- Latin:
- “upright man”
- Related Topics:
- Java man
- Peking man
- Solo man
- Lantian man
- Sinanthropus
- On the Web:
- University of Northern Colorado - UNCOpen - The Cognitive Evolution of Homo erectus (PDF) (Mar. 19, 2025)
Much of the fossil material discovered in Java and China consists of cranial bones, jawbones, and teeth. The few broken limb bones found at Zhoukoudian have provided little information. It is possible that the complete femur excavated by Dubois at Trinil is more recent in age than the other fossils found there and not attributable to H. erectus. It comes as no surprise, therefore, that the greatest descriptive emphasis has been on the shape of the skull rather than other parts of the skeleton. The continuing discoveries in Africa (particularly at the Olduvai and Lake Turkana sites) have yielded a more complete picture of H. erectus anatomy.
The cranium of H. erectus, with its low profile and average endocranial (brain) capacity of less than 1,000 cubic cm (61 cubic inches), is distinctly different from that of other humans. The average endocranial capacity of modern Homo sapiens, for example, is 1,350 cubic cm, although the range for recent humans is appreciable, perhaps 1,000 to 2,000 cubic cm. The upper part of the maximum estimated range for H. erectus endocranial capacity (1,200 cubic cm) thus overlaps with the lower values expected for Homo sapiens.
Some difference in estimated brain size is apparent between the Javanese and the Zhoukoudian populations of H. erectus. That is, the average capacity of the Zhoukoudian fossils exceeds that of the Javanese by about 160 cubic cm. There is, however, an earlier, anomalous cranium from Gongwangling, China, that is approximately contemporary with some Java fossils. It shares with the Javanese group a smaller cranial capacity (780 cubic cm). Theoretically, the difference in brain size between the two groups of Asian fossils may be the consequence of further evolution in later populations of H. erectus. Alternatively, it may simply be interpreted as representing the variation expected between sexes or between two separate populations or subspecies of H. erectus. Several African values are also available, and in the case of the Koobi Fora and Olduvai individuals these range from about 850 to 1,067 cubic cm.
While the cranial capacity of H. erectus falls short of that of Homo sapiens, it far exceeds the capacities of the australopiths. The difference between Australopithecus and H. erectus is slightly greater than that between H. erectus and Homo sapiens. Into the former gap fit the cranial capacities of H. habilis and H. rudolfensis. Clearly, the last word has not been written on their relationships.
| hominin | number of fossil examples | average capacity of the braincase (cc) |
|---|---|---|
| Australopithecus | 6 | 440 |
| Paranthropus | 4 | 519 |
| Homo habilis | 4 | 640 |
| Javanese Homo erectus (Trinil and Sangiran) | 6 | 930 |
| Chinese Homo erectus (Peking man) | 7 | 1,029 |
| Homo sapiens | 7 | 1,350 |
Besides their brain capacity, the skulls of H. erectus show a number of other distinctive features. The face, which is preserved in only a few specimens, is massively constructed, and its lower parts project forward. The bone forming the wall of the nose is thinner and more everted than in earlier Homo or Australopithecus, and the nasal bridge is relatively high and prominent. This development suggests that H. erectus was well-equipped to conserve moisture that would otherwise be lost during exhalation. Such a physiological advantage would have allowed early African H. erectus to travel for longer periods in an arid environment. The braincase is low, with thick bones and sides that taper upward. Over the eye sockets is a strongly jutting browridge (supraorbital torus). There is a flattened forehead, and the part of the cranium immediately behind the browridge is appreciably constricted from side to side. A low ridge or crest of bone extends from the frontal bone along the midline of some skulls, and there tend to be strongly developed crests in the ear region. The broad-based skull has another ridge running across it. The area where the neck muscles attach is much larger than in H. habilis or Homo sapiens. Other distinguishing features in H. erectus can be found on the underside of the skull, especially at the jaw joint. The lower jaw itself is deep and robust and lacks chin development. The teeth are on the whole larger than those of Homo sapiens.
