Homo ergaster: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 18:26, 12 November 2005

Latest revision as of 18:22, 17 June 2025

(938 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Short description|Extinct species or subspecies of archaic human}}

{{Taxobox_begin | color = pink | name = ''Homo ergaster''}}<br />{{StatusFossil2|when=[[Pleistocene]]}}

{{Italic title}}

{{Taxobox_image | image =[[Image:15kman3.jpg|200px]] | caption = ''H. ergaster'' Turkana Boy}}

{{Good article}}

{{Taxobox_begin_placement | color = pink}}

{{Use dmy dates|date=June 2020}}

{{Taxobox_regnum_entry | taxon = [[Animal]]ia}}

{{Speciesbox

{{Taxobox_phylum_entry | taxon = [[Chordata]]}}

| fossil_range = Early [[Pleistocene]], {{Fossil range|2.04/1.95|1.4/0.87}}

{{Taxobox_subphylum_entry | taxon = [[Vertebrata]]}}

| image = Homo ergaster.jpg

{{Taxobox_classis_entry | taxon = [[Mammal]]ia}}

| image_caption = [[KNM ER 3733]], a 1.6-million-year-old skull of ''Homo ergaster'' discovered in 1975 at [[Koobi Fora]], [[Kenya]]

{{Taxobox_ordo_entry | taxon = [[Primates]]}}

| extinct = yes

{{Taxobox_familia_entry | taxon = [[Hominidae]]}}

| genus = Homo

{{Taxobox_genus_entry | taxon = ''[[Homo (genus)|Homo]]''}}

{{Taxobox_species_entry | taxonspecies = '''''H. ergaster'''''}}

| authority = [[Colin Groves|Groves]] and [[Vratislav Mazák|Mazák]], 1975

{{Taxobox_end_placement}}

| synonyms = † ''Telanthropus capensis''{{sfn|Broom|Talbot|1949|p=322-323}}<br/><small>[[Robert Broom|Broom]] and [[John Talbot Robinson|Robinson]], 1949</small><br/>† ''[[Homo erectus]] ergaster'' <br/><small>(Groves and Mazák, 1975)</small><br/>†''[[Olduvai Hominid 9|Homo louisleakeyi]]''<br/><small>Kretzoi, 1984</small><br/>† ''Homo kenyaensis'' <br/><small>Zeitoun, 2000</small><br/>† ''Homo okotensis''<br/><small>Zeitoun, 2000</small>

{{Taxobox_section_binomial | color = pink | binomial_name = Homo ergaster | author = [[Colin Groves|Groves]] &amp; [[Vratja Mazak|Mazak]] | date = [[1975]] }}

}}

{{Taxobox_end}}

{{Human_Evolution}}

'''''Homo ergaster''''' ("working man") is an extinct [[hominid]] [[species]] (or subspecies, according to some authorities) which arose in [[Africa]] some 1.9 million years ago with the advent of the lower [[Pleistocene]] and the cooling of the global climate.

'''''Homo ergaster''''' is an extinct [[species]] or [[subspecies]] of [[archaic humans]] who lived in [[Africa]] in the [[Early Pleistocene]]. Whether ''H. ergaster'' constitutes a species of its own or should be subsumed into ''[[H. erectus]]'' is an ongoing and unresolved dispute within [[paleoanthropology|palaeoanthropology]]. Proponents of synonymisation typically designate ''H. ergaster'' as "'''African ''Homo erectus'''''"{{Sfn|Tattersall|2013|p=5}} or "'''''Homo erectus ergaster'''''".{{Sfn|Tattersall|2013|p=14}} The name ''Homo ergaster'' roughly translates to "[[:wikt:ergaster|working]] man", a reference to the more advanced tools used by the species in comparison to those of their ancestors. The fossil range of ''H. ergaster'' mainly covers the period of 1.7 to 1.4&nbsp;million years ago, though a broader time range is possible.<ref>{{Cite web|last1=Wood|first1=Bernard|last2=Doherty|first2=Dandy|last3=Boyle|first3=Eve|date=2020-05-29|title=Hominin Taxic Diversity|url=https://oxfordre.com/anthropology/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190854584.001.0001/acrefore-9780190854584-e-194|access-date=2021-04-19|website=Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Anthropology|language=en|doi=10.1093/acrefore/9780190854584.013.194|isbn=9780190854584}}</ref> Though fossils are known from across East and Southern Africa, most ''H. ergaster'' fossils have been found along the shores of [[Lake Turkana]] in Kenya. There are later African fossils, some younger than 1&nbsp;million years ago, that indicate long-term anatomical continuity, though it is unclear if they can be formally regarded as ''H. ergaster'' specimens. As a [[chronospecies]], ''H. ergaster'' may have persisted to as late as 600,000 years ago, when new lineages of ''[[Homo]]'' arose in Africa.

[[Image:Turkana boy.jpg.jpg|200px|frame|right|Over 70% of the Turkana Boy's (AKA; Nariokotome Boy) skeleton was recovered in 1984 and differs only slightly from that of a 9 or 12 year old modern human child although it is 1.6 million years old]]

Those who believe ''H. ergaster'' should be subsumed into ''H. erectus'' consider there to be too little difference between the two to separate them into distinct species. Proponents of keeping the two species as distinct cite morphological differences between the African fossils and ''H. erectus'' fossils from Asia, as well as early ''Homo'' evolution being more complex than what is implied by subsuming species such as ''H. ergaster'' into ''H. erectus''. Additionally, morphological differences between the specimens commonly seen as constituting ''H. ergaster'' might suggest that ''H. ergaster'' itself does not represent a cohesive species. Regardless of their most correct classification, ''H. ergaster'' exhibit primitive versions of traits later expressed in ''H. erectus'' and are thus likely the direct ancestors of later ''H. erectus'' populations in Asia. Additionally, ''H. ergaster'' is likely ancestral to later [[hominins]] in Europe and Africa, such as modern [[human]]s and [[Neanderthal]]s.

Several features distinguish ''H. ergaster'' from [[australopithecine]]s as well as earlier and more basal species of ''Homo'', such as ''[[H. habilis]]''. Among these features are their larger body mass, relatively long legs, obligate [[bipedalism]], relatively small jaws and teeth (indicating a major change in diet) as well as body proportions and inferred lifestyles more similar to modern humans than to earlier and contemporary hominins. With these features in mind, some researchers view ''H. ergaster'' as being the earliest true representative of the genus ''Homo''.

''H. ergaster'' is sometimes categorized as a [[subspecies]] of ''[[Homo erectus]]''. It is currently in contention whether ''H. ergaster'' or the later, [[Asia]]n ''H. erectus'' was the direct ancestor of modern humans. ''H. ergaster'' may be distinguished from ''H. erectus'' by its thinner skull bones and lack of an obvious [[sulcus]]. Derived features include reduced [[sexual dimorphism]], a smaller more orthognathic face, a smaller dental arcade, and a larger (800cc) brain. It is estimated that ''H. ergaster'' stood at 1.9m (6ft) tall. Remains have been found in [[Tanzania]], [[Ethiopia]], [[Kenya]], [[South Africa]], and out of Africa in [[Georgia (country)|Georgia]].

''H. ergaster'' lived on the savannah in Africa, a unique environment with challenges that would have resulted in the need for many new and distinct behaviours. Earlier ''Homo'' probably used counter-attack tactics, like modern primates, to keep predators away. By the time of ''H. ergaster'', this behaviour had probably resulted in the development of true [[hunter-gatherer]] behaviour, a first among primates. ''H. ergaster'' was an [[apex predator]].<ref name="Ben-Dor2021">{{cite journal |last1=Ben-Dor |first1=Miki |last2=Sirtoli |first2=Raphael |last3=Barkai |first3=Ran |title=The evolution of the human trophic level during the Pleistocene |journal=[[American Journal of Physical Anthropology]] |year=2021 |volume=175 |pages=27–56 |doi=10.1002/ajpa.24247 |pmid=33675083 |doi-access=free }}</ref> Further behaviours that might first have arisen in ''H. ergaster'' include male-female divisions of foraging and true [[Monogamy in animals|monogamous]] pair bonds. ''H. ergaster'' also marks the appearance of more advanced tools of the [[Acheulean]] industry, including the earliest-known [[hand axe]]s. Though undisputed evidence is missing, ''H. ergaster'' might also have been the earliest hominin to [[Control of fire by early humans|master control of fire]].

The [[type specimen]] of ''H. ergaster'' is [[KNM-ER 992]]{{ref|992|}}; the species was named by [[Colin Groves|Groves]] and [[Vratja Mazak|Mazak]] in [[1975]].

== Taxonomy ==

The species name originates from the [[Greek language|Greek]] ''ergaster'' meaning "Workman". This name was chosen due to the discovery of various tools such as [[hand-axe]]s and [[cleaver]]s near the skeletal remains of ''H. ergaster''. This is one of the reasons that it is sometimes set apart distinctly from other human ancestors. Its use of advanced (rather than simple) tools was unique to this species; ''H. ergaster'' tool use belongs to the [[Acheulean]] industry. ''H. ergaster'' first began using these tools 1.6 million years ago. Charred animal bones in fossil deposits and traces of camps suggest that the species made creative use of [[fire]].

