Did Charles Darwin at the end of his life renounce his theory of human evolution? Did ancient people find dinosaurs? Is it true that Russia is the cradle of mankind, and who is the Yeti - is it not one of our ancestors who got lost in the centuries? Although paleoanthropology - the science of human evolution - is experiencing a rapid flowering, the origin of man is still surrounded by many myths. These are anti-evolutionary theories, and legends generated by mass culture, and pseudo-scientific ideas that exist among educated and well-read people. Do you want to know how it was "really"? Alexander Sokolov, editor-in-chief of the portal ANTROPOGENESIS.RU, has collected a whole collection of such myths and checked how well they are.

The size of the brain and teeth - that's all, according to Morris, what distinguishes erectus from us.

Can we agree with this statement? Yes, Homo erectus really a person, as indicated by the generic name Homo. But how "ordinary" was he by today's standards? Descriptions in popular books are scarce: a low forehead, a large brow, no chin ... If you wish, these features are easy to get rid of: a hefty brow is among the natives of Australia, people with a low forehead can be seen even on the streets of Moscow, and "one Indonesian tribe does not have a chin." Voila - an ordinary person, there is nowhere to be more ordinary. The skull, of course, is peculiar ... a little bit.

And then you can transfer the conversation from biology to the field of culture: list the intellectual achievements of erectus, while not denying yourself anything. Mix facts, hypotheses and conjectures together, because the goal of the myth-maker is to convince the reader that erectus were not inferior to modern man in terms of intellectual achievements.

From a cultural point of view, undoubtedly, the erectus were far ahead of their ancestors - the habilis. The creators of stone axes, the conquerors of Europe and Asia - People with a capital letter!

However, NOT erectus, but only their descendants:

Learned how to make throwing weapons;

They guessed to attach a stone tip to a wooden handle (it took “only” about 1.5 million years since the appearance of the Acheulean);

They began to decorate their bodies, paint themselves with ocher, hang themselves with pendants made of shells and teeth;

They began to bury their dead comrades (funeral rituals are an obligatory attribute of any human tribe starting from the Upper Paleolithic).

Homo erectus does not have all this. Biological evolution was accompanied by cultural evolution, a fact.

However, back to biology. Let's examine from all sides the famous skull of the Javanese Pithecanthropus - Sangiran 17 - found in 1969.

If we look at the skull from the side, we see how low and long it is; the face strongly protrudes forward, and the back of the head protrudes backward, ending in a thick roller. Although the skull of modern humans can be quite massive, we will never see Homo sapiens such protruding faces and necks.

The forehead of Pithecanthropus is sloping, flat and very narrow. A noticeable bony ridge extends from front to back along the frontal bone (not to be confused with a crest!). The walls of the skull are very thick.

Looking at the skull from behind, we will be surprised at what a wide nape the Pithecanthropus has. (Broad - to put it mildly. This comrade has the widest back of the head of all hominids in general; modern man never dreamed of such a thing. I emphasize that hereinafter I do not mean an estimate by eye, but the results of accurate measurements.) The side walls of the skull are tilted, converge upward. In modern man, on the contrary, the skull expands upward.

If we look at the skull from above, we will see that behind the superciliary it sharply narrows, and then expands again - this is called "postorbital constriction". In terms of the severity of this feature, the skull from Sangiran not only obviously differs from modern humans, but surpasses Neanderthals and many other ancient hominids.

An interesting detail is that the pithecanthropes of Sangiran do not have the styloid process of the temporal bone, instead of it there is a fossa. It is important that the muscles that control the movements of our tongue are attached to this process in humans, and its presence is associated with the ability to speak (monkeys do not have the styloid process, they have a different type of muscle attachment).

And finally, let's take a look at this wonderful skull from the front, let's look, so to speak, in his face. Immediately striking is the powerful brow, merging into a continuous roller above the eye sockets; massive zygomatic bones; an extremely wide nasal opening and a huge upper jaw (and again, in this part, the Javanese pithecanthropes are record holders, neither the Heidelberg man nor the Neanderthals, not to mention modern man, have such a huge palate and upper jaw).

And looking into the Pithecanthropus "in the mouth", we will see that the shape of its dental arch is not similar to ours. In modern man, the teeth in the upper jaw are arranged in a smoothly curved arc; in Pithecanthropus, the teeth form, as it were, a trapezoid with fangs “at the corners”: the front incisors are in a line, and the rows of premolars and molars diverge to the sides.

Let's not forget to mention the lower jaws of the Pithecanthropes of Sangiran - they are also huge (here the Sangirans are second only to Australopithecus). And, of course, there is no chin protrusion - however, all hominids do not have it, except Homo sapiens.

With all this massiveness, the skull of the Pithecanthropus is generally small - the volume of the brain is about 1000 cm?.

Of course, some of these features can occasionally occur in modern man. But:

They do not reach such extreme values ​​(for example, in the skull of Sangiran 17, the thickness of the supraorbital ridge is 25 mm, in modern men, as a rule, it does not exceed 13 mm);

And even more so, they never meet together in the same skull! In no corner of our planet you will find a person with such an eyebrow and at the same time with such a small brain, a nape of such a width and a lower jaw of such dimensions, and, moreover, without a chin.

Everything is relative. Homo erectus against the background of australopithecines or habilis - the embodiment of progress. If we compare it with one of us, then we will see a large amount of archaism, and also, if we talk about the Javanese, peculiar signs that you will not find in anyone else.

