ZHOUKOUDIAN ( CHOUKOUTIEK): LOWER CA~E 547
resulting in general agreement that the Locality 1 ho-
minids date from about 460-230 Ka. However, the lat-
est ESR dates, announced by Griin et al. (1997) on
large mammal teeth from several layers, suggest that
these dates should be revised backward to a range of
about 550-300 Ka.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT
Huge quantities of artifacts and debitage, mostly in
quartz, were collected from Locality 1 layers 1-13.
The artifacts are of Mode 1 type: there are few, if any,
bifacially worked implements, and standardization is
poor (e.g., descriptions of Teilhard de Chardin and
Pei, 1932). Weidenreich (e.g., 1939) argued that the
fragmentary nature of the human remains from Lo-
cality 1 resulted from cannibalistic activities, but this
interpretation is no longer in vogue. It has also been
denied that the numerous broken mammal bones
from the site represent hominid food remains (Bin-
ford and Ho, 1985); hyenas are currently the favored
taphonomic agent. Weiner et al. (1998) have recently
examined blackened sediments in Levels 4 and 10
that were claimed to represent ash deposits from do-
mestic fires, and have shown that no ash is actually
present. Some bones do appear to show discoloration
due to burning, but there is no evidence that such
burning was done in situ.
PREVIOUS DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES
Black (1927) created the new hominid genus and
species Sinanthropus pekinensis for the Locality 1 ho-
minids before anything but isolated teeth had been
found. Once more complete materials started coming
in, it became evident that here was something very
similar to Pithecanthropus (now Homo) erectus from
Java (e.g., Boule, 1929). To confuse matters, however,
Weidenreich (e.g., 1936a,b, 1937, 1943) continued
using the name Sinanthropus, while apparently regard-
ing Peking Man as a primitive variant of Homo sapiens
(see discussion by Wolpoff and Caspari, 1997). In
recent years, in contrast, with the exception of those
who reject the notion of Homo erectus altogether (e.g.,
Wolpoff et al., 1994), the quite homogeneous Zhouk-
oudian Locality 1 assemblage has been more or less
universally regarded as the classic example of Asian
Homo erectus. Nonetheless, Schwartz and Tattersall
(2000) have pointed to various cranial details in which
the Zhoukoudian specimens depart from the classic
Homo erectus fossils from Trinil and Sangiran. Hol-loway (2000) summarizes cranial capacities as follows:
ZKD 11: 1030 ml; 111: 915 ml; V 1140 ml; VI:
850 ml; X 1225 ml; XI: 1015 ml; XI: 1030 ml.MORPHOLOGY
The following description is based on casts in the
American Museum of Natural History, with the excep-
tion of the 1959 and 1966 original specimens housed in
the IVPP, Beijing.
A large collection of broken hominid crania and
other fragments (see below). Most were lost in 1941;
available original specimens from the site are described
separately from those now represented only by casts.Original Specimens in IVPP, Beijing
Surviving original specimens consist of a damaged
frontal with part of greater wing of sphenoid attached
[G-1-1; PA 109 (l)]; a partial (mostly R) occipital
with attendant posterior portion of parietal, extending
on R down to parietomastoid suture [PA 109 (2)];
also a partial mandible with both corpora and part of
R ramus [G-2-1, PA.102 or 63.7091.
G-1-1 Frontal. Moderately but not hugely thick
boned frontal, with thick inner and outer tables, some-
what reconstructed. Moderate frontal dome situated
well behind supraorbital and glabellar regions. In
profile, frontal would probably have become more
horizontal as it approached glabella (thus neurocranium
was probably low). In coronal section, frontal is wide
and not strongly curved, with no sign of a frontal keel.
Seen from above, supraorbital margins retreat mini-
mally from the broad, flat glabellar region. Supraorbital
margins distend slightly forward but primarily upward,
creating moderate posttoral sulci behind. Better
preserved L posttoral sulcus shallow, sharply indented
only just behind torus. As preserved on the L, superior
margin of moderately s/i tall and smoothly curved
supraorbital torus curves flows continuously up and
around from flat supraorbital roof. Postglabellar region
poorly excavated. As also preserved on the L,
supraorbital margin essentially uniformly thick s/i from
lateral margin across most of orbit. On both sides,
supraorbital torus terminates inferiorly at an obliquely
oriented supraorbital notch located at lateral extremity
of the extraordinarily superiorly wide interorbital region.
As better preserved on the L, a poorly defined temporal
line runs posteriorly midway up back of torus, then
slopes gently back. Region of nasion apparently lay not
too far below superior orbital margins. Preserved