View source for Peking Man

{{short description|Subspecies of the genus Homo (fossil)}}
{{for|the New Zealand pop band|Peking Man (band)}}
{{good article}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=April 2017}}
{{Use British English|date=March 2025}}
{{Subspeciesbox
| name = Peking Man
| fossil_range = {{Fossil range|0.8|0.25}}[[Middle Pleistocene]]
| image = Skull pekingman.jpg 
| image_caption = Traditional reconstruction of the Peking Man skull
| genus = Homo
| species = erectus
| species_extinct = yes
| subspecies = pekinensis
| authority = ([[Davidson Black|Black]] & [[Otto Zdansky|Zdansky]], 1927)
| synonyms = ''Sinanthropus pekinensis''<br /><small>Black, 1927</small>
}}

'''Peking Man''' ('''''Homo erectus pekinensis''''', originally "'''''Sinanthropus pekinensis'''''") is a [[subspecies]] of ''[[H. erectus]]'' which inhabited what is now northern China during the [[Middle Pleistocene]]. Its [[fossil]]s have been found in a cave some {{cvt|50|km}} southwest of [[Beijing]] (referred to in the West as [[names of Beijing#Peking|Peking]] upon its first discovery), known as the [[Zhoukoudian Peking Man Site]]. The first fossil, a tooth, was discovered in 1921, and Zhoukoudian has since become the most productive ''H. erectus'' site in the world. Peking Man was instrumental in the foundation of Chinese anthropology, and fostered an important dialogue between Western and Eastern science. Peking Man became the centre of anthropological discussion, and was classified as a direct human ancestor, propping up the Out of Asia theory that humans evolved in Asia.

Peking Man also played a vital role in the restructuring of Chinese identity following the [[Chinese Communist Revolution]], and it was used to introduce the general populace to [[Marxism]] and science. Early models of Peking Man society were compared to [[communist]] or [[Chinese nationalism|nationalist]] ideals, leading to discussions on [[primitive communism]] and [[polygenism]] (that Peking Man was the direct ancestor of [[Chinese people]]). This produced a strong schism between Western and Eastern interpretations of the origin of modern humans, especially as the West adopted the [[Out of Africa theory]] in the late 20th century, which described Peking Man as an offshoot in human evolution. Though Out of Africa is now the consensus, Peking Man [[interbreeding between archaic and modern humans|interbreeding with human ancestors]] is still discussed.

Peking Man characterises the classic ''H. erectus'' anatomy. The skull is long and heavily fortified, featuring an inflated bar of bone circumscribing the crown, crossing along the [[brow ridge]], over the ears, and connecting at the back of the skull; as well as a [[sagittal keel]] running across the midline. The bone of the skull and the [[long bone]]s is extremely thickened. The face is protrusive (midfacial [[prognathism]]), the eye sockets are wide, the jaws are robust and chinless, the teeth are large, and the [[incisor]]s are [[shovel-shaped incisors|shovel-shaped]]. Brain volume ranged from {{Cvt|850 to 1,225|cc|0}}, for an average of just over {{cvt|1,000|cc}}—within the range of variation for modern humans. The limbs are broadly anatomically comparable to those of modern humans. ''H. erectus'' in such northerly latitudes may have averaged roughly {{cvt|150|cm|ftin}} in height, compared to {{cvt|160|cm|ftin}} for more tropical populations.

Peking Man lived in a cool, predominantly steppe, partially forested environment, alongside deer, rhinos, elephants, bison, buffalo, bears, wolves, big cats, and other animals. Peking Man intermittently inhabited the Zhoukoudian cave site from as far back as 800,000 years ago to as recently as 230,000 years ago, but the precise chronology is unclear. This spans several cold [[glacial period|glacial]] and warm [[interglacial]] periods. The cultural complexity of Peking Man is fiercely debated. If Peking Man was capable of hunting (as opposed to predominantly scavenging), [[prehistory of nakedness and clothing|making clothes]], and [[control of fire by early humans|controlling fire]], the population would have been well-equipped to survive frigid glacial periods. If not, the population would have had to retreat southward and return later. It is further disputed if Peking Man inhabited the cave, or was killed by giant hyenas (''[[Pachycrocuta]]'') and dumped there. Over 100,000 pieces of [[stone tool]]s have been recovered from Zhoukoudian. Those pieces have been mainly [[debitage]] (wastage), but also include many simple [[chopper (archaeology)|choppers]] and [[lithic flake|flakes]], and a few [[retouch (lithics)|retouched]] tools such as [[scraper (archaeology)|scrapers]] and possibly [[burin (lithic flake)|burins]].

==Taxonomy==
===Research history===
====Discovery====
[[File:Sinathropus pekinensis.jpg|thumb|left|Reconstruction of Skull XI with a hypothetical jawbone]]
To aid the [[China Geological Survey]]'s efforts to map out economically relevant deposits, the [[Geological Survey of Sweden]] sent the Swedish [[economic geologist]] [[Johan Gunnar Andersson]] to China in 1914. Andersson soon also began collecting archaeological finds and "[[dragon bones]]", as well as documenting [[Chinese mythology]]. In 1918, while in [[Beijing]] (then referred to in the West as [[names of Beijing#Peking|Peking]]), he was pointed towards a potentially interesting fossil deposit in the mining town of [[Zhoukoudian]] in the [[Fangshan District]], about {{convert|50|km|miles}} southwest, by the American chemistry teacher John McGregor Gibb. When Andersson visited a month later, he was directed towards an old [[limestone]] quarry which the locals called Chi Ku Shan ('Chicken Bone Hill'). They believed the many rodent fossils found there belonged to chickens stolen by a malevolent group of foxes that had turned into evil [[trickster]] spirits and drove a man insane.{{sfn|Boaz|Ciochon|2004|loc=pp. 4–6}}

Andersson left China to work on other projects, but returned in 1921 with the prominent American palaeontologist [[Walter W. Granger]] and the Austrian palaeontologist [[Otto Zdansky]], a recent graduate of the [[Paleontological Museum of Uppsala University|Palaeontological Museum of Uppsala University]]. Andersson decided that the Chi Ku Shan [[locality (geology)|locality]] would be an excellent training ground for Zdansky before the pair moved on to excavating ''[[Hipparion]]'' (horse) fossils in [[Henan]]. They were advised by a local that more interesting "dragon bones" could be found at a nearby fissure in a limestone cliff, later named Longgushan ('Dragon Bone Hill') locality.{{sfn|Boaz|Ciochon|2004|loc=p. 6}} That same year, Zdansky found the first fossil (specimen PMU M3550)—a human tooth—in the site, but he did not report it to Andersson.{{efn-num|In a 1978 interview with journalist John Reader, when asked why he did not tell Andersson of the tooth, Zdansky said, "I recognized it at once, but I said nothing. You see hominid material is always in the limelight and I was afraid that if it came out there would be such a stir, and I would be forced to hand over material I had a promise to publish." Zdansky also did not like Andersson or Zhoukoudian, and was eager to leave them both.{{sfn|Boaz|Ciochon|2004|loc=p. 10}}}} While studying the Zhoukoudian material in Uppsala, Zdansky identified another human tooth, and reported his find (which he cautiously labelled as ''Homo'' sp.?) to his professor and mentor [[Carl Wiman]], who informed Andersson in 1926.{{sfn|Boaz|Ciochon|2004|loc=pp. 10–12}}

As part of his world tour, the [[monarchy of Sweden|crown prince of Sweden]] (and the chairman of the Swedish China Research Committee, Andersson's benefactor) [[Gustaf VI Adolf]] visited Beijing on 22 October 1926. At a meeting planned for the prince, Andersson presented [[lantern slides]] of Zdansky's fossil teeth. He was able to convince his friend, the Canadian palaeanthropologist [[Davidson Black]] (who worked for the [[Peking Union Medical College]], which was funded by the [[Rockefeller Foundation]]), the Chinese geologist [[Weng Wenhao]] (the head of the China Geological Survey), and the prominent French palaeoanthropologist [[Pierre Teilhard de Chardin]] to jointly take over study of Zhoukoudian.{{efn-num|Black had actually accepted a teaching position at the college because he believed he might find human fossils in the area. In 1921, he helped Andersson analyse [[Neolithic]] skeletons excavated from [[Hongshan culture|Shaguotun Cave]], much to the fierce disapproval of the college's president, Henry S. Houghton. This meeting assured Black's continued involvement in Chinese palaeoanthropology.{{sfn|Boaz|Ciochon|2004|loc=pp. 15–18}}}} Andersson returned to Sweden to become the founding director of the [[Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities, Stockholm]]. In the press coverage immediately after the meeting, the German-American geologist [[Amadeus William Grabau]] for the first time publicly used the phrase "Peking Man" to refer to Zdansky's fossil teeth.{{sfn|Boaz|Ciochon|2004|loc=pp. 17–18}}

In 1927, Black was preoccupied with his duties to the college, so Andersson and Wiman sent one of Wiman's students, [[Anders Birger Bohlin]], to oversee excavation beginning on 16 April.{{sfn|Boaz|Ciochon|2004|loc=p. 19}} On 16 October, Bohlin extracted another fossil human tooth (specimen K11337),{{sfn|Schamlzer|2008|loc=pp. 85–87}} which Black made the [[holotype]] of a new [[genus]] and [[species]] called ''Sinanthropus pekinensis'' a few weeks later, accrediting the [[author citation (zoology)|authority]] to both himself and Zdansky.<ref name=Black1927>{{cite journal |last=Black |first=D. |year=1927 |title=On a Lower Molar Hominid Tooth From the Chou Kou Tien Deposit |journal=Palaeontologia Sinica |volume=7 |issue=1 |pages=1–28}}</ref> This was the first anthropologically relevant find for nearly a year, and Teilhard questioned whether Peking Man was actually a human or some animal carnivore. According to the [[biological anthropologist]] [[Noel T. Boaz]] and the palaeoanthropologist [[Russell Ciochon]], Black's decision to so quickly name a new genus may have been politically motivated—to secure further funding of the site.{{sfn|Boaz|Ciochon|2004|loc=pp. 19–20}} That year, Weng drafted an agreement with all Zhoukoudian scientists at the time that the Zhoukoudian remains would remain in China.{{sfn|Schamlzer|2008|loc=p. 98}} In 1928, the Chinese government similarly clamped down on the exportation of Chinese artefacts and other archaeologically relevant materials to the West for study, viewing it as [[archaeological looting]]; foreign scientists were instead encouraged to research these materials within China.{{sfn|Schamlzer|2008|loc=pp. 63–65}} In 1929, Black persuaded the Peking Union Medical College, the China Geological Survey, and the Rockefeller Foundation to found and fund the [[Cenozoic Research Laboratory]] and ensure further study of Zhoukoudian.<ref name=HsiaoPei2014/>

[[File:The site of the first discovered skull cap of Peking Man.JPG|thumb|upright=1.4|Zhoukoudian Locality 1, where the first relatively complete skullcap was discovered]]
On 2 December 1929, the Chinese anthropologist [[Pei Wenzhong]] discovered a fairly complete skullcap.{{sfn|Schamlzer|2008|loc=p. 90}}{{efn-num|The story of Peking Man's discovery has been retold slightly differently several times since. Most versions agree that the skullcap was found at the bottom of the dig pit at 4:00 p.m. on the last field day of the year, December 2, and emphasise that Pei discovered it himself, carrying an almost heroic tone. Chinese palaeoanthropologist [[Jia Lanpo]] reported that, based on interviews with one of the site technicians, Wang Cunyi, that four labourers found a round bone; Pei heard the news and went down to investigate, and eventually recognised it as a skullcap as the labourers continued extracting it. Wang could only remember three of their names: Qiao Derui, Song Guorui, and Liu Yishan. In 1982, Pei gave the credit to Liu.{{sfn|Schamlzer|2008|loc=p. 101–102}}}} Zhoukoudian proved to be a valuable archaeological site, with a preponderance of human fossils, [[stone tool]]s, and potential evidence of [[control of fire by early humans|early fire use]],{{sfn|Schamlzer|2008|loc=p. 78}} becoming the most productive ''[[Homo erectus]]'' site in the world. An additional four rather complete skullcaps were discovered by 1936, three of which were unearthed over an 11-day period in November 1936, overseen by the Chinese palaeoanthropologist [[Jia Lanpo]].<ref name=Yang2014/> Excavation employed from 10 to over 100 local labourers depending on the stage, who were paid five or six [[jiao (currency)|jiao]] per day, in contrast to local [[Coal in China|coal miners]] who received a pittance of 40 to 50 [[yuan (currency)|yuan]] annually.{{efn-num|A jiao is one-tenth of a yuan.}} According to the historian Sigrid Schamlzer, Zhoukoudian employed some of the biggest names in Western and Chinese geology, palaeontology, palaeoanthropology, and archaeology, and facilitated an important discourse and collaboration between these two civilisations.{{sfn|Schamlzer|2008|loc=pp. 93–97}}{{efn-num|During the [[Mao era]], the earlier engagement of Western scientists came under much criticism in China. In 1958, Jia asserted the Rockefeller Foundation as well as many prominent American scientists who worked at Zhoukoudian were monopolising science as [[Western imperialism in Asia|imperialists]].{{sfn|Schamlzer|2008|loc=p. 127}} After [[Deng Xiaoping]] rose to power in 1978, the diversity Zhoukoudian facilitated was once again celebrated.{{sfn|Schamlzer|2008|loc=pp. 379–381}}}} After Black's sudden death in 1934 from his [[congenital heart defect]], the Jewish German anatomist [[Franz Weidenreich]], who had fled [[Nazi Germany]], was selected by the Rockefeller Foundation to continue Black's work.<ref>{{cite web |first=I. |last=Lee |url=https://data.library.amnh.org/archives-authorities/id/amnhp_1002211 |title=Weidenreich, Franz, 1873-1948 |website=American Museum of Natural History |access-date=2024-11-26}}</ref><ref name=HsiaoPei2014/>{{sfn|Boaz|Ciochon|2004|loc=p. 28}}

====Loss of specimens====
Excavation of Zhoukoudian began to stall after the [[Marco Polo Bridge incident]] on 7 July 1937 and the outbreak of the [[Second Sino-Japanese War]]. Weidenreich had two crates made to store the Peking Man fossils, and transferred them from the Peking Union Medical College to an American bank vault to safeguard them from [[Imperial Japan]]ese forces. They were soon returned to the college and stored in a safe in Weidenreich's office, where Weidenreich worked with technicians and artists to make [[plaster cast]]s and detailed illustrations for his monograph describing the fossils.{{sfn|Boaz|Ciochon|2004|loc=pp. 35–36}} As the war progressed, Weng and Weidenreich unsuccessfully tried to convince the head of the college, Henry S. Houghton, to authorise a transfer of the Peking Man fossils to the United States for safekeeping. Houghton dismissed Weidenreich in 1941, who took the casts and research notes with him to the [[American Museum of Natural History]] in [[New York City]] with funding from the Rockefeller Foundation.{{sfn|Boaz|Ciochon|2004|loc=pp. 39–40}}

By September 1941, Weng and the president of the Rockefeller Foundation [[Raymond B. Fosdick]] had persuaded the US embassy to authorise the transfer of the Peking Man fossils.{{sfn|Boaz|Ciochon|2004|loc=p. 40}} Representing at least 40 different individuals, the fossils were put into two wooden [[footlocker (luggage)|footlockers]] and were to be transported by the [[United States Marine Corps]] from the Peking Union Medical College to the [[SS President Harrison|SS ''President Harrison'']] which was to dock at [[Qinhuangdao Port]] (near the Marine base camp [[Camp Holcomb]]), and eventually arrive at the American Museum of Natural History. En route to Qinhuangdao, the ship was attacked by Japanese warships and ran aground. Though there have been many attempts to locate the footlockers—including by offers of large cash rewards—it is unknown what happened to them after they left the college on 4 December 1941.<ref name="Berger2012" />{{sfn|Boaz|Ciochon|2004|loc=p. 42}}