{{Human timeline}}

=== Research history===

[[File:KNM-ER 992. REPLICA. MCN.jpg|left|thumb|Replica of [[KNM ER 992]], the [[holotype]] specimen of ''Homo ergaster'']]

The systematics and taxonomy of ''[[Homo]]'' in the Early to Middle [[Pleistocene]] is one of the most disputed areas of [[paleoanthropology|palaeoanthropology]].{{Sfn|Tattersall|2013|p=1}} In early palaeoanthropology and well into the twentieth century, it was generally assumed that ''[[Homo sapiens]]'' was the end result of gradual modifications within a single lineage of hominin evolution. As the perceived transitional form between early hominins and modern humans, ''[[H. erectus]]'', originally assigned to contain archaic human fossils in Asia, came to encompass a wide range of fossils covering a large span of time (almost the entire temporal range of ''Homo''). Since the late twentieth century, the diversity within ''H. erectus'' has led some to question what exactly defines the species and what it should encompass. Some researchers, such as palaeoanthropologist [[Ian Tattersall]] in 2013, have questioned ''H. erectus'' since it contains an "unwieldly" number of fossils with "substantially differing morphologies".{{Sfn|Tattersall|2013|p=2}}

In the 1970s, palaeoanthropologists [[Richard Leakey]] and [[Alan Walker (anthropologist)|Alan Walker]] described a series of hominin fossils from Kenyan fossil localities on the eastern shore of [[Lake Turkana]]. The most notable finds were two partial skulls; [[KNM ER 3733]] and [[KNM ER 3883]], found at [[Koobi Fora]]. Leakey and Walker assigned these skulls to ''H. erectus'', noting that their brain volumes (848 and 803 cc, respectively) compared well to the far younger type specimen of ''H. erectus'' (950 cc). Another significant fossil was a fossil [[mandible]] recovered at [[Ileret]] and described by Leakey with the designation [[KNM ER 992]] in 1972 as "''Homo'' of indeterminate species".{{Sfn|Tattersall|2013|p=|pp=3–4}}

==Physiology==

In 1975, palaeoanthropologists [[Colin Groves]] and [[Vratislav Mazák]] designated KNM ER 992 as the [[holotype]] specimen of a distinct species, which they dubbed ''Homo ergaster''.{{Sfn|Tattersall|2013|p=4}} The name (''ergaster'' being derived from the [[Ancient Greek]] ἐργαστήρ, ''ergastḗr'', 'workman') roughly translates to "working man"{{Sfn|Klein|2005|p=85}} or "workman".{{Sfn|Roberts|2018|p=116}} Groves and Mazák also included many of the Koobi Fora fossils, such as KNM ER 803 (a partial skeleton and some isolated teeth) in their designation of the species, but did not provide any comparison with the Asian fossil record of ''H. erectus'' in their diagnosis, inadvertently causing some of the later taxonomic confusion in regards to the species.{{Sfn|Antón|2003|p=127}}

A nearly complete fossil, interpreted as a young male (though the sex is actually undetermined), was discovered at the western shore of Lake Turkana in 1984 by Kenyan archaeologist [[Kamoya Kimeu]].{{Sfn|Roberts|2018|p=116}} The fossils were described by Leakey and Walker, alongside paleoanthropologists Frank Brown and John Harris, in 1985 as KNM WT 15000 (nicknamed "[[Turkana Boy]]"). They interpreted the fossil, consisting of a nearly complete skeleton, as representing ''H. erectus''.{{Sfn|Brown|Harris|p=788|Leakey|Walker|1985}} Turkana Boy was the first discovered comprehensively preserved specimen of ''H. ergaster''/''erectus'' found and constitutes an important fossil in establishing the differences and similarities between early ''Homo'' and modern humans.{{Sfn|Brown|Harris|p=789|Leakey|Walker|1985}} Turkana Boy was placed in ''H. ergaster'' by paleoanthropologist Bernard Wood in 1992,{{Sfn|Roberts|2018|p=116}} and is today, alongside other fossils in Africa previously designated as ''H. erectus'', commonly seen as a representative of ''H. ergaster'' by those who support ''H. ergaster'' as a distinct species.{{Sfn|Wang|Crompton|p=453|Carey|Günther|2004}}

'''The Turkana Boy'''

=== Classification ===

In [[1984]] near the banks of Nariokotome in Lake Turkana, a team lead by [[Richard Leakey]], [[Alan Walker]] and his [[Kenyan]] assistant [[Kamoya Kimue]], trained a few local Kenyans on how to spot Hominid fossils and were nicknamed “the Hominid gang”. Kamoya Kimue had the sharpest eye for [[fossil]] hunting; he could spot a tooth fragment from 100 yards away. Only tiny remains of skull were scattered around a few locations. On August 22, 1984 traveling on the hot dry terrains of this once rich organic area on their Jeep one day, Kamoya spotted of pieces of skull sticking out from the dusty ground. As Kamoya, Richard Leakey and Alan began to dig on the sediments, more and more bones were found including, a skull with teeth and jaw, femurs a spin, ribs and tibia. In about three weeks of hard work digging with the Hominid gang, the skeleton began to take shape. The almost complete 90% skeleton of a young boy was uncovered from the sediments in great condition and given its name KNM WT-15000 nicknamed “Nariokotome Boy” or “[[Turkana Boy]]”.

''H. ergaster'' is easily distinguished from earlier and more basal species of ''Homo'', notably ''[[H. habilis]]'' and ''[[H. rudolfensis]]'', by a number of features that align them, and their inferred lifestyle, more closely to modern humans than to earlier and contemporary hominins. As compared to their relatives, ''H. ergaster'' had body proportions more similar to later members of the genus ''Homo'', notably relatively long legs which would have made them obligately bipedal. The teeth and jaws of ''H. ergaster'' are also relatively smaller than those of ''H. habilis'' and ''H. rudolfensis'', indicating a major change in diet.{{Sfn|Aiello|Wells|2002|p=324}} In 1999, palaeoanthropologists Bernard Wood and Mark Collard argued that the conventional criteria for assigning species to the genus ''Homo'' were flawed and that early and basal species, such as ''H. habilis'' and ''H. rudolfensis'', might appropriately be reclassified as ancestral [[australopithecine]]s. In their view, the true earliest representative of ''Homo'' was ''H. ergaster''.{{Sfn|Wood|Collard|1999|p=65}}

{{cladogram|title=

|caption=Cladogram per Strait, Grine & Fleagle (2015){{sfn|Strait|Grine|Fleagle|2015|p=2006}}

|cladogram={{clade| style=font-size:85%;line-height:75%;width:300px;

|1={{clade

|1=''[[Au. africanus]]''

|2=''[[Au. garhi]]''

}}

|2={{clade

|1={{clade

|1=''[[H. habilis]]''

|2=''[[H. rudolfensis]]''

}}

|2={{clade

|1='''''H. ergaster'''''

|2={{clade

|1=''[[H. erectus]]''

|2={{clade

|1=''[[H. antecessor]]''

|2={{clade

|1={{clade

|1=''[[H. heidelbergensis]]''

|2=''[[H. neanderthalensis]]''

}}

|2=''[[H. sapiens]]''

}}

}}

}}

}}

}}

}}

}}

Since its description as a separate species in 1975, the classification of the fossils referred to ''H. ergaster'' has been in dispute. ''H. ergaster'' was immediately dismissed by Leakey and Walker and many influential researchers, such as palaeoanthropologist G. Philip Rightmire, who wrote an extensive treatise on ''H. erectus'' in 1990, continued to prefer a more inclusive and comprehensive ''H. erectus''. Overall, there is no doubt that the group of fossils composing ''H. erectus'' and ''H. ergaster'' represent the fossils of a more or less cohesive subset of closely related archaic humans. The question is instead whether these fossils represent a radiation of different species or the radiation of a single, highly variable and diverse, species over the course of almost two million years.{{Sfn|Tattersall|2013|p=4}} This long-running debate remains unresolved, with researchers typically using the terms ''H. erectus'' s.s. (''[[sensu stricto]]'') to refer to ''H. erectus'' fossils in Asia and the term ''H. erectus'' s.l. (''[[sensu lato]]'') to refer to fossils of other species that may or may not be included in ''H. erectus'', such as ''H. ergaster'', ''[[H. antecessor]]'' and ''[[H. heidelbergensis]]''.{{Sfn|Dennell|Roebroeks|p=1100|2005}}

{{multiple image

| perrow = 2

| total_width = 330

| image1 = Ergaster Skull.png

| caption1 =

| image2 = Erectus Skull.png

| caption2 =

| footer = Reconstructions of the skulls of ''[[Homo ergaster]]'' (left, based on [[KNM ER 3733]]) and later ''[[Homo erectus]]'' (right, based on [[Peking Man]])

| align = left

| direction =

| alt1 =

| width3 = 150

}}

For obvious reasons, ''H. ergaster'' shares many features with ''H. erectus'', such as large forward-projecting jaws, large brow ridges and a receding forehead.{{Sfn|Klein|2005|p=92}} Many of the features of ''H. ergaster'' are clearly more primitive versions of features later expressed in ''H. erectus'', which somewhat obscures the differences between the two.{{Sfn|Antón|2003|p=154}} There are subtle, potentially significant, differences between the East African and East Asian fossils. Among these are the somewhat higher-domed and thinner-walled skulls of ''H. ergaster'', and the even more massive [[brow ridge]]s and faces of Asian ''H. erectus''.{{Sfn|Klein|2005|p=92}}

The question is made more difficult since it regards how much intraspecific variation can be exhibited in a single species before it needs to be split into more, a question that in and of itself does not have a clear-cut answer. A 2008 analysis by anthropologist Karen L. Baab, examining fossils of various ''H. erectus'' subspecies, and including fossils attributed to ''H. ergaster'', found that the intraspecific variation within ''H. erectus'' was greater than expected for a single species when compared to modern [[human]]s and [[chimpanzee]]s, but fell well within the variation expected for a species when compared to [[gorilla]]s, and even well within the range expected for a single subspecies when compared to [[orangutan]]s (though this is partly due to the great [[sexual dimorphism]] exhibited in gorillas and orangutans).{{Sfn|Baab|2008|p=841}} Baab concluded that ''H. erectus'' s.l. was either a single but variable species, several subspecies divided by time and geography or several geographically dispersed but closely related species.{{Sfn|Baab|2008|p=842}} In 2015, paleoanthropologists David Strait, Frederick Grine and John Fleagle listed ''H. ergaster'' as one of the seven "widely recognized" species of ''Homo'', alongside ''H. habilis'', ''H. rudolfensis'', ''H. erectus'', ''H. heidelbergensis'', ''[[H. neanderthalensis]]'' and ''H. sapiens'', noting that other species, such as ''[[H. floresiensis]]'' and ''[[H. antecessor]]'', were less widely recognised or more poorly known.{{Sfn|Strait|Grine|p=2006|Fleagle|2015}}

''For further information visit [[Turkana boy]] for a more indepth look at the anatomy.''

Unlike Lucy’s ([[Australopithecus afarensis]]) [[ape]] like body, there is a large gap between the small ape-men and the tall hairless Human stature. The major gap in sizes between [[Homo habilis]] and Homo ergaster/erectus is quit puzzling for [[anthropologists]], since Homo ergaster appeared relatively short after Homo habilis 2 to 1.9 million years ago. Homo habilis may as well be a separate species of [[Homo]], and so we must look at the missing gap to find the missing link of which hominid came right before Homo ergaster.

