M. L
In 1982 she graduated from the Faculty of Biology of Moscow State University (Department of Anthropology).
From 1982 to 1984 she studied at the graduate school of the Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology (IEA) of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
Research Fellow (1985–1992); Senior Researcher (1992-1995); Leading Researcher (1995–2002), IEA RAS.
From 2002 to the present, head. Center for Evolutionary Anthropology, c. n. With. Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology RAS.
From 1998 to present - professor at the Center for Social Anthropology of the Russian State University for the Humanities.
Doctor of Historical Sciences, dissertation defended at IEA RAS (1994).
Member of international organizations - European Anthropological Association, American Association of Physical Anthropologists, Society for the Study of Human Behavior and Evolution, International Society for the Study of Aggression, International Society for Human Ethology, International Primatological Society.
Scientific interests: human evolution; ethology of humans and primates (the study of the structure of social relations in different types of primates, social relations in children's groups, the reconstruction of the early stages of the development of human society, the evolution of laughter and smiles in humans) urban anthropology (studies of the behavior of citizens in conditions of anonymous interaction on the streets of the city, structuring behavior in different cultures, studying the structure of the urban population of the poor and the relationship of the poor with the townspeople), gender studies (studies of the criteria for choosing a permanent partner in modern conditions, satisfaction with marriage among men and women, the processes of formation of gender stereotypes in children and adolescents) conflictology and methods of peaceful resolution conflicts (study of the ethological and physiological mechanisms of aggression and its resolution in children and adolescents, aggression and reconciliation in various species of primates, theoretical studies in the field of the evolution of the mechanisms of aggression and reconciliation in humans, the study of the role of stress in post-conflict behavior) cross-cultural studies in areas of problems of altruism (analysis of the formation of friendly relations among children in different cultures).
Reads courses of lectures: Human Ethology and Methods of Collecting Ethological Material; Fundamentals of physical anthropology; Specialist. course in evolutionary anthropology; Theory and practice of intercultural communication.
Research experience: Field observations on the study of the social behavior of primates in the Sukhumi Primatological Center (1979–1991) and in the Russian Primatological Center, Adler (1992 - to the present), research in the Primatological Center of Kassel University, Germany (1992–1993) and at the Primatological Center of the University of Strasbourg (1999–2001); expedition work to study gender stereotypes in Kalmykia (1993–1995). Study of the ethological and hormonal bases of the regulation of aggression in children and adolescents (Moscow Elista, Yerevan) (1997 - present); studying the problems of urban beggars in Eastern Europe (1998 - present); ethological studies of pedestrian behavior in urban environments (1999 - present).
Organization and holding of two international summer schools on human ethology (Zvenigorod, June 19-26, 2001 and Pushchino, June 30 - July 7, 2002).
Grants and awards: research grant from the German Academy of Sciences (1992–1993); research grant from Soros "cultural initiative" (1993-1994); research grants from the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (1996–1998, no. 96-06-80405; 1997–1999, no. 97-06-80272; 1999–2001, no. 00032; 1998, no. 98-01-00176); research grant from the French Academy of Sciences (1999–2000); research grant from the Open Society, Research Support Scheme, (1999–2001, no. 138/99). Grants for attending scientific conferences with reports from Soros (1994, 1996, 1997, 1998), from the International Society for the Study of Aggression (2000), from the Colloquium on the Study of the Brain and the Problems of Aggression (2000), from the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (2000), from the Russian Humanitarian Foundation ( 2002, 2003). Grant award from the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences under the program "Outstanding scientists, young doctors and candidates" 2001.
The genealogy of man is now estimated at 4.4 million years, however, the candidate for its founder has not been firmly determined. This does not interfere, however, with attempts to understand when and why our distant ancestors "got on their feet", learned how to make and use tools, gained the "talk of speech", what were the communities of fore-humans and what they were built on.
FEW scientific problems have been discussed so long and emotionally as the problem of the origin of man. Among those discussing this issue, there are those who argue that man and his lineage have nothing to do with other forms of life on Earth, others believe in an act of divine creation. But every year anthropology, and mainly paleoanthropology, provides more and more scientific evidence for the consistent, lasting millions of years, evolution of the human race. For more than a century, researchers have been searching for the "lost link" - a form that directly branched off from a common ancestor with African anthropoid apes. Anthropologists argue about which of these monkeys - chimpanzees, bonobos (in Russian literature it is called pygmy chimpanzees) or gorillas - are closer to humans, and about what triggered unique morphological and behavioral transformations: the development of bipedalism, the evolution of the hand, an increase the brain, the formation of instrumental activity, speech, consciousness. There is no final clarity in understanding the path of human social evolution.
OUR AFRICAN ANCESTORS: WHO ARE THEY?
Science is slowly but consistently looking further and further into the depths of time. Discovered in 1925 by R. Dart, the largest anthropologist from South Africa, a child from Taung - African Australopithecus - was dated 2.5 million years ago and caused a real shock. Moreover, the find was hostilely received by many experts, as it radically changed the idea of both the geographical location of the human ancestral home (until the beginning of our century, most anthropologists considered Southeast Asia to be it), and the antiquity of man. At the same time, the appearance of the "baby from Taung" confirmed Charles Darwin's brilliant guess about the African roots of the human race.
