Is there any evidence that Homo Erectus use a spoken language?

Question

Hello. I was studying of Homo Erectus and I suddenly wondered if Homo Erectus really use a spoken language

like teacher said. I tried to search for the evidence in Internet

but I couldnt find it. Thats why I am asking of it now.

Is there any evidence that Homo Erectus use a spoken language? I need your help. Thanks. :)

Answer 1

USED, yes...They are now extinct, as of about 27,000 years ago!

A 1.7 million year old H.erectus, was found with evidence of a hyoid bone at the base of the throat, which functions in the opening and closing of the speech canal, to the larynx (voicebox)...

Additionally, H.erectus were meat-eaters who hunted, and hunting requires some amount of speech communication/coordination between the hunting party...

H.ergaster (1.9 million years BP/Before Present) were also omniverous, but could have just been scavengers who did not hunt, but it's presumed they had hyoid bones, or at least the final stages of the hominin hyoid bone were being naturally selected during this period (1.7-1.9 million years BP), as hominins were becoming fond of meat, which was also contributing to the increased size of their brain...

Answer 2

Thank you for asking.

I take it for granted they had a spoken language to some degree because I can't think of any other primate past or present that were/are unable to make sounds which were/are used for communicating amongst their own species, therefore, I don't see why or how come Homo Erectus would be exempt?  Since the vast majority of species of the animal kingdom has a form of communicative speech by way of making sounds I would expect Homo Erectus would be no different in this regards.  Then again, with a name like "Homo" & "Erectus", and if they were homophobic then I can surely comprehend as a hetero where they might not have developed a spoken language for fear that saying “hi” to the next person could have been misinterpreted as a come-on, but not that there's anything wrong with that, I'm just saying, I dunno so why do you ask?

Thank you for asking.  Tsark out.

Answer 3

Well, it might just be all a matter of a couple of developments required for sounds made by animals.

The larynx must develop to allow a complex assortment of various sounds, our cousin s,the modern Ape, do not have such a laryngeal development.

Then the brain must develop in order to use the sound capability.

If some scientists are correct, and like all such informed speculation based upon accumulated knowledge, other scientists question the position, geographical changes in East Africa about 3 1/2 million years ago forced our hominid ancestors out of the disappearing trees and onto the ground and, two legs. This posture may have created a skull shape that allowed enhanced speech capabilities.

Did our ancestors, just-out-of-the-trees, have language? Certainly not.  But, they may have been the first to delivered the necessary proto-changes to our physical make up to allow some sort of sound capability to eventually develop.

Language, in my view, almost certainly began with grunts, yelps and hand and arm movements.

Old erectus, there were various versions of the species over the time of about 2.6 million and as late as 400,000 years ago, made some important advances but language was probably not one of them!

I might point out that it's been said that there is a wide gulf of ability separating the speaking ability of ancient man and Shakespeare. This gulf, though very wide, is not so wide as that between President Bush and the average American.  lol

Answer 4

Modern humans and Neanderthals both possessed a gene called FOXP2, which means it was most likely present in the homo Erectus gene pool before the two species separated. It's a gene that makes speech possible, so Homo Erectus probably could speak.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/19/scienc...

Answer 5

Its now been determined that Homo Erectus, like the Neanderthal, was a dead end as is not related to modern humans.  Maybe his inability to speak (if indeed he couldn't) was one of the reasons why.

Answer 6

I appreciated Ed's answer.  Of course a single gene is not responsible for speech in my opinion anyway.  Homo erectus has a narrow canal for the spinal nerve that serves muscle function of the lungs and intercostals which is vital to our speech.  Anthropologist use this to suggest that H. erectus couldn't speak.  This is nonsense as far as I am concerned.  It simply means that they didn't speak like we do.  Their brain's did develop significantly and I think language and tool use may very well have been why.  I read a book, Becoming Human, by Dr. Ian Tattersall.  I was dumbfounded when I read that he believed language developed 50,000 years ago after the appearance of symbollic artifacts in the fossil record.  Paleoanthropology is a subject that has numerous theories that are often made without good justification.  There are too many that want to make a name for themselves by suggesting that their evidence points to the first speach, or the first tool, or the oldest ancestor, etc.  and the media runs with the most outrageous of these theories.  The Out of Africa theory, in my opinion, is a good example of this.

Also I would like to point out that H. erectus before a million years ago is significantly different than H. erectus after a million years ago.

Answer 7

he left me a voice mail last week

Answer 8

There isn't conclusive evidence one way or the other.

Its likely that there was at least some form of oral communication; Lions, tigers & bears (oh my!) communicate through sounds they make.

For a spoken language in the way you might be thinking of it, one thing was essential.  Sweat glands.

Sounds silly, but if you are panting to keep cool- its hard to have enough mouth time to try to develop a spoken language aside from grunts.

And I can't recall if sweat glands had developed in Homo Erectus, though I want to say they had.

Answer 9

This is a good conflicting opinion to my own: http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/homoerect...    

Because H erectus is basically identical below the neck to H. Sapien,  H. ergaster & other more modern versions of H. erectus existed in Asia we know they had the basic equipment to produce speech.  The slightly smaller spinal canal leads some to think they never developed the ability for complex speech... however the canal is within H sapien deviations.

Because brains & language do not leave fossiles, it is doubtful this argument will ever be resolved.  Because H. erectus was so successful (~2 million yrs of existance) I suspect they had some form of communication & possibly as good as H sapiens.  I also suspect they contributed some genes to the H sapien line that migrated out of Africa.  See "neandertal gene introgression" for some evidence indicating gene intergression from a more ancient line of human.

Jan: Sorry, but that is only "suspected" by the "out of Africa replacement" hypothesis.  Having reviewed the evidence, I am awaiting the complete sequencing of the Neandertal Genome to determine if indeed any gene introgression from neandertal actually happened.  The "replacement" crowd is responsible for a lot of misinformation & "basic rumors" intended to support their version of evolution.

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/evol...  

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/fu...

Answer 10

My Homo Erectus is real big.

Answer 11

No, there is no evidence that they did. There's no evidence that they didn't, either. But I believe they have never found a Homo erectus hyoid bone, which is a bone in the throat that is vital for speech.

Answer 12

.Well my friend, you have to ask yourself first of all, Can Apes talk ?

Answer 13

Contrary to popular belief, a hyiod bone was found, there is evidence that one of these very small bones exist. That doesn't mean they spoke like us.