The incomplete radius, ATD6-43, was estimated to have measured 257 mm (10.1 in).

It
is oddly long and straight for someone from so far north, reminiscent of the
proportions seen in early modern humans and many people from tropical populations.
This could be explained as retention of the ancestral long limbed tropical form, as
opposed to Neanderthals who evolved shorter limbs. This could also indicate a high
brachial index (radial to humeral length ratio). Compared to more recent human
species, the cross section of the radial shaft is rather round and gracile
throughout its length. Like archaic humans, the radial neck (near the elbow) is
long, giving more leverage to the biceps brachii. Like modern humans and H.
heidelbergensis, but unlike Neanderthals and more archaic hominins, the radial
tuberosity (a bony knob jutting out just below the radial neck) is anteriorly
placed (toward the front side when the arm is facing out).[5]

Like those of other archaic humans, the femur features a developed trochanteric
fossa and posterior crest. These traits are highly variable among modern human
populations. The two known kneecaps, ATD6-22 and ATD6-56, are subrectangular in
shape as opposed to the more common subtriangular, although rather narrow like
those of modern humans. They are quite small and thin, falling at the lower end for
modern human females. The apex of the kneecap (the area that does not join to
another bone) is not well developed, leaving little attachment for the patellar
tendon. The medial (toward the midline) facet and lateral (toward the sides) facet
for the knee joint are roughly the same size as each other in ATD6-56 and the
medial is larger in ATD6-22, whereas the lateral is commonly larger in modern
humans. The lateral facet encroaches onto a straight flat area as opposed to being
limited to a defined vastus notch, an infrequent condition among any human species.
[5]

The phalanges and metatarsals of the foot are comparable to those of later humans,
but the big toe bone is rather robust, which could be related to how H. antecessor
pushed off the ground. The ankle bone (talus) is exceptionally long and high as
well as the facet where it connects with the leg (the trochlea), which may be
related to how H. antecessor walked. The long trochlea caused a short neck of the
talus, which bridges the head of the talus connecting to the toes, and the body of
the talus connecting to the leg. This somewhat converges with the condition
exhibited in Neanderthals, which is generally explained as a response to a heavy
and robust body, to alleviate the consequently higher stress to the articular
cartilage in the ankle joint. This would also have permitted greater flexion.[29]

Growth rate

Bust of an H. antecessor child

Natural History Museum, London
In 2010 Castro and colleagues estimated that ATD6-112, represented by a permanent
upper and lower first molar, died between 5.3 and 6.6 years of age based on the
tooth formation rates in chimpanzees (lower estimate) and modern humans (upper).
The molars are hardly worn at all, which means the individual died soon after the
tooth erupted, and that first molar eruption occurred at roughly this age. The age
is within the range of variation of modern humans, and this developmental landmark
can debatably be correlated with life history. If the relation is true, H.
antecessor had a prolonged childhood, a characteristic of modern humans in which
significant cognitive development takes place.[31]

Pathology
The partial face ATD6-69 has an ectopic M3 (upper left third molar), where it
erupted improperly, and this caused the impaction of M2, where it was blocked from
erupting at all. Although impaction of M3 is rather common in modern humans, as
high as fifty percent in some populations, impaction of M2 is rare, as little as
0.08 to 2.3%. Impaction can lead to secondary lesions, such as dental cavities,
root resorption, or dentigerous or keratocysts.[32]
The mandible ATE9-1 exhibits severe dental attrition and abrasion of the tooth
crowns and bone resorption at the root, so much so that the root canals (the
sensitive interior) of the canines are exposed. The trauma is consistent with gum
disease due to overloading the teeth, such as by using the mouth as a third hand to
carry around items. A similar condition was also reported for the later Sima de los
Huesos remains also at the Sierra de Atapuerca site.[33]

The left knee bone ATD6-56 has a 4.7 mm × 15 mm (0.19 in × 0.59 in) height x
breadth osteophyte (bone spur) on the inferior (lower) margin. Osteophytes normally
form as a response to stress due to osteoarthritis, which can result from old age
or improper loading of the joint as a consequence of bone misalignment or ligament
laxity. In the case of ATD6-56, improper loading was likely the causal factor.
Frequent squatting and kneeling can lead to this condition, but if the right knee
bone ATD6-22 (that has no such trauma) belongs to the same individual, then this is
unlikely to be the reason. If so, the lesion was caused by a local trauma, such as
strain on the soft tissue around the joint due to high intensity activity, or a
fracture of the left femur and/or tibia (that is unconfirmable since neither bone
is associated with this individual).[34]

