A few sentences after that quote comes:
"Finally, the "hearths" that have figured so prominently in archeological reconstructions of the fire control at this site are apparently not hearths at all. They simply are round depressions formed in the past by water collecting when the cave was more open to the elements.
"Indeed, another provisional interpretation of the cave's geology suggests that the cave did not open in a manner of habitation sites, but had access only through a vertical shaft, leading archeologist Alison Brooks to remark, "It wouldn't have been a shelter, it would have been a trap" (quoted in Wuethrich, 1998).
"These serious doubts regarding control of fire coupled with the suggestive evidence of bone accumulation by carnivores, have led anthropologists Noel Boaz and Russell Ciochon to conclude, "Zhoukoudian cave was neither hearth nor home" (Boaz and Ciochon, 2001).
~Jurmain, Robert, Kilgore, Lynn, Trevathan, Wenda and Nelson, Harry. Essentials of Physical Anthropology, 5th Edition. Thomson Wadsworth, 2004, page 230.
This Zhoukoudian site was inhabited by Peking Man circa 200-500kya. Wrangham clearly makes really big claims about these types of sites, yet experts in anthropology and archeology completely disagree with his claims. The burden of proof for claims that we have been cooking much long than is generally accepted fall on Wrangham. He has no real evidence for his claims, from the research I have done on this advent of cooking piece in the last month or so.
If anyone has more on the archeological evidence of fires intended for cooking (which means a cooking hearth), I'd be happy to see sources posted or linked here. Thanks.