1.6 million years ago from

Homo habilis, most likely a larger, larger-brained Homo erectus-

"upright man". A more highly developed intellect and a more advanced tool-making technique helped this early Stone Age hunter to colonize new habitats - to populate Africa, Europe and Asia (mainly South) in small groups. The development of local populations, apparently, took place in various ways. In Europe, 400,000 years ago, individual individuals developed traits found in early members of our species Homo sapiens.

200,000 years ago, Homo erectus is probably already extinct; perhaps he fell victim to competition from his own descendants.

Two ax-shaped axes, characteristic of the Paleolithic (one of them - the left one - was processed more carefully, the other -

less thorough) such tools were made by Homo erectus and early Homo sapiens. The ax shown on p. 119, discovered in London around 1690. This is the first tool made by an ancient man that was found by archaeologists. Both guns are in the British Museum (Natural History Department) in London.

Body type.

Homo erectus is shown for comparison next to modern man.

Height 5-6 feet (1.5-1.8 m). Weight 88-160 pounds (40-72.7 kg).

Homo erectus

Homo erectus ("upright man") had a larger brain and body than its probable ancestor Homo habilis, and in many respects already resembled its heavily built immediate descendant, modern man. His skull, although it had the thickest walls in comparison with the skulls of all other representatives of the human tribe, retained archaic features. The skull of Homo erectus was long and low-set, with a bony bulge at the back, with a sloping forehead, thick supraorbital ridges, a flatter face than ours, with large protruding jaws, more massive teeth than ours (but all- slightly smaller than those of Homo habilis); the chin was missing. Strong muscles at the back of the neck were attached to the posterior cranial tubercle and supported the head with a heavy face, preventing it from sagging forward. The volume of the brain averaged 880-1100 CMJ (opinions of experts differ), which is more than that of a skilled person, although less than that of a modern person.

Some adults were probably 6 feet (1.8 m) tall and weighed at least as much as we do.

Homo erectus lived from 1.6 million to 200 thousand years ago, and possibly for a longer period. Appearing for the first time, probably in Africa, individual groups then spread to Europe, East Asia (this includes Beijing-

isolated populations were different.

Advanced technology, including the use of a standard set of tools, hunting big game, the use of fire, and improvements in building methods, moved Homo erectus far ahead of the hominins that preceded it, giving this species the opportunity to exist in new natural and climatic conditions.

Comparison of skulls.

1. Homo erectus skull:

with supraorbital ridges, a cut chin, protruding jaws and smaller teeth than Homo habilis.

2. The skull of Homo sapiens sapiens.

Brain and muscles.

The figures show that the shape of the skull correlates with the size of the brain and with the size of the mouse, balancing the head and setting the jaws in motion.

A - Homo erectus (small brain, large muscles).

B - Homo sapiens sapiens

(big brain, small muscles).

Speech centers (lower left). Above the interconnected centers of speech on the surface of the skull, bulges are formed, noticeable on the fossil bones of Homo (the same bulges, although less clearly expressed, are found

in great apes).

a - Broca's field, which controls speech activity.

b - Wernicke field. controlling understanding of speech.

Increase in brain volume.

a - Homo habilis, 725 cm 3.

b - Early Filaments of erectus,

850 cm3.

c - Homo sapiens, 1400 cm 3.

Climate change.

The graph shows temperature fluctuations in July in Central Europe over the past 1,200,000 years. (According to the latest research, the alternation of peaks and falls in temperature was more frequent). Homo erectus existed for most of this period except for the last 200,000 years.

Changing world

The probable period of the existence of Homo erectus from about 1.6 million to 200 thousand years ago coincides with most of the early and middle Pleistocene - a geological epoch that lasted from about 2 million to 10 thousand years ago. During this glacial age, during periods of intense cooling, called stages (phases) of glaciation, ice sheets and mountain glaciers spread over a large part of the territory of the north of North America and northwestern Eurasia, then retreating back during warmer intervals interspersed with cooling, which are called interglacial stages (phases).

During the glaciation, even parts of Europe and Western and Eastern Asia that were not subjected to them were each year free from frost only for hardly a month. Therefore, their landscapes have turned into tundra or forests with moderately cold temperatures; trees such as spruce and beech predominated there. But cooling conditions favored the spread of large mammals; for example, in China, these were hyenas, giant beavers, red deer, and prehistoric species of rhinos and elephants.

During the periods of glaciation, the subtropics received much more rainfall than they receive now, and the tropics dried up and their rich forests shrank in size, turning into isolated islands.

Deprived of the inflow of water, which was connected in the form of extensive ice sheets, the waters of the oceans were shrinking. The surface of the seas sank at least 328 feet (100 m) below their present level, exposing the land barriers that allowed humans to settle the large islands of Southeast Asia.

During the interglacial periods, the climate in some northern regions became warmer than at present. heat-loving mammals such as

World in the Ice Age.

as hippos and Merck's rhinoceroses, spread as far north as southern England. At the same time, sea levels rose 180 feet (50 m) above present, separating some offshore islands from land.

Any population of Homo erectus that was isolated by climate change would be able to evolve in slightly different ways depending on the conditions it was exposed to.

This is what the north looked like

hemisphere during glaciation. a Asia.

b - Europe.

in - North America.

1 - Territory that became land during glaciation.

2 - Sea.

3 - Territory covered with glaciers.

