There are several theories about the origin of man. One of them is the theory of evolution. And even despite the fact that so far it has not given us a definite answer to this question, scientists continue to study ancient people. Here we will talk about them.
History of ancient people
Human evolution has 5 million years. The most ancient ancestor of modern man - a skilled man (Homo habilius) appeared in East Africa 2.4 million years ago.
He knew how to make fire, build simple shelters, collect plant food, work stone and use primitive stone tools.
Human ancestors began to make tools 2.3 million years ago in East Africa and 2.25 million years ago in China.
Primitive
About 2 million years ago, the most ancient human species known to science, a skilled man (Homo habilis), striking one stone against another, made stone tools - pieces of flint, choppers, studded in a special way.
They cut and sawed, and with a blunt end, if necessary, it was possible to crush a bone or stone. Many choppers of various shapes and sizes were found in the Olduvai Gorge (), so this culture of ancient people was called Olduvai.
A skilled person lived only in the territory. Homo erectus was the first to leave Africa and penetrate into Asia, and then to Europe. It appeared 1.85 million years ago and disappeared 400 thousand years ago.
A successful hunter, he invented many tools, acquired a home and learned how to use fire. The tools used by Homo erectus were larger than the tools of the early hominids (man and his closest ancestors).
In their manufacture, a new technology was used - upholstering a stone blank on both sides. They represent the next stage of culture - the Acheulean, named after the first finds in Saint-Acheul, a suburb of Amiens in.
In their physical structure, hominids differed significantly from each other, which is why they are divided into separate groups.
Man of the ancient world
Neanderthals (Homo sapiens neaderthalensis) lived in the Mediterranean region of Europe and the Middle East. They appeared 100 thousand years ago, and 30 thousand years ago they disappeared without a trace.
Approximately 40 thousand years ago, Homo sapiens replaced the Neanderthal. According to the place of the first find - the Cro-Magnon cave in Southern France - this type of person is sometimes also called a Cro-Magnon.
In Russia, unique finds of these people were made near Vladimir.
Archaeological research suggests that the Cro-Magnons developed a new way of making stone blades for knives, scrapers, saws, tips, drills and other stone tools - they chipped flakes from large stones and sharpened them.
About half of all Cro-Magnon tools were made from bone, which is stronger and more durable than wood.
From this material, the Cro-Magnons also made such new tools as needles with ears, fish hooks, harpoons, as well as chisels, awls and scrapers to scrape animal skins and make leather from them.
Various parts of these objects were attached to each other with the help of veins, ropes made of plant fibers and adhesives. The Périgord and Aurignacian cultures were named after those places in France where at least 80 different types of stone tools of this type were found.
The Cro-Magnons also significantly improved hunting methods (driven hunting), catching reindeer and red deer, woolly, cave bears, and other animals.
Ancient people made spear throwers, as well as devices for catching fish (harpoons, hooks), snares for birds. Cro-Magnons lived mainly in caves, but at the same time they built a variety of dwellings from stone and dugouts, tents from animal skins.
They knew how to make sewn clothes, which were often decorated. From flexible willow rods people made baskets and fish traps, and weaved nets from ropes.
The life of ancient people
Fish played an important role in the diet of ancient people. Traps were set on the river for medium-sized fish, and the larger ones were speared.
But how did ancient people act when a river or lake was wide and deep? Drawings on the walls of the caves of Northern Europe, made 9-10 thousand years ago, depict people chasing a reindeer floating down the river in a boat.
The strong wooden frame of the boat is covered with the skin of an animal. This ancient boat resembled the Irish currach, the English coracle, and the traditional kayak still used by the Inuit.
10 thousand years ago in Northern Europe there was still an ice age. Finding a tall tree from which to hollow out a boat was difficult. The first boat of this type was found on the territory. Her age is about 8 thousand years, and she is made of.
The Cro-Magnons were already engaged in painting, carving and sculpture, as evidenced by the drawings on the walls and ceilings of caves (Altamira, Lasko, etc.), figures of humans and animals made of horn, stone, bone and elephant tusks.
Stone remained the main material for making tools for a long time. The era of the predominance of stone tools, numbering hundreds of millennia, is called the Stone Age.
Main dates
No matter how hard historians, archaeologists and other scientists try, we will never be able to reliably learn about how ancient people lived. Nevertheless, science has managed to make very serious progress in the study of our past.
Liked the post? Press any button.
At present, science has a significant amount of paleoanthropological, archaeological, and geological data that make it possible to shed light on the course of anthropogenesis (in general terms). An analysis of this information gives grounds to single out four conditional stages (segments) of anthropogenesis, characterized by a certain type of fossil man, the level of development of material culture and public institutions:
1) australopithecines (predecessors of man);
2) Pithecanthropes (the most ancient people, archanthropes);
3) Neanderthals (ancient people, paleoanthropes);
4) man of the modern type, fossil and modern (neoanthropes).
In accordance with zoological systematics, the classification of hominids is as follows:
Family - Hominidae
Subfamily Australopithecinae - Australopithecus
Genus Australopithecus - Australopithecus
A. afarensis - A. afarsky A. robustus - A. powerful A. boisei - A boyes and others.
Subfamily Homininae - Humans
Genus Homo - Man
N. erectus - Man straightened
N. sapiens neanderthalensis - Neanderthal reasonable man
N. sapiens sapiens - Homo sapiens reasonable.
Autralopithecines (predecessors of man)
Paleontological and modern biological (to a greater extent) data have confirmed the theory of Darwin about the origin of man and modern anthropologists from a common initial form.
Establishing a specific hominoid ancestor remains a challenge to modern science. Its existence is associated with a large group of African dryopithecus that flourished in the Miocene - Pliocene (the Miocene extends within 22-27 million years, the Pliocene - within 5-10 million years), leading from the Oligocene Egyptopithecus (30 million years). In the 50-60s. one of the driopithecus, the proconsul, was put forward as a "model" of the common ancestor of hominids and pongids. The Miocene Dryopithecus were semi-terrestrial-semi-arboreal apes that lived in humid tropical, mountainous or ordinary broad-leaved forests, as well as in forest-steppe regions. Finds of Miocene and Lower Pliocene Dryopithecus are also known in Greece, Hungary and Georgia.
Two branches of evolution diverged from the common initial form: the first, pongid, led after many millions of years to modern anthropoid apes, the second, hominid, to the appearance, ultimately, of a person of a modern anatomical type. These two branches developed independently of each other in different adaptive directions over many millions of years. In accordance with the natural and landscape conditions, in each of them specific features of the biological organization were formed, corresponding to the way of life.
The branch of higher apes evolved in the direction of adaptation to an arboreal lifestyle, to brachiator-type locomotion with all the ensuing anatomical features: lengthening of the forelimbs and shortening of the hind limbs, reduction of the thumb, lengthening and narrowing of the pelvic bones, development of ridges on the skull, a sharp predominance of the facial region skulls over the brain, etc.
The human branch of evolution, on the contrary, developed in the direction of adapting to a terrestrial lifestyle, upright walking, freeing the forelimbs from the function of support and locomotion, using them to use natural objects as tools, and later on to the manufacture of artificial tools, which was decisive in separation of man from the natural world. The fulfillment of these tasks required lengthening of the lower and shortening of the upper limbs, while the foot lost its grasping functions and turned into an organ of support for a straightened body, the brain, the main coordinating brain organ, developed rapidly, and, accordingly, the part of the skull becomes predominant; there is a disappearance of the ridges, the supraorbital ridge, the formation of a chin protrusion on the lower jaw, etc.
The next important question of evolutionary anthropology is: when did an independent branch of human evolution arise and who was its first representative? Averaging the estimates obtained by paleontologists and geneticists gives us a period of 8-6 million years. Geneticists calculate the time of separation of the two branches of evolution based on the genetic differences of modern hominoids and the estimated time of its occurrence.
As possible ancestors of hominids, in addition to Ramapithecus (the latter is often considered a link in the evolution of orangutans), European higher primates are called: Rudapitek and Ouranopithecus, African Kenyapithecus (a descendant of more ancient proconsuls from the “driopithecus circle”), Lufengopitek (Chinese Ramapithecus).
Australopithecus represent one of the first stages of human evolution. They may be regarded by the most cautious investigators as the forerunners of all fossils and modern humans. Australopithecus - the most interesting object in modern human paleontology - has become known to science since the 30s of our century. The first find of Australopithecus was made in the south of the African continent. It represented the remains of the skull and the natural ebb of its brain part, belonging to a child.
The analysis of the "cub from Taung" showed that a number of structural features differ from the type of anthropoids and at the same time resemble modern humans. The find caused a lot of controversy: some ranked it among the fossil anthropoids, others - among the fossil hominids. Subsequent finds of South African Australopithecus demonstrated the presence of two morphological types - graceful and massive Australopithecus. Initially, they belonged to two independent genera. Several hundred African Australopithecus are currently known. South and East African massive and graceful variants of Australopithecus are assigned to different species. South African species lived in the interval of 3-1 million years, and East African - 4 or more - 1 million years.
Modern anthropologists have no doubt that Australopithecus is an intermediate type between the great apes and man. The main difference from the former is bipedal locomotion, which is reflected in the structure of the trunk skeleton and some features of the skull (median position of the foramen magnum). The large width of the pelvic bones, associated with the attachment of the gluteal and part of the spinal muscles that straighten the body, proves the vertical position of the body. Part of the abdominal muscles is also attached to the pelvic skeleton, supporting the internal organs when walking with a straightened body.
The landscape environment of Australopithecus - steppe and forest-steppe - required the development of the ability to move on two legs. Sometimes anthropoids demonstrate this ability. For Australopithecus, bipedia was a constant feature. It has been experimentally proven that bipedal gait is energetically more favorable than other types of locomotion in primates.
Signs of a modern type human were found on the lower jaws. Relatively small fangs and incisors do not protrude above the general level of the teeth. Rather large molars have a "human" pattern of tubercles on the chewing surface, referred to as the "driopithecus pattern". The structure of the teeth and the joint of the lower jaw testify to the predominance of lateral movements in the act of chewing, which is not characteristic of anthropoids. The jaws of Australopithecus are more massive than those of modern humans. The vertical profile of the facial region and its relatively small overall size are close to the human type. The brow protrudes forward; the brain cavity is small; the occipital region tends to be rounded.
The volume of the brain cavity of Australopithecus is small: graceful Australopithecus - an average of 450 cm3, massive Australopithecus - 517 cm3, anthropoids - 480 cm3, that is, almost three times less than that of a modern person: 1450 cm3. Thus, progress in the development of the brain on the basis of the absolute size of the brain in the Australopithecus type is practically not visible. The relative size of the brain of Australopithecus, in some cases, was greater than that of anthropoids.
Among the South African forms, “African Australopithecus” and “Powerful Australopithecus” stand out clearly. The latter can be characterized as follows: a stocky creature with a body length of 150-155 cm and a weight of about 70 kg. The skull is more massive than that of the African Australopithecus, the lower jaw is stronger. A pronounced bony crest on the crown served to attach strong chewing muscles. The teeth are large (in absolute size), especially the molars, while the incisors are disproportionately small, so that the disproportion of the teeth is clearly visible. Such morphological features had a vegetarian Australopithecus, gravitating in its habitat to the line of the forest.
Australopithecus Africanus was smaller in size (graceful form): body length - up to 120 cm, and weight - up to 40 kg (Fig. I. 5). Judging by the bones of the body, the position of the body when walking was more straightened.
The structure of the teeth corresponded to adaptation to omnivorousness with a large proportion of meat food. Australopithecus were engaged in gathering and hunting, possibly using the hunting trophies of other predators. When hunting baboons, Australopithecus used stones as a throwing weapon. R. Dart created the original concept of the Australopithecus pre-culture - "osteodontokeratic culture", that is, the constant use of parts of the animal skeleton as tools. It was suggested that the mental activity of Australopithecus became more complex: this was evidenced by the high level of their tool activity and the developed gregariousness. The prerequisites for these achievements were bipedalism and a developing hand.
Of interest are the finds of Australopithecus and similar forms made in East Africa, in particular, in the Olduvai Gorge (Tanzania). Anthropologist L. Leakey conducted research here for 40 years. He singled out five stratigraphic layers, which made it possible to establish the temporal dynamics of the most ancient hominids and their culture in the early Pleistocene.
Initially, the skull of a massive australopithecine was discovered in Olduvai Gorge, named "Zinjanthropus bois" ("The Nutcracker"), later renamed "Australopithecine boisova". This find is confined to the upper half of layer I (age 2.3-1.4 Ma). Notable are the archaic stone tools found here in the form of flakes with traces of retouching. The researchers were confused by the combination of stone culture and the primitive morphological type of Australopithecus. Later, in layer I below the Zinjanthropus, bones of the skull and hand of a more advanced human being were found. It was he, the so-called Homo habilis (Handy Man), who owned the ancient tools of Olduvai.
As for the Zinjanthropus (A. boisei), in the evolution of Australopithecus, it continues the line of adaptation of massive forms to a predominant diet of plant foods. This australopithecine is larger than the "powerful australopithecine" and is distinguished by a less perfect ability for bipedal walking (Fig. I. 6).
