What really is the Archaic Homo Sapiens?

What is the archaic Homo sapiens or with a more common and relatively consensed name, archaic humans or Middle Pleistocene Homo’s in a more paleo-anthropological way? Did they resemble Homo sapiens? Were they as capable as we are? In my opinion, despite most of their morphologically archaic crania or postcrania, they were the smartest initial primates who occupied the Old World, along with Homo erectus, through over 1,200cc brain capacity by the period of time Homo sapiens appeared around 300,000 years ago. Were archaic humans a distinct species? So long as we do not see any genetic admixture between two different breeds and supportive fossil records in relation to that, we can not refer to the speciation. Therefore, scientifically by the current data we possess, Homo heidelbergensis/rhodesiensis is a distinct species. If I suggest that they began to be seen during the Calabrian stage of Pleistocene around 800ka, in all likelihood, it makes them the most successful hominin that ever lived except Homo sapiens. Think about an occasion nearly everywhere is covered by ice caps with a temperature that never rises above 0°C all year round. Under this spectacularly harsh climate, you would need to generate an outstanding surviving strategies especially concerned with hunting and efficient usage of fire. The conspicuous evidence of spears leads us to remark on an extremely successful development into hunting in groups. In addition, even if there seems to be a relatively archeological gap of evidence for fire, I think they thoroughly mastered it. Here is the question; are archaic humans and Homo sapiens the same thing? They are certainly not, but we anthropologists do know one thing, they were just humans.

Note: This article only includes Homo heidelbergensis/rhodesiensis. I will discuss Homo neanderthalensis within another article.