From the article: Regardless, it can at least be surmised that the controlled use of fire was atypical of Homo erectus until its decline and the rise of more advanced species of the Homo genus came to the forefront. Really?? Why?? Remember the historic aphorism: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If there is evidence that members of this species, in several areas around the world, during several time periods, controlled the use of fire (as cited in the article), and since the number of known Homo Erectus sites are limited and in no way could be considered a statistical sample, why should we present the idea that all sites with fire are atypical? Enlighten me. WBardwin 06:20, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm with you, buddy. I read that sentence and did a quick double-take but still can't see what it means. Does that mean fire became typical in the decline of Homo erectus? How do we know that? Moreover, there is a possibility that fire precedes erectus (see under Olduwan). What then? I'm in favor of deleting the sentence. Otherwise it seems to say "this typical fire is atypical..."Botteville 00:06, 8 October 2005 (hi)
There are two incidence of possible fire use by erectus: one found at Zhoukoudian in China and the other at a site in East Rudolf (east of Lake Turkana) in Kenya. However, in both cases, there are other possible ways to explain the fire evidence, which make them equivocal. However, with that said, I believe erectus is likely to be the first candidate to use fire (may be even control fire) because of its widespread distribution. It's true that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But one cannot argue with negative evidence, because without hard evidence, it's just spectulation. --Silverhalo03:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...section on daughter and sub-species. This could be a good placeholder for things like Tchadanthropus uxoris and Telanthropus capensis. Marskell 11:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
helloooooo bla bla bla — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.73.65.68 (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to think not, and here is why. The "Individual Fossils" section describes specific sites and finds. There are 3 sections there, one of which is "Java Man." Why merge Java Man and not Peking Man or Turkana Boy? Alternatively, if you bring Java Man into the main article, you ought to bring in the others as well. However, this is a significant amount of material, more than you might want in one article. Even if you opted for the larger article, there are a whole lot more finds not currently mentioned that sooner or later are going to turn up here. I would say, put Pithecanthropus erectus back to Java man with a redirect on the former to the latter and a reference to the main article. That is how Peking Man is handled. Moreover, there is some question about whether Homo erectus can apply to all, so the name may not be all that stable. If erectus or Homo get broken up, it will be easier to change Wikipedia in discrete modules. Thanks.Botteville 23:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
i know a lot about this stufffffffff ohhhhh yea!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.73.65.68 (talk) 15:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did. Most of your edit appeared to come from the Smithsonian site that you listed on the page, and so probably violates Wikipedia's copyright policies. I did not know if the photograph was copyrighted as well. If is is not, please feel free to put it back. Best wishes. WBardwin04:32, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, I just joined this site and am still learning how to use it. Wikipidea seems too complex and I had no idea you could not directly copy off web pages. So the info must be in your own words right? But that takes too long. Not that I don't know anything about H. erectus, in fact I was about to make my own web page this year.
Ah -- welcome to Wikipedia! Yes, Wiki has to be very careful about copyright, as Wiki itself is a "free" web site and available for others to copy. They are particularly protective about photographs. Lawsuits abound in the world today. So we all have to create the material, but a little bit of careful cut and paste is usually alright. Give yourself some time on the site. I resist (like mad) reading instructions, but it didn't take me long to feel pretty comfortable here. Of course, I learn new things all the time too. Look forward to working with you. Homo erectus could use your insight, I'm sure. WBardwin04:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you compare it with A. afarensis the size of this page is too small. Besides H. erectus has too much info expanding from Africa, Europe and Asia for such a short page. The facts are well put out but more should describe about their possible mental capabilities or social structures. I don't mind small ones like A. gahri or H. cepranensis because little is known from them.
I made 90% of the edits into "turkana boy", I wrote down facts yet other possibilities (ie. skin tone, social behavior and possible language) which I obtained from BBC's Dawn of Man and a book from Richard Leakey (I don't remember the name). (2000). --King of the Dancehall17:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A word of caution. Popular media often 'spice' up the reality of how much we can interpret from the fossil and archaeological record. For instance, a lot of the social behaviors and physical appearances are purely imaginary! --Silverhalo03:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If all Homo Sapiens/Modern Humans are believed to be the descendants of an early H. Sapien group that evolved from the Homo erectus in the African continent, and than migrated into other parts of the earth. But than whatever happened to the H. Erectus that left Africa and Migrated into Asia and part of Europe, did they all die? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robwi (talk • contribs) .
Though some people dug up some of their bones, so we know "what happened" to some of them... :-) (I know, I know, cart before the horse and all that). Carcharoth12:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there scientific proof that the Homo-Erectus is related to the Slavic people inhabiting Eastern Russia today? Maybe descendants of Slavs? Hit me back.--69.255.16.16205:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They're not thought to be the ancestors (descendants are the ones that come after, not before) of any specific ethnic group or groups. Rather, they're the ancestors of Homo sapiens sapiens (modern humans) as a whole. Not only were they around long before our ethnic groups developed, they were in fact around long before our entire species developed, and our entire species is descended from theirs!
Asking if Slavs descended from Homo erectus is kind of like asking if your best friend is descended from Mitochondrial Eve. Just as you, your best friend, and every other human alive today all descended from "Eve", so too did all humans who ever lived descend from the species Homo erectus! Pretty amazing stuff, no? --Icarus(Hi!)07:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may be begging the question that modern slavs are decedents of homo-erectus that may have lived in that area. This is not true. I am not an expert, but the prevailing thought is that homo-erectus came out of Africa way before the modern branch of humans. No human living today is a decedent of homo-erectus fossils found outside of Africa. There is further debate that erectus may be a "cousin" branch from ergaster and that sapiens are not directly related at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.174.34.170 (talk) 15:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are our immediate ancesters! As I understand it . . .
