Human taxonomic diversity in the pleistocene: Does Homo erectus represent multiple hominid species?

Recently, nomina such as “Homo heidelbergensis” and “H. ergaster” have been resurrected to refer to fossil hominids that are perceived to be specifically distinct from Homo sapiens and Homo erectus. This results in a later human fossil record that is nearly as speciose as that documenting the earlier history of the family Hominidae. However, it is agreed that there remains only one extant hominid species: H. sapiens. Has human taxonomic diversity been significantly pruned over the last few hundred millennia, or have the number of taxa been seriously overestimated? To answer this question, the following null hypothesis is tested: polytypism was established relatively early and the species H. erectus can accommodate all spatio-temporal variation from ca. 1.7 to 0.5 Ma. A disproof of this hypothesis would suggest that modern human polytypism is a very recent phenomenon and that speciation throughout the course of human evolution was the norm and not the exception. Cranial variation in a taxonomically mixed sample of fossil hominids, and in a modern human sample, is analyzed with regard to the variation present in the fossils attributed to H. erectus. The data are examined using both univariate (coefficient of variation) and multivariate (determinant) analyses. Employing randomization methodology to offset the small size and non-normal distribution of the fossil samples, the CV and determinant results reveal a pattern and degree of variation in H. erectus that most closely approximates that of the single species H. sapiens. It is therefore concluded that the null hypothesis cannot be rejected. © 1993 Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

ESR and U-series analyses of teeth from the palaeoanthropological site of Hexian, Anhui Province, China

ESR and U-series analyses of teeth from the palaeoanthropological site of Hexian which containedHomo erectusremains, illustrate the limited effectiveness of stand-alone ESR and U-series age estimates on faunal materials. The problem lies in the unknown U-uptake history causing very large uncertainties in the age results of both techniques. This study demonstrates the particular strength that lies in the integration of ESR and U-series dating analyses allowing the estimation of the U-uptake history. We obtained a combined ESR/U-series age estimate of 412±25 ka (average of six analyses on two teeth). This pinpoints the deposition of the faunal remains to the time of the transition between oxygen isotope stages 12 and 11. This is in agreement with the faunal composition which show a mixture of cold adapted northern mammals and more subtropical-tropical southern elements. The age also implies that the advanced HexianHomo erectusoccurred at a similar time as the less advancedHomo erectusspecimens at Locality 1 at Zhoukoudian (LI-LIII).     

A taxonomy of Javan hominid mandibles

The mandibular remains from Java have been controversial since the discovery of Kedung Brubus (Mandible A) in 1890. These mandibles, now called Kedung Brubus, and Sangiran 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 22, have been assigned to a wide variety of taxa. It is now commonly accepted that all seven mandibles can be accommodated in a single species;Homo erectus. A recent assessment to this effect was performed by Kramer (1989). Utilizing powerful statistical techniques he distinguished the Sangiran mandibles from the robust australopithecines and placed them all withinH. erectus. The jaws are not a homogeneous sample. Morphologically they are a mixture ofAustralopithecus africanus («Homo habilis») males (5,6), anA. africanus («H. habilis») female (8),H. erectus males (1,9), and aH. erectus female (22) and Kedung Brubus. The dating of these fossils remains unresolved, with a minimum date of 500,000 ya and a maximum of 1.6 mya. Any of the mandibles may have been transported and secondarily redeposited. If the jaws are allH. erectus then they have a sexual dimorphism exceeding that of modern gorillas. When Kedung Brubus is included with those from Sangiran the range of size dimorphism is well beyond that known for any primate, thus more than one species may be invloved. This dimorphism is found inA. africanus («H. habilis») but not inH. erectus samples anywhere else in the world. TheH. erectus skulls found in Java correspond with mandibles 1, 9, and 22. It is not likely that the largest mandible (6) is aH. erectus, because the skull would have had heavy temporal lines and probably a sagittal crest, neither of which is found on anyH. erectus specimen. But, a cranium has been found which morphologically matches the Sangiran 6 mandible. A double sagittal crest is present on Sangiran 31 a reported «Meganthropus» specimen.     

Sangiran 5,(“Pithecanthropus dubius”), homo erectus, “Meganthropus,” orPongo?

