Chinese, Mandarin

Spanish

English

Hindi

Arabic

Portuguese

Bengali

Russian

Japanese

Punjabi

German

Javanese

Malay

Telugu

Vietnamese

Korean

French

Marathi

Tamil

Urdu

Turkish

Italian

Chinese, Yue / Cantonese

Thai

Gujarati

Chinese, Jin

Chinese, Min Nan

Persian, Dari

Persian, Western

Polish

Pashto

Kannada

Chinese, Xiang

Malayalam

Sundanese

Hausa

Odia

Burmese

Chinese, Hakka

Ukrainian

Bihari, Bhojpuri

Tagalog

Yoruba

Bihari, Maithili

Uzbek

Sindhi

Amharic

Fula

Romanian

Oromo

Igbo

Azerbaijani

Chinese, Gan

Dutch

Kurdish, Central

Kurdish, Northern

Kurdish, Southern

Malagasy

Lahnda, Saraiki

Nepali

Sinhalese

Chittagonian

Zhuang

Khmer

Turkmen

Assamese

Madurese

Somali

Marwari

Bihari, Magahi

Haryanvi

Hungarian

Chhattisgarhi

Greek, Modern

Chewa

Dakhini

Akan, Twi

Akan, Fante

Kazakh

Chinese, Min Bei

Sylheti

Zulu

Czech

Kinyarwanda

Marwari, Dhundhari

Haitian Creole

Chinese, Min Dong

Ilocano

Quechua

Kirundi

Swedish

Hmong

Shona

Uyghur

Hiligaynon

Mossi

Xhosa

Belarusian

Balochi

Anthropology

<OpenstaxParagraph>
	<OpenstaxTerm><OpenstaxEm>Homo ergaster</OpenstaxEm></OpenstaxTerm> is the first <OpenstaxEm>Homo</OpenstaxEm> that looks much like <OpenstaxEm>H. sapiens</OpenstaxEm>. A key difference between <OpenstaxEm>H. ergaster</OpenstaxEm> and earlier hominins is that <OpenstaxEm>H. ergaster</OpenstaxEm> exhibits substantially less <OpenstaxTerm>sexual dimorphism</OpenstaxTerm> in body size. <OpenstaxEm>H. ergaster</OpenstaxEm> males were only 20 percent larger than females. Likewise, modern human males are only 15 percent larger than females. This contrasts sharply with all other previous hominins, such as the australopithecines, in which males were 50 percent larger than females. It is well established that in mammals, significant dimorphism is associated with polygyny, and a lack of dimorphism is associated with a monogamous mating system. It has been suggested that the reduction in dimorphism seen in <OpenstaxEm>H. ergaster</OpenstaxEm> may indicate less male-male competition for access to females and perhaps a shift toward a monogamous mating system, with substantial parental investment in offspring.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	Other similarities between <OpenstaxEm>H. ergaster</OpenstaxEm> and modern humans are seen in the teeth and postcranial features. The average cranial capacity of <OpenstaxEm>H. ergaster</OpenstaxEm> is 1,100 cc, which is just a bit smaller than that of modern humans, who average 1,400 cc. There is a very important specimen of <OpenstaxEm>H. ergaster</OpenstaxEm> that bears mentioning, the <OpenstaxTerm>Nariokotome Boy</OpenstaxTerm>. This specimen was discovered in 1984 by Kenyan paleontologist Kamoya <OpenstaxTerm>Kimeu</OpenstaxTerm> near Lake Turkana in Kenya. It is dated to approximately 1.6 MYA. The specimen is believed to represent a boy of about 12 years old, determined by various dental and cranial features. He was about 5 feet 4 inches tall, roughly the same height as a modern boy of the same age (<a href="#fig-00003">Figure 5.7</a>). It has been estimated that his adult height would be around 5 feet 10 inches, with an estimated cranial capacity of 900 cc. The Nariokotome Boy looks tremendously modern in appearance despite being 1.6 million years old.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxFigure id="fig-00003" src="https://openstax.org/apps/archive/20240226.174525/resources/aad614064bad74f95493338294068fad8cabefcf" alt="A partial skeleton of a juvenile individual." mediaType="image/jpeg" width="296" height="800" />
<OpenstaxFigureText width="296">
	Figure 5.7 This specimen of Homo ergaster is known as the Nariokotome Boy. It is believed to be the remains of a boy who was about 12 years old at the time of death. (credit: “Homo ergaster (fossil hominid) (Lower Pleistocene, 1.5 to 1.6 Ma; Nariokotome, Lake Turkana area, Kenya) 4” by James St. John/flickr, CC BY 2.0)
</OpenstaxFigureText>
