Scheme of human development from ape. Origin and evolution of man

Today, there are different versions of the origin of man on Earth. These are scientific theories, alternative, and apocalyptic. Many people believe themselves to be descendants of angels or divine powers, contrary to convincing evidence from scientists and archaeologists. Authoritative historians reject this theory as mythology, preferring other versions.

General concepts

For a long time, man has been the subject of study of the sciences of spirit and nature. There is still a dialogue and exchange of information between sociology and natural science about the problem of being. At the moment, scientists have given a specific definition to man. This is a biosocial creature that combines intelligence and instincts. It should be noted that not only one person in the world is such a creature. A similar definition can be applied, with a stretch, to some representatives of the fauna on Earth. Modern science clearly separates biology and leading research institutes around the world are searching for the boundary between these components. This area science is called sociobiology. She looks deep into the essence of a person, revealing his natural and humanitarian characteristics and preferences.

A holistic view of society is impossible without the use of data from it. social philosophy. Today, man is a creature that is interdisciplinary in nature. However, many people around the world are concerned about another question - its origin. Scientists and religious scholars on the planet have been trying to answer this question for thousands of years.

Human Origins: An Introduction

The question of the emergence of intelligent life beyond the Earth attracts the attention of leading scientists in various specialties. Some people agree that the origins of man and society are not worthy of study. Basically, this is the opinion of those who sincerely believe in supernatural forces. Based on this view of the origin of man, the individual was created by God. This version has been refuted by scientists for decades in a row. Regardless of which category of citizens each person considers himself to be, in any case, this question will always excite and intrigue. Recently, modern philosophers have begun to ask themselves and those around them: “Why were people created, and what is their purpose for being on Earth?” The answer to the second question will never be found. As for the appearance of an intelligent creature on the planet, it is quite possible to study this process. Today, the main theories of human origins are trying to answer this question, but none of them can provide a 100 percent guarantee of the correctness of their judgments. Currently, archaeological scientists and astrologers around the world are exploring various sources of the origin of life on the planet, be they chemical, biological or morphological. Unfortunately, at the moment, humanity has not even been able to determine in which century BC the first people appeared.

Darwin's theory

Currently, there are different versions of the origin of man. However, the most probable and closest to the truth is the theory of a British scientist named Charles Darwin. It was he who made an invaluable contribution to His theory is based on the definition of natural selection, which plays a role driving force evolution. This is a natural scientific version of the origin of man and all life on the planet.

The foundation of Darwin's theory was formed by his observations of nature while traveling around the world. Development of the project began in 1837 and lasted more than 20 years. At the end of the 19th century, the Englishman was supported by another natural scientist, A. Wallace. Soon after his report in London, he admitted that it was Charles who inspired him. This is how a whole movement appeared - Darwinism. Followers of this movement agree that all types of fauna and flora on Earth are changeable and come from other, pre-existing species. Thus, the theory is based on the impermanence of all living things in nature. The reason for this is natural selection. Only the strongest forms survive on the planet, those that are able to adapt to current environmental conditions. Man is just such a creature. Thanks to evolution and the desire to survive, people began to develop their skills and knowledge.

Intervention theory

This version of human origins is based on the activities of foreign civilizations. It is believed that people are descendants of alien creatures that landed on Earth millions of years ago. This story of human origins has several endings. According to some, people appeared as a result of crossing aliens with their ancestors. Others think it's all to blame Genetic Engineering higher forms minds that brought homo sapiens out of the flask and their own DNA. Some people are sure that humans arose as a result of an error in animal experiments.

On the other hand, a very interesting and probable version is about alien intervention in the evolutionary development of homo sapiens. It is no secret that archaeologists still find in various parts of the planet numerous drawings, records and other evidence that ancient people were helped by some kind of supernatural forces. This also applies to the Mayan Indians, who were allegedly enlightened by extraterrestrial creatures with wings on strange celestial chariots. There is also a theory that the entire life of humanity from origin to the peak of evolution proceeds according to a long-prescribed program laid down by an alien intelligence. There are also alternative versions about the resettlement of earthlings from planets of such systems and constellations as Sirius, Scorpio, Libra, etc.