(1) We have been as smart as we are for about the last 150,000 years.
(2) Prior to that, we were officially Homo erectus (arbitrary cut-off has to be somewhere) and almost as smart as we are now.
(3) Homo erectus goes back to about one and a half million years ago ago. We were evolving in other areas besides just intelligence, but it was mainly intelligence because a million and a half is just a blink of the eye in geological time.
(4) Neanderthals are not on our direct ancestral line. They are our cousins! They also evolved from Homo erectus.
(5) The whole fascinating subject of cultural evolution, just as smart for 150,000 years, and we only started doing agriculture about 8,000 years ago? I guess cultural evolution kind of starts slow and then takes off. FriendlyRiverOtter07:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought H.Erectus was roughly equivilent to H.Neanderthalus in time and that they also overlaped with H.Sapian Sapians. This occured in S.East Asia for the H.Erectus as compared to Western Europe for H.Neanderthalus.
On another note this aritical has been vandalized. Could someone who knows what they are doing please fix it. I like penis jokes as much as anyone but not here.
This page is really sloppy, but I don't really know that much about the subject... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Afu1111 (talk • contribs) .
I agree that a major cleanup is needed. Two problems really jumped out at me. First, the cute bullet list in "Descendants and Subspecies" never explains what the indentation levels mean. (I know what they mean, but only because I know the science, not because this page explains it.) Second, this page never states when Homo erectus first appeared and when it died out! Obviously each of these is a disputed date range, but something needs to be mentioned. I came to Wikipedia because I saw a claim that Homo erectus fossils in Java are merely 10,000 years old. This was surprising to me. But nothing on the page says anything about when Homo erectus ended. - Lawrence King18:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I rewrote some of the beginning stuff...and changed 'subspecies' to Synonyms. I also added stuff on major fossils...
Haha...Javaneses erectus were gone long before 10,000 years (10 Ka) - 10 Ka is the beginning of the Holocene. In fact, if floresiensis is derived from erectus, they are only 18 Ka. The youngest date for erectus is from Ngandong, at circa 46-27 Ka, based on U-series and ESR, published by Carl Swisher et al. from Rutgers University. But the date is controversial because the we are not sure which dirt layer Ng were found. There is also good evidence that some of the fossil mammals found at the site (which the young dates are based on) are washed in.--Silverhalo03:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
derived, in this case, can be taken to mean toward the modern condition. for instance, a larger brain size would be a derived feature because we see an increase in brain size through time from genus Australopithecus to genus Homo. Another derived morphological feature in Homo erectus would be a decrease in the size of the molar teeth or a decrease in the size of the canine (when compared to,say, Australopithecus afarensis).
--Silverhalo03:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, I would think they can interbreed but their children can not reproduce, like horse and donkey, and lion with tiger. Also if they can, there should be descendants now..Dongwenliang18:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The few one or two paragraph articles on other species names, such as Tchadanthropus uxoris should be merged into this article, or a new article should be created for the combined history of fossils that have eventually been merged into Homo erectus. - UtherSRG(talk)13:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article needs to treat when H. erectus ceased to exist--did the species go extinct or was it absorbed into H. sapiens? With Spencer Wells' "Journey of Man" film and book stating that all humans today are descended from H. sapiens who journeyed out of Africa c. 50-60 thousand years ago, it isn't clear what the relationship is with H. erectus, who made the same journey (as far as Java at least) hundreds of thousands of years earlier. Badagnani08:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It most certainly went extinct (as none exist today). Just because H. sapiens evolved from erectus doesn't mean erectus went extinct then and there. It's possible that a population of erectus in africa evolved humans (Recent single-origin hypothesis) and another population in flores evolved into the hobbits. --Philo11:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the extinction of Homo Erectus needs to be expanded on. This page doesn't even give an approximate extinction date (70KA). This is partuclarly relevent as it the extinction of the species is asscoiated with the Toba Catastrophe. I would edit myself, but i am a geologist not an anthropologist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.86.33.33 (talk) 14:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to edit this yourself -- no expertise needed. But you do need to cite an acceptable source for the information. I believe that Erectus was widely distributed geographically, so I don't understand how the localized Toba eruption could cause their extinction. Also, I saw some recent research which showed continuity of culture through the Toba eruption, suggesting it wasn't as devastating as originally thought. TimidGuy (talk) 14:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just did some cleanup of the related Java Man article, but it still needs a lot more work. I'm suspicious of the references attributed to Lubenow (not an anthropologist, as the article earlier implied), and I deleted a sentence "quoted" from a Time magazine article that never appeared in the article. MrDarwin14:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have some problems with the drawing in the article. For one thing the rolled lips. Aren't they a more advanced feature of modern humans? Look at a picture of a chimpanzee. They have thin lips. Steve Dufour14:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and removed the picture. There is no reason to think that Homo erectus looked like that at all. The skull which is shown at the top of the page would not fit into that head. Steve Dufour14:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see the picture has now been removed from a couple of other articles. I didn't think it was a bad picture, just not good enough for this article -- which would have made it the main source of information on Homo erectus's appearance for English speaking Internet users. (p.s. I also don't think they had "worry lines." :-) )Steve Dufour15:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You say that they were not capable of producing sounds of a complexity comparable to human speech. With only fossils, how do you know this? It seems to me there is no way to prove this. Please explain your reasoning for this.
