Archaic Homo sapiens
Homo antecessor
Homo heidelbergensis
Archaic Homo

For many years, scientists placed any problematic
specimens displaying mixtures of "erectus-like" and
"modern" traits into a confusing category: "Archaic"
Homo sapiens (basically meaning any Homo sapiens
that didn't look quite modern).

Recently, it has been proposed to separate these
individuals into distinct species. For this purpose, the
names Homo antecessor & Homo heidelbergensis
have been assigned.
Homo antecessor

The species Homo antecessor is another very controversial
species designation. The species was designated by J.L.
Arsuaga et al. to the remains of several individuals found at
the Gran Dolina site, Spain.

The discovery was significant because the remains have been
securely dated at over 780 kyr. This makes the material the
earliest known European specimens.

The find breathed new life into the argument for the validity of
H. heidelbergensis, as well as creating a whole new species: H.
antecessor.
Homo antecessor traits

Has a marked double-arched browridge (like later
Neanderthals and Chinese erectus).

An approximate brain size of 1000-1300 cc.

Reduced mandibular thickness when compared to ergaster or
early erectus.

Has small postcanines that resemble those of the habilines
(habilis and rudolfensis), but they are still within the
ergaster/erectus range.

Shovel-shaped maxillary incisors (ancestral condition).

Found in Europe ca. 800,000 B.P.
Gran Dolina Site, Spain




The most complete specimen
is Hominid 3, which is also the
type specimen for antecessor.
This is unusual because
Hominid 3 is a 10-year old,
and therefore has not fully
developed its skeletal
characteristics.
The specimen was chosen
because it highlighted all the
features that the researchers
were attempting to describe as
typic of the species.
However, these features are all
variable (even within the small
sample from Gran Dolina
itself.
“Gran Dolina Boy”
Reconstruction of “Gran Dolina
Boy”
Illustration by Mauricio Antón
Gran Dolina site, Spain
AMNH
Site of Gran
Dolina,
Spain
Flake tools from Gran Dolina
AMNH
Illustration by Mauricio Antón
Tools found with the Gran Dolina fossils include simple cutting flakes. Cut
marks left by tools on human bones indicate the bodies were defleshed after
death (Mauricio Antón/Madrid Scientific Films), possible evidence, the
excavators say, of cannibalism (Javier Trueba/Madrid Scientific Films).
Homo heidelbergensis

Homo heidelbergensis is the species name now given to a
range of specimens from about 400,000 years ago to the
appearance of anatomically modern Homo sapiens (the species
to which we belong).

The species name was originally proposed for the fossil
mandible discovered at Mauer, a town near Heidelberg,
Germany. It is a nearly complete early human mandible that is
very robustly built, but lacks a chin.

Additional finds of early humans with morphological attributes
of both modern humans and Homo erectus have shown that the
transition from early and middle Pleistocene forms and the
morphology of modern humankind was not a neat transition
that could be easily explained.
Species:
Homo heidelbergensis
Age:
Middle Pleistocene
Date of
Discovery:
October 21, 1907
Location:
Mauer, Germany
Discovered
by:
An anonymous
workman
This mandible was found by a workman in the Rösch sandpit just north of the village of
Mauer near Heidelberg, Germany, in 1907. The workman showed the find to the anatomist
O. Schoentensack, who provided the initial description of the specimen. The mandible is
complete with only the premolars and first two molars on the left side missing. The molars
were recovered separately, although the premolars were lost.
Homo heidelbergensis

The mandible itself is large, and robustly built like that seen in Homo erectus, with
broad ascending rami. The corpus of the mandible is deep and thicker than a
modern human's. The lack of a projecting chin is another morphological difference
from modern humans.

Schoentensack proposed the species name Homo heidelbergensis for the Mauer
specimen. This assignment has been problematic over the years. The robust
morphology of the jaw shows affinities to Homo erectus populations from the same
time period, yet the tooth morphology is decidedly more "modern" in appearance.

Most researchers agree that the Mauer mandible is not Homo erectus. For a long
time many scientists placed the mandible a rather confusing taxon: "Archaic" Homo
sapiens. Recently, members of this taxon have been separated at the species level
and given a separate species name: Homo heidelbergensis.