Since the end of the 1950s, the human family tree has continued to inexorably lengthen and branch. Anthropologists are faced with the fact that in East and South Africa 2.6 - 1.2 million years ago several Australopithecus species simultaneously existed at the same time: gracile forms, such as Australopithecus africanus, and massive - A.boisei, A.robustus. Approximately the same time dates back to the appearance of the first representatives of the genus Homo, i.e. H. habilis(2.6 - 1.6 million years ago) and H. rudolfensis(2.5 - 1.9 Ma).
Discovered in 1974 by D. Johanson the remains of a more primitive hominid - the Afar Australopithecus ( A. afarensis; it was the skeleton of a female, since then widely known under the name of Lucy) - they made human history up to 3 million years old4. It was later established that creatures of this species lived on the territory of present-day Hadar (Ethiopia) and much earlier: 4 - 3 million years ago.
To date, the remains of about 250 individuals have been found there. True, of these, only a few finds turned out to be complete to such an extent that they were able to estimate the proportions of the body of these creatures and the structural features of the skull, and Johanson also established the fact of bipedal locomotion. By the way, the find made by Johanson eight years later, in 1992, remains the most complete for the early Australopithecus to this day. In 1993, D. Johanson and B. Bel succeeded in reconstructing the skull of a male from 200 fragments, which included the occipital bone, parts of the palate (with several teeth) and the cranial vault, a canine and a significant proportion of the bones of the facial skeleton.
The remains of Australopithecus from Hadar, found in geological layers of different antiquity, turned out to be extremely similar morphologically. Thus, it became obvious that A. afarensis existed almost unchanged for 900 thousand years (between 4 and 3 million years ago). Afar australopithecines apparently successfully competed with other primate species, and possibly with predatory animals.
What is known now about these possible human ancestors - one of the most ancient? There is no doubt that these creatures moved on two legs and could spend a lot of time on the ground. The hind limbs of the early Australopithecus were somewhat longer than those of modern chimpanzees or bonobos, and the forelimbs were the same as those of these monkeys, the pelvis was wider and shorter.
Regarding the movement of Afar australopithecines, experts have not yet come to a common opinion. Some, including American anthropologists O. Lovejoy, D. Johanson and B. Latimer, believe that Lucy has already mastered bipedal locomotion to perfection, and the structure of her pelvis and femoral muscles even made it difficult to move through the trees. Other, no less famous American experts, such as R. Sasman and J. Stern, prove that Lucy and her relatives were still moving on several legs bent at the knees. The Swiss P. Schmidt is sure that Afar Australopithecus could not run long distances, as evidenced by the shape of Lucy's chest - long and cylindrical. In his opinion, when moving on two legs, Lucy strongly rotated her body, as gorillas do. The structural features of the fingers and big toe, the elongated proportions of the hands seem to speak of a rather long pastime by these creatures in the trees, which they apparently used as the safest place to sleep and rest.
Whatever the differences of opinion between paleoanthropologists, they all agree on one thing: the early australopithecines could move on two legs and spent a lot of time on the ground. Footprints of at least two individuals A. afarensis almost 3.5 million years old, preserved on volcanic ash in Letoli (Tanzania), clearly indicate that the main emphasis of the foot fell on the calcaneus, like in humans.
However, bipedal walking probably has a much longer history. Kenyan researcher M. Leakey recently reported a find in Kanapoi and Aliya Bay near Lake. Turkana (Kenya) of the remains of a bipedal creature that lived about 4.2 - 3.9 million years ago and named by her A.anamensis. This species, according to the American anthropologist J. Tatersel, differs only slightly from A. afarensis and closely related to him. The dimensions of the epiphyses of the tibia and the angle of its articulation with the femur at the knee joint indicate that A.anamensis already moved on two legs.
In the mid-1990s, the American paleoanthropologist T. White announced that he had found in Ethiopia (Aramis) that very "missing link" that scientists had been dreaming about for more than a century. The new form, whose age is estimated at 4.4 million years, was allocated to a new genus Aridipithecus and named A.ramidus- a terrestrial ape. According to White, she claims to be the progenitor of Australopithecus. This form has more characteristics inherent in chimpanzees than in the already known species of Australopithecus. In Aramis, remains were found belonging to approximately 50 individuals and including fragments of the skeleton, including the bones of the foot, seven of the eight bones of the wrist, etc. By the structure of the dental system A.ramidus resembles a bonobo, which, according to A. Zilman, has retained the maximum number of features of a common ancestor with hominids. However, unlike bonobos, A.ramidus, apparently, has already begun to master bipedal walking.
There is also a clear similarity between A.anamensis And A.ramidus. Anthropologists, however, have not yet decided whether the latter is a sister taxon to the former, or whether it should be considered the original ancestral form.
In recent years, molecular taxonomists have come to extremely interesting conclusions about the time of separation of the hominid line from the common ancestral trunk with African great apes. It is assumed that at first the gorilla line branched off (between 10 and 7 million years ago) and only then (also in the Miocene, i.e. 7 - 6 million years ago) did the hominoid line split into the hominid line (Australopithecines, and then the genus Homo) and panid (chimpanzee and bonobos) branches. If these data are correct, then humans, chimpanzees, and bonobos are more closely related to each other than either of them is to a gorilla.