I haven't any expertise in this area, however I recently watched the BBC production called "Walking with Cavemen". The second episode depicted both Homo Ergaster and Homo Erectus speaking. Was this poorly researched, or is there some genuine dispute about the linguistic ability of these hominids? Delsydebothom (talk) 22:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the fossil evidence shows a smaller spinal canal, suggesting less breathing control than modern humans and interpreted as supporting the hypothesis that they did not have the same language capabilities as modern humans.
Hi guys, I’m currently working on a painting for H. erectus I was wondering if its good enough for the article. It a work in progress, it’s a bit hairless, the final would be coloured. Early humans aren’t really my thing so any pointers will be appreciated. Also it will be nude (currently no genitals are present)….what are wikipedias’ rules on nudity. I could always fudge the lighting an darken that area of necessary. [1]. thanks. Steveoc 86 (talk) 14:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nicely done. What are you basing it on? I see your an experienced paleontological artist, so no doubt you've studied the skull and skeletal proportions, etc. Why no clothing? If I remember correctly, the evidence from the DNA studies of a particular kind of lice suggest a date when modern humans began wearing clothing, and I believe it was earlier than Cro-Magnon. I read about it in Nicholas Wade's Before the Dawn, but a friend has borrowed my book, so I can't look it up at the moment. TimidGuy (talk) 01:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Oops. Sorry about that. I also track the Cro-Magnon article and got that confused with this article on Erectus, so comments about clothing don't apply. TimidGuy (talk) 01:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it’s based of what I could find atomically, as for clothing….not much thought went into that… I did it for [3] . The guy behind that site said nothing about it. A lot of what I read said there’s no direct evidence for clothing and no one so far has mentioned anything about that….It could be a really hot day ;). Steveoc 86 (talk) 01:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to Mario Alinei, Homo Erectus not only had the capability for speech, but so did Homo Habilis. To quote: "The last twenty years of discoveries in the field have brought Ph. V. Tobias, one of the world leading specialists, to conclude that the question now is no longer whether Homo habilis spoke (which is now considered as ascertained), but whether the capacity for language was already optionally present in some Australopithecus, to become obligatory in Homo, as one of his unique traits." (copied only as a reference - not sure if it would be GFDL'd)
Seems the speech centers of the brain are present (identifiable in skull patterns/indentations). If this is true, it also supposes symbolic thought ( most speech is symbolic in nature). Which implies a lot. Web site here http://www.continuitas.com/intro.html for an interesting read. Kurt (ktheis@landfall.net). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.175.56.187 (talk) 05:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To put it gently, the theories of Mario Alinei are well outside the scientific mainstream. It's a bad idea to use his site as a basis for Wikipedia, which is supposed to reflect generally accepted knowledge. 71.225.110.226 (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many scientist including Evolutionist, have accepted "java man" and other Homo Eructus beings as a false human ancestor. Due to fact that Chinesse scientist built the Homo Eructus using Human and Ape fossils, and was proven to be so, it has been denied it's place in the Evolutionary train, which still has yet to come out with any solid evidences of a Human intermediate.
Imperial conversions of Metric units - clarity, precision, proper usuage
The precision is in the use of two decimal places. This is appropriate. The format is standard across hundreds if not thousands of articles, via the use of the template. If you wish to use only a single decimal place or three decimal places, you can provide the proper parameters to the template. - UtherSRG(talk)23:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A foot is less than a third the size of a meter - so 2 dp in feet implying three times the accuracy of a measurement in meters to dp.
But the biggest problem here is that 5.87 feet is an unclear and unconventional way of writing 5'10.5", and actually looks like 1.745m to someone used to using imperial measurements.
Your suggestions are problematic. Listing feet to one decimal place would have 1/3rd of the accuracy of listing in meters to 2 decimal places, but listing feet to three decimal places is even worse - it implies a level of accuracy that is 30! times higher than the units we are converting from.
I feel you haven't made a convincing case for listing in feet to decimal places against listing in feet and inches to the nearest half inch.
Is your suggestion a better match to the precision of the initial measurement? no
Is your method more conventional and more easily understood by people who use imperial units? no
"The format is standard across hundreds if not thousands of articles, via the use of the template."
That argument is called an appeal to the majority, and is fallacious. First of all, I don't know if this is true and even if it is true it merely suggests that - few wikipedians know how to use both imperial and metric measures properly, or that wikipedians dislike mental arithmetic.Archaic d00d (talk) 23:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Try reading and editing a few more articles, "d00d". This is how it is done. I'm not going to argue on and on. Learn and use the template, or leave it alone as is. - UtherSRG(talk)23:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
" This is how it is done."
You've been sarcastic and authoritarian since the outset of this discussion, it's hard to respond to an argument as weak as the one you presented with anything but sarcasm, however, I'll resist the temptation.
I noticed that the reconstruction picture near the bottom is grossly inaccurate. I shows H.erectus with very dark pigmentation and very kinky fur texture. These traits in fact are fairly recent adaptations and would not have yet existed in the earliest cro-magnon sapiens, let alone in earlier homonid species. Surely erectus had some moderate amount of pigmentation due to its tropical location, but that extreme degree of pigment as shown in the picture would have been a later equatorial H. Sapien adaptation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.57.35 (talk) 21:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
{{editsemiprotected}}
The journal article that this links to doesn't make any kind of claim that the skull in question is actually just a weathered version of a homo sapiens, which is what the citation is supposed to be proving. It only argues that hominid evolution was probably far more complex, involving a much larger diversity of species at its base, than was ever previously thought.