[[File:Tooth of Homo Erectus Uppsala Sweden.jpg|thumb|One of the Peking Man teeth at the [[Paleontological Museum of Uppsala University|Palaeontological Museum of Uppsala University]]]]
Rumours about the fate of the fossils range from being on board a sunken ship (such as the Japanese ''[[MV Awa Maru|Awa Maru]]'') to being ground up for [[traditional Chinese medicine]]. The affair also provoked allegations of robbery against Japanese and American groups, especially during the [[Resist America, Aid Korea]] Campaign in 1950 and 1951 to promote [[anti-American]] sentiment during the [[Korean War]].{{sfn|Schamlzer|2008|loc=pp. 188–189}} US Marine corporal Richard Bowen recalled finding a box filled with bones one night in 1947 while digging a [[defensive fighting position|foxhole]] next to some stone barracks in Qinhuangdao. This happened during the [[Chinese Civil War]], during a siege of the city by the Communist [[Eighth Route Army]], who were under fire from Nationalist gunboats. According to Wang Qingpu, the author of a report for the Chinese government on the history of the port, if Bowen's story is accurate, the most probable location of the fossils is {{coord|39|55|4|N|119|34|0|E}}, underneath roads, a warehouse, or a parking lot.<ref name="Berger2012">{{cite journal |first1=L. R. |last1=Berger |author1-link=Lee Rogers Berger |first2=W. |last2=Liu |first3=X. |last3=Wu |year=2012 |title=Investigation of a credible report by a US Marine on the location of the missing Peking Man fossils |journal=[[South African Journal of Science]] |volume=108 |issue=3–4 |doi=10.4102/sajs.v108i3/4.1122 |doi-access=free}}</ref>

Excavation of the Zhoukoudian was so well documented that the loss of the original specimens did not greatly impact their study.{{sfn|Boaz|Ciochon|2004|loc=p. 52}} According to Teilhard: "The Sinanthrope has been dated, described, measured, x-rayed, drawn, photographed and cast in plaster down to the last [[Fossa (anatomy)|fossa]], crista and [[Tubercle (bone)|tubercle]]&nbsp;.... The loss is more a matter of sentiment than a true tragedy for science."{{sfn|Boaz|Ciochon|2004|loc=p. 52}} Four of the teeth from the original excavation period are still in the possession of the Palaeontological Museum of Uppsala University.{{sfnp|Frängsmyr|2012|p=60}}

====Mao and post-Mao eras====
{{See also|History of science and technology in the People's Republic of China}}
Excavation of Zhoukoudian halted from 1941 until the conclusion of the Chinese Civil War in 1949.<ref name=HsiaoPei2014/> Field work took place in 1949, 1951, 1958–1960, 1966, and 1978–1981.<ref>{{cite journal |first1=Q. |last1=Wang |first2=L. |last2=Sun |year=2000 |title=Eightieth year of Peking Man: Current status of Peking Man and the Zhoukoudian site |journal=Anthropological Review |volume=63 |pages=19–30 |doi=10.18778/1898-6773.63.02 |s2cid=161385216 |url=http://repozytorium.amu.edu.pl:8080/bitstream/10593/3403/1/02wang.pdf}}</ref> In 2004, Boaz noted that—given the meticulousness of the dig teams, going so far as to sieve out unidentifiable fragments as small as {{cvt|1|cm}} long—excavation of Zhoukoudian is generally considered to be complete.<ref name=Boaz2004/>

{{blockquote|text=Every bone, bone fragment or tooth, however small, is picked up and put aside in a basket which each technician has ready for this purpose. A group of technicians always works together, so that practically each lump of earth will be scrutinized. Nevertheless, the loose earth, too, is afterwards transported to a special place and passed through a fine sieve.|author=Franz Weidenreich, 1941<ref name=Boaz2004/>}}

Throughout the Mao era, but especially in 1950 and 1951, Peking Man took on a central role in the restructuring of Chinese identity under the new government, specifically in an attempt to link the [[ideology of the Chinese Communist Party]] with human evolution. Peking Man was taught in educational books for all levels, [[popular science]] magazines and articles, museums, and at lectures given in workspaces, including factories. This campaign was primarily done to introduce the general populace (including those without advanced education) to [[Marxism]], as well as to overturn widespread [[superstition]]s, [[Chinese folk religion|traditions]], and [[Chinese creation myths|creation myths]].{{sfn|Schamlzer|2008|loc=pp. 118–120}}{{efn-num|During the Mao era, science and traditional beliefs were commonly viewed as complete opposites. Consequently, popular science dissemination often made an effort to negate [[Ghosts in Chinese culture|ghosts]], [[Chinese dragon|dragons]], and other [[Chinese mythology#Mythological creatures|mythological beings]], as well as [[Genesis creation narrative|Christian creationism]] (but the latter was probably more politically motivated, [[persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union|pressure from the Soviet Union]]).{{sfn|Schamlzer|2008|loc=pp. 229–232}}}} Nonetheless, research was constricted as scientists were compelled to fit new discoveries within the frame of Marxism.{{sfn|Schamlzer|2008|loc=pp. 260–261}} In 1960, the Cenozoic Research Laboratory was converted into an independent organisation known as the [[Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology]] (IVPP), a division of the [[Chinese Academy of Sciences]], to better support excavation of Zhoukoudian. It was headed by Pei, Jia, and the Chinese palaeoanthropologist [[Yang Zhongjian]].<ref name=HsiaoPei2014/>

During the [[Cultural Revolution]] from 1966 to 1976, all intellectuals, including scientists, came under persecution, and among other things were conscripted into manual labour as part of a campaign to turn "intellectuals into labourers and labourers into intellectuals", which impeded research.{{sfn|Schamlzer|2008|loc=pp. 264–270}} Though palaeoanthropology was still able to continue, the field became much less important to the Chinese government with its new resolve to become economically independent, and popular science topics switched from Peking Man and human evolution to production-related matters.{{sfn|Schamlzer|2008|loc=pp. 277–278}}

The [[United Nations]] declared the Zhoukoudian Peking Man site to be a [[World Heritage Site]] in 1987, and custody of the site was handed over from the IVPP to the city of Beijing (which has greater resources) in 2002.{{sfn|Schamlzer|2008|loc=pp. 422–426}}

{{Location map+|China
|relief = yes
|width = 300px
|caption = <span style="float:left;margin-left:0.2em">[[File:interactive icon.svg|15px|alt=The image above contains clickable links]]</span>
Fossil-bearing Chinese ''H. erectus'' sites<ref name=Dong2016/>
|alt = Zhoukoudian is in northwest China near Beijing by the Yellow Sea
|places=
 <!--Zhoukoudian-->
 {{Location map~ | China
  | lat_deg = 39 | lat_min = 41 | lat_sec = 18.53 | lat_dir = N
  | lon_deg = 115 | lon_min = 55 | lon_sec = 31.63 | lon_dir = E
  | mark = Red pog.svg
  | label = '''Zhoukoudian'''
  | position = top
  | background = white
  | marksize = 8
  | link = Zhoukoudian Peking Man Site
  }}

 <!--Yuanmou, Danawu-->
 {{Location map~ | China
  | lat_deg = 25 | lat_min = 40 | lat_sec = 39.54 | lat_dir = N
  | lon_deg = 101 | lon_min = 54 | lon_sec = 42.42 | lon_dir = E
  | mark = Red pog.svg
  | marksize = 8
  | link = Yuanmou Man
  | position = none
  | label = Yuanmou Man
  }}

 <!--Tiandong, Mohui-->
 {{Location map~ | China
  | lat_deg = 23 | lat_min = 34 | lat_sec = 49.76 | lat_dir = N
  | lon_deg = 106 | lon_min = 59 | lon_sec = 58.95 | lon_dir = E
  | mark = Red pog.svg
  | marksize = 8
  | link = Tiandong County
  | position = none
  | label = Tiandong County
  }}

 <!--Jianshi, Longgudong-->
 {{Location map~ | China
  | lat_deg = 30 | lat_min = 39 | lat_sec = 54.26 | lat_dir = N
  | lon_deg = 110 | lon_min = 4 | lon_sec = 35.15 | lon_dir = E
  | mark = Red pog.svg
  | marksize = 8
| link = Jianshi County
| label = Jianshi County
| position = none
  }}

 <!--Yunxian, Quyuanhekou-->
 {{Location map~ | China
  | lat_deg = 32 | lat_min = 50 | lat_sec = 2.21 | lat_dir = N
  | lon_deg = 110 | lon_min = 35 | lon_sec = 4.2 | lon_dir = E
  | mark = Red pog.svg
  | marksize = 8
  | link = Yunxian Man
| label = Yunxian Man, Quyuanhekou
| position = none
  }}

 <!--Yunxian, Meipu-->
 {{Location map~ | China
  | lat_deg = 33 | lat_min = 0 | lat_sec = 6.49 | lat_dir = N
  | lon_deg = 111 | lon_min = 8 | lon_sec = 57.88 | lon_dir = E
  | mark = Red pog.svg
  | marksize = 8
  | link = Yunxian Man
| label = Yunxian Man, Meipu
| position = none
  }}

 <!--Yunxi, Bailongdong-->
 {{Location map~ | China
  | lat_deg = 32 | lat_min = 59 | lat_sec = 40 | lat_dir = N
  | lon_deg = 110 | lon_min = 31 | lon_sec = 33.6 | lon_dir = E
  | mark = Red pog.svg
  | marksize = 8
  | link = Yunxian Man
| label = Yunxi, Bailongdong
| position = none
  }}

 <!--Lantian, Gongwangling-->
 {{Location map~ | China
  | lat_deg = 34 | lat_min = 11 | lat_sec = 3.33 | lat_dir = N
  | lon_deg = 109 | lon_min = 29 | lon_sec = 23.9 | lon_dir = E
  | mark = Red pog.svg
  | marksize = 8
  | link = Lantian Man
| label = Lantian Man, Gongwangling
| position = none
  }}

 <!--Lantian, Chenjiawo-->
 {{Location map~ | China
  | lat_deg = 34 | lat_min = 14 | lat_sec = 22.44 | lat_dir = N
  | lon_deg = 109 | lon_min = 20 | lon_sec = 31.3 | lon_dir = E
  | mark = Red pog.svg
  | marksize = 8
  | link = Lantian Man
| label = Lantian Man, Chenjiawo
| position = none
  }}

 <!--Luonan, Donghe-->
 {{Location map~ | China
  | lat_deg = 34 | lat_min = 7 | lat_sec = 40.37 | lat_dir = N
  | lon_deg = 110 | lon_min = 9 | lon_sec = 36.44 | lon_dir = E
  | mark = Red pog.svg
  | marksize = 8
  | link = Luonan County
| label = Luonan County
| position = none
  }}

 <!--Yiyuan, Qizianshan-->
 {{Location map~ | China
  | lat_deg = 36 | lat_min = 14 | lat_sec = 31.08 | lat_dir = N
  | lon_deg = 118 | lon_min = 7 | lon_sec = 31.2 | lon_dir = E
  | mark = Red pog.svg
  | marksize = 8
  | link = Yiyuan County
| label = Yiyuan County
| position = none
  }}

 <!--Nanzhao, Xinghuashan-->
 {{Location map~ | China
  | lat_deg = 33 | lat_min = 28 | lat_sec = 16.61 | lat_dir = N
  | lon_deg = 112 | lon_min = 41 | lon_sec = 20.93 | lon_dir = E
  | mark = Red pog.svg
  | marksize = 8
  | link = Nanzhao County
| label = Nanzhao County
| position = none
  }}

 <!--Nanjing, Huludong-->
 {{Location map~ | China
  | lat_deg = 32 | lat_min = 3 | lat_sec = 28.54 | lat_dir = N
  | lon_deg = 119 | lon_min = 2 | lon_sec = 27.23 | lon_dir = E
  | mark = Red pog.svg
  | marksize = 8
  | link = Nanjing Man
| label = Nanjing Man
| position = none
  }}

 <!--Hexian, Longtandong-->
 {{Location map~ | China
  | lat_deg = 31 | lat_min = 53 | lat_sec = 22.9 | lat_dir = N
  | lon_deg = 118 | lon_min = 12 | lon_sec = 10.54 | lon_dir = E
  | mark = Red pog.svg
  | marksize = 8
  | link = He County#Archaeology
| label = Hexian, Longtandong
| position = none
  }}

 <!--Dongzhi, Hualongdong-->
 {{Location map~ | China
  | lat_deg = 30 | lat_min = 6 | lat_sec = 27.33 | lat_dir = N
  | lon_deg = 116 | lon_min = 56 | lon_sec = 55.1 | lon_dir = E
  | mark = Red pog.svg
  | marksize = 8
  | link = Hualong Cave
| label = Hualong Cave
| position = none
  }}

}}
The productivity of Zhoukoudian elicited strong palaeoanthropological interest in China, and 14 other ''H. erectus'' sites have since been discovered across the country {{as of|2016|lc=y}} in the [[Yuanmou Man|Yuanmou]], [[Tiandong]], [[Jianshi County|Jianshi]], [[Yun County, Hubei|Yunxian]], [[Lantian Man|Lantian]], [[Luonan]], [[Yiyuan County|Yiyuan]], [[Nanzhao County|Nanzhao]], [[Nanjing Man|Nanjing]], [[He County#Archaeology|Hexian]], and [[Hualong Cave|Dongzhi]] counties.<ref name=Dong2016/>

===Age and stratigraphy===
The Zhoukoudian Peking Man Site currently sits {{cvt|128|m}} above sea level. The fossil-bearing sediments are divided into 27 localities, and Peking Man is known from Locality 1 (Dragon Bone Hill). This {{cvt|40|m}} deep locality is further divided into 17 layers (Layer 1 is the highest and youngest), of which fossils are found above Layer 13, and Peking Man from Layers 10–3. The fossil-bearing regions can also be organised into Loci A–O. Major stone tool accumulations occur in Layers 3 and 4, and the tops of Layers 8 and 10.<ref name=Boaz2004/> The animal fossils in the locality suggest it dates to the [[Middle Pleistocene]].<ref name=Yang2014/>

There have been many attempts to more finely tune the date of each layer, starting in the late 1970s. In 1985, the Chinese scientist Zhao Shusen proposed the chronology: 700,000 years ago for Layer 13; 500,000 years ago for Layer 10; and 230,000 years ago for Layers 3. Though these timeframes are generally agreed upon, the exact date of each layer is subject to debate. In 2004, Shen Chengde and colleagues argued that Layer 3 was deposited 400,000 to 500,000 years ago; and Layer 10 between 600,000 and 800,000 years ago, during a mild [[glacial period]].<ref name=Yang2014/>

