The ancestral community was, apparently, a small group of people. It is unlikely that a large group could feed itself given the weak technical equipment of Early Paleolithic man and the difficulty of obtaining food.
Gathering requires a lot of time, but provides relatively little food, and most often low-calorie food. As for hunting large animals, already known to primitive man, it was fraught with great difficulties, accompanied by many victims and was not always successful.
Thus, it is difficult to imagine that the ancestral community consisted of more than a few dozen, most likely 20-30 adult members. It is possible that such ancestral communities sometimes united into larger ones, but this unification could only be accidental.
The life of the ancestral community most likely was not the life of gatherers and hunters randomly moving from place to place. Excavations at Zhoukoudian paint a picture of sedentary life over many generations. Relative sedentism is also indicated by many cave camps of the Early Paleolithic period, excavated in different parts of Eurasia over the past 60 years. This is all the more likely because the richness of the Quaternary fauna made it possible to use the feeding area for a long time and, therefore, made it possible to occupy well-located and convenient sheds and caves for permanent housing. It is likely that these natural dwellings were used in some cases for several years, in others for several or even many generations. The development of hunting undoubtedly played an important role in the establishment of this way of life.
It is difficult to say which of the two branches of economy of ancient and ancient people - gathering or hunting - was the basis in their lives. Probably, their ratio was different in different historical eras, in different seasons and in different geographical conditions. However, there is no doubt that hunting was a more progressive branch of the economy, which largely determined the development of primitive human groups.
The objects of hunting, depending on the fauna of a particular region, were various animals. In the tropical zone these were hippopotamuses, tapirs, antelopes, wild bulls, etc. Sometimes, among the bones of animals discovered at Chelles and Acheulean sites, there are bones of even such large animals as elephants. In more northern areas, they hunted horses, deer, wild boars, bison, and sometimes killed predators - cave bears and lions, whose meat was also eaten. In the high mountain zone, the predominant role in hunting, for example among Neanderthals, was played by the prey of mountain goats, as can be seen from the finds in the Teshik-Tash cave.
The size of the hunt can to some extent be judged by counting the bones found at the sites. The cultural layer of many of them contains the remains of hundreds, and sometimes even thousands of animals. In addition to the already mentioned location in Zhoukoudian, such large Acheulian camps were discovered at the Terralba site in Spain and in the Observatory Grotto in Italy. In the first of them, for example, the bone remains of more than 30 elephants were discovered, not counting other animals. True, these sites were inhabited for a long time, but nevertheless it is obvious that hunting had considerable importance in the lives of their inhabitants.
It is difficult to imagine hunting large animals, especially those that live in herds, without the driven method. The Acheulean hunter's weapons were too weak to allow him to kill a large animal directly. Of course, such cases occurred, but they cannot but be considered as an exception, and even then mainly when hunting sick and weak animals that lagged behind the herd. As a rule, ancient people could only dare to kill large mammals during driven hunts. They were probably frightened by noise, fire, stones and, as the location of many sites shows, driven to a deep gorge or large cliff. The animals fell and broke, and man could only finish them off.
That is why it was hunting, and especially hunting for large animals, that was the form of labor activity that most stimulated the organization of the ancestral community, forced its members to unite more and more closely in the labor process and demonstrated to them the power of collectivism.
At the same time, hunting was the largest source of meat food. Of course, primitive people received animal food not only from hunting mammals: just as was practiced later in much more developed human societies, they caught insects, killed amphibians, reptiles, and small rodents.
But the extraction of large animals provided much greater opportunities in this regard. Meanwhile, meat, containing the most important substances for the human body - proteins, fats and carbohydrates, was not only a satisfying food, especially after processing it over fire, but also accelerated the growth and increased the vital activity of primitive man.
Hunters and gatherers- economic and cultural type, characteristic of peoples who are at an early level of socio-economic development.
Society hunters and gatherers characterized by an appropriating economy (appropriating economy) and high horizontal mobility; At the same time, the ecological niche of human reproduction does not expand significantly, since there are no effective artificial means of expanding it.