Unfortunately, there is no way to absolutely date the Mauer specimen; that is,
determine exactly how old the specimen is. However, faunal correlation (comparing
the animal fossils found at this site with other sites for which dates have been
determined) has placed the find within the Middle Pleistocene, perhaps 500,000
years old.
Kabwe Skull
• Once thought to be less than 40,000 years old, the Kabwe skull (also
known as the Broken Hill skull) was used at one time to validate the
supposed "primitiveness" of African peoples, demonstrating that while
Europeans had evolved to the "level" of Cro-Magnon, African populations
still looked essentially like Homo erectus.
• This assumption was shown to be flawed on many accounts, most crucially
in that the date for this site based on the associated animal fossils found is
at least 125,000 years old, and is probably significantly older.
• Some researchers have proposed that Kabwe may be a member of the
African population from which all modern humans descended, although
this cannot be definitively proven.
Species:
Homo heidelbergensis
Age:
125,000 to 300,000 years
Date of
Discovery
:
June 17, 1921
Location:
Kabwe, Zambia
Discovere
d by:
Tom Zwiglaar
•The braincase profile is low and slopes back from a large supraorbital torus reminiscent of
earlier H. erectus specimens.
•There is also the remnant of a sagittal keel and an occipital torus at the back of the skull,
also recalling H. erectus. However, the face is more modern in appearance (less prognathic,
flatter) and the brain size of about 1300 cc. is larger than seen in H. erectus.
•Thus, this cranium preserves many traits that are reminiscent of earlier H. erectus and hints
of more modern traits known later in H. sapiens.
• The cranium shows
evidence of disease and
wounds that occurred in the
lifetime of this individual.
• Ten of the upper teeth have
cavities, and dental
abscesses of the upper jaw
are clearly visible in the
upper photograph (above the
right incisor/canine) and the
middle photograph (above
the first molar).
• Additionally, a partially
healed wound is visible
above and anterior of the
hole for the ear.
• This wound measured
roughly a quarter-inch
across, and was made by
either a piercing instrument
or the tooth of a carnivore.
Exactly which is unclear
Kabwe skull
Arago 21 Skull
•Found by Henri and
Marie- Antoinette de
Lumley in the late
1960's/ early 1970's in
Tautavel, France
•Dated to between
200,000 - 400,000
years
http://www.msu.edu/~heslipst/contents/ANP440/heidelbergensis.htm
Bodo Partial Cranium
•Discovered by Asfaw,
Whitehead, and Wood
in 1976 in the Middle
Awash Valley,
Ethiopia
•Dated to 600,000
years
http://www.msu.edu/~heslipst/contents/ANP440/heidelbergensis.htm
Petralona Cranium
•Found by local
villagers in Petralona,
Greece in 1960
•Dated to between
150,000 - 200,000
years
http://www.msu.edu/~heslipst/contents/ANP440/heidelbergensis.htm
Sima de los Huesos- “Pit of Bones”
AMNH
•In a cave beneath the
Atapuerca hillside, and not
far from Gran Dolina, lies one
of the most remarkable sites
in all of paleoanthropology:
the location known as Sima
de los Huesos, or the Pit of the
Bones.
•The bottom of the pit is
crammed with bones from
such animals as cave bears,
lions, foxes and wolves, as
well as the hominid species
Homo heidelbergensis.
•Dates to around 400,000
years ago.
“Pit of Bones”
Ursus spelaeus
“Cave Bear”
AMNH
Sima humansHomo heidelbergensis
•They were reasonably tall—
males averaged about five
feet, seven inches.
•And like their close relatives
the Neanderthals, they were
robustly built.
•Several of the individuals
suffered from disease or
injury.
Illustration by Mauricio Antón
Illustration by Mauricio Antón
•Heavy wear on the
front teeth of some of
the Sima hominids
suggests that they
held objects such as
skins in their mouths
while working on
them with stone
tools.
•In this hypothetical
scenario, a Sima man
scrapes a hide with a
stone implement.
How did the bones of the Sima
hominids end up in the cave?

There are no indications that the hominids ever lived in the
cave—for example, there is no evidence that they used fire or
made tools there.

Remains from around 30 individuals have been found, many
of them teenagers and young adults.

If the Sima hominids had fallen in accidentally, we would
expect to see a wider range of ages represented.

These bodies may have been intentionally thrown into the pit
by other hominids—but we do not know why.
Disposing of the dead?
Illustration by Mauricio Antón
•The scientists who discovered the
Sima fossils have speculated
instead that the hominids disposed
of these bodies by carrying them
over to the cave—perhaps as
shown in the imaginative
illustration above—and then
throwing them in.
•There is no evidence, however,
that this practice was part of a
tradition of planned burial.
•The Neanderthals were the first
hominids known to engage in such
behavior, beginning under 100,000
years ago.