Homo Erectus to Modern

Homo Sapiens UNIT 9 ARCHAIC HOMO SAPIENS*

Contents
9.0 Introduction
9.1 The Time and Temperature during Middle Pleistocene
9.2 Distribution of Fossils
9.2.1 European Archaic H. sapiens
9.2.2 African Archaic H. sapiens
9.2.3 Asian Archaic H. sapiens
9.3 Anatomical Features of Archaic H. sapiens
9.4 Phylogenetic Relationship and Taxonomic Issues of Archaic H. sapiens
9.5 Cultural Behaviour of Archaic H. Sapiens
9.5.1 Stone Tools
9.6 Summary
9.7 References
9.8 Answers to Check Your Progress
Learning Objectives
After reading this unit, you will have an understanding of:
 climatic conditions in the Middle Pleistocene period;
 distribution of fossils which are labelled as Archaic H. sapiens;
 how Archaic H. sapiens is different from both H. erectus and H. sapiens
anatomically;
 the cultural behaviour such as tool technology, subsistence strategy and
campsites of Archaic H. sapiens; and
 taxonomic and phylogeny issues concerning Archaic H. sapiens.

9.0 INTRODUCTION
Every living being on earth is related to every other living being. However, if we
go back far in time we will find that we all had a common ancestor. This principle
of evolution is applicable to the origin of human beings also. If we look back in
time we will find that our ancestors resembled us and must have looked the way
we look today. This is exactly we would expect in an evolutionary process.
However, what we were in the earlier is recorded in the fossils which give us the
glimpse of our evolutionary past. It is now well established that only one living
species of humans exist i.e. Homo sapiens (H. sapiens) today but millions of
years ago many species of homo genus were present as discovered from the
fossil evidence One out of many was Homo erectus which is considered as the
possible ancestor of all the later hominin species but its linkage with modern
human is still sketchy as there are other intermediary forms that showed
similarities both with the H. erectus on one hand and modern H. sapiens on the
other. These species which represents the transition from H. erectus towards the
line of H. sapiens are popularly labelled as Archaic H. sapiens or advanced H.

114 * Dr. Priyanka Khurana, Department of Anthropology, Utkal University, Bhubaneswar.

erectus or pre-modern humans. The distinct feature that places archaic H. sapiens Archaic Homo Sapiens
close to modern Homo sapiens is their large brain size. However, their large and
heavy facial skeletons place these hominin closer to H. erectus.

The fossil records of archaic H. sapiens are found during Middle Pleistocene
that lasted from 800,000 to 150,000 years ago. Their records have been unearthed
from Africa, Europe and Asia which clearly exhibits their similarities with H.
sapiens with respect to cranial capacity and distinction from H. sapiens in terms
of cranial facial anatomical features. In this unit, we will be discussing them in
detail.

9.1 TIME AND TEMPERATURE IN MIDDLE

PLEISTOCENE PERIOD
The fossils remain of Archaic H. sapiens are confined to the Pleistocene time
especially during the middle and late part of Pleistocene epoch. The middle
Pleistocene which began around 800,000 to 125,000 years ago and late
Pleistocene, a period beginning 125,000 and ending approximately 10,000 years
ago is marked by harsh climatic conditions and is popularly known as the ice
age. This time period is marked by the frequent glaciations during which thick
sheet of ice covered much of Europe, Asia, North America and Antarctica. The
glaciations period was not continuous rather interpreted in between by warmer
climatic condition and melting up of ice sheets known as an interglacial period.
Corresponding to the glaciations period in the northern hemisphere, the south
part of the world experienced a shift in rainfall patterns. The south during
glaciations became a rider while during inter-glaciations rainfall increased. This
fluctuation in rainfall patterns are termed as pluviation and inter pluviation.