Of great importance is the fact of the coexistence of two types of early hominids, Australopithecus Boys and Homo habilis, proved by the fossil materials of the Olduvai Gorge, especially since they differ very markedly in morphology and ways of adaptation.
The remains of habilis in the Olduvai Gorge are not isolated: they always coexist with the Pebble (Olduvai) culture, the oldest culture of the Paleolithic. Some anthropologists dispute the generic name
Rice. I. 6. Skull of a supermassive Australopithecus ("Boysova") (1.9 million years)
habilis - "Nomo", preferring to call him "skillful Australopithecus". For most specialists, habilis is the oldest representative of the genus Homo. He not only used suitable objects of the natural environment for his needs, but also modified them. The antiquity of Homo habilis is 1.9 - 1.6 million years. Findings of this hominid are known in South and East Africa.
Homo habilis had a body length of up to 120 cm, with a weight of up to 40-50 kg. The structure of the jaw gives out its ability to be omnivorous (a feature of a person). It differs from Zinjanthrope habilis in a large volume of the brain cavity (volume - 660 cm3), as well as in the bulge of the cranial vault, especially in the occipital region. The lower jaw of habilis is more graceful than that of other australopithecines, the teeth are smaller. In connection with a fairly perfect bipedal walking, the big toe could move, like in humans, only in the vertical direction, and the foot had arches. The body of the habilis was almost straight. Thus, bipedia as one of the main achievements of anthropogenesis took shape very early. The hand changed more slowly. There is no perfect opposition of the thumb to the rest, its dimensions, judging by the bone elements, are small. The phalanges of the fingers are curved, which is not typical for a modern person, but the terminal phalanges are flat.
In the layers of the Oluvai Gorge (age from 1.2-1.3 million years), bone remains of forms were found that can be interpreted as transitional from the type of progressive Australopithecus to the type of Pithecanthropus. Pithecanthropus has also been discovered in this locality.
It is difficult to interpret and classify forms similar to the Australopithecus of Africa, but found outside this mainland. So, on the island of Java, a fragment of the lower jaw of a higher primate was discovered, the overall dimensions of which significantly exceeded the dimensions of modern humans and the largest monkeys. He received the name "Meganthropus Paleo-Javanese". Currently, it is often referred to the Australopithecus group.
All these australopithecines and early representatives of the genus Homo were preceded in time by the graceful "Afar Australopithecus" (A. afarensis), the bone remains of which were discovered in Ethiopia and Tanzania. The antiquity of representatives of this species is 3.9-3.0 million years. The happy discovery of a very complete skeleton of the subject, named "Lucy", allows us to represent the Afar australopithecines as follows. Body dimensions are very small: body length - 105-107 cm, weight slightly exceeded 29 kg. In the structure of the skull, jaws and teeth, very primitive signs were noted. The skeleton is adapted to a bipedal gait, although different from a human one. The study of footprints in volcanic ash (antiquity - at least 3.6 million years) leads to the conclusion that the Afar australopithecines did not fully extend their legs at the hip joint, and when walking they crossed their feet, placing them one in front of the other. The foot combines progressive features (large and adducted first toe, pronounced arch, formed heel) and monkey-like features (the dance is not motionless). The proportions of the upper
and lower extremities correspond to upright posture, but there are clear signs of adaptation to the arboreal mode of locomotion. In the hand, progressive signs are also combined with archaic ones (relative shortening of the fingers) associated with the ability for arboreal locomotion. Signs of "force capture" characteristic of hominids are not observed. As primitive features of the skull, a strong protrusion of the facial region and a developed occipital relief should be noted. Protruding fangs and diastemas between the teeth of the upper and lower jaws look archaic even against the background of other Australopithecus. The molars are very large and massive. The absolute size of the brain of the "Afar Australopithecus" is indistinguishable from the size of anthropomorphic monkeys, but its relative size is somewhat larger. Individual Afar individuals have a clear "chimpanzoic" morphology, proving a not so distant separation of the evolutionary branches of hominids and pongids.
Some neurologists believe that in very ancient representatives of Australopithecus it is already possible to fix the structural restructuring of the parietal, occipital and temporal regions of the brain; at the same time, among others, the external morphology of the brain is indistinguishable from that of a monkey. Brain restructuring could begin at the cellular level.
The most modern paleoanthropological discoveries make it possible to preliminarily identify the species of Australopithecus, which preceded the “Afarians” in time. These are the East African Australopithecus A. ramidus (Ethiopia) (represented by the lower jaw) and A. anamensis (Kenya); (represented by fragments of the chewing apparatus). The antiquity of both finds is about 4 million years. There are also more ancient finds of australopithecines that do not have a species definition. They fill the temporary hiatus between the oldest australopithecines and the hominoid ancestor.
Of great interest are the finds of early representatives of the genus Homo, made on the eastern shore of the lake. Turkana (Kenya). Progressive signs of Homo habilis "1470" include a brain volume of about 770 cm3 and a smoothed relief of the skull; antiquity - about 1.9 million years.
What place did tool activity occupy in the evolutionary achievements of Australopithecus? Anthropologists do not have a unanimous opinion regarding the indissolubility of the connection between tool activity and bipedal walking. Despite the finds of very ancient stone tool cultures, there is a significant gap in time between the emergence of bipedalism and the emergence of labor. It is assumed that the reason for the isolation of the first hominids from the animal world could be the transfer of the defensive function of the dental apparatus to artificial defense tools, and the use of tools became an effective adaptation in the behavior of the first people who settled the savannah. Monuments of the Olduvai culture did not clarify the question of the connection of Australopithecus with Olduvai tools. Thus, the fact of finding the bones of the progressive "habilis" and the massive Australopithecus in the same horizon with the Olduvai tools is known.
The oldest tools were found in more ancient horizons than the fragments of the first indisputable representatives of the genus Homo. Thus, the Paleolithic cultures in Kenya and Ethiopia are 2.5-2.6 million years old. Analysis of new materials shows that Australopithecus were only capable of using tools, but only members of the genus Homo were able to make them.
The Olduvai (pebble) era is the earliest in the Paleolithic (Old Stone Age). The most characteristic tools are massive archaic artifacts made from pebbles and fragments of stone, as well as stones - blanks (cores), tools on flakes. A typical Olduvai tool is a chopper. It was a pebble with a bevelled end, the unworked part of which served to hold the tool in the hand (Fig. I. 7). The blade could be worked on both sides; tools with several facets and just impact stones were also found. Olduvai tools differ in shape and size, but have the same type of blade. This is due to the purposefulness of actions to develop tools. Archaeologists note that already from the beginning of the Paleolithic there was a set of tools for various purposes. Finds of broken bones suggest that Australopithecus were hunters. Olduvai tools survive to late times, especially in South and Southeast Asia. The long existence of Olduvai (1.5 million years) was almost not accompanied by technical progress. Australopithecus could arrange simple shelters such as wind barriers.
Rice. I. 7. Olduvai culture of the Lower Paleolithic. Pithecanthropes
(earliest people, archanthropes)
Pithecanthropes are the second stadial group of hominids after Australopithecus. In this aspect, in the specialized literature they are often referred to (all variants of the group) as "archanthropes", i.e. "the most ancient people"; here you can also add the definition of "true people", since the belonging of Pithecanthropus to the family of hominids is not disputed by any of the anthropologists. Previously, some researchers combined Pithecanthropus with Neanderthals in one evolutionary stage.
Pithecanthropus finds are known in three parts of the world - Africa, Asia and Europe. Their ancestors were representatives of Homo habilis (later East African representatives of this species are often referred to as Homo rudolfensis). The time of existence of pithecanthropes (including the earliest ones, Homo ergaster) can be represented in the interval of 1.8 million years - less than 200 thousand years. The most ancient representatives of the stage were discovered in Africa (1.6 million years - 1.8 million years); since the turn of 1 million years, they have been common in Asia, and since 0.5 million years, pithecanthropes (often referred to as "preneanderthals", or representatives of Homo heidelbergensis) lived in Europe. The almost worldwide distribution of pithecanthropes can be explained by their rather high level of biological and social development. The evolution of various groups of Pithecanthropes occurred at different speeds, but had one direction - towards the sapiens type.
For the first time, the bone fragments of Pithecanthropus were discovered by the Dutch doctor E. Dubois on about. Java in 1891. It is noteworthy that the author of the find shared the concept of an “intermediate link” in the human genealogy, which belonged to the Darwinist E. Haeckel. Near the village of Trinil were found (successively) the upper molar, the skull cap and the femur. The archaic character of the cranial cover is impressive: a sloping forehead and a powerful supraorbital ridge and a completely modern type of femur. The layers containing the Trinil fauna date back to 700 thousand years ago (currently 500 thousand years). In 1894, G. Dubois first gave a scientific description of "Pitpecanthropus erectus" ("monkey-man erectus"). Some European scientists met such a phenomenal discovery with distrust, and Dubois himself often did not believe in its significance for science.
With an interval of 40 years, other finds of Pithecanthropes were made on about. Java and elsewhere. In the layers of Pungat with the fauna of Dzhetis near the village of Mojokerto, a baby skull of Pithecanthropus was discovered. The age of the find is close to 1 million years. Findings of bones of the skull and skeleton were made in the Sangiran locality (ancient about 800 thousand years) during 1936-1941. The next series of finds near Sangiran refers to the period 1952-1973. The most interesting find was the skull of a Pithecanthropus with a preserved facial section of the skull, made in 1963. The remains of a Paleolithic culture on about. Java not found.
A fossil man similar to Pithecanthropus was found in the Middle Pleistocene deposits of China. The teeth of the Sinanthropus (Chinese Pithecanthropus) were discovered in the limestone cave of Zhoukou-dian in 1918. The collection of random finds was replaced by excavations, and in 1937 the remains of more than 40 Sinanthropus individuals were discovered in this location (Fig. 1.8). The description of this variant of Pithecanthropus was first made by the Canadian specialist Vlekom. The absolute dating of Sinanthropus is estimated at 400-500 thousand years. The bone remains of Sinanthropus are accompanied by numerous cultural
remains (stone tools, crushed and burnt animal bones). Of greatest interest is the multi-meter thickness of ash found in the hunting camp of Sinanthropus. The use of fire for processing food made it more digestible, and the long-term maintenance of a fire indicates a fairly high level of development of social relations among Sinanthropes.
Multiple finds allow us to confidently speak about the reality of the Pithecanthropus taxon. Here are the main features of its morphotype. The modern type of the femurs and the position of the foramen magnum, similar to what we see on modern skulls, testify to the undoubted adaptation of Pithecanthropus to upright posture. The overall massiveness of the Pithecanthropus skeleton is greater than that of Australopithecus. Numerous archaic features are observed in the structure of the skull: a highly developed relief, a sloping frontal region, massive jaws, pronounced prognathism of the facial region. The walls of the skull are thick, the lower jaw is massive and wide, the teeth are large, while the size of the canine is close to modern. A highly developed occipital relief is associated with the development of the cervical muscles, which played a significant role in balancing the skull when walking. Estimates of the size of the brain of Pithecanthropes given in modern literature vary from 750 to 1350 cm3, i.e., approximately correspond at a minimum to the lower threshold of values given for australopithecines of the habilis type. Previously compared species were attributed a significant difference. The structure of the endocranes testified to the complication of the structure of the brain: the areas of the parietal region, the lower frontal and upper posterior parts of the frontal region are developed to a greater extent in Pithecanthropes, which is associated with the development of specific human functions - labor and speech. On the endocranes of synanthropes, new growth foci were found associated with the assessment of body position, speech, and fine movements.
Sinanthropus is somewhat different in type from Pithecanthropus. The length of its body was about 150 cm (Pithecanthropus - up to 165-175 cm), the dimensions of the skull were increased, but the type of structure was the same, with the exception of a weakened occipital relief. The skeleton of Sinanthropus is less massive. Noteworthy is the graceful lower jaw. The volume of the brain is more than 1000 cm3. The difference between the Sinanthropus and the Javanese Pithecanthropus is assessed at the subspecies level.
The nature of food residues, as well as the structure of the lower jaws, indicates a change in the type of feeding of synanthropes towards omnivorousness, which is a progressive sign. Sinanthropus is likely to have cannibalism. On the question of their ability to make fire, archaeologists disagreed.
Analysis of human bone remains of this phase of anthropogenesis allows us to reconstruct the age and sex composition of synanthropus groups: 3-6 males, 6-10 females and 15-20 children.
The comparative complexity of culture requires a sufficiently high level of communication and mutual understanding, therefore, it is possible to predict the existence of primitive speech at this time. The biological basis for such a prognosis can be considered an increase in the bone relief in the places of attachment of the muscles of the tongue, the beginning of the formation of the chin, and the gracilization of the lower jaws.
Fragments of skulls of antiquity, commensurate with the early Pithecanthropes of Fr. Java (approximately 1 million years old), found in two provinces of China - Lantian, Kuvanlin. It is interesting that the more ancient Chinese Pithecanthropus differ from the Sinanthropes in the same way as the early Pithecanthropes from the later ones, namely, the greater massiveness of the bones and the smaller size of the brain. Late progressive Pithecanthropus include a recent find in India. Here, together with Late Acheulean tools, a skull with a volume of 1300 cm3 was found.
