defunct "Mongoloid" racial grouping in the 1930s to support polygenism. However, this seemed to be exclusive to him. The idea that all Chinese ethnic groups were indigenous to the region gre popular during the second Sino-Japanese War and the Japanese occupation of China. By the Maoist era, it had become a symbol of Chinese ancestry. In the 1950s when Ernst Mayr entered the field he subsimed a "bewildering diversity of names" into *H. transvaalensis* (australopithecines), *H. erectus* (as an umbrella for *Sinanthropus*, *Pithecanthropus* and Asian, Africana and European taxa) and *Homo sapiens* (to include anything younger than the former, including Neanderthals) as had been recommended by various predecessors. Mayr thought this lineage was sequential, though he changed opinion on the australopithecines and recognized *Australopithecus* as valid. This highly conservative classification was then widely adopted until dropped for the most current model. Chinese and Soviet scientists dropped polygenism, finding it was propagated scientific racism by Western capitalist scholars, arguing that all human races are closely interrelated. When australopithecines were confirmed as human ancestors, the Zhoukoudian Peking Man was confirmed as having dispersed from Africa. It has been suggested that these populations merged with *Homo sapiens* via interbreeding, which would lead to Peking being somewhat ancestral to Chinese people. Phylogenetic analyses (the first in 2010) reported that anyone beyond people with ancestry south from the Sahara has Neanderthal and Denisovan genes, suggesting that interbreeding was common between species.

Specimen-level phylogenetic analyses conducted in 2021 recovers the following. This would make the species paraphyletic, as it splits into the Neanderthal, Denisovan, *H. rhodesiensis* and *H. sapiens* lineages. Strangely, the typically australopithecine STW 53 is recovered sister to Dmanisi. Hexian, Sambungmacan and Ngandong may represent *Homo soloensis*:

## Paleoecology

In Thailand, populations settled near sources of water and abundant natural resources. At Doi Ta Ka, *Pongo*, *Gigantopithecus*, deer, hyenas, *Ailuropoda*, felids, pigs, black bears are reported. This area would have been a "gateway" between Indonesia and mainland Asia, allowing for migrating populations to pass. However, specimens from Thailand from any hominin are scarce and leaves for create paleoanthropological potential.

### Zhoukoudian

Zhoukoudian is roughly 128 meters above sea level, and fossilferous layers are divided into 27 localities; Peking Man remains are from Locality 1, known as Dragon Bone Hill, a locality that is 40 meters deep and divided into 17 layers, with fossils found above layer 13 and Peking Man remains from layers 10-3. These regions can also be sorted into Loci A-O, with major tool accumulations in Layers 3-4 and the tops of 8-10. Animal fossils suggest a Middle Pleistocene occupation, with many attempts to date it since the late 1970s. Zhao Shusen suggests 700 kya for 12, 500 kya for 10 and 230 kya for 3; these are generally supported but their exact dates are harder to find. Shen Chengde et al. (2004) argue a 400-500 kya deposition time for layer 3 and 10 being 600-800 kya, during a mild glacial. After WWII, the idea that the Peking population lived in caves became popular, modeled in Jiǎ (1975)'s book on the subject. Lewis Binford and Ho Chuan Kun (1985) thought that the cave was a trap that fauna fell into, suggesting that deer remains assumed to have been prey were carried in by *Pachycrocuta*, with ash by natural wildfires trapping them and bat guano in, as they thought fire and hunting were too advanced for this species. Paul Goldberg and Steve Weiner et al. (2001) determined Layer 4 to be primarily deposited by loess and 3 with travertine. They concluded that fire traces were related to water deposition. Noel Boaz et al. (2000) argued that the proposed species to have crushed, crunched, bit and gnawed the bones was correct, and that the species was large enough to do so. 67% (28 specimens) of remains showed said damage, with all of this and perimortem injury attributed to this species. They suggest that tool suggest occupation near the cave but were scattered during bioturbation. Shuangquan Zhang et al. (2016) did not find animal, human or water damage to deer fossils from Layer 3, suggesting it fell into the cave from above. In 2017, Zhing Gao et al. find clear evidence for fire use.