Understanding of these periodic geo-climatic shifts is imported from the point of

that these conditions affected the availability of the food as well as opening,
creating and closing of migration routes. Overall it affected the dispersion of
early hominin in the old world especially. For example, during the glacial period,
much of Western Europe would have been cut off from the rest of Eurasia and
reconnected during the interglacial period. Similarly, in Africa during glacial
periods the Sahara Desert expanded, blocking migration in and out of sub-Saharan
Africa (Lahr and Foley, 1998).

a. In Africa
115
Homo Erectus to Modern
Homo Sapiens

b. In Eurasia
Fig. 1: Changing Middle Pleistocene environment a. In Africa b. In Eurasia. Distribution
Source: R. Jurmain, Essentials of Physical Anthropology, 2009

9.2 DISTRIBUTION OF FOSSILS

H. erectus was one of the first hominid species that moved out of Africa and
migrated to Europe and Asia. These successors of H. erectus were also widely
distributed and their fossils have been unearthed from Europe, Asia and Africa
(Figure 2). Whereas in Africa and Asia these hominids either coexisted with or
replaced the earlier forms, in Europe, they extended their geographical range
and occupied new terrains. We will study the Archaic H. Sapiens remains from
all the three continents.

Fig. 2: Location of Major H.heidelbergensis sites

Source: Relethford J, The Human Species: An Introduction to Biological Anthropology, 2010
116
9.2.1 European Archaic H. sapiens Archaic Homo Sapiens

The formal name Homo heidelbergensis (H. heidelbergensis) of archaic H. sapiens

was derived from the discovery of a mandible in 1907 near the village Mauer ,
close to the Heidelberg, Germany. It was the first discovery of archaic H. sapiens
and therefore surrounded by scepticism to place it under which taxon. The jaw
was quite different from the established taxa from that time. It could not be
placed under H. sapiens in being robust and lacking chin, feature very unlikely
of modern man. Its classification under H. erectus was also debated due to two
reasons. First, H. erects fossils itself were in its initial stages discovery and it
was not a generally accepted taxon and secondly the mandible showed the
difference with H. erectus mandible. Therefore, the Mauer mandible was given
the status of new hominin species H. heidelbergensis. Even a decade later when
H. erectus became an established taxon in the human evolutionary history it was
seen that the feature of H. heidelbergensis were quite different from H erectus.

Fig. 3: The mandible from Mauer, Heidelberg, Germany

Source: Stein and Rowe, Physical Anthropology 1974

Apart from Heidelberg fossils,

another interesting discovery of
H. heidelbergensis comes from
Atapuerca, Spain. The site which
is about 500, 000 to 600,000 year
old unearthed the fossils of
approximately 28 individuals of
different age groups (Arsuaga et
al., 1997) from a cave site called
as Sima de los Huesos, literally
meaning “pit of bones”.
Rightmire (1998) has suggested
that these fossils represent the
earliest well-dated remains of H
heidelbergensis from Europe.
The postcranial remains from Fig. 4: Skeletal remains from Atapureca, Spain
this sites and another site from Source Stanford Craig et al, Biological Anthropology:
Europe such as tibia bone from The Natural History of Humankind, 2017
Boxgrove, England indicate that archaic H. sapiens were robust and heavily
built with strong muscle marking, large joint surface area and broad pelvis.
Another important feature of these fossils were their crania facial similarities
with Neanderthal fossils such as double arched brow ridges and forward projection
of the middle facial region, receding cheekbones which compels the experts to
117
Homo Erectus to Modern believe that in Europe archaic H. sapiens may be directly ancestral to late
Homo Sapiens
Pleistocene Neanderthals.

Many and more complete H. heidelbergensis fossils have been found throughout
Europe such as finds from Petralona (Greece), Steinheim (Germany), Arago
(France), Swanscombe and Boxgrove, (England) and other sites from Atapuerca
(Spain).

9.2.2 African Archaic H. sapiens

Many African sites have yielded H. heidelbergensis fossils. However, two sites
need important mention here. One is Kabwe, Zambia in broken hill limestone
mines and other is Bodo, Ethiopia. Kabwe finds include a complete cranium and
other cranial and postcranial remains. The site which is 600,000-125,000-year
old yielded remains may be 300,000-year-old showing mixture of H. erectus and
H. sapiens features. The Kawabe finds are also called as a Rhodesian man on the
name of Rhodesia which is now called Zambia.
Unlike European forms the Kabwe cranium had massive brow-ridge, probably
the thickest of any known Pleistocene hominin discovered so far. Similar to Kabwe
cranium, eight other craniums from the sites of Lake Ndutu in Tanzania, Sale’
from Morocco, Florisbad and Elandsfontein in South Africa, Laetoli in Tanzania,
and Bodo in Ethiopia were discovered.
The cranium from Bodo is also of special interest. It represents one of the oldest
specimens of H. heidelbergensis approximately 600,000-year-old from the African
continent. Another interesting feature associated with the Bodo cranium is the
presence of cut marks, similar to that seen in butchered animal bones. Researchers
have hypothesized that the Bodo individual was probably defleshed by other
hominids may be for ritual or cannibalism, the reason not clear. In any case, this
is the earliest evidence of deliberate bone processing of hominin by hominin
(White, 1986).
The African archaic H. sapiens from various sites share similar craniofacial
features with many European forms except the one from Sima de los Huesos,
Spain hominin which is believed to be in the line of Neanderthal lineage.