I get the feeling that someone trying to weaken the evidence for human evolution added it as a citation for their essentially bogus claim because the title of the paper was "Revelations from Chad", and never bothered to actually *read* the article they're citing.
It feels to me like it's an attempt at confusing the issue, and someone should either remove this "fact", or make it agree with the article it's citing.Binjabreel (talk) 20:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DoneI've removed both the claim and the reference. The reference might be useful for something else, though, so here's the cite:
{{cite journal | last = Wood | first = Bernard | authorlink = | coauthors = | year = 2002 | month = | title = Palaeoanthropology: Hominid revelations from Chad | journal = Nature | volume = 418 | issue = 6894 | pages = 133–135 | doi = 10.1038/418133a | url = | accessdate = | quote = }}
Update: I found this talk page when doing a search to see if this article was cited in Wikipedia. Actually the article does mention a skull that turned out to be just a weathered modern skull:
The first 'early hominid' from Chad, Tchadanthropus uxoris, found in 1961, turned out to be the face of a modern human skull that had been so eroded by wind-blown sand that it mimicked the appearance of an australopith (p.133)
However, that is of course an important historical aside in the article (important because researchers need to know what to look out for when attempting to identify fossil remains in various environments). It was not the central theme of the article by any means. I haven't checked the earlier version of this Wikipedia article to see what context it was orginally mis-cited, but from your above discussion, I have to assume it was utilised in an incorrect or even outright misleading fashion. Ironic, given that the sentence in question - which is what the editor must have been referring to - is as I say an historical aside.
Perhaps the editor in question stopped reading the journal article at that point. Again ironic. We all know that the journal Nature has published articles that have had to be retracted etc - per standard science, and per standard human activity that sometimes entails fraudulant claims sneaked into high quality journals before discovery of said fraud. But I can't imagine Nature publishing an article that attempted to undermine evolutionary theory (That only happens in the fantasies of certain belief systems). Actually it's quite a good article, so I'll see if I can find a place to cite it, as I've found an online version of it (which I found before finding this talk page). Wotnow (talk) 22:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update update ("Extra extra! Read all about it!" - it gets a bit like that sometimes). I've now added the citation to the article, in correct context. Wotnow (talk)`
Hi. It doesn't seem like there's any information in the article on when Homo Erectus became extinct? I don't really know myself but I can't find any information on this. Perhaps this would be useful to add? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.84.147 (talk) 21:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well the intro paragraph seems to indicate an extinction date of 1,000,000 years ago (if any extinction date is implied by the unclear intro). However, the chart in the article indicates an extinction date of 40,000 years ago and other articles related to human evolution seem to indicate dates of 70,000 and 20,000 years ago respectively.75.164.205.147 (talk) 06:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is about the precision of your site of Homo Erectous. Yes, Trinil is at Solo River bank, but it is not at Central Java. It is instead in East Java, Ngawi District precisely. Thanks.
User's name and address : Prijo Waspodo, - Surabaya, East Java, Indonesia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.164.145.146 (talk) 10:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The page has no clear discussion about whether HE is an ancestor of HSS, or a cousin. There is one statement that says that this is not clearly understood, but people on the talk page seem convinced that HS evolved from HE. It seems to me that this question is the real question of most interest on the page, and so perhaps an expansion of this subject, even its own section is deserved. Even if the final answer is "we aren't sure" so be it, it still deserves a more in-depth discussion don't you think? I am not suggesting we duplicate all the material on human evolution, but I am suggesting that we concentrate on one question of human evolution that is directly related to this article, namely, are modern humans descended from HE? I ask because, after reading the article I still don't know, worse, I don't know if no one knows, or if we know, but the information just wasn't there. One picture I found elsewhere claims that Homo Erectus split from something called Homo Ergaster, who then evolved into both Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens through Homo heidelbergensis, as I understand it, that would make them our cousins, not our ancestors. On the other hand, the page for Homo ergaster claims that they might have been a sub-species of Homo erectus, which would explain the confusion (if they are a sub-species, then we are descended from Homo erectus, if they are a common ancestor of both Homo erectus and homo heldelbergensis, then Homo-erectus are our cousins), but I think that someone with more knowledge of this topic should tackle adding the section. --Jlc46 (talk) 23:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me like this article relies too heavily on analysis of Turkana Boy the most complete fossil we have on Homo erectus. Such analysis is outdated. Recent discoveries by Dr. Marc Meyer have cast doubt on Turkana boy as being an accurate representation Homo erectus. Trunkana man many well have been disabled or malnourished or both. His small spine is not chraceristic of Homo erectus but actually a disability. Homo erectus actually had a fully normal human spine which menas there is no physical reason it couldn't talk or at least use some form of verbal comunication. If Turkana boy was disabled that would also explain his very small cranial capacity as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigred58 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have begun an attempt to make the pages on Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo habilis, and Homo georgicus resemble each other in format and content more closely. I shall try to present each competing interpretation, but have often settled, half-way through the page, on presenting each species as legitimately distinct (while letting readers know, of course). My main concern is that these six pages present many prevalent and valid interpretations but no conformity of tone or content between pages (or sometimes even paragraphs). I shall also try to make conglomerate authorship less detectable between pages, personally editing large chunks using my own tone. I shall attempt, however, to let no personal interpretations of our ancestry interfere with the hypotheses presented. I will not eradicate any additions to these pages' content, obviously, but will attempt to make their voice and presentation uniform. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homo Ergaster (talk • contribs) 02:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Homo erectus itself is extinct. Many species have gone extinct after newer ones speciated from them. (Never forget that a population becomes a fully and truly separate species once the speciation process is completed.) The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am given to understand that one of the most fascinating aspects of Homo erectus is how much the skeleton, from the neck down, resembles Homo sapiens. The body type, apart from the smaller brain, should be extremely similar. Therefore I am very puzzled that this page doesn't have any pictures of a full (or almost full, to the degree the extant fossils allow) below-the-neck Homo erectus skeleton, because that is what I think a lot of visitors to this page, including myself, want to see. A few shots of skulls and some isolated bones are not enough. Is there anybody who can add some pictures of fairly complete Homo erectus skeletons?