Societies in which the main activities are hunting and gathering are characterized by a very low population density (usually noticeably less than 1 person per sq. km), small community sizes (usually 20-30 people), and insignificant social differentiation. However, according to the latter indicator, hunting-gathering societies show significant differences among themselves. Thus, the Australian Aborigines were characterized by pronounced inequality between men and women; such hunting-gathering societies are called "inegalitarian". On the other hand, the hunter-gatherers of Africa (Pygmies, Bushmen, Hadza) are characterized by a fairly certain equality of all members of the communities; in this case it is common to speak of “egalitarian” hunter-gatherer societies.
Most ethnographically described hunting-gathering societies have been nomadic, extensive hunter-gatherers. Noticeable differences from them are demonstrated by intensive specialized hunter-gatherers (a classic example here are the Indians of the Northwest Coast of North America), who can be characterized by sedentism, relatively high population density (more than 1 person per sq. km), significant community sizes (on the order of several hundreds of people), pronounced socio-economic inequality, relatively developed political leadership. Such societies arose only in places with particularly rich natural resources and still had pronounced limits to their development, since they did not have effective means of expanding their ecological niche.
The situation changes dramatically after the so-called Neolithic revolution, as a result of which people have at their disposal effective artificial means of expanding their ecological niche.
see also
Write a review about the article "Hunters and Gatherers"
Notes
Literature
- Grinin L. E.. - M.: KomKniga, 2006. - 272 p. - ISBN 5-484-00665-1..
- Cabo V. R.. - M.: Nauka, 1986. - 302 p.
- Korotaev A.V.. - M.: URSS, 2007. - 224 p. - ISBN 978-5-484-00957-2..
- Korotaev A. V., Malkov A. S., Khalturina D. A.. - M.: URSS, 2007. - 255 p. - ISBN 978-5-484-00958-9..
|
||||||||||||||
Excerpt describing Hunters and Gatherers
The French guns again hastily loaded. The infantry in blue hoods ran towards the bridge. Again, but at different intervals, smoke appeared, and buckshot clicked and crackled across the bridge. But this time Nesvitsky could not see what was happening on the bridge. Thick smoke rose from the bridge. The hussars managed to set fire to the bridge, and the French batteries fired at them no longer to interfere, but so that the guns were aimed and there was someone to shoot at.“The French managed to fire three grape shots before the hussars returned to the horse handlers. Two volleys were fired incorrectly, and the grapeshot carried everything, but the last shot hit the middle of a group of hussars and knocked down three.
Rostov, preoccupied with his relationship with Bogdanich, stopped on the bridge, not knowing what to do. There was no one to cut down (as he always imagined a battle), and he also could not help in lighting the bridge, because he did not take with him, like other soldiers, a bundle of straw. He stood and looked around, when suddenly there was a crackling sound across the bridge, like scattered nuts, and one of the hussars, who was closest to him, fell on the railing with a groan. Rostov ran towards him along with others. Someone shouted again: “Stretcher!” The hussar was picked up by four people and began to be lifted.
“Ohhh!... Stop it, for Christ’s sake,” the wounded man shouted; but they still picked him up and put him down.
Nikolai Rostov turned away and, as if looking for something, began to look at the distance, at the water of the Danube, at the sky, at the sun. How beautiful the sky seemed, how blue, calm and deep! How bright and solemn the setting sun! How tenderly the water glittered in the distant Danube! And even better were the distant, blue mountains beyond the Danube, the monastery, the mysterious gorges, the pine forests filled to the top with fog... it was quiet, happy there... “I wouldn’t want anything, I wouldn’t want anything, I wouldn’t want anything, if only I were there,” thought Rostov. “There is so much happiness in me alone and in this sun, and here... groans, suffering, fear and this obscurity, this haste... Here again they shout something, and again everyone runs back somewhere, and I run with them, and here she is.” , here it is, death, above me, around me... A moment - and I will never see this sun, this water, this gorge again”...
At that moment the sun began to disappear behind the clouds; another stretcher appeared ahead of Rostov. And the fear of death and stretchers, and the love of the sun and life - everything merged into one painfully disturbing impression.
“Lord God! He who is there in this sky, save, forgive and protect me!” Rostov whispered to himself.