==== Variation in the fossil material====

{{multiple image

| perrow = 2

| total_width = 230

| image1 = Fossil KNM-ER 3733.JPG

| caption1 = [[KNM ER 3733]]

| image2 = Fossil KNM-ER 3883.JPG

| caption2 = [[KNM ER 3883]]

| image3 = Chlapec od jezera Turkana 03.jpg

| image4 = Homo ergaster2.jpg

| footer = KNM WT 15000 ("[[Turkana Boy]]")

| align =

| direction =

| alt1 =

| width3 = 150

}}

Comparing various African fossils attributed to ''H. erectus'' or ''H. ergaster'' to Asian fossils, notably the type specimen of ''H. erectus'', in 2013, Ian Tattersall concluded that referring to the African material as ''H. ergaster'' rather than "African ''H. erectus''" was a "considerable improvement" as there were many autapomorphies distinguishing the material of the two continents from one another.{{Sfn|Tattersall|2013|p=15}} Tattersall believes it to be appropriate to use the designation ''H. erectus'' only for eastern Asian fossils, disregarding its previous use as the name for an adaptive grade of human fossils from throughout Africa and Eurasia. Though Tattersall concluded that the ''H. ergaster'' material represents the fossils of a single clade of ''Homo'', he also found there to be considerable diversity within this clade; the KNM ER 992 mandible accorded well with other fossil mandibles from the region, such as [[OH 22 (fossil)|OH 22]] from [[Olduvai Gorge|Olduvai]] and [[KNM ER 3724]] from Koobi Fora, but did not necessarily match with cranial material, such as KNM ER 3733 and KNM ER 3883 (since neither preserves the jaw), nor with the mandible preserved in Turkana Boy, which has markedly different dentition.{{Sfn|Tattersall|2013|p=15}}

The most "iconic" fossil of ''H. ergaster'' is the KNM ER 3733 skull, which is sharply distinguished from Asian ''H. erectus'' by a number of characteristics, including that the brow ridges project forward as well as upward and arc separately over each orbit and the braincase being quite tall compared to its width, with its side walls curving. KNM ER 3733 can be distinguished from KNM ER 3883 by a number of features as well, notably in that the margins of KNM ER 3883's brow ridges are very thickened and protrude outwards but slightly downwards rather than upwards.{{Sfn|Tattersall|2013|p=8}} Both skulls can be distinguished from the skull of Turkana Boy, which possesses only slightly substantial thickenings of the superior orbital margins, lacking the more vertical thickening of KNM ER 3883 and the aggressive protrusion of KNM ER 3733. In addition to this, the facial structure of Turkana Boy is narrower and longer than that of the other skulls, with a higher nasal aperture and likely a flatter profile of the upper face. It is possible that these differences can be accounted for through Turkana Boy being a subadult, 7 to 12 years old.{{Sfn|Tattersall|2013|p=9}} Furthermore, KNM ER 3733 is presumed to have been the skull of a female (whereas Turkana Boy is traditionally interpreted as male), which means that sexual dimorphism may account for some of the differences.{{Sfn|Brown|Harris|p=789|Leakey|Walker|1985}}

There is no way of knowing if whether these early hominids scavenged or hunted more, but meat became a crucial role for the development of the ever increasing brain capacity. Meat contains large amounts of porteins and nutrients all the energy required for the more demanding body, especially for the brain. Homo ergaster’s brain sizes were about 700 to 900cc a bit larger than Homo habilis and [[Homo rudolfensis]] who had 750cc. It was perhaps the [[nutrition]] of meat that made our ancestors grow larger brains. Homo ergaster/erectus became the first hominids known to use the [[Archeaulan]] stone tool industry found alongside remains form the fossils uncovered.

The differences between Turkana Boy's skull and KNM ER 3733 and KNM ER 3883, as well as the differences in dentition between Turkana Boy and KNM ER 992 have been interpreted by some, such as paleoanthropologist Jeffrey H. Schwartz, as suggesting that Turkana Boy and the rest of the ''H. ergaster'' material does not represent the same taxon. Schwartz also noted none of the fossils seemed to represent ''H. erectus'' either, which he believed was in need of significant revision.{{Sfn|Schwartz|2000|p=|pp=55–56}} In 2000, French palaeoanthropologist Valéry Zeitoun suggested that KNM ER 3733 and KNM ER 3883 should be referred to two separate species, which she dubbed ''H. kenyaensis'' (type specimen KNM ER 3733) and ''H. okotensis'' (type specimen KNM ER 3883), but these designations have found little acceptance.{{Sfn|Bonde|2012|p=171}}

Clearly, these were not the ape-men creatures as [[Eugene Dubois]] was the first to discover Homo erectus remains in South Eastern [[Asia]] (Island of [[Java]], [[Indonesia]]) . Unlike the first hairy species of Homo such as habilis and rudolfensis living 2.5 to 2 million years ago, the ergaster were very likely dark and smooth skinned. This adaptation was a necessity because living under the ever-increasing dry and hot [[African]] terrain; ergaster developed one difference in comparison to their predecessors. The likely dark skin pigmentation acted as a shield in order to protect the skin from the Suns ultraviolet rays. This adaptation is seen in dark skinned Africans of today who have well adapted bodies for the hot conditions. Homo ergaster must have sweated; in combination with the lost hair and taller height, sweating kept the body cool from the Suns intense heat range.

== Evolutionary history ==

As Africa became dryer 2 million years ago, more [[savannah]] would cover the [[continent]] making Homo ergaster capable of traveling longer distances in order to find water sources from lakes and [[vegetation]]. One crucial difference between these himinids and the previous Homo habilis ape-men was the size of the dentation. Homo ergaster seemed to have the right fit bodies made for hunting meat instead of having to scavenge.

=== Evolution and temporal range ===

==Rise of Homo erectus==

{{Further|Human evolution#H. ergaster and H. erectus}}

Although frequently assumed to have originated in [[East Africa]], the origins of ''H. ergaster'' are obscured by the fact that the species marks a radical departure from earlier species of ''Homo'' and ''[[Australopithecus]]'' in its long limbs, height and modern body proportions. Though a large number of Pleistocene tools have been found in East Africa, it can not be fully ascertained that ''H. ergaster'' originated there without further fossil discoveries.{{Sfn|Dennell|Roebroeks|p=1099|2005}} It is assumed that ''H. ergaster'' evolved from earlier species of ''Homo'', probably ''H. habilis''. Though populations of ''H. ergaster'' outside of Africa have been inferred based on the geographical distribution of their descendants and tools matching those in East Africa, fossils of the species are mainly from East Africa in the time range of 1.8 to 1.7&nbsp;million years ago. Most fossils have been recovered from around the shores of Lake Turkana in Kenya.{{Sfn|Klein|2005|p=85}}

The oldest known specimen of ''H. erectus'' s.l. in Africa (i.e. ''H. ergaster'') is [[DNH 134]], a skull recovered in the [[Drimolen]] Palaeocave System in South Africa, dated to 2.04 to 1.95&nbsp;million years ago. The skull is also the oldest known ''H. erectus'' s.l. specimen overall, showing clear similarities to KNM ER 3733, and demonstrates that early ''H. ergaster'' coexisted with other hominins such as ''[[Paranthropus robustus]]'' and ''[[Australopithecus sediba]]''.{{Sfn|Herries|Martin|p=|Leece|Adams|2020}}

Evidence suggests that Homo ergaster began to make long migrations and would ultimately leave the African home continent in a matter of less than 100,000(?) years. Over the millennia the species eventually reached as far as the Europe (evidence suggests the new genus [[Homo georgicus]]) [[Middle East]], [[Eastern]] and [[Southern]] Asia became inhabited 1.9 million years ago) [[Asia]] would become a major advantage for these early hominids as being rich in resources and would help them become the longest living known hominid species Homo erectus.

There are also younger specimens of ''H. ergaster''; notably, Turkana Boy is dated to about 1.56&nbsp;million years ago.{{Sfn|Klein|2005|p=85}} A handful of even younger African skulls make the case for long-term anatomical continuity, though it is unclear if they can appropriately be formally regarded as ''H. ergaster'' specimens; the "[[Olduvai Hominid 9]]" skull from Olduvai Gorge is dated to about 1.2 to 1.1&nbsp;million years ago and there are also skulls from Buia (near the coast of Eritrea, dated to ~1&nbsp;million years old), the Bouri Formation in Ethiopia (dated to between 1 million and 780,000 years old) and a fragmentary skull from Olorgesailie in Kenya (dated to between 970,000 and 900,000 years ago). The Olduvai skull is similar to Asian ''H. erectus'' in its massive brow ridge, but the others only show minor differences to earlier ''H. ergaster'' skulls.{{Sfn|Klein|2005|p=104}}

Yhe variation in comparison to the Javanese fossils and African specimens from Eastern and Southern Africa differ in post-cranial shape. Specimen Sangiran 17 for example is more robust and larger brow ridges protrude over the eye orbits in comparison with KNM 1808-3733 .

The ''H. erectus'' in Asia, as well as later hominins in Europe (i. e. ''H. heidelbergensis'' and ''H. neanderthalensis'') and Africa (''H. sapiens'') are all probably lineages descended from ''H. ergaster.{{Sfn|Klein|2005|p=85}}'' Because ''H. ergaster'' is thought to have been ancestral to these later ''Homo'', it might have persisted in Africa until around 600,000 years ago, when brain size increased rapidly and ''H. heidelbergensis'' emerged.{{Sfn|Klein|2005|p=93}}

=== Expansion out of Africa ===

== Reference ==

{{See also|Early expansions of hominins out of Africa}}

* Tattersall, Ian and Schwartz, Jeffrey. "''Extinct Humans''". Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado and Cumnor Hill, Oxford, 2000. ISBN 0-8133-3482-9 (hc)

[[File:Spreading_homo_sapiens_la.svg|thumb|300x300px|Successive dispersals of {{color box|#e8e22c}} ''Homo ergaster''/''[[Homo erectus]]'' (yellow), {{color box|#e4ca30}} ''[[Homo neanderthalensis]]'' (ochre) and {{color box|#e9252c}} ''[[Homo sapiens]]'' (red).|alt=|left]]

Traditionally, ''H. erectus'' was seen as the hominin that first left Africa to colonise Europe and Asia. If ''H. ergaster'' is distinct from ''H. erectus'', this role would apply to ''H. ergaster'' instead.{{Sfn|Tattersall|2013|p=15}}{{Sfn|Klein|2005|p=85}} Very little concrete information is known on when and which ''Homo'' first appeared in Europe and Asia, since Early Pleistocene fossil hominins are scarce on both continents, and that it would have been ''H. ergaster'' (or "early ''H. erectus''") that expanded, as well as the particular manner in which they did, remains conjecture.{{Sfn|Klein|2005|p=92}} The presence of ''H. erectus'' fossils in East Asia means that a human species, most likely ''H. ergaster'', had left Africa before 1&nbsp;million years ago,{{Sfn|Klein|2005|p=101}} the assumption historically having been that they first migrated out of Africa around 1.9 to 1.7&nbsp;million years ago.{{Sfn|Klein|2005|p=92}} Discoveries in Georgia and China push the latest possible date further back, before 2&nbsp;million years ago, also casting doubt on the idea that ''H. ergaster'' was the first hominin to leave Africa.{{Sfn|Zhu|Dennell|p=608|Huang|Wu|2018}}