Evolutionary theory

Followers of this version believe that the appearance of humans on Earth is associated with the modification of primates. This theory is by far the most widespread and discussed. Based on it, humans descended from certain species of monkeys. Evolution began in time immemorial under the influence of natural selection and other external factors. The theory of evolution indeed has a number of interesting proofs and evidence, both archaeological, paleontological, genetic and psychological. On the other hand, each of these statements can be interpreted differently. The ambiguity of the facts is what does not make this version 100% correct.

Theory of creation

This branch is called “creationism”. His followers deny all major theories of human origins. It is believed that people were created by God, who is the highest level in the world. Man was created in his image from non-biological material.

The biblical version of the theory states that the first people were Adam and Eve. God created them from clay. In Egypt and many other countries, religion goes deep into ancient myths. The vast majority of skeptics consider this theory impossible, estimating its probability at billionths of a percent. The version of the creation of all living things by God does not require proof, it simply exists and has the right to do so. In support of this, we can cite similar examples from legends and myths of peoples from different parts of the Earth. These parallels cannot be ignored.

Theory of space anomalies

This is one of the most controversial and fantastic versions of anthropogenesis. Followers of the theory consider the appearance of man on Earth to be an accident. In their opinion, people became the fruit of an anomaly of parallel spaces. The forefathers of earthlings were representatives of the humanoid civilization, which are a mixture of Matter, Aura and Energy. The anomaly theory suggests that there are millions of planets in the Universe with similar biospheres that were created by a single information substance. Under favorable conditions, this leads to the emergence of life, that is, the humanoid mind. Otherwise, this theory is in many ways similar to the evolutionary one, with the exception of the statement about a certain program for the development of mankind.

Aquatic theory

This version of the origin of man on Earth is almost 100 years old. In the 1920s, the aquatic theory was first proposed by a famous marine biologist named Alistair Hardy, who was later supported by another respected scientist, the German Max Westenhoffer.

The version is based on the dominant factor that forced the great apes to reach a new stage of development. This is what forced the monkeys to exchange their aquatic lifestyle for land. This is how the hypothesis explains the lack of thick hair on the body. Thus, at the first stage of evolution, man moved from the hydropithecus stage, which appeared more than 12 million years ago, to homo erectus, and then sapiens. Today this version is practically not considered in science.

Alternative theories

One of the most fabulous versions of the origin of man on the planet is that the descendants of people were certain chiropteran creatures. In some religions they are called angels. It was these creatures that inhabited the entire Earth from time immemorial. Their appearance was similar to a harpy (a mixture of a bird and a human). The existence of such creatures is supported by numerous cave paintings. There is another theory according to which people in the early stages of development were real giants. According to some legends, such a giant was half-man, half-god, since one of their parents was an angel. Over time, higher powers stopped descending to Earth, and the giants disappeared.

Ancient myths

There are a huge number of legends and tales about the origin of man. IN Ancient Greece They believed that the ancestors of people were Deucalion and Pyrrha, who, by the will of the gods, survived the flood and created a new race from stone statues. The ancient Chinese believed that the first man was formless and came out of a clay ball.

The creator of people is the goddess Nuiva. She was a human and a dragon rolled into one. According to Turkish legend, people came out of the Black Mountain. In her cave there was a hole that resembled the appearance of a human body. Jets of rain washed clay into it. When the form was filled and warmed by the sun, the first man came out of it. His name is Ai-Atam. Myths about the origins of man from the Sioux Indians say that humans were created by the Rabbit Universe. The divine creature found a blood clot and began to play with it. Soon he began to roll on the ground and turned into guts. Then a heart and other organs appeared on the blood clot. As a result, the rabbit produced a full-fledged boy - the ancestor of the Sioux. According to ancient Mexicans, God created the image of man from pottery clay. But due to the fact that he overcooked the workpiece in the oven, the man turned out burnt, that is, black. Subsequent attempts got better over and over again, and people came out whiter. The Mongolian legend is one to one similar to the Turkish one. Man emerged from a clay mold. The only difference is that the hole was dug by God himself.