Nowadays, the opinion is firmly established that the classification of hominids should be based not on morphological characters, but on the degree of genetic relationship. Molecular biology data have led to a radical revision of taxonomy: the genera gorilla, chimpanzee and man form a closely related group Hominini within a single family of hominids. There also include orangutans and gibbons - more distant relatives of man.
The dispute about the number of Australopithecus species that coexisted in Afar has not been resolved to date. Some researchers, based on body size, insist on a high level of sexual dimorphism in Afar hominids. According to Johanson's calculations, the weight of the male Australopithecus Afar was approximately 45 kg with a height of 152.5 cm, while the female was significantly smaller: approximately 120 cm high and weighing about 27 kg. It is striking, however, that with a strongly pronounced sexual dimorphism in body size, the size of the fangs of males and females differed little.
Socioecological studies of primates reveal an extremely complex relationship between the degree of sexual dimorphism, competition between males, the nature of relationships between individuals of different sexes, the ratio of males and females in the group, the selection of male protectors, which reduce the risk of killing cubs by alien males, and environmental features, for example type of food and the presence of predators.
However, sexual dimorphism cannot yet serve as an unambiguous indication of more rigid hierarchical relations in groups or an orientation toward harem forms of social organization. The cause of dimorphism may be hidden in the different food specialization of the sexes or be associated with the need for protection from enemies.
Lovejoy connects the sex difference in body size with the transition of Australopithecus to monogamy and builds on this basis his model of the social organization of early hominids. According to Lovejoy, their community consisted of several paired families with offspring. It is quite possible that these creatures lived in close-knit groups of 25 to 30 individuals, which provided collective protection from predators. Powerful, large males were undoubtedly already able to use (like modern chimpanzees) stones or sticks for this purpose, and a straightened position of the body and a change in the throwing technique made the defense more effective.
True, some experts believe that two types of Australopithecus existed in Afar - large and small, and within each of them sexual dimorphism could be insignificant. With this view, the arguments in favor of the fact that Lucy was a female, and the creature, whose remains were found in 1992, was male, have little evidence, since Johanson's main argument is precisely the different body sizes. Note that the sex of chimpanzees and bonobos cannot be determined by the size of the body and the shape of the pelvis. Consequently, this indicator is hardly suitable for diagnosing sex in early hominids.
RIGHT PACING, HANDS AND SPEECH DEVELOPMENT
Until the beginning of the 1990s, no serious specialist doubted that the immediate ancestral home of man was East Africa. Most of the finds of Australopithecus and early representatives of the genus Homo were indeed made in its wide expanses (from Ethiopia to Tanzania), as well as in the southern part of the continent. This gave grounds to assume some confinement of the early stages of human evolution to the zone of the Great African Rift (East African Rift Zone). But in 1993, in Chad (province of Bahr el-Ghazal), i.e., 2500 km west of this zone, almost in the center of the continent, the remains of a certain creature called Chadanthropus were found, which in morphological characteristics resembles the Afar Australopithecus. This suggests a wider distribution of Australopithecus in Africa at least 3.5 - 3 million years ago. Therefore, the hypothesis that Australopithecus drove the less adapted chimpanzees out of the open country into the rainforest zone west of the African Rift is not supported. The area of Bahr el-Ghazal, according to paleoecologists, resembled Hadar of the same era: it abounded in lakes and small streams, tropical rainforests interspersed with forest savannahs with open areas overgrown with thick grass.
Since school years, we have been accustomed to hear that bipedal locomotion arose in our ancestors during the transition to life in the savannah. However, paleoecological data cast doubt on this fact. The climate in East Africa 6 - 4.3 million years ago was moderately humid, and in the period from 4.4 to 2.8 million years, the humidity even slightly increased. Paleoenvironmental materials from Aramis indicate that A.ramidus lived in the tropical forest. Taking into account other information, it should, apparently, be recognized that bipedal walking arose out of connection with global climate change and the aridization of the habitat of human ancestors, which means that it was not an adaptation to life in open spaces. The aridization of East Africa began much later, about 2.5 million years ago; more than 2 million years after the transition of hominids to upright posture.
Early Australopithecus seem to have been closely associated with forest ecosystems, while later members of this genus probably lived in mosaic landscapes. Bipedal locomotion undoubtedly played a large role in the development of open places by hominids, since it reduced the area of body insolation, increased visibility of the territory, made it possible to use objects to protect against predators, and so on. However, bipedalism is most likely not due to the transition to life in the savannah.
What, then, was the impetus for a change in the mode of movement of human ancestors? Unfortunately, there is no clear answer to this question yet. As White suggests, in a straightened position A.ramidus could begin to move along thick branches to collect fruit from low trees, and subsequently moved on to bipedal walking from tree to tree. This method was energetically more advantageous than going down on all fours and rising again on two legs each time. From the point of view of A. Cortland, the transition to upright posture and lengthening of the hind limbs could finally be an adaptation to life in a swampy tropical forest.