There are now eleven known mandibular remains from the Lower and Middle Pleistocene of Java, all but one being from the Sangiran site. All of these have been assigned toHomo erectus by most workers, while others have suggested as many as four different hominoid taxa. The author finds that the jaws cannot be a homogeneous sample. Morphologically, they are a mixture of undoubtedH. erectus, “H. meganthropus,” and possibly a pongid. If the jaws are allH. erectus then they have a sexual dimorphism exceeding that of modern gorillas. The case of“Pithecanthropus dubius” (Sangiran 5) is even less certain; even its hominid status is disputed. If it is indeedHomo it must be placed with the other“H. meganthropus” specimens. Its size and morphology are well beyond the known range anyH. erectus.     

The Indonesian Homo erectus brain endocasts revisited

New brain endocast reconstructions of Homo erectus discoveries from Indonesia since 1963 (H. erectus VI, 1963; VII, 1965; VIII, 1969) have been made and their volumes determined. In addition, older discoveries (H. erectus I, 1891; II, 1937; IV, 1937–38) have been reendocast and reconstructed, and have yielded volumes considerably different from those previously published. This is particularly so in the case of Dubois's original discovery, which yields a volume of 940 ml rather than the widely quoted volume of 750 ml. In addition, a number of morphological observations regarding hemispheric asymmetries (petalias) are provided, which suggest a condition similar to modern Homo sapiens.     

Was Homo erectus responsible for the hand-axe culture?

This paper reviews the evidence from Africa, Asia and Europe of the cultural associations of Middle Pleistocene hominids, as well as the hominid skeletal associations of hand-axe remains.The author points out that it is possible to make a good argument—from the evidence of Steinheim, Kanjera and Swanscombe—that the hand-axes at these sites were made by Homo sapiens. On the other hand, on the basis of Fontéchevade and Vértesszöllös, it could be claimed that Middle Pleistocene Homo sapiens was responsible for primitive flake and chopper cultures. The evidence from Java is negative while that from China is directly opposed to the view that Homo erectus made hand-axes. Only from Ternifine in Algeria and Olduvai in Tanzania is there suggestive evidence that Homo erectus in those areas might have been responsible for the hand-axe culture. Thus, it is not possible at present to make any categorical statements as to the makers of either the great hand-axe culture or the flake and chopper culture, during Middle Pleistocene times.     

Origin of the Genus <Emphasis Type="Italic">Homo</Emphasis>

The origin of the genus Homo in Africa signals the beginning of the shift from increasingly bipedal apes to primitive, large-brained, stone tool-making, meat-eaters that traveled far and wide. This early part of the human genus is represented by three species: Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, and Homo erectus. H. habilis is known for retaining primitive features that link it to australopiths and for being the first stone tool makers. Little is known about H. rudolfensis except that it had a relatively large brain and large teeth compared to H. habilis and that it overlapped in time and space with other early Homo. Our understanding of the paleobiology and evolution of the larger-brained H. erectus is enhanced due to its rich fossil record. H. erectus was the first obligate, fully committed biped, and with a body adapted for modern striding locomotion, it was also the first in the human lineage to disperse outside of Africa. The early members of the genus Homo are the first to tip the scale from the more apish side of our evolutionary history toward the more human one.     

Developmental age and taxonomic affinity of the Mojokerto child,Java, Indonesia

An increasing number of claims place hominids outside Africa and deep in Southeast Asia at about the same time that Homo erectus first appears in Africa. The most complete of the early specimens is the partial child's calvaria from Mojokerto (Perning I), Java, Indonesia. Discovered in 1936, the child has been assigned to Australopithecus and multiple species of Homo, including H. modjokertensis, and given developmental ages ranging from 1–8 years. This study systematically assesses Mojokerto relative to modern human and fossil hominid growth series and relative to adult fossil hominids. Cranial base and vault comparisons between Mojokerto and H. sapiens sapiens (Hss) (n = 56), Neandertal (n = 4), and H. erectus (n = 4) juveniles suggest a developmental age range between 4 and 6 years. This range is based in part on new standards for assessing the relative development of the glenoid fossa. Regression analyses of vault arcs and chords indicate that H. erectus juveniles have more rounded frontals and less angulated occipitals than their adult counterparts, whereas Hss juveniles do not show these differences relative to adults. The growth of the cranial superstructures and face appear critical to creating differences in vault contours between H. erectus and Hss. In comparison with adult H. erectus and early Homo (n = 27) and adult Hss (n = 179), the Mojokerto child is best considered a juvenile H. erectus on the basis of synapomorphies of the cranial vault, particularly a metopic eminence and occipital torus, as well as a suite of characters that describe but do not define H. erectus, including obelion depression, supratoral gutter, postorbital constriction, mastoid fissure, lack of sphenoid contribution to glenoid fossa, and length and breadth ratios of the temporomandibular joint. Mojokerto is similar to other juvenile H. erectus in the degree of development of its cranial superstructures and its vault contours relative to adult Indonesian specimens. The synapomorphies which Mojokerto shares with H. erectus are often considered autapomorphies of Asian H. erectus and confirm the early establishment and long-term continuity of the Asian H. erectus bauplan. This continuity does not, however, necessarily reflect on the pattern of origin of modern humans in the region. Am J Phys Anthropol 102:497–514, 1997. © 1997 Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