<OpenstaxH3><OpenstaxEm>Homo ergaster</OpenstaxEm> Technology</OpenstaxH3>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	<OpenstaxEm>Homo ergaster</OpenstaxEm> continued to use Oldowan stone tools, but they also began to construct much more complex tools, referred to as the <OpenstaxTerm>Acheulean industry</OpenstaxTerm> (<a href="#fig-00004">Figure 5.8</a>). These tools have been found throughout Africa, Europe, and the Middle East and are first noted as appearing approximately 1.6 MYA to 200,000 years ago. These types of tools are rarely found in Asia. It is currently unclear whether this is because the Acheulean industry had not yet been developed when <OpenstaxEm>H. erectus</OpenstaxEm> migrated to Asia or because bamboo (a plant found in abundance in Asia) was found to be a more versatile resource than stone. As wood and bamboo are biodegradable, no remains of tools constructed from these materials would exist today.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxFigure id="fig-00004" src="https://openstax.org/apps/archive/20240226.174525/resources/546c62480ae232cf8b05e10b798f80ff405c9992" alt="Sketch showing back, front, and side views of a stone that has been shaped by the removal of multiple chips and pieces. The stone is wide at the bottom and shaped into a broad point at the top." mediaType="image/jpeg" width="800" height="646" />
<OpenstaxFigureText width="800">
	Figure 5.8 This hand axe, found in the Zamora province, Spain, displays the form and construction techniques typical of the Acheulean industry. (credit: Jose-Manuel Benito/Locutus Borg/Wikimedia Commons, Public Domain)
</OpenstaxFigureText>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	Unlike Oldowan tools, Acheulean tools actually look like tools. Acheulean tools are distinct from Oldowan tools in that they were modified on both sides, resulting in a symmetrical tool with two faces, also known as <OpenstaxTerm>biface</OpenstaxTerm>. One end of the tool was tapered, while the other end was rounded. The creation of symmetrical objects from stone materials is believed to represent an increase in cognitive ability as well as motor skills in the tool maker. These bifaces were struck from large flakes, which had themselves been struck from boulder cores. This required a more delicate technique than banging one rock into another. Acheulean tools were typically created used <OpenstaxTerm>the soft hammer technique</OpenstaxTerm>. In this technique, hard rock such as flint is chipped by striking it with a softer material such as bone or wood. The gentler blows detach small flakes that leave smooth, shallow scars, creating a straighter and more uniform cutting edge.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	The main advantage of Acheulean technology is that it allowed hominins to get a better grip on their tools, as they were shaped to fit the hand. This tool type was used primarily as a hunter’s knife but also for chopping, scraping, and even piercing. The most common type of biface tool is a <OpenstaxTerm>hand axe</OpenstaxTerm>. Note that even though these tools are called axes, they are held in the palm of the hand. Another type of Acheulean biface used by <OpenstaxEm>Homo ergaster</OpenstaxEm> is called a cleaver (<a href="#fig-00005">Figure 5.9</a>). The <OpenstaxTerm>cleaver</OpenstaxTerm> had a wide cutting edge across the end instead of a point and was best suited for hunting or hacking wood. Another Acheulean tool is the <OpenstaxTerm>side scraper</OpenstaxTerm>, used to scrape hides that could then be turned into simple clothing.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxFigure id="fig-00005" src="https://openstax.org/apps/archive/20240226.174525/resources/91e2d5c5a9ba89772e9b151f775568e32f72029a" alt="Marks indicating the number of Acheulean cleaver finds imposed on a map of Europe, Asia, and Africa. There are clusters of finds in Spain, India, and certain areas of Africa." mediaType="image/png" width="1740" height="1321" />
<OpenstaxFigureText width="1740">
	Figure 5.9 Map of Acheulean cleaver finds dated to the Lower Paleolithic (1.76–0.13 MYA). Note the concentration of artifacts found in certain areas of Africa and in Spain. (attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax,under CC BY 4.0 license)
</OpenstaxFigureText>
<OpenstaxH3>Evidence of an Increase in Meat Eating</OpenstaxH3>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	In 1973, a specimen of <OpenstaxEm>H. ergaster</OpenstaxEm> known as KNM ER 1808 was found in Koobi Fora, Kenya. Dated to about 1.7 MYA, this is the most complete <OpenstaxEm>H. ergaster</OpenstaxEm> specimen ever found. Analysis of KNM ER 1808 suggests that <OpenstaxEm>H. ergaster</OpenstaxEm> may have been eating carnivore liver, which is high in Vitamin A. This may indicate a dietary shift toward increased meat eating by <OpenstaxEm>H. ergaster</OpenstaxEm>.
</OpenstaxParagraph>