The reality of the existence of the Pithecanthropus stage in anthropogenesis is practically not disputed. True, the later representatives of the Pithecanthropes are considered the ancestors of subsequent, more progressive forms. The question of the time and place of the appearance of the first Pithecanthropus has been widely discussed in science. Previously, Asia was considered its homeland, and the time of appearance was estimated at about 2 million years. Now this issue is resolved differently. Africa is considered the birthplace of both Australopithecus and Pithecanthropus. In 1984, in Kenya (Nariokotome), a 1.6-million-year-old Pithecanthropus (complete skeleton of a teenager) was discovered. The main finds of the earliest pithecanthropes in Africa are: Koobi Fora (1.6 million years), South African Swartkrans (1.5 million years), Olduvai (1.2 million years). African pithecanthropes of the Mediterranean coast (Ternifin) have an antiquity of 700 thousand years. The geological antiquity of the Asian variants can be estimated at 1.3–0.1 Ma. Archaeological evidence from sites in the Middle East, closer to Africa than to Asia, is known, suggesting that the antiquity of African pithecanthropes could reach 2 million years.
The synchronous forms of the fossil man from Europe are younger and rather peculiar. They are often referred to as "pre-Neanderthals" or referred to as Homo heidelbergensis, which in Africa, Europe and Asia was ancestral to modern humans and the Neanderthals of Europe and Asia. European forms have the following age: Mauer (500 thousand years), Arago (400 thousand years), Petralona (450 thousand years), Atapuerca (300 thousand years). Broken Hill (300 thousand years) and Bodo (600 thousand years) have a transitional evolutionary character in Africa.
In the Caucasus, the most ancient find in Georgia is the Dmanisi man, whose antiquity is estimated at 1.6-1.8 million years. Anatomical features make it possible to put it on a par with the most ancient hominids of Africa and Asia! Pithecanthropes were also found in other sites: in Uzbekistan (Sel-Ungur), in the North Caucasus (Kudaro), Ukraine. A form intermediate between Pithecanthropes and Neanderthals was found in Azerbaijan (Azykh). The Acheulean man apparently lived on the territory of Armenia (Yerevan).
Early pithecanthropes differ from later ones in greater massiveness of bones and a smaller brain size. A similar difference is observed in Asia and Europe.
In the Paleolithic, the Acheulean corresponds to the physical type of Pithecanthropus and early Neanderthals. The leading tool of the ashel is a hand ax (Fig. I. 9). It demonstrates a high level in the development of stone processing technology. Within the limits of the Acheulian era, one can observe an increase in the thoroughness of finishing axes: the number of chips from the surface of the tool increases. The surface finish becomes finer when stone chippers are replaced with softer ones made of bone, horn or wood. The size of a hand ax reached 35 cm. It was made from stone by chipping on both sides. The ax had a pointed end, two longitudinal blades and a raw opposite edge. It is believed that the ax had various functions: it served as a percussion instrument, was used for digging up roots, dismembering animal corpses, and processing wood. In the southern regions, an ax (jib) is found, which is distinguished by a transverse blade, not corrected by retouching, and symmetrically processed edges.
A typical Acheulean ax does not exhaust all the technological diversity characteristic of that period. There was a flake "klekton" culture, as well as a flake progressive culture "Levallois", which is distinguished by the manufacture of tools from flakes of disc-shaped blanks, the surface of the blanks was preliminarily processed with small chips. In addition to axes, small tools such as points, scrapers, and knives are found in the Acheulean sites. Some of them survive to the time of the Cro-Magnons. There are also Olduvai tools in the Acheulean. Rare wooden tools are known. It is believed that the Pithecanthropus of Asia could make do with bamboo tools.
Hunting was of great importance in the life of the Acheuleans. Pithecanthropes were not only collectors. The Acheulean monuments are interpreted as hunting camps, since bones of large animals are found in their cultural layer. The life of the Acheulean collectives was difficult, people were engaged in different types of labor. Different types of camps are open: hunting camps, flint quarry workshops, long-term camps. The Acheuleans built dwellings in open places and in caves. In the area of Nice, a settlement of huts was opened.
The natural environment of the Acheulean man determined the features of material culture. The types of tools in different sites are found in different proportions. Hunting for large animals required the close rallying of a team of people. Parking lots of different types testify to the existence of a division of labor. The remains of hearths speak of the effectiveness of the use of fire by Pithecanthropes. In the Kenyan site of Chesovanja, traces of fire are 1.4 million years old. The Mousterian culture of Neanderthal man is the development of the technological achievements of the angelic culture of Pithecanthropes.
As a result of the Afro-Asiatic magrations of the first people, two main centers of human evolution arose - western and eastern. Pithecanthropus populations separated by vast distances could progress for a long time in isolation from each other. There is an opinion that Neanderthals were not a natural stage of evolution in all regions, in Africa and Europe Pithecanthropes (“preneanderthals”) were such.
Neanderthals (ancient people, paleoanthropes)
In the traditional stadial model of anthropogenesis, the intermediate evolutionary step between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens was represented by paleoanthropes (“ancient people”), who lived in absolute chronology from 300 thousand years to about 30 thousand years in Europe, Asia and Africa. In non-professional literature, they are often referred to as "Neanderthals", after the name of one of the first finds in 1848 in the Neandertal area (Germany).
In general, paleoanthropes continue the line of evolution of "Human erectus" (more precisely, Homo heidelbergensis), but in modern schemes they are often referred to as a side branch of hominids. In terms of the general level of evolutionary achievements, these hominids are closest to modern humans. Therefore, they have undergone changes in their status in the classifications of hominids: paleoanthropes are currently considered as a subspecies of Homo sapiens, i.e., as its fossil variant (Homo sapiens neanderthalensls). This view reflects new knowledge about the complexity of Neanderthal biology, intelligence, and social organization. Anthropologists who attach great importance to the biological differences between Neanderthals and modern humans still consider them a separate species.
The first finds of Neanderthals were made in the 19th century. in Western Europe and did not have an unambiguous interpretation.
Groups of paleoanthropes, located in a significant range of geological time, are very diverse in morphological appearance. Anthropologist V.P. Alekseev made an attempt to classify groups of Neanderthals, similar morphologically and chronologically, and singled out several groups: European, African, Skhul type and Western Asian. Most of the finds of paleoanthropes from Europe are known. Often Neanderthals inhabited the glacial zones.
On the same grounds (morphological and chronological), among the European forms of the indicated time, the levels are distinguished: “the earliest Neanderthals” - “pre-Neanderthals”, “early Neanderthals” and “late Neanderthals”.
Anthropologists suggested that objectively there were multiple transitions between successive stadial groups, therefore, in different areas, from several variants of Pithecanthropus, an evolutionary transition to paleoanthropes could take place. Representatives of the species Homo heidelbergensis could be predecessors (Petralona, Swanscombe, Atapuerca, Arago, etc.).
The earliest European group includes the fossil skull from the Steinheim site (200 thousand years old), found in Germany in 1933, as well as the female skull of Swanscomb (200 thousand years old), discovered in England in 1935. These finds belong to the second interglacial according to the Alpine scheme. In similar conditions, a fossil lower jaw was found in France - the Montmorin monument. These forms are distinguished by a small size of the cerebral cavity (Steingheim - 1150 cm3, Swanscombe - 1250-1300 cm3). A set of features has been identified that bring the earliest forms closer to modern humans: a relatively narrow and high skull, a relatively convex forehead, a massive brow, like in Pithecanthropes, not divided into constituent elements, a rather rounded nape, a straightened facial region, and the presence of a rudimentary chin of the lower jaw. In the structure of the teeth, there is a clear archaism: the third molar is larger than the second and first (in humans, the size of the molars decreases from the first to the third). The bones of this species of fossil man are accompanied by archaic Acheulean tools.
Many known Neanderthals belong to the last interglacial period. The earlier ones lived about 150 thousand years ago. You can imagine their appearance from the finds from the European monuments Eringsdorf and Saccopastore. They are distinguished by a vertical profile of the facial region, a rounded occipital region, a weakened superciliary relief, a rather convex forehead, a relatively small number of archaic features in the structure of the teeth (the third molar is not the largest among others). The brain volume of early Neanderthals is estimated at 1200-1400 cm3.
The time of existence of late European Neanderthals coincides with the last glaciation. The morphological type of these forms is clearly visible on the fossil bone remains of Chapelle (50 thousand years), Mousterian (50 thousand years), Ferrassi (50 thousand years), Neanderthal (50 thousand years), Engis (70 thousand years), Circeo (50 thousand years), San Sezer (36 thousand years) (Fig. I. 10).
This variant is characterized by a strong development of the eyebrow, the occipital region compressed from top to bottom (“chignon-shaped”), a wide nasal opening, and an enlarged cavity of molars. Morphologists note the presence of an occipital ridge, a chin protrusion (rarely and in its infancy), a large volume of the cerebral cavity: from 1350 to 1700 cm3. According to the bones of the skeleton of the body, it can be judged that the late Neanderthals were characterized by a strong, massive physique (body length - 155-165 cm). The lower limbs are shorter than in modern humans, the femurs are curved. The wide facial part of the skull in Neanderthals strongly protrudes forward and beveled on the sides, the zygomatic bones are streamlined. The joints of the arms and legs are large. In terms of body proportions, Neanderthals were similar to the modern Eskimo type, which helped them maintain body temperature in cold climates.
An interesting attempt is made to transfer ecological knowledge about modern man to paleoanthropological reconstructions. Thus, a number of structural features of the "classical" Neanderthals of Western Europe are explained by the consequence of adaptation to cold climate conditions.
It seems that the earliest and subsequent forms from Europe are linked by genetic links. European Neanderthals have been discovered in France, Italy, Yugoslavia, Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, the Crimea and the North Caucasus.
To resolve the issue of the origin of modern man, the finds of paleoanthropes outside of Europe, mainly in Southwest Asia and Africa, are of exceptional interest. The absence of features of specialization in morphology in most cases distinguishes them from European forms. So, they are characterized by straighter and thinner limbs, not so powerful supraorbital ridges, shortened and less massive skulls.
According to one point of view, a typical Neanderthal man existed only within Europe and some regions of Asia, where he could move from Europe. Moreover, starting from the turn of 40 thousand years, Neanderthals coexisted with well-established people of the modern anatomical type; in the Middle East, such coexistence could be longer.
The finds of paleoanthropes from Mount Carmel (Israel) are exceptional in their significance. They attracted researchers with a mosaic of sapiens and Neanderthaloid features. These finds can be interpreted as actual evidence of the miscegenation of early Neanderthals and modern humans. True, it should be noted that some Skhul finds are currently considered as belonging to "archaic Homo sapiens". Let's name some of the most famous finds.
Tabun is a fossil skull discovered in Tabun Cave, Mount Carmel. Antiquity - 100 thousand years. The skull is low, the forehead is sloping, there are supraorbital ridges, but the front part and the occipital region have a modern character. The curved bones of the limbs are reminiscent of the type of European Neanderthals.
Skhul-V, antiquity - 90 thousand years (Fig. I. 11). The skull combines a large volume of the brain cavity and a fairly high forehead with a modern structure of the facial region and the back of the head.
Amud, antiquity - 50 thousand years. Found in Amud Cave near Lake Tiberias. (Israel). Has a large brain volume: 1740 cm3. The bones of the limbs are elongated.
Kafzeh, antiquity - about 100 years. years. Opened in Israel. Sapience is quite pronounced, therefore it is considered an accomplished sapiens.
In the north of Iraq, a Shanidar Neanderthal was discovered, classical in type, with a large brain region, the researchers drew attention to the absence of a continuous supraorbital ridge. Age - 70-80 thousand years.
A discovery of a Neanderthal man with traces of a funeral rite was made on the territory of Uzbekistan. The skull belonged to a boy with an unformed supraorbital ridge. The facial region and limbs of the skeleton, according to some anthropologists, are of a modern type. The place of the find is the Teshchik-Tash cave, antiquity is 70 thousand years.
In the Crimea, in the Kiik-Koba cave, bone remains of an adult paleoanthrope (the type is close to Western European Neanderthals) and a very young Neanderthal child were found. Bone remains of several Neanderthal children were discovered in the Crimea and near the city of Belogorsk. A fragment of the skull of a Neanderthal woman was also found here, with some modern features that make it look like the Skhul finds. Neanderthal bones and teeth have been discovered in Adygea and Georgia.
The skull of a paleoanthrope was discovered in Asia - in China, in the Mala grotto. It is believed that it cannot be attributed to any European variant of the Neanderthals. The importance of this find lies in the fact that it proves the replacement of one stage type by another in the Asian part of the world. Another point of view is that in finds like Mala, Chanyang, Ordos (Mongolia), we see transitional forms from Pithecanthropes to "early" sapiens. Moreover, this transition in some forms can be dated to at least 0.2 million years (uranium method).