The hussars ran up to the horse guides, the voices became louder and calmer, the stretcher disappeared from sight.
“What, bg”at, did you sniff pog”okha?...” Vaska Denisov’s voice shouted in his ear.
“It’s all over; but I’m a coward, yes, I’m a coward,” thought Rostov and, sighing heavily, took his Grachik, who had put his leg out, from the hands of the handler and began to sit down.
-What was that, buckshot? – he asked Denisov.
- And what a one! – Denisov shouted. - They did a great job! And the work is mediocre! An attack is a nice thing to do, kill in the dog, but here, who knows what, they hit like a target.
And Denisov drove off to a group that had stopped near Rostov: the regimental commander, Nesvitsky, Zherkov and a retinue officer.
“However, it seems no one noticed,” Rostov thought to himself. And indeed, no one noticed anything, because everyone was familiar with the feeling that an unfired cadet experienced for the first time.
“Here’s the report for you,” said Zherkov, “you’ll see, they’ll make me a second lieutenant.”
“Report to the prince that I lit the bridge,” the colonel said solemnly and cheerfully.
– What if they ask about the loss?
- A trifle! – the colonel boomed, “two hussars were wounded, and one on the spot,” he said with visible joy, unable to resist a happy smile, loudly chopping off the beautiful word on the spot.
Humanity spent most of its history in the Stone Age, hunting and gathering.
People did not sit in one cave all the time. Over the course of a year, they visited different places where food appeared - fruits ripened, animals appeared. Therefore, archaeologists call the habitats of primitive man sites: these were temporary camps in which people lived for several weeks or months a year. What made people move was not so much hunger as the desire to work less. Foraging for food and related activities (creating tools, cooking) took only 2-6 hours a day. During the remaining time, people talked or simply slept. High labor productivity was achieved due to low population density - 1 person per several tens of km2, so people could afford, figuratively speaking, to pick only the low-hanging fruit. Among the African Bushmen, gathering gave 15 calories per expended, hunting - 5. By comparison, traditional farming provides only 1.7-5 calories per expended and requires more than 9 hours of labor per day. At the same time, the diet of hunter-gatherers is more varied and richer.
The movement between the camps was not organized. Decisions about when and where to go were made at the level of individual families, and people were dispersed throughout the territory, ensuring its efficient use. Several families could live in one camp at the same time. The hunter, bringing his prey to the camp, shared it with the others. This ensured the stability of meat consumption, distributing risks among several earners. Gathering was more predictable, but its products could also be shared on occasion with distant communities if drought or other disaster deprived people of food, or, conversely, the gifts of nature in some area turned out to be too abundant. In general, gifts and treats served to smooth out consumption, and neighbors were more helpers than competitors, so violence was rare in the paleolithic. People with conflicts were ostracized.
Although hunting and gathering were highly productive on average, this could vary depending on the season. I even had to go hungry for part of the year, but usually not too much. Fat reserves helped survive the time of hunger. For example, the Bushmen lost up to 5 kilograms during the winter, and gained weight again in the summer. For a time, people could gather in places where resources were concentrated. The American Shoshone gathered in pine groves in winter, where they ate cone seeds. Bushmen gathered at water sources. Thus, several dozen people accumulated in the winter camp, or several closely located camps. This represented an excellent opportunity for establishing friendships, marriages, etc.
In the absence of additional incentives, the ability to create excess product did not lead to the emergence of civilization. Thus, the Machiguenga gardeners in Peru lived even more isolated lives than hunter-gatherers. Slash-and-burn farming allowed them to consistently receive 20 calories per 1 expended, so they always had enough food and did not need external contacts, living as separate families. And in Mesoamerica, 5 thousand years passed between the emergence of agriculture and the first large settlements. According to some reports, people had an idea of farming already 40 thousand years ago. But given the surrounding abundance of nature, this technology was not in demand for a long time, and after it began to be practiced, for a long time it played a supporting role in relation to hunting and gathering."
We don't know much about the early days of humanity. Anthropologists do not even have a clue as to the time and place of the appearance of man in his developed form. There is a big chapter missing that needs to be filled with imagination.