Stages of evolution

Despite the versions of the origin of man, all scientists agree that the stages of his development were identical. The first upright prototypes of people were Australopithecines, who communicated with each other using their hands and were no taller than 130 cm. The next stage of evolution produced Pithecanthropus. These creatures already knew how to use fire and adapt nature to their own needs (stones, skin, bones). Further, human evolution reached the paleoanthropus. At this time, the prototypes of people could already communicate with sounds and think collectively. The last stage of evolution before the appearance of neoanthropes. Outwardly, they were practically no different from modern people. They made tools, united into tribes, elected leaders, organized voting and rituals.

The ancestral home of humanity

Despite the fact that scientists and historians around the world are still arguing about theories of the origin of people, the exact place where the mind originated has still been established. This is the African continent. Many archaeologists believe that it is possible to narrow the location to the northeastern part of the mainland, although there is an opinion that the southern half dominates in this matter. On the other hand, there are people who are sure that humanity appeared in Asia (in India and adjacent countries). Conclusions that the first people inhabited Africa were made after numerous finds as a result of large-scale excavations. It is noted that at that time there were several types of human prototypes (races).

The strangest archaeological finds

Among the most interesting artifacts that can influence the idea of ​​what the origin and development of man actually was were the skulls of ancient people with horns. Archaeological research was carried out in the Gobi Desert by a Belgian expedition in the mid-20th century.

On the former territory, images of flying people and objects heading to Earth from outside the solar system were repeatedly found. Several other ancient tribes have similar drawings. In 1927, as a result of excavations in the Caribbean Sea, a strange transparent skull similar to a crystal one was found. Numerous studies have not revealed the technology and material of manufacture. Descendants claim that their ancestors worshiped this skull as if it were a supreme deity.

In the science of evolution, issues of human development occupy an important place. Every year we learn more about how we have been shaped over thousands of years. The development of exact sciences has made it possible to learn aspects of the distant past that until recently seemed simply unthinkable.

Human evolution is developing very quickly, because new discoveries are covered in the press and attract the attention of many people. But the mass consciousness, as usual, simply cannot keep up with science.

As a result, numerous myths appear that scientists have long proven, but did not have time to convey to ordinary people. Some “experts” even publish books in which they debunk the achievements of science in the field of human evolution. Here are the most popular myths that have been around for decades.

In fact, anthropologists have very few fossil finds, and they are fragmentary. So Darwin's followers simply do not have enough material to build their theory. Proponents of this myth claim that there is so little real evidence of human evolution that it can all be placed in one small box. For example, this is what Seraphim Rose wrote from the position of Orthodoxy back in 1974. However, even then this statement was not true; the priest was simply mistaken. Even by 1974, scientists had made many finds, including well-preserved ones. So many Neanderthals were found that a separate cemetery would be required to bury them. The remains of Pithecanthropus have been found in South and North America, China, Europe and Java. Australopithecines were found in Southern and Eastern Africa, Homo habilis - in the east and south of the same continent, the remains of Heidelberg man were found in Europe, Asia and the same Africa. The list goes on. And in order to place the fossil remains of our ancestors, found over the past 30 years, not only a box, but an entire museum is not enough. The number of recent discoveries indicating human evolution has exceeded several hundred.

Almost all fossil evidence of human evolution is actually fake. Indeed, human evolution has a history of counterfeits. Or rather, just one. We are talking about the famous Piltdown skull, the true history of which became known back in 1953. True, many scientists initially doubted the truth of this find; it stood out too much from the rest. Therefore, for half a century now, not a single anthropologist has used the Piltdown skull as an argument in his theories. This is not necessary, because there are plenty of other found materials. The story about this fake is of interest mainly to those same fighters against Darwinism, because this is almost their only weapon.

Reconstructing the appearance of human ancestors is simply a fantasy of scientists. This myth can