Fig. 5: The Kabwe skull with a thick supraorbital torus (left) and Bodo Cranium with
cut marks (right).
Source: Stanford Craig et al., Biological Anthropology: The Natural History of Humankind,
118 2017
 Archaic Homo Sapiens
Check Your Progress
1) What are the major climatic shifts that occurred during the Middle
Pleistocene? What is the role of these geo-climatic fluctuations in human
evolution?
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
2) Why archaic H. sapiens is designated as H. heidelbergensis?
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
3) Why the discovery of archaic H. sapiens from Atapureca, Spain is
considered significant?
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................

9.2.3 Asian Archaic H. sapiens

The best known H. heidelbergenis fossils from Asia are mainly from China.
Like their European and African counterparts, the Chinese fossils display both
modern and ancestral features. The 200,000 to 100,00 year-old cranium from
Dali in Shaanxi province is considered as one of the best evidence of archaic H.
sapiens in Asia. Similarly, the partial skeleton from Jinniushan in northeast China
which has been estimated to be 200,000 years old is interpreted as a possible
ancestor of earlier Chinese H. sapiens and most likely to be the variant of H.
heidelbergensis in Asia (Rightmire, 2004). Other discoveries from China includes
a cranium dated 280,000 and 240,000 from Lontandong Cave, Hexian County
which was the first to be discovered in eastern or south-eastern China. Two fossil
skulls, recovered in Yunxian, China, are considered to be 350,000 years old or
younger based on the analysis of other fossil animals. From the Indian
subcontinent, the remains of AHS come from Narmada valley. Earlier classified
as H. erectus, the cranium is later classified as archaic H. sapiens based on a
mosaic of features (Kenedy et al., 1991). The taxonomic placement and dating
of the Asian archaic H. sapiens fossils are still contested.
119
Homo Erectus to Modern
Homo Sapiens

Fig. 6: Archaic H. sapiens from Dali, China

Source: Stanford Craig et al., Biological Anthropology: The Natural History of Humankind,
2017) and from Jinniushan. (Jurmain, R et al. Essentials of Physical Anthropology, 2009)

Check Your Progress

4) List the major evidences of archaic H. sapiens from Old world?
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
5) Explain the significance of Bodo cranium from Ethiopia.
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................

9.3 ANTOMICAL FEATURES OF ARCHAIC H.

SAPIENS
Archaic H. sapiens show diversity of anatomical features just like the present-
day human population, however, there are some common trends which can be
seen among all the fossil remains discovered from Europe, Asia and Africa. The
group differs consistently from its predecessor H. erectus and its successor H.
sapiens. Unlike H. erectus, archaic H sapiens had large brain size with a cranial
capacity between 1100-1400 cc, almost the cranial capacity of modern H. sapiens.
Their cranium was parallel sided, dolichocephalic with the less angular back of
the skull, that is occipital bone and overall relatively rounded braincase which
means that maximum cranial breadth is higher up on the sides. The facial skeleton
was also less prognathic with arching and separate brow ridges instead of straight
120
and continuous like H. erectus. Despite these features, the Archaic H. sapiens Archaic Homo Sapiens
exhibits several H. erectus characteristics such as the low arching forehead,
projected brow ridges, large and robust face with thick cranial vaults.

