Editing Peking Man (section)

==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|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|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|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|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|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|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|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|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|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]]" in what is now Southeast Asia, 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 subsequent establishment of 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|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|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|authorlink=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.|authorlink=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|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|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|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 |page=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 |page=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 |page=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|''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%}}