Talk:Homo erectus/Archive 1

Pictures Of Tools Used by H Erectus and H Ergaster Needed in Article

This would be a great addition. And would say a lot about both species, or subspecies.

70.209.52.57 (talk) 19:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Time Range

Now that Wushan Man appears to be pongine, what is the oldest occurence of Homo erectus? 69.231.215.41 (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Use of Fire Atypical? Really?

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. --Silverhalo 03:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Added...

...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)

Reversion

I reverted out some obscenity. I left some on this page so you can see what is happening.Botteville 04:28, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

No need. Just do the reversion. We can check the history to see who has done what. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC) OK, thanks.Botteville 23:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Merger

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)

OH COMON!!!

Who erassed my pic of Homo erectus?

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. WBardwin 04:32, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

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. WBardwin 04:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Expand

I feel that this page should be expanded since H. erectus is one of the most notable, and popular hominins in Human evolution.--King of the Dancehall 23:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

That's nice. However, it's already a nice size. It doesn't need an {{expand}} tag. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

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 Dancehall 17:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

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! --Silverhalo 03:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The non-african H. erectus?

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) .

Yes. One way or another, they are all dead. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

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). Carcharoth 12:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Their descendants may have been around a lot longer than we gave them credit for -- see the recently discovered Homo floresiensis. WBardwin 09:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Modern Descendants?

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.--69.255.16.162 05:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Homo erectus is the whole show

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. FriendlyRiverOtter 07:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

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.

Correction: Homo erectus is not our immediate ancestor. That's Homo rhodesiensis. H. rhodesiensis would have looked to H. erectus as its common ancestor in turn. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

This page needs to be cleaned up

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) .

There are several helpful links on your talk page, please read them. Also, please sign talk edits with four tildes (~). - UtherSRG (talk) 11:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a separate heading for Homo erectus migration? This topic seems to be scattered throughout the article messily. Justinmeister 17:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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 King 18:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

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.--Silverhalo 03:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Derived

Could someone explain what derived means in the sense of: "Homo erectus has fairly derived morphological features" Ironcorona 19:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

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). --Silverhalo 03:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I have three questions.

Hello

What are the main differences, between the Homo erectus and Homo sapiens,can they Interbreed? and how do you find out the dates of these fossils.

Cheers and regards.

86.147.252.83 14:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

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..Dongwenliang 18:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

No, they cannot, because the other one has died out. You may try it out if you find one... 91.153.53.189 07:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I have three more questions:

Where did we come from?

Who are we?

And where are we going?

Sean7phil (talk) 19:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Your questions are a little vague. Evercat (talk) 20:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. And to answer those questions I send three replies:

We came from Africa. (geologically, of course)

We are Humans. Homo Sapiens Sapiens

Only time will tell be revealed, once time has elapsed.

Any more? Infinity Warrior 15:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merger

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)

What happened to H. erectus

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. Badagnani 08:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

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. --Philo 11:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Java Man

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. MrDarwin 14:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Picture

File:Homo erectus 2ZICA.png

An artist's conception of H. erectus

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 Dufour 14:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

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 Dufour 14:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

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 Dufour 15:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

How Do You Know This?

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)

---

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.

New pic

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)

......well a new version if anyones interested......[2]. Steveoc 86 (talk) 00:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Ive uploaded it to the commons

Steveoc 86 (talk) 13:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Xuchang skull

Is the skull just found in Xuchang from H. erectus? Badagnani (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Citation, please

An editor inserted the following without citation. Please supply a reliable source for the claim. Durova^Charge! 23:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

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 article states that the average height of homo erectus was 1.79m

This should be converted into imperial measures as 5'10.5" for the following reasons :

Clarity - listing in feet and inches is the conventional way of listing height and uses the proper units.

         5'10.5" obviously equals 1.79m, 

but 5.87 feet looks like 5'8.7" which would equal 1.745m

Precision - Measuring to the nearest half inch (0.0127 m) is close the precision of —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.177.11 (talk) 23:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Barring that, talk to the creators of the template to get them to modify it to do what you'd like. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

" 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 can use the template, I just didn't see the need, and if the compromise would make you happy I'll use it to appropriately convert the units.Archaic d00d (talk) 23:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Reconstruction Picture

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)

Citation number 6 and its associated claim

{{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)

 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 = }}

Wood, Bernard (2002). "Palaeoanthropology: Hominid revelations from Chad". Nature. 418 (6894): 133–135. doi:10.1038/418133a. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= (help)--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 13:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)`

Extinction?