--Tue Sorensen (talk) 01:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...But still separate species and subsequently ancestor of Homo heidelbergensis (ancestor of Homo neanderthalensis) and Homo rhodisiensis (ancestor of surviving Homo sapiens), already named source here: [4]. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This part of the article confuses me: "Sites in Europe and Asia seem to indicate controlled use of fire by H. erectus, some dating back 1.5 million years ago.[...] A site called Terra Amata [...] contains the earliest evidence of controlled fire, dated at around 300,000 years BC."
There is evidence of controlled fire dating back to 1.5 mya, but the earliest evidence of controlled fire is from 300 kya? How does that make sense? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.167.186 (talk) 00:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would interpret it to mean that the evidence of fire-control at Terra Amatais considered to be quite strong (ashes apparently confined within small "fireplaces" each at the centre of a hut), whereas at the older sites it is (perhaps partly because of greater age) less conclusive, with greater possibilities of the fires being natural and used opportunistically (if at all). The wording is a little confusing, and should perhaps be clarified, but unfortunately the evidence itself is ambiguous. Hopefully further and surer evidence will be uncovered in the future, but the achievement of full fire control by early humans was likely not a single easily datable "breakthrough", but a gradual process spread over tens if not hundreds of thousands of years and (semi-?) independently repeated in many different places at different rates. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.72 (talk) 20:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From a few sources (one being my AP World History textbook) I can find that Homo erectus (as I quote) '-who flourished from about 2.5 million to 200,000 years ago.' If this is true, then is it possible for this part of the article to be changed:
'lived from the end of the Pliocene epoch to the later Pleistocene, about 1.8 to 1.3 million years ago. '
If nobody responds, I am going to change the time, and site the source from my book. Is this acceptable? Infinity Warrior 15:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infinity Warrior (talk • contribs)
The dating range of 1.8-1.3 million years confuses me too. The article seems to contradict that range. The temporal range or fossil range, in this article, is given as 1.9-0.1 million years ago and the 'use of fire' subsection talks about Homo Erectus in Israel around 790,000-690,000 years ago and even later in France at 300,000 years ago. Unless, 1.3 - 1.8 million years ago is merely referring to the boundary between the Pliocene epoch to the later Pleistocene. Talk about designed to confuse! I know this is not a simple English article but still isn't it meant to be an educational and informative article in wikipedia rather than an IQ test? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.52.139.214 (talk) 22:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a good point. I've attempted to fix it, using dates given in the article (since a lead is expected to reflect the article's content). TimidGuy (talk) 09:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have a page on homo georgicus, which until yesterday claimed that this was a separate species intermediate between Homo habilis and Homo erectus - in spite of the fact that the fossils' discoverer already in 2005 gave up this classification and classified the fossils as Homo erectus. I think the article should have its own section here.·ʍaunus·snunɐw·14:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support A disused taxon. An argument could be made that it has received enough coverage to merit its own page as a subspecies (as with several other H.er. specimens), but it would have to be carefully written to avoid being 'just another fossil', while it would likewise risk being a nationalist battleground. Merger here is probably the best short-term solution, and it can always be spun back out if someone feels up to the challenge of rewriting and monitoring. At a minimum, the current page should be moved to h.e.georgicus. Agricolae (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've merged now. But looking at the article I realize that we are listing Homo floresiensis as a separate species and there is no mention in either this or that article that many textbooks now tend to include Homo floresiensis as a subspecies of Homo erectus as well.·ʍaunus·snunɐw·21:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I've never seen that classification, and searching for "Homo erectus floresiensis" doesn't yield much of importance. Recognition of H. floresiensis as a species now seems fairly widely accepted. Ucucha (talk) 12:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see two issues here. One is the instability of the classification, the other is the organisation in WP. One thing really is a "no-brainer": that the discussion over classification will go on, and on, and on. There not the slightest hope of putting it to bed at present. The other issue is the organisation. We should spin out a page for each sub-species, leaving a summary here. This has the benefit of controlling the size of this article. We should be really clear in this article as to what lies behind the taxonomic struggle. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear to me that anthropologists currently recognize any subspecies within H. erectus—few recent papers on the species recognize subspecies (check Google Scholar). Maybe it's still defensible to have articles on notable regional populations of H. erectus, such as Java Man and Peking Man, but we should stop claiming that they are valid subspecies. Ucucha (talk) 12:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are basically noone who considers floresiensis a species, it is subsumed as homo erectus in all current accounts, even when it is still often referred to as Homo floersiensis when talking about the specimen. it is not considered a subspecies of erectus, just a dwarf sized specimen.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·12:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you are basing that on. Here are just a few studies published this year that call it a species: [5], [6], [7]. I don't even remember reading a study that subsumes it in H. erectus, though many have argued that the species is based on abnormal H. sapiens. Ucucha (talk) 12:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
H. erectus was probably the first hominid to live in small, familiar band-societies similar to modern hunter-gatherer band-societies.[47] H. erectus/ergaster is thought to be the first hominid to hunt in coordinated groups, use complex tools, and care for infirm or weak companions.