The femur is the most commonly recovered noncranial fossil. Apart from the puzzling Trinil specimen, a number of femurs have been found at Zhoukoudian, and more have been recovered from sites in Africa. These bones resemble those of modern humans, and H. erectus must have walked upright efficiently. Its skeleton is robust, suggesting that the lifestyle of H. erectus was physically demanding. The limb bones also supply information about the size of H. erectus. Size influences behaviour and various aspects of anatomy, including bodily proportions. One measure of size is stature, or height. The femurs found at Zhoukoudian and Koobi Fora are too broken to yield a good estimate of the height of these individuals, but accurate measurements of the boy’s skeleton found at Nariokotome have been made. Although he was not fully grown, it is thought that the boy would have reached 180 cm (6 feet) in height.
The total pattern of the bodily structure of H. erectus, as preserved in the fossils, is different from that of Homo sapiens, hence its classification as a separate species. Parts of its skeleton are more robust, but it is otherwise comparable to that of modern humans. The brain is relatively small, though not so small as that of Australopithecus and H. habilis. Unlike Homo sapiens and H. habilis, later species of Australopithecus and H. erectus have thick skull bones and extraordinarily developed browridges. Some paleoanthropologists maintain that H. erectus has features not present in its presumed ancestors or in Homo sapiens and that Asian H. erectus, with a thick cranium and large adornments on the skull, could not have been on any direct evolutionary line to Homo sapiens, noting that early Australopithecus and H. habilis are more ancient but had skulls more like ours, with thin bones and only modest enhancements on the cranium. These scientists point instead to early African H. erectus, sometimes referred to as a distinct species named H. ergaster, as the more probable ancestral form. This species is considered to have evolved, perhaps through an intermediate step (H. heidelbergensis), in the direction of modern humans.
Such a reading of the fossil record may be incorrect. In fact, there is very little evidence about the variability of features such as cranial thickness and external embellishments of the skull among even one population of H. erectus, let alone among different populations dispersed through two or three large continents. Practically nothing is known about the climatic or ecological conditions under which cranial thickening occurred. Also unknown is the relationship between skull growth and the brain enlargement that is such a striking feature of hominin evolution. These and many other questions must be answered before H. erectus can be either confirmed or written off as an ancestor of Homo sapiens. In the meantime, all that can be said with any certainty is that H. erectus, in a broad geographic sense over the course of more than one million years, evolved from pre-Homo erectus (probably H. habilis or H. rudolfensis) to post-Homo erectus—that is, to H. heidelbergensis or perhaps directly to archaic Homo sapiens.
Behavioral inferences
At Zhoukoudian the remains of H. erectus were found in cave and fissure deposits. Although this does not prove that these hominins were habitual cave dwellers, the additional evidence of associated remains—such as stone, charred animal bones, collections of seeds, and what could be ancient hearths and charcoal—all points to H. erectus as having spent periods of time in the grottoes of Zhoukoudian. On the other hand, the remains of Lantian, Trinil, Sangiran, and Mojokerto, as well as Tighenif, Olduvai, and Koobi Fora, were all found in open sites, sometimes in stream gravels and clays, sometimes in river sandstones, and sometimes in lake beds. These suggest that H. erectus also lived in open encampments along the banks of streams or on the shores of lakes and also that proximity to water was crucial to survival. These presumed campsites were revealed by excavation, and they contain abundant stone implements and stone chips that surely resulted from human manufacture. Fractured and partly burned bones of animals found at the sites indicate that H. erectus may have either hunted or scavenged meat.
There is little doubt that mastery of fire was an important factor in colonizing cooler regions. Indeed, this discovery may have sped the migrations of ancient humans into the chilly, often glaciated expanses of prehistoric Europe. Sooner or later humans started cooking their food, thus reducing the work demanded of their teeth. This in turn may have played an important part in minimizing the evolutionary advantage of big teeth, since cooked food needs far less cutting, tearing, and grinding than does raw food. This relaxation of the selective pressure favouring the survival of people with large, strong teeth may have led directly to a reduction in the size of the teeth—an important consideration given that this is one of the features distinguishing Homo sapiens from H. erectus.