Les restes humains du Pliocène final et du début du Pléistocène inférieur de Dmanissi, Géorgie (1991-2000). I - Les crânes, D 2280, D 2282, D 2700

Since 1991, several human remains: 5 skulls, 4 mandibles and numerous postcranial fragments have been discovered on the Dmanissi prehistoric open site. It is an exceptional discovery due to the stratigraphical, paleontological and cultural context, which is well known and accurately well dated (Upper Pliocene-Early Pleistocene). Most of the hominids discovered in the level V and VI are dated between 1.81 My (level V) and 1.77 My (level VI) corresponding to a 40,000 years period. The assemblage of fossil human remains is peculiar due to (1) the quality of bone representation (distinct parts of the skeleton are preserved: skull, thorax, upper and lower limbs, belt), (2) the high degree of bone preservation (skulls and long bones are entire, rarely broken or crushed), (3) the diversity age at death estimated for each of the 5 individuals (3 adults, 1 young adult, 1 adolescent of both sexes). The study dealing with the first discovered mandibles and skulls has begun with Leo Gabounia since 1991 and represents several interests: 1) a paleoanthropological interest: the Dmanissi skulls are characterized by their small size; they are short, narrow and low. The skullcaps are less elevated than those of the Homo erectus group and even those of Homo ergaster. They are more elevated than those of Homo habilis and very close to Homo rudolfensis. The elevation and the transversal development of the middle part of the skull in the parietotemporal region are more significant: the Dmanissi specimens are intermediate between Homo habilis and Homo ergaster. In term of cranial capacity, a similar trend is observed. Generally speaking, the skull is slender. The vault is more flat than in Homo erectus, the frontal bone is less developed, divergent and the postorbital constriction is strong. The temporal bone is long, flat and the mastoid part is short. The upper part of the occipital bone is low and narrow. Crests are thin, less developed than in the Homo erectus group. The superior temporal crests are in a high position and a torus angularis is present on the adult-male specimen. The glenoid cavity is large with strong edges. The petrotympanic region is slender with a tympanic circle individualized and it shows a horizontal rotation in a posterior position, which is distinct from Homo erectus. The orthognathic trend of the face distinguishes the Dmanissi specimens from the early Pleistocene hominids (Homo habilis, Homo ergaster) and from the first Eurasian Homo erectus. Nevertheless, the subnasal region of the face is projected. The morphology of the mid-face, showing a developed pillar of the canine, an inframalar incurvation and an anterior position of the root of the zygomaticomaxillary crest, suggests strong masticatory stress. Considering the overall morphology, cranial and metrical features, the Dmanissi fossil skulls are intermediate to the Homo habilis-rudolfensis group and Homo ergaster while they are closer to the former and peculiarly to Homo rudolfensis (ER 1470). However, the Dmanissi fossil skulls are distinct from Homo rudolfensis by numerous features and among them: by their large maximum cranial width (Euryon-Euryon), the posterior rotation of their petrotympanic structure and the strong development of the pillar of their canine. Due to the gracility of their face, the narrowness of their occipital bone, and their cranial base pattern (mastoid region and petrotympanic structure), the Dmanissi fossil skulls are different from the Homo erectus group: 2) the abundance of the human fossils discovered in Dmanissi site provides information about the biodiversity of these hominids with the establishment of the morphological features related to either growth or sexual patterns: 3) compared to modern humans, the Dmanissi fossil skulls seem to follow a different growth pattern. The present study of the fossil skulls discovered is a pioneer step. Indeed, the Dmanissi site has yielded the oldest evidences of the first settlements in Eurasia, which were, until now, attributed to Homo erectus. The Dmanissi fossil skulls are close to the Homo habilis-rudolfensis African group. We attribute these hominids to Homo georgicus.     