Compared to modern H. sapiens, Archaic H. sapiens retained robust skull with

the heavy supraorbital ridge, wide nasal aperture and lower cranial vaults but
not as low as seen in H. erectus. With a large face, they had large teeth. But their
large brain size, relatively less prognathic face, the absence of sagittal keel shows
more progressive changes in them. Overall the anatomy of Archaic H. sapiens
displays mosaic in many features between H. erectus and H. sapiens.
Table 1. Comparisons between H. erects, H. heidelbergensis and H. sapiens
Sl. Anatomical H. erects H. heidelbergensis/ H. sapiens
No. Features Archaic H. sapiens
1 Forehead Low, flat Arching Vertical
2 Cranial Capacity 900cc 1200cc 1400 cc
(Average)
3 Supraorbital Prominent Prominent but Slight and
ridges as a bar and separate separate
continuous
4 Occipital Angular Less angular and Round
relatively round
5 Facial Skeletal Large Large Small
6 Post orbital Pronounced Less Minor
constriction
7 Nasal aperture Wide Wide Narrow
8 Occipital bone Angular Less angular and Round
more round
9 Teeth Large Large Small
10 Sagittal keel Present Absent Absent
11 Widest point in Low on Relatively high High on
the cranium braincase on the braincase braincase

Check Your Progress

6) From which region of India H. heidelbergensis was discovered. And
why do researches debate over its status?
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
7) Why H. heidelbergensis is considered a transitional stage between H.
erectus and H. sapiens?
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................. 121
Homo Erectus to Modern
Homo Sapiens 9.4 PHYLOGENETIC RELATIONSHIP AND
TAXONOMIC ISSUES OF ARCHAIC H. SAPIENS
Labelling Archaic H. sapiens as H. heidelbergensis for a group of hominins who
lived about 800,000 -150,000 years ago to represent an intermediary stage between
H. erectus and H. sapiens is debated on various grounds. The researcher while
classifying a species follow two perspectives; a lumper’s perspective who focus
more on similarities and tries to club the species. This principle is also known as
anagenesis or a splitter’s perspective who tries to separate species on the basis of
disparities of features. This principle is referred to as cladogenesis. In H.
heidelbergensis case many scholars believe their features are not so profound
enough to give them a status of separate species rather they view H. heidelbergenis
as an evolutionary stage within a lineage towards H. Sapiens. In other words, it
means to classify all the larger-brained species of the last half of Pleistocene as
part of single evolving species and part of the continuous evolutionary process
and designating all with informal terminology Archaic H. sapiens.

The cladogenic view, on the other hand, classifies H. heidelbergensis as distinct

species from both H. erectus and H. sapiens based on the anatomical
characteristics we discussed above. Interestingly in Europe, particularly Pertralona
from Greece and Sima de los Huesos from Spain remains are seen as Proto-
Neanderthals. Some have also suggested classifying Atapuerca Gran Dolina
fossils from Spain as H. antecessor (Bermudez de Castro et al. 2004). None of
the middle Pleistocene findings from Africa shows similarities with Neanderthals
as in case of Europe hence in Africa, particularly Bodo and Kabwe are considered
as an ancestral form of modern H. sapiens.

Fig. 7: The cladogenic (splitter) and anagenesis (lumper) view on the phylogenetic relationships
between H. heidelbergensis aka Archaic H. Sapiens, Neanderthals and modern H. sapiens
122 Source: Stanford Craig et al., Biological Anthropology: The Natural History of Humankind, 2017
 Archaic Homo Sapiens
9.5 CULTURAL BEHAVIOR OF ARCHAIC H.
SAPIENS
Middle Pleistocene period is not a conducive period for the preservation of fossils
because of the fluctuations in climatic conditions as we discussed earlier in this
unit. Thus, the tangible cultural remains associated with Archaic H. sapiens are
scarce making reconstruction of their behaviour difficult. In addition, the relatively
large brain size of Archaic H. sapiens develops a bias in judging the behaviour
of Archaic H. sapiens similar to that of modern H. sapiens. Nonetheless, limited
material cultural remain excavated at many sites gave us a glimpse of their tool
technology and behaviour.

9.5.1 Stone tools

The Middle Palaeolithic stone tool industry is characterized by prepared core
technology whereby the original core is modified by successive strikes for
removing flakes till the flake of desired size and shape is attained. The main tool
which is thus obtained is called a Mousterian point and technique is known as
Levallois technique. In addition to prepared cores, the Middle Palaeolithic industry
is also full of tools prepared by soft hammer technique using bone, antler, and
soft stone to remove flakes. In addition, the Lower Paleolithic Oldowan and
Acheulean industries still continue with sophistication.