On about. Java, near the village of Ngan-dong, found a kind of skull, bearing traces of cannibalism. The researchers drew attention to their very thick walls and powerful supraorbital ridge. Such features make the Ngandong skulls similar to the Pithecanthropus type. The time of existence of the discovered hominids is the Upper Pleistocene (about 0.1 million years), i.e. they are synchronous with the late Pithecanthropes. In science, there was an opinion that this is a local, peculiar type of Neanderthal, formed as a result of a slow evolutionary process. In other terms, the "Javanthropes" of Ngandong are defined as late Pithecanthropes genetically related to the Late Pleistocene sapiens of Australia.
Until recently, it was believed that Neanderthals existed not only in the north, but also in southern Africa. Broken Hill and Saldanha hominids were cited as examples of "South" Africans. In their morphological type, common signs of Neanderthals and Pithecanthropes were found. Their brain volume reached about 1300 cm3 (slightly less than the average value for Neanderthals). It has been suggested that Broken Hill Man is the successor of the East African Olduvai Pithecanthropus. Some anthropologists believed that there was a parallel line of evolution of paleoanthropes in Southeast Asia and southern Africa. At present, the Broken Hill variant is assigned the role of a fossil sapiens form.
A change in taxonomic views on late hominids has led to the fact that many forms preceding modern man are attributed to archaic Homo sapiens, often understanding this term as "pro-Neanderthals" (Swanscombe, Steinheim), further - peculiar African forms (Brocken Hill, Saldanha), Asian (Ngandong), as well as European variants of Pithecanthropus.
Paleontological evidence suggests a mestizo origin of classical European Neanderthals. Apparently, there were two waves of migrants from Africa and Asia about 300-250 thousand years ago, with subsequent mixing.
The evolutionary fate of the Neanderthals is not clear. The choice of hypotheses is quite wide: complete transformation of Neanderthals into sapiens; the complete extermination of Neanderthals by sapiens of non-European origin; mix of both options. The last point of view, according to which the emerging man of the modern type migrated from Africa to Europe through Asia, has the greatest support. In Asia, it was recorded about 100 thousand years ago, and it came to Europe at the turn of 40 thousand years. Further, the assimilation of the Neanderthal population took place. Evidence is provided by European finds of Neanderthal hominids, modern type and intermediate forms. Early Neanderthals, penetrating into Asia Minor, could crossbreed with ancient sapiens there as well.
An idea of the scale of metizational processes is provided by fossil odontological materials. They recorded the contribution of European Neanderthals to the gene pool of modern man. The Neanderthal version of fossil hominids coexisted with the modern one for tens of thousands of years.
The essence of the evolutionary transition that took place at the boundary of the Upper Paleolithic is explained in the hypothesis of Professor Ya.Ya. Roginsky.
The author summarizes the data on the structure of the endocrane with clinical observations of modern humans and, on this basis, suggests that the social behavior of paleoanthropes and modern humans is significantly different (control of behavior, manifestation of aggressiveness).
The Mousterian era, coinciding in time with the era of the existence of the Neanderthals, belongs to the Middle Paleolithic. In absolute terms, this time ranges from 40 to 200 thousand years. The Mousterian tool complexes are heterogeneous in terms of the ratio of tools of different types. Mousterian monuments are known in three parts of the world - Europe, Africa and Asia, and the bone remains of Neanderthals were also discovered there.
The technology of stone processing by Neanderthal man is distinguished by a relatively high level of splitting and secondary processing of flakes. The pinnacle of technology is the method of preparing the surface of the stone-blank and processing the plates separated from it.
Careful correction of the surface of the workpiece entailed the thinness of the plates and the perfection of the tools obtained from them (Fig. 1.12).
The Mousterian culture is characterized by disk-shaped blanks, from which the flakes were chipped off radially: from the edges to the center. Most of the Mousterian tools were made on flakes by secondary processing. Archaeologists count dozens of types of tools, but their diversity apparently comes down to three types: pointed, side-scraper, and knife. The point was a tool with a point at the end, used for cutting meat, leather, woodworking, and also as a dagger or spearhead. The scraper was a flake, retouched along the edge. This tool was used for scraping or cutting when processing carcasses, skins or wood. Wooden handles were added to the scrapers. Serrated tools were used for turning wooden objects, for cutting or sawing. There are piercers, incisors, scrapers in the Mousterian - tools of the Late Paleolithic. Means of labor are represented by special chippers (pieces of stone or pebbles of an elongated shape) and retouchers (pieces of stone or bone for processing the edge of the tool by pressing).
Modern ethnographic studies of the Australian Aborigines help to present the technological processes of the Stone Age. The experiments of archaeologists have shown that the technique of obtaining tool blanks in the form of flakes and plates was complex, requiring experience, technical knowledge, precise coordination of movements, and great attention.
Experience allowed the ancient man to reduce the amount of time needed to make tools. The bone processing technique in Mousterian is poorly developed. Wooden tools were widely used: clubs, spears, horns with ends hardened on fire. Vessels for water and elements of dwellings were made of wood.
Neanderthals were skilled hunters. At their sites, accumulations of bones of large animals were found: mammoths, cave bears, bison, wild horses, antelopes, mountain goats. Complex hunting activities were within the power of a coordinated team of Neanderthals. The Mousterians used the methods of rounding up or rutting animals to breaks and swamps. Compound tools were found - spearheads with flint fragments. Bolas were used as throwing weapons. The Mousterians practiced cutting up the carcasses of slaughtered animals and roasting the meat over a fire. They made simple clothes for themselves. Gathering was of some importance. The discovered stone grain graters suggest that there was a primitive processing of grain. Cannibalism existed among Neanderthals, but was not widespread.
In the Mousterian time, the nature of the settlements changed. Sheds, grottoes and caves were more often inhabited. Types of Neanderthal settlements are distinguished: workshops, hunting and base camps. To protect the fires from the wind, wind barriers were arranged. In the grottoes, pavements were made from pebbles and pieces of limestone.
Bone remains of Neanderthals can be found together with Upper Paleolithic tools, as was the case, for example, with the discovery of a late Paleoanthrope in France (Saint-Cezaire site).
In the era of the early Würm, Mousterian burials appeared on the territory of Eurasia - the first reliable traces of the burial of the dead. Today, about 60 such monuments have been discovered. Interestingly, the "Neanderthaloid" and "sapient" groups more often buried adults, while the "Neanderthal" population buried both adults and children to the same extent. The facts of the burial of the dead give grounds to assume the existence of a dualistic worldview among the Mousterians.
Modern man, fossil and modern (neoanthropes)
Fossil representatives of Homo sapiens sapiens are widely represented in the known archaeological finds of hominid remains. The maximum geological age of neoanthropes fully formed in the evolution of fossils was previously estimated at about 40 thousand years (a find in Indonesia). It is now believed that the sapiens found in Africa and Asia were of much greater antiquity (although we are talking about skeletons that have archaic features expressed to varying degrees).
The bone remains of a fossil man of this subspecies are widely distributed: from Kalimantan to the extremities of Europe.
The name "Cro-Magnon" (as fossil neoanthropes are referred to in the literature) is due to the famous French monument of the Upper Paleolithic Cro-Magnon. The structure of the skull and skeleton of the body of fossil neoanthropes does not differ in principle from that of modern humans, although its bones are more massive.
According to the analysis of bone material from Late Paleolithic burials, the average age of the Cro-Magnons was 30-50 years. The same life expectancy was preserved until the Middle Ages. Pathology of bones and teeth is less common than injuries (Cro-Magnon teeth were healthy).
Signs of difference between the skulls of Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals (Fig. 1.13): a less protruding facial region, a high convex crown, a high straight forehead, a rounded occiput, smaller quadrangular eye sockets, a smaller overall size of the skull, a chin protrusion of the skull is formed; the superciliary ridge is absent, the jaws are less developed, the teeth have a small cavity. The main difference between Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals is in the structure of the endocran. Paleoneurologists believe that in late anthropogenesis, the frontal regions of the brain, including centers for controlling behavior, developed. The internal connections of the brain were complicated, but the overall size of the brain decreased somewhat. Cro-Magnons were taller (169-177 cm) and less roughly built than Neanderthals.
Differences between the Cro-Magnon skulls and modern ones: the height of the vault is lower, the longitudinal dimensions are larger, the superciliary arches are pronounced, the eye sockets are wider, the facial section of the skull and lower jaw are wider, the skull walls are thicker. The Upper Paleolithic man retained for a long time the signs of the dental system characteristic of the Neanderthal. The features that distinguish the Cro-Magnon skull and endocrane from modern humans are often "Neanderthaloid" in character.
Attention is drawn to the fact that the distribution area of the Cro-Magnon man is huge: the entire ecumene. With the advent of Cro-Magnon man, according to many experts, the species evolution of man is completed, and the evolution of biological qualities of man in the future seems impossible.
The most complete finds of Cro-Magnon skeletons in Europe have an antiquity not exceeding 40 thousand years. For example, the French neoanthrope Cro-Magnon lived 30 thousand years ago, the Cro-Magnon Sungir (a district of Vladimir) is 28 thousand years old. The archaic sapiens of Africa (with fairly pronounced Neanderthaloid features) looks much older: Omo in Ethiopia - 130 thousand years, River Mouse (South Africa) - 120 thousand years, Border (South Africa) - more than 70 thousand years, Kenyan finds of sapiens - 200-100 thousand years, Mumba (Tanzania) - 130 thousand years, etc. It is assumed that the antiquity of African sapiens may be even greater. Asian finds of sapiens have the following age: Dali (PRC) - 200 thousand years, Jinnbshan (PRC) - 200 thousand years, Qafzeh (Israel) - more than 90 thousand years, Skhul V (Israel) - 90 thousand years, Nia (Kalimantan) - 40 thousand years. The Australian finds are about 10 thousand years old.
Previously, it was assumed that modern humans arose in Europe about 40 thousand years ago. Today, more anthropologists and archaeologists place the ancestral home of sapiens in Africa, and the antiquity of the latter is greatly increased, focusing on the above findings. In accordance with the hypothesis of the German anthropologist G. Breuer, Homo sapiens sapiens appeared south of the Sahara about 150 thousand years ago, then migrated to Asia Minor (at the level of 100 thousand years), and at the turn of 35-40 thousand years began to populate Europe and Asia, interbreeding with local Neanderthals. Modern biomolecular data also suggest that the ancestors of modern humanity came from Africa.
In accordance with modern evolutionary views, the most plausible model is the "net evolution" of hominids, in which an important place is given to the exchange of genes between different subspecies and species of ancient man. Therefore, very early finds of sapiens in Africa and Europe are interpreted as evidence of cross-breeding between sapiens species and Pithecanthropus. In the process of becoming a sapiens type between the primary centers of evolution of the genus Homo (western and eastern), there was a constant exchange of genes.
About 40 thousand years ago, the rapid settlement of the neoanthrope began. The reasons for this phenomenon lie in the genetics of man and the development of his culture.
Scientists studying Cro-Magnon man have to deal with a wide variety of types. There is no consensus on the time of the formation of modern races. According to one point of view, the features of modern races are in the Upper Paleolithic. This point of view is illustrated by examples of the geographical distribution of two features - protrusion of the nose and the degree of horizontal profiling of the facial region. According to another point of view, races take shape late, and the population of the Upper Paleolithic was distinguished by great polymorphism. So, for Europe, about 8 types of races of the Upper Paleolithic are sometimes distinguished. Two of them look like this: a) a dolichocranial, large-headed version of the Cro-Magnon with a moderate width of the face and a narrow nose; b) brachycranial (short-headed), with a smaller skull, a very wide face and a wide nose. It can be assumed that there were three stages in the formation of races: 1) the Middle and Lower Paleolithic - the formation of certain racial features; 2) Upper Paleolithic - the beginning of the formation of racial complexes; 3) post-Paleolithic time - the addition of races.
The cultures of the Upper (Late) Paleolithic are associated with the appearance of modern humans (neoanthropes). In Europe, the last period of the Paleolithic (Old Stone Age) is estimated to be 35-10 thousand years ago and coincides with the time of the last Pleistocene glaciation (this fact is the subject of discussion in connection with the problem of the role of the environment in the development of mankind) (Fig. I. 14).
At first glance, in the Paleolithic era under discussion, there were no fundamental differences in material culture from previous eras: the same stone tools and hunting tools. In fact, the Cro-Magnons made a more complex set of tools: knives (sometimes daggers), spearheads, chisel cutters, bone tools such as awls, needles, harpoons, etc. Bone tools accounted for about half of the entire inventory, they were strong and more durable than stone ones. Stone tools were used to make tools from bone, wood, ivory - this is how the technological chains in the actions of ancient man were complicated.
Completely new types of implements arose, such as needles with eyes, fish hooks, harpoons, spear throwers. They significantly increased the power of man over nature.
The main difference of the Upper Paleolithic was the improvement of stone processing. In the Mousterian time, there were several ways of processing a blank stone (nucleus). The Lavallusian technique of careful initial surface treatment of the workpiece is the starting point for the technique of the Upper Paleolithic. Cro-Magnons used blanks suitable for chipping a series of plates (prismatic cores). Thus, in the Upper Paleolithic era, chipping techniques were improved, resulting in high quality microblades suitable for use in composite tools.