The first people, who probably numbered only a few tens of thousands, wandered the earth in search of food, being dependent on the changing seasons and climate changes. Around 200,000 years ago, the world's population increased. The first technical victories and the development of fire led to an increase in the population, which approached 500,000 people. By 40,000 BC. e. all continents, including America and Australia, were inhabited by Homo sapiens sapiens (Homo sapiens, its modern subspecies). Between 40 and 35,000 there is a new leap: the world population has reached 5 million people. Many factors contributed to this growth: climate change, which led to an increase in food resources, technological progress - new hunting tools, the discovery of ways to store food supplies.
At the early stage of primitive society, i.e. 200-100 thousand years ago, when the population did not reach 1 million people, small groups of people lived at great distances from each other. They were small associations of 20 to 60 people, related by blood and leading a wandering lifestyle. They did not have permanent housing. They were replaced by temporary shelters (parking lots, camps). When going on a long hunt, men built temporary camps where they left women, children and the elderly. Groups of male hunters, strong and resilient people, moved very long distances, hunting or collecting plants. To feed the entire primitive group, an area of several hundred square kilometers was required.
Can you imagine these numbers? For 20-60 people, 200-600 square kilometers of area were needed. Why do you think?
If such areas cover the entire territory of the globe, which in those distant times remained inhabited (and there was less of it than now), then the number of people will indeed be very small. Where once one primitive tribe lived, now there are entire cities, regions and even small states.
With such a sparse population density, contacts between people were very infrequent - once or several times a year. And often they did not see each other for many years. In the Kalahari Desert, numerous groups of San Bushmen, numbering no more than a hundred people each, usually wander in search of nutritious plants, but during the dry months they converge at the only well in the area.
The entire social life of such people fits into a small area occupied by a parking lot: here they slept, ate, made tools and prepared food, gave birth to and raised children, passed on hunting knowledge from the old people to the young.
When food supplies in a given place are exhausted, the group migrates to another place. Their migration routes depend on the seasonal ripening of fruits, fish spawning, and the movement and reproduction of animals. Over the course of a year, the group changed its parking location 4-5 times. Her possessions were limited to what people could easily carry with them.
The material culture of hunters and gatherers is reduced to a minimum, and ownership of things and objects does not yet have a high value. They interfere with rapid movement in space. The main tools are a stick, a club, a pike, a bow and arrows, fishing equipment, traps, fire and containers for storing and transporting food.
In such a society there is no need for complex social mechanisms, since the society itself is represented by a mosaic of small local groups of 30 to 100 people, consisting of several related nuclear families. In hunter-gatherer societies there is no government, authority structure or military organization, and social conflict is kept to a minimum.
The data collected by American anthropologist Richard Lee on modern hunter-gatherers in the Kalahari - a group called!Kang of the San people - is unique. It turned out, oddly enough, that their diet was as nutritious as the diet of a typical American. He exceeded the minimum daily portion (1,965 kcal and 60 grams of protein per day). The!Kang people, working on average only 2-3 days a week, were able to increase their production slightly. But they did not do this, because they had no need to work anymore.
The wandering way of life should not be confused with the nomadic way of life, which is characteristic of modern gypsies and ancient cattle breeders. Throughout its history, humanity wandered in small groups, barely supporting its existence by gathering. At the mature stage of gathering, men and women equally shared the care of raising offspring, shared the products of labor, were united by blood ties and marriage, and made collective decisions (perhaps this is a characteristic absent in animals).
So, in the initial phase, human society consisted of hunters and gatherers. About 500 thousand years ago the first forms arose division of labor: young men hunted, often risking their lives, while women continued to gather. During childbirth and feeding of babies, they were resettled from the main camp into special housing.
Hunting was a more varied and physically difficult activity. To drive a large animal and then kill it, or to catch a medium-sized artiodactyl, one had to have endurance, courage, knowledge of the animal’s habits, the ability to silently attack, shoot accurately, etc. Hunting required more professional skill than gathering. True, even there it was necessary to know many types of edible and inedible plants, medicinal herbs, their places of growth and the best time to collect them.
|
And in general, primitive man had to know well the names and habits of most animals, the seasonal routes of their migration, recipes for cooking and baking meat, making and using skins as clothing, household utensils, weapons and home furnishings, the secrets of making complex tools and weapons .