The significance of Middle Palaeolithic culture is that it displays the increased

cognitive ability and abstract thinking calibre of hominin in designing flakes
with predictable size and shape. This acumen in designing tools may be the
consequence of large brain size of H. heidelbergensis. These tools were also
efficient by having more cutting surface hence better utility in scraping.

Fig. 8. The Levallois technique.

Source: Jurmain, R et al. Essentials of Physical Anthropology, 2009
Though no direct evidence of Archaic H. sapiens using bone or wooden tools or
involvement in big game hunting has been found, but artifacts such as wooden
spears and flake tools along with butchered remains of ten horses from
Schoeningen, Germany may indicate the possibility of big game hunting by
Middle Pleistocene hominin. Similar findings were found from Boxgrove,
England where animal bones along with mostly hand axes were excavated. This
evidence points out that Archaic H. sapiens were efficient tool makers and users
who were also capable of bringing down a large game. This indirectly reflects
their cooperative behaviour which is much needed for big game hunting as one
of their subsistence strategies.
123
Homo Erectus to Modern Indirect evidence of Archaic H. Sapiens using fire is also claimed based ash
Homo Sapiens
deposits and charred bones from a number of sites from France, Germany and
Hungry (Klein, 1999). From Africa and Asia particularly China such claims are
not convincing.

The evidence for Archaic H. sapiens campsite, home base, postholes which are
used to reconstruct their lifestyle is also rare. However, the most detailed
reconstruction of the life of Middle Pleistocene comes from the Tera Amata site
in France (de Lumley and de Lumley, 1973). The site provides evidence for
seasonal migration, small to big game hunting and exploiting marine life.
However, this interpretation is not well accepted keeping in view the random
scatter of bone and stone remains (Stinger and Gamble, 1993).

Check Your Progress

8) Do you agree the H. heidelbergensis should be referred to as separate
homo speices?
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................

9) Which tool and technology is the hallmark of middle Palaeolithic stone

culture?
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................

10) Do you agree that large brain size resulted in the development of
sophisticated tool culture?
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................

9.6 SUMMARY
The middle Pleistocene time period is marked by harsh climatic conditions and
is popularly known as an ice age in Northern hemisphere and fluctuations in
rainfall pattern in Southern hemisphere. These oscillating climatic conditions
124
not only affected the availability of food but also lead to an opening, creating Archaic Homo Sapiens
and closing of migration routes thus affected the dispersion of early hominin as
recorded by their footprints in the form of fossils and associated material cultural
remains from Asia, Africa and Europe.

The middle Pleistocene period also marks the evolution of intermediate species
formally known as H. heidelbergensis and popularly Archaic H. sapiens. The
species is designated as transitional form as it displays the mosaic of features of
both H. sapiens and H. erectus. Their large brain size and changes in craniofacial
anatomy are features in the line of modern H. sapiens. On the other hand, their
large, robust and thick craniofacial anatomy reflects its link with the H. erectus.

Their behaviour as reconstructed from their cultural remains reflect H.

heidelbergensis as the user of both middle stone age tools characterized by the
Levallois technique as well as Lower Paleolithic Oldowan and Acheulean. Bone
tools are also known from this time period and it is also a possibility that H.
heidelbergensis was involved in big game hunting.

Taxonomic position of H. heidelbergensis fossils is also debated. Fossils from

Africa and Europe resemble each other more than they do with the hominids
from Asia. Some researchers view Chinese H. heidelbergensis as more modern
than the contemporary fossils from either Europe or Africa and thus consider the
H. heidelbergensis from China especially the Jinniushan remains as early members
of H. sapiens. Other researchers (Rightmire, 1998) suggest that they represent
regional variants of H. heidelbergensis.

In Africa, H. heidelbergensis is hypothesized to have evolved into modern H.

sapiens. However, in Europe, it is believed that H. heidelbergensis evolved into
Neanderthals. Meanwhile, the Chinese premodern populations may all have met
with extinction.

9.7 REFERENCES
Arsuaga, J. L., Martýnez, I., Gracia, A., & Lorenzo, C. (1997). The Sima de los
Huesos crania (Sierra de Atapuerca, Spain). A comparative study. Journal of
Human Evolution, 33(2-3), 219-281.