The earliest ''H. erectus'' fossils in all of China, Yuanmou Man, may date to 1.7 million years ago,<ref name=Dong2016>{{cite journal |last=Dong |first=W. |year=2016 |title=Biochronological framework of ''Homo erectus'' horizons in China |journal=[[Quaternary International]] |volume=400 |pages=47–57 |doi=10.1016/j.quaint.2015.09.019 |bibcode=2016QuInt.400...47D}}</ref> though stone tools from the [[Shangchen]] site in Lantian, central China, could extend the occupation of the region as far back as 2.12 million years ago.<ref>{{Cite journal |author1=Zhu Zhaoyu (朱照宇) |last2=Dennell |first2=Robin |author3=Huang Weiwen (黄慰文) |author4=Wu Yi (吴翼) |author5=Qiu Shifan (邱世藩) |author6=Yang Shixia (杨石霞) |author7=Rao Zhiguo (饶志国) |author8=Hou Yamei (侯亚梅) |author9=Xie Jiubing (谢久兵)|author10=Han Jiangwei ({韩江伟) |author11=Ouyang Tingping (欧阳婷萍) |year=2018 |title=Hominin occupation of the Chinese Loess Plateau since about 2.1 million years ago |journal=[[Nature (journal)|Nature]] |volume=559 |issue=7715 |pages=608–612 |doi=10.1038/s41586-018-0299-4 |pmid=29995848 |issn=0028-0836 |bibcode=2018Natur.559..608Z |s2cid=49670311}}</ref>

{{collapse top|title=Peking Man specimens, Locality 1<ref name=Boaz2004/>}}
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;" width="100%"
! scope="col" | Locus + Individual||Layer
! scope="col" | Elements{{efn-num|I<sub>1</sub> denotes the lower left first incisor, <sup>1</sup>I the upper right first incisor, C the canine, P the premolar, and M the molar.}}
! scope="col" | Sex
! scope="col" | Excavation
! scope="col" | Age
|-
|A1
|5
|<sub>2</sub>I, I<sub>1</sub>, P<sub>3</sub>, P<sub>4</sub>, M<sub>1</sub>, <sup>1</sup>M
|F
|1921–1927, 1952
|Juvenile
|-
|A2
|5
|Adult Mandible I, <sup>2</sup>M
|F
|1927–1928
|Adult
|-
|A3
|5
|<sub>1</sub>M, <sub>3</sub>M
|M
|1928
|Adult
|-
|B1
|4
|Juvenile Mandible I (with teeth)
|F
|1928, 1935
|Juvenile
|-
|B2
|4
|Skull I, Adult Mandible II, Humerus I, Lunate
|M
|1928, 1935
|Adult
|-
|B3
|4
|Juvenile Mandible II
|M
|1928, 1935
|Juvenile
|-
|B4
|4
|Juvenile Mandible III with <sub>2</sub>M
|F
|1928, 1935
|Juvenile
|-
|B5
|4
|Juvenile Mandible IV
|M
|1928, 1935
|Juvenile
|-
|C1
|8/9
|Juvenile Mandible V with C<sub>1</sub>, P<sub>3</sub>, <sub>4</sub>P, <sub>2</sub>M
|F
|1929
|Juvenile
|-
|C2
|8/9
|C<sub>1</sub>, M<sub>1</sub>
|M
|1929
|Adult
|-
|C3
|8/9
|M<sub>1</sub>, <sub>2</sub>I, <sub>1</sub>M, Femur 1
|M
|1929, 1938?
|Juvenile
|-
|C4
|8/9
|C
|F
|1929
|Adult
|-
|D1
|10
|Skull II with 6 teeth
|F
|1929
|Adult
|-
|D2
|10
|I<sup>1</sup>, M<sup>1</sup>, M<sup>2</sup>, <sup>1</sup>I, <sub>2</sub>M
|M
|1929
|Adult
|-
|E1
|10
|Skull III
|M
|1929
|Juvenile
|-
|F1{{efn-num|Weidenreich was unsure if this specimen represents the same individual as Skull III (E1)}}
|10
|Juvenile Mandible VI
|M
|1930
|Juvenile
|-
|F2
|10
|I<sup>2</sup>, P<sup>4</sup>, M<sup>3</sup>, <sub>2</sub>M
|F
|1930
|Juvenile
|-
|F3
|10
|P<sup>3</sup>, <sup>4</sup>P, <sup>3</sup>M
|F
|1930
|Adult
|-
|F4
|10
|I<sup>1</sup>, <sup>2</sup>I, <sup>1</sup>C, <sup>3</sup>P
|M
|1930
|Juvenile
|-
|G1
|7
|Adult Mandible III
|M
|1931
|Adult
|-
|G2
|7
|Skull IV, Clavicle
|M
|1931
|Juvenile
|-
|H1
|3
|Adult Mandible IV with <sub>3</sub>P
|F
|1934
|Elderly
|-
|H2
|3
|<sub>3</sub>P
|F
|1934
|Adult
|-
|H3
|3
|Skull V with <sup>3</sup>M
|M
|1934–1936, 1966
|Elderly
|-
|H4{{efn-num|Weidenreich was unsure if this specimen represents the same individual as Skull V (H3)}}
|3
|Adult Mandible V
|F
|1934–1935
|Elderly
|-
|I1
|8/9
|Skull VI with 4 teeth, atlas
|F
|1936
|Adult
|-
|I2
|8/9
|Skull VII
|M
|1936
|Juvenile
|-
|J1
|8/9
|Skull VIII
|F
|1936
|Juvenile
|-
|J2
|8/9
|Femur II
|F
|1936–1938
|Adult
|-
|J3
|8/9
|Femur III, Humerus II
|M
|1936–1938
|Adult
|-
|J4
|8/9
|Skull IX
|M
|1936
|Juvenile
|-
|K1
|8/9
|Adult Mandible VI
|M
|1936
|Adult
|-
|K2
|8/9
|<sub>2</sub>I
|F
|1936
|Juvenile
|-
|L1
|8/9
|Skull X with 8 teeth
|M
|1936
|Adult
|-
|L2
|8/9
|Skull XI with 13 teeth
|M
|1936
|Adult
|-
|L3
|8/9
|Skull XII
|M
|1936
|Adult
|-
|L4
|8/9
|1 upper and 3 lower teeth
|M
|1936
|Juvenile
|-
|M1
|8/9
|Adult Mandible VII, Femur 6
|M
|1937–1938
|Adult
|-
|M2
|8/9
|Adult Mandible VIII
|F
|1937
|Adult
|-
|M3
|8/9
|Femur VII
|F
|1937–1938
|Adult
|-
|M4
|8/9
|Femora IV and V
|M
|1937–1938
|Adult
|-
|N1
|8/9
|P<sub>4</sub>, M<sup>1</sup>
|F
|1937
|Juvenile
|-
|O1
|10
|Skull XIII with 6 teeth
|M?
|1937
|Adult
|-
|O2
|10
|M<sub>1</sub>
|
|1937
|Adult
|-
|
|8/9?
|I<sup>1</sup>, M<sub>1</sub>, M<sub>2</sub>
|
|1949
|Adult
|-
|
|8/9?
|<sup>3</sup>P
|
|1951
|Adult
|-
|
|8/9?
|Humerus III
|
|1937?, 1951
|Adult
|-
|
|8/9?
|Tibia I
|
|1937?, 1951
|Adult
|-
|
|8/9?
|<sup>4</sup>P
|
|1951
|Adult
|-
|
|10
|Adult Mandible IX with M<sub>1</sub>
|F
|1959
|Adult
|-
|
|3
|<sub>3</sub>P
|
|1966
|Adult
|}
{{collapse bottom}}

===Classification===
====Background====
[[File:Hypothetical sketch of the monophylitic origin and of the diffusion of the 12 varieties of men from Lemuria over the earth LCCN2014649358.jpg|thumb|left|upright=1.3|[[Ernst Haeckel]] suggested early humans dispersed from the now-disproven hypothetical continent "[[Lemuria]]".<ref name=HsiaoPei2014/>]]
While [[Charles Darwin]] had hypothesised in his 1871 ''[[Descent of Man]]'' that humans most likely evolved in Africa, many late-19th century evolutionary naturalists postulated that Asia was the birthplace of humankind, as it is midway between all continents via land routes or short sea crossings, providing optimal dispersal routes throughout the world. Among them was [[Ernst Haeckel]], who argued that the first human species (which he proactively named "''Homo primigenius''") evolved on the now-disproven hypothetical continent "[[Lemuria]]" from a [[genus]] he termed "''[[Pithecanthropus]]''" ('ape-man'). "Lemuria" had supposedly sunk below the [[Indian Ocean]], so no fossils could be found to prove this. Nevertheless, Haeckel's model inspired Dutch scientist [[Eugène Dubois]] to join the [[Royal Netherlands East Indies Army]] and search for the "[[missing link (human evolution)|missing link]]" in [[Java]]. He found a skullcap and a [[femur]] ([[Java Man]]) which he named "''P. erectus''" (using Haeckel's hypothetical genus name) and unfruitfully attempted to convince the European scientific community that he had found an upright-walking ape-man; they dismissed his findings as some kind of malformed non-human ape.<ref name=HsiaoPei2014>{{cite journal |first=Y. |last=Hsiao-Pei |year=2014 |title=Evolutionary Asiacentrism, Peking Man, and the Origins of Sinocentric Ethno-Nationalism |journal=[[Journal of the History of Biology]] |volume=47 |issue=4 |pages=585–625 |doi=10.1007/s10739-014-9381-4 |pmid=24771020 |s2cid=23308894}}</ref>

In regard to the ancestry of Far Eastern peoples, the French orientalist [[Albert Terrien de Lacouperie]] advanced the now discredited theory of [[Sino-Babylonianism]], which placed the origin of [[History of China|Chinese civilisation]] in the Near East, namely [[Babylon]]. Terrien de Lacouperie argued, according to [[historical race concepts]] and the idea of [[social degeneration]], that the Chinese peoples had regressed compared to the superior races of Europe. This came under fire by the time Peking Man was discovered, when China was in the midst of the [[New Culture Movement]] and surging nationalism subsequent to the [[1911 Revolution]] that ended the [[Qing dynasty]] and established the [[Republic of China (1912–1949)|Republic of China]]. These ideologies not only aimed to remove [[Western imperialism in Asia|imperialist influences]], but also to replace ancient Chinese traditions and superstitions with western science to modernise the country and lift its standing on the world stage to that of Europe.{{sfn|Schamlzer|2008|loc=p. 49}}

===="Out of Asia" theory====
Unlike previously discovered extinct human species, notably the [[Neanderthal]] and Java Man, the Peking Man was readily accepted into the human family tree. In the West, this was aided by a popularising hypothesis for the origin of humanity in Central Asia,{{sfn|Schamlzer|2008|loc=p. 78}} championed primarily by the American palaeontologist [[Henry Fairfield Osborn]] and his apprentice [[William Diller Matthew]]. They believed that Asia was the "mother of continents", and that the rising of the [[Himalayas]] and [[Tibet]] and subsequent drying of the region forced human ancestors to become terrestrial and [[bipedal]]. They also believed that populations which retreated to the tropics—namely Dubois' Java Man and the "[[Negroid race]]"—substantially regressed. This required them to reject Sir [[Raymond Dart]]'s far more ancient South African [[Taung child]] (''[[Australopithecus africanus]]'') as a human ancestor when he described it in 1925, favouring [[Charles Dawson]]'s 1912 hoax "[[Piltdown Man]]" from Britain.<ref name=HsiaoPei2014/>

[[File:Comparative anatomy of fossil humans.png|thumb|upright=1.5|1936 restorations of various fossil skulls (note the "[[Piltdown Man]]" was declared a hoax in 1953<ref name=HsiaoPei2014/> and the Peking Man skull was revised in 1937 and again in 1996.<ref name=Tattersall1996>{{cite journal |first1=I. |last1=Tattersall |author1-link=Ian Tattersall |first2=G. J. |last2=Sawyer |year=1996 |title=The skull of "Sinanthropus" from Zhoukoudian, China: a new reconstruction |journal=[[Journal of Human Evolution]] |volume=31 |issue=4 |pages=311–314 |doi=10.1006/jhev.1996.0063 |bibcode=1996JHumE..31..311T}}</ref>)]]
The Peking Man, with a brain volume much larger than that of living [[ape]]s, was used to further invalidate African or European origin models. Peking Man's importance in human evolution was championed by Grabau in the 1930s, who (much like Osborn) contended that the lifting of the Himalayas caused the emergence of proto-humans ("''Protanthropus''") in the [[Miocene]], who then dispersed during the [[Pliocene]] into the [[Tarim Basin]] in [[Northwestern China]] where they learned to control fire and make stone tools. "''Protanthropus''" then reached Eastern China and evolved into "''Sinanthropus''"; and from there went out to colonise the rest of the Old World, where it evolved into "''Pithecanthropus''" in Southeast Asia, "''Eoanthropus''" (Piltdown Man) in Europe, and ''[[Homo]]'' (Kanam Mandible){{efn-num|The Kanam Mandible was discovered by [[Louis Leakey]] in Kenya in 1932.<ref name=HsiaoPei2014/>}} in Africa. Citing degeneration theory, Grabau believed that "''Pithecanthropus''" and African ''Homo'' had regressed to a more primitive state. To explain the paucity of stone tools in Asia compared to Europe (an apparent contradiction if humans had occupied Asia for longer), he also stated that [[Pleistocene]] Central Asia was too cold to permit back-migration by [[early modern human]]s or Neanderthals (primitive ''Homo'') until the [[Neolithic]]. The Central Asia model was the leading consensus of the time.<ref name=HsiaoPei2014/>

Peking Man became an important matter of national pride, and was used to extend the antiquity of the Chinese people and the occupation of the region to 500,000 years ago, with discussions of human evolution becoming progressively [[Sinocentric]] even in Europe. In the 1930s, Weidenreich began arguing that Peking Man was ancestral to the "[[Mongoloid race]]", forwarding his [[multiregional origin of modern humans|polycentric hypothesis]], where local populations of archaic humans evolved into the local modern humans, as opposed to every modern population sharing an anatomically modern ancestor ([[polygenism]]).{{efn-num|Weidenreich's theory was not exactly polygenism, and he rejected earlier polygenic theories propagated by German physician [[Hermann Klaatsch]] and peers, who suggested the "[[Negroid race]]" descended from [[gorilla]]s, the "[[Mongoloid race]]" from [[orangutan]]s, and the "[[Caucasian race]]" from [[chimpanzee]]s.{{sfn|Schamlzer|2008|loc=pp. 198–199}}}} Other scientists working on the site made no such claims.<ref name=HsiaoPei2014/> The sentiment that all Chinese ethnic groups—including the Han, [[Tibetans]], and [[Mongol]]s—were indigenous to the area for such a long time became more popular during the Second Sino-Japanese War and the occupation of China by Japan.<ref name=HsiaoPei2014/> By the [[Mao era]], Peking Man was ubiquitously heralded as a human ancestor in China.{{sfn|Schamlzer|2008|loc=p. 192}}

===="''Sinanthropus''"====
Black classified the Peking Man material in 1927 as a new genus and species—"''Sinanthropus pekinensis''"—based on only three teeth.{{sfn|Boaz|Ciochon|2004|loc=pp. 19–20}} Initially, palaeoanthropologists assumed that expansion of the braincase was the first major innovation in human evolution away from apes. Consequently, because he characterised Peking Man as a human ancestor, Black initially believed that Peking Man would be more similar to Piltdown Man (with a big brain and modern skullcap but an apelike jaw) than Java Man (which at the time was characterised as a giant [[gibbon]] by Dubois). When the first Peking Man skullcap was discovered in 1929, Black and his mentor Sir [[Grafton Elliot Smith]] noted "a curious blend of characters" between Peking Man, Java Man, and Piltdown Man. They were unsure how to resolve these relationships.{{sfn|Boaz|Ciochon|2004|loc=pp. 59–60}}