In the anthropological literature, the uneconomical nature of bipedal locomotion has been repeatedly mentioned, but then it generally passed into the category of completely non-adaptive behavioral qualities. This idea, however, had to be abandoned as soon as experts compared the types of movement. It is known that there are three of them: with support on four limbs (on the palms and feet, while the calcaneus does not touch the ground); on the feet and back of the hands (knuckles); on a full foot in a straightened position. It turned out that the least profitable way is the second, typical for great apes, and not at all the third, hominid. In other words, the way a chimpanzee or gorilla walks on land is much less adaptive than upright walking. From an energetic point of view, the transition from simian walking based on the bones of the fingers to bipedalism should be considered as adaptive.
From the student bench, we have firmly mastered the Engels triad, which supposedly ensured the formation of man: bipedalism, development of the hand and speech are closely related to each other. The progressive increase in brain size is a universal trend in the evolution of all hominid lines in the Pliocene and Pliopleistocene. However, trends in the development of body size and limb proportions in Australopithecus and members of the genus Homo different.
Bipedal locomotion arose repeatedly in different lines of hominid, and much earlier - several million years before the formation of the human hand. To date, no evidence has been found that the early Australopithecus, as well as their later forms (gracil or massive), made and regularly used stone tools. After all, the oldest of them, found in Oldowa (Tanzania), date back 2.5 million years and are associated only with the appearance H. habilis. True, tool culture is rooted in the very depths of hominid evolution, and it is quite possible that Australopithecus (especially later ones) could make tools from less hard natural materials - wood, bone. This assumption does not seem so fantastic, if we remember that modern chimpanzees in nature actively and constantly use a variety of adaptations. To fish out termites and ants, they sharpen a stick or straw with their teeth; to collect water, they make a sponge from chewed leaves, and crack nuts with stones.
It is noteworthy that each chimpanzee in the national parks of Tai (Ivory Coast) and Bossou (Guinea) has his favorite stone tools - "hammer and anvil", carries them with him or hides them in certain places that he clearly remembers. Moreover, some individuals also use a third stone as a wedge to keep the surface of the "anvil" in a horizontal position and give it stability.The stone serving as a wedge is in essence a meta-tool, because it is used to improve the primary tool.
The use of specific materials as tools is passed down as a tradition in populations of this species. Female chimpanzees from Thailand, for example, not only crack nuts in the presence of their babies, but also explicitly stimulate them (by punishing or rewarding) to master optimal cracking skills.
The reasons for the emergence of bipedal locomotion in one or more hominin populations are still a mystery. It is quite possible that such a restructuring became a neutral consequence of some complex mutation, a pre-adaptation. One thing is important: the transformations did not occur because the hands of these creatures were constantly busy with something. But the transition to movement on two legs certainly led to the release of hands, which created favorable opportunities for the subsequent development of manipulatory abilities.
Human speech, on the contrary, began to develop earlier than anthropologists expected. It can be considered established that the presence of formalized brain centers of Broca and Wernicke is already in H. habilis. According to F. Tabayas, the largest specialist in early hominids, the beginnings of the speech center can be traced in late Australopithecus - gracile and massive, i.e. A.africanus And A.robustus. It seems obvious that in creatures that have switched to upright walking, the brain has not yet reached the required size so that they can speak articulately. The volume of the brain in Australopithecus afarensis (find in 1992) only slightly exceeded 500 cm3, while in H. habilis- one of the first of its kind Homo- on average, it was already equal to 630 cm 3, in a modern person it is about 1300 cm 3.
Meanwhile, our distant ancestors undoubtedly already had the basis for the formation of human language - the rudimentary ability to operate with symbols. Judging by modern data, the closest relatives of man - chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas - understand symbols, operate on them, combine signs, creating new meanings. The pygmy chimpanzees are especially good at this. For example, a bonobo named Kenzi learned to communicate using symbols, perceives words by ear without special training, quickly establishes a connection between a drawn symbol and its verbal expression, and understands the meaning of simple sentences. Perhaps, in natural conditions, bonobos are able to transmit information using symbols. A group of American and Japanese primatologists working in the Lomako National Park recently discovered that members of the same community, breaking into groups, leave real messages for each other in the form of symbols: sticks stuck in the ground, branches laid on a path, oriented in the right direction of plant leaves. Thanks to such marks, relatives can determine the direction of movement of the group in front. These marks are more common at forks or in places where it is impossible to leave footprints on the ground - when crossing a stream, in a wetland, etc. That's what people would do in similar situations.
Great apes also possess the rudiments of abstract thinking - they can reproduce the image of an object. It is noteworthy that they draw in accordance with a number of rules that are characteristic of the creative activity of 1.5 - 4-year-olds, and sometimes even older children. Gorilla Koko, who is able to speak the language of the deaf and dumb, no doubt puts a certain meaning into his drawings. So, she gave the name "Bird" to one of them, made in red-yellow-blue colors, explaining to the experimenters that she depicted her favorite - a blue jay - of a similar color. Koko's partner, male Michael, having drawn a dinosaur, a brown toy with green spikes, accurately reproduced the colors and even depicted teeth.
The data from the field of primatology, accumulated to date, significantly undermine the traditional ideas about the qualitative uniqueness of man and make the search for the notorious line between him and the great apes unpromising. Of course, there are differences, but they are mostly quantitative.