Bermúdez de Castro, J. M., Martinón Torres, M., Carbonell, E., Sarmiento, S.,
Rosas, A., Van der Made, J., & Lozano, M. (2004). The Atapuerca sites and their
contribution to the knowledge of human evolution in Europe. Evolutionary
Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews: Issues, News, and Reviews, 13(1),
25-41.

de Lumley, H., & de Lumley, M. A. (1973). Pre-Neanderthal human remains

from Arago cave in southeastern France. Yearb Phys Anthropol, 17, 162-168.

Jurmain, R., Kilgore, L., & Trevathan, W. (2016). Essentials of physical

anthropology. Wandsworth Cengage Learning.

Kennedy, K. A., Sonakia, A., Chiment, J., & Verma, K. K. (1991). Is the Narmada
hominid an Indian Homo erectus?. American Journal of Physical
Anthropology, 86(4), 475-496.

125
Homo Erectus to Modern Klein, R. G. (1999). The human career: human biological and cultural origins
Homo Sapiens
(second edition). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Mirazón Lahr, M., & Foley, R. A. (1998). Towards a theory of modern human
origins: geography, demography, and diversity in recent human
evolution. American Journal of Physical Anthropology: The Official Publication
of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, 107(S27), 137-176.

Relethford, J. (2010). The human species: An introduction to biological

anthropology. McGraw Hill Higher education publication.

Rightmire, G. P. (1998). Human evolution in the Middle Pleistocene: the role of

Homo heidelbergensis. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews:
Issues, News, and Reviews, 6(6), 218-227.

Rightmire, G. P. (2004). Affinities of the Middle Pleistocene Cranium from Dali

and Jinniushan. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Supplement 38:167
(Abstract).

Stanford, C., Allen, J. S., & Antón, S. C. (2017). Biological anthropology: The
Natural History Of Humankind. Pearson Education.

Stein, P. L., & Rowe, B. M. (1974). Physical Anthropology. McGraw-Hill.

Stringer, C., & Gamble, C. (1993). In search of the Neanderthals: solving the
puzzle of human origins. New YorK: Thames and Hudson.

White, T. D. (1986). Cut marks on the Bodo cranium: a case of prehistoric

defleshing. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 69(4), 503-509.

9.8 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

1) Corresponding to the glaciations period in the northern hemisphere, the south
part of the world experienced a shift in rainfall patterns. The south during
glaciations became a rider while during inter-glaciations rainfall increased.
This fluctuation in rainfall patterns affected the availability of the food as
well as opening, creating and closing of migration routes. For further details
refer to section 9.1

2) The name H. heidelbergensis is based on the first discovery of the archaic

H. sapiens from the Village Mauer, near Heidelberg, Germany. Refer to
section 9.2.1

3) The proto Neanderthal features of the remains from Atapuerca, Spain is the
reason for the importance of the site. Refer to section 9.2.1

4) The fossils of archaic H. sapiens have been discovered from Europe, Africa
and Asia. For further details refer to section 9.2

5) Bodo cranium represents one of the oldest specimens of H. heidelbergensis

approximately 600,000-year-old from the African continent and it also
represents the earliest evidence of deliberate bone processing of hominin
by hominin. For further details refer to section 9.2.2

126
6) The remains of Archaic H. sapiens were recovered from come from Narmada Archaic Homo Sapiens
valley. Earlier classified as H. erectus the cranium is later classified as archaic
H. sapiens based on a mosaic of features. For further details refer to section
9.2.3

7) H. heidelbergenis is considered a transitional stage between Homo erectus

and Homo sapiens because it shares various anatomical features with both
of them. For further details refer to section 9.3

8) There are different views regarding the taxonomic position of H.

heidelbergensis. One group of Scholars prefers to consider H. heidelbergensis
as a part of common Homo. lineage because of its large brain size whereas
others place it as separate hominin species. For further details refer to section
9.4

9) Mousterian points and Levallois technique is the hallmark of middle

Palaeolithic stone culture. For further details refer to section 9.4

10) Yes. The increased cognitive ability and abstract thinking calibre of hominin
significantly helped in designing flakes with predictable size and shape.
For further details refer to section 9.5

127