Homo erectus—who,when and where: A survey

The state of information bearing on Homo erectus as developed since about 1960 is surveyed, with the resulting effects on problems. Definitions of H. erectus still rest on the Far Eastern samples (Chou-k'ou-tien/Java), and thus relate to late Lower to middle Middle Pleistocene material. Numerous important individual finds, however, have expanded the total: extension of the early and very early Sangiran material; very early to later in Africa, and relatively late in Europe. Datings remain uncertain or controversial within broad limits, but with some important successes and revisions. Discussion by authors of problems concerns degree of divergence among H. erectus populations and rate of evolutionary change; both appear relatively slight, but the data are inadequate for much present judgment. The apparent zone of transition to more advanced morphology (H. sapiens, sensu lato) by the late Middle Pleistocene better reflects signs of regional divergence. Some writers—not all—believe that even the earliest European fossils known (e.g., Petralona) had already advanced to a H. sapiens basic level, with later change in the direction of Neanderthals. A separate African phylum, from OH 9, is also suggested; recent Chinese finds may provide a third different post-erectus population before the Upper Pleistocene. Taxonomic expression of all this gives some problems.     

Variation among early Homo crania from Olduvai Gorge and the Koobi Fora region

Fossils recognized as early Homo were discovered first at Olduvai Gorge in 1959 and 1960. Teeth, skull parts and hand bones representing three individuals were found in Bed I, and more material followed from Bed I and lower Bed II. By 1964, L.S.B. Leakey, P.V. Tobias, and J.R. Napier were ready to name Homo habilis. But almost as soon as they had, there was confusion over the hypodigm of the new species. Tobias himself suggested that OH 13 resembles Homo erectus from Java, and he noted that OH 16 has teeth as large as those of Australopithecus. By the early 1970s, however, Tobias had put these thoughts behind him and returned to the opinion that all of the Olduvai remains are Homo habilis. At about this time, important discoveries began to flow from the Koobi Fora region in Kenya. To most observers, crania such as KNM-ER 1470 confirmed the presence of Homo in East Africa at an early date. Some of the other specimens were problematical. A.C. Walker and R.E. Leakey raised the possibility that larger skulls including KNM-ER 1470 differ significantly from smaller-brained, small-toothed individuals such as KNM-ER 1813. Other workers emphasized that there are differences of shape as well as size among the hominids from Koobi Fora. There is now substantial support for the view that in the Turkana and perhaps also in the Olduvai assemblages, there is more variation than would be expected among male and female conspecifics. One way to approach this question of sorting would be to compare all of the new fossils against the original material from Olduvai which was used to characterize Homo habilis in 1964. A problem is that the Olduvai remains are fragmentary, and none of them provides much information about vault form or facial structure. An alternative is to work first with the better crania, even if these are from other sites. I have elected to treat KNM-ER 1470 and KNM-ER 1813 as key individuals. Comparisons are based on discrete anatomy and measurements. Metric results are displayed with ratio diagrams, by which similarity in proportions for several skulls can be assessed in respect to a single specimen selected as a standard. Crania from Olduvai examined in this way are generally smaller than KNM-ER 1470, although OH 7 has a relatively long parietal. In the Koobi Fora assemblage, there is variation in brow thickness, frontal flattening and parietal shape relative to KNM-ER 1470. These comparisons are instructive, but vault proportions do not help much with the sorting process. Contrasts in the face are much more striking. Measurements treated in ratio diagrams show that both KNM-ER 1813 and OH 24 have relatively short faces with low cheek bones, small orbits and low nasal openings. Also, they display more projection of the midfacial region, just below the nose. This is not readily interpreted to be a female characteristic, since in most hominoid primates the females tend to have flatter lower faces than the males. The obvious size differences among these individuals have usually been interpreted as sex dimorphism, but, in fact, two taxa may be sampled at Olduvai and in the Turkana basin at the beginning of the Pleistocene. One large-brained group made up of KNM-ER 1470, several other Koobi Fora specimens, and probably OH 7, can be called Homo habilis. If these skulls go with femora such as KNM-ER 1481 and the KNM-ER3228 hip, then this species is close in postcranial anatomy to Homo erectus. The other taxon, including small-brained individuals such as KNM-ER 1813 and probably OH 13, seems also to be Homo rather than Australopithecus. If the OH 62 skeleton is part of this assemblage, then the small hominids have postcranial proportions unlike those of Homo erectus. However, it is too early to point unequivocally to one or the other of these groups as the ancestors of later humans. Both differ from Homo erectus in important ways, and both need to be better understood before we can map the earliest history of the Homo clade. © 1993 Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

Homo erectus: Ancestor or evolutionary side branch?

