Chinese, Mandarin

Spanish

English

Hindi

Arabic

Portuguese

Bengali

Russian

Japanese

Punjabi

German

Javanese

Malay

Telugu

Vietnamese

Korean

French

Marathi

Tamil

Urdu

Turkish

Italian

Chinese, Yue / Cantonese

Thai

Gujarati

Chinese, Jin

Chinese, Min Nan

Persian, Dari

Persian, Western

Polish

Pashto

Kannada

Chinese, Xiang

Malayalam

Sundanese

Hausa

Odia

Burmese

Chinese, Hakka

Ukrainian

Bihari, Bhojpuri

Tagalog

Yoruba

Bihari, Maithili

Uzbek

Sindhi

Amharic

Fula

Romanian

Oromo

Igbo

Azerbaijani

Chinese, Gan

Dutch

Kurdish, Central

Kurdish, Northern

Kurdish, Southern

Malagasy

Lahnda, Saraiki

Nepali

Sinhalese

Chittagonian

Zhuang

Khmer

Turkmen

Assamese

Madurese

Somali

Marwari

Bihari, Magahi

Haryanvi

Hungarian

Chhattisgarhi

Greek, Modern

Chewa

Dakhini

Akan, Twi

Akan, Fante

Kazakh

Chinese, Min Bei

Sylheti

Zulu

Czech

Kinyarwanda

Marwari, Dhundhari

Haitian Creole

Chinese, Min Dong

Ilocano

Quechua

Kirundi

Swedish

Hmong

Shona

Uyghur

Hiligaynon

Mossi

Xhosa

Belarusian

Balochi

Anthropology

<OpenstaxH3><OpenstaxEm>Homo antecessor</OpenstaxEm></OpenstaxH3>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	<OpenstaxTerm><OpenstaxEm>Homo antecessor</OpenstaxEm></OpenstaxTerm> has been found in Spain, France, and England and dates to around 1.2 MYA to 800 KYA. These specimens represent the oldest fossil evidence for the presence of the genus <OpenstaxEm>Homo</OpenstaxEm> in Europe. Some scientists have suggested that this species is the ancestor of <OpenstaxEm>Homo heidelbergensis</OpenstaxEm>, while others suggest that <OpenstaxEm>H. antecessor</OpenstaxEm> is the descendent of <OpenstaxEm>H. ergaster</OpenstaxEm>. <OpenstaxEm>Homo antecessor</OpenstaxEm> was first found at the Sima de los Huesos site of the Sierra de Atapuerca region in Spain. Within this site is a cave known as the <OpenstaxTerm>Pit of Bones</OpenstaxTerm>, where more than 1,600 fossils of 28 individuals have been found that date at or before 780,000 years ago. The site is an important one that stretches over a long period of time and displays the emergence and divergence of various <OpenstaxEm>Homo</OpenstaxEm> physical characteristics that later appear in the Neanderthal. Evidence from nuclear DNA suggests that early hominins at this site were related to the <OpenstaxTerm>Neanderthal</OpenstaxTerm> and not the <OpenstaxTerm>Denisovans</OpenstaxTerm>, indicating divergence earlier than 430,000 years ago (Meyer et al. 2016). The section on the Neanderthal will explore further the interbreeding and divergences of the Neanderthal, Denisovans, and modern <OpenstaxEm>Homo sapiens</OpenstaxEm>.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	<OpenstaxEm>Homo antecessor</OpenstaxEm> was almost six feet tall and males weighed about 200 pounds, well within the range of variation for modern humans. Other anatomical features of this species include a protruding <OpenstaxTerm>occipital bun</OpenstaxTerm> (a bulge found in the occipital area of the skull), a low forehead, no strong chin, and a cranial capacity of about 1,000 cc. It has been suggested that the purpose of the occipital bun is to balance the weight of the anterior portion of the skull and face. One very modern trait exhibited by this species is the presence of a facial depression above the canine tooth called the <OpenstaxTerm>canine fossa</OpenstaxTerm>, which is also found in modern humans. The best-preserved fossil is a maxilla (upper jawbone) of a 10-year-old individual.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	In addition to the fossil bones, 200 stone tools and 300 animal bones were also found at <OpenstaxTerm>Gran Dolina</OpenstaxTerm>, another location at the Atapuerca site, along with a carved stone knife. Stone tools at this site were predominantly Oldowan style and constructed from local raw materials. Tools included cutting flakes and hand-held cores. It has been suggested that the absence of retouched tools at this site indicates that these tools were created primarily for processing and eating meat. Cutmarks are present on the majority of animal remains. One of the most intriguing observations about this site is that there are numerous large animal carcasses (mostly deer) that are believed to have been transported to the site rather than consumed where they were killed. Some scientists have suggested that the practice of bringing food back to the site is evidence of social cooperation, suggesting both a division of labor and a custom of food sharing.