Archaeologists have experimented with reconstructing the way the plates are separated from the core, as the Cro-Magnons did. The selected and specially processed nucleus was clamped between the knees, which played the role of a shock absorber. The separation of the plates was carried out using a stone chipper and a bone intermediary. In addition, flint plates were separated by pressing on the edge of the core with a bone or stone wringer.
The knife blade method is much more economical than the flake method. From one workpiece, a skilled craftsman could separate more than 50 plates in a short time (length up to 25-30 cm, and thickness - several millimeters). The working edge of the knife-like blade is much larger than that of the flake. More than 100 types of tools are known for the Late Paleolithic. It is suggested that different Cro-Magnon workshops could differ in the originality of technical "fashion".
In the Upper Paleolithic, hunting was even more perfect than in the Mousterian time. This played a huge role in increasing food resources, and, in connection with this, the population.
A perfect innovation was spear throwers, which gave the Cro-Magnon hand a gain in strength, doubling the distance over which the spear could be thrown (up to 137 m, with an optimal distance for hitting up to 28 m). Harpoons made it possible to catch fish efficiently. Cro-Magnon invented snares for birds, traps for animals.
Perfect hunting was carried out on a large game: reindeer and ibex were pursued during their seasonal migrations to new pastures and back. Hunting techniques using knowledge of the area - driven hunting - made it possible to kill animals by the thousands. Thus, for the first time, an uninterrupted source of highly nutritious food was formed. A person got the opportunity to live in hard-to-reach areas.
In the construction of dwellings, the Cro-Magnons used the achievements of the Mousterians and improved them. This allowed them to survive in the conditions of the last cold millennium of the Pleistocene.
European Cro-Magnons used their good knowledge of the area to inhabit the caves. Many caves had access to the south, so they were well heated by the sun and were protected from cold northern winds. The caves were chosen not far from water sources, with a good view of pastures where herds of ungulates grazed. The caves could be used all year round or for seasonal stays.
The Cro-Magnons also built dwellings in the river valleys. They were made of stone or dug out of the ground, the walls and roof were made of skins, and the supports and bottom could be lined with heavy bones and tusks. The Upper Paleolithic structure in the Kostenki locality (Russian Plain), 27 m long, is marked by a number of foci in the center, which indicates that several families wintered here.
Nomadic hunters built light huts. Harsh climatic conditions helped Cro-Magnons to endure warm clothes. Depictions of humans on bone artifacts suggest that they wore tight-fitting trousers to keep them warm, parkas with hoods, boots, and mittens. The seams of the clothes were well stitched.
The high intellectual development and psychological complexity of the Cro-Magnons are proved by the existence of numerous monuments of primitive art, which is known for a period of 35-10 thousand years in Europe. This refers to small sculptures and wall paintings in caves. Engravings of animals and people were made on stones, bones and deer antlers. Sculptures and bas-reliefs were made of clay and stone, and drawings were obtained by Cro-Magnons using ocher, manganese and charcoal. The purpose of primitive art is not clear. It is believed that it was of a ritual nature.
Abundant information about the life of the Cro-Magnons is provided by studies of burials. It was found, for example, that the life expectancy of Cro-Magnon man increased in comparison with Neanderthals.
Some rituals of the Cro-Magnons have been reconstructed. So, the custom of sprinkling the skeleton of the deceased with red ocher, apparently, testifies to the belief in the afterlife. Burials with rich decorations suggest the emergence of wealthy people among hunter-gatherers.
An excellent example of a Cro-Magnon burial is provided by the Sungir monument near the city of Vladimir. The age of the burial is about 24-26 thousand years. Here rests an old man ("Leader") in fur clothes, richly decorated with beads. The second burial is interesting - a paired children's one. The children's skeletons were accompanied by mammoth tusk spears and were adorned with ivory rings and bracelets; clothes are also decorated with beads.
Modern man and evolution
Since the completion of the formation of the species Homo sapiens (from the middle of the Upper Paleolithic), it has retained stability in its biological status. The evolutionary completeness of a person is relative and does not mean a complete cessation of changes in his biological properties. A variety of changes in the anatomical type of a person of the modern type have been studied. Examples are a decrease in the massiveness of the skeleton, the size of the teeth, a change in the small toes, etc. It is assumed that these phenomena are due to random mutations. Some anthropologists, based on anatomical observations, predict the appearance of Homo futurus - "Man of the Future", with a large head, reduced face and teeth, with fewer fingers. But these anatomical "losses" do not characterize all human populations. An alternative view is that the biological organization of modern man allows unlimited social evolution, so it is unlikely that he will change as a species in the future.
Born - archaeologist, specialist in the field of ancient history of Siberia, doctor of historical sciences, professor. Days of Death 1909 Died - Russian archaeologist and historian, specialist in the history of the city of Moscow, honorary member of the Imperial Academy of Sciences.Human brains predate humans
Hominid brains reorganized before the size increase that was thought to draw the line between human and primate brains. The discovery was made based on analysis of the remains of a small-brained hominid from South Africa. The researchers studied the inside of the skull Stw 505, belonging to the species Australopithecus Africanus, found in the Sterkfontein cave in the 80s. He is 2-3 million years old. Allowing for changes in brain size, researchers at Columbia University showed that the brains of this primate and the brain of modern humans show a surprising similarity.
The most ancient hominin
(upright primate) lived in the territory of northern Chad (Africa), and he lived 7 million years ago. Maybe, Sahelanthropus tchadensis was the earliest human ancestor. His discovery made it possible to consider Africa the cradle of mankind. The heir of this hominid was Australopithecus anamensis who lived 4.2 million years ago. He is very similar to A. afarensis, who lived 3.5 million - the owner of a big face and small brains. The discovery of a female skull, which was christened Lucy, also belongs to this species. These hominins lived in the savannas of East Africa and were upright, but they still had much in common with apes.
Hominid without tools
Southern Great Ape, or australopithecine was an upright, bipedal hominid lacking the ability to make stone tools. They used stones and bones as primitive tools, primarily as weapons. It was the making of tools and life in communities that helped hominids leave their shelters in trees and survive in open space.
Black skull of the Ethiopian Australopithecus aethiopicus
Black skull of Australopithecus Ethiopian Australopithecus aethiopicus- a rough skull was found in Lomekwi (Western Turkana, Kenya). It dates back to 2.5 million years. Its owner had a large face and a small brain. This is thought to be a primitive form of A. robustus.
Human ancestors stopped choosing partners based on smell
The development of color vision led to the fact that the primates that lived in the Eastern Hemisphere, and then appeared as a result of their development, people lost the ability to recognize pheromones. This happened about 23 million years ago, shortly before the superfamily of great apes, from which humans eventually evolved, broke up into several separate groups. This period roughly coincides with the time when primates in the eastern hemisphere developed full-color vision.
Faces rough and graceful
At australopithecines And robustus had broad, flat faces, while the afarensis and africanus species had finer features. A.aethiopicus had a massive jaw, which this vegetarian used to grind solid plant food.
The brain is similar, but the behavior is more complex
One of the few differences between humans and Australopithecus is the position of the primary visual cortex. Its border is indicated by a depression in the surface of the brain. In the ancient hominid, this area is located closer to the front, and therefore larger. But in Australopithecus Stw 505, this area is located slightly behind - just like in humans. This means that the brain of Australopithecus was already changing, turning into the brain of a modern person. In front, there is an area associated with various forms of complex behavior, such as the evaluation of objects and their qualities, face recognition and social communication.
The last species of ape from which the great apes and modern man descended
The age of the skeleton found in the Spanish city of Barcelona is 13 million years. New species named in Latin Pierolapitecus catalaunicus. The growth of the found specimen - male, reached 120 centimeters. He weighed about 35 kilograms. After examining the jaw and teeth, experts came to the conclusion that this creature ate mainly fruits, but on occasion it could well have eaten insects or the meat of small animals. This monkey was well adapted to climbing trees. She needed all four limbs to move, but some changes are visible in the structure of the skeleton that allowed later species of human ancestors to start walking on two legs.
The one who began to use fire
Appeared two million years ago homo lineage who invented tools and fire. At the same time, migration from Africa begins, which took place in four stages. In the process, they separated african australopithecines, Homo erectusHomo erectus And .
Homo erectus was the first to hunt
Homo erectus Homo erectus lived 1.7 million - 300,000 years ago and is considered the first of the people who hunted large animals. The number of people has increased. And they began to spread over a wide range, left Africa a million years ago and began to colonize areas of the old world with a warm climate. His face was coarse due to a massive lower jaw, massive brow ridges, and a long, low skull. The volume of the brain was 750 - 1225 cubic meters. see c (average 900). The discovery of a complete skeleton of Homo erectus under the name "Turkan boy" from Western Turkana is known (Kenya, 1984)
A skilled man began to make tools
The brain of a skilled man Homo habilis, who lived 2.2 - 1.6 million years ago in East Africa, had a volume of 500-800 cubic meters. cm, more than that of Australopithecus and about half the volume of the brain of a modern person. He was the first of the people who made tools, breaking long bones into long fragments that served him as knives.
Human mental faculties have grown
Over the past 2.5 million years, human intelligence has increased many times over that of other primates. The human brain is now about three times the size of the brains of its "closest relatives" - chimpanzees and gorillas.
Ancient man became wiser due to mutation
The human brain in the course of evolution developed to a large size as a result of a mutation that occurred 2.4 million years ago. The body of our ancestors lost the ability to produce one of the main proteins that stimulate the growth of massive jaw muscles in primates. Unconstrained by a bulky chewing apparatus, the human skull was given the opportunity for free growth: weak muscles squeezed the skull much less, allowing the medulla to grow and expand. In the period of about 2 million years ago, judging by the fossil remains, is the rapid growth of the brain. By then, our ancestors had moved from chewing tough leaves all day to eating meat, and they didn't need overly powerful jaws.
Goodbye Autralopithecines
Approximately two million years ago, Homo habilis and developed brains in excess of 500 cubic centimeters. Both of these varieties had significantly smaller jaw muscles compared to their ancestors, representatives of the genus Australopithecus.
Homo erectus did without a brain
Early Homo erectus lived 1.8 million years ago and had a small brain. For several hundred thousand years, humanity has lived without powerful jaws and without a developed brain. Homo erectus (upright people) lived from 2 million to 400 thousand years ago. According to one version, they appeared in Africa, but gradually settled throughout the Old World. The first fossil remains of Homo erectus were found by Eugène Dubois at the end of the 19th century in Java. Since then, many other remains have been found, but they remain fragmentary nonetheless.
In Indonesia, there lived ancient hobbits who built boats
The remains of a new species of man, conventionally designated as "hobbits", unearthed on the Indonesian island of Flores. At first they believed that these were the remains of a child, but the analysis showed that these were the bones of an adult, one meter tall and with a skull the size of a grapefruit. These remains are 18 thousand years old. The scientific name for the new species of humans is Homo floresiensis, a relative of Homo erectus. They came to Flores one million years ago and developed their unusual appearance under conditions of isolation. Interestingly, there was no earlier evidence of Homo erectus' ability to build boats, but this is how the ancestors of floresiensis could have got to the island. These people are not only interesting for their short stature, but also for their relatively long arms. Perhaps they fled in the trees from Komodo dragons - giant lizards, the remains of which (of the same age) were found near the remains of Homo floresiensis. In addition to these bones, archaeologists unearthed on Flores the remains of an ancient pygmy elephant (Stegodon), which the "hobbits" probably hunted. Now you need to pay more attention to the legends of hobbits and gnomes.
160 thousand year old man
In June 2003, the oldest human remains in the world were found in Ethiopia - they are about 160 thousand years old. The largest number of remains of primitive people was found in Africa, in particular in Tanzania and Kenya. But they are all scattered over a large area, so it is difficult for scientists to restore the primitive way of life of hominids.
Homo neanderthalensis - people from the Neander Valley
Neanderthals lived 230,000 - 28,000 years ago in Europe, central Asia and the Middle East. These people ate mostly meat. Men reached 166 cm and weighed 77 kg, women - 154 cm and 66 kg. Their brains were 12% larger than those of a human. As a species, Neanderthals formed during the Ice Age. The short body of a dense addition was adapted to the preservation of heat. Despite their small stature, they had strong, well-developed muscles. The superciliary arch was wide and low, passed in the middle of the face and hung over the nose, which was vulnerable during snowstorms and prolonged frosts
Neanderthals were skilled hunters and hunted cooperatively, breaking into separate groups that interacted while hunting. They surrounded the prey and killed it at close range. Many remains of Neanderthals with traces of severe mutilations have been found.
Neanderthals could speak, but their speech was not complex. They did not understand abstract concepts. They were alien to art.
Neanderthal Rivals
Modern humans, who appeared in Europe 40,000 years ago, became rivals of the Neanderthals. The data of the researchers showed that by the time of the interaction of modern humans and Neanderthals, the mortality rate among the latter was 2% higher. In this competition for survival, the latter lost. Within 1,000 years, the Neanderthals died out. 28,000 years ago, the last Neanderthals disappeared. A number of scientists optimistically believe that they did not disappear, but assimilated, giving their genes to modern man. This is not supported by the data.