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)

Then you aren't reading the intro paragraph very well. - UtherSRG (talk) 05:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

Agreed this is very odd but I can't find anything on extinction, although I doubt if it were only 40,000 years ago Steve Bowen (talk) 11:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

In some writings Homo floresiensis, which became extinct 40,000 is considered a late surviving branch of homo erectus.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

East Java, not Central Java

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)

Fixed. Badagnani (talk) 11:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Michigan skull

Can we please add from where the Michigan museum skull used in the infobox was dug up? Is it real or a replica? Badagnani (talk) 11:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Human Ancestor Question

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)

I entirely agree, I too found this article disappointing. It could probably be beefed up by importing material from other articles. Two useful articles seem to be Multiregional origin of modern humans, and Recent African origin of modern humans, which together describe the basic debate over the relationship between HE and HSS. But there may be others.Cop 663 (talk) 00:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Trunkana Man out of Date

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)

Ref

Kaifu et al., ʺEvolutionary History of Javanese Homo erectus: An Examination Based on Revised and New Cranial Measurementsʺ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.183.158 (talk) 21:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

New Georgia finds

These should be better discussed. There is a glancing comment about them, without even a reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.44.253 (talk) 04:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Expansion and Inclusion

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)

Not extinct

removed the comment as it was obviously insultingly racist in intent, etc., and had no input whatsoever to the article. HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

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)

Why no full body skeleton picture?

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)

File:Bautzen Großwelka - Sauriergarten - Homo erectus 03 ies.jpg

There are a few images of skeletons and reconstructions in Commons:Category:Homo erectus, but none of them are really what you would like to see in the article I'm afraid. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 04:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

With some cropping, that full skeleton image could be nice for the taxobox. FunkMonk (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD of John D. Hawks

This article was attacked as nonnotable and proposed for deletion. You can comment atWikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_D._Hawks#John_D._Hawks. --JWB (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Descendant of Homo ergaster...

...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)

Evidence of controlled fire

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)

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)

Time Misenterpretation?

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. '

Anyone want to provide some insight on this? Infinity Warrior 15:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

Merge Homo georgicus here

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)

Support as per DK Publishing (15 August 2011). Evolution: The Human Story. Penguin. pp. 108–. ISBN 978-0-7566-9184-4..Moxy (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Support Seems a no-brainer. Dougweller (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

Support - Just do it already please. Cadiomals (talk) 20:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• 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)
  • 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)

• 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)
• How many subspecies are even accepted? FunkMonk (talk) 10:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • 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)

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)

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)

Hmm, I may have been too quick. I remebered wrong frmo the textbook I teach Evolution from (Stanford, Allen, Anton 2012), it says that "many studies" consider it erectus, but more evidence is needed (p. 363). For a study assigning it to erectus see.https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/ase/117/1/117_080411/_article. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

First coordinated hunting and small band organization?

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.

Jhall251 (talk) 15:56, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Clarification of "long-lived species"

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)

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)

Merge from Telanthropus capensis

Telanthropus capensis is a synonym of Homo erectus and should therefore redirect here. The stub can be merged into the section "Discovery and representative fossils". Jack (talk) 10:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'll do this now. FunkMonk (talk) 10:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Tall and thin or "robust"

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.

--Guy Macon (talk) 02:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Tall and think compared to previous Australopithecines, short and robust compared to us.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

"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

Also see popular science articles like this:

"A Kid Tall For His Age"

February 06, 1994

"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)

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)

(Sound of Crickets)... --Guy Macon (talk) 10:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

There being no objections, I made the change. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Fossil count

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.

Hey, never mind; it looks like it came from [[8]] I am adding links to articles for the finds at least. Kortoso (talk) 22:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

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)

Thanks for the heads-up!Kortoso (talk) 16:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Europe

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)

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)

15 000 years ago some of them were still alive!

other sources are saying: 70 000 years ago / 50 000 years ago Böri (talk) 13:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Cooking

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, "The Raw and the Stolen," or "The Energetic Significance of Cooking."

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. Further, Zihlman and Tanner 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." Madanthro (talk) 04:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

At what point does it become "established" then? Smithsonian? Scientific American? The Economist? NPR? Harvard? None of these publications has been known to promote "fringe" theories. :) Kortoso (talk) 20:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

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)

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 . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madanthro (talk • contribs) 15:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

@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)

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)

Sorry about the indentation. Here's a later source dubious about HE and fire.[15]. Dougweller (talk) 18:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

Flores

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)

Homo erectus=Human???

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)

I think the statement is false, there is a very general consensus that Homo erectus is ancestral to Homo sapiens.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)