4 - Summer sea ice boundary.

Homo erectus in Africa

Fossil finds point to Africa as a continent where adjacent processes that influenced each other and associated with increased use of hands, tools and pulp led to an increase in brain size in the genus Homo, resulting in a larger brain, more developed intelligence. and greater adaptability of the species Homo erectus.

The first Homo erectus fossil known to us comes from East Africa and is approximately 1.6 million years old. One of the skeletons represents the best-preserved burial of any hominin that has come down to us from a period that preceded the emergence of deliberate burials, which began about 70,000 years ago.

Other fossils—mostly skull or jaw fragments—suggest that Homo erectus eventually spread from East Africa to the furthest corners of the continent. But since most of the fossil finds consist of individual remains that are little connected with each other and do not give us a clear idea of ​​​​sequentially !! evolution, and also because the line separating this species from ours is not clearly expressed, one can argue about whether all the African and European remains of Homo erectus, which are younger than 400 thousand years, do not belong to the species

Here is a summary of some of the most significant finds in Africa.

1. Ternifin; a massive lower jaw with large teeth found next to two other jaws and skull fragments. Age - possibly

700 thousand years. Location: Ternifin, Algeria.
	Koobi Fora; skull with heavy supraorbitals
rollers; is one of the most complete and
the earliest finds of a Homo erectus skull. WHO
	perhaps 1.6 million years. Location
Fora, east of Lake Turkana (Rudolf), Kenya.
	Swartkrans; fragment of the lower jaw with five
teeth, first called "Telanfhro-
pus", and later assigned to Australopithecus or
Homo habilis. Age		perhaps 1 million years.
Location: Swartkrans, South Africa.
Ancient human skeleton.		grow up to 6 feet (1.8 m).
Age of the skeleton depicted		which exceeds the growth of most
on the image. 1.6 million years; is he		modern.zeros. The skeleton was
belonged	boy Noto	found by Kenyan hunter
erectus. Although I was a boy		for fossils
less than 13 years old, his height is already		Kimoya Kimeu in 1984 west
reached 5 feet 4 inches		from Lake Turkana (Rudolf).
(1.6i m). The boy could

Homo erectus in Africa.

Main parking lots.

1. Ternifin.

2. Melka Kunture.

3. Omo River.

4. Nariokotome.

5. Koobi Fora.

6. Chesovanja.

7. Olorgesailie.

8. Olduvai Gorge.

9. Swartkrans.

Three fossil finds of Homo erectus.

The numbering corresponds to the numbers that are indicated in the text of the finds of the remains.

Homo erectus in Africa.

1. Ternifin.

2. Koobi Fora.

3. Swartkrans.

Comparison of jaw bones. BUT - The lower jaw of a Heidelberg man.

It differs in large size and massiveness of bones, however, in its structure and in the arrangement of teeth it is very similar to the jaw of a modern person.

B - The lower jaw of modern man.

Homo erectus in Europe.

The map shows some sites of bone remains or tools that scientists attribute to Homo ereclus.

It is possible, however, that they all belong to an archaic variety of Homo sapiens. 1, 2. Ambron and Torralba.

3. Arago near Totavel.

4. Soleilak.

5. Terra Amata, Nice.

6. Mauer near Heidelberg.

7. Bilzingleben.

8. Przhezletice.

9. Vertessellosh.

10. Petralona near Thessaloniki.

Homo erectus in Europe

Ancient tools suggest that Homo erectus may have appeared in Europe about 1.5 million years ago, but all the bone remains found here that are thought to be of him seem to be 500-200 thousand years old or even older. late period. Most of them are simply fragments of the jaw or skull. Almost all of them have some features characteristic of Homo sapiens, which confuses researchers. Some experts believe that these finds belong to forms that are transitional between these two species. Perhaps their Homo erectus ancestors arrived in Europe during a warm phase when the ice sheets receded. They then evolved in the direction of our species, becoming isolated from other human populations during the cooling of the Ice Age.

It is difficult to decide on the classification of these early people of Europe. Some scholars refer all the varieties discussed on the next two pages to those archaic forms of modern man that will be described on p. 138-139.

1. Heidelberg man; a massive lower jaw with teeth, without a chin, corresponds to a wide protruding face. Age - about 500 thousand years. Location - Mauer village, near Heidelberg, Germany.

2. Totavel skull; with large brow ridges, broad face and nasal opening, flat forehead and long narrow braincase. Age - about 400 thousand years. Location - Arago Cave near Totavel, Southwest France.

3. Vertesselles skull; fragment of the occipital bone - thick, with a bone crest for attaching the neck muscles. The volume of the brain could correspond to ours. Age - about 400 thousand years. The location is the village of Verteshsöllos, west of Budapest, Hungary.

4. Petralona skull; with a wide base and a wide front part, overhanging superciliary arches, a sloping forehead and an angular occipital bone, but a large volume - about 1230 cm3. Age - about 300 thousand years. Location - Petralona cave near Thessaloniki, Greece.

Four fossil finds.

The numbering of European fossil bone remains corresponds to that adopted in the text. 1. Heidelberg man (lower jaw from Mauer).

2. Skull from Totavel.

3. Skull from the village of Vertesselles.

4. Skull from the Petralona Cave.

Comparison of two skulls.

Two skulls are compared (rear view).

A - Peking man (sinanthropus); the skull is widest in its lower part (this skull is somewhat higher than

at Australopithecus).