BEHAVIOR OF EARLY HOMINIDS
Will we ever know the truth about this - after all, social behavior cannot be documented from fossils. Nevertheless, a growing number of researchers are trying to reconstruct it using data from the field of primate socioecology, human ethology, social anthropology, and paleoecology. Now we can only talk about the most general model of social relations in groups of hominids, more precisely, about principles, because even within the same species of animals, social structure and relations can vary greatly. A harem species, the gorilla, has more than one reproductive male in many groups. The social structure of chimpanzees depends on the habitat: the populations inhabiting the border of the savanna, unlike forest relatives, form close-knit and numerous communities, less often break into small groups in search of prey.
The variability of social structures is due to many things: environmental conditions, seasons and actual weather conditions (for example, an unprecedented drought or an abundance of rain), the presence of neighboring communities (i.e. population density) or a second closely related group claiming similar food resources. So, during periods of severe drought, herds of anubis baboons form unusual groups for themselves, which resemble the harems of hamadryas baboons.
The history of a particular group and intra-group traditions can play a significant role in social evolution. It is known that chimpanzees in nature differ greatly in the nature of the use of tools, the technique of obtaining food, and the individual attachments of adults. The role of the "personality" of the individual members of the group, in the first place, the leader, is extremely great.
As you can see, the social structures and relationships in monkey communities are indeed diverse. Therefore, it is hardly appropriate to build unilinear, rigid models of human social evolution or to base them on the analysis of the behavior of any one species of primates or only communities of modern hunter-gatherers.
Social ecologists tend to explain differences in social behavior between species (or populations) in terms of the distribution of food resources and reproductive partners in space. It is known, for example, that terrestrial omnivorous (non-specialized or predominantly fruit-eating) primate species can form large groups in which there is competition between females for food and between males for access to a female.
The closest human relatives - chimpanzees and bonobos - are patrilocal: males spend their whole lives in the group in which they were born, and adult females usually move to other groups. However, with the general predominance of such a system of exchange of individuals, some female monkeys spend their entire lives in their native group. If we turn to ethnography, it turns out that some traditional human cultures are not patrilocal, but matrilocal, and the roots of this social organization are very ancient. Does this mean that matrilocality appeared secondarily, and that all hominin populations were patrilocal?
According to Foley, patrilocality is due to the developed system of cooperation between males and its low level between females. This means that in the life of communities of early hominids, the social ties of females did not play a significant role, but the tendencies towards the association of males intensified over time, because this contributed to success in hunting and protection from predators (and possibly from neighboring communities).
From our point of view, the stability of the social groups of early hominids largely depended on females. Judging by the results of long-term observations of F. de Waal over a colony of common chimpanzees in Arnhem (Holland) and C. Besh - in the Tai National Park, females are able to form stable groups based on kinship and friendly affection. This form of social behavior is also inherent in the pygmy chimpanzee. Bonobos differ from common chimpanzees in a higher level of sociality, both in relations between females and between females and males. Bonobo groups are on average larger, the composition of groups is more constant, and the likelihood of intra-group aggression is less. Bonobos are also remarkable for the highest level of development of mechanisms that control social tension. The latter is important for modeling the social relations of hominids, because with the development of tool culture, conflicts within the group became more dangerous. To resolve them, bonobos use not only elements of friendly behavior - kisses, hugs and touches, which are also inherent in ordinary chimpanzees, but also sexual elements, both in relationships between individuals of the opposite sex and their own.
With patrilocality, bonobos are marked by intense, close and stable bonds between unrelated females, arising from many years of personal attachment. This could be facilitated either by the risk of infanticide (infanticide) by males, or by the need to unite to search for and obtain food. When early hominids stood up and lost their fangs, the presence of predators in the neighborhood could increase the tendency for females to cooperate. The development of friendly ties between them could also be due to the joint rearing of offspring.
Modern women seem to follow the same pattern of behavior in their relationships. In many traditional patrilocal societies, a wife, having moved into her husband's house, establishes close ties with his relatives, runs the household with them and raises children. In general, girls from an early age are prone to friendly relations, while boys are more likely to form groups to increase their own status.
From what has been said, it follows that the large role of females in social relations is quite compatible with patrilocality and is confirmed by both primatological and ethnographic data.
The average community sizes of chimpanzees, bonobos, and modern hunter-gatherers are similar (25 to 35 individuals including children), and there is no reason to believe that our ancestral group sizes were different. It is also possible that the communities either broke up into small groups, going in search of food, or united for the night or to collect a plentiful harvest of fruits or nuts (later, the carcasses of animals killed or recaptured from predators could be a source of food).
It has been noted that the cohesion of groups is greatest among those representatives of the same species (chimpanzees, anubis baboons, rhesus monkeys and launderers) that live in open areas with a dry climate. Under such conditions, unlike forest ecosystems, chimpanzees, for example, most often form groups that include adult males, while individual individuals or groups without males are extremely rare. The reason for this transformation is the presence of predators: the higher the danger of their attack, the more males in each group.
There is no doubt that the Pleistocene fauna of East Africa abounded in predators. Early hominids lived in close proximity to saber-toothed tigers, hyenas, cheetahs and leopards and could not compare with them either in strength or in speed. It was the cohesion and large size of the groups that helped Australopithecus to adapt to these conditions in the first place.