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	Many of the bones of <OpenstaxEm>Homo antecessor</OpenstaxEm> show the same evidence of cutmarks as the animal bones, indicating that flesh was removed from the bones with the goal of dismemberment. Some scientists have taken this to mean that <OpenstaxEm>H. antecessor</OpenstaxEm> practiced cannibalism. However, humans have also been known to remove the flesh from bones during funerary rites. Whether the cutmarks made by <OpenstaxEm>H. antecessor</OpenstaxEm> represent cannibalism, a funerary rite, or another yet unknown practice is still being debated.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxH3><OpenstaxEm>Homo heidelbergensis</OpenstaxEm></OpenstaxH3>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	<OpenstaxTerm><OpenstaxEm>Homo heidelbergensis</OpenstaxEm></OpenstaxTerm> is an incredibly variable group. Many archaic <OpenstaxEm>Homo</OpenstaxEm> species are included in this group because they possess features that can best be described as a mosaic between <OpenstaxEm>H. ergaster, H. erectus</OpenstaxEm>, and anatomically modern humans (AMH). This section looks at just a few of the specimens that are regularly attributed to <OpenstaxEm>Homo heidelbergensis.</OpenstaxEm>
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	One of the most important <OpenstaxEm>Homo heidelbergensis</OpenstaxEm> specimens is known as <OpenstaxTerm>Mauer</OpenstaxTerm>. It was found in 1907 in Germany and is represented by a mandible (lower jaw) that is dated to approximately 600,000 years ago. It has a robust mandible and a receding chin like earlier <OpenstaxEm>Homo ergaster</OpenstaxEm> but has very small molars like anatomically modern <OpenstaxEm>H. sapiens</OpenstaxEm>. The jaw is so big and the teeth are so small that there is plenty of space for additional teeth to develop behind the wisdom teeth. Given that the third molar (the wisdom tooth) has already erupted, it has been suggested that this individual was between 20 and 30 years at death.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxFigure id="fig-00001" src="https://openstax.org/apps/archive/20240226.174525/resources/3b8152bdb53ecaddfc8f4078a71ad87883333239" alt="Jawbone detached from the skull." mediaType="image/jpeg" width="800" height="695" />
<OpenstaxFigureText width="800">
	<strong>Figure 5.12</strong> This jawbone from a Homo heidelbergensis specimen was found in Germany in 1907 and is dated to approximately 600,000 years ago. (credit: Gerbil/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY 3.0)
</OpenstaxFigureText>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	Another important specimen of <OpenstaxEm>Homo heidelbergensis</OpenstaxEm> is known as the Petralona cranium. It was found in 1960 in Greece. Dates are uncertain but believed to be in the range of 100,000 to 700,000 years. Animal fossils found with the specimen indicate Petralona is between 350,000 and 200,000 years old. It combines <OpenstaxEm>Homo ergaster</OpenstaxEm>–like traits, such as massive brow ridges and thick cranial bones, with a cranial capacity of 1,200 cc, which is similar to anatomically modern <OpenstaxEm>H. sapiens</OpenstaxEm>.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	A third specimen of <OpenstaxEm>Homo heidelbergensis</OpenstaxEm> is known as <OpenstaxTerm>Bodo</OpenstaxTerm>. It is very possibly the oldest archaic human specimen from Africa and was found in Ethiopia in 1976. It is dated to approximately 600,000 years and has a relatively large cranial capacity of 1,250 cc, which is again within the range of variation for modern humans. It is a robust cranium with very thick bones and two separate brow ridges.