Foraging does not necessarily involve plants. Coastal peoples collected, for example, shellfish left after the sea tide. At one site in northern Africa, scientists discovered millions of earth snail shells. The people who lived here wandered, changing their campsites when the local snail colony became depleted. They also ate several types of plants, including various herbs, acorns, pine nuts and pistachios. Others hunted for land snails. Representatives of the primitive Jomon culture in Japan, from which about 30,000 sites have been preserved, hunted deer, pigs, bears and antelope. They also ate fish, shellfish, and plants (including berries, nuts, and tubers).
Until now, in various regions of the vast planet, researchers are discovering living fragments of antiquity - primitive tribes of wandering hunters and gatherers. This is the longest period of human life: out of 2-3 million years of evolution of the human race, 99.9% of the time was occupied by this, the most primitive and, perhaps, the most environmentally friendly way of farming.
When discussing the problems of human evolution and society, the idea of the biological prerequisites for labor activity is of great importance (in principle).
The searches of researchers and scientific disputes in this area inevitably lead to two main positions: 1) proof of the leading role of hunting as a basic prerequisite for the origin of tool activity - the hunting hypothesis; 2) proof of the leading role of gathering in stimulating the use of tools - the gathering hypothesis.
As a rule, the question of the role of hunting as a factor in the evolution of hominids associated with the development of labor activity traditionally occupies a significant place in works on anthropogenesis. In recent decades, many ethnographers, archaeologists and anthropologists have expressed the opinion that, among various forms of labor, hunting large animals was the determining factor in the formation of man as the dominant biological species and its culture, deeply influenced the development of bipedalism, technology, language, food division . And all this arose at least 2 million years ago.
At the same time, there are many researchers who attach great importance to necrophagy in the evolution of hominids. As evidenced by paleoanthropological data, the locomotion abilities of early hominids apparently did not allow them to move at high speeds. Consequently, they could not hunt large and medium-sized herbivores themselves. In addition, such hunting was fraught with risk to life, since some ungulates leading a herd lifestyle are capable of collective defense; males have long sharp horns and hooves and it is much more difficult to cope with them than to drive away a predator from prey with the help of stones and sticks
The landscape taphonomic model of R. Blumenschein makes it possible to assess the possibilities for necrophagy in the evolution of hominids and predict the scale of the possible spread of such a strategy based on a comprehensive analysis of data on the possibility of finding the remains of animals killed by predators in specific ecosystems of that period, the distribution of specific species of predatory animals in this territory, and distribution of animals that feed on carrion. R. Blumenschein draws attention to the fact that in the early Pleistocene, during the appearance of early Nosho, the species diversity of hyenas decreased significantly, and consequently, competition for access to the carcasses of animals killed by predators decreased. J. Cavaio, R. Blumenschein believe that hominids could also significantly expand their repertoire of feeding behavior by learning to use animal meat, which they found in leopard hiding places located in trees. The advantages of this type of strategy are obvious due to the high degree of predictability of the location of hidden carcasses, the lower risk associated with the disposal of this stock due to the frequent long absences of the leopard, the longer shelf life of fresh meat in the trees and its less availability to other ground and aerial carrion collectors.
Did hominids use the remains of animal carcasses killed by land predators? And if so, how did they get access to meat in this case? After all, having killed an animal, predators often immediately begin to eat it. The previously mentioned authors believe that at first hominids could track hunting animals and, after waiting for them to eat and leave, pick up the remains of the carcass. Perhaps hominids could even attack predators and take prey from them, using sticks and stones for this purpose. This assumption is quite logical if we remember that anthropoids in nature, for example chimpanzees, are capable of throwing stones and sticks at predators, and the straightened body position of hominids gave them significant advantages in increasing the throwing range. Necrophagy as a source of meat is also practiced in modern populations of hunter-gatherers.