Exceptionally sharp debates among domestic specialists in the history of primitive society are regarding the reproductive (marital) relations of our ancestors. It is unlikely that one should adhere to any one model in this, evolution could be multivariate. Modern data seem to support the idea of the existence of serial monogamy (successive pair marriages) in the early stages of hominization. But other types of marriage cannot be ruled out. The likelihood of harem structures is low, but acceptable in a small number of populations: when hominids began to consume meat food, a more talented hunter could provide food for several partners. (Note that among modern hunter-gatherers, harem relationships are not forbidden, but still it is rare, and the number of wives in a harem is small: two or three, rarely four.) Promiscuity is also possible - fairly free sexual relations.
According to sociobiology, the reproductive strategies of males and females in primates are different (in humans, too). On average, males are more promiscuous and are sexually oriented with many partners. The strategy of females is twofold: they either choose a male helper (i.e., a good father), or a "carrier of good genes" - physically healthy, strong, attractive, occupying a high place in the hierarchy. In the latter case, the offspring has a chance to inherit obvious advantages from the father, but the mother is deprived of a helper. What strategy - whether males or females - prevails depends on its adaptability in given conditions. For early hominin females, pair bonding with a particular male proved to be vital and adaptive, as female reproductive capacity was low and children needed parental care for a long time. An alternative to the paired family could only be an emphasis on family ties and help from female friends and relatives.
Ethological analysis provides insight into the preference for sexual choice in primates and humans. It turns out that the most attractive partners are those who have similarities with those in whose environment they were in early childhood (that is, with relatives of the first order). They are followed by attractiveness of distant relatives - second cousins, uncles and nephews. So family marriages have very ancient roots.
HUNTERS OR CARGO COLLECTORS?
The most important event in the evolution of hominins is the transition to the consumption of meat food. How did they get it? Archaeological evidence from the Plio-Pleistocene seems to confirm that in the early stages our ancestors were scavengers. However, it cannot be ruled out that they also hunted. According to G. Isaac, the early hominids combined hunting with the collection of carrion, and in different seasons, either one of these methods of obtaining meat food, or the other, prevailed. Archaeologists have not found bones that could indicate the hunting of hominids on animals. But observations of chimpanzees and ethnographic material from the Hadza people (a group of hunter-gatherers from Tanzania) confirm this. Ordinary chimpanzees, for example, hunt regularly, and in the national parks of Tai, Mahale, Gombe, they so simply prey among other monkeys - red guerets.
According to R. Renhem and E. Bergman-Riess, a group of 45 chimpanzees can consume up to 600 kg of meat per year. Everything is eaten, including bones. If the early hominids hunted small and medium-sized game and consumed it without a trace, then no bones could be preserved. True, modern Hadza sometimes leave the remains of hunting trophies at the place of production, but they are quickly consumed by feathered and ground scavengers. Both the chimpanzee and the Hadza have peak hunting and carrion gathering during the dry season, when plant food is clearly in short supply.
According to K. Stanford, hunting in chimpanzee communities is stimulated by receptive females. There seems to be an evolutionary relationship between the male's access to the reproductive female and his concern for providing her with food. With the disappearance of external signs of receptivity (swelling of the genital skin), sexual relations ceased to be confined to the period of probable conception, sexual relations between a particular male and female became permanent, and were not limited to several hours or days, as in chimpanzees.
The development of hunting stimulated cooperation between males, since already in chimpanzees there is a positive relationship between the number of hunters and success in catching game. Such cooperation helped the males to control and dominate the group, which in turn increased their reproductive chances. The maximum individual success depended both on the male's social intelligence (the ability to manipulate other members of the group) and on the "instrumental" one - successful hunting planning and knowledge of the prey's behavior.
* * *
So, the human genealogy has grown old up to 4.4 million years, but the candidate for its founder has not been finally determined. Like modern primates, our distant ancestors lived in communities in which social relations could be very diverse.
Primatological studies in recent years show that social organization and social relations, even in species of the same genus, can vary greatly. Therefore, a model based on data on a specific species of modern primates, whether it be chimpanzees, bonobos or baboons, cannot be considered justified. On the contrary, an analysis of the general nature of behavior in the phylogenetic series of primates, the identification of universal patterns and strategies in intragroup relations can bring us closer to understanding events at the dawn of human history.
- Academic title: Professor
- Doctor of Sciences: specialty 03.03.02 "Anthropology", thesis topic: defended her doctoral dissertation at the Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology of the Russian Academy of Sciences on the topic "Universal principles of organization of social systems in primates, including humans."
Specialist: Moscow State University named after V.I. M.V. Lomonosov, specialty "Anthropology"
Publications 47
Article Butovskaya Marina , Vasilyev V., Lazebny O. // Behavior Genetics. 2012. Vol. 42. No. 4. P. 647-662.
Article Balasubramaniam K., Dittmar K., Berman C., Butovskaya M. // animal behavior. 2012. Vol. 83. P. 2007-2018.
Article Butovskaya M. L., Lutsenko E. L., Tkachuk K. E. // Ethnographic Review. 2012. No. 5. S. 139-150.
Article Butovskaya M. L., Karelin D., Burkova V. // Bulletin of Moscow University. Series 23: Anthropology. 2012. No. 4. S. 71-84.