[[File:Java Man holotype.jpg|thumb|left|[[Franz Weidenreich]] early on recognised the similarity between [[Java Man]] (above) and Peking Man.<ref name=Weidenreich1935/>]]
Weidenreich, on the other hand, dismissed Piltdown Man as a [[chimera (paleontology)|chimera]] of a modern human skull and an [[orangutan]] jaw in 1923,{{sfn|Boaz|Ciochon|2004|loc=p. 60}} and also argued that Java Man had a humanlike body plan. In 1935, he claimed the differences between Peking Man and Java Man, "can be due at most to racial variation".<ref name=Weidenreich1935>{{cite journal |first=F. |last=Weidenreich |author-link=Franz Weidenreich |year=1935 |title=The ''Sinanthropus'' Population of Choukoutien (Locality 1) with a Preliminary Report on New Discoveries |journal=Bulletin of the Geological Society of China |volume=14 |issue=4 |page=435 |doi=10.1111/j.1755-6724.1935.mp14004001.x}}</ref> Following the German-Dutch palaeontologist [[Gustav Heinrich Ralph von Koenigswald]]'s further Java Man discoveries in [[Mojokerto child|Mojokerto]] and [[Sangiran]], von Koenigswald and Weidenreich declared in a 1939 paper that Java Man and Peking Man are, "related to each other in the same way as two different races of present mankind, which may also display certain variations in the degree of their advancement."<ref>{{cite journal |first1=G. H. R. |last1=von Koenigswald |author-link=Gustav Heinrich Ralph von Koenigswald |first2=F. |last2=Weidenreich |author2-link=Franz Weidenreich |year=1939 |title=The Relationship between ''Pithecanthropus'' and ''Sinanthropus'' |journal=[[Nature (journal)|Nature]] |volume=144 |issue=3657 |pages=926–929 |doi=10.1038/144926a0 |bibcode=1939Natur.144..926V}}</ref>

In 1940, Weidenreich likewise suggested that, if Peking Man ("''Sinanthropus pekinensis''") and Java Man ("''Pithecanthropus erectus''") are ancestral to different modern human populations (classified into several [[human taxonomy#Homo sapiens subspecies|subspecies of ''Homo sapiens'']]), then they should be subsumed under ''Homo'' as subspecies of the same pre-modern species as ''H. erectus pekinensis'' and "''H. e. javanensis''", respectively.<ref>{{cite journal|first=F.|last=Weidenreich|author-link=Franz Weidenreich|year=1940|title=Some problems dealing with ancient man|journal=[[American Anthropologist]]|volume=42|issue=3|pages=375–383|doi=10.1525/aa.1940.42.3.02a00010}}</ref> Nonetheless, Weidenreich continued using "''Sinanthropus''" (and "''Pithecanthropus''") until his death in 1948{{sfn|Boaz|Ciochon|2004|loc=p. 72}} because he saw it "just as a name without any 'generic' or 'specific' meaning, or in other words, as a 'latinization' of Peking Man." In 1945, the British anatomist [[Wilfrid Le Gros Clark]] argued that, in accordance with [[nomenclature codes]], the correct name should be "''Pithecanthropus pekinensis''".<ref>{{cite journal|last=Le Gros Clark|first=W. E.|author-link=Wilfrid Le Gros Clark|year=1945|title=''Pithecanthropus'' in Peking|journal=[[Antiquity (journal)|Antiquity]]|volume=19|issue=73|pages=1–5|doi=10.1017/s0003598x00018755}}</ref> Still, especially after [[the Holocaust]], Weidenreich and many of his colleagues desired to reform anthropology away from its fixation on racial distinctness and [[racial hygiene|purity]]. Weidenreich discussed applying the burgeoning field of [[genetics]] to [[physical anthropology]] with namely [[Theodosius Dobzhansky]] and [[Sherwood Washburn]], as [[modern synthesis (20th century)|modern evolutionary synthesis]] was being formulated.{{sfn|Boaz|Ciochon|2004|loc=pp. 70–73}}

In 1950, the German-American evolutionary biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] had entered the field of anthropology, and, surveying a "bewildering diversity of names," decided to subsume human fossils into three species of ''Homo'': "''H. transvaalensis''" (the [[australopithecine]]s), ''H. erectus'' (including "''Sinanthropus''", "''Pithecanthropus''", and various other Asian, African, and European taxa), and ''H. sapiens'' (including anything younger than ''H. erectus'', such as modern humans and Neanderthals), as had been broadly recommended by many prior authors. He classified Peking Man as ''H. e. pekinensis''. Mayr defined these species as a sequential lineage, with each species evolving into the next ([[chronospecies]]).<ref>{{cite journal |last=Mayr |first=E. |author-link=Ernst Mayr |year=1950 |title=Taxonomic categories in fossil hominids |journal=Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology |volume=15 |pages=109–118 |doi=10.1101/SQB.1950.015.01.013 |pmid=14942702}}</ref> Though later Mayr changed his opinion on the australopithecines (recognising ''[[Australopithecus]]''), his more conservative view of [[archaic human]] diversity became widely adopted in the subsequent decades.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Schwartz |first1=J. H. |author1-link=Jeffrey H. Schwartz |last2=Tattersall |first2=I. |author2-link=Ian Tattersall |year=2010 |title=Fossil evidence for the origin of ''Homo sapiens'' |journal=[[American Journal of Physical Anthropology]] |volume=143 |issue=S51 |pages=96–98; 101–103 |doi=10.1002/ajpa.21443 |pmid=21086529 |doi-access=free}}</ref> Thus, Peking Man was considered a human ancestor in both Western and Eastern thought.{{sfn|Schamlzer|2008|loc=p. 207}}

===="Out of Africa" theory====
{{See also|Early expansions of hominins out of Africa}}
[[File:OH 9 Replica 01.JPG|thumb|[[Chellean Man|Olduvai Hominin 9]] (above) and other African ''H. erectus'' discoveries marginalised Peking Man's role in human evolution.{{sfn|Boaz|Ciochon|2004|loc=pp. 68–72}}]]
During the Mao era, Western scientists suspected that Chinese publications were distorted by [[propaganda in China|propaganda]].{{sfn|Schamlzer|2008|loc=p. 262}} During the 1960s and 1970s, the position of the more ancient ''Australopithecus'' in human evolution once again became a centre of debate. In China, Wu Rukang argued that the African ''Australopithecus'' was the "missing link" between apes and humans, but was met with much derision from Chinese peers.{{sfn|Schamlzer|2008|loc=pp. 351–352}} Following the [[reform and opening up]] of China with the rise of [[Deng Xiaoping]] in 1978, Western works contradictory to tenets of [[Maoist]] ideology were circulated throughout China, radically altering Eastern anthropological discussions.{{sfn|Schamlzer|2008|loc=p. 378}} In the late 20th century, human evolution had become Afrocentric with the gradual acceptance of ''Australopithecus'' as human ancestors, and the consequent marginalisation of Peking Man,<ref name=HsiaoPei2014/> especially as older fossils of ''H. erectus'' were being unearthed in Africa, first by Kenyan archaeologist [[Louis Leakey]] in 1960 with [[Chellean Man|Olduvai Hominin 9]]. ''H. erectus'' is now largely considered to have evolved in Africa and later spread to other continents.{{sfn|Boaz|Ciochon|2004|loc=pp. 68–72}}

To counter the declining interest of Eastern palaeoanthropology in academia with the rise of Afrocentrism, many Chinese scientists commonly advanced Sinocentric and often polygenic arguments. They posited the antiquity of racial distinctness before the evolution and dispersal of modern humans, as well as the racial continuity between local ''H. erectus'' and modern descendent races; for example, they contended that "typically 'Mongoloid' features" such as [[shovel-shaped incisors]]{{efn-num|In recent populations, the trait is triggered by the [[EDAR]] V370A [[allele]], and seldom occurs outside [[East Asians]] and [[indigenous peoples of Siberia]]<!--North Asians--> and [[indigenous peoples of the Americas|the Americas]]. This allele seems to have experienced [[positive selection]] in an ancestor population (maybe one from [[Beringia]]) about 20,000 years ago during the [[Last Glacial Maximum]] (LGM).<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Hlusko |first1=L. J. |last2=Carlson |first2=J. P. |last3=Chaplin |first3=G. |last4=Elias |first4=S. A. |last5=Hoffecker |first5=J. F. |last6=Huffman |first6=M. |last7=Jablonski |first7=N. G. |last8=Monson |first8=T. A. |last9=O'Rourke |first9=D. H.|last10=Pilloud|first10=M. A. |last11=Scott |first11=G. R. |title=Environmental selection during the last ice age on the mother-to-infant transmission of vitamin D and fatty acids through breast milk |journal=[[Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America]] |volume=115 |issue=19 |pages=E4426–E4432 |year=2018 |pmid=29686092 |pmc=5948952 |doi=10.1073/pnas.1711788115 |bibcode=2018PNAS..115E4426H |doi-access=free}}</ref>}} carried over from Peking Man to modern Chinese people. They often cited the 2-million-year-old [[Wushan Man]] from central China, which is no longer classified as a human, and asserted that several Chinese apes millions of years old were human ancestors. Jia proposed that the earliest human species evolved on the [[Tibetan Plateau]]; the adjacent province of [[Guizhou]] was another popularly proposed genesis point. Various late Middle Pleistocene Chinese specimens have been argued, such as by the Chinese palaeoanthropologist [[Wu Xinzhi]], to represent hybrid populations between Peking Man and other ancestors of modern humans, such as the [[Dali Man]] or the [[Jinniushan Man]].{{efn-num|Some authors have tried splitting off these ambiguous specimens into multiple new species which all would have inhabited [[Middle Pleistocene]] China at the same time, such as ''[[H. longi]]'' and ''[[Homo juluensis|H. juluensis]]''. In general, the classification of Middle Pleistocene fossils has remained a contentious question, termed "the muddle in the middle".<ref name=BaeWu2024>{{cite journal |first1=C. J. |last1=Bae |first2=X. |last2=Wu |year=2024 |title=Making sense of eastern Asian Late Quaternary hominin variability |journal=[[Nature Communications]] |volume=15 |issue=9479 |page=9479 |doi=10.1038/s41467-024-53918-7 |doi-access=free |pmid=39488555 |pmc=11531466 |bibcode=2024NatCo..15.9479B}}</ref>}}{{sfn|Schamlzer|2008|loc=pp. 530–532}} In the 1970s, the travelling museum exhibit "The Exhibition of Archaeological Finds of the People's Republic of China"—organised by the [[Chinese Communist Party]] (CCP) to tour around Western Europe, the US, and Canada—painted Peking Man and Lantian Man as the "forefathers of the Chinese people", playing a central role in the story of human evolution, and emphasising the antiquity of the Chinese people.<ref>{{cite journal |first=S.-K. |last=Chan |year=2023 |title=Relics and rapprochement: The intricacies of cultural diplomacy in China's first archaeological exhibition in the U.S. during the Cold War era |journal=Museum History Journal |volume=17 |issue=1 |pages=83–86 |doi=10.1080/19369816.2023.2283630 |doi-access=free}}</ref> Additionally, at least since the mid-1990s, the CCP has utilised Peking Man as an instrument of its [[racial nationalist]] discourse.<ref name="Sautman2001">{{cite journal |last=Sautman |first=Barry |author-link=Barry Sautman |year=2001 |title=Peking Man and the Politics of Paleoanthropological Nationalism in China |journal=[[The Journal of Asian Studies]] |volume=60 |issue=1 |pages=95–124 |doi=10.2307/2659506 |jstor=2659506 |pmid=19086346}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Cheng |first=Yinghong |chapter=Is Peking Man Still Our Ancestor?—Race and National Lineage |year=2019 |title=Discourses of Race and Rising China |pages=99–159 |place=Cham |publisher=Springer International Publishing |language=en |doi=10.1007/978-3-030-05357-4_3 |isbn=978-3-030-05356-7 |pmc=7123927 |doi-access=free}}</ref>

Peking Man's ancestral position is still widely maintained among especially Chinese scientists using the assimilation model, wherein archaic humans such as Peking Man interbred with and were effectively absorbed into modern human populations in their respective locations. According to this model, Peking Man has lent some ancestry to modern Chinese populations.<ref name=HsiaoPei2014/> [[paleogenetics|Palaeogenetic]] analyses—the first in 2010—have reported that all humans whose ancestry lies beyond Sub-Saharan Africa contain genes from the archaic Neanderthals and [[Denisovan]]s indicating [[Interbreeding between archaic and modern humans|early modern humans interbred with archaic humans]].{{efn-num|Subsaharan Africans carry archaic introgression from an unidentified [[ghost lineage]] which diverged before Neanderthals and Denisovans split with modern humans.<ref>{{cite journal |first1=A. |last1=Durvasula |first2=S. |last2=Sankararaman |year=2020 |title=Recovering signals of ghost archaic introgression in African populations |journal=[[Science Advances]] |volume=6 |issue=7 |article-number=eaax5097 |doi=10.1126/sciadv.aax5097 |pmid=32095519 |pmc=7015685 |bibcode=2020SciA....6.5097D}}</ref>}} The common ancestor of Neanderthals and Denisovans in turn interbred with another archaic species even further removed from modern humans.<ref>{{cite journal |first=P. J. |last=Waddell |year=2013 |title=Happy New Year ''Homo erectus''? More evidence for interbreeding with archaics predating the modern human/Neanderthal split |journal=Quantitative Biology |pages=2–3 |arxiv=1312.7749}}</ref><ref name=ChenBaishiya>{{cite journal |author1=Fahu Chen |author2=Frido Welker |author3=Chuan-Chou Shen |author4=Shara E. Bailey |author5=Inga Bergmann |author6=Simon Davis |author7=Huan Xia |author8=Hui Wang |author9=Roman Fischer |author10=Sarah E. Freidline |author11=Tsai-Luen Yu |author12=Matthew M. Skinner |author13=Stefanie Stelzer |author14=Guangrong Dong |author15=Qiaomei Fu |author16=Guanghui Dong |author17=Jian Wang |author18-link=Dongju Zhang |author18=Dongju Zhang |author19-link=Jean-Jacques Hublin |author19=Jean-Jacques Hublin |year=2019 |title=A late Middle Pleistocene Denisovan mandible from the Tibetan Plateau |journal=[[Nature (journal)|Nature]] |volume=569 |issue=7756 |pages=409–412 |doi=10.1038/s41586-019-1139-x |pmid=31043746 |author1-link=Fahu Chen |url=https://kar.kent.ac.uk/74280/1/Xiahe_Main.pdf |bibcode=2019Natur.569..409C |s2cid=141503768}}</ref> Still, East Asian ''H. erectus'' from China and Indonesia are now usually characterised as [[relict (biology)|relict]] populations which had little interaction with Western ''H. erectus'' or later ''Homo'' species.<ref name=Anton2023/>

===Phylogeny===
Many Chinese ''H. erectus'' fossils were given a unique subspecies name based on minute anatomical differences. As the definition of "subspecies" tightened in the late 20th century, it became impossible to justify all of these names.<ref>{{cite journal |first=R. |last=Wu |year=1992 |script-title=zh:人类化石分类中的亚种问题 |trans-title=On the classification of subspecies of ''Homo'' |journal=Acta Anthropologica Sinica |volume=11 |language=zh |issue=2 |pages=109–111 |issn=1000-3193 |url=https://www.anthropol.ac.cn/EN/Y1992/V11/I02/109}}</ref> In general, subspecies names for ''H. erectus'' are now used for convenience to indicate time and region rather than specific anatomical trends. The name ''H. e. pekinensis'' may extend to all Chinese ''H. erectus'' but is usually used to refer only to Zhoukoudian.<ref>{{cite journal |first=S. C. |last=Antón |year=2002 |title=Evolutionary significance of cranial variation in Asian ''Homo erectus'' |journal=[[American Journal of Physical Anthropology]] |volume=118 |issue=4 |page=302 |doi=10.1002/ajpa.10091 |pmid=12124912}}</ref>