Ethnographers note that some modern hunters and gatherers often eat the meat of animals, both those that died a natural death and those that became the prey of predators, such as the Hadza of Northern Tanzania, although their habitat is rich in herbivores. Elephants, rhinoceroses, giraffes, various types of antelope, and zebras are found here. All of them except elephants are hunted by the Hadza, and yet they often eat the meat of animals that have died naturally or been killed by predators. The Hadza find dead animals by observing the behavior of carrion birds. The Hadza resolutely drive lions, leopards, and hyena dogs away from their victims. True, the Hadza have bows and arrows, but, according to J. Woodburn, even the more primitive weapons of the Paleolithic people were enough to drive away predators from their prey.
Ethnographic data confirm this assumption. People could drive away predators from dead animals without using bows and arrows, not to mention more advanced weapons. Thus, the Gonds of India often used the meat of dead animals for food. The location of the last gonds was determined by the behavior of carrion birds and the food signal calls of crows. At the same time, the Gonds often took prey even from such a formidable predator as the tiger. People made noise, waved sticks, threw stones, and the tiger usually left soon. Pre-hominids knew how to use sticks and stones, but nevertheless it cannot be said unequivocally that it was as relatively easy for them to drive away predators from their prey as it was for the gonds. In our opinion, the assumption, repeatedly expressed by various authors, seems very probable: modern predators have been selected for avoidance of humans for a long time. Individuals who were not afraid of people died first and gave birth to fewer offspring than those who avoided them.
The whole question is how long ago the avoidance of people was genetically fixed in predators, whether such forms of behavior arose back in the era of the existence of pre-hominids or later - as a result of clashes between predators and ancient hominids, and perhaps even later.
Analysis of Hadza disposal data suggests that hyenas and hominids may have used different body parts in the distant past. Consequently, competition between hyenas and hominids for access to carrion may have been much weaker than many researchers assumed.
Whichever of these researchers is right, it remains unclear how the transition from the limited use of carrion by monkeys to its consumption by hunters and gatherers of the modern physical type took place and at what stage of human evolution this happened. To understand the evolution of hunting by ancient anthropoids, the cyclical nature of chimpanzee hunting discovered by A. Suzuki may be important: they hunt almost exclusively during periods of changing seasons of plant food.
The observational data of A. Suzuki refute the opinion of W. Reynolds that meat-eating is a specific feature of the chimpanzees of the Gombe National Park and some other places, arising indirectly as a result of human influence. V. Reynolds believes that the chimpanzees of Gombe Park were greatly influenced by competition with baboons due to artificial feeding (bananas). This caused the high percentage of predation among chimpanzees recorded by G. Teleki. W. Reynolds’ statement regarding the spread of predation only by chimpanzees also turned out to be incorrect. Despite this, one cannot but agree with the named author: one should be very careful when using data on chimpanzees eating meat, making weapons, using the latter, etc. to reconstruct the life of hominids.
So, V. Reynolds rejects the point of view of G. Teleki, believing that chimpanzees did not hunt without human influence, therefore, nothing can be said about predation in chimpanzees for the title of the evolution of hunting activity and the corresponding norms of behavior of prehominids and early hominids. On the contrary, according to the genius of R. Harding, predation in monkeys is so developed that there was no turning point in this regard during the transition to humans (humans are omnivorous, like chimpanzees and baboons). R. Harding refers to the fact that in 1968-1969, in one of the baboon herds in Gombe National Park, 29% of the babies under two years of age were eaten by chimpanzees, i.e., the level of predation was high. He does not specify, however, which of the two herds of baboons in the park he is talking about. At the beginning of observations, one of them numbered 75, and the other - 55 animals. We find the arguments of both W. Reynolds and R. Hart unconvincing. As for the first, A. Suzuki and R. Harding observed predation in herds of chimpanzees and baboons that did not receive food from researchers and did not compete with each other for it. At the same time, it is almost certain that competition for food increased predation rates among the chimpanzees of Gombe National Park. Under natural conditions, the role of meat in the diet of chimpanzees and baboons is insignificant, many times less than in such predominantly plant-eating groups of modern hunters and gatherers as the Hadza. R. Lee, who studied the diet of 58 groups of hunter-gatherers, found that mammal meat constituted, with one single exception, at least 20%, and for most groups a much larger percentage of their diet (in weight terms. If we take into account and fish, then this percentage will naturally increase. On the contrary, in both chimpanzees and baboons meat makes up less than 1% of the diet. This difference is 20 times, and according to G. King’s calculations even 30 times, of course, it is no longer just quantitative, and qualitative nature.As for the earliest known hominids or pre-hominids (the definition depends on which of the existing paleoanthropological classifications to adhere to), archaeological excavations in East Africa indicate that already over 2.5 million years ago, at least some Hominid meat obtained through hunting constituted a significant proportion of the diet.
