The discovery of Sinanthropus is most important in the study of Paleontology. In the year 1921, Anderson and Zdansky discovered a few bone remains from a village named Zhoukoudian , South West of Peking in China. Sinanthropus collection includes three complete brain cases, a dozen fragment of lower jaws, nearly fifty isolated teeth, a collar bone etc. from these finds, Dr. Black created a new genus, Sinanthropus Pekinensis (Chinese man of Peking). The strata in which Sinanthropus skeletal remains have been discovered belong to the lower Pleistocene to middle Pleistocene.
Characteristics of Sinanthropus Pekinensis:
- China Man had a height of 1.53 mts. And weighed about 50 Kgs.
- The maximum length of the skull was 194 mm and maximum breadth 137 mm.
- The cranial index was 72.2 -dolichocephalic.
- The cranial capacity was 1075 CC.
- The Vault of the skull was higher and rounded.
- The forehead is receeding.
- Supra-orbital ridge is of great size.
- The face is relatively small but projecting.
- The nasal bones are broad.
- The nasal spine is not present.
- The cheek bone is quite prominent.
- The Sinanthropus people were right handed and they could articulate language.
- Teeth are large and robust.
- The teeth of the males are larger than those of females.
- Diastema is absent.
- The femurs are short and slightly bent.
- Simanthropus people knew the use of fire.
- China Man also had some cultural features like it had a brain, which was capable of generating some kind of speech, use of symbols, controlled, use of fire, hunting etc.
There is no denial of the fact that in many of the physical features and behaviour the erectus group was far more advanced than the apes. In various character it is more human than Simian. Sinanthropus pekinensismay not be a direct ancestor, but it certainly represents at least a collateral ancestor -‘a great uncle rather than ‘a grand father’
Cultural Remains from Zhoukoudian
More than 100,000 artifacts have been recovered from this vast site, which was occupied intermittently for many thousands of years. The earliest tools were generally crude and shapeless, but they became more refined over time.
Common tools at the site are choppers and chopping tools, but retouched flakes were fashioned into scrapers, points, burins, and awls . The way of life at Zhoukoudian has traditionally been described as that of hunter-gatherers who killed deer, horses, and other animals. Fragments of charred ostrich eggshells and abundant deposits of hackberry seeds unearthed in the cave suggest that these hominins supplemented their diet of meat by gathering herbs, wild fruits, tubers, and eggs. Layers of what has long been thought to be ash in the cave (over 18 feet deep at one point) have been interpreted as indicating the use of fire by H. erectus. More recently, several researchers have challenged this picture of Zhoukoudian life. Lewis Binford and colleagues (Binford and Ho, 1985; Binford and Stone, 1986a, 1986b) reject the description of H. erectus as hunters and argue that the evidence clearly points more accurately to scavenging. Using advanced archaeological analyses, Noel Boaz and colleagues have even questioned whether the H. erectus remains at Zhoukoudian represent evidence of hominin habitation of the cave. By comparing the types of bones, as well as the damage to the bones, with that seen in contemporary carnivore dens, Boaz and Ciochon (2001) have suggested that much of the material in the cave likely accumulated through the activities of extinct giant hyenas. In fact, they hypothesize that most of the H. erectus remains, too, are the leftovers of hyena meals. Boaz and his colleagues do recognize that the tools in the cave, and possibly the cut marks on some of the animal bones, provide evidence of hominin activities at Zhoukoudian.
Probably the most intriguing archaeological aspect of the presumed hominin behavior at Zhoukoudian has been the long-held assumption that H. erectus deliberately used fire inside the cave. Controlling fire was one of the major cultural breakthroughs of all prehistory. By providing warmth, a means of cooking, light to further modify tools, and protection, controlled fire would have been a giant technological innovation.
While some potential early African sites have yielded evidence that to some have suggested hominin control of fire, it’s long been assumed that the first definite evidence of hominin fire use comes from Zhoukoudian. Now even this assumption has been challenged. In the course of further excavations at Zhoukoudian during the 1990s, researchers carefully collected and analyzed soil samples for distinctive chemical signatures that would show whether fire had been present in the cave (Weiner et al., 1998). They determined that burnt bone was only rarely found in association with tools. And in most cases, the burning appeared to have taken place after fossilization—that is, the bones weren’t cooked. In fact, it turns out that the “ash” layers aren’t actually ash, but naturally accumulated organic sediment. This last conclusion was derived from chemical testing that showed absolutely no sign of wood having been burnt inside the cave. Finally, the “hearths” that have figured so prominently in archaeological reconstructions of presumed fire control at this site are apparently not hearths at all. They are simply round depressions formed in the past by water.
Another provisional interpretation of the cave’s geology suggests that the cave wasn’t open to the outside like a habitation site, but was accessed only through a vertical shaft. This theory has led archaeologist Alison Brooks to remark, “It wouldn’t have been a shelter, it would have been a trap” (quoted in Wuethrich, 1998). These serious doubts about control of fire, coupled with the suggestive evidence of bone accumulation by carnivores, have led anthropologists Boaz and Ciochon to conclude that “Zhoukoudian cave was neither hearth nor home” (Boaz and Ciochon, 2001).