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxH3><OpenstaxEm>Homo heidelbergensis</OpenstaxEm> Technology and Culture</OpenstaxH3>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	Bodo is associated with Acheulean bifacial hand axes. Some scientists have suggested that Bodo butchered animals because Acheulean hand axes have been found with animal bones. There are cutmarks on the Bodo cranium that resemble those made by cutting fresh bone with stone tools. It has been suggested that the Bodo cranium is the earliest evidence of the removal of flesh immediately after death using a stone tool. The cutmarks were made symmetrically and with specific patterns on the cranium, which is interpreted as strong evidence that the defleshing was done purposefully for funerary practices. Once again, others have suggested that the cutmarks indicate that Bodo may have been practicing cannibalism.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	In addition to their use of stone tools from the Acheulean tool industry, <OpenstaxEm>Homo heidelbergensis</OpenstaxEm> is also believed to have used <OpenstaxTerm>spears</OpenstaxTerm>. The earliest known spears have been found in Schöningen, Germany, and are dated to about 400,000 years ago. The spears were made either from spruce or pine wood and are believed to have had a range of about 35 meters. Probably the most important technological achievement evident in these spears is the use of hafting technology. <OpenstaxTerm>Hafting</OpenstaxTerm> involves attaching stone points to a handle made of another substance, such as wood, metal, or bone. The spears found at Schöningen represent one of the first known instances in which hominins united separate elements into a single tool.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	Hafting gives stone tools more utility, as they can now be thrown (as with a spear), shot (as with an arrow), or used with more leverage (like an axe). These hafted stone points are able to be used with increased force and effectiveness, allowing people to hunt and kill animals more efficiently. This increased efficiency in hunting and killing animals is believed to have created a situation in which <OpenstaxEm>H. heidelbergensis</OpenstaxEm> had regular access to meat and other high-quality foods. Some have suggested that the presence of spears represent evidence that <OpenstaxEm>H. heidelbergensis</OpenstaxEm> could hunt herd animals that can run faster than a human, and that they had sophisticated hunting strategies requiring cognitive skills like anticipatory planning.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	Like <OpenstaxEm>Homo ergaster</OpenstaxEm> and <OpenstaxEm>Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis</OpenstaxEm> occupied both caves and open-air sites. However, they did not just use the sites as is, they modified them. One of the most interesting aspects of the cultural behavior of <OpenstaxEm>Homo heidelbergensis</OpenstaxEm> is that they are associated with clear archeological evidence for modified dwellings. For example, in the Czech Republic there is a modified dwelling that consists of a stone foundation that is approximately 700,000 years old. Most likely, this dwelling had a roof constructed of thick branches. Other modified dwellings have been found in Germany and France.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	Evidence of controlled fire has been found at most reasonably preserved <OpenstaxEm>Homo heidelbergensis</OpenstaxEm> sites. The oldest established continuous fire site for <OpenstaxEm>Homo heidelbergensis</OpenstaxEm> is from Israel and is dated to around 780,000 years old.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxFigure id="fig-00002" src="https://openstax.org/apps/archive/20240226.174525/resources/fe2c1badae0ea915c4425db12b131af88d07090a" alt="The phylogenetic tree shows a line stretching through time from 2 million years ago to “today-modern Homo sapiens.” Leading away from that line is a line for “Homo heidelbergensis. ” This line in turn branches off into lines for “Neanderthal” and “Denisovan”. The map depicts Denisovans migrating from the Middle East through the Indian sub-continent and to New Zealand. A branch off of the Denisovan path leads into Russia. Neanderthals are shown to have migrated from the Middle East into Russia. Homo heideibergensis is shown to have migrated from Africa, through the Middle East, and into Europe, all the way to Spain." mediaType="image/png" width="1799" height="976" />
<OpenstaxFigureText width="1799">
	<strong>Figure 5.13</strong> Phylogenetic tree and proposed migration routes of genus Homo heidelbergensis and later Denisovans and Neanderthals. (attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY 4.0 license)
</OpenstaxFigureText>