Given that modern chimps do small bands and coordinated hunting it is hard to believe that homo was not doing the same from at least the common chimp/human ancestor.
I read on another webpage that Homo erectus is one of the longest-lived species, so I came to this page to find out how long they lived. I wondered if they lived one hundred years, two hundred years or possibly longer. After reading this article, I wonder if "long-lived" refers to the species being around for one of the longest periods of time. Can someone clarify in the article what is meant by "long-lived"? DBlomgren (talk) 10:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The species was long lived in that it existed over a million years, compared with Homo sapiens' approximately 200,000 years of existence. The individual members of the species were not long lived but probably lived around 30-40 years on average.·ʍaunus·snunɐw·12:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Our article says "more robust than modern humans" with a rather dodgy citation, but the abstract from the following paper says "this species had a tall thin body shape". (The paper appears to disagree about pelvic shape, but it is not clear whether it disagrees with the tall and thin conclusion.) Which is correct?
A Female Homo erectus Pelvis from Gona, Ethiopia
Scott W. Simpson, Jay Quade, Naomi E. Levin, Robert Butler, Guillaume Dupont-Nivet, Melanie Everett, Sileshi Semaw
Science 14 November 2008:
Vol. 322. no. 5904, pp. 1089 - 1092
DOI: 10.1126/science.1163592
Abstract:
Analyses of the KNM-WT 15000 Homo erectus juvenile male partial skeleton from Kenya concluded that this species had a tall thin body shape due to specialized locomotor and climatic adaptations. Moreover, it was concluded that H. erectus pelves were obstetrically restricted to birthing a small-brained altricial neonate. Here we describe a nearly complete early Pleistocene adult female H. erectus pelvis from the Busidima Formation of Gona, Afar, Ethiopia. This obstetrically capacious pelvis demonstrates that pelvic shape in H. erectus was evolving in response to increasing fetal brain size. This pelvis indicates that neither adaptations to tropical environments nor endurance running were primary selective factors in determining pelvis morphology in H. erectus during the early Pleistocene.
"African H. erectus, with a mean stature of 170 cm, would be in the tallest 17 percent of modern populations, even if we make comparisons only with males." Source: Human Evolution by Dev Raj Khanna. Discovery Publishing House, 2004 http://books.google.com/books?id=aTxkAcdYgu0C&pg=PA195
"Doctors Leakey and Walker [ Dr. Alan C. Walker, paleontologist and human anatomy professor at the Johns Hopkins Medical School and famed paleontologist Richard E. Leakey ] recently published a 480-page book [ 'The Nariokotome Homo erectus Skeleton' (Harvard University Press ]. The book sheds new light on Homo erectus."
"The book reveals surprisingly tall, slender creatures..."
"Had the Nariokotome boy lived to adulthood, researchers believe, he would have topped 6 feet 1..."
"'That stature is quite remarkable,' Dr. Walker said. 'And it defies common perceptions of our ancestors as having been short.'"
"Thinking the boy simply may have been a big individual, Dr. Walker re-examined earlier Homo erectus fragments and found 'we had not appreciated how big they were'..."
"They averaged about 5 feet 7, including females. Only 17 percent of modern males are taller..."
"'Clearly this population of early people were tall, and fit. Their long bones were very strong. We believe their activity level was much higher than we can imagine today. We can hardly find Olympic athletes with the stature of these people,' he said..."
"The Nariokotome boy was extraordinarily slender, at about 106 pounds, with long arms and legs. That reflects an adaptation to hot tropical climates favoring a large skin area and relatively small body volume for efficient cooling..."
Only 17 percent of modern males are taller? A child 1.6 meters (5 feet 3 inches) tall and weighing 48 kilograms (106 pounds)? a non-obese modern human at that height should weigh in at 58 to 71 kilograms (128 to 157 lbs). --Guy Macon (talk) 04:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone have any good reason why we should not describe H. erectus as "Tall (Only 17 percent of modern male humans are taller) and very thin"? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As the quantity of the Homo erectus bones in the fossil record has a bearing on the accuracy of various claims, can someone provide a count of skeletons (e.g., skulls or partials) or furnish a source? The current "some of the fossils" section is not useful statistically.
Be sure to read the articles you're linking to, as some of them do not match up with the information you're giving, i.e., linking to Turkana Boy, which is now considered a specimen of Homo ergaster, or saying that Dali Man is from India, when it is from China.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are several references to Homo erectus being in Europe, but I think this is only believed by the multiregionalists. The Boxgrove and Atapuerca are usually described as H. heidelbergensis, while the Ceprano find is sometimes placed in its own species, sometimes in H. heidelbergensis. Multiregionalists are a minority view among physical anthropologists, and we should probably use the more common classification, which removes Homo erectus from Europe. --TeaDrinker (talk) 15:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Basically agree with above. Multiregionalists are now certainly a small minority. Assuming we are not going to count Georgia as Europe (H. erectus georgicus) then we don't need to use H. erectus for Europe at all. The Boxgrove limb bone + teeth has been assigned to both H. heidelbergensis and early H neanderthalensis. Really, the skeletal remains are not sufficient for anyone to be dogmatic. However, the best-worked tools at Boxgrove are surprisingly sophisticated, and this does definitely point away from erectus. Full-fledged neanderthals used to be dated to about 300 kya with the Mousterian culture. It would surprise no-one if it turns out that more than one species or subspecies was in parts of Europe during the period 900 kya to 300,000 kya. At present, most people allow for a proto-neanderthal stage. Chris Stringer puts the Swanscombe skull cap in this category, based on the rear of the skull. There are different tool cultures at different levels of this site. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The cooking section needs some citations. I'm assuming most of the information is coming from at least one publication by Richard Wrangham, probably Catching Fire,[1] "The Raw and the Stolen,"[2] or "The Energetic Significance of Cooking."[3]
Moreover, the layout of the paragraph could use some clarification. "The evidence of the use of stone tools prove [sic] that H. erectus was hunting and eating meat," followed by "the evidence that they were eating meat is the discovery of tapeworm DNA about 1-1.5 million years ago" doesn't make sense; framing both as contributing evidence would be ideal. As these sentences are now, they come off as mutually exclusive even though that probably wasn't the intention. Additionally, cooked meat isn't the only important aspect of H. erectus cooking; as Wrangham and others discuss, cooking plants would have been important to the H. erectus diet.