B - Modern man; the skull is widest at its upper part.

Homo erectus in Asia.

This map shows some of the most important sites.

1. Narmada.

2. Yuanmou.

3. Bow Yen.

4. Lantian.

5. Yongji.

6. Nanzhao.

7. Beijing.

8. Hejiang.

9. Sashiran.

10. Perning, Mojokerto.

11. Trinil.

Homo erectus in Asia

Most of the Homo erectus fossils come from Asia. Almost all of them have been found in Java or China, and one skull, possibly Homo erectus, was found in India.

The earliest "Pithecanthropus" specimens from the so-called Jetis Beds in Central Java may be over 1.5 million years old; bones were found in the Javanese layers of Trinil, whose age may be 700 thousand years. A fossil man from China - Sinanthropus (also called Beijing Man) - is known from the remains of more than 40 individuals found near Beijing; they all disappeared during the Second World War, but casts from them have been preserved. The brain of this Chinese variety was larger than that of the older Asian forms. Sinanthropus existed in conditions of cooling about 360 thousand years ago.

All of these Asian hominins lived near the coast of the South China Sea, which geologists compare to a giant pit, now filled with water, then dried up as the northern ice sheets melt or advance. During the cooling and sinking phases, Homo erectus probably colonized the now submerged Sunda Shelf between Indonesia and China and migrated over the resulting dry land between the two.

Here are some samples from Asia.

1. "Pithecanthropus 4"; a fragment of a large thick-walled skull and a massive upper jaw with a gap (diastema) between the canine and the incisor; this gap probably corresponded to a large canine on the lower jaw. Age - about 1 million years. Location - Sangiran, Java island.

2. Skull from Lantian; small (volume 780 cm 3 ),

with thick walls and with massive arched supraorbital ridges. The lower jaw, found separately in the same Lantian, without a chin protrusion, lacks third molars (this congenital feature is still found in some people). Age - about 600 thousand years. Location: Lantian County, Shaanxi Province, China.

3. "Sinanthropus"; low wide skull (volume 1075 cm 3), relatively small teeth without a diastema; the jaw is shorter than in older Asian forms. Age - 360 thousand years. Place - the village of Zhoukoudian near Beijing, China.

Three fossil finds.

The numbering of the figures corresponds to that adopted in the text.

1. "Pithecanthropus 4".

2. Skull from Lantian.

3. "Sinanthropus".

How to hold a hand axe.

A person who used such a hand ax could hold its rounded back side in his hand and, pressing the tool,

cut meat with it or dig up edible roots.

Acheulean tools.

These guns from Angola are scaled down to approximately

2 times.

1. Hand axe.

a - Backside. b - Cutting edge.

c - Point.

2. Cleaver.

d - Back side. d - Side. e - Cutting edge.

Choppers and choppers

About 1.6 million years ago, a new and peculiar type of stone tools appeared in East Africa. This so-called hand ax consisted of a fist-sized piece of stone, which was shaped to resemble a palm or a flattened pear; the sharp edges of the stone were formed by chipping flakes from both sides. Experiments show that this tool was mainly used for butchering carcasses, which were previously skinned with sharp stone flakes in the form of ax-shaped blades (cleavers).

The very first hand axes appeared around the same time as Homo erectus. Since the manufacture of similar tools of the same type required considerable ingenuity, we can conclude that this highly developed hominid was their likely inventor.

Among the tools of the ancient Stone Age are axes, ax-shaped cleavers, side-scrapers and flakes; they are called Acheulean from finds in Saint-Acheul in northern France; their age is 300 thousand years, the Acheulean tool-making technology spread to India and Europe, where it continued to exist for about another 100 thousand years ago, but apparently never reached

Indonesia and China.

Meanwhile, cultures of making coarser cutting tools (choppers), belonging to the type called Oldowan, spread in Europe and Asia from the Middle East to

Java, Philippines and Zhoukoudian in Northern China. Local variants include the Clactonian culture from Clacton-on-Sea in England (where double-conical stone cores, rough choppers, thick flakes and serrated flakes predate Acheulean technology) and the Tayac culture from Tayyak in the French department of Dordogne.

In some places, Acheulian technology and the manufacture of core choppers existed side by side, while in other places, the methods of making tools probably depended on the materials that were available in a particular place, or on the specific type of work for which they were intended.

The remains of other tools of Homo erectus include "anvils" (working plates) and strikers (chippers). Some of the first drills, blades, and chisels known to us, and early examples of bone and wood tools, come from Ambrona and Torralba in Spain; remains of a wooden bowl found in Nice in France.

Primitive stone processing technique (A, 1-3).

1. By blows of a stone hammer on one of the sides of the workpiece, a series of deep, adjacent chips were obtained.

2. The workpiece was turned over and struck at the protruding ridges, which is why

another series of cracks appeared.

3. As a result of processing, a hand ax was obtained

with a rough wavy cutting edge formed by numerous chips superimposed on each other.

Improved stone processing technique (B, 1-4).

1. Spalling the upper part of the workpiece, a flat impact surface was obtained.

2. A long thin flake was chipped off from one of the sides of the workpiece.

3. The next blow was preparing a new upper platform.

4. A long thin flake was chipped off from the opposite side of the workpiece by striking this area.

The result is a narrow

and a straighter incisal edge than with a primitive processing technique.

Processing stone with a stick (B).

