Hippopotamus antiquus is an extinct species of the genus Hippopotamus that ranged across
Europe during the
Early and
Middle Pleistocene. It was considerably larger than the living
hippopotamus (Hippopotamus amphibius).
Evolution
H. antiquus is suggested to be closely related to the African species Hippopotamus gorgops, and may be a descendant of that species.[2] The oldest records of H. antiquus date to the
Early Pleistocene, around 2.1-2 million years ago, which are found in Italy and Greece.[3] The earliest specimens in the Iberian Peninsula date to around 1.7 million years ago.[4]H. antiquus first became widespread north of the Alps around 1.1 to 1 million years ago, as evidenced from specimens found dating to this time in France, Germany, the Netherlands and southern Britain.[5] The youngest remains of the species are from
Condeixa in Portugal, suggested to date to approximately 400,000 years ago,[2] and Malagrotta in central Italy, dating to 450-380,000 years ago.[6] Later records of the genus Hippopotamus in Europe are believed to belong to the modern
hippopotamus (Hippopotamus amphibius).[5] The earliest generally accepted record of H. amphibius in Europe is around 500,000 years old, and it is therefore possible that H. antiquus and H. amphibius coexisted in Europe from 500-400,000 years ago, though this is uncertain.[7][8]
Distribution
H. antiquus ranged across Europe, from the
Iberian Peninsula and the
Italian Peninsula, to the
British Isles to the
Rhine River to Greece.[9][10] The easternmost record of the species is from the
Caucasus, at the Akhalkalaki site in
Georgia.[7] Remains possibly attributable to the species are also known from the
Ubeidiya site in Israel,[2] though other authors assign these remains to the species H. behemoth.[7] Their distribution was strongly controlled by temperature, with the species only extending to the northern parts of Europe during warmer
interglacial intervals.[5]
Based on the transverse diameter of its limbs, H. antiquus has been estimated to weigh 3,500–4,200 kilograms (7,700–9,300 lb), more than double the weight of the average specimen of H. amphibius.[11] The species exhibited size variability, with individuals from the late Early Pleistocene and Middle Pleistocene being smaller on average than those from earlier in the Early Pleistocene.[12] In comparison to modern Hippopotamus amphibius, the skull is more slender and elongate, but with a shorter
neurocranium.[13]Hippopotamus antiquus has been suggested to have been more aquatically adapted than Hippopotamus amphibius, with the skull having more elevated eyesockets and the feet having shorter
metapodial bones than H. amphibius. An
analysis of nitrogen isotopes suggests that H. antiquus preferred aquatic plants, in contrast to modern H. amphibius, which prefers terrestrial grasses.[5][14]
Remains of the species with cut marks suggestive of butchery by
archaic humans have been reported from several sites in Spain, dating to the late Early Pleistocene, including
Barranco León (~1.4 Ma), Fuente Nueva 3 (~1.3 Ma), and Vallparadís (~1.0 Ma), At the Marathousa 2 site in Greece, thought to date to the Middle Pleistocene around 500-400,000 years ago, remains of a juvenile Hippopotamus antiquus individual with cut marks were found associated with a
lithic artefact. It is unclear whether the remains at these sites were hunted or scavenged. It is unlikely that archaic humans regularly hunted healthy adult hippopotamuses due to their dangerousness.[17]
References
^Desmarest, A.G., 1822. Mammalogie ou description des espèces de mammifères. Mme Veuve Agasse imprimeur édit., Paris, 2ème part., pp.277-555.
^"150 Years of Neanderthal Discoveries; Early Europeans - Continuity & Discontinuity," ed. von Koenigswald, Wighart and Thomas Litt, TERRA NOSTRA 2006/2
University of Bonn,
in PDFArchived 2007-02-25 at the
Wayback Machine
^A.C. Marra
Pleistocene hippopotamuses of Mediterranean islands: looking for ancestors J.A. Alcover, P. Bover (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Symposium “Insular Vertebrate Evolution: The Palaeontological Approach.” Monographias de la Societat d'Historia Natural de !es Balears (2005), pp. 193-204