5.2.2 Homo ergaster

1 What Is Anthropology?

1.1 The Study of Humanity, or "Anthropology Is Vast"

1.1.1 The Heart of Anthropology: Central Narrative and Commitments

1.1.2 Central Commitment #1: Exploring Sociocultural Diversity

1.1.3 Central Commitment #2: Understanding How Societies Hold Together

1.1.4 Central Commitment #3: Examining the Interdependence of Humans and Nature

1.2 The Four-Field Approach: Four Approaches within the Guiding Narrative

1.2.1 Biological Anthropology

1.2.2 Archaeology

1.2.3 Cultural Anthropology

1.2.4 Linguistic Anthropology

1.2.5 How the Four Fields Work Together: The Example of Race

1.3 Overcoming Ethnocentrism

1.3.1 Enculturation and Ethnocentrism

1.3.2 Primitivism and Orientalism

1.4 Western Bias in Our Assumptions about Humanity

1.4.1 Primitivism and Orientalism in Popular Culture

1.4.2 The Bias of Backwardness

1.5 Holism, Anthropology’s Distinctive Approach

1.5.1 Society as an Integrated Whole

1.5.2 Sources of Contradiction, Conflict, and Change

1.6 Cross-Cultural Comparison and Cultural Relativism

1.6.1 Relativism Is Not “Anything Goes”

1.6.2 Morality, Activism, and Cultural Relativism

1.7 Reaching for an Insider’s Point of View

1.7.1 The Challenge of Representing Others

1.7.2 Collaborative Methods of Representation

1.7.3 Working across Cultures toward Common Goals

1.7.4 Suggested Readings

2 Methods: Cultural and Archaeological

2.1 Archaeological Research Methods

2.1.1 Archaeological Techniques

2.1.2 Archaeological Dating Methods

2.2 Conservation and Naturalism

2.2.1 Early Efforts

2.2.2 Salvage Anthropology

2.2.3 Museum Collections

2.2.4 Interpretation and Voice

2.3 Ethnography and Ethnology

2.3.1 The Development of Ethnography and Ethnology

2.3.2 Perspective and Interpretation in Ethnography

2.4 Participant Observation and Interviewing

2.4.1 Participant Observation

2.4.2 Interviewing Informants

2.4.3 Ethical Considerations

2.5 Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis

2.5.1 Differences between Quantitative and Qualitative Information

2.5.2 Modeling

2.5.3 The Science of Anthropology

2.6 Collections

2.6.1 Archives

2.6.2 Three-Dimensional Collections

2.6.3 Ownership

2.6.4 Suggested Readings

3 Culture Concept Theory: Theories of Cultural Change

3.1 The Homeyness of Culture

3.2 The Winkiness of Culture

3.3 The Elements of Culture

3.3.1 Culture Is What We Make

3.3.2 Culture Is What We Do

3.3.3 Culture Is What We Think

3.4 The Aggregates of Culture

3.4.1 Symbols

3.4.2 Ritual

3.4.3 Social Structure

3.5 Modes of Cultural Analysis

3.5.1 Evolution, Adaptation, and Historical Particularism

3.5.2 Functionalism

3.5.3 Structuralism

3.5.4 Ontology

3.6 The Paradoxes of Culture

3.6.1 Paradox 1: Culture Is Continuous, but It Changes

3.6.2 Paradox 2: Culture Is Bounded but Mobile

3.6.3 Paradox 3: Culture Is Consensual but Contested

3.6.4 Paradox 4: Culture Is Shared, but It Varies

3.6.5 Suggested Readings

4 Biological Evolution and Early Human Evidence

4.1 What Is Biological Anthropology?

4.1.1 Looking to the Deep Past

4.1.2 Exploring What It Means to Be Human

4.2 What’s in a Name? The Science of Taxonomy

4.2.1 Defining the Science of Taxonomy

4.2.2 Defining a Species

4.3 It’s All in the Genes! The Foundation of Evolution

4.3.1 The Units of Life

4.3.2 Gregor Mendel and the Laws of Heredity

4.3.3 Mendelian Inheritance in Humans

4.4 Evolution in Action: Past and Present

4.4.1 Early Evolutionists and the Fixity of Species

4.4.2 Charles Darwin’s Role in Changing Views of the Natural World

4.4.3 Understanding Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection

4.5 What Is a Primate?

4.5.1 What Is a Primate?

4.5.2 Primate Behavioral Variation

4.5.3 Explaining Primate Success

4.5.4 Primate Classification and Taxonomy

4.6 Origin of and Classification of Primates

4.6.1 Understanding Concepts of Time

4.6.2 Fossils and Dating Methods