The main reason for leaving Africa is likely to have been an increasing population periodically outgrowing their resource base, with splintering groups moving to establishing themselves in neighboring, empty territories over time. The physiology and improved technology of ''H. ergaster'' might have allowed them to travel to and colonise territories that no one had ever occupied before.{{Sfn|Klein|2005|p=101}} It is unclear if ''H. ergaster'' was truly uniquely capable of expanding outside Africa; australopithecines had likely colonised savannah grasslands throughout Africa by 3&nbsp;million years ago and there are no clear reasons as to why they would not have been able to expand into the grasslands of Asia before ''H. ergaster''.{{Sfn|Dennell|Roebroeks|p=1100|2005}}

*http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html

The general assumption is that hominins migrated out of the continent either across the southern end of the [[Red Sea]] or along the [[Nile Valley]], but there are no fossil hominins known from either region in the early Pleistocene. The earliest ''Homo'' fossils outside Africa are the [[Dmanisi skulls]] from Georgia (dated to 1.77–1.85&nbsp;million years old,{{Sfn|Zhu|Dennell|p=608|Huang|Wu|2018}} representing either early ''H. ergaster'' or a new taxon, ''[[H. georgicus]]''), three incisors from [[Ubeidiya prehistoric site|Ubeidiya]] in Israel (about 1.4 to 1&nbsp;million years old) and the fossils of [[Java Man]] (''H. erectus erectus'', more than five thousand miles away).{{Sfn|Dennell|Roebroeks|p=1099|2005}} The dating of key Asian ''H. erectus'' specimens (including Java Man) is not entirely certain, but they are all likely to be 1.5&nbsp;million years old or younger.{{Sfn|Klein|2005|p=92}} Ubeidiya is also the oldest firmly confirmed site of [[Acheulean]] tools (one of the tool industries associated with ''H. ergaster'') outside Africa, the tools recovered there closely resembling older tools discovered in East Africa.{{Sfn|Klein|2005|p=101}}

== Footnote ==

<div style="font-size: 90%">

#{{note|992}}'''KNM-ER 992''' is short for: '''K'''enya '''N'''ational '''M'''useum (where it is housed); '''E'''ast '''R'''udolf (where it was found); and '''992''' (the museum acquisition number)

</div>

The earliest fossil evidence of ''Homo'' in Asia are the aforementioned Dmanisi skulls, which share many traits with ''H. ergaster'' in Africa, suggesting that ''H. ergaster'' might have expanded out of Africa as early as 1.7–1.9&nbsp;million years ago.{{Sfn|Klein|2005|p=103}} In addition to ''H. ergaster''-like traits, the Dmanisi skulls possess a wide assortment of other traits, some of which are similar to traits in earlier hominins such as ''H. habilis'', and the site notably lacks preserved hand axes (otherwise characteristic of ''H. ergaster''), which means that hominins might have spread out of Africa even earlier than ''H. ergaster''.{{Sfn|Dennell|Roebroeks|p=1100|2005}} The skull [[D2700]] (Dmanisi skull 3) in particular resembles ''H. habilis'' in the small volume of its braincase (600 cc), the form of the middle and upper face and the lack of an external nose. The mixture of skulls at Dmanisi suggests that the definition of ''H. ergaster'' (or ''H. erectus'') might most appropriately be expanded to contain fossils that would otherwise be assigned to ''H. habilis'' or that two separate species of archaic humans left Africa early on.{{Sfn|Klein|2005|p=104}} In addition to the Dmanisi fossils, stone tools manufactured by hominins have been discovered on the [[Loess Plateau]] in China and dated to 2.12&nbsp;million years old, meaning that hominins must have left Africa before that time.{{Sfn|Zhu|Dennell|p=608|Huang|Wu|2018}}

{{primate-stub}}

An alternative hypothesis historically has been that ''Homo'' evolved in Asia from earlier ancestors that had migrated there from Africa, and then expanded back into Europe, where it gave rise to ''H. sapiens''. This view was notably held by [[Eugène Dubois]], who first described ''H. erectus'' fossils in the 19th century and considered the fossils of Java Man, at the time undeniably the earliest known hominin fossils, as proof of the hypothesis. Though the discovery of australopithecines and earlier ''Homo'' in Africa meant that ''Homo'' itself did not originate in Asia, the idea that ''H. erectus'' (or ''H. ergaster'') in particular did, and then expanded back into Africa, has occasionally resurfaced.{{Sfn|Larick|Ciochon|p=1|1996}} Various fossil discoveries have been used to support it through the years, including a massive set of jaws from Indonesia which were perceived to be similar to those of australopithecines and dubbed ''[[Meganthropus]]'' (now believed to be an unrelated [[hominid]] [[ape]]). The discovery of ''H. floresiensis'' in 2003, which preserved primitive foot and wrist anatomy reminiscent of that of ''H. habilis'' and ''Australopithecus'' again led to suggestions of pre-''erectus'' hominins in Asia, though there are no known comparable foot or wrist bones from ''H. erectus'' which makes comparisons impossible.{{Sfn|Ciochon|2009|p=910}} The idea that ''H. ergaster''/''H. erectus'' first evolved in Asia before expanding back into Africa was substantially weakened by the dating of the DNH 134 skull as approximately 2&nbsp;million years old, predating all other known ''H. ergaster''/''H. erectus'' fossils.{{Sfn|Herries|Martin|p=|Leece|Adams|2020}}

[[Category:early hominids]]

[[Category:Pleistocene]]

== Anatomy ==

[[ast:Homo ergaster]]

[[ca:Homo ergaster]]

=== Build and appearance ===

[[de:Homo ergaster]]

The only well-preserved post-cranial remains of ''H. ergaster'' come from the Turkana Boy fossil. Unlike the australopithecines, Turkana Boy's arms were not longer relative to their legs than the arms of living people and the cone-shaped torso of their ancestors had evolved into a more barrel-shaped chest over narrow hips, another similarity to modern humans.{{Sfn|Klein|2005|p=87}} The [[tibia]] (shin bone) of Turkana Boy is relatively longer than the same bone in modern humans, potentially meaning that there was more bend in the knee when walking.{{Sfn|Roberts|2018|p=117}} The slim and long build of Turkana Boy may be explained by ''H. ergaster'' living in hot and arid, seasonal environments. Through thinning of the body, body volume decreases faster than skin area and greater skin area means more effective heat dissipation.{{Sfn|Klein|2005|p=88}}

[[es:Homo ergaster]]

[[fr:Homo ergaster]]

''H. ergaster'' individuals were significantly taller than their ancestors. Whereas [[Lucy (Australopithecus)|Lucy]], a famous ''Australopithecus'' fossil, would only have been about {{cvt|1|m|ftin|sigfig=1}} tall at her death, Turkana Boy was about {{cvt|1.62|m|ftin|sigfig=1}} tall and would probably have reached {{cvt|1.82|m|ft|sigfig=1}} or more if he had survived to adulthood.{{Sfn|Klein|2005|p=87}} Adult ''H. ergaster'' are believed to have ranged in size from about {{cvt|1.45|to|1.85|m|ftin|sigfig=1}} tall.{{Sfn|Roberts|2018|p=117}}

[[it:Homo ergaster]]

[[nl:Homo ergaster]]

Because of being adapted to a hot and arid climate, ''H. ergaster'' might also have been the earliest human species to have nearly hairless and naked skin. If instead ''H. ergaster'' had an ape-like covering of body hair, [[sweating]] (the primary means through which modern humans prevent their brains and bodies from overheating) would not have been as efficient.{{Sfn|Klein|2005|p=88}} Though sweating is the generally accepted explanation for hairlessness, other proposed explanations include a reduction of [[Parasitism|parasite]] load{{Sfn|Pagel|Bodmer|p=329|2004}} and [[sexual selection]].{{Sfn|Giles|2010|p=326}} It is doubtful if australopithecines and earlier ''Homo'' were sufficiently mobile to make hair loss an advantageous trait, whereas ''H. ergaster'' was clearly adapted for long-distance travel and noted for inhabiting lower altitudes (and open, hot savannah environments) than their ancestors. Australopithecines typically inhabited colder and higher altitudes 1,000–1,600 m (3,300–5,200&nbsp;ft), where nighttime temperatures would have gotten significantly colder and insulating body hair may have been required.{{Sfn|Dávid-Barrett|Dunbar|2016}}

[[ja:&#12507;&#12514;&#12539;&#12456;&#12523;&#12460;&#12473;&#12486;&#12523;]]

[[pl:Homo ergaster]]

Alternatively and despite this, the loss of body hair could have occurred significantly earlier than ''H. ergaster''. Though skin impressions are unknown in any extinct hominin, it is possible that human ancestors were already losing their body hair around 3&nbsp;million years ago. Human ancestors acquired [[pubic lice]] from gorillas about 3&nbsp;million years ago, and speciation of human from gorilla pubic lice was potentially only possible because human ancestors had lost most of their body hair by this early date.{{Sfn|Ruxton|Wilkinson|p=20967|2011}} It is also possible that the loss of body hair occurred at a significantly later date. Genetic analysis suggests that high activity in the [[melanocortin 1 receptor]], which produces dark skin, dates back to about 1.2&nbsp;million years ago. This could indicate the evolution of hairlessness around this time, as a lack of body hair would have left the skin exposed to harmful [[UV radiation]].{{Sfn|Rogers|Iltis|Wooding|2004|pp=105–108}}

[[pt:Homo ergaster]]

=== Skull and face ===

[[File:KNM ER 3733 (H. ergaster).png|left|thumb|[[KNM ER 3733]], a famous ''Homo ergaster'' skull]]

Differences to modern humans would have been readily apparent in the face and skull of ''H. ergaster''. Turkana Boy's brain was almost fully grown at the time of his death, but its volume (at 880 cc) was only about 130 cc greater than the maximum found in ''H. habilis'', about 500 cc below the average of modern humans. The 130 cc increase from ''H. habilis'' becomes much less significant than what could be presumed when the larger body size of Turkana Boy and ''H. ergaster'' is considered.{{Sfn|Klein|2005|p=|pp=87–88}} With all ''H. ergaster'' skulls considered, the brain volume of the species mostly varied between 600 and 910 cc, with some small examples only having a volume of 508–580 cc. Since their brain was smaller than that of modern humans, the skull of ''H. ergaster'' immediately narrowed behind the eye sockets ([[post-orbital constriction]]).{{Sfn|Roberts|2018|p=117}}

[[File:Homo ergaster reconstruction, American Museum of Natural History.jpg|thumb|upright=1.5|Homo ergaster reconstruction, American Museum of Natural History.]]