[[File:Nanjing Man IVPP.jpg|thumb|Among other ''H. erectus'', Peking Man is most similar to [[Nanjing Man]] (above)<ref name=Anton2023/>]]
The anatomy of Chinese ''H. erectus'' specimens varies regionally and over time, but this variation is subtle and difficult to assess given how fragmentary ''H. erectus'' remains are both in and out of China. Northern Chinese specimens (namely Peking Man and Nanjing Man) are distinct in the narrowness of the skull, but ''H. erectus'' skull shape is poorly documented elsewhere in China.<ref name=Anton2023>{{cite journal |first1=S. B. |last1=Antón |first2=E. R. |last2=Middleton |year=2023 |title=Making meaning from fragmentary fossils: Early ''Homo'' in the Early to early Middle Pleistocene |journal=[[Journal of Human Evolution]] |volume=179 |article-number=103307 |doi=10.1016/j.jhevol.2022.103307 |pmid=37030994 |bibcode=2023JHumE.17903307A}}</ref> Some authors have suggested that the anatomical peculiarities of the Zhoukoudian specimens indicate [[speciation]] rather than a geographic [[cline (biology)|cline]], and consider Peking Man as a separate species, ''H. pekinensis''.<ref>{{cite journal |first=B. |last=Marwick |year=2009 |title=Biogeography of Middle Pleistocene hominins in mainland Southeast Asia: A review of current evidence |journal=[[Quaternary International]] |volume=202 |issue=1–2 |page=53 |doi=10.1016/j.quaint.2008.01.012 |bibcode=2009QuInt.202...51M}}</ref>

''H. erectus'' may have made multiple different dispersals out of Africa to the Far East, with the population represented by the Indonesian Sangiran site possibly being more closely related to Western ''H. erectus'' than to Peking Man. A population related to Peking Man may have later interbred with Southeast Asian ''H. erectus'', since the younger teeth at Sangiran are much smaller than the older ones—more like those of Peking Man's—but tooth reduction could have happened for other reasons.<ref name=Zaim2011>{{cite journal |last1=Zaim |first1=Y. |last2=Ciochon |first2=R. L. |author2-link=Russell Ciochon |last3=Polanski |first3=J. M. |last4=Grine |first4=F. E. |last5=Bettis |first5=E. A. |last6=Rizal |first6=Y. |last7=Franciscus |first7=R. G. |last8=Larick |first8=R. R. |last9=Heizler |first9=M.|last10=Eaves|first10=K. L. |last11=Marsh |first11=H. E. |title=New 1.5 million-year-old ''Homo erectus'' maxilla from Sangiran (Central Java, Indonesia) |journal=[[Journal of Human Evolution]] |volume=61 |issue=4 |pages=363–376 |year=2011 |pmid=21783226 |doi=10.1016/j.jhevol.2011.04.009 |bibcode=2011JHumE..61..363Z}}</ref>

A 2021 phylogeny of ''H. erectus'' using [[tip dating]]:<ref name=Ni2021>{{Cite journal |last1=Ni |first1=Xijun |last2=Ji |first2=Qiang |last3=Wu |first3=Wensheng |last4=Shao |first4=Qingfeng |last5=Ji |first5=Yannan |last6=Zhang |first6=Chi |last7=Liang |first7=Lei |last8=Ge |first8=Junyi |last9=Guo |first9=Zhen |last10=Li |first10=Jinhua |last11=Li |first11=Qiang |year=2021 |title=Massive cranium from Harbin in northeastern China establishes a new Middle Pleistocene human lineage |journal=The Innovation |volume=2 |issue=3 |doi=10.1016/j.xinn.2021.100130 |issn=2666-6758 |pmc=8454562 |pmid=34557770 |last13=Stringer |first13=Chris |last12=Grün |first12=Rainer |article-number=100130 |bibcode=2021Innov...200130N}}</ref>

{{Clade|{{Clade
  |1=''[[H. habilis]]''
  |label2=''[[H. erectus]]''
  |2={{clade
    |1={{clade
      |1=[[Homo gautengensis|Stw 53]] (1.9 million years ago)
     |2=[[Dmanisi hominins|Dmanisi]] (1.8 million years ago)
    }}
   |2={{clade
    |1=[[Turkana Boy|Turkana]] (1.7 million years ago)
    |2={{clade
       |1=[[Olduvai Hominid 9]] (1.5 million years ago)
       |2={{clade
         |1=[[Sangiran]] (1.4 million years ago)
         |2={{clade
         |1={{clade
          |1={{clade
           |1=[[Nanjing Man]] (0.6 million years ago)
           |2='''Peking Man''' (0.5 million years ago) 
           }}
           |2={{clade
             |1=[[He County#Archaeology|Hexian]] (0.5 million years ago)
             |2={{clade
               |1=[[Sambungmacan crania|Sambungmacan]] (0.2 million years ago)
               |2=[[Ngandong]] (0.1 million years ago)
             }}
             }}
        }}
         |2= {{clade
          |1=''[[H. heidelbergensis]]''{{efn-num|''H. heidelbergensis'' is also a [[paraphyletic]] assemblage of fossils.<ref name="Ni2021"/>}}
          |2={{clade
            |1=''[[H. neanderthalensis]]''
            |2=''[[H. sapiens]]''
            }}
          }}
        }}
      }}
    }}
   }}
  }}
}}|label1=''[[Homo]]'' (2.85 million years ago)|style=font-size:85%;line-height:75%}}

==Anatomy==
Peking Man is known from 13 skull and cranial fragments, 15 [[mandible]]s (lower jawbone), 157 isolated and ''in situ'' teeth, an [[atlas (anatomy)|atlas]] (the first [[neck vertebra]]), a [[clavicle]], 3 [[humeri]] (upper arm bones), potentially 2 [[ilium (bone)|iliac]] fragments (the hip), 7 femora, a [[tibia]] (shinbone), and a [[lunate bone]] (a wrist bone).<ref name=Boaz2000>{{cite journal |first1=N. T. |last1=Boaz |author-link=Noel T. Boaz |first2=R. L. |last2=Ciochon |first3=Q. |last3=Xu |first4=J. |last4=Liu |year=2000 |title=Large Mammalian Carnivores as a Taphonomic Factor in the Bone Accumulation at Zhoukoudian |journal=Acta Anthropologica Sinica |volume=19 |pages=224–234 |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/252402071}}</ref> The material may represent as many as 40 individuals.<ref name=Yang2014/>

Peking Man and anatomically similar East Asian contemporaries are sometimes referred to as classic ''H. erectus''.<ref name=Xing2018/>

===Skull===
[[File:Peking Man Weidenreich.png|thumb|Weidenreich's 1937 reconstruction of a female Peking Man skull]]
In 1937, Weidenreich and his assistant, the sculptor [[Lucile Swan]], attempted to reconstruct a complete skull, but only considered a skullcap (Skull XI), a left [[maxilla]]ry (upper jaw) fragment (Skull XII/III), and a right [[mandibular]] (lower jaw) fragment, which are presumably specimens of females based on their smaller size. Though larger, presumably male specimens are much more numerous, they probably chose female specimens because a male maxilla would not be discovered until 1943.<ref name=Tattersall1996/> Swan also made a lifelike bust of Peking Man based on this skull, nicknamed "Nellie".{{sfn|Boaz|Ciochon|2004|loc=p. 140}}

In 1996, the anthropologists [[Ian Tattersall]] and Gary Sawyer revised the skull with high-quality casts of six presumed-male specimens and three isolated teeth (as the original fossils were lost). With this extended sample, virtually the entire skull could be more accurately restored, except the bottom margin of the [[piriform aperture]] (the nose hole). They deflated the cheeks and inflated the [[anatomical terms of location|lateral]] margins of the [[brow ridge]], which caused the nose to project out even farther (increased midfacial [[prognathism]]), though they reduced subnasal prognathism. Overall, compared to that of Weidenreich and Swan, their reconstruction is less [[apomorphic]] (specialised) than other Asian or African{{efn-num|African ''H. erectus'' are sometime classified as ''[[H. ergaster]]'' or ''H. e. ergaster''.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Tattersall |first=I. |author-link=Ian Tattersall |title=Handbook of Paleoanthropology |publisher=Springer |year=2013 |isbn=978-3-642-39978-7 |editor-last=Henke |editor-first=W. |chapter=''Homo ergaster'' and Its Contemporaries |editor-last2=Tattersall |editor-first2=I. |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200612125818/http://www.academia.edu/download/55535112/Homo_ergaster_Handbook_2_2015.pdf |page=14}}</ref>}} ''H. erectus'' specimens.<ref name=Tattersall1996/>

====Cranial vault====
{{Multiple image|align=center|total_width=780px|image1=Sinanthropus Skull XII norma frontalis.png|image2=Sinanthropus Skull XII norma occipitalis.png|image3=Sinanthropus Skull XII lateralis dextra.png|image4=Sinanthropus Skull XII lateralis sinistra.png|image5=Sinanthropus Skull XII norma verticalis.png|image6=Sinanthropus Skull XII norma basalis.png|footer=From left to right: illustrations of Skull XII by [[Franz Weidenreich]] showing the front, back, right, left, top, and bottom}}
Weidenreich characterised the Peking Man skull as relatively low, [[ellipsoid]], and long. The breadth is greatest at the ears but decreases frontwards, especially at the forehead. There is marked [[post-orbital constriction]], and the skull is circumscribed by a bony [[torus]] which is strongest at the brow ridge (supraorbital torus) and at the [[Occipital bone|back of the skull]] (occipital torus). All specimens have an eminence projecting just above the brow ridge, developed to varying degrees, which is not found in any other ''H. erectus'' population.{{sfn|Weidenreich|1943|loc=pp. 22–23}} The [[frontal sinus]]es are restricted to the nasal area below the brows, and consequently the brow ridge is completely solid, unlike that of Java Man.{{sfn|Weidenreich|1943|loc=p. 31}} The [[eye sockets]] are wide. The [[superior orbital fissure]] in the eye socket was probably a small opening like in non-human apes rather than a long slit like in modern humans. The [[nasal bone]]s between the eyes are double the width of those of the average modern human, though not as wide as those of Neanderthals. Weidenreich suggested Peking Man had a short, broad nose.{{sfn|Weidenreich|1943|loc=pp. 207–212}}

Peking Man also features a [[sagittal keel]] running across the midline, highest when it intersects the [[coronal suture]] halfway across, and recedes around the [[obelion]] (near the base of the [[parietal bone]]s). All skulls feature an equally developed keel (proportionally), including subadult and presumed-female specimens; there are no infant specimens. The keel produces a depression on either side, which accentuates the [[parietal eminence]]. The [[temporal line]]s, which arc in pairs across either side of the skull, often merge into a single ridge near the skull midline. The [[squamous part of temporal bone]] (the flat region) is positioned quite low, and the [[temporal fossa]] (the depression between the temporal lines and cheek) is relatively narrow. The [[mastoid part of the temporal bone]] features a high crest above which overhangs the [[ear canal]]. The crest accentuates the [[mastoid process]], which bends inwards as opposed to the modern human condition of being vertical; bending is much more pronounced in presumed-male specimens. Peking Man lacks a true postglenoid process (a bony projection behind the [[temporomandibular joint|jaw hinge]]); instead of being elongated, it is merely a low, triangular projection with a broad base. The [[zygomatic bone]]s (cheekbones) project far off the face, and would have been visible when viewing the skull from the top.{{sfn|Weidenreich|1943|loc=pp. 22–28}} They project as far as {{cvt|65|mm}}, whereas modern humans do not exceed {{cvt|60|mm}}.{{sfn|Weidenreich|1943|loc=p. 209}}

At the back of the skull, the occipital torus extends in a relatively straight line, but curves downward at the sides of the skull. The occipital torus can be bordered by [[sulcus (morphology)|sulci]] (furrows) on the top and bottom margins (for muscle attachment), and the bottom margin of the torus gradually fades. The midpoint of the torus features an additional prominence, the [[occipital bun]].{{sfn|Weidenreich|1943|loc=pp. 24–28}}
[[File:Homo erectus skull cross-section.png|thumb|Cross sections of Peking Man Skulls III (A) and XII (B), and Java Man Skull II (C)]]

====Brain====
The brain capacities of the seven Peking Man skulls for which the metric is measurable range from {{cvt|850|to|1,225|cc|0}}, with an average of about {{cvt|1,029|cc|0}}.<ref name=Rightmire2004>{{cite journal |last=Rightmire |first=G. P. |year=2004 |title=Brain size and encephalization in early to Mid-Pleistocene ''Homo'' |journal=[[American Journal of Biological Anthropology|American Journal of Physical Anthropology]] |volume=124 |issue=2 |pages=109–123 |doi=10.1002/ajpa.10346 |pmid=15160365}}</ref> This is within the range of variation for modern humans.<ref>{{Cite journal |doi=10.2478/anre-2021-0029 |title=Interpopulational variation in human brain size: Implications for hominin cognitive phylogeny |year=2022 |last1=Clark |first1=G. |last2=Henneberg |first2=M. |journal=[[Anthropological Society of London|Anthropological Review]] |volume=84 |issue=4 |pages=405–429 |doi-access=free}}</ref> Asian ''H.&nbsp;erectus'' overall are rather big-brained, averaging roughly {{cvt|1,000|cc|0}}.<ref name=Anton2016>{{cite journal |first1=S. C. |last1=Antón |first2=H. G. |last2=Taboada |display-authors=et al. |year=2016 |title=Morphological variation in ''Homo erectus'' and the origins of developmental plasticity |journal=[[Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B]] |volume=371 |issue=1698 |article-number=20150236 |doi=10.1098/rstb.2015.0236 |pmc=4920293 |pmid=27298467}}</ref>

The [[endocast]] (the cast of the inside of the braincase) is ovoid in top-view. Due to [[post-orbital constriction]], the [[frontal lobe]] is narrowed like in other ''H. erectus''. The [[parietal lobe]]s are depressed unlike Javan and African ''H. erectus'' or modern humans, though this seems to be somewhat variable among the Peking Man material. The [[temporal lobe]]s are narrow and slender unlike most other human species. The [[occipital lobe]]s are flattened dorsoventrally (from top to bottom) and strongly project backwards which is a rather variable trait among archaic human populations. The [[cerebellum]], compared to that of modern humans, is not as globular, and the lobes diverge more strongly from the midline like other archaic humans.<ref>{{cite journal |first1=X. |last1=Wu |first2=L. E. |last2=Schepartz |first3=W. |last3=Liu |year=2010 |title=A new ''Homo erectus'' (Zhoukoudian V) brain endocast from China |journal=[[Proceedings of the Royal Society|Proceedings of the Royal Society B]] |volume=277 |issue=1679 |pages=337–344 |doi=10.1098/rspb.2009.0149 |pmc=2842660 |pmid=19403532}}</ref>