Chopped, crafted

with using stone hammers

and the techniques depicted in series B were further processed with blows, which were applied with a resilient bone, horn or wooden stick. Using this technique, it was possible, without damaging the workpiece, to separate

small flakes from its surface

and give the product the desired shape.

Prey of hunters.

a - Elephas antiquus, extinct elephant; on the southwest In Europe, such elephants were killed, after driving them into a trap.

b - Sirnopithecus, extinct baboon; it was hunted in East Africa.

Remains of an ancient feast.

On this excavation plan

in Ambrone (Spain) we see:

a - Fossil Elephant Bones

and other animals.

b - Stone tools

and flakes discarded as unnecessary.

c - Burnt logs.

d - Stones from which the hearth may have been composed.

At a number of Homo erectus sites, serious evidence was found that these enterprising hominids not only collected plants and cut meat from the carcasses of animals killed by predators, but also actively hunted big game, uniting for this in groups in order to plan and implement a joint pursuit. or an ambush. Finds found on three continents give an idea of ​​the methods of hunting and the animals that were its object. All three of the following examples probably date back 400,000 years before our time.

AT Olorgesali (Kenya) there is one site with the remains of 50 monkeys - simopithecus. Ancient people probably clubbed a whole sleeping herd of these large, now extinct baboons, in the same way that some Tanzanian tribes still do to this day, preying on the modern descendants of these monkeys.

AT Torralbe (northern central Spain) hunters apparently used fire to drive dozens of stray elephants, wild bulls, horses, deer and rhinos into a natural trap, a marshy ravine in a steep-sided valley. At least 30 elephants, now extinct with straight tusks, died here; these elephants were larger than modern

African elephant. Many wild animals were probably slaughtered in Torralba and neighboring Ambrone.

The most impressive data from Asia relate to the Zhoukoudian cave near Beijing. Here, judging by the cave deposits, Homo erectus killed and ate wild boars, bison, deer, gazelles, horses and rhinos. Broken bones of human limbs and human skulls with broken bases indicate that these hunters were cannibals who loved the brain and bone marrow of individuals belonging to their own species.

The answer to the question of how ancient people killed big game remains not entirely clear. Some data suggest that they used wooden spears with stone tips. But no matter what methods were used, hunting was associated with risk, and this may explain why most Homo erectus skulls have traces of old healed injuries.

Spread of fire.

The map shows sites where, more than 100,000 years ago, people apparently made fires. One scholar disputes evidence of human use of fire at site 11. Sites 5, 6, 8, and 9 may be old.

1 a million years or older.

1. Torralba.

2. Escala.

3. Terra Amata.

4. Vertessellosh.

5. Chesovanja.

6. Calambo Falls.

7. Cave with hearths.

8. Yuanmou.

9. Zhigudu.

10. Lantian.

11. Zhoukoudian.

Dwelling and hearth

Accumulations of bones and stone tools are found where family groups or larger associations of Homo erectus made their camps. Most of the camps served as shelter for only a few days, while people planned hunting, skinned the carcasses of dead animals and divided their meat among themselves, collected edible plants, drank water from a neighboring spring, stream or lake, renewed their supply of tools made of stone, wood and bones, and also rested and slept. In the warm climate of the tropics, it was easy enough to find a dry place for this.

But Homo erectus often built shelters, which are known from finds in cool northern regions. In Torralba and Ambrone (Spain), stones laid out in a circle were found. Similar stone circles still remain at the sites of installation of Eskimo dwellings - tents sewn from skins, the middle part of which is supported by a central pole, and the edges are pressed down to the ground with heavy stones. At the Terra Amata parking lot near the French city of Nice, on an area of ​​90 sq. miles (235 km2) of old habitation sites have been preserved, on the site of which oval huts may have been built from intertwined branches, fixed with stones. Inside the huts, fires burned in hearths protected from the wind by stone shelters. The largest huts of this seasonal camp on the seashore could accommodate up to 20 people.

Near Totavel in the French Pyrenees and Zhoukoudian near Beijing, hunters lived in caves. Apparently, they came to the cave of Arago (France) in certain seasons following the migrating game. But the 19.7-foot (6 m) thick layer of ash found at Zhoukoudian may be the result of long-term human habitation.

Fire was apparently familiar to people even before the appearance of Homo erectus: near Lake Turkana in Kenya, a 2.5 million-year-old area of ​​charred soil is known. A person could keep and maintain the fire that arose as a result of a lightning strike or a volcanic eruption. But it can be argued that it was Homo erectus who first began to systematically use fire for heating, cooking, protection from predators, and for hunting wild animals.

In the last ice age, dwellings, the use of fire, and high-protein foods (perhaps clothing made from skins) allowed man to colonize even the cold northern regions. Cooking food on fire made it possible to consume previously indigestible plant species. For mankind, all these achievements meant important changes - cultural development now acquired more importance than biological evolution.

Residence on the Riviera.

In such oval huts made of intertwined branches, hunters may have lived on the Mediterranean coast of France. These flimsy shelters have long since disappeared, but archaeologists can reconstruct them from the remaining stones and stake holes.

Establishment of a dwelling in Spain.

In the excavated floor of the dwelling

in Torralba, in northern Central Spain, has found bones of large animals, stone tools used to kill them, and other evidence that ancient hunters may have feasted here 400,000 years ago.