The brain case was long and low, and Turkana Boy's forehead was flat and receding, merging at an angle with the brow ridge above their eyes. A noticeable difference between Turkana Boy and the australopithecines and ''H. habilis'' would have been their nose, which would have been similar to that of modern humans in projecting forwards and having nostrils oriented downwards. This external nose may have also been an adaptation towards a warmer climate, since the noses of modern humans are usually cooler than their central bodies, condensing moisture that would otherwise have been exhaled and lost during periods of increased activity.{{Sfn|Klein|2005|p=|pp=87–88}} The face of Turkana Boy would have been longer from top to bottom than that of modern humans, with the jaws projecting farther outwards ([[prognathism]]). Though the jaws and teeth were smaller than those of the average australopithecine and ''H. habilis'', they were still significantly larger than those of modern humans. Since the jaw slanted sharply backwards, it is probable that they were chinless.{{Sfn|Klein|2005|p=88}}

The overall structure of Turkana Boy's skull and face is also reflected in other ''H. ergaster'' skulls, which combine large and outwardly projecting faces with brow ridges, receding foreheads, large teeth and projecting nasal bones.{{Sfn|Klein|2005|p=88}} Though Turkana Boy would have been no more than 12 years old when he died, their stature is more similar to that of a modern 15-year-old and the brain is comparable to that of a modern 1-year-old. By modern standards, ''H. ergaster'' would thus have been cognitively limited, though the invention of new tools prove that they were more intelligent than their predecessors.{{Sfn|Klein|2005|p=89}}

=== Body mass and sexual dimorphism ===

[[File:Homo-erectus Turkana-Boy (Ausschnitt) Fundort Nariokotome, Kenia, Rekonstruktion im Neanderthal Museum.jpg|thumb|upright=1.3|Reconstruction of [[Turkana boy]] by Adrie and Alfons Kennis at the [[Neanderthal Museum]]]]

''H. ergaster'' possessed a significantly larger body mass in comparison to earlier hominins such as early ''Homo'', ''[[Australopithecus]]'' and ''[[Paranthropus]]''.{{Sfn|Aiello|Wells|2002|p=324}} Whereas australopithecines typically ranged in weight from 29–48&nbsp;kg (64–106&nbsp;lbs), ''H. ergaster'' typically ranged in weight from 52–63&nbsp;kg (115–139&nbsp;lbs).{{Sfn|Aiello|Wells|2002|p=325}} It is possible that the increased body size was the result of life in an open savannah environment, where increased size gives the ability to exploit broader diets in larger foraging areas, increases mobility and also gives the ability to hunt larger prey.{{Sfn|Aiello|Wells|2002|p=324}} The increased body mass also means that parents would have been able to carry their children to an older age and larger mass.{{Sfn|Aiello|Wells|2002|p=325}}

Though reduced [[sexual dimorphism]] has often been cited historically as one of the radical differences between ''H. ergaster'' and earlier ''Homo'' and australopithecines,{{Sfn|Aiello|Wells|2002|p=324}}{{Sfn|Dennell|Roebroeks|p=1099|2005}} it is unclear whether australopithecines were significantly more sexually diamorphic than ''H. ergaster'' or modern humans.{{Sfn|Reno|Meindl|McCollum|p=9404|Lovejoy|2003}} Skeletal evidence suggests that sexes in ''H. ergaster'' differed no more in size than sexes in modern humans do,{{Sfn|Klein|2005|p=89}} but a 2003 study by palaeoanthropologists Philip L. Reno, Richard S. Meindl, Melanie A. McCollum and C. Owen Lovejoy suggested that the same was also true for the significantly earlier ''Australopithecus afarensis''.{{Sfn|Reno|Meindl|McCollum|p=9404|Lovejoy|2003}} Sexual dimorphism is difficult to measure in extinct species since the sex of fossils is usually not determinable. Historically, scientists have typically measured differences between the extreme ends (in terms of size and morphology) of the fossil material attributed to a species and assumed that the resulting ratio applies to the mean difference between male and female individuals.{{Sfn|Kimbel|White|2017|p=176}}

=== Growth and development ===

The dimensions of a 1.8&nbsp;million years old adult female ''H. ergaster'' pelvis from [[Gona, Ethiopia|Gona]], Ethiopia suggests that ''H. ergaster'' would have been capable of birthing children with a maximum prenatal (pre-birth) brain size of 315 cc, about 30–50% of adult brain size. This value falls intermediately between that of chimpanzees (~40%) and modern humans (28%).{{Sfn|Simpson|Quade|p=1090|Levin|Butler|2008}} Further conclusions about the growth and development in early ''Homo'' can be drawn from the [[Mojokerto child]], a ~1.4–1.5-million-year-old ~one-year-old Asian ''H. erectus'', which had a brain at about 72–84% the size of an adult ''H. erectus'' brain, which suggests a brain growth trajectory more similar to that of other [[great ape]]s than of modern humans.{{Sfn|Coqueugniot|Hublin|Veillon|Houët|2004|pp=299–302}} Both the Gona pelvis and the Mojokerto child suggest that the [[prenatal growth]] of ''H. ergaster'' was similar to that of modern humans but that the postnatal (post-birth) growth and development was intermediate between that of chimpanzees and modern humans.{{Sfn|Simpson|Quade|p=1090|Levin|Butler|2008}} The faster development rate suggests that [[altriciality]] (an extended childhood and a long period of dependency on your parents) evolved at a later stage in human evolution, possibly in the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans.{{Sfn|Coqueugniot|Hublin|Veillon|Houët|2004|pp=299–302}} The faster development rate might also indicate that the expected lifespan of ''H. ergaster'' and ''H. erectus'' was lower than that of later and modern humans.{{Sfn|Caspari|Lee|p=|2004}}

== Culture ==

=== Diet and energetics ===

[[File:Elife-24232-fig11-v1 Comparison of Homo naledi mandibles to other hominin species, from lateral view.jpg|thumb|[[Jaw]] of ''Homo ergaster'' ([[KNM ER 992]] in the top-right, labelled as ''Homo erectus'' in the image) compared to jaws of other members of the genus ''[[Homo]]'']]

It is frequently assumed that the larger body and brain size of ''H. ergaster'', compared to its ancestors, would have brought with it increased dietary and energy needs.{{Sfn|Aiello|Wells|2002|p=325}} In 2002, palaeoanthropologists Leslie C. Aiello and Jonathan C. K. Wells stated that the average resting metabolic requirements of ''H. ergaster'' would have been 39% higher than those of ''[[Australopithecus afarensis]]'', 30% higher in males and 54% higher in females.{{Sfn|Aiello|Wells|2002|p=326}} However, the torso proportions of ''H. ergaster'' implies a relatively small gut,{{Sfn|Aiello|Wells|2002|p=326}} which means that energy needs might not necessarily have been higher in ''H. ergaster'' than in earlier hominins. This is because the earlier ape (and australopithecine) gut was large and energy-expensive since it needed to synthesize fat through fermenting plant matter, whereas ''H. ergaster'' likely ate significantly more animal fat than their predecessors. This would have allowed more energy to be diverted to brain growth, increasing brain size while maintaining the energy requirements of earlier species.{{Sfn|Ungar|Grine|Teaford|p=|2008|pp=208–228}}{{Sfn|Ben-Dor|Gopher|Hershkovitz|p=|Barkai|2011}}

If they had increased energy requirements, ''H. ergaster'' would have needed to eat either vastly more food than australopithecines, or would have needed to eat food of superior quality. If they ate the same type of foods as the australopithecines, feeding time would then have had to be dramatically increased in proportion to the extra calories required, reducing the time ''H. ergaster'' could use for resting, socialising and travelling. Though this would have been possible, it is considered unlikely, especially since the jaws and teeth of ''H. ergaster'' are reduced in size compared to those of the australopithecines, suggesting a shift in diet away from fibrous and difficult-to-chew foods. Regardless of energy needs, the small gut of ''H. ergaster'' also suggests a more easily digested diet composed of food of higher quality.{{Sfn|Aiello|Wells|2002|p=326}}

It is likely that ''H. ergaster'' consumed meat in higher proportions than the earlier australopithecines.{{Sfn|Aiello|Wells|2002|p=326}} Meat was probably acquired through a combination of ambushes, active hunting and confrontational scavenging. ''H. ergaster'' must not only have possessed the ability of [[Endurance_running_hypothesis |endurance running]], but must also have been able to defend themselves and the carcasses of their prey from the variety of contemporary African predators. It is possible that a drop in African [[carnivora]]n species variety around 1.5&nbsp;million years ago can be ascribed to competition with opportunistic and carnivorous hominins.{{Sfn|Willems|Schaik|2017|p=12}}

On its own, meat might not have been able to fully sustain ''H. ergaster''. Modern humans can not sufficiently metabolize protein to meet more than 50% of their energy needs and modern humans who heavily rely on animal-based products in their diet mostly rely on fat to sustain the rest of their energy requirements.{{Sfn|Aiello|Wells|2002|p=326}} Multiple reasons make a fully meat-based diet in ''H. ergaster'' unlikely, the most prominent being that African [[ungulate]]s (the primary prey available) are relatively low in fat and that high meat diets demand increased intake of water, which would have been difficult in an open and hot environment. Modern African [[hunter-gatherer]]s who rely heavily on meat, such as the [[Hadza people|Hadza]] and [[San people|San]] peoples, also use cultural means to recover the maximum amount of fat from the carcasses of their prey, a method that would not have been available to ''H. ergaster''.{{Sfn|Aiello|Wells|2002|p=327}}

''H. ergaster'' would thus likely have consumed large quantities of meat, vastly more than their ancestors, but would also have had to make use of a variety of other food sources, such as seeds, honey, nuts, invertebrates,{{Sfn|Aiello|Wells|2002|p=327}} nutritious tubers, bulbs and other underground plant storage organs.{{Sfn|Klein|2005|p=88}} The relatively small chewing capacity of ''H. ergaster'', in comparison to its larger-jawed ancestors, means that the meat and high quality plant food consumed would likely have required the use of tools to process before eating.{{Sfn|Janssen|Sept|Griffith|p=308|2007}}