Intelligent supplanted the Neanderthals
Currently, the most common theory of appearance in Europe says that Homo sapiens came to the continent from Africa about 200 thousand years ago and gradually replaced other species of anthropoids inhabiting it, including Neanderthals. (Homo neanderthalensis). Scientists compared the preserved remains of four Neanderthals and five early modern humans from Western Europe. The DNA of these samples differed so much that it was possible to unequivocally reject the hypothesis of large-scale interbreeding between the two species.
Didn't mix with Neanderthals
Comparison of genomes and Neanderthals shows that modern man has practically no genes characteristic of Neanderthals. In addition, the results of some molecular studies prove that Homo sapiens fully developed into its modern form before the appearance of Neanderthals.
The climate killed the Neanderthals
Neanderthals and the first humans to arrive in Europe struggled with falling temperatures, a new study involving more than 30 scientists has found. These two types of hominids coexisted in Europe approximately 45-28 thousand years ago, before the extinction of the Neanderthals. The reason for the death of Neanderthals was their inability to adapt to climate change. The problem was not only in the cold snap itself - both species had fur clothes like robes. Rather, the researchers believe, Neanderthals were unable to change their hunting methods. Neanderthals, who once used forest cover to sneak up on herds of animals unnoticed, turned out to be less effective hunters in conditions when animals scattered across the steppe had to be approached without any camouflage. Feeding worse, Neanderthals became weaker, more prone to disease and other threats. Although early humans also experienced similar problems, they eventually adapted to the changing environment.
Neanderthals led a hectic life
Skeletons of Neanderthals show that they led a tumultuous life - often breaking bones and receiving strong blows. They rarely lived past 40 years of age. Hunting in the new environment proved even more dangerous and far less successful. This is what made it impossible for the Neanderthals to survive. With a shortage of food, they became more susceptible to disease, reproduction slowed down, starvation became a frequent occurrence, and the population was slowly but surely declining.
Europeans have Neanderthal teeth
Oldest remains of Homo sapiens found in Europe Analysis of the remains found in the Romanian Carpathians in a cave showed that they are from 34 to 36 thousand years old. This is the age of the male jaw found in the cave. These bones, without a doubt, belong to Homo sapiens, but they have features characteristic of more primitive species of anthropoids. In particular, the wisdom teeth on the found jaw are of such a huge size that they have not been noted in any of the remains of Homo Sapiens, starting from those whose age is 200 thousand years.
invention of the spear
The invention of such a useful tool for hunters and fishermen as a spear, which happened, as it is now believed, over a million years ago, served as a prologue to the great peace concluded between the tribes of the ancestors of people 985 thousand years ago. In addition, the advent of such weapons led to a decisive split in the behavioral patterns of chimpanzees and humans, which allowed us to stand out from the animal world.
Range expansion
People invented weapons that could be thrown from a distance and thus successfully hunt large mammals. The ability to kill at a distance also led to the spread of new tactics for border fighting between people - it was possible to set up ambushes. Circumstances forced the most ancient people to come up with new ways to resolve their long-standing conflicts: in particular, to maintain friendly relations with neighbors as much as possible.
Collaboration between the tribes made it possible to seriously expand the range of early human settlements and even provoked their migration from Africa. All this also served as an impetus for the emergence of new types of social organization, which ultimately led to the organization of planned military actions and the attack on the first human settlements. The earliest archaeological evidence of such organized wars dates back to the 10th-12th millennium BC, they were found in Africa, on the territory of present-day Sudan.
Migration
The biological species that we call originated in the east or south of Africa and from there gradually spread throughout the planet. However, experts do not yet have a consensus on how exactly this migration took place. Scientists from several countries have put forward a hypothesis according to which modern humans began migrating from their African ancestral home to other continents by crossing the Red Sea and then moving east along the coast of the Indian Ocean. The conclusions are based on the results of the analysis of the genetic information of the aborigines of Malaysia, whose ancestors once first settled this part of the land.
Eurocentric theory
In the 1980s, the Eurocentric hypothesis of this process dominated. At that time, most anthropologists believed that man appeared rather late, about 50 thousand years before our time. According to this model, 45,000 years ago, our ancestors entered the Levant and Asia Minor through the Isthmus of Suez and the Sinai Peninsula. Over the next ten thousand years, they colonized Europe, displacing the Neanderthals from there, and at about the same time they reached Australia.
Africanocentric theory
The results of excavations on the African continent have definitely shown that the age of Homo sapiens significantly exceeds 100 thousand years. At the same time, it was proved that people have lived in Southeast Asia for at least 45 thousand years, and in Australia - from 50 to 60 thousand years. Gradually, among specialists, the belief was formed that Homo sapiens appeared in Africa about 200 thousand years ago, after 100 thousand years he crossed the Sinai and entered the Asian expanses. Thus, the chronology of the emergence of man has undergone a strong adjustment, but the alleged path of his exit from Africa has remained unchanged.
sea route theory
In the mid-90s, that is, a decade ago, Italian and British anthropologists put forward another hypothesis. They came to the conclusion that some of the first settlers from Africa to Asia did not move by land, but by sea. First, these people penetrated the coast of the Horn of Africa, and then crossed the Red Sea in the area of Bab el-Mandeb and entered the Arabian Peninsula. From there they moved east along the coast of the Indian Ocean and by this route they reached India, and then Australia. The authors of this theory have calculated that this migration began at least 60 thousand years ago, but it is possible that all 75 thousand.
The oldest man in Europe was a Georgian
Georgian scientists discovered in Eastern Georgia the skull of the oldest human on the European continent. According to preliminary estimates of scientists, the discovery in Dmanisi is 1 million 800 years old. The discovery in Dmanisi allows research not only of individual individuals, but of the whole settlement. Along with the remains of the hominid discovered in Dmanisi, animal bones and stone tools were found. For example, the so-called "choping", as well as a hewn stone that a primitive man could use instead of a knife. "These oldest primitive stone tools are very similar to what was found in Africa"
Wars arose when they began to cultivate the land
Scholar Kelly attributes the emergence of the first wars to the development of agriculture, which exponentially increased the value of cultivated areas. Until this happened, the largest human conflicts were like sporadic attacks by the same chimpanzees, because no one seriously planned such fights.
The prehistoric climate was spoiled by farmers
Analysis of ancient air bubbles stored in Antarctic ice has provided evidence that humans began to change the global climate thousands of years before the industrial revolution. About eight thousand years ago, the carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere began to rise - at the same time, people began to cut down forests, engage in agriculture and raise livestock. Forests in Europe and Asia began to replace cultivated fields. About five thousand years ago, as evidenced by ice samples, an increase in the content of methane in the air began.
Cattle turned this world into a world of men
The earliest female-dominated human societies (during matriarchy) were replaced by a patriarchal way of life after the practice of acquiring cattle spread among the tribes was already conducted through the male line) just when people got cattle, appeared from the very beginning of modern anthropological research in the nineteenth century. However, at that time no one was able to convincingly demonstrate this causal relationship.
The most ancient writings
Signs carved into turtle shells over 8,000 years ago could be the world's oldest words found to date. The results of their deciphering may also help to learn something about the rituals of Neolithic China. One of the graves contains a headless skeleton with 8 tortoise shells placed where the skull should have been.
All humans were once cannibals
Cannibalism was probably much more common among our prehistoric ancestors than previously thought. A certain gene variation protects some Guinea Fore from prion disease caused by their former cannibalistic habits. Scientists after analyzing many DNA samples showed that the same protective gene variant is found in people around the world. Putting all the findings together, they concluded that such a feature could only appear if cannibalism was once very widespread, and a protective form of the MV "prion" gene was required to shield cannibals from prion diseases lurking in the flesh of the victims.
The first wine was made in the Stone Age
It is possible that Paleolithic people obtained a wine drink from naturally fermented juice of wild grapes. The idea of winemaking may have come to our quick-witted and observant ancestors as a result of observing birds goofing off after eating fermented fruit. During the Neolithic era, the eastern and southeastern part of Turkey was a good place for the emergence of agriculture. Among others, wheat was domesticated here - this event paved the way for the transition to a sedentary lifestyle. So by all indications - the place is quite suitable for the initial domestication of grapes.
Mankind was created by old people
Researchers from the Universities of Michigan and California found that a significant increase in human lifespan occurred at the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic, about 32,000 years ago. A study of more than 750 remains showed that the number of people reaching old age almost quadrupled during this period. It is this, they say, that gave humans an evolutionary advantage, determining the evolutionary success of the species. Representatives of the culture of the late Australopithecus, people of the early and middle Pleistocene, Neanderthals from Europe and Western Asia, and people of the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic were studied. By calculating the ratio of old to young adults for each period of human evolution, the researchers found a trend of increasing survival of older people over the course of human evolution.
The increase in the number of older people allowed early modern humans to accumulate more information and pass on specialized knowledge from one generation to the next. It could also strengthen social and family ties, as grandparents could raise growing grandchildren and other non-family people. In addition, the increase in life expectancy should have increased the number of offspring produced.
Ancient jewelry found in African cave
In the Stone Age, shells were in vogue. So say the archaeologists who dug up the oldest known pieces of costume jewelry. The beads from Blombos Cave in southern South Africa are possibly 75,000 years old. A team of researchers from the University of Bergen (Norway) found over 40 pearl-sized shells with holes drilled and worn, showing that they were collected in a necklace, bracelets or patches on clothes. Such beads, sewn on clothes or worn on the body, indicated a high social status; and therefore they believe that representatives of a fairly modern culture lived in the cave.
Human ancestors created symbols
A series of parallel lines carved into the bones of an animal 1.2-1.4 million years ago may be the oldest example of human symbolic behavior. Many other scientists believe that the ability for genuine symbolic thinking appeared only in Homo sapiens. The 8 cm bone that caused these disputes was excavated from the Kozarnik cave in northwestern Bulgaria. Another bone, found in the same place, has 27 notches along the edge. The scientists who studied them claim that these cannot be traces of butchering. Near the bones, a milk tooth of a similar age was found, belonging to some early Homo, but the researchers are at a loss to name a specific species. It is most likely Homo erectus. The carved bone belonged to an unknown ruminant.
the thecanthropus to the Neanderthals is relatively and absolutely very intense, although at that time the methods of primitive technology and the primitive forms of human society changed relatively little over hundreds of thousands of years.
Thanks, however, to the novelty and strength of the impact of labor on the human body, the brain of the first people experienced such rates of development that no animal has ever had and could not have. If our Miocene ancestors have dryopi-
tekov - the brain had a volume, probably 400-500 cm 3, and in Pithecanthropus it almost doubled, retaining many more primitive features, then in modern people its size has already tripled, and the shape of the brain and the complexity of its structure have changed greatly (Kochetkova, 1967). The very strong development, the large size and weight of the human brain constitute an obstacle for idealists, for religiously inclined people, to the assumption of the correctness of the scientific explanation of the natural course of the process of anthropogenesis. However, it was precisely the completely new factor of labor, unusual for a monkey, in a society of its own kind with the manufacture and use of artificial tools with the most essential needs for food and protection from enemies that very intensively stimulated the creative functions of the brain to rapid and powerful unique progress in the process of group selection (Nesturkh, 1962a).
During the Pleistocene, there was a progressive evolution of the absolute size, shape and structure of the brain of hominids in parallel with the reduction of some of its sections. Certain information about changes in the shape and size of the brain of fossil hominids was obtained from the study of casts of the internal cavity of the cerebral part of the skull.
On the inner wall of the skull of a fossil man, traces of blood vessels that once walked along the surface of the brain are clearly visible, but the convolutions of the brain are projected weakly. Even the division of the brain into parts is not always possible to establish with sufficient clarity. The same difficulties are experienced in the study of casts of the brain cavity of the skulls of modern people. All this complicates and sometimes makes it impossible to study smaller but important areas, such as the motor, speech, and lower parietal regions, which are of great importance from an evolutionary point of view.
The human brain is enclosed in membranes that are adjacent to the wall of the brain cavity much closer in a child than in an adult, therefore, casts of the cerebral cavity of the child's skull better express the structure of the surface of the brain. Tilly Edinger (Edinger, 1929) points out that in humans, as well as anthropoids, elephants, whales and other animals with a large brain covered with convolutions, the surface of the cast of the brain cavity seems to be almost smooth, Edinger writes that if “one wants to examine the brain by cast of the cranial cavity, as a paleoneurologist is forced to do, he wanders in the dark.
In this respect, Edinger rather agrees with Symington (1915), who believes that:
1) one cannot judge the simplicity or complexity of the relief of the brain from a cast of the cavity of the human skull;
2) from the casts of the brain cavity of the Neanderthal skull from La Chapelle-aux-Seine, one cannot even approximately judge the relative development of the sensory and associative zones of the cortex;
3) various conclusions of Boole, Anthony, Elliot-Smith and others
researchers in relation to the primitive and simian features of the brain of some prehistoric people, obtained by studying the spanking of the cavity of the cerebral part of the skull, are highly speculative and erroneous.