Finally, the statement that "because cooking usually requires less physical exertion than hunting, it may have made possible a division of labors, where H. erectus men spent more time for hunting, and women gathered food and cared for the family" is problematic. While Wrangham, among others, argue for this form of model for the sexual division of labors, the development of the nuclear family and a general division of labor as a result cannot be read in the paleoanthropological record. Why would females be unable to exert themselves to the extent that males could? Why is it assumed that females couldn't hunt? Stone tools are not indicative of male activity that far back into the material record.[4] Further, Zihlman and Tanner[5] suggest that plant gathering drove invention, countering the presumption that hunting was such a valuable development.
If anything, the sentence should be removed or at least changed so that it doesn't reflect the outdated "Man the Hunter" model. It could at least be changed to "some researchers [citations] suggest that males hunted while females cooked, though this is disputed [citations]." Including "family" is projecting contemporary values. As Zihlman writes, "the themes that keep women in their place continue and persist in reconstructions of the human evolution - that of the monogamous family based on female sexual receptivity, on the one hand, and the primacy of male hunting on the other."[6]Madanthro (talk) 04:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no good evidence that erectus used cooking; the mention of tapeworm is incomprehensible, and the para represents such a microscopic minority view that it should be deleted unless reliable sources are provided. Not just "someone said so" but proper publications in refereed journals or publication by publishers who are respected for their reliability. An encyclopedia is supposed to be a record of what we do actually know, not what might be the case. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This source[9] talks about the uses of fire by Erectus and suggests that any meat would have been inedible. This[10] talks about Erectus cooking tubers. I'm not sure about [11] as a RS, but it's relevant. [12] tells us Erectus cooked meat and that that was responsible for an enlarged brain capacity, as do other sources (I thought I saw one disagreeing, maybe it's one of the ones I already added. Tapeworm (taenia) is mentioned quite a few times in connection with Erectus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 19:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your first source says that the fire which burnt the bones was far too hot for cooking; your second source is correct in saying that most tubers need cooking to be palatable, but we know meat was the main source of food for erectus (handax microwear). Also, there is vegetable food which does not need cooking: nuts, fruit, and some tubers. What is the positive evidence that they did cook tubers? Of course, they might have.... Your third source is just supposition. The fourth ref just switches the discussion to later species after telling a story (completely unsubstantiated) about a gazelle leg dropping into a fire. The author thinks cooking was behind the increase in brain size. Worse than supposition, because it suggests that meat supply was a limiting factor. There's not a ghost of a chance of proving that, especially since the huge quantity of hand axes found at some African sites suggests they were very effective at killing prey. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I actually read my sources before posting them. I know and knew what they say. I'm dubious about the brain capacity thing but the question is whether it is a significant opinion or not. Dragon Bone Hill : An Ice-Age Saga of Homo erectus has detailed discussion on food and fire. Dougweller (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you looking for this: [13]? Tapeworms tell us when we ate meat, but many animals can eat raw meat without any issues. For cooked food, we need to see some charred bones. And here's that: [14]Kortoso (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Pat Shipman article is good, but it deals with sapiens rather than erectus. The basic situtation is that all pre-modern populations and many present-day populations carry plenty of parasites. Please don't imagine that cooking alone stops tapeworms, roundworms &c. It took modern science and animal husbandry to rid us of these problems. Therefore, irrespective of what erectus did or did not do, it is a banking certainty that every single member of the species had internal parasites. It is true of all vertebrates, and many othe types of animal. Therefore, the issue is irrelevant to erectus. Your second refers to the ideas of Richard Wrangham and again I say that the need for cooking to increase brain size is to suggest brain size was limited by food. Proof is lacking. By that I mean: it's not proved that erectus lacked food, and it's not proved that lack of food inhibited the growth in brain size. Now, it is in order to write along the lines of "here's a published work which proposes an idea". It is a small minority view, though, and must be presented in a proportionate way. Incidentally, I'm not saying erectus did not use fire; I'm saying that we do not have the evidence to present "erectus' cooking" as a mainstream opinion. Remember my earlier comment about encyclopedias: it's not their job to run ahead of established knowledge. Well, anyway, thank you both for your replies. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At what point does it become "established" then? Smithsonian? [7] Scientific American? [8] The Economist? [9] NPR? [10] Harvard? [11] None of these publications has been known to promote "fringe" theories. :) Kortoso (talk) 20:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IN fact they all have, and simple repetition does not make a speculation an established fact. Wrangham's hypothesis has been severely criticized by most of his colleagues, and he himself admits that there is no good physical evidence for fire having been used by Homo erectus. When it is described as an established fact in texbooks, review articles etc then it is established, until then it is an unconfirmed hypothesis. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·21:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your critiques are excellent and point to the changes needed in this section. My primary concern is with the problematic and outdated sentence at the end of the paragraph concerning the sexual division of labor. The statement reflects an older, now outdated cultural model of the sexual division of labor [12]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madanthro (talk • contribs) 15:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Maunus. They all have indeed. But here's what Noel T. Boaz says in his book Dragon Bone Hill : An Ice-Age Saga of Homo erectus. "Our scenario for Homo erectus food getting supports those who have hypothesized that early hominids were scavengers,16 but many questions still surround this fascinating and, to modern gustatory sensibilities, dis-gusting dietary adaptation. Primary among the questions that remain is whether fire, which we think was in the Homo erectus behavioral repertoire, was regularly used to cook meat or other foods, or whether it was used only as an ecological tool to displace other species and to burn away vegetation." Unfortunately I'm just scraping this from Google books and can't see the following page. Boaz seems to be a pretty authoritative figure. Dougweller (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think Boaz does research in this field anymore. And "we" may very well refer to himself. All of the textbooks of Human evolution I know mention the possibility of erectus using fire, but they all state that we have no solid knowledge either way for lack of hard evidence. Boaz is talking about the supposed evidence of fire control in the Zhoukoudjian cave, which has been questioned. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·17:39, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Boaz' in fact cites two of the studies by Weiner et al. that conclude that the charred bones in the caves were burned after having been fossilized, and probably by a wildfire extending into the cave. He just contradicts them and says that he thinks it is more likely that HE brought the fire into the cave where the fossilized animal bones were on the floor. The 2003 Review by Susan Anton, a HE expert, makes the opposite conclusion and sides with Weiner et al. and Goldberg et all 2001 saying that the evidence for use of fire is questionable.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·19:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So I've rewritten the section. Basically, evidence of the use of fire (even supposing that exists...) is not in itself evidence for its use in cooking. Macdonald-ross (talk)
Someone has been altering this article (without discussion) to wit: "...adding a Pleistocene to a strategic point to remove floresiensis from this article forever". AFAIK, there's no paleoanthropological reason to say that Flores Man is or isn't a Homo erectus example. Kortoso (talk) 20:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I quote the following passage from the Wiki page: no consensus has been reached as to whether it is ancestral to H. sapiens or any later hominids. So, you're telling me... Homo erectus could have been essentially an early human? OK, I see, so this is the same line of discriminatory reasoning against blacks, people who say they are "less evolved" humans, and in fact some people have drawn the analogy between the facial structure of Homo erectus with a big forehead with blacks. Is this seriously the most recent science?? 134.148.68.105 (talk) 01:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, now I understand the statement in the article it is because Homo erectus has two distinct senses, one (sometimes called sensus lato) includes Homo ergaster as simply the African variety of Homo erectus, this is the one that is widely considered the ancestor of Homo sapiens, but another sense of the label (sometimes called sensu strictu) considers Homo erectus to refer only to the Asian Homo erectus variety and there is no consensus on whether this variety is also one of the ancestors of Homo sapiens. So if we consider H. ergaster a separate species from H. erectus then it is possible that H. sapiens is not a descendent of H. erectus, but if we consider H. ergaster and Asian H. erectus to be the same species then we are quite sure that it is our ancestor species - although perhaps only the African variety of the species.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·01:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some anthropologists sink every hominid fossil since humans and apes/chimpanzees diverged into a single human clade. Its called the 'Single Hominid Lineage Hypothesis' (SHLH). An earlier variant founded by Milford H. Wolpoff called the 'Single Species Hypothesis' argued the same, but it did not sink Austalopithecines into the human clade. Instead Wolpoff argued that human evolution has been a single lineage and species since around 2 million years ago, thus Homo erectus becomes Homo erectus sapiens and so on. In actual fact sinking erectus, and "archaic" Homo forms such as Neanderthal fossils into a single species had earlier proponents going back to Franz Weidenreich. In China, through the influence of Weidenreich, it is still popular among Chinese paleo-anthropologists to do this day, e.g. see my entry: Xinzhi Wu. FossilMad (talk) 00:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
^Wrangham, Richard (2009). Catching fire: how cooking made us human. New York: Basic Books.
^Wrangham, Richard (1999). "The raw and the stolen: cooking and the ecology of human origins". Current Anthropology. 40 (5): 567–594. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
^Carmody, Rachel (2009). "The energetic significance of cooking". Journal of Human Evolution. 57: 379–391. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
^Gero, Joan (1991). "Genderlithics: women's roles in stone tool production". In Gero, Conkey (ed.). Engendering archaeology: women and prehistory. Oxford and Malden: Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 163–193.
^Zihlman, Adrienne (1978). "Gathering and the hominid adaptation". In Tiger, Fowler (ed.). Female hierarchies. Chicago: Beresford Book. pp. 163–194.
^Zihlman, Adrienne (1997). "The paleolithic glass ceiling: women in human evolution". In Lori D. Hager (ed.). Women in human evolution. London and New York: Routledge. p. 94.
11:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
DoneI've removed both the claim and the reference. The reference might be useful for something else, though, so here's the cite:
![[1]](http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb186/Steveoc_86/Homoerectus_test2b.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb186/Steveoc_86/Homoerectus_newlightning_A2.jpg){kind=link}