At Olduvai, paleoanthropological material was found adjacent to and in apparent association with cutting tools and deliberately broken bones of small and large animals. One of the multi-layer sites, more than 1.5 million years old, contained tools along with the dismembered remains of two elephants. More evidence of meat-eating among ancient people is found at later sites. Therefore, in our opinion, R. Harding’s opinion about the absence of a qualitative difference between omnivory in chimpanzees and baboons, on the one hand, and humans, on the other, is unacceptable and, on the contrary, we agree with B. Fagan, who believes that, apparently , already among prehominids, the role of meat in the overall nutritional balance was so much greater than its role in the nutrition of monkeys that this meant not only a quantitative, but also a qualitative change in the diet, which led to a new way of life.
The question of the connection between aggressive behavior and hunting in chimpanzees is interesting and requires further study. Observations by various researchers have established that attacks by chimpanzees on chimpanzees, sometimes accompanied by cannibalism, can lead to searches and hunting for other animals such as colobus monkeys and baboons. Thus, intraspecific contact aggression may sometimes have the same motivation as hunting. This contradicts the common point of view, according to which the behavioral and motivational mechanisms of hunting are different from the corresponding mechanisms of intraspecific aggressive encounters. In some situations, it is possible that in prehominids and the earliest hominids there could have been a connection between aggressive actions of an intraspecific nature and the hunting of living beings of other species. Based on the data on primates, we also dare to express the following thought: during the period of the emergence of hunting activity of ancient people, it could sometimes serve as a release for aggressive intraspecific behavior, replacing the object of aggression.
In recent years, the predation of baboons has also been studied, which, as it turns out, has some differences from the predation of chimpanzees. R. Harding observed a herd of Anubis baboons in Kenya from December 1970 to October 1971 for 1032 hours, consisting of 49 baboons (4 adult males, 18 adult females, 17 young animals and 10 cubs). During this time, the herd caught and ate 47 animals, including hares, dwarf tommy gazelles, and calves of larger antelope species. They were hunted both on purpose and by accident when they came across the way. On average, one animal was killed for every 22 hours of observation. Most of the animals were caught by adult males. The females caught three hares, but only one managed to eat it, and two hares were taken away and eaten by the males. Predation was also practiced in other herds of baboons living in the vicinity of the observed one.
Unlike chimpanzees, R. Harding did not see either cooperation during hunting or voluntary division of prey among baboons. In 18 cases, males who did not participate in the hunt gained access to meat after the baboon that obtained it had had enough.
It seems that the transition from a community of monkeys to human groups, the emergence of culture, was a consequence of long-term development, and not a one-time breakdown. And the basis for this development, as it seems to us, was largely laid by protocultural traditions, which, judging by the data on modern monkeys, also existed among the ancient monkeys, the ancestors of prehominids.
To summarize, it should be said that it seems to us somewhat inappropriate to contrast the hypotheses of hunting, necrophagy and gathering. All these processes inevitably occurred in the same population and could stimulate the development of weapon abilities, complementing each other. The latter circumstance was facilitated by the omnivorous nature of the ancestral forms and the diversity of their diet. As B. Chiarelli points out, individuals had to clearly determine the degree of fruit ripeness by shape and color, and the use of insects and small vertebrates for food significantly complicated the identification of food objects and contributed to the development of cognitive abilities. Identification of objects and conceptualization of object-phoneme relationships may have occurred already at the earliest stages of hominid evolution. They were primarily related to the need for cooperation for hunting and the complexity of the processes of learning tool skills for more efficient gathering. Obtaining food through a combination of hunting, necrophagy and gathering was the optimal condition for the progressive development of tool activity and stimulated its universal nature in the life support of early hominids. Subsequently, the progressive use of tools in the sphere of gathering and hunting made it possible to maintain an optimal balance of diversity in the food diet of hominids, which in turn helped them to survive as ecologically, nutritionally and socially universal forms.
