You are really not aware of this? That is surprising.
Most recently there has been a raging debate surrounding H nadelii. Some were arguing that they are a version of Homo erectus, burying their dead. It now seems these bones were dated around 250 kya, but for a while people were thinking much much earlier. That date, also, is certainly up for dispute and could be revised again.
Even if affirm the more recent dating, if we see this behavior in multiple species/subspecies at this time (which we do), we expect it actually arose much earlier, closer to the common ancestor of all of them (unless its convergent). So it is not unreasonable to suggest it arises even earlier that we have observed, well before humans arise.
Yes, you could disagree with this interpretation (and I personally have no stake here). However, that does not remove the raging debate on these points. There is precious little data to go off of, and many of the most populated areas are now covered by rising seas. We just do not know when intentional burial arises, and most think it arises long before Homo sapiens.
Likewise, large scale pigment mining also arises before Homo sapiens: https://miningafricaonline.co.za/index.php/mining-features/mining-in-africa/2556-the-origins-of-pigment-mining. It is almost expected that small scale pigment utilization is taking place long before that.
Archaeological evidence suggests that the mining of minerals for use as pigments may have begun more than one million years ago
Of course, pigments are used often for art, and we do not expect art from 1 mya to last to this day, except perhaps in the most fortunate of extremely rare and lucky cases.
There is a repetitive quality to this part of the conversation. It seems there is a pattern of arguing that “because we do not detect it, it’s not plausible to wonder if it exists”.
I’d encourage a more scientific approach, where we propose several hypotheses, understand what evidence would be uncovered under each hypothesis (which may be nothing), and then consider what the data might tell us. In cases like Homo erectus 2 mya, there is not really much data. Most hypothesis are plausible, and that is why there is so much debate within anthropology. That ambiguity a fact of scientific inquiry, and pushing too quickly past it leads to errors.