=== Social structure and dynamics ===

[[File:Ileret_trackways.jpg|thumb|300x300px|Diagram of fossil trackways from two sites near [[Ileret]], Kenya attributed to ''Homo ergaster''/''Homo erectus''|alt=|left]]

''H. ergaster'' lived on the African savannah, which during the Pleistocene was home to a considerably more formidable community of carnivorans than the present savannah. Hominins could probably only have adapted to life on the savannah if effective anti-predator defense behaviours had already evolved. Defense against predators would likely have come through ''H. ergaster'' living in large groups, possessing stone (and presumably wooden) tools and effective counter-attack behaviour having been established. In modern primates that spend significant amounts of time on the savannah, such as chimpanzees and [[Guinea baboon|savannah baboons]], individuals form large, multi-male, groups wherein multiple males can effectively work together to fend off and counter-attack predators, occasionally with the use of stones or sticks, and protect the rest of the group. It is possible that similar behaviour was exhibited in early ''Homo''. Based on the male-bonded systems within [[bonobo]]s and chimpanzees, and the tendency towards male bonding in modern foragers, groups of early ''Homo'' might have been male-bonded as well. Because of the scarcity of fossil material, group size in early ''Homo'' cannot be determined with any certainty. Groups were probably large, it is possible groups were above the upper range of known group sizes among chimpanzees and baboons ({{Circa|}} 100 individuals or more).{{Sfn|Willems|Schaik|2017|p=17}} In 1993, palaeoanthropologists Leslie C. Aiello and R. I. M. Dunbar estimated that the group size of ''H. habilis'' and ''H. rudolfensis'', based on [[neocortex]] size (as there is a known relationship between neocortex size and group size in modern non-human primates),{{Sfn|Aiello|Dunbar|1993|p=184}} would have ranged from about 70–85 individuals.{{Sfn|Aiello|Dunbar|1993|p=188}} With the additional factor of bipedalism, which is energetically cheaper than quadrupedalism, the maximum ecologically tolerable group size may have been even larger.{{Sfn|Willems|Schaik|2017|p=17}} Aiello's and Dunbar's group size estimates in regards to ''H. ergaster'' was 91–116 individuals.{{Sfn|Aiello|Dunbar|1993|p=188}}

Social and counter-attack behaviour of earlier ''Homo'' probably carried over into ''H. ergaster'', where they are likely to have developed even further. ''H. ergaster'' was probably the first primate to move into the niche of social carnivore (i. e. [[hunter-gatherer]]).{{Sfn|Willems|Schaik|2017|p=17}} Such behaviour would probably have been the result of counter-attacks in the context of competition over nutritious food with other carnivores and would probably have evolved from something akin to the opportunistic hunting sometimes exhibited by chimpanzees. The switch to predation in groups might have triggered a cascade of evolutionary changes which changed the course of human evolution. Cooperative behaviours such as opportunistic hunting in groups, predator defense and confrontational scavenging would have been critical for survival which means that a fundamental transition in psychology gradually transpired. With the typical "competitive cooperation" behaviour exhibited by most primates no longer being favored through natural selection and social tendencies taking its place, hunting, and other activities, would have become true collaborative efforts. Because counter-attack behaviour is typically exhibited in males of modern primates, social hunting in archaic humans is believed to have been a primarily male activity. Females likely conducted other types of foraging, gathering food which did not require hunting (i.e. fruits, nuts, eggs, etc.).{{Sfn|Willems|Schaik|2017|p=19}}

With hunting being a social activity, individuals probably shared the meat with one another, which would have strengthened the bonds both between the hunters themselves and between the hunters and the rest of the ''H. ergaster'' group. Females likely shared what they had foraged with the rest of the group as well. This development could have led to the development of male-female friendships into opportunistic [[Monogamy in animals|monogamous]] pair bonds. Since sexual selection from females probably favored males that could hunt, the emerging social behaviour resulting from these new behaviours would have been carried over and amplified through the generations.{{Sfn|Willems|Schaik|2017|p=19}}

The only direct evidence of ''H. ergaster'' group composition comes from a series of sites outside of Ileret in Kenya, where 97 footprints made around 1.5&nbsp;million years ago by a group of at least 20 individuals have been preserved. Based on the size of the footprints, one of the trackways appears to have been a group entirely composed of males, possibly a specialised task group, such as a border patrol or a hunting or foraging party. If this assessment is correct, this would further suggest a male-female division of responsibilities. In modern [[hunter-gatherer]] societies who target large prey items, male parties are typically dispatched to bring down these high-risk animals, and, due to the low success rate, female parties tend to focus on more predictable foods.{{Sfn|Hatala|Roach|Ostrofsky|Wunderlich|2016|pp=1–7}}

=== Technology ===

==== Tool production ====

{{See also|Acheulean}}

[[File:Bifaz_cordiforme.jpg|thumb|A cordiform [[hand axe]] as commonly found in the [[Acheulean]] (replica)]]

Early ''H. ergaster'' inherited the [[Oldowan]] culture of tools from australopithecines and earlier ''Homo'', though quickly learnt to strike much larger stone flakes than their predecessors and contemporaries. By 1.65&nbsp;million years ago, ''H. ergaster'' had created the extensively flaked artefacts and early [[hand axe]]s that mark the Acheulean culture,{{Sfn|Klein|2005|p=85}} and by 1.6–1.4&nbsp;million years ago, the new tool industry was widely established in East Africa.{{Sfn|Klein|2005|p=94}} Acheulean tools differ from Oldowan tools in that the core forms of the tools were clearly deliberate. Whereas the shape of the core forms in Oldowan tools, which were probably used mostly as hammers to crack bones for marrow, appears to not have mattered much, the hand axes of the Acheulean culture demonstrate an intent to produce narrow and sharp objects, typically in teardrop, oval or triangular shapes.{{Sfn|Klein|2005|p=93}} Once in place, the Acheulean industry remained unchanged throughout ''H. ergaster''{{'}}s existence and later times, with tools produced near its end about 250,000 years ago not being significantly different from tools produced 1.65&nbsp;million years ago.{{Sfn|Klein|2005|p=95}}

[[File:Agarre de un bifaz.png|thumb|Drawing of a hand holding a [[hand axe]]]]

The oldest Acheulean assemblages also preserve core forms similar to those in Oldowan tools, but there are no known true intermediate forms between the two, suggesting that the appearance of Acheulean tools was an abrupt and sudden development. The most significant development that led to the Acheulean tools was likely early hominins learning the ability to strike large flakes, up to {{cvt|30|cm|ft|0}} or more in length, from larger boulders, from which they could manufacture new tools such as hand axes.{{Sfn|Klein|2005|p=94}} Though "hand axe" implies that all hand axes were used for chopping and were hand-held, they came in a variety of different shapes and size and probably served several different functions. Carefully shaped and symmetric examples may have been hurled at prey akin to modern [[discus]]es, more casually made examples may simply have served as portable sources for sharp flakes and some could have been used for scraping or chopping wood. Additionally, hand axes are effective butchering tools and were possibly also used for dismembering carcasses of large animals.{{Sfn|Klein|2005|p=95}}

There are preserved hand axes that are too unwieldy and large to be used for any apparent practical purpose. The use of these larger hand axes, and for some discovered collections of hundreds of hand axes without obvious signs of use, is speculative and conjectural. An idea that has been popular in the popular press, and frequently cited in academia,{{Sfn|Nowell|Chang|p=77|2009}} is that large and impressive hand axes might have been emblems used for attracting mates, with makers of large axes showing strength, coordination and determination, qualities that may have been regarded as attractive.{{Sfn|Klein|2005|p=95}} Palaeoanthropologists April Nowell and Melanie Lee Chang noted in 2009 that though this theory is "both intriguing and emotionally appealing", there is little evidence for it and it is untestable.{{Sfn|Nowell|Chang|p=83|2009}} They considered it more probable that variations in hand axe morphology over the course of hundreds of thousands of years was the result of various different factors rather than a single, overarching factor in sexual selection.{{Sfn|Nowell|Chang|p=84|2009}}

==== Fire ====

{{See also|Control of fire by early humans}}As ''Homo'' migrated into open savannah environments, encounters with natural fires must have become more frequent and significant.{{Sfn|Gowlett|2016|p=2}} It is possible that ''H. ergaster'' were the earliest humans to master the control of fire, which they may have used for cooking purposes. Cooking renders both meat and plant foods more digestible, which might have been important since the guts of ''H. ergaster'' were reduced in size compared to those of their ancestors.{{Sfn|Klein|2005|p=88}} Though ''H. ergaster''/''H. erectus'' is frequently assumed to have been the earliest ''Homo'' to control fire, concrete evidence is somewhat lacking in the fossil record, perhaps partly due to the difficulty for actual evidence of fire usage to be preserved.{{Sfn|Gowlett|2016|p=3}}{{Sfn|Sandgathe|Berna|p=S168|2017}} Two of the earliest sites commonly claimed to preserve evidence of fire usage are FxJj20 at Koobi Fora and GnJi 1/6E near [[Lake Baringo]], both in Kenya and both dated as up to 1.5&nbsp;million years old. The evidence at FxJj20 consists of burned sediments and heat-altered stone tools, whereas GnJi 1/6E preserves large [[clasts]] of baked clay, associated with stone tools and faunal remains. Though it is difficult to exclude a natural origin for the fire residue evidenced, the sites remain strong candidates for early fire use.{{Sfn|Sandgathe|Berna|p=S168|2017}}{{Sfn|Gowlett|2016|p=4}}

Several sites, preserving more widely accepted evidence of fire usage, have been dated to 1&nbsp;million years ago or earlier, postdating the emergence and last generally accepted record of ''H. ergaster''.{{Sfn|Klein|2005|p=88}} These sites include cave sites, such as [[Wonderwerk Cave|Wonderwerk]] and [[Swartkrans]] in South Africa, and open sites, such as [[Kalambo Falls]] in Zambia. The site Gesher Benot Ya’aqov in Israel, dated to about 700,000 years ago, preserves widely accepted evidence of fire usage through burnt materials and burnt flint microartefacts being preserved at numerous levels.{{Sfn|Klein|2005|p=88}}{{Sfn|Gowlett|2016|p=4}} From around 400,000 years ago and onwards, traces of fire become even more numerous in sites across Africa, Europe and Asia.{{Sfn|Gowlett|2016|p=5}}