Controversies in paleoanthropology wax and wane, but substantial interest is currently focused on Homo erectus. This species has traditionally been regarded as a member in good standing of the human family, where it is placed as an evolutionary intermediate between earlier Homo habilis and later Homo sapiens. Recently, however, some workers have questioned whether the species exists at all. If its populations have been transformed slowly toward the modern condition, and if continuity with living people can be demonstrated in many geographic regions, then any separation of Homo erectus from Homo sapiens must be largely arbitrary. In that case, only one species should be recognized and this slowly changing lineage would have to be called Homo sapiens. Other paleontologists adopt a different view, arguing that Homo erectus is not only anatomically distinctive but also restricted in its geographic distribution. They claim that the fossils from Java and China are so specialized in appearance that they cannot lie in the mainstream of human evolution. Homo erectus, strictly defined as limited to the Far East, probably went extinct without issue. If so, more modern populations must have evolved from another source, perhaps one outside of Asia altogether.     

A morphometric and taxonomic assessment of a hominine femur from the lower member,Koobi Fora,Lake Turkana

Previous research by this author and others has indicated that species-level differentiation within the hominines can be detected in the femur. The femoral shaft of Homo erectus, relative to H. sapiens, demonstrates small anteroposterior diameters, a distally placed point of minimum shaft breadth, and increased cortical thickness resulting in medullary stenosis. This pattern has been identified in specimens from Choukoutien (I and IV), Olduvai (OH 28), and Lake Turkana (KNM ER 737). Findings reported here include anatomical comparisons and univariate and multivariate analyses based on external and internal shaft morphology. These results indicate that the femoral pattern characteristic of H. erectus can be identified in KNM ER 1481a recovered at Lake Turkana below the KBS tuff. Recent dating of that tuff indicates a date of ca. 1.8 mya, thereby yielding a date for KNM ER 1481a of ? 2.0 mya. Known H. erectus femora extend over a broad span and yet show very low, variability; this pronounced stasis would strongly suggest that, at least in this portion of the postcranium, H. erectus was in a period of profound morphological stasis.     

Cross-sectional morphology of the SK 82 and 97 proximal femora

Computed tomography scans of the proximal femoral shaft of the South African “robust” australopithecine, A. robustus, reveal a total morphological pattern that is similar to the specimen attributed to A. boisei in East Africa but unlike that of Homo erectus or modern human femora. Like femora attributed to H. erectus, SK 82 and 97 have very thick cortices, although they do not have the extreme increase in mediolateral buttressing that is so characteristic of H. erectus. And unlike H. erectus or modern humans, their femoral heads are very small relative to shaft strength. These features are consistent with both increased overall mechanical loading of the postcranial skeleton and a possibly slightly altered pattern of bipedal gait relative to that of H. erectus and modern humans. Am J Phys Anthropol 109:509–521, 1999. © 1999 Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

Cranial growth in Homo erectus: how credible are the Ngandong juveniles?

Confusion exists regarding the developmental ages of numerous Asian and southeast Asian Homo erectus fossils because of Weidenreich's contention that Pithecanthropus fused its sutures prematurely relative to H. sapiens. I reevaluate the cranial developmental ages of the Ngandong “juveniles” (2, 5, 8, 9) based on a series of indicators of youth (superstructure development, suture development/fusion, and cranial thickness) and cranial contours. The Ngandong juveniles are compared with H. sapiens adults (n = 281) and subadults (n = 81) and with Ngandong and other H. erectus adults (n = 20) and subadults (n = 4). Cranial contours are assessed using bivariate plots of arc vs. chord measurements. All indicators suggest that Ngandong 5 and 9 are adults, whereas Ngandong 8 is an older juvenile or young adult and Ngandong 2 is a juvenile with a developmental age range of greater than 6 and less than 11 years. In addition, adult cranial contours and the pattern of contour development are similar between Ngandong adults and other H. erectus adults. There is nothing in the cranial contour data to suggest that Ngandong is, despite a relatively large brain, transitional in vault shape between H. erectus and H. sapiens. Am J Phys Anthropol 108:223–236, 1999. © 1999 Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

Homo erectus brain sizes by subspecies

Homo erectus fossils can be divided into four zoogeographic zones that show different rates of endocranial expansion during the Pleistocene. When these are also grouped into three time levels, we find small increases from early to middle forms, and regularly greater increases from middle to late forms. These increases fit a regular pattern that also accomodates all archaic types, including Neandertals, as late subspecies ofH. erectus.     