Nevertheless, these casts make it possible, as Edinger agrees, to draw some conclusions about the form and the main features of the brain, for example, about the degree of development of the frontal and occipital lobes. Thus, E. Dubois (Dubois, 1924), when describing a cast of the brain cavity of a Pithecanthropus, emphasizes that important, although not direct, indications of the characteristic features of the original form of the human brain are visible on the print. The brain of Pithecanthropus, judging by the model, had very narrow frontal lobes with a strong development of the inferior frontal gyrus. Dubois believes that the latter proves the possibility of developing articulate speech.
According to Dubois, the flatness of the Pithecanthropus brain cast in the parietal region is very characteristic. The similarity with the brain of other hominids lies in the fact that its greatest width lies 3/5 of the length from the anterior edge of the frontal region. In general, the Pithecanthropus brain, according to Dubois, is, as it were, an enlarged copy of the brain of great apes. Some features bring it closer to the gibbon brain: this, according to Dubois, is evidenced by the position of the superior precentral gyrus and other signs.
To judge the type of Neanderthal, casts from the following skulls are usually used: Neanderthal, La Chapelle-au-Seine, Gibraltar, La Quipa. Edinger gives (with reservations) the following characterization of the Neanderthal brain: by the type of structure it is a human brain, but with pronounced monkey features. It is long and low, narrower in front, wider behind; the elevation in the parietal region is lower than that of modern man, but higher than that of great apes. By a smaller number of furrows and their location, to a certain extent, it resembles the brain of great apes. The same is evidenced by the angle of origin of the medulla oblongata and the sharpness of the frontal lobe in the form of a beak, as well as the greater development of the occipital lobes, which contain the visual zone. The vermis in the cerebellum is relatively more developed than in modern man, and this is a more primitive feature.
More confidence, according to Edinger, can be given to data on the main brain sizes of fossil hominids (Table 5).
From Table. Figure 5 shows that some Neanderthals had relatively large heads and large brains.
In the same way, it was possible, although not always, to obtain sufficiently accurate figures characterizing the volume of the cerebral cavity of the skull of other hominids. Of all the formed (earliest and ancient) people, the Neanderthal from La Chapelle-aux-Seine apparently had the maximum volume of the brain box (1600 cm 3), and Pithecanthropus II - minimal (750 cm 3). In Neanderthals, the range of variations in its volume was comparable to
Table 5
Dimensions of the skull and cast of the brain cavity (endocran) in hominids (according to T. Edinger, 1929)
is still relatively small, amounting to approximately 500 cm 3 against 900 - in modern man. However, one should not forget that the minimum and maximum (range of variations) also depend on the number of individuals studied. The length of the endocrane of a modern person is approximately 166 mm, and the width is 134 mm (Bunak, 1953).
The brain of fossil hominids is characterized by the development of asymmetry in its shape. The left hemisphere is usually more strongly developed, which may indicate the predominant use of the right hand. Right-handedness or left-handedness is a characteristic feature of a person, in contrast to mammals. Significant asymmetry of the upper limbs could appear only after our ancestors developed upright posture and labor appeared.
Asymmetry in the size of the hemispheres is already seen in Pithecanthropus. According to E. Smith (Smith, 1934), he had to be left-handed. On the contrary, F. Tilney (Tilney, 1928) draws attention to the fact that the left frontal lobe of the Pithecanthropus was larger, and believes that this indicates rather his right-handedness. In general, the stronger development of the left hemisphere in Pithecanthropus can be judged by the fact that on its skull a more noticeable depression is visible on the inner surface of the left occipital bone. Asymmetries were also noted on the cast of the brain cavity of the Sinanthropus skull.
Brain asymmetry is clearly seen in Neanderthals, in which it is visible in a form typical of modern humans. On a cast of the brain cavity of the skull from La Chapelle-aux-Seine, the left hemisphere is shorter than the right by
3 mm, but wider than it by 7 mm and higher, and the parietal-temporal area protrudes more strongly on it. Added to this is the fact that in the skeleton of the right hand, the humerus from La Chapelle-aux-Seine is larger than the left.
On the cast of the brain cavity of the Gibraltar skull, the occipital lobe of the left hemisphere clearly protrudes backward more strongly. On the cast of the cranial cavity from La Quina, the left hemisphere is longer, while the right is more developed. Finally, in a Neanderthal cast of the cranial cavity, the right hemisphere is larger than the left.
From this description it can be seen that among the most ancient and ancient hominids, right-handedness seemed to occur more often or on an equal footing with left-handedness. The form and method of making stone tools, as well as the wall paintings of ancient people, sometimes also make it possible to judge the predominant use of the left or right hand. According to R. Kobler (Kobler, 1932), people first developed a left-handed bone; later, in connection with the use of more complex forms of weapons (for example, in combination with such a defensive device as a shield), the right hand began to be used predominantly. Kobler refers to the fact that most of the oldest tools show traces of their processing with the left hand. But Edinger reports that among the primitive people of the Upper Paleolithic, 2/3 of all flint tools were made by right-handed people, as well as wall paintings in caves. Casts of the brain cavity of the skulls of fossil forms of modern humans and their descendants are similar in all essentials.
As a result, one can rather agree with J. J. Kenningham (1902), who, even before the brain casts of fossil people became known, wrote that right-handedness developed as a characteristic feature of man already in a very early period of his evolution, in all likelihood, before how the ability to articulate speech developed. He notes that the left hemisphere of most modern people is more developed than the right.
So, as a result of a long development from apes to humans over the past few million years, the brain of our ancestors - Miocene and then Pliocene anthropoids - increased and changed, and in the Pleistocene experienced a special rise in development in fossil hominids and reached a high development to the stage of people of the modern type (Koenigswald, 1959).
The evolution of the human brain becomes understandable in the light of Darwin's teaching on the development of the organic world and Engels' teaching on the role of labor in the process of man's formation. The brain reached a high level of development already in the immediate predecessors of the hominids, i.e., in the Australopithecus, but this development received a special, powerful impetus only when labor actions arose among the Pithecanthropes.
The transition from ape to man would have been unthinkable without the presence of a highly developed brain in his closest ancestor. This greatly contributed to the fact that there were drastic changes in the behavior of our ancestors, new
forms of life activity, i.e., methods of obtaining food and protection from enemies, special techniques in carrying out other necessary actions with the help of artificial organs in the form of manufactured tools.
Darwin put in a prominent place the high mental development of our ancestors. According to him, the mind should have been of paramount importance for a person even in a very ancient era, since it made it possible to invent and use articulate speech, make weapons, tools, traps, etc. As a result, a person, with the help of his social habits, has long became the dominant of all living beings.
Further, Darwin writes: “The development of the mind had to take a significant step forward when, thanks to previous successes, speech came into use in man as a half art and half instinct. Indeed, prolonged use of speech must have affected the brain and caused hereditary changes, and these, in turn, must have influenced the improvement of the language. The great volume of the brain of man, as compared with the lower animals, in relation to the size of their body, may be principally attributed, as Mr. Chauncey Wright rightly remarked, to the early use of some simple form of speech, that wondrous mechanism which designates various kinds of objects and properties by certain signs and evokes a series of thoughts that could never be born from sensory impressions alone, or even if they were born, could not develop ”(Soch., vol. 5, p. 648).
For the evolution of the human brain, the emergence and development of articulate speech, which is probably a very ancient acquisition of man, was of exceptional importance. According to Engels, it originated already during the transitional period from ape to man, that is, in developing people. Describing the historical stages of culture, Engels presumably speaks of the lowest section of the first of them, that is, the epoch of savagery, as follows: “Childhood of the human race. People were still in their original places of residence, in tropical or subtropical forests. They lived, partly at least, in trees; only this can explain their existence among large predatory animals. Their food was fruits, nuts, roots; the main achievement of this period is the emergence of articulate speech. Of all the peoples that have become known in the historical period, not one was already in this primitive state. And although it probably lasted for many millennia, we cannot prove it on the basis of direct evidence; but, recognizing the origin of man from the animal kingdom, it is necessary to allow such a transitional state ”(Marx and Engels. Works, vol. 21, pp. 23-178).
Some people attribute the origin of sound speech quite far, to the times of the Lower or Middle Paleolithic. Sinanthropus, maybe
be, it already possessed in its infancy. The Neanderthals probably already had the initial stage of it.
Black believes that Sinanthropus already had the ability for articulate speech. It must be assumed that the Javanese Pithecanthropes were still really non-speaking people; they, like animals, had a number of vital inarticulate sounds that denoted one or another internal state, but had a signal, labor meaning and were more diverse than those of modern chimpanzees. Probably, the most ancient people, like anthropoids, the chimpanzee mud, also used ineffective, relatively quiet vocal sounds, or “life noises”, which, according to V.V. Bunak, were of particular importance for the emergence of speech (Bunak, 1951, 1966, Yerkes, Learned, 1925).
American scientists Robert Yerkes and Blanche Learned specifically studied the sounds made by chimpanzees. They came to the conclusion that chimpanzees have about thirty peculiar sounds and that each of these sounds has its own specific signal meaning, denoting some kind of internal state or attitude to the phenomena occurring around. It is possible, however, that there are not so many of these sounds in chimpanzees, a dozen or two - two and a half.
Little is known about the sounds made by gorillas. They usually describe the roar of a male going to the enemy. One scientist observed a male mountain gorilla sitting on a lying tree with two females: the scientist heard soft sounds that they peacefully exchanged with each other. The number of basic sounds in gorillas is small (Shaller, 1968). Orangutans have few sounds: they are silent and emit a growl, roar or screech only under some special circumstances - when frightened, in anger, in pain. The loud sounds made by gibbons can be heard for miles.
All attempts by Robert Yerkes to teach his chimpanzees to speak ended in failure, although he used various teaching methods. Yerkes intended to apply to chimpanzees also the methods by which specialist educators teach deaf-mute children to speak. If such attempts could be crowned with a certain success, then only if suitable training methods are applied to the smallest cubs, since the ontogenetic development of the brain in chimpanzees ends earlier than in humans.
But it must be borne in mind that the main reason why it is very difficult for monkeys to teach even a few words is, first of all, the rudimentary state of their speech zones. In addition, one cannot ignore the noticeable differences in the structure of the vocal apparatus in monkeys compared with humans (see the articles by VV Bunak, 1951 and 1966b mentioned above).
Ludwig Edinger (1911), noting the high development of the chimpanzee's cerebral cortex, admits that a patient trainer could teach a few words to an ape, but the ape always remains
would be at an immeasurably distant distance from a person, since the foundations for a clear understanding, that is, the corresponding parts of the brain, are not developed in her.
Many authors believe that the presence of a chin protrusion is an anatomical prerequisite for the development of human speech. This protrusion is present only in modern man. It was absent, as a rule, in Neanderthals, it was not in ape-men, and also (except for the joint-toed gibbon - siamang) it is not present in modern and fossil monkeys and semi-monkeys.
The emergence of sound speech does not necessarily need to be associated with the presence of a chin protrusion, since the production of articulate sounds requires, first of all, a clear coordinated work of the entire speech apparatus, including the sensory and mnestic zones of the brain, located in phylogenetically new areas of the parietal and temporal lobes.
The formation of the chin protrusion in humans occurred, according to L. Bolk, mainly due to the reduction of that part of the lower jaw that bears teeth. The lower half, which makes up the body of the jaw itself, underwent a reduction process to a lesser extent, as a result of which the chin protrusion was designated.
Among mammals, some analogy could be seen in the protruding chin of the lower jaw of an elephant, since its dental system has undergone an even stronger reduction, as a result of which it consists of only four molars and two upper incisors, or tusks, that is, all of six teeth.
Speech function could only have a secondary effect on the main process of the formation of the chin protrusion (Gremyatsky, 1922). For the development of speech in humans, the transformation of the shape of the jaw from elongated to horseshoe-shaped, an increase in the volume of the oral cavity in which the tongue moves, as well as a freer movement of the jaw in new directions due to a decrease in the size of the fangs, had no less positive significance.
Incomparably more important for the development of articulate speech are the anatomical and physiological features of the corresponding sections of the cortex of the frontal region of the cerebral hemispheres (along with the temporal and parietal). Attempts have been made to establish on the casts of the brain cavity of fossil people the degree of development of this so important section of the cortex. Unfortunately, from a cast of the brain cavity of the skull, or endocran, even with a cast of the brain cavity of the skull of a modern person, it is difficult to draw a conclusion about the use of articulate speech (Edinger, 1929). It is also very difficult to study the brain itself. The model of the cavity of the cranium gives an idea only of what the shape of the brain was, dressed in its shells, which form such a dense cover that they very much hide the convolutions and furrows of the brain, revealing clearly only a picture of the location of larger blood vessels. But-
The first successful attempt to study the endocranes of hominids was made using a large amount of material in the brain laboratory of the Institute of Anthropology (Kochetkova, 1966).