The behavior of a great variety of animals is so diverse that so far no unified classification has been created. And yet, there are some general criteria that allow, according to some scientists, to combine all forms of animal behavior into three main groups: individual, reproductive and social (public) behavior. This makes it possible to study both individual characteristics of behavior and the relationship between males and females, parents and children, members of the community, as well as interspecies relationships.

individual behavior

Individual behavior is aimed at the life support of an individual. Its main types are:

• food (or food-procuring) behavior - finding, grasping, holding prey and subsequent manipulation of it;
• defensive behavior accompanied by both passive-defensive reactions and active defense;
• exploratory activity - a complex of reactions that introduce the animal to the environment or a source of irritation. This activity creates the basis for the development of individual behavior of the individual;
• juvenile behavior - behavioral capabilities of juveniles.

Eating behavior

At first glance, it may seem that the actions of animals in obtaining food are not difficult. They find her anywhere and catch her as they can. However, in reality this is not the case. Animals have the most complex behavior for this. Representatives of each species are endowed with their own strategy for obtaining food, as well as a certain way of storing it.

Thus, the complex feeding behavior of social insects allows them to harvest in order to make supplies for the period of starvation. To this end, reaper termites cut the grass in a certain way and dry it thoroughly before laying it in dry nests. Reaper ants collect plant seeds, store them in underground barns, and from time to time bring them to the surface to dry.

And, for example, frogs get food by hunting. Noticing a fast-moving insect at a distance of up to 3 m from themselves, they make lightning-fast and accurate jumps. Moreover, the amphibian directs the decisive jump not to the place of the current location of the prey, but, having analyzed the direction and speed of its movement, to the predicted one. At the end of the flight, she throws out her sticky tongue and deftly grabs the insect.

Some animals are able to wait a long time for their prey in order to get it at the right time. With what great patience does this, for example, heron. Standing on one leg for several hours in a row, she vigilantly watches the movement of small fish, amphibians and aquatic insects through the water column. The heron will not betray itself with the slightest movement until potential prey swims close enough. The feeding behavior strategy of this bird is built on the right calculation - not to rush prematurely at the prey, but to wait and capture it without a fight.

Such a manner of hiding is reinforced in herons by an expedient device of the visual system. Since the birds stand motionless with their beak raised vertically, their binocular field (like binoculars) is shifted down under the beak. And thanks to this, hunters can observe what is happening under their feet with two eyes at once.

But the main food of crossbills is the seeds of cones. It is not so easy to get them from a closed cone, so the crossbill is endowed with a special tool - a beak curved with a cross. With its help, the bird easily pushes the scales of cones and takes out nutritious seeds.

Protective (defensive) behavior.

This behavior of animals includes both active defense - screaming, repulsion, threatening postures using poisonous secretions, and passive reactions - animals hide, freeze, run away from the enemy, hide in shelters, etc.

For defensive behavior, animals are provided with a variety of morphological features of the body, including protective or repellent coloration, a special body shape, etc.

Consider, for example, the different ways of protection that fish are endowed with.

Most fish are able to quickly swim away from a slower enemy and even escape from the chase by flying through the air, as flying fish do.

• Many fish can hide (dig into the bottom sand) or, like a flounder, become invisible - change color in accordance with the color of the surrounding background.
• Some fish use various kinds of shelters, cracks in the rocks and even hide under the jellyfish bell. Clownfish also feels confident, hiding in a thicket of poisonous anemones. Malicious anemone tentacles drive away any alien, but do not harm the fish. After all, the anemone itself covers these fish with a special mucus, protecting them from the action of its own poison.
• The fish are also given protective devices that work when the enemy is close. These include spikes and spines (for hedgehog fish) or shields (for armored fish).
• Some fish are able to defend themselves with the help of poisonous secretions.

No worse than fish are equipped with other animals, such as insects. So, some dragonflies, unable to quickly escape from an attack, protect themselves with a caustic liquid. When a lizard or other animal tries to grab them, they throw out trickles of orange liquid. Scattering at high speed at a distance of 40-50 cm, they cause severe skin burns. From now on, unfortunate dragonfly hunters will not be touched.

Even a jellyfish can show quite complex defensive reactions, although its jelly-like organism is considered primitive. However, studies have shown that the jellyfish does not swim arbitrarily, but changes, if necessary, the speed and direction of movement. In case of danger, she is able to purposefully turn around and swim away into the depths. But this is the real reaction of the flight of the animal! The jellyfish's stinging cells are also an excellent weapon to protect against predator attacks. Such protective organs are not found in any other group of multicellular animals.

Animals have also been given the ability to autotomy - discarding the tail and other parts of the body in a moment of danger. This is done not only by lizards and crabs, but also by starfish. At the same time, even one of its remaining beams carries the entire program about the shape of the organism. A few weeks will pass, and thanks to the regeneration, the remaining four rays will grow, which will not differ in any way from the main one.

A relative of the starfish ofiura (fragile snake star), when frightened, also casts rays, but they immediately break into small pieces. However, the death of the animal is relative, since any piece contains all the "knowledge" on the restoration of the organism of the brittle star. And after five weeks, a new “daughter” serpent star arises from each part.

No animal is left helpless, unprotected. Otherwise, life on Earth would quickly cease to exist.

Research activity.

Exploratory behavior is characteristic of most animal species, as familiarity with the environment contributes to their survival. By systematically checking its site or examining a new one, the animal gets an idea of ​​the location of food and places where you can hide from enemies. Therefore, it is often possible to see how animals that have eaten and drunk their fill, nevertheless, carefully examine the territory of their stay.