All of the above hypotheses emphasize the great importance of diets, which to a certain extent determine the basis for the characteristics of the biology of species. The question often arises: Are changes in the diet of the ancestral forms of hominids and forms on the hominid lineage associated with the evolution of unusual characteristics, such as brain enlargement, bipedality, latent estrus, improved communication, complex technology? The work of P. Shipman and E. Welker gives an affirmative answer to this question. Conducted by the explorer!” analysis of the processes of change in diet types in different mammalian taxa (transformation of herbivorous forms into predators and vice versa) made it possible to formulate six ecological rules. Extrapolation of the latter to representatives of the proto-hominid and hominid lineage makes it possible to establish what changes would have occurred if they had taken the path of predation. Let's list the predictable changes. 1. Hominids would either move faster or develop a more pronounced social organization. Both of these changes could occur simultaneously, provided, of course, that such adaptations did not exist before the transition to predation; 2. Hominids must have developed dental (or technological) devices for processing animal products; 3. They would have developed a longer small intestine and a shorter large intestine; 4. Thanks to the consumption of meat, hominids should have had a lot of free time; 5. Hominids had to have a low population density, for this: a) either the ancestral forms had a low population density, b) either there had to be a sharp decrease in density, c) or the body size had to decrease, d) the overall geographic area had to increase; 6. Gestation periods in hominids have become insufficient to ensure full maturation of the fetus. Paleoanthropological studies indicate a clear increase in sociability in H. erectus more than 1.5 million years ago. Indirect evidence of this is the skeletal remains of a female H. erectus KNM-ER, 1808, suffering from excess vitamin A in the body. The disease should have manifested itself in hair and nail loss, peeling of the skin, and significant visual impairment. Any movement must have caused severe pain in the individual, since this would cause the periosteum to detach from the bone, which would cause severe bleeding. Consequently, the found individual was practically unable to move during life. She was diagnosed with an abnormal increase in bone tissue, reaching 1 cm in some places. This suggests that she had been living with the disease for at least several weeks. The duration of the existence of an immobile sick individual suggests the presence of help and care from at least one individual, supplying the sick person with food B with water and protecting it from attacks by predators.
Analysis of paleoanthropological and archaeological finds allows us to judge changes in the structure of the dental system and the emergence of technical devices aimed at improving the methods of consumption of meat food in the process of hominid evolution. It is obvious that no species of hominid has evolved towards the development of dagger-shaped fangs to sharp incisors, similar in shape to the teeth of carnivores. But Oldovaya hominids already had pebble tools, shaped to remove meat from bones, 2.5 million years ago. It is more difficult to find evidence from fossil remains of the emergence of “free” Time among hominids. But if we assume that the emergence of New complex behavior and the invention of tools indicate the presence of free time, then a number of specific features emerged in the early hominids: the appearance of tools 2.5 million years ago, the development of speech - this is evidenced by the well-developed according to Broca 1.9 million years ago, stone industry 1.5 million years ago. The problem of density was solved in hominids by expanding the geographical range, which occurred during the Pithecanthropus stage. The sixth prediction of P. Shipman and E. Welker also corresponds to reality. R. Togyu and K. Lovejoy assessed the brain size and skull parameters of the A. africanus fetus, accepting that the rate of postnatal growth was similar to that of modern anthropoids. It turned out that the size of the fetal brain immediately at the moment of birth allowed the passage of the birth canal in an individual similar in size to the famous female Arabian Australopithecus Lucy. These authors consider the assumptions about postnatal increase in brain size at a rate characteristic of fetal development in australopithecine forms to be unfounded. However, as early as 1.6 million years ago, the duration of pregnancy appears to have become significantly shorter than the total period required for brain development in order for the newborn's brain to be large enough to pass through the birth canal. And in the postnatal period, the rate of brain growth was significantly higher than that of modern anthropoids.
If you find an error, please highlight a piece of text and click Ctrl+Enter.
In contact with