Articulate speech is not an innate property. This follows, in particular, from the description of rare cases when children grew up in complete isolation or among animals, far from human society, and, being found, did not know how to speak. Of the connections and relationships of an individual and group nature among the ancient hominids, those that developed on the basis of labor processes were of the greatest importance for the emergence of speech. During the collective hunting of animals and the subsequent distribution of meat among members of society, during the joint production of tools, during the activities during the working day, filled with the struggle for existence, people constantly felt the need for such a sound signal that would regulate and direct their actions. Thus, various sounds, as well as the facial expressions and gestures associated with them, became vitally important for them, showing in a generally understandable form the necessity of certain actions and not others, the usefulness of acts, one way or another agreed between members of the primitive herd. Voice sounds were of particular importance in the dark. On the other hand, the gathering of our ancestors around a fire in a cave should also have contributed to the development of a spoken language. The use of fire and the invention of ways to obtain it, presumably, gave a powerful impetus to the development of articulate speech already among the Neanderthals. The Marxist explanation of how articulate speech arose and developed was given by Engels. He came to the conclusion that speech, as a means of communication between people, necessarily arose from the sounds of the voice that accompanied and preceded labor operations, as well as other joint actions of members of the collective of people who were being formed. Engels writes:
“Beginning with the development of the hand, along with labor, the mastery over nature expanded the horizons of man with each new step forward. In natural objects, he constantly discovered new, hitherto unknown properties. On the other hand, the development of labor necessarily contributed to a closer unity of the members of society, since thanks to it, cases of mutual support, joint activity became more frequent, and the consciousness of the benefits of this joint activity for each individual member became clearer. In short, emerging people came to the fact that they had the need to say something each other. Need created its own organ: the undeveloped larynx of the monkey was slowly but steadily transformed by modulation for more and more developed modulation, and the organs of the mouth gradually learned to pronounce one articulate sound after another ”(Marx and Engels. Works, vol. 20, p. 489).
If the high development of the brain along with upright
hand and hand was the most important prerequisite for the emergence of speech, the reverse effect of speech on the brain is no less important. Engels wrote: “First, work, and then articulate speech along with it, were the two most important stimuli under the influence of which the monkey brain gradually turned into a human brain” (ibid., p. 490).
Being an extremely profitable, socially useful phenomenon, speech inevitably developed further and further.
In support of his theory of the development of language in the labor process, Engels draws on examples from the life of animals. While for wild animals the sound of human speech can, generally speaking, only denote a sign of possible danger, for domestic animals, for example for dogs, human speech is made intelligible in a number of respects, no matter what language a person speaks, but, of course, only within their own range of ideas.
For domestic animals, the words spoken by a person become signals of certain actions that must be followed by a person or be performed by them themselves. Animals that are more capable of rapid and stable formation of conditioned reflexes, of training, also turn out to be the most intelligent in a tamed or domestic state, when compliance with the necessary actions, according to these signals, can lead to approval, and non-compliance causes punishment.
The sounds of articulate speech, which initially served, most likely, as signals of actions, then began to designate objects and phenomena as well; the number of sound signals increased; their strength, pitch, timbre (overtones), intonation, and sequence acquired increasing importance. In connection with the development of the sound language, the speech apparatus that produced them also evolved. The auditory analyzer was also improved, which in humans, in comparison with some mammals, is not always so refined in terms of capturing the smallest differences in pitch and in the timbre of the sounds of articulate speech. But man is sharply superior in understanding their inner meaning, in particular, when it comes to certain combinations of sounds: in this respect, his auditory analyzer is highly specialized, making it possible to distinguish a much greater number and meaning of sounds than is available to any animal. At the same time, the peripheral part of the auditory analyzer in humans, like in some monkeys, underwent reduction, which is indicated, in particular, by the almost complete immobility of the human auricle with its rudimentary muscles.
The cortical section of the human auditory analyzer, according to the study of S. M. Blinkov (1955), is qualitatively different and sharply superior in complexity of structure to the corresponding section even in anthropoids; the same applies to the entire temporal lobe. However, not only the frontal, temporal and parietal lobes, but the entire cortex as a whole take part in the formation of speech.
Verbal thinking is found only in humans: the second signaling system, according to the term of IP Pavlov, is the most important basis for the development of consciousness. Being inextricably linked with the first signal system, covering conditioned reflexes of the usual type, the second signal system combines conscious conditioned reflexes peculiar only to man to words that signify actions, objects, relationships between them, concepts, etc. The thesis of I. P. Pavlov about the second signal system is one of the greatest achievements of Soviet science. It makes it possible to deepen the development of Engels' idea of the origin of speech in labor processes. This problem attracted the attention of the largest Russian thinkers. We read very interesting lines regarding the emergence of speech from A. M. Gorky: “It is known that all the abilities that distinguish a person from an animal have developed and continue to develop in labor processes, the ability of articulate speech also originated on this soil.” (Poln. sobr. soch., 1953, v. 27, p. 164). First, he says, verbal and measuring forms (heavy, far) developed, then the names of tools. According to A. M. Gorky, there were no meaningless words in the initial speech (p. 138). Both speech and the mind of a person are put by A.M. Gorky into the closest, organic connection with labor activity: “The human mind has kindled in the work of reorganizing grossly organized matter and in itself is nothing more than finely organized and more and more finely organized energy, extracted from this same energy by working with it and over it, by researching and mastering its powers and qualities” (ibid., pp. 164-165).
Probably, articulate speech contributed to the progressive development of mankind already in the Neanderthal phase of its formation: the intensive development of speech at that time, probably, to a large extent contributed to the transformation of ancient people into a higher type of Cro-Magnons. The later Neanderthals, with their ability to make fire, the emerging custom of burying the dead in caves, grottoes that served as dwellings, with their bone processing techniques, stood above their predecessors, i.e., earlier Neanderthals (Semenov, 1959).
To an even greater extent, articulate speech developed and became more complicated among fossil people of the modern type, that is, among the “new”, or “ready” - “reasonable”, people who more and more rapidly passed further epochs of the history of material culture, the stage of socio-economic development (Voino, 1964).
As can be seen from the previous presentation, modern humanity is the result of a long evolution, which in the first, longest segment of the phylogenetic genealogy of man was an integral part of the general course of development of the animal world with its characteristic biological patterns.
But the very appearance of the first people with their labor, public,
language was a leap, a special break in gradualness in the course of the evolution of their immediate ancestors. Through a sharp transition, a sharp, decisive turn in the course of evolution, a new stage in the development of living matter began, when the most ancient mankind arose. This was the beginning of a completely new process of human formation - hominization. The most ancient and ancient people that were being formed were not animals, as suggested by B. F. Porshnev (1955a), who considers only representatives of the Homo sapiens species to be people.
The work of the most ancient and ancient people, who made tools, fundamentally, qualitatively, differs from the "labor" of beavers, ants, bees, nest-building birds. Only natural, biological factors act in the evolution of animals.
Under the influence of a combination of social and biological factors, the transformation of apes into humans took place: this process of formation, qualitatively different from the evolution of the animal world, can be correctly understood only in the light of Engels's dialectical-materialist doctrine of the decisive role of labor.
According to Ya. Ya. Roginsky (1967), the appearance of labor actions marked the beginning of a dialectical leap from animal to man - the first turning point in the evolution of hominids, and the second - with the advent of modern man and the opening of the era of the domination of social laws, means the end of the leap. The development of the culture of modern man is not associated with progressive evolution, as was the case with the paleoanthrope or archanthrope. The entire course of the formation of hominids under the influence of labor naturally led to the emergence of a new quality in the neoanthrope. For any modern nation, regardless of its racial composition, the transition to a higher socio-historical formation takes place regardless of the evolutionary process, under the influence of only historical patterns.
The dialectical-materialist conception of the process of the formation of man, his brain, speech, and thinking serves in Soviet anthropology as the most solid basis for an in-depth study of anthropogenesis, for the struggle against all and sundry idealistic hypotheses in this field of the science of man, as well as in the field of racial science to expose racism on based on anthropological data.
| Foreword | ||
| Part I. Darwinian and other hypotheses of anthropogenesis |
||
| Chapter first | Darwin on the origin of man | |
| The idea of anthropogenesis before Darwin |
||
| Darwin on the evolution of the animal world |
||
| Human ancestry according to Darwin |
||
| Essay on the development of knowledge about primates |
||
| Development of primatology in the USSR | ||
| Chapter Two | Great apes and their origin | |
| Modern anthropoids |
||
| fossil anthropoids | ||
| Chapter Three | The latest hypotheses of the origin of man and their criticism |
|
| Religious interpretations of anthropogenesis |
||
| Tarsia hypothesis |
||
| Simial hypotheses |
||
| Osborn's Anthropogenesis Hypothesis |
||
| Weidenreich's Anthropogenesis Hypothesis |
||
| Some factors of hominization and extinction of Pliocene and Pleistocene fossil anthropoids | ||
| Part II. Features of the structure of the human body and the emergence of ancient people | ||
| Chapter first | Man as a Primate | |
| Features of the adaptability of the human body to upright posture |
||
| Characteristic features of the human body that are not directly related to upright posture |
||
| Special similarities between humans and anthropoids |
||
| Rudiments and atavisms in humans | ||
| Chapter Two | The role of labor and bipedalism in anthropogenesis |
|
| The role of labor |
||
| Modes of locomotion in great apes |
||
| Body weight at center of gravity in humans and apes |
||
| lower limbs |
||
| Bone pelvis, spine and thorax |
||
| upper limbs |
||
| Body proportions and asymmetries |
||
| Scull | ||
| Chapter Three | The brain and higher nervous activity man and apes |
|
| The brain and analyzers of humans and monkeys |
||
| Development of peripheral parts of analyzers |
||
| Higher nervous activity of monkeys |
||
| The second signal system is a characteristic difference in human thinking | ||
| Chapter Four | Herding in monkeys and rudimentary forms of labor |
|
| herding in monkeys |
||
| Rudimentary forms of labor |
||
| Anthropogenesis and its factors | ||
| Part III. The formation of man according to paleoanthropology |
||
| Chapter first | ||
| Literature | ||
According to scientists, primitive people (hominids) appeared on our planet about 2,000,000 years ago in Africa (it was there that their remains were first found). It was thanks to the study of these skeletons that paleontologists were approximately able to restore the appearance of the very first people.
1. Primitive people were very similar to great apes, but moved on two legs. The structure of the skeleton was different from the skeleton of a modern person. Although the ancient man moved on two hind short limbs, his torso bowed strongly when moving forward. The hands moved freely and hung down to the very knees, with which primitive people learned to perform simple work. Later, they learned to hold stone tools used for hunting in their hands.
2. The skull of a primitive man was smaller than the skull of a modern man, this was due to a smaller brain volume. The forehead was small and low. Although the brain of primitive man was larger than that of modern apes, it was less developed. Primitive people did not know how to speak, but uttered only individual sounds that expressed their emotions. But such sounds were a means of primitive communication.
3. The face of a primitive man looked bestial. The lower jaw strongly protruded forward. Superciliary arches were strongly expressed. The hair was mostly black, long and shaggy. The entire body of a primitive man was covered with thick hair, which looked like wool. Such "wool" protected the body from the sun and from the cold.
4. Primitive people had a muscular, strong body, because their life was spent in constant fights with wild animals, climbing rocks and trees, hunting and running for kilometers. Scientists gave the name Homo habilis to the very first ape-like people.
5. Approximately 1.8 million years ago, a more intelligent species of people appeared in Africa, they were called Homo erectus. Outwardly, he had significant differences from his ancestors. He was taller, had a more slender build and straight posture. This species had the beginnings of speech, they learned how to cut meat and cook it on fire.
Australopithecus: Anthropologists attribute Australopithecus to the very first monkeys that moved on their hind limbs. This genus began to emerge in East Africa more than 4,000,000 years ago. Over the course of 2,000,000 years, these creatures spread to almost the entire continent. These ancient people grew up to 1.4 meters in height and weighed no more than 55 kilograms. Australopithecus had more pronounced sexual dimorphism in contrast to monkeys, however, in males and females, the structure of fangs was almost the same. The cranium was small and contained a brain with a volume of no more than 600 cm3.
Handy man Homo habilis
(translated from Latin "handy man"). This independent separate species of humanoid creatures appeared about 2,000,000 years ago in Africa. The growth of these ancient people reached 160 cm, they had a brain more developed than that of Australopithecus, it was about 700 cm 3 in volume. monkeys.
Homo erectus (Homo erectus)
. These ancient people had an increased brain volume, almost equal to the brain volume of a modern person. The jaws and brow ridges were quite massive, but not as pronounced as in their predecessors. The physique outwardly practically did not differ from the body of a modern person.
Neanderthals
appeared on the scene of life relatively recently - about 250,000 years ago. The growth of these people reached 170 centimeters, and the volume of the skull reached 1200 centimeters. From Africa and Asia, these ancestors of mankind were able to populate the territories of Europe. Neanderthals lived in tribes of no more than 100 people in one tribe. Unlike their predecessors, Neanderthals had the beginnings of speech, they learned to exchange information.
Cro-Magnons or Homo sapiens
) - the last oldest species of people known to science. The growth of this species reached 170 - 190 centimeters. Outwardly, this species of primitive people differed from monkeys, as it had reduced superciliary arches, and the lower jaw no longer came forward. The bones of the skeleton had more weight than the bones of a modern person, but this is perhaps the only significant difference. in all other respects, the brain, arms, legs, structure of the speech apparatus was the same as that of a modern person.