Tools are strewn about Layers 10-1 with notable clusters that are interpreted as short-lived occupation sites or stray tools being mixed into piles by burrowing animals. Péi and Zhang Shenshui (1985) identified a clump in Layer 9-8 next to a supposed ash layer by Locus G near what may have been the east cave entrance. Locus K, about the same time and place interval, yields a similar cluster. Eastern occupation seems to end in Layer 6 near that entrance, with another cluster in the southwest to Layer 3 by locus H, indicating a new entrance or ceiling opening. The fauna indicates Layers 11-10 was a mixed warm forest and a cool/dry grassland; 9-8 was warmer and more forested; 7-6 was similar but had a wetter climate; 5-4 has a cooling trend[ and 3-1 is a warm and wet (predominantly) steppeland environment. These are broadly grouped into 3 major units; 11-10 being cool and dry, a predominant grassland; 9-5 being warm and predominantly forested; and 4-1 being cold and dry predominant grassland. Oxygen isotope analysis and the mammal fauna suggests that 9-8 is a cool steppe that gradually encorached forested areas despite later layers being warmer. This fauna includes *Macaca*, *Canis mosbachensis ?variabilis*, Asian black bears, brown bears, *Dihoplus kirchbergensis*, the whoolly rhinoceros, *Equus sanmeniensis*, the Siberian musk deer, *Sinomegaloceros pachyosteus*, *sheep*, bison , *Palaeoloxodon namadicus*. bats, pikas, rodents and shrews. Layers 4-3 have an asemblage similar to 9-8 but with extra warm-to-mild climate steppe and forest creatures, including *Nyctereutes sinensis*, *Cuon antiquus*, the corsac fox, Asian badger, wolverine, *Pachycrocuta*, *Machairodus inexpectatus*, tigers, leopards, sika deer, *Spirocerus* and *Bubalus teilhardi*. This fauna is not entirely exclusive to glacial or interglacial periods.

*H. erectus* seems to have favoured open environments; it is debated it the Peking populations occupied the region during colder glacial periods or if they resided during warmer interglacials. This is tied to the uncertain chronology of the site, arguments about fire use, clothing and hunting ability. Abundant deer remains were assumed to have been chosen prey but they seem to be from other carnivores, since the Peking Man remains were fed upon by hyaenas. However, some animal fossils seem to have been modified by external factors. Binford et a;. (1986) report few horse fossils with cutmarks left by stone tools and 2 premolars from Layer 4 that appear to have been burned while fresh. which he ascribed to head roasting, believing that they were scavenging from hyaenas due to tool cuts always overlapping gnaw marks. Also present are remains of edible plants, nuts and seeds, where they may have also ate Chinese hackberry, walnuts, hazelnuts, pines, elms and rambler rose. Populations likely went extinct due to tropical rainforest takeover, with their final stay at Zhoukoudian possibly being between 400 and 230 kya, but the exact date is difficult to find.

## Subspecies

* †*H. e. "pekinensis"*?
* †*H. e. georgicus*?

## Synonyms

* *H. e. pekinensis* (=Nanjing)
* *H. e. nankinensis* (=Peking)
* *H. e. sinensis* (=Peking)
* *H. e. officinalis* (=Doi Ta Ka?)
* *H. nankinensis*
* *Sinanthropus*