Think of a cat in an unfamiliar room. First, she examines the floor and the lower parts of the wall. Then he begins to study the possibilities of retreat in case of danger. And only then does she look for the highest points, which are also very important for her. If the room is suitable for her, the cat chooses a place to sleep and the exact route by which she will usually move around the rooms and go out into the street or yard.

It has been established that bears also actively explore the territory of their habitat. In the footsteps of animals on the ground, naturalists reproduced the details of their hunt. It has been established that bears constantly use such methods as cutting off the path, bypassing the intended prey for many hundreds of meters. And this is possible only when the animal, after examination, makes an accurate internal map of this area in the mind.

Many birds are known as excellent researchers and even experimenters. For example, a tit is a very observant and intelligent bird. She quickly finds a way out of many difficult situations.

If you hang some kind of delicacy inside the bottle on a thread, then the bird first tries to peck it through the glass. Convinced that this is useless, she sits on the bottle neck and begins to pull the thread with her beak. What if the thread is long? After a number of approaches, the bird still understands what needs to be done. Pulling out the thread, she begins to hold it with her paw after each new lift up. In the end, the delicacy becomes the titmouse's reward.

Titmouse Wits became a problem for the milkmen in England. There was a tradition there - in the early morning they left bottles of milk at the threshold of houses. So the tits got into the habit of pecking at the foil caps, and then treating themselves to heavy cream on the surface of the milk. Initially, isolated cases of such behavior were noted, and then it spread to different regions of the country.

Thus, some birds investigated the situation and guessed that the delicacy was under the lid, and it was enough to break it with their beak. Others have learned similar skills from them.

Or here are the curious observations of the canary. The bird found an old cracker, but attempts to gnaw it did not lead to anything. Then she took him to her cage and threw him into a cup of water. Leaving the cracker there for a while, the canary only occasionally moved its beak, and then took out the soaked delicacy and ate it without difficulty.

After that, the inquisitive bird conducted a whole series of studies - she carried any solid food into the water. The bird tried to soften sweets in the same way, but quickly realized that they decreased in size in water. After several experiments, she stopped putting pieces of sugar and sweets into the water, and soaked only crackers.

When manipulating food, crows show striking examples of observation and ingenuity. Not only do they constantly soak dry bread in water, but they also found a way to warm up their lunch. Realizing that it is difficult to use potato peelings and other frozen food frozen in the cold, the crows, through observation and research, came to the conclusion that they must be laid out on the warm pipes of the building before use. One can only marvel at these remarkable abilities.

juvenile behavior.

The behavior of many babies, even barely born, is often as complex and expedient as that of adult animals. To grow and use all the opportunities given to them, you need to learn a lot - avoid dangers, distinguish between edible and inedible, gradually improve building skills, etc.

And many newborn animals must certainly remember the surrounding area and their own parents. So, it is important for nestlings of colonial bird species, including gulls. Babies should learn to recognize their parents among hundreds of thousands of adult gulls living in the same colony. Already by the fourth day of life, they remember the voices of both parents, which allows the chicks to fearlessly leave the nesting area. Later, they will have to get to know the members of their pack and remember who has what influence.

The ability to remember parents is also important for many animals. So, a zebra, lagging behind its mother, can get lost and die. And not a single zebra will feed someone else's child. Therefore, the baby recognizes his own mother by the unique pattern of her striped skin. He must learn not to confuse it with a very similar pattern on the body of other zebras.

Many kids prefer to grow up in the company of their own kind. Young penguins, ostriches, crocodiles gather in "kindergartens" protected by their parents. Even tadpoles feel more comfortable in the company and grow faster than their peers who live in isolation. It is established that somehow they recognize each other.

An interesting example of a very complex individual feeding behavior is demonstrated by a small antlion larva. As soon as she hatches from the egg, she immediately crawls onto the path where the ants run. There, the larva "skillfully" chooses a dry sandy area to build a pit trap. Then she draws a circle on the sand, accurately indicating the size of the future hole, and digs a trap for one of her front paws. The larva loads sand and small pebbles on its flat head and deftly throws them out of the circle. If a large stone, heavier than the insect itself, comes across on the way, the larva puts it on its back and then, with slow, careful movements, pulls the stone up. When the trap is ready, the young "lion" burrows into the sand and from there, with accurate shots of grains of sand, knocks down the prey.

An impressive juvenile building behavior, which is distinguished by special foresight, is shown by the larvae of barbels living in wood, or woodcutters. Before pupating, each larva changes the direction of its moves, turning towards the surface of the trunk. There she arranges for herself a convenient place for pupation. After all, the beetles that have appeared will no longer be able to gnaw wood, as the larvae did. If the pupation of the larvae took place in the depths of the trunk, the beetles would not be able to get to the surface.

How many species of animals exist in nature, so many examples can be given of the surprisingly complex and expedient juvenile behavior of their representatives. All kids got exactly as many opportunities and abilities as they need in order to survive, grow up and fulfill their destiny on the planet.

reproductive behavior

Unlike individual behavior, this behavioral complex is based on the relationship between males and females, parents and children. Reproductive behavior involves:

• formation of marriage unions;
• housing construction;
• breeding, feeding, protection, education, etc.

Interactions between males and females of the same species may be accompanied by ritual behavior, mostly instinctive. This is courtship, mating games, dancing, singing, fighting for the female.