=== Language ===

The [[spinal cord]] of Turkana Boy would have been narrower than that of modern humans, which means that the nervous system of ''H. ergaster'', and their respiratory muscles, may not have been developed enough to produce or control speech.{{Sfn|Roberts|2018|p=117}} In 2001, anthropologists Bruce Latimer and James Ohman concluded that Turkana Boy was afflicted by [[skeletal dysplasia]] and [[scoliosis]], and thus would not have been representative of the rest of his species in this respect.{{Sfn|Latimer|Ohman|p=A12|2001}} In 2006, when anthropologist [[Marc Meyer]] and colleagues described a ''H. erectus'' s.l. specimen from Dmanisi, Georgia, dated to 1.78&nbsp;million years old. The fossil preserves the oldest known ''Homo'' vertebrae and the spine found falls within the range of modern human spines, suggesting that the individual would have been capable of speech. Meyer and colleagues concluded that speech was probably possible within ''Homo'' very early on and that Turkana Boy probably suffered from some congenital defect, possibly [[spinal stenosis]].{{Sfn|Meyer|Vekua|p=|Lordkipanidze|2006}}

In 2013 and 2014, anthropologist Regula Schiess and colleagues concluded that there was no evidence of any [[congenital defects]] in Turkana Boy, and, in contrast to the 2001 and 2006 studies, considered the specimen to be representative of the species.{{Sfn|Schiess|Häusler|p=365|2013}}{{Sfn|Schiess|Böni|p=48|Rühli|Häusler|2014}}

== See also ==

*[[List of fossil sites]]

*[[List of human evolution fossils]]

== References ==

{{Reflist|20em}}

=== Cited bibliography ===

{{Refbegin|40em}}

*{{cite journal |first1=R. |last1=Broom |author1-link=Robert Broom |first2=J. T. |last2=Talbot |author2-link=John Talbot Robinson |year=1949 |title=A New Type of Fossil Man |journal=Nature |volume=164 |issue=4164 |pages=322–323 |doi=10.1038/164322a0 |pmid=18137042 |bibcode=1949Natur.164..322B |s2cid=4106457}}

*{{Cite journal |last1=Aiello |first1=Leslie C. |last2=Dunbar |first2=R. I. M. |s2cid=144347664 |date=1993 |title=Neocortex Size, Group Size, and the Evolution of Language |journal=Current Anthropology |volume=34 |issue=2 |pages=184–193 |doi=10.1086/204160}}

*{{Cite journal |last1=Aiello |first1=Leslie C. |last2=Wells |first2=Jonathan C. K. |date=2002 |title=Energetics and the Evolution of the Genus ''Homo'' |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234014124 |journal=Annual Review of Anthropology |volume=31 |pages=323–338 |doi=10.1146/annurev.anthro.31.040402.085403}}

*{{Cite journal |last=Antón |first=Susan C. |date=2003 |title=Natural history of ''Homo erectus'' |journal=Yearbook of Physical Anthropology |volume=46 |pages=126–170 |doi=10.1002/ajpa.10399 |pmid=14666536 |doi-access=free}}

*{{Cite journal |last=Baab |first=Karen L. |date=2008 |title=The taxonomic implications of cranial shape variation in ''Homo erectus'' |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047248407002539 |journal=Journal of Human Evolution |volume=54 |issue=6 |pages=827–847 |doi=10.1016/j.jhevol.2007.11.003 |pmid=18191986 |bibcode=2008JHumE..54..827B |url-access=subscription}}

*{{Cite book |last=Bonde |first=Niels |title=The Symbolic Species Evolved |publisher=Springer |year=2012 |isbn=978-94-007-2336-8 |editor-last=Schilhab |editor-first=Theresa |chapter=Hominid Diversity and ‘Ancestor’ Myths |editor-last2=Stjernfelt |editor-first2=Frederik |editor-last3=Deacon |editor-first3=Terrence}}

*{{Cite journal |last1=Ben-Dor |first1=Miki |last2=Gopher |first2=Avi |last3=Hershkovitz |first3=Israel |last4=Barkai |first4=Ran |date=2011 |title=Man the Fat Hunter: The Demise of ''Homo erectus'' and the Emergence of a New Hominin Lineage in the Middle Pleistocene (ca. 400 kyr) Levant |journal=PLOS ONE |volume=6 |issue=12 |pages=e28689 |doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0028689 |pmid=22174868 |pmc=3235142 |bibcode=2011PLoSO...628689B |doi-access=free}}

*{{Cite journal |last1=Brown |first1=Frank |last2=Harris |first2=John |last3=Leakey |first3=Richard |author-link3=Richard Leakey |last4=Walker |first4=Alan |author-link4=Alan Walker (anthropologist) |date=1985 |title=Early ''Homo erectus'' skeleton from west Lake Turkana, Kenya |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/316788a0 |journal=Nature |volume=316 |issue=6031 |pages=788–792 |doi=10.1038/316788a0 |pmid=3929141 |bibcode=1985Natur.316..788B |s2cid=4311887 |url-access=subscription}}

*{{Cite journal |last1=Caspari |first1=Rachel |last2=Lee |first2=Sang-Hee |date=2004 |title=Older age becomes common late in human evolution |journal=PNAS |volume=101 |issue=30 |pages=10895–10900 |doi=10.1073/pnas.0402857101 |pmid=15252198 |pmc=503716 |doi-access=free}}

*{{Cite journal |last=Ciochon |first=Russell |date=2009 |title=The mystery ape of Pleistocene Asia |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/459910a.pdf |journal=Nature |volume=459 |issue=7249 |pages=910–911 |doi=10.1038/459910a |pmid=19536242 |bibcode=2009Natur.459..910C |s2cid=205047272 |doi-access=free}}

*{{cite journal |last1=Coqueugniot |first1=H. |last2=Hublin |first2=J.-J. |display-authors=et al. |year=2004 |title=Early brain growth in ''Homo erectus'' and implications for cognitive ability |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/nature02852 |journal=Nature |volume=431 |issue=7006 |pages=299–302 |doi=10.1038/nature02852 |pmid=15372030 |bibcode=2004Natur.431..299C |s2cid=4428043 |ref=CITEREFCoqueugniotHublinVeillonHouët2004 |url-access=subscription}}

*{{Cite journal |last1=Dávid-Barrett |first1=Tamás |last2=Dunbar |first2=R. I. M. |date=2016 |title=Bipedality and hair loss in human evolution revisited: The impact of altitude and activity scheduling |journal=Journal of Human Evolution |volume=94 |pages=72–82 |doi=10.1016/j.jhevol.2016.02.006 |pmid=27178459 |pmc=4874949|bibcode=2016JHumE..94...72D }}

*{{Cite journal |last1=Dennell |first1=Robin |last2=Roebroeks |first2=Wil |date=2005 |title=An Asian perspective on early human dispersal from Africa |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/nature04259 |journal=Nature |volume=438 |issue=7071 |pages=1099–1104 |doi=10.1038/nature04259 |pmid=16371999 |bibcode=2005Natur.438.1099D |s2cid=4405913 |url-access=subscription}}

*{{Cite journal |last=Giles |first=James |date=2010 |title=Naked Love: The Evolution of Human Hairlessness |journal=Biological Theory |volume=5 |issue=4 |pages=326–336 |doi=10.1162/BIOT_a_00062 |s2cid=84164968}}

*{{Cite journal |last=Gowlett |first=J. A. J. |date=2016 |title=The discovery of fire by humans: a long and convoluted process |journal=Philosophical Transactions B |volume=371 |issue=20150164 |page=20150164 |doi=10.1098/rstb.2015.0164 |pmid=27216521 |pmc=4874402}}

*{{Cite journal |last1=Hatala |first1=Kevin G. |last2=Roach |first2=Neil T. |last3=Ostrofsky |first3=Kelly R. |last4=Wunderlich |first4=Roshna E. |last5=Dingwall |first5=Heather L. |last6=Villmoare |first6=Brian A. |last7=Green |first7=David J. |last8=Harris |first8=John W. K. |last9=Braun |first9=David R. |last10=Richmond |first10=Brian G. |date=2016 |title=Footprints reveal direct evidence of group behavior and locomotion in ''Homo erectus'' |journal=Scientific Reports |volume=6 |issue=28766 |page=28766 |doi=10.1038/srep28766 |pmid=27403790 |pmc=4941528 |bibcode=2016NatSR...628766H}}

*{{Cite journal |last1=Herries |first1=Andy I. R. |last2=Martin |first2=Jesse M. |display-authors=1 |date=2020 |title=Contemporaneity of ''Australopithecus'', ''Paranthropus'', and early ''Homo erectus'' in South Africa |url=https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaw7293 |journal=Science |volume=368 |issue=6486 |pages=eaaw7293 |doi=10.1126/science.aaw7293 |pmid=32241925 |ref=CITEREFHerriesMartinLeeceAdams2020 |hdl=11568/1040368 |s2cid=214763272 |hdl-access=free}}

*{{Cite book |last1=Janssen |first1=Marco A. |title=Advancing Social Simulation: The First World Congress |last2=Sept |first2=Jeanne M. |last3=Griffith |first3=Cameron S. |publisher=Springer |year=2007 |isbn=978-4-431-73150-4 |editor-last=Takahashi |editor-first=Shingo |chapter=Hominids Foraging in a Complex Landscape: Could ''Homo ergaster'' and ''Australopithecus boisei'' Meet Their Calories Requirements? |editor-last2=Sallach |editor-first2=David |editor-last3=Rouchier |editor-first3=Juliette}}

*{{Cite book |last1=Kimbel |first1=William H. |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=lm9QDwAAQBAJ&q=sexual+dimorphism+australopithecines&pg=PA175 |title=Evolutionary History of the Robust Australopithecines |last2=White |first2=Tim D. |publisher=Routledge |year=2017 |isbn=978-0-202-36137-6 |editor-last=Grine |editor-first=Frederick E. |chapter=Variation, Sexual Dimorphism and the Taxonomy of ''Australopithecus''}}

*{{Cite book |last=Klein |first=Richard |title=The Human Past: World Prehistory & the Development of Human Societies |publisher=Thames & Hudson |year=2005 |isbn=978-0500285312 |editor-last=Chris |editor-first=Scarre |chapter=Hominin dispersals in the Old World |chapter-url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234167398}}

*{{Cite journal |last1=Larick |first1=Roy |last2=Ciochon |first2=Russell |date=1996 |title=The African Emergence and Early Asian Dispersals of the Genus ''Homo'' |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241429110 |journal=American Scientist |volume=84 |issue=6 |pages=538–551 |bibcode=1996AmSci..84..538L}}

*{{Cite journal |last1=Latimer |first1=Bruce |last2=Ohman |first2=James C. |date=2001 |title=Axial dysplasia in ''Homo erectus'' |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280983217 |journal=Journal of Human Evolution |volume=40 |pages=A12}}