5.3.2 Early Archaic Homo

1 What Is Anthropology?

1.1 The Study of Humanity, or "Anthropology Is Vast"

1.1.1 The Heart of Anthropology: Central Narrative and Commitments

1.1.2 Central Commitment #1: Exploring Sociocultural Diversity

1.1.3 Central Commitment #2: Understanding How Societies Hold Together

1.1.4 Central Commitment #3: Examining the Interdependence of Humans and Nature

1.2 The Four-Field Approach: Four Approaches within the Guiding Narrative

1.2.1 Biological Anthropology

1.2.2 Archaeology

1.2.3 Cultural Anthropology

1.2.4 Linguistic Anthropology

1.2.5 How the Four Fields Work Together: The Example of Race

1.3 Overcoming Ethnocentrism

1.3.1 Enculturation and Ethnocentrism

1.3.2 Primitivism and Orientalism

1.4 Western Bias in Our Assumptions about Humanity

1.4.1 Primitivism and Orientalism in Popular Culture

1.4.2 The Bias of Backwardness

1.5 Holism, Anthropology’s Distinctive Approach

1.5.1 Society as an Integrated Whole

1.5.2 Sources of Contradiction, Conflict, and Change

1.6 Cross-Cultural Comparison and Cultural Relativism

1.6.1 Relativism Is Not “Anything Goes”

1.6.2 Morality, Activism, and Cultural Relativism

1.7 Reaching for an Insider’s Point of View

1.7.1 The Challenge of Representing Others

1.7.2 Collaborative Methods of Representation

1.7.3 Working across Cultures toward Common Goals

1.7.4 Suggested Readings

2 Methods: Cultural and Archaeological

2.1 Archaeological Research Methods

2.1.1 Archaeological Techniques

2.1.2 Archaeological Dating Methods

2.2 Conservation and Naturalism

2.2.1 Early Efforts

2.2.2 Salvage Anthropology

2.2.3 Museum Collections

2.2.4 Interpretation and Voice

2.3 Ethnography and Ethnology

2.3.1 The Development of Ethnography and Ethnology

2.3.2 Perspective and Interpretation in Ethnography

2.4 Participant Observation and Interviewing

2.4.1 Participant Observation

2.4.2 Interviewing Informants

2.4.3 Ethical Considerations

2.5 Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis

2.5.1 Differences between Quantitative and Qualitative Information

2.5.2 Modeling

2.5.3 The Science of Anthropology

2.6 Collections

2.6.1 Archives

2.6.2 Three-Dimensional Collections

2.6.3 Ownership

2.6.4 Suggested Readings

3 Culture Concept Theory: Theories of Cultural Change

3.1 The Homeyness of Culture

3.2 The Winkiness of Culture

3.3 The Elements of Culture

3.3.1 Culture Is What We Make

3.3.2 Culture Is What We Do

3.3.3 Culture Is What We Think

3.4 The Aggregates of Culture

3.4.1 Symbols

3.4.2 Ritual

3.4.3 Social Structure

3.5 Modes of Cultural Analysis

3.5.1 Evolution, Adaptation, and Historical Particularism

3.5.2 Functionalism

3.5.3 Structuralism

3.5.4 Ontology

3.6 The Paradoxes of Culture

3.6.1 Paradox 1: Culture Is Continuous, but It Changes

3.6.2 Paradox 2: Culture Is Bounded but Mobile

3.6.3 Paradox 3: Culture Is Consensual but Contested

3.6.4 Paradox 4: Culture Is Shared, but It Varies

3.6.5 Suggested Readings

4 Biological Evolution and Early Human Evidence

4.1 What Is Biological Anthropology?

4.1.1 Looking to the Deep Past

4.1.2 Exploring What It Means to Be Human

4.2 What’s in a Name? The Science of Taxonomy

4.2.1 Defining the Science of Taxonomy

4.2.2 Defining a Species

4.3 It’s All in the Genes! The Foundation of Evolution

4.3.1 The Units of Life

4.3.2 Gregor Mendel and the Laws of Heredity

4.3.3 Mendelian Inheritance in Humans

4.4 Evolution in Action: Past and Present

4.4.1 Early Evolutionists and the Fixity of Species

4.4.2 Charles Darwin’s Role in Changing Views of the Natural World

4.4.3 Understanding Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection

4.5 What Is a Primate?

4.5.1 What Is a Primate?

4.5.2 Primate Behavioral Variation

4.5.3 Explaining Primate Success

4.5.4 Primate Classification and Taxonomy

4.6 Origin of and Classification of Primates

4.6.1 Understanding Concepts of Time

4.6.2 Fossils and Dating Methods

Question	Answer
a facial depression above the canine tooth found in modern humans.	canine fossa
the process of attaching stone points to a handle, which increases a tool’s effectiveness for hunting.	hafting
an anatomical feature seen in the Neanderthal skull that appears in the rear of the skull.	occipital bun