So, salamanders and newts demonstrate beautiful courtship dances, the marriage couple, as it were, waltzes. And the most caring parents among them are reputed to be lungless salamanders. Being weak tiny creatures, they bravely protect their offspring. Ten-centimeter dads and moms pounce and bite any enemy - be it a bird, an animal or a person.

Between the mental manifestations of animals, maternal feeling and concern for their children constitute a long-known feature of their character. With what desperate courage lionesses and tigresses protect their cubs. Domestic animals that are distinguished by good nature, and those under the influence of a sense of parental duty, become angry even towards their owners. The shy birds of our forests, when attacked by a stronger enemy on their nests, begin to fight with him and defend their chicks with desperation.

Surprisingly touching care for the new generation is characteristic of insects, for example, domestic red cockroaches. The female carries the testicle capsule for almost a month until the embryos develop. And when a signal arrives that the time has come for the children to leave the testicles, she climbs into the gap, deftly unhooks the capsule and bites off the lateral scar. The mother strokes the appearing white cockroaches with black eyes with her antennae and pushes them to specially prepared food crumbs. And then she leads them from gap to gap, teaching them to get food. Interestingly, several females of the cockroach group unite to raise babies in "kindergartens". This helps their survival even in the most difficult habitat conditions.

Social (public) behavior

This behavior is characterized by various types of interaction between animals in a community of their own kind and interspecific relationships of individuals.

For example, in an amphibian community, the social behavior of animals can manifest itself in the form of well-controlled choral singing of individuals or joint overcoming of space. Thus, cases of mass migrations of young spadefoot or green toads are known, which moved in orderly rows in thousands in a certain direction. How does such a huge number of individuals come together, who determines the purpose and time of migration? These questions remain unanswered so far.

In the most highly organized form, social behavior is inherent in social insects. In their communities, there are also separately growing individuals and their naturally developing life organizations. In each such society of insects, the possibility of interaction, coordination and control of the developmental processes of all individuals is provided so that they become part of the purposefully arranged organic structure of their community.

For most animal species, familiarity with the environment is often of great benefit, making it easier to survive and reproduce. By systematically exploring its territory, the animal gains an idea of ​​the location of food and other resources, potential marriage partners and places where it is possible to hide from predators. Therefore, it is often possible to see how animals that have eaten and drunk their fill and are not in a state of readiness for mating, nevertheless examine their territory. Although water or food deprivation, estrus, and other factors may contribute to exploratory activity, they are not necessary for it to occur. Many works of zoopsychologists are devoted to the forms of exploratory behavior.

Examination of subjects

To study the examination of new objects by animals, one can simply bring such objects into the cage. Glickman and Srodges studied the reactions of more than 300 animals belonging to more than 100 species to pieces of wood, steel chains, wooden sticks, rubber tubes and crumpled paper balls. The results of their experiments are presented in fig. 4.3. Primates and carnivores showed a much greater interest in examining objects than animals with a less developed brain; reptiles were the least active in this respect. It is characteristic that such activity was expressed to the highest degree at the beginning of the 6-minute tests, and gradually decreased by the end of the test.

Rice. 4.3. Response to new objects in various vertebrates

Another method is to fix the new object in a small niche and allow the animal to approach it. Photo or video recording can be used to record the number of such approximations.

Locomotor exploratory activity

Psychologists also showed great interest in studying the types of locomotion observed in an animal in new places. Many used the "open field" setting for such observations. It's just a big open top box with gray walls and a bottom divided into identical squares. The animal is placed in such a chamber and allowed to move freely in it for a certain time. The observer usually registers the number of squares the animal enters and the number of excrement left behind. Some tests attempt to determine the relative frequency of various behaviors (eg, sniffing, rearing, grooming).

Some psychologists believe that open field trials reflect an "exploratory" tendency in a given animal. Others view behavior in such a box as an indicator of "emotionality." Animals are considered highly emotional if they defecate heavily and move little (see Candland and Nagy, 1969; Archer, 1973). One can also consider the open field simply as a convenient setting for assessing the behavioral tendencies of different animals in a minimally structured environment.

While exploration of the environment is necessary for the animal, it comes with dangers, especially from predators. To study this issue, Morrison and Glickman placed a group of house mice in a cage containing a tawny owl. The probability of being eaten by an owl was higher for those mice that showed the most activity when tested in an open field. Brain damage that increased the urge to move increased the likelihood of being attacked by a predator.

New as reinforcement

Animals have been found to learn to perform a variety of tasks in conditions where the only reinforcement is the opportunity to conduct exploratory activities. For example, rats learn to find their way out of mazes when the reward is being able to explore a new, challenging environment. Rhesus monkeys press a lever that opens a window, receiving as a reinforcement the opportunity to see interesting things through this window. They were most interested in other monkeys, followed by (in decreasing order of interest) electric trains, food, and an empty cell. Stimulus complexity appears to play a critical role in inducing exploratory behavior in mammals.

Neophobia

Under certain conditions, animals avoid new objects, a phenomenon called neophobia. Such a reaction is especially common with a sudden change in the usual environment. If laboratory-raised wild gray rats, accustomed to taking food from a wire basket attached to the back wall of their cage, are offered food in a basket against the front wall, they may refuse food for several days. Such behavior is an example of neophobia. Tame lab rats begin to examine the basket in a new place earlier, and its transfer affects their daily food intake less. It seems that the neophobic reaction in these rats is weakened as a result of domestication.