*{{Cite journal |last1=Meyer |first1=Marc R. |last2=Vekua |first2=Abesalom |date=2006 |title=Language and empathy in ''Homo erectus'': behaviors suggested by a modern spinal cord from Dmanisi, but not Nariokotome |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263198625 |website=researchgate.net |last3=Lordkipanidze |first3=David}}

*{{Cite journal |last1=Nowell |first1=April |last2=Chang |first2=Melanie Lee |date=2009 |title=The Case Against Sexual Selection as an Explanation of Handaxe Morphology |url=http://paleoanthro.reedd.webfactional.com/static/journal/content/PA20090077.pdf |journal=PaleoAnthropology |volume=2009 |pages=77–88}}

*{{Cite book |last1=Pagel |first1=Mark |url=https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-94-017-0443-4 |title=Evolutionary Theory and Processes: Modern Horizons |last2=Bodmer |first2=Walter |publisher=Springer |year=2004 |isbn=978-90-481-6457-8 |editor-last=Wasser |editor-first=Solomon P. |chapter=The Evolution of Human Hairlessness: Cultural Adaptations and the Ectoparasite Hypothesis |doi=10.1007/978-94-017-0443-4_17}}

*{{Cite journal |last1=Reno |first1=Philip L. |last2=Meindl |first2=Richard S. |last3=McCollum |first3=Melanie A. |last4=Lovejoy |first4=C. Owen |date=2003 |title=Sexual dimorphism in ''Australopithecus afarensis'' was similar to that of modern humans |url=https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/100/16/9404.full.pdf |journal=PNAS |volume=100 |issue=16 |pages=9404–9409 |doi=10.1073/pnas.1133180100 |pmid=12878734 |pmc=170931 |bibcode=2003PNAS..100.9404R |doi-access=free}}

*{{Cite book |last=Roberts |first=Alice |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=nz9VDwAAQBAJ&q=ergaster |title=Evolution: The Human Story |publisher=Dorling Kindersley Ltd |year=2018 |isbn=978-0-2413-0431-0 |edition=Revised}}

*{{cite journal |last1=Rogers |first1=Alan R. |last2=Iltis |first2=David |last3=Wooding |first3=Stephen |date=2004 |title=Genetic Variation at the MC1R Locus and the Time since Loss of Human Body Hair |journal=Current Anthropology |volume=45 |issue=1 |pages=105–108 |doi=10.1086/381006 |s2cid=224795768}}

*{{Cite journal |last1=Ruxton |first1=Graeme D. |last2=Wilkinson |first2=David M. |date=2011 |title=Avoidance of overheating and selection for both hair loss and bipedality in hominins |url=https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/108/52/20965.full.pdf |journal=PNAS |volume=108 |issue=52 |pages=20965–20969 |doi=10.1073/pnas.1113915108 |pmid=22160694 |pmc=3248486 |bibcode=2011PNAS..10820965R |doi-access=free}}

*{{Cite journal |last1=Sandgathe |first1=Dennis M. |last2=Berna |first2=Francesco |date=2017 |title=Fire and the Genus ''Homo'': An Introduction to Supplement 16 |journal=Current Anthropology |volume=58 |issue=Supplement 16 |pages=S165–S175 |doi=10.1086/691424 |s2cid=164992270}}

*{{cite journal |last1=Schiess |first1=Regula |last2=Häusler |first2=Martin |year=2013 |title=No skeletal dysplasia in the Nariokotome boy KNM-WT 15000 (''Homo erectus''){{snd}}a reassessment of congenital pathologies of the vertebral column |journal=American Journal of Physical Anthropology |volume=150 |issue=3 |pages=365–374 |doi=10.1002/ajpa.22211 |pmid=23283736}}

*{{cite journal |last1=Schiess |first1=Regula |last2=Böni |first2=Thomas |last3=Rühli |first3=Frank J. |last4=Häusler |first4=Martin |year=2014 |title=Revisiting scoliosis in the KNM-WT 15000 ''Homo erectus'' skeleton |url=https://www.zora.uzh.ch/id/eprint/92705/1/Schiess_et_al._-_Scoliosis_in_WT15000_2013-10-24.pdf |journal=Journal of Human Evolution |volume=67 |pages=48–59 |doi=10.1016/j.jhevol.2013.12.009 |pmid=24491377|bibcode=2014JHumE..67...48S }}

*{{Cite journal |last=Schwartz |first=Jeffrey H. |date=2000 |title=Taxonomy of the Dmanisi Crania |url=https://www.pitt.edu/~jhs/articles/taxonomy_dmanisi.pdf |journal=Science |volume=289 |issue=5476 |pages=55–56 |doi=10.1126/science.289.5476.55b |pmid=10928927 |s2cid=23195350}}

*{{Cite journal |last1=Simpson |first1=Scott W. |last2=Quade |first2=Jay |last3=Levin |first3=Naomi E. |last4=Butler |first4=Robert |last5=Dupont-Nivet |first5=Guillaume |last6=Everett |first6=Melanie |last7=Semaw |first7=Sileshi |date=2008 |title=A Female ''Homo erectus'' Pelvis from Gona, Ethiopia |url=https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1163592 |journal=Science |volume=322 |issue=5904 |pages=1089–1092 |doi=10.1126/science.1163592 |pmid=19008443 |bibcode=2008Sci...322.1089S |citeseerx=10.1.1.710.7337 |s2cid=22191315}}

*{{Cite book |last1=Strait |first1=David |title=Handbook of Paleoanthropology |last2=Grine |first2=Frederick |last3=Fleagle |first3=John |publisher=Springer |year=2015 |isbn=978-3-642-39979-4 |editor-last=Henke |editor-first=Winfried |edition=2nd |chapter=Analyzing Hominin Hominin Phylogeny: Cladistic Approach |doi=10.1007/978-3-642-39979-4_58 |editor-last2=Tattersall |editor-first2=Ian |chapter-url=http://www.academia.edu/download/55535112/Homo_ergaster_Handbook_2_2015.pdf |access-date=23 May 2020 |archive-date=12 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200612125818/http://www.academia.edu/download/55535112/Homo_ergaster_Handbook_2_2015.pdf |url-status=dead}}

*{{Cite book |last=Tattersall |first=Ian |title=Handbook of Paleoanthropology |publisher=Springer |year=2013 |isbn=978-3-642-39978-7 |editor-last=Henke |editor-first=Winfried |chapter=''Homo ergaster'' and Its Contemporaries |editor-last2=Tattersall |editor-first2=Ian |chapter-url=http://www.academia.edu/download/55535112/Homo_ergaster_Handbook_2_2015.pdf |access-date=23 May 2020 |archive-date=12 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200612125818/http://www.academia.edu/download/55535112/Homo_ergaster_Handbook_2_2015.pdf |url-status=dead}}

*{{cite journal |last1=Ungar |first1=Peter S. |last2=Grine |first2=Frederick E. |last3=Teaford |first3=Mark F. |date=2008 |title=Diet in Early ''Homo'': A Review of the Evidence and a New Model of Adaptive Versatility |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228173401 |journal=Annual Review of Anthropology |volume=35 |issue=1 |pages=208–228}}

*{{Cite journal |last1=Willems |first1=Erik P. |last2=van Schaik |first2=Carel P. |date=2017 |title=The social organization of ''Homo ergaster'': Inferences from anti-predator responses in extant primates |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317400374 |journal=Journal of Human Evolution |volume=109 |pages=11–21 |doi=10.1016/j.jhevol.2017.05.003 |pmid=28688456 |bibcode=2017JHumE.109...11W |ref=CITEREFWillemsSchaik2017}}

*{{Cite journal |last1=Wang |first1=Weijie |last2=Crompton |first2=Robin H. |last3=Carey |first3=Tanya S. |last4=Günther |first4=Michael M. |last5=Li |first5=Yu |last6=Savage |first6=Russell |last7=Sellers |first7=Williams I. |date=2004 |title=Comparison of inverse-dynamics musculo-skeletal models of AL 288-1 ''Australopithecus afarensis'' and KNM-WT 15000 ''Homo ergaster'' to modern humans, with implications for the evolution of bipedalism |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/316788a0 |journal=Journal of Human Evolution |volume=47 |issue=6 |pages=453–478 |doi=10.1016/j.jhevol.2004.08.007 |pmid=15566947 |bibcode=2004JHumE..47..453W |url-access=subscription}}

*{{Cite journal |last1=Wood |first1=Bernard |last2=Collard |first2=Mark |date=1999 |title=The Human Genus |url=https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.284.5411.65 |journal=Science |volume=284 |pages=65–71 |issue=5411 |doi=10.1126/science.284.5411.65 |pmid=10102822 |bibcode=1999Sci...284...65. |url-access=subscription}}

*{{Cite journal |last1=Zhu |first1=Zhaoyu |last2=Dennell |first2=Robin |last3=Huang |first3=Weiwen |last4=Wu |first4=Yi |last5=Qiu |first5=Shifan |last6=Yang |first6=Shixia |last7=Rao |first7=Zhiguo |last8=Hou |first8=Yamei |last9=Xie |first9=Jiubing |last10=Han |first10=Jiangwei |last11=Ouyang |first11=Tingping |date=2018 |title=Hominin occupation of the Chinese Loess Plateau since about 2.1 million years ago |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0299-4 |journal=Nature |volume=559 |issue=7715 |pages=608–612 |doi=10.1038/s41586-018-0299-4 |pmid=29995848 |bibcode=2018Natur.559..608Z |s2cid=49670311 |url-access=subscription}}

{{Refend}}

==External links==

{{Commons category|Homo ergaster}}

{{Wikispecies|Homo ergaster}}

* ''[https://australianmuseum.net.au/learn/science/human-evolution/homo-ergaster/ Homo ergaster]''; The Australian Museum

* ''[https://milnepublishing.geneseo.edu/the-history-of-our-tribe-hominini/chapter/homo-ergaster/ Homo ergaster]''; Milne Publishing – The History of Our Tribe: Hominini

* [http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/origins/homo_ergaster.php ''Homo ergaster'']; Origins – Exploring the Fossil Record – Bradshaw Foundation

* ''[http://www.efossils.org/species/homo-ergaster Homo ergaster]''; eFossils Resources

* [https://www.dnalc.org/view/16083-Human-origins-family-tree.html Human origins family tree]; DNA Learning Center

{{Human Evolution}}

{{Prehistoric technology}}

{{Taxonbar|from=Q105777}}

{{Authority control}}

[[Category:Early species of Homo]]

[[Category:Homo erectus]]

[[Category:Fossil taxa described in 1975]]

[[Category:Homo ergaster fossils|*]]