## Notable Specimens

* Zhoukoudian/Peking Man: A diverse set of *H, erectus* remains from China. These remains were all packed into boxes in WWII in attempt to escape destruction, but were lost and have never been found. They are some of the most influential finds of this species from the most studied archeological locality.
	+ A1: An I1-2, P3-4 and M1s from both sides from a juvenile female individual on Layer 5, excavated from 1921-27 and again in 1952.
	+ A2: An adult female mandible, incisor and M2 from L5, discovered from 1927 to 28.
	+ A3: An adult male 1M and 3M from L5, discovered in 1928.
	+ B1: A juvenile female mandible with teeth from L4, discovered in 1928 and 1935.
	+ B2: An adult male skull, mandible, humerus and lunate from L4, discovered in 1928 and 35.
	+ B3: A juvenile male mandible, the second mandible discovered, from L4 and discovered in 1928 and 35.
	+ B4: A female juvenile mandible (the third mandible discovered) and an 2M from L4 and discovered in 1928 and 35.
	+ B5: A juvenile male mandible (the fourth found) from L4 and discovered in 1928 ad 35.
	+ C1: A juvenile female mandible (the fifth found), C1, P3, a P4 from the opposite side and an M2 from L8/9 discovered in 1929.
	+ C2: An adult male C1 and M1 from the opposite side and an M2 from L8/9 discovered in 1929.
	+ C3: A juvenile male M1, 2I, M (the former two from the opposite side) and a femur from L8/9 discovered in 1929 and/or 1938.
	+ C4: An adult female C from L8/9 discovered in 1929.
	+ D1: An adult female skull (the second discovered) and 6 teeth from L10 and discovered 1929.
	+ D2: An adult male I1, M1, M2, 1I and 2M from L10 and discovered 1929.
	+ E1: A juvenile male skull (the third known) from L10 and discovered in 1929.
	+ F1: A juvenile male mandible (the fifth known) from L10 and discovered in 1930.
	+ F2: A juvenile female I2, P4, M3 and 2M from L10 and discovered in 1930.
	+ F3: An adult female P3, 4P and 3M from L10 and discovered in 1930.
	+ F4: A juvenile male I1, 2I, IC and 3P from L10 and discovered in 1930.
	+ G1: An adult male mandible (the third known) from L7 and discovered in 1931.
	+ G2: A juvenile male skull (the fifth known) and clavicle from L7 and discovered in 1931.
	+ H1: An elderly female mandible (the fifth known) and 3P from L3 and discovered in 1934.
	+ H2: An adult female 3P from L3 and discovered in 1934.
	+ H3: An elderly male skull (the fourth known) and #M from L3 and discovered from 1934-36 and 1966.
	+ H4: An elderly female mandible (the fourth known) from L3 and discovered from 1934-35.
	+ I1: An adult female skull (the fifth known), 4 teeth and atlas from L8/9 and discovered in 1936.
	+ I2: A juvenile male skull (the seventh known) from L8/9 and discovered in 1936.
	+ J1: A juvenile female skull (the eighth known) from L8/9 and discovered in 1936.
	+ J2: An adult female femur (the second known) from L8/9 and discovered from 1936-38.
	+ J3: An adult male femur (the third known) and humerus (the second known) from L8/9 and discovered from 1936-38.
	+ J4: A juvenile male skull (the ninth known) from L8/9 and discovered in 1936.
	+ K1: An adult male mandible (the sixth known) from L8/9 and discovered in 1936.
	+ K2: A juvenile female 2I from L8/9 and discovered in 1936.
	+ L1: An adult male skull (the tenth known) and teeth from L8/9 and discovered in 1936.
	+ L2: An adult male skull (the eleventh known) and teeth from L8/9 and discovered in 1936.
	+ L3: An adult male skull (the twelfth known) from L8/9 and discovered in 1936.
	+ L4: A juvenile male upper and 3 lower teeth from L8/9 and discovered in 1936.
	+ M1: An adult male mandible (the seventh known) and femur (the sixth known) from L8/9 and discovered from 1937-38.
	+ M2: An adult female mandible (the eighth known) from L8/9 and discovered in 1937.
	+ M3: An adult female femur (the seventh known) from L8/9 and discovered from 1937-38.
	+ M4: Adult male femora (the fourth and fifth known) from L8/9 and discovered from 1937-38.
	+ N1: A juvenile female P4 and M1 from L8/9 and discovered in 1937.
	+ O1: A possible adult male skull (the thirteenth known) from L10 and discovered in 1937.
	+ O2: An adult M1 from L10 and discovered in 1937.
	+ Unnamed: An adult I1 and M1-2 from L8/9? discovered in 1949; an adult 3P from L8/9? and discovered in 1951; an adult humerus (the third known) from L8/9? from L8/9? and discovered either in 1937? or 1951; an adult tibia from L8/9? and discovered in 1937? or 1951; an adult 4P from L8/9? and discovered in 1951; an adult, possibly female, mandible (the ninth known) with M1 from L8/9? and discovered in 1959; and an adult 3P from L3 and discovered in 1966.
* DTK.1a-d "Lampang Man": In 1999, four cranial fragments from Thailand were identified as *H. erectus* in the Lampang Province from Doi Ta Ka cave (Locality 1), a remote phosphate mine by researcher Mr. Somsak Pramankij. Being on of the first non-Indonesian/Chinese skull of this species found, it was dated to ~500,000 years by the survey and sent to Philip Tobias for examination, who confirmed identification. One of the few description papers finds morphological similarity between it, Sangiran II, Peking and the Trinil calvarium. These finds are often dismissed as insignificant. Tools from Thailand were first believed to have been about the same age and associated with *H. erectus*, but the age of such is disputed.