Nacurrie 1: Mark of ancient Java, or a caring mother’s hands, in terminal Pleistocene Australia?

There has been a protracted debate over the evidence for intentional cranial modification in the terminal Pleistocene Australian crania from Kow Swamp and Coobool Creek. Resolution of this debate is crucial to interpretations of the significance of morphological variation within terminal Pleistocene-early Holocene Australian skeletal materials and claims of a regional evolutionary sequence linking Javan Homo erectus and Australian Homo sapiens. However, morphological comparisons of terminal Pleistocene and recent Australian crania are complicated by the significantly greater average body mass in the former. Raw and size-adjusted metric comparisons of the terminal Pleistocene skeleton from Nacurrie, south-eastern Australia, with modified and unmodified H. sapiens and H. erectus, identified a suite of traits in the frontal, parietal, and occipital bones associated with intentional modification of a neonate’s skull. These traits are also present in some of the crania from Kow Swamp and Coobool Creek, which are in close geographic proximity to Nacurrie, but not in unmodified H. sapiens or Javan H. erectus. Frontal bone morphology in H. erectus was distinct from all of the Australian H. sapiens samples. During the first six months of life, Nacurrie’s vault may have been shaped by his mother’s hands, rather than though the application of fixed bandages. Whether this behaviour persisted only for several generations, or hundreds of years, remains unknown. The reasons behind the shaping of Nacurrie’s head, aesthetics or otherwise, and why this cultural practice was adopted and subsequently discontinued, will always remain a matter of speculation.     

Fossil Homo femur from Berg Aukas,northern Namibia

The proximal half of a hominid femur was recovered from deep within a paleokarst feature at the Berg Aukas mine, northern Namibia. The femur is fully mineralized, but it is not possible to place it in geochrono logical context. It has a very large head, an exceptionally thick diaphyseal cortex, and a very low collodiaphyseal angle, which serve to differentiate it from Holocene homologues. The femur is not attributable to Australopithecus, Paranthropus, or early Homo (i.e., H. habilis sensu lato). Homo erectus femora have a relatively longer and AP flatter neck, and a shaft that exhibits less pilaster than the Berg Aukas specimen. Berg Aukas also differs from early modern femora in several features, including diaphyseal cortical thickness and the degree of subtrochanteric AP flattening. The massive diaphyseal cortex of Berg Aukas finds its closest similarity within archaic H. sapiens (e.g., Castel di Guido) and H. erectus (e.g., KNM-ER 736) samples. It has more cortical bone at midshaft than any other specimen, although relative cortical thickness and the asymmetry of its cross-sectional disposition at this level are comparable with those of other Pleistocene fem ora. The closest morphological comparisons with Berg Aukas are in archaic (i.e., Middle Pleistocene) H. sapiens and Neandertal samples. © 1995 Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

Réflexions sur l’Acheuléen d’Anatolie

The Anatolia occupies one of the main routes for the dispersal of Homo erectus into the Eurasia. The Acheulean bifaces found on each region of Anatolia are the most important evidences of this situation. This vast distribution of the Acheulean bifaces in Anatolia indicates that all of the Anatolia should stay in the Movius Line. This means that the Movius Line should be reexaminate. Recently, the fossil remains of Homo erectus found in Dmanisi (Georgia) and their very old dates around 1.8 million years put forward the importance of Anatolia one more time. Homo erectus who came in Anatolia by following the Levant Corridor might used the Anatolian bridge for passing to the Transcaucasia. If the well-preserved cave site on the line that expands from Hatay to Kars in Anatolia founds and excavates, it will prove additional information some problems about the Homo erectus movements and distribution of Acheulean Industrial Tradition in West Asia. This paper reviews the evidence for the Acheulean in Anatolia and discusses the distribution of Acheulean bifaces in Anatolia, generally found in open air site.