The right fourth metatarsal ATD6-124 has a 25.8 mm × 8 mm (1.02 in × 0.31 in)
length x width lesion on the medial (toward the midline of the bone) side
consistent with a march fracture. This condition is most often encountered by
soldiers, long distance runners, and potentially flatfooted people whose foot bones
failed under repeated, high intensity activity. Later Neanderthals would evolve a
much more robust lower skeleton possibly to withstand such taxing movement across
uneven terrain. Although only one other example of the condition has been
identified (at Sima de los Huesos) among archaic humans, march fractures were
probably a common injury for them given that the healed fracture leaves no visible
mark, as well as their presumed high intensity lifestyle.[35]

Culture
Technology

Map of Gran Dolina and Western European sites with similar or Acheulean stone tools
dating from 1.4 to 0.59 million years ago
H. antecessor was producing simple stone tools at Gran Dolina. This industry is
found elsewhere in Early Pleistocene Spain—notably in Barranc de la Boella and the
nearby Galería—distinguished by the preparation and sharpening of cores before
flaking, the presence of (crude) bifaces, and some degree of standardisation of
tool types. This bears some resemblance to the much more complex Acheulean
industry, characteristic of African and later European sites.[9] The earliest
evidence of typical Acheulean toolsets comes from Africa 1.75 million years ago,
but the typical Acheulean toolset pops up in Western Europe nearly a million years
later. It is debated if these early European sites evolved into the European
Acheulean industry independently from African counterparts, or if the Acheulean was
brought up from Africa and diffused across Europe. In 2020 French anthropologist
Marie-Hélène Moncel argued the appearance of typical Achuelean bifaces 700,000
years ago in Europe was too sudden to be the result of completely independent
evolution from local technologies, so there must have been influence from Africa.
[36] Wearing on the TD6 stone tools is consistent with repeated abrasion against
flesh, so they were probably used as butchering implements.[9]

TD6.3
In the lower part of TD6.3 (TD6 subunit 3), 84 stone tools were recovered,
predominantly small, unmodified quartzite pebbles with percussive damage—probably
inflicted from pounding items such as bone—as opposed to manufacturing more
specialised implements.[9]
Although 41% of the section's assemblage consists of flakes, they are rather crude
and large—averaging 38 mm × 30 mm × 11 mm (1.50 in × 1.18 in × 0.43 in)—either
resulting from rudimentary knapping (stoneworking) skills or difficulty working
such poor quality materials. They made use of the unipolar longitudinal method,
flaking off only one side of a core, probably to compensate for the lack of
preplanning, opting to knap irregularly shaped and thus poorer quality pebbles.[9]

TD6.2

Stone tools from TD6.2, from the top left clockwise: simple flakes, cores, hammers,
and retouched flakes as well as a chopper
Most of the stone tools resided in the lower (older) half of TD6.2, with 831 stone
tools. The knappers made use of a much more diverse array of materials (although
most commonly chert), which indicates they were moving farther out in search of
better raw materials. The Sierra de Atapuerca features an abundance and diversity
of mineral outcroppings suitable for stone tool manufacturing, in addition to chert
and quartz namely quartzite, sandstone, and limestone, which could all be collected
within only 3 km (1.9 mi) of the Gran Dolina.[9]

They produced far fewer pebbles and spent more time knapping off flakes, but they
were not particularly economic with their materials, and about half of the cores
could have produced more flakes. They additionally modified irregular blanks into
more workable shapes before flaking off pieces. This preplanning allowed them to
use other techniques: the centripetal method (flaking off only the edges of the
core) and the bipolar method (laying the core on an anvil and slamming it with a
hammerstone). There are 62 flakes measuring below 20 mm (0.79 in) in height, and 28
above 60 mm (2.4 in). There are three conspicuously higher quality flakes, thinner
and longer than the others, which may have been produced by the same person. There
are also retouched tools: notches, spines, denticulates, points, scrapers, and a
single chopper. These small retouched tools are rare in the European Early
Pleistocene.[9]