Zhoukoudian has been cited as providing signs that humans had mastery of fire 400,000 years ago. Investigators reported ash and charcoal accumulations that resemble hearths, and it is possible that H. erectus used fire in the caves for warmth and for preparing food. However, more recent research shows that at least some of the “ash” is instead sediment probably deposited by water. Nevertheless, burned bones are present, and these relics may still speak to the ability of the Zhoukoudian inhabitants to roast meat.
Other signs of the culture of H. erectus are implements found in the same deposits as their bones. Chopping tools and flakes made from split pebbles characterize both the Zhoukoudian and Dmanisi deposits; both are members of a so-called Chopper chopping-tool family of industries. At Tighenif in northwestern Africa, H. erectus was found in association with totally different kinds of stone implements; these comprise double-edged hand axes and scrapers that have been characterized as representing what archaeologists call an early Acheulean industry. This is part of the great Acheulean hand-ax industrial complex, remnants of which are found widely spread over large parts of Europe and Africa. An Acheulean industry is known also from Olduvai Gorge, as is a local, more ancient form of stone chopper manufacture known as the Oldowan industry, but the exact cultural associations of these stone tools with African H. erectus (as exemplified by OH 9) are uncertain.
Hence, H. erectus has been found associated in some parts of the world with a Chopper chopping-tool tradition and in other places with an Acheulean double-edged hand-ax industrial complex. Numerous animal bones occur also with the remains of H. erectus, and sometimes these bones seem to have been deliberately broken or charred. From this evidence it is sometimes inferred that H. erectus was a hunter. The brain, body size, and manufactured equipment of H. erectus were so superior to those of Australopithecus and H. habilis that it is highly probable that food-collecting techniques, including hunting, were also better. Many scientists hold that Australopithecus and H. habilis were more scavengers than hunters, perhaps at best opportunists who seized their chance when a weak, young, sick, or aged animal crossed their paths. Indeed, many of the animal bones found in australopith deposits are of juvenile and old individuals. Although larger animal bones have been recovered from H. habilis deposits, these have exhibited tooth marks of nonhuman predators as well as cut marks. H. erectus, on the other hand, seems to have been a confirmed hunter whose prey included animals of all age groups.
It can credibly be supposed that, as with present-day hunters such as the African San (Bushmen) and the Australian Aboriginals, meat from the hunt formed only a part of the diet of H. erectus. Other juicy morsels may have been furnished by snakes, birds and their eggs, locusts, scorpions, centipedes, tortoises, mice and other rodents, hedgehogs, fish, and crustaceans. Even children could have caught many of these—as they still do in Africa’s Kalahari Desert today, before being allowed to accompany the older men on the hunt. Vegetable food—such as fleshy leaves, fruits, nuts, roots, and tubers—also must have been important in the diet of H. erectus. Accumulations of hackberry seeds, for example, were found in the Zhoukoudian cave deposits. There seems to be little doubt that H. erectus was omnivorous, for such a diet is the most opportunistic of all, and modern humans are the most opportunistic of all living primates. H. erectus was probably one of the earliest of the great opportunists, and it is likely that this attribute endowed the species with adaptability and evolutionary flexibility.
Another question that may be asked about H. erectus culture is whether there is any evidence of ritual. There is no sign that they buried their dead: no complete burials have been found, nor have graves, grave goods, or red ochre (a mineral used as a paint by later forms of hominins), either on or around any bones. Cannibalism was once inferred from the Ngandong (Solo) and Zhoukoudian finds, but little credible evidence remains to support such a hypothesis.
H. erectus may have been, however, the first species to create art. Zigzag etchings made on a shell, dating to between 430,000 and 540,000 years ago and found at the Trinil deposit in Java, Indonesia, may be the world’s oldest geometric engravings.