====Mouth====
[[File:Peking Man maxillae.png|thumb|left|[[Maxilla]]e from Skulls III, V, VI, and X]]
Peking Man has remarkably defined [[Canine tooth|canine]] juga (a bony ridge corresponding to the [[tooth root]]). There is subnasal [[prognathism]] (the upper jaw juts out). The [[maxilla]] (upper jaw) commonly features [[exostoses]] (bony lumps) in the [[molar (tooth)|molar]] region, which infrequently occurs in modern humans (>6%). Like modern humans and Neanderthals but unlike Java Man, Peking Man has a long, rugose [[palate]] (roof of the mouth).{{sfn|Weidenreich|1943|loc=pp. 207–212}} The [[mandible]] (lower jaw) is rather big and, like other archaic humans, lacks a chin. The extramolar sulci bordering the cheek side of the molars are broad. Some mandibles feature a torus on the tongue side, or multiple [[mental foramina]].<ref name=Anton2003>{{cite journal |first=S. C. |last=Antón |year=2003 |title=Natural history of ''Homo erectus'' |journal=[[American Journal of Biological Anthropology|American Journal of Physical Anthropology]] |volume=122 |issue=S37 |pages=126–170 |doi=10.1002/ajpa.10399 |pmid=14666536 |doi-access=free}}</ref>

The [[dental arch]]es (tooth rows) are U-shaped.<ref name=Anton2003/> The [[incisor]]s feature an eminence at the base, finger-like ridges on the tongue-side, and for the upper ones marked shovelling (the tooth strongly bends in).<ref name=Xing2018/> The mandibular incisors are narrow.<ref name=Anton2003/> Weidenreich originally restored the teeth as peg-like, but Tattersall and Sawyer found the teeth to be much larger and obtrusive.<ref name=Tattersall1996/> Like other ''H. erectus'', the premolars are ellipsoid and asymmetrical, but the first [[premolar]] (P<sub>3</sub>) frequently has three roots instead of the more common two. The molar [[crown (tooth)|crowns]] exhibit several extraneous ridges in addition to the essential [[cusp (anatomy)|cusps]], which produced a dendritic (branching) [[tooth|enamel]]-[[dentine]] junction, which has only been documented in Chinese ''H. erectus''. M<sub>1</sub> is rather long, and M<sub>2</sub> is round.<ref name=Xing2018>{{cite journal |first1=S. |last1=Xing |first2=M. |last2=Martinón-Torres |first3=J.-M. B. |last3=de Castro |year=2018 |title=The fossil teeth of the Peking Man |journal=[[Scientific Reports]] |volume=8 |issue=1 |page=2066 |doi=10.1038/s41598-018-20432-y |pmid=29391445 |pmc=5794973 |bibcode=2018NatSR...8.2066X}}</ref>

[[File:Pleistocene and Middle Pleistocene Teeth.png|thumb|upright=1.2|The [[shovel-shaped incisors]] of Chinese ''H. erectus'' (left to right: [[He County#Archaeology|Hexian]], [[Yuanmou Man|Yuanmou]], Zhoukoudian)]]
The upper incisors of Peking Man and other Chinese ''H. erectus'' feature marked shovelling, more prominent than in other ''H. erectus'' populations.<ref name=Xing2018/> Shovelling also usually occurs in Neanderthals and less intensely in many early modern human specimens across Europe, Africa, and Asia.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Bailey |first=S. |title=Beyond shovel-shaped incisors: Neandertal dental morphology in a comparative context |journal=Periodicum Biologorum |year=2006 |volume=108 |issue=3 |pages=257–259 |url=https://hrcak.srce.hr/83097}}</ref>

===Postcranium===
Because the archaeological record of East Asia is comparatively poor, the [[Postcranium|post-cranial anatomy]] of ''H. erectus'' is largely based on the adolescent African specimen [[Turkana Boy]], as well as a few other isolated skeletons from Africa and Western Eurasia.<ref name=Xing2018b/>

Externally, the Peking Man [[humerus]] is like that of modern humans, and exhibits exceptionally developed muscle attachments, but the [[diaphysis]] (shaft) is more slender.<ref name=Weidenreich1938/> The [[lunate bone]] (in the wrist) is modern humanlike, though proportionally small and broad.<ref name=Anton2003/>

Compared to an average modern human, the [[femur]] is much stouter, flatter, slenderer, and straighter; maximum curvature occurs nearer the knee joint instead of at the mid-shaft. The anteposterior (from front to back) diameter is smaller than the transverse (from left to right) diameter. The [[femoral neck]] was probably truncated like in other archaic humans and non-human apes. The subtrochanteric crest terminates up at the greater trochanter with a bony growth, commonly exhibited in Neanderthals.{{sfn|Weidenreich|1941|loc=pp. 14–29}} These traits are not outside the range of variation for modern humans, though are quite rare.{{sfn|Weidenreich|1941|loc=pp. 35–36}}
{{Multiple image|align=right|total_width=400px|image1=Sinanthropus Humerus II reconstruction.png|image2=Sinanthropus Femur IV reconstruction.png|footer=Weidenreich's reconstruction of Humerus II (left) and Femur IV (right)}}

===Body size===
The torso is poorly known, but because the limbs and clavicle are proportioned like those of modern humans, it is typically assumed the rest of the body was as well.<ref name=Woo1960>{{cite journal |url=http://www.ivpp.ac.cn/cbw/gjzdwxb/xbwzxz/201105/P020110512338966914074.pdf |first=J.-K. |last=Woo |year=1960 |title=The unbalanced development of the physical features of ''Sinanthropus pekinensis'' and its interpretations |journal=Vertebrata PalAsiatica |volume=4 |issue=1 |pages=17–20}}</ref> Working under this assumption, living body dimension reconstructions include:

*In 1938, Weidenreich reconstructed a presumed-female femur to be {{cvt|400|mm|ftin}} in length in life, which would equate to a female height of {{cvt|152|cm|ft|0}}. He speculated males averaged {{cvt|164|cm|ftin}}.<ref name=Weidenreich1938>{{cite journal |first=F. |last=Weidenreich |author-link=Franz Weidenreich |year=1938 |title=Discovery of the Femur and the Humerus of ''Sinanthropus Pekinensis'' |journal=[[Nature (journal)|Nature]] |volume=141 |issue=3570 |pages=614–617 |doi=10.1038/141614a0 |bibcode=1938Natur.141..614W |doi-access=free}}</ref>
*In 1944, Weidenreich reconstructed a presumed-male femur to be {{cvt|407|mm|0}} long, equating to a male height of {{cvt|156|cm|ftin}}. He speculated an average female height of {{cvt|144|cm|ftin}}.<ref name=Woo1960/>
*In 2018, the Chinese palaeoanthropologist Song Xing estimated the living weight for Humeri II and III as about {{cvt|53.6|kg}}, Femur I {{cvt|54.8|kg}}, Femur IV {{cvt|54.3|kg}}, and Femur VI {{cvt|51.6|kg}}. Weidenreich assumed all these represent males.<ref>{{cite journal |first1=S. |last1=Xing |first2=K. J. |last2=Carlson |display-authors=et al. |year=2018 |title=Morphology and structure of ''Homo erectus'' humeri from Zhoukoudian, Locality 1 |journal=[[PeerJ]] |volume=6 |article-number=e4279 |doi=10.7717/peerj.4279 |pmid=29372121 |pmc=5777375 |doi-access=free}}</ref>
Northerly ''H. erectus'' populations tend to be shorter than tropical populations, with colder climate populations including Zhoukoudian and [[Dmanisi hominins|Dmanisi]] averaging roughly {{cvt|150|cm|ftin}}, and hotter climate populations including African and Javan ''H. erectus'' {{cvt|160|cm|ftin}}.<ref name=Anton2003/>

===Bone thickness===
The strongly developed tori and crests greatly fortify the skull, and the braincase is extremely thickened like in other ''H. erectus''. Similar thickening can also rarely occur in modern humans when the [[diploë]] (the spongy [[cancellous]] layer between the two hard [[cortical bone|cortical]] layers of bone in the skull) abnormally expands, but for Peking Man, all three layers of cranial bone have equally thickened.{{sfn|Weidenreich|1943|loc=pp. 161–164}}

[[File:Sinanthropus femoral cross-section.png|thumb|upright=1.6|Mid-shaft cross-sections of Femora I, II, IV, V, and VI]]
The [[long bone]]s of all ''H. erectus'' have thickened cortical bone and consequently narrowed [[medullary cavities]] (where the [[bone marrow]] is stored). Peking Man has much thicker humeri than African ''H. erectus''.<ref name=Xing2018b>{{cite journal |first1=S. |last1=Xing |first2=K. J. |last2=Carlson |first3=P. |last3=Wei |first4=J. |last4=He |first5=W. |last5=Liu |year=2018 |title=Morphology and structure of ''Homo erectus'' humeri from Zhoukoudian, Locality 1 |journal=[[PeerJ]] |volume=6 |article-number=e4279 |doi=10.7717/peerj.4279 |pmc=5777375 |pmid=29372121 |doi-access=free}}</ref> At maximum constriction at the mid-shaft, the femoral walls of Peking Man take up about 90% of the interior space, as opposed to only 75% in modern humans. For the lateral walls (towards the sides), the exorbitant thickness sharply reduces above the [[greater trochanter]], whereas the medial walls (towards the middle) are three times as thick as those of modern humans. In modern humans, the femoral head features two main strips of cancellous bone (spongy interior bone) that converge into a triangle ([[Ward's triangle]]), which is absent in Peking Man, likely due to the intense thickening of the cortical bone.{{sfn|Weidenreich|1941|loc=p. 32–33}}

In 1946, Weidenreich posited an unpopular hypothesis that Peking Man (and Java Man) inherited the thick bones from gigantic ancestors ([[plesiomorphy]]), evidenced by von Koenigswald's enormous ''[[Meganthropus]]'' and ''[[Gigantopithecus]]'', which at the time were classified as ancient human ancestors.<ref>{{cite book |first=F. |last=Weidenreich |author-link=Franz Weidenreich |year=1946 |chapter=Giants as Earliest Ancestors |title=Apes, Giants, and Man |chapter-url=https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.531106/page/n57 |publisher=University of Chicago Press}}</ref>{{sfn|Boaz|Ciochon|2004|loc=p. 63–64}} Other explanations include a far more violent and impact-prone lifestyle than other ''Homo'', or pathological nutrient deficiencies causing [[hypoparathyroidism]].{{sfn|Boaz|Ciochon|2004|loc=pp. 80–86}} The supraorbital torus thickens with age, and may be a response to [[bending]] stresses from habitual loading of the front teeth.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Russell |first=M. D. |last2=Brown |first2=T. |last3=Garn |first3=S. M. |last4=Giris |first4=F. |last5=Turkel |first5=S. |last6=İşcan |first6=M. Y. |last7=Oyen |first7=O. J. |last8=Jacobshagen |first8=B. |last9=Pietrusewsky |first9=M.|last10=Rightmire|first10=G. P. |last11=Smith |first11=F. H. |year=1985 |title=The Supraorbital Torus: 'A Most Remarkable Peculiarity' |journal=[[Current Anthropology]] |volume=26 |issue=3 |pages=337–350 |doi=10.1086/203279 |s2cid=146857927}}</ref>

===Gallery===
<gallery>
File:Sinanthropus Skulls I and II.png|Skulls I and II
File:Sinanthropus Skull II.png|Skull II
Sinanthropus Skull III.png|Skull III
File:Sinanthropus Skulls IV anf V.png|Skulls IV and V
File:Sinanthropus Skulls V and VI.png|Skulls V and VI
File:Sinanthropus Skulls VI and VII.png|Skulls VI and VII
File:Sinanthropus Skulls VIII and IX.png|Skulls VIII and IX
File:Sinanthropus Skull X.png|Skull X
File:Sinanthropus Skull XI.png|Skull XI
File:Sinanthropus Skull XII.png|Skull XII
Sinanthropus Femur I.png|Femur I
Sinanthropus Femora I and II.png|Femora I and II
Sinanthropus Femur III.png|Femur III
Sinanthropus Femur IV.png|Femur IV
Sinanthropus Femora V and VI.png|Femora V and VI
Sinanthropus Femur VI.png|Femur VI
Sinanthropus Femur VII.png|Femur VII
Sinanthropus Humerus I.png|Humerus I
Sinanthropus Humerus II.png|Humerus II
Sinanthropus clavicle.png|Clavicle I
</gallery>

==Culture==
===Palaeoenvironment===
The mammal assemblage of the Zhoukoudian site indicates three major environmental units: Layers 11–10—a cold and dry, grassland environment; Layers 9–5—a warm, forested environment; and Layers 4–1—another cold and dry, grassland environment.<ref name=Li2014>{{cite book |first1=Y. |last1=Li |first2=Y. |last2=Zhang |display-authors=et al. |year=2014 |chapter=Mammalian Evolution in Asia Linked to Climate Changes |title=Late Cenozoic Climate Change in Asia |series=Developments in Paleoenvironmental Research |publisher=Springer Science+Business Media |pages=460–462 |isbn=978-94-007-7817-7}}</ref>

The mammal assemblage includes [[macaque]]s, the [[Zhoukoudian wolf]], the [[Asian black bear]], the [[brown bear]], the rhino ''[[Dicerorhinus|Dicerorhinus choukoutienensis]]'', the [[woolly rhinoceros]], the horse ''[[Equus (genus)|Equus sanmeniensis]]'', the [[Siberian musk deer]], the giant deer ''[[Sinomegaceros|Sinomegaceros pachyosteus]]'', [[sheep]], [[bison]], the [[Asian straight-tusked elephant]], [[bat]]s, [[pika]], [[rodent]]s, and [[shrew]]s. The mammal assemblage of Layers 4–3 is broadly similar to that of Layers 9–8, in addition to several warm-to-mild climate steppe and forest creatures, including the raccoon dog ''[[Nyctereutes sinensis]]'', the dhole ''[[dhole|Cuon antiquus]]'', the [[corsac fox]], the [[Asian badger]], [[Gulo|wolverines]], the giant hyena ''[[Pachycrocuta]]'', the saber-toothed cat ''[[Machairodus|Machairodus inexpectatus]]'', the [[tiger]], the [[leopard]], [[sika deer]], the antelope ''[[Spirocerus|Spirocerus peii]]'', and the water buffalo ''[[Bubalus|Bubalus teilhardi]]''.<ref name=Li2014/> The Zhoukoudian fauna are not entirely exclusive to either glacial or [[interglacial]] periods.<ref name=Anton2002>{{cite journal |first=S. |last=Antón |year=2002 |title=Evolutionary significance of cranial variation in Asian ''Homo erectus'' |journal=[[American Journal of Biological Anthropology|American Journal of Physical Anthropology]] |volume=118 |issue=4 |pages=304–307 |doi=10.1002/ajpa.10091 |pmid=12124912}}</ref>

''H. erectus'' seems to have typically favoured open environments. It is debated if Peking Man occupied the region during colder glacial periods or only took residence during warmer interglacials, tied to the uncertain chronology of Zhoukoudian, as well as arguments regarding fire usage, [[prehistory of nakedness and clothing|clothing technology]], and hunting ability.<ref name=Anton2002/><ref name=Anton2003/> Given the abundance of deer remains, it was early on assumed Peking Man was a prolific deer hunter, but since the establishment of non-human carnivores as major [[taphonomic]] agents, the dependence on hunting has become a controversial topic. Most of the Peking Man fossils were at least fed upon by likely hyenas.<ref name=Boaz2004/> Nonetheless, some of the animal fossils seem to have been modified by humans. In 1986, the American archaeologist [[Lewis Binford]] and colleagues reported a few horse fossils with cutmarks left by stone tools, and two upper premolars from Layer 4 appearing to him to have been burned while still fresh, which he ascribed to horse-head roasting. Binford believed that Peking Man was simply scavenging from hyenas because all of the tool cuts he analysed were always overlapping hyena gnaw marks, instead of vice versa.<ref name=Binford1986/> Zhoukoudian also preserves the remains of edible plants, nuts, and seeds that Peking Man may have eaten: [[Chinese hackberry]], [[walnut]], [[hazelnut]], [[pine]], [[elm]], and [[rambler rose]].<ref name=Wu1983/>