Article Butovskaya M., Chalyan V., Meishvili N. / Per. from Russian // Neuroscience and Behavioral Physiology. 2013. Vol. 43. No. 4. P. 492-496.
Article Butovskaya M. L., Chalyan V., Meishvili N. // Russian Journal of Physiology. THEM. Sechenov. 2013. V. 99. No. 6. S. 697-705.
Article Butovskaya M. L., Postnikova E. A., Veselovskaya E. V., Maurer A. M., Savinetsky A., Syroezhkin G. // Moscow University Bulletin. Series 23: Anthropology. 2014. No. 2. S. 18-28.
Article Butovskaya M. L., Butovsky R. O., Veselovskaya E. V. // Asia and Africa today. 2014. No. 12 (in print)
Article Burkova V. , Butovskaya M. , Mabulla A. // Social Evolution & History. 2015. Vol. 14. No. 1. P. 87-104.
Article Butovskaya M. L., Fedenok Yu. // Ethnographic Review. 2015. No. 2. S. 99-116.
Article Burkova V. , Butovskaya M. , Karelin D. // Social Evolution & History. 2016. Vol. 15. No. 2. P. 141-163.
Article Apalkova J., Butovskaya M. , Bronnikova N., Burkova V. , Shackelford T. K., Fink B. // Evolutionary Psychological Science. 2018 Vol. 4. No. 3. P. 314-321. doi
Article Butovskaya M. , Conroy-Beam D., Roney J., Lukaszewski A., Buss D., Sorokowska A., Dronova D. // Evolution and Human Behavior. 2019 Vol. 40. No. 5. P. 479-491. doi
Book , Benyera E., , Marina L. Butovskaya , D'Angelo L., Dronova D. A., Effiboley E. P., Githuku N. K., Oxana V. Ivanchenko , Khalitova A. R., Khristoforova O. B., Sergey V. Kostelyanets , Meledje J., Nkyabonaki J. , Pennacini C., Schirripa P., . / Rev. ed.: Marina L. Butovskaya. M. : -, 2019.
Article Butovskaya M. L., Dronova D. // Ethnographic Review. 2019. No. 1. S. 42-64. doi
Chapter of the book, Butovskaya M. L., Dronova D., Apalkova Yu. // In the book: Social psychology and society: history and modernity. Proceedings of the All-Russian scientific and practical conference with international participation in memory of Academician of the Russian Academy of Education A.V. Petrovsky (October 15-16, 2019). M. : FGBOU VO MGPPU, 2019. S. 25-27.
Participation in the editorial boards of scientific journals
Since 2006: member of the editorial board of the journal Social Evolution & History.
Since 2006: member of the editorial board of the Ethnographic Review journal.
experience
Studying the evolutionary foundations of human social behavior (modeling the early stages of the evolution of society in the Paleolithic based on models of primate communities and data on the social behavior of African hunter-gatherers; identifying the genetic components of human aggressive behavior; cross-cultural studies of partner choice, sexual attractiveness, spatial behavior; identifying environmental factors underlying cultural taste preferences for food and respect for food in general.
Application of methods of physical anthropology (anthropometry, anthropological photography), social anthropology (participant observation, in-depth interviews, expert assessments, audiovisual methods), ethological methods of observation, psychological methods (questionnaires and experimental tests)
Expedition trip to Tanzania, March 2019
In March 2019 (March 1-30) an expeditionary trip to Tanzania was carried out. The purpose of the expedition work is to study and analyze the mortal ceremonies of the representatives of the Haya people living on the shores of Lake Victoria and the Meru living in the Arusha region. As part of the expedition, material was collected on the cult of ancestors and funeral and memorial rituals among representatives of the Haya and Mer of Tanzania. Haya are adherents of both Christianity (the vast majority) and Islam. In terms of their culture and language, the Haya are closer to the peoples living on the territory of neighboring countries - Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi and the Democratic Republic of the Congo than to neighboring peoples on the territory of Tanzania itself. In the traditional Haya culture, secret societies of the Bachwezi are well represented, closely associated with the royal clans, which are based on spiritualism and communication of initiates with the world of spirits.
Data on funeral joy (as part of the rituals of the life cycle) and the relationship of Datoga, Haya and Mer with deceased ancestors are summarized in the chapter "Transformation of traditional rural communities in East Africa" of the collective monograph "The Omnipresent Past: Historical Anthropology of Africa", ed. by Dmitri M. Bondarenko & Marina L. Butovskaya. 2019, 85 - 114.
The study was funded by the Russian Science Foundation, grant 18-18-00082.
Expedition trip to Tanzania, June 2019
The field trip in June 2019 (June 1 - 28) took place in northern Tanzania (Lake Eyasi area). The purpose of the trip: to study the traditions of cooperation and mutual assistance among representatives of the traditional societies of the Hadza and Iraq. Data were collected on culturally acceptable behaviors in terms of helping relatives and non-relatives within one's own ethnic group. In a generalized form, these data allow us to conclude that the Hadza are more tolerant towards representatives of their ethnic group compared to the Iraqi. The Hadza are characterized by egalitarian relations between men and women, older and younger. Iraqi society is also startified, and stratification can be traced at all levels - in the family, lineage, clan, neighborhood community.