## Gallery

Illustrations of Skull XII of the Zhoukoudian Peking Man site.
**Credit: Franz Weidenreich.**Illustrations of Skull XII of the Zhoukoudian Peking Man site.
**Credit: Franz Weidenreich.**Illustrations of Skull XII of the Zhoukoudian Peking Man site.
**Credit: Franz Weidenreich.**Illustrations of Skull XII of the Zhoukoudian Peking Man site.
**Credit: Franz Weidenreich.**Illustrations of Skull XII of the Zhoukoudian Peking Man site.
**Credit: Franz Weidenreich.**Illustrations of Skull XII of the Zhoukoudian Peking Man site.
**Credit: Franz Weidenreich.**Clavicle I of the Zhoukoudian Peking Man site.
**Credit: Franz Weidenreich.**Humerus I of the Zhoukoudian Peking Man site.
**Credit: Franz Weidenreich.**Femur VI of the Zhoukoudian Peking Man site.
**Credit: Franz Weidenreich.**Humerus II of the Zhoukoudian Peking Man site.
**Credit: Franz Weidenreich.**Femora V and VI of the Zhoukoudian Peking Man site.
**Credit: Franz Weidenreich.**Femur VII of the Zhoukoudian Peking Man site.
**Credit: Franz Weidenreich.**Humerus II of the Zhoukoudian Peking Man site.
**Credit: Franz Weidenreich.**Femur I of the Zhoukoudian Peking Man site.
**Credit: Franz Weidenreich.**Femur IV of the Zhoukoudian Peking Man site.
**Credit: Franz Weidenreich.**Femur III of the Zhoukoudian Peking Man site.
**Credit: Franz Weidenreich.**Femora I and II of the Zhoukoudian Peking Man site.
**Credit: Franz Weidenreich.**Maxillae from Skulls III, V, VI and X of the Zhoukoudian Peking Man site.
**Credit: Franz Weidenreich.**Femur IV of the Zhoukoudian Peking Man site.
**Credit: Franz Weidenreich.**Skulls VIII and IX of the Zhoukoudian Peking Man site.
**Credit: Franz Weidenreich.**Skull XI of the Zhoukoudian Peking Man site.
**Credit: Franz Weidenreich.**Skull XII of the Zhoukoudian Peking Man site.
**Credit: Franz Weidenreich.**Skull X of the Zhoukoudian Peking Man site.
**Credit: Franz Weidenreich.**Skulls VI and VII of the Zhoukoudian Peking Man site.
**Credit: Franz Weidenreich.**Skulls V and VI of the Zhoukoudian Peking Man site.
**Credit: Franz Weidenreich.**Skulls IV and V of the Zhoukoudian Peking Man site.
**Credit: Franz Weidenreich.**Skulls I and II of the Zhoukoudian Peking Man site.
**Credit: Franz Weidenreich.**Skull II of the Zhoukoudian Peking Man site.
**Credit: Franz Weidenreich.**Skull III of the Zhoukoudian Peking Man site.
**Credit: Franz Weidenreich.**"Lampang Man"."Lampang Man".

## References

1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peking\_Man
2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo\_erectus
3. ↑ https://phys.org/news/2020-09-temporal-lobes-homo-erectus-proportionally.html
4. ↑ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo\_erectus
5. ↑ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peking\_Man
6. ↑ https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2021.811319/full
7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java\_Man
8. ↑ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/kids-fossilized-handprints-may-be-some-of-the-worlds-oldest-art/
9. ↑ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047248421001408
10. ↑ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0018442X10000727
11. ↑ https://twitter.com/johnhawks/status/1408463843303596038
12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 https://www.academia.edu/1806109/Putative\_Homo\_erectus\_cranial\_fragments\_from\_Doi\_Ta\_Ka
13. ↑ https://www.news24.com/news24/remains-of-homo-erectus-found-20011030
14. ↑ https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.quaint.2008.01.012