''H. erectus'', a specialist in woodland and savannah biomes, likely went extinct with the takeover of tropical rainforests.<ref>{{cite journal |first1=J. |last1=Louys |first2=P. |last2=Roberts |year=2020 |title=Environmental drivers of megafauna and hominin extinction in Southeast Asia |journal=[[Nature (journal)|Nature]] |volume=586 |issue=7829 |pages=402–406 |doi=10.1038/s41586-020-2810-y |pmid=33029012 |bibcode=2020Natur.586..402L |hdl=10072/402368 |s2cid=222217295 |hdl-access=free}}</ref> From [[marine isotope stages]] 12 to 10 (roughly 340,000 to 500,000 years ago), the Chinese archaeological record becomes dominated by "late-archaic" non-''erectus'' fossils, potentially representing multiple species including the Denisovans,<ref>{{cite journal |first1=W. |last1=Liu |first2=S. |last2=Athreya |first3=S. |last3=Xing |first4=X. |last4=Wu |year=2022 |title=Hominin evolution and diversity: a comparison of earlier-Middle and later-Middle Pleistocene hominin fossil variation in China |journal=[[Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B]] |volume=377 |issue=1847 |pmid=35125004 |pmc=8819364 |doi=10.1098/rstb.2021.0040 |doi-access=free}}</ref> ''[[H. longi]]'', and ''[[Homo juluensis|H. juluensis]]''.<ref name=BaeWu2024/> Peking Man's final stay at Zhoukoudian may have taken place between 230,000 and 400,000 years ago, with a more precise interval being difficult to arrive at.<ref name=Dong2016/>

===Occupation of the cave===
Because human remains (encompassing males, females, and children), tools, and potential evidence of fire were found in so many layers, it has often been assumed Peking Man lived in the Zhoukoudian cave site for hundreds of thousands of years.<ref name=Yang2014/>

In 1929, the French archaeologist [[Henri Breuil]] suggested the overabundance of skulls compared to body remains is conspicuous, and hypothesised the remains represent the trophies of cannibalistic [[headhunting|headhunters]], either a band of ''H. erectus'' or a more "advanced" species of human.<ref name=Boaz2001>{{cite journal |first1=N. T. |last1=Boaz |author1-link=Noel T. Boaz |first2=R. L. |last2=Ciochon |year=2001 |title=The scavenging of "Peking Man" - New evidence shows that a venerable cave was neither hearth nor home |journal=Natural History |volume=110 |issue=2 |pages=46–51 |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299178455}}</ref> In 1937, the French palaeoanthropologist [[Marcellin Boule]] believed the Peking Man brain was insufficiently evolved for such behaviour, based on the brain size, and suggested the skulls belonged to a primitive species and the limbs to a more evolved one, the latter manufacturing stone tools and cannibalising the former.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Boule |first=M. |author-link=Marcellin Boule |year=1937 |title=Le Sinanthrope |journal=L'Anthropologie |volume=47 |pages=1–22}}</ref> Weidenreich did not believe brain size could be a measure of cultural complexity, but, in 1939, he detailed the [[pathology]] of the Peking Man fossils and came to the conclusion of cannibalism or headhunting. The majority of the remains bear evidence of scars or injuries which he ascribed to attacks from clubs or stone tools; all the skulls have broken-in bases which he believed was done to extract the brain; and the femora have lengthwise splits, which he supposed was done to harvest the bone marrow.<ref name=Weidenreich1939>{{cite journal |last=Weidenreich |first=F. |author-link=Franz Weidenreich |year=2009 |title=Did ''Sinanthropus pekinensis'' practice cannibalism? |journal=Bulletin of the Geological Society of China |volume=19 |issue=1 |pages=49–63 |doi=10.1111/j.1755-6724.1939.mp19001004.x}}</ref>

Weidenreich's sentiments became widely popular. Another school of thought, proposed by Pei in 1929, held that individuals were dragged in by hyenas. In 1939, pioneering the field of taphonomy (the study of fossilisation), the German palaeontologist {{ill|Helmuth Zapfe|de}} highlighted parallels between the Zhoukoudian fossils and [[cow]] bones gnawed by hyenas he studied at the [[Vienna Zoo]]. Weidenreich subsequently conceded in 1941 that the breaking-off of the [[epiphyses]] of long bones is most likely due to hyena activity, but he was unconvinced that hyenas broke open the skull base or were capable of creating the long splits in the robust femora, still ascribing those to stone-tool-wielding cannibals.{{sfn|Weidenreich|1941|loc=pp. 74–77}}{{efn-num|Headhunting had subsequently been proposed for all major Indonesian ''H. erectus'' sites ([[Trinil]], [[Sangiran]], [[Mojokerto child|Modjokerto]], and [[Ngandong]]) which also featured several skullcaps missing the base, as well as few body fossils. In 1972, Indonesian palaeoanthropologist [[Teuku Jacob]] suggested it was because the base is naturally weaker and should be expected to break off, and the rest of the body is meatier than the skull and is preferentially destroyed by carnivores (namely [[tiger]]s).<ref>{{cite journal |first=T. |last=Jacob |author-link=Teuku Jacob |year=1972 |title=The Problem of Head-Hunting and Brain-Eating among Pleistocene Men in Indonesia |journal=Archaeology and Physical Anthropology in Oceania |volume=7 |issue=2 |pages=81–91 |jstor=40386169}}</ref>}} In addition to carnivore damage, Skull V bears a lesion on the right brow consistent with non-fatal blunt force trauma, which could have been caused by a human attack, or some accidental bump or fall.<ref>{{cite journal |first1=Y. |last1=Chen |first2=X. |last2=Wu |year=2023 |script-title=zh:周口店5号直立人额骨眶上圆枕处的创伤痕迹 |trans-title=Trauma on the supraorbital torus of frontal bone of the Fifth ''Homo erectus'' skull from the Zhoukoudian site |language=zh |journal=Acta Anthropologica Sinica |volume=42 |issue=6 |pages=721–732 |doi=10.16359/j.1000-3193/AAS.2023.0046}}</ref>

[[File:Anhui Museum 20240810 163225.jpg|thumb|''[[Pachycrocuta]]'' (jaw above) may be responsible for depositing the Peking Man fossils in [[Zhoukoudian Peking Man Site|Zhoukoudian]].<ref name=Boaz2004/>]]
By the mid-20th century, the hypothesis that Peking Man inhabited the cave once again became the mainstay, modeled around Jia's 1975 book ''The Cave Home of Peking Man''.<ref name=Boaz2001/> In 1985, Binford and the Chinese palaeoanthropologist Ho Chuan Kun instead hypothesised that Zhoukoudian was a "trap" which humans and animals fell into. They further proposed that deer remains, earlier assumed to have been Peking Man's prey, were instead predominantly carried in by the giant hyena ''Pachycrocuta'', and that ash was deposited by naturally occurring [[wildfire]]s fueled by bat [[guano]], as they did not believe any human species had yet mastered hunting or fire at this time. Evidence of fire usage would indicate occupation of the cave.<ref name=Binford1985>{{cite journal |first1=L. |last1=Binford |author-link=Lewis Binford |first2=C. K. |last2=Ho |display-authors=et al. |year=1985 |title=Taphonomy at a Distance: Zhoukoudian, "The Cave Home of Beijing Man"? |journal=[[Current Anthropology]] |volume=26 |issue=4 |pages=413–429 |doi=10.1086/203303 |jstor=2742759 |s2cid=147164100}}</ref>{{efn-num|Binford ''et al.'' is referring to the then-recent supposition by American palaeoanthropologist [[Milford H. Wolpoff]], who challenged the formerly popular notion that major brain expansion was a result of hunting in combination with the domestication of fire and invention of cooking.<ref name=Binford1985/>}}

In 2000, Boaz and colleagues argued that the state of the bones is consistent with general hyena biting, gnawing, and bone-crunching. They suggested that ''Pachycrocuta''—the largest known hyena to have ever lived—was more than capable of splitting robust bones, contrary to Weidenreich.<ref name=Boaz2000/> They identified bite marks on 67% of the Peking Man fossils (28 specimens), and attributed this and all other perimortem (around the time of death) damage to hyenas.<ref name=Boaz2004/> Boaz and colleagues conceded that stone tools must indicate human activity in (or at least near) the cave, but, with few exceptions, tools were randomly scattered across the layers (as mentioned by several previous scientists). American geologist [[Paul Goldberg (geologist)|Paul Goldberg]] and colleagues ascribed this to [[bioturbation]]. This means that the distribution of the tools gives no indication of the duration of human habitation.<ref name=Boaz2004>{{cite journal |last1=Boaz |first1=N. T. |author1-link=Noel T. Boaz |last2=Ciochon |first2=R. L. |last3=Xu |first3=Q. |last4=Liu |first4=J. |year=2004 |title=Mapping and taphonomic analysis of the ''Homo erectus'' loci at Locality 1 Zhoukoudian, China |journal=[[Journal of Human Evolution]] |volume=46 |issue=5 |pages=519–549 |doi=10.1016/j.jhevol.2004.01.007 |pmid=15120264 |bibcode=2004JHumE..46..519B |url=http://users.uoa.gr/~pavlakis/boaz2004mapping.pdf}}</ref> In 2016, Shuangquan Zhang and colleagues were unable to detect significant evidence of animal, human, or water damage to the few deer bones collected from Layer 3, and concluded they fell into the cave from above. They noted taphonomic debates were still ongoing {{As of|2016|lc=y}}.<ref name=Zhang>{{cite journal |first1=S. |last1=Zhang |first2=F. |last2=Chen |display-authors=et al. |year=2016 |title=A taphonomic study on the skeletal remains of ''Cervus (Sika) grayi'' from layer 3 of the Peking man site at Zhoukoudian during the 2009–2010 field seasons |journal=[[Quaternary International]] |volume=400 |pages=36–46 |doi=10.1016/j.quaint.2015.09.081 |bibcode=2016QuInt.400...36Z}}</ref>

===Society===
{{see also|Primitive communism}}
During the Mao era, the dissemination of communist ideology among the general populace of China was imperative. The concept of "labour created humanity"—described by the prominent communist philosopher [[Friedrich Engels]] in his 1876 essay "[[The Part Played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man]]"—became central to Chinese anthropology, and was included in almost any discussion regarding Peking Man and human evolution, including educational media for laypersons.{{sfn|Schamlzer|2008|loc=pp. 134–136}}{{efn-num|The [[Soviet Union]] was instrumental in the translation of Western works into [[Chinese language|Chinese]], including those related to human evolution.{{sfn|Schamlzer|2008|loc=p. 154}}}} To the West, emphasis was usually placed on intelligence rather than labour, especially after the English primatologist [[Jane Goodall]] discovered that [[chimpanzee]]s could make tools in 1960 (i.e., the labour of tool manufacturing is [[Tool use by non-humans|not unique to humans]]).{{sfn|Schamlzer|2008|loc=pp. 175–176}}

As for the society of these ancient humans, including Peking Man, Engel's 1884 book ''[[The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State]]'' and his concept of [[primitive communism]] became popular in academic discussions. Engels had largely based his ideas on the American ethnologist [[Lewis H. Morgan]]'s 1877 book ''[[Ancient Society]]'', which detailed Morgan's studies on "primitive" hunter-gatherer societies, namely the [[Iroquois]]. In the Mao era, Peking Man was consequently often painted as leading a dangerous life in the struggle against nature, organised into simple, peaceful tribes which foraged, hunted, and made stone tools in cooperative groups.{{sfn|Schamlzer|2008|loc=pp. 144–147}} As for gender roles, Peking Man society was most often described as "men hunt and women gather."{{sfn|Schamlzer|2008|loc=p. 152}}

Consistent with other prehistoric human populations, Peking Man had a rather short average lifespan. Out of a sample of 38 individuals, 15 died under the age of 14 years (39.5%), 3 died around 30 years (7%), 3 died from 40 to 50 years (7%), and 1 at 50 to 60 years (2.6%). The ages of the remaining 16 individuals (43%) could not be determined.<ref name=Boying2019>{{cite book |first=M. |last=Boying |year=2019 |title=History Of Medicine In Chinese Culture |publisher=World Scientific |pages=20–24 |isbn=978-981-323-799-5}}</ref>

===Stone tools===
[[File:Biface Extension.png|thumb|upright=1.3|[[Hand axe]] technology distribution through the [[Middle Pleistocene]]{{legend|#740|Areas with hand axes}}{{legend|#ada|Areas without hand axes}}]]
Despite Zhoukoudian being one of the most productive sites for East Asian stone tools, from the 1950s to the 1980s the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology (IVPP) prioritised human and animal fossils. In the rest of the world, especially Europe, tools and manufacturing techniques have been categorised down to regional levels. Consequently, China's [[Lower Palaeolithic]] record has generally been viewed as stagnant. Markers of broader periods in the West are conspicuously rare in the East, most notably [[hand axe]]s characteristic of the [[Acheulean]] culture (typically associated with western ''H. erectus'' and ''[[H. heidelbergensis]]'').<ref name=Shelach2015/> The apparent technological divide inspired the American archaeologist [[Hallam L. Movius]] to draw the "[[Movius Line]]" in 1948, dividing the East (mainly considering Zhoukoudian tools) into a "[[chopper (archaeology)|chopping-tool]] culture" and the West into a "hand axe culture".<ref name=Movius1948>{{cite journal |first=H. L. |last=Movius |author-link=Hallam L. Movius |year=1948 |title=The Lower Palaeolithic Cultures of Southern and Eastern Asia |journal=[[Transactions of the American Philosophical Society]] |volume=38 |issue=4 |pages=386–403 |doi=10.2307/1005632 |jstor=1005632}}</ref>

{{blockquote|text=[T]his area cannot be considered in any sense "progressive" from a cultural point of view&nbsp;.... [A]s early as Lower Palaeolithic times Southern and Eastern Asia as a whole was a region of cultural retardation.|author=[[Hallam L. Movius]], 1948<ref name=Movius1948/>}}

[[File:CMOC Treasures of Ancient China exhibit - stone scraper.jpg|thumb|left|[[Scraper (archaeology)|Scraper]] from the [[Zhoukoudian Peking Man Site]]]] 
Locality 1 at Zhoukoudian has produced more than 100,000 lithic pieces.<ref name=Yang2014>{{cite book |last=Yang |first=L. |year=2014 |chapter=Zhoukoudian: Geography and Culture |title=Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology |pages=7961–7965 |publisher=Springer Science+Business Media |isbn=978-1-4419-0466-9 |doi=10.1007/978-1-4419-0465-2_1899}}</ref> The majority of these pieces appears to be [[debitage]] (wastage).<ref name=Movius1948/>

{{blockquote|text=The crudely fractured pieces of stone from Choukoutien would never, in the vast majority of instances, have been recognized as showing traces of artificial work had they been recovered isolated in a geological deposit.|author=[[Grahame Clark]], ''From savagery to civilization'', 1946<ref>{{cite book |url=https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.184561/page/n41/mode/2up |first=J. G. C. |last=Clark |author-link=Grahame Clark |year=1946 |title=From savagery to civilization |publisher=Cobbet Press |series=Past and present: Studies in the history of civilization |page=33}}</ref><ref name=Movius1948/>}}