The participants' observations and interviews with representatives of the studied societies testify to a certain influence of global globalization processes on cultural norms and moral attitudes of intra-group mutual assistance and cooperation. First of all, in a situation of more intensive contacts with the market system and the monetary economy, there is a certain departure from the rules of traditional behavior. The Hadza began to deceive their fellow tribesmen more often, trying to avoid sharing the most valuable food resources (honey, sugar or salt), Datoga - violate the rules for sharing cattle in ritual ceremonies and refuse to help older relatives, and Iraq today is clearly oriented towards selective contribution to their own family, ignoring community values. Expeditionary research was carried out at the expense of the Russian Science Foundation, grant 18-18-00075
On April 20, 2018, a regular meeting of the scientific seminar of the International Center for Anthropology of the Shin FGN NRU HSE was held. A report on the topic "Human aggression in the context of biosocial research" was made by the chief researcher of the Center, Dr. ist. Sciences, Professor Marina Lvovna Butovskaya.
Marina Lvovna Butovskaya
In 1982 she graduated from the Faculty of Biology of the Moscow State University. M.V. Lomonosov (Department of Anthropology).
From 1982 to 1984 she studied at the graduate school of the Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology (IEA) of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
Researcher (1985-1992); Senior Researcher (1992-1995); Leading Researcher (1995-2002) IEA RAS.
From 2002 to the present Center for Evolutionary Anthropology, leading researcher Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology RAS.
From 1998 to the present - Professor of the Center for Social Anthropology of the Russian State University for the Humanities.
Doctor of Historical Sciences, dissertation defended at IEA RAS (1994).
Member of international organizations - European Anthropological Association, American Association of Physical Anthropologists, Society for the Study of Human Behavior and Evolution, International Society for the Study of Aggression, International Society for Human Ethology, International Primatological Society.
Scientific interests: human evolution; ethology of humans and primates (the study of the structure of social relations in different types of primates, social relations in children's groups, the reconstruction of the early stages of the development of human society, the evolution of laughter and smiles in humans) urban anthropology (studies of the behavior of citizens in conditions of anonymous interaction on the streets of the city, structuring behavior in different cultures, studying the structure of the urban population of the poor and the relationship of the poor with the townspeople), gender studies (studies of the criteria for choosing a permanent partner in modern conditions, satisfaction with marriage among men and women, the processes of formation of gender stereotypes in children and adolescents) conflictology and methods of peaceful resolution conflicts (study of the ethological and physiological mechanisms of aggression and its resolution in children and adolescents, aggression and reconciliation in various species of primates, theoretical studies in the field of the evolution of the mechanisms of aggression and reconciliation in humans, the study of the role of stress in post-conflict behavior) cross-cultural studies in areas of problems of altruism (analysis of the formation of friendly relations among children in different cultures).
Reads courses of lectures: Human Ethology and Methods of Collecting Ethological Material; Fundamentals of physical anthropology; Specialist. course in evolutionary anthropology; Theory and practice of intercultural communication.
Research experience: Field observations on the study of the social behavior of primates in the Sukhum primatological center (1979-1991) and in the Russian primatological center, Adler (1992 - to the present), research in the primatological center of the University of Kassel, Germany (1992-1993) and at the Primatological Center of the University of Strasbourg (1999-2001); expedition work to study gender stereotypes in Kalmykia (1993-1995). Study of the ethological and hormonal bases of the regulation of aggression in children and adolescents (Moscow Elista, Yerevan) (1997 - present); studying urban poverty in Eastern Europe (1998-present); ethological studies of pedestrian behavior in urban environments (1999 - present).
Organization and holding of two international summer schools on human ethology (Zvenigorod, June 19-26, 2001 and Pushchino, June 30 - July 7, 2002).
Grants and awards: research grant from the German Academy of Sciences (1992-1993); research grant from Soros "cultural initiative" (1993-1994); research grants from the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (1996-1998, no. 96-06-80405; 1997-1999, no. 97-06-80272; 1999-2001, no. 00032; 1998, no. 98-01-00176); research grant from the French Academy of Sciences (1999-2000); research grant from the Open Society, Research Support Scheme, (1999-2001, no. 138/99). Grants for attending scientific conferences with reports from Soros (1994, 1996, 1997, 1998), from the International Society for the Study of Aggression (2000), from the Colloquium on the Study of the Brain and the Problems of Aggression (2000), from the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (2000), from the Russian Humanitarian Foundation ( 2002, 2003). Grant award from the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences under the program "Outstanding scientists, young doctors and candidates" 2001.
Interview
Evolution continuesWhat is needed for a truly objective study of man? An unbiased look. It is possible if we consider human behavior in the context of the behavior of other living beings. And then it turns out that the similarity of the images of predators on the Aztec bas-reliefs, in the facial expressions of the masks from Polynesia, in the games of primary school students and cubs of chimpanzees is not just a coincidence. That love was not invented by man, but inherited from animals. That man is still in many ways an ape - and thank God
M.L. Butovskaya
List of works of the author available on the site
To shave or not to shave?An excerpt from the book “Secrets of sex. Man and woman in the mirror of evolution”, which explains how women perceive the facial hair of men.
M.L. Butovskaya