The tool assemblage is otherwise characterised by mainly large, dull choppers and simple, sharp [[lithic flake|flakes]].<ref name=Movius1948/> Similarly, modified animal fossils at Zhoukoudian usually exhibit battering or cutting.{{sfn|Boaz|Ciochon|2004|loc=p. 100}} Peking Man also rarely manufactured [[scraper (archaeology)|scrapers]] and (towards the later end of occupation) [[retouch (lithics)|retouched]] tools such as points and potentially [[burin (lithic flake)|burins]], as suggested by Breuil, but Pei and Movius believed the alleged burins were too crude to have been produced intentionally.<ref name=Movius1948/> Brueil also postulated that Peking Man predominantly relied on [[bone tool]]s made of prey animals' [[antler]]s, jaws, and isolated teeth, but this idea did not receive wide support. Many of his supposed bone flakes could easily be ascribed to hyena activity.{{sfn|Boaz|Ciochon|2004|loc=p. 98}}

In 1979, to highlight technological evolution, Pei and Zhang partitioned the Zhoukoudian industry into three stages:<ref name=Wu1983/>
*the early stage typified by the simple hammer and anvil technique (slamming the core against a rock) which produced large flakes namely from soft materials such as [[sandstone]], weighing up to {{cvt|50|g}} and measuring {{cvt|60|mm}} from Layer 11;
*the middle stage typified by the bipolar technique (smashing the [[lithic core|core]] into several flakes with a [[hammerstone]], out of which at least a few should be the correct size and shape) which made smaller flakes up to {{cvt|20|g}} in weight and {{cvt|40|mm}} in length;
*the late stage above Layer 5 typified by even smaller flakes made with harder and higher quality quartz and flint among other cobble.<ref name=Wu1983/> Quartz had to be collected some distance from the cave, at local [[granite]] outcrops by the hills and riverbed.<ref name=Yang2014/><ref name=Wu1983>{{cite journal |first1=R. |last1=Wu |first2=S. |last2=Lin |year=1983 |title=Peking Man |journal=[[Scientific American]] |volume=248 |issue=6 |pages=92–93 |jstor=24968922 |doi=10.1038/scientificamerican0683-86 |bibcode=1983SciAm.248f..86R}}</ref>
These techniques produced unstandardised tools,<ref name=Shelach2015/> and Binford was skeptical of any evidence of cultural evolution at all.<ref name=Binford1985/>

In the early 1960s, between the [[Great Leap Forward]] and the Cultural Revolution, there was a debate over whether Peking Man was the first human species to manufacture tools. The argument centred around whether Zhoukoudian tools were the most primitive and therefore the earliest tools (i.e., Peking Man is the most ancient human) championed by Pei, or if there were even more primitive and as of yet undiscovered tools (i.e., Peking Man is not the most ancient human) championed by Jia.{{sfn|Schamlzer|2008|loc=pp. 192–196}} In Western circles, Leakey had already reported an apparent pebble [[industry (archaeology)|industry]] in [[Olduvai Gorge]], Tanzania, in 1931, the first hard (albeit, controversial) evidence of a culture more primitive than the Acheulean. [[Radiometric dating]] in the 1960s established the [[Oldowan]] as the oldest known culture, at 1.8&nbsp;million years old.<ref>{{cite journal |first=I. |last=de la Torre |year=2016 |title=The origins of the Acheulean: past and present perspectives on a major transition in human evolution |journal=[[Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B]] |volume=371 |issue=1698 |doi=10.1098/rstb.2015.0245 |pmid=27298475 |pmc=4920301}}</ref>{{efn-num|Oldowan tools dating to 2.6 million years ago were reported in 2003.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Semaw |first1=S. |last2=Rogers |first2=M. J. |last3=Quade |first3=J. |last4=Renne |first4=P. R. |last5=Butler |first5=R. F. |last6=Domínguez-Rodrigo |first6=M. |last7=Stout |first7=D. |last8=Hart |first8=W. S. |last9=Pickering |first9=T. |display-authors=etal |year=2003 |title=2.6-Million-year-old stone tools and associated bones from OGS-6 and OGS-7, Gona, Afar, Ethiopia |journal=[[Journal of Human Evolution]] |volume=45 |issue=2 |pages=169–177 |doi=10.1016/S0047-2484(03)00093-9 |pmid=14529651 |bibcode=2003JHumE..45..169S}}</ref> An ostensible industry dating to 3.3 million years ago, the [[Lomekwi]]an, was proposed in 2015.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Harmand |first1=S. |title=3.3-million-year-old stone tools from Lomekwi 3, West Turkana, Kenya |journal=[[Nature (journal)|Nature]] |date=2015 |volume=521 |issue=7552 |pages=310–315 |doi=10.1038/nature14464 |display-authors=etal |pmid=25993961 |bibcode=2015Natur.521..310H |s2cid=1207285}}</ref>}}

Productive contemporaneous Chinese stone tool sites include [[Xiaochangliang]] (similar to Zhoukoudian), [[Mount Jigong]], [[Bose Basin]] (which produced large tools often in excess of 10&nbsp;cm, or&nbsp;4 in), Jinniushan, [[Dingcun]], and Panxian Dadong.<ref name=Shelach2015>{{cite book |first=G. |last=Shelach-Lavi |year=2015 |chapter=Before Cultivation: Human Origins and the Incipient Development of Human Culture in China |title=The Archaeology of Early China: from Prehistory to the Han Dynasty |publisher=Cambridge University Press |pages=27–33 |doi=10.1017/CBO9781139022682.003 |isbn=978-0-521-14525-1}}</ref>

===Fire===
{{main|Control of fire by early humans}}
[[File:Ash layer of the ape hall, Peking Man Site.JPG|thumb|Possible ash layer at Zhoukoudian]]
In 1929, Pei oversaw the excavation of Quartz Horizon 2 (Layer 7, Locus G) of Zhoukoudian, and reported burned bones and stones, ash, and [[redbud]] charcoal, which was interpreted as evidence of early fire usage by Peking Man. The evidence was widely accepted. Further excavation in 1935 of Layers 4–5 revealed more burned stones, ash, and [[Celtis|hackberry]] seeds.<ref name=Zhong2013/> Ash was deposited in horizontal and vertical patches, reminiscent of [[hearth]]s.<ref name=Boaz2001/>

In 1985, Binford and Ho doubted Peking Man actually inhabited Zhoukoudian, and asserted the material was burned by naturally occurring fires fuelled by guano.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Binford |first1=L. R. |author1-link=Lewis Binford |last2=Ho |first2=C. K. |year=1985 |title=Taphonomy at a distance: Zhoukoudian, 'the cave home of Beijing Man?' |journal=[[Current Anthropology]] |volume=26 |pages=413–442 |doi=10.1086/203303 |s2cid=147164100}}</ref> In 1986, Binford interpreted burned horse teeth as evidence of horse-head roasting.<ref name=Binford1986>{{cite journal |last1=Binford |first1=L. R. |author1-link=Lewis Binford |last2=Stone |first2=N. M. |year=1986 |title=Zhoukoudian: a closer look |journal=[[Current Anthropology]] |volume=27 |pages=453–475 |doi=10.1086/203469 |s2cid=83715445}}</ref> In 1998, Weiner, Goldberg, and colleagues found no evidence of hearths or [[silicon|siliceous]] [[aggregate (geology)|aggregates]] (silicon particles, which form during [[combustion]]) in Layers 1 or 10; they therefore concluded the burned material was simply washed into the cave rather than being burned in the cave.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Weiner |first1=S. |last2=Xu |first2=Q. |last3=Goldberg |first3=P. |display-authors=et al. |year=1998 |title=Evidence for the use of fire at Zhoukoudian, China |journal=[[Science (journal)|Science]] |volume=281 |issue=5374 |pages=251–253 |doi=10.1126/science.281.5374.251 |pmid=9657718 |bibcode=1998Sci...281..251W}}</ref> The IVPP immediately responded, and, in 1999, Wu Xinzhi argued that Weiner's data was too limited to reach such conclusions.<ref name=Zhong2013/> In 2001, Goldberg, Weiner, and colleagues concluded the ash layers are reworked loessic [[silt]]s, and that blackened [[carbon]]-rich sediments that have been traditionally interpreted as charcoal are instead deposits of [[organic matter]] left to decompose in [[standing water]]. That is, there is no evidence of ash or fire at all.<ref name=Goldberg2001>{{cite journal |first1=P. |last1=Goldberg |first2=S. |last2=Weiner |first3=O. |last3=Bar-Yosef |first4=Q. |last4=Xu |first5=J. |last5=Liu |year=2001 |title=Site formation processes at Zhoukoudian, China |journal=[[Journal of Human Evolution]] |volume=41 |issue=5 |pages=483–530 |doi=10.1006/jhev.2001.0498 |pmid=11681863 |bibcode=2001JHumE..41..483G}}</ref>

In 2004, Shen and colleagues reported evidence of a massive fire at Layer 10—ostensibly as old as 770,000 years ago, during a glacial period—and asserted Peking Man needed to control fire so far back in time in order to survive such cold conditions. In 2014, the Chinese anthropologist Zhong Maohua and colleagues reported elements associated with siliceous aggregates in Layers 4 and 6, and they also doubted the validity of Weiner's analysis of Layer 10.<ref name=Zhong2013>{{cite journal |last1=Zhong |first1=M. |last2=Shi |first2=C. |display-authors=et al. |year=2013 |title=On the possible use of fire by ''Homo erectus'' at Zhoukoudian, China |journal=[[Science Bulletin|Chinese Science Bulletin]] |volume=59 |issue=3 |pages=335–343 |doi=10.1007/s11434-013-0061-0 |s2cid=93590269}}</ref> Similarly, in 2017, Gao and colleagues reported "clear-cut evidence of fire usage" in Layer 4 with some evidence of man-made hearths which, based on [[magnetic susceptibility]] and colour, may have been heated to over {{cvt|700|C|sigfig=2}}.<ref name=Gao2017>{{cite journal |first1=X. |last1=Gao |first2=S. |last2=Zhang |first3=Y. |last3=Zhang |first4=F. |last4=Chen |year=2017 |title=Evidence of Hominin Use and Maintenance of Fire at Zhoukoudian |journal=[[Current Anthropology]] |volume=58 |issue=S16 |pages=S267–S277 |doi=10.1086/692501 |s2cid=164616520 |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317987720}}</ref> In 2022, Huang and colleagues also determined that at least 15 bones from Layer 4 (based on colour) were heated to above {{cvt|600|C|sigfig=2}} inside the cave, consistent with a campfire (or a prolonged wildfire, which they considered less likely inside a cave).<ref name=Huang2022>{{cite journal |first1=C. |last1=Huang |first2=J. |last2=Li |first3=X. |last3=Gao |year=2022 |title=Evidence of Fire Use by ''Homo erectus pekinensis'': An XRD Study of Archaeological Bones From Zhoukoudian Locality 1, China |journal=[[Frontiers Media|Frontiers in Earth Science]] |volume=9 |article-number=811319 |doi=10.3389/feart.2021.811319 |doi-access=free |bibcode=2022FrEaS...9.1410H}}</ref>

Elsewhere, evidence of fire usage is scarce in the archaeological record until 300,000 to 400,000 years ago, which is generally interpreted as fire not being an integral part of life until this time, either because they could not create or well-maintain it.<ref>{{cite journal |first1=W. |last1=Roebroekes |first2=P. |last2=Villa |year=2011 |title=On the earliest evidence for habitual use of fire in Europe |journal=[[Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]] |volume=108 |issue=13 |pages=5209–5214 |doi=10.1073/pnas.1018116108 |pmid=21402905 |pmc=3069174 |bibcode=2011PNAS..108.5209R |doi-access=free}}</ref>

==See also==
* ''[[Gigantopithecus]]''
* ''[[Homo longi]]''
* [[Peopling of China]]
* [[Prehistory of China]]
* [[Solo Man]]

==Notes==
{{notelist-num}}

==References==
{{Reflist|30em}}

==Sources==
{{refbegin}}
* {{cite book |last=Aczel |first=A. D. |title=The Jesuit and the Skull: Teilhard de Chardin, Evolution, and the Search for Peking Man |year=2007 |publisher=Riverhead Books |isbn=978-1-59448-956-3}}
* {{cite book |last1=Boaz |first1=N. T. |last2=Ciochon |first2=R. |author2-link=Russell Ciochon |year=2004 |title=Dragon Bone Hill: An Ice-Age Saga of Homo erectus |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-803488-9}}
* {{cite book |last=Frängsmyr |first=Tore |contribution=Peking Man: New Light on an Old Discovery |title=A Master of Science History: Essays in Honor of Charles Coulston Gillispie |url=https://archive.org/details/mastersciencehis00buch |url-access=limited |year=2012 |editor-last=Buchwald |editor-first=Jed Z. |pages=[https://archive.org/details/mastersciencehis00buch/page/n69 49]–62 |publisher=Springer |isbn=978-94-007-2627-7}}
* {{cite book |last1=Jia |first1=L. |author-link=Jia Lanpo |last2=Huang |first2=W. |title=The Story of Peking Man: From Archaeology to Mystery |url=https://archive.org/details/storyofpekingman0000jial |url-access=registration |year=1990 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-585188-5}}
* {{cite book |last=Schmalzer |first=S. |url=https://archive.org/details/peoplespekingman0000schm |title=The People's Peking Man: Popular Science and Human Identity in Twentieth-Century China |year=2008 |publisher=[[University of Chicago Press]] |doi=10.7208/chicago/9780226738611.001.0001 |ref={{harvid|Schamlzer|2008}} |isbn=978-0-226-73860-4}}
* {{cite book |last=Weidenreich |first=F. |author-link=Franz Weidenreich |title=The Skull of Sinanthropus pekinensis; A Comparative Study on a Primitive Hominid Skull |year=1943 |url=https://archive.org/details/TheSkullOfSinanthropusPekinensisAComparativeStudyOnAPrimitive |publisher=Geological Survey of China}}
* {{cite book |first=F. |last=Weidenreich |author-link=Franz Weidenreich |year=1941 |title=The Extremity Bones of ''Sinanthropus pekinensis'' |publisher=Geological survey of China |url=https://1lib.us/book/2593506/14ab2c?id=2593506&secret=14ab2c}}
{{refend}}

==External links==
{{Commons category|Peking Man}}
* [https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/449/ UNESCO Peking Man Site at Zhoukoudian]
* {{usurped|1=[https://web.archive.org/web/20091007183558/http://www.modernhumanorigins.net/zhoukoudian12.html Peking Man fossils from Zhoukoudian]}}
* [http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-evolution-timeline-interactive Human Timeline (Interactive)] – [[Smithsonian]], [[National Museum of Natural History]] (August 2016).
{{Human Evolution}}
{{Prehistoric Asia}}
{{Prehistoric technology}}
{{Coord|39.733|N|115.917|E|format=dms|display=title|source:eswiki}}
{{Taxonbar|from=Q45931}}

[[Category:Archaeology of China]]
[[Category:Early species of Homo]]
[[Category:Pleistocene]]
[[Category:Pleistocene mammals of Asia]]
[[Category:Prehistoric China]]
[[Category:Mammals of China]]
[[Category:Homo erectus fossils]]
[[Category:History of Beijing]]
[[Category:Fossil taxa described in 1927]]
[[Category:1927 archaeological discoveries]]
[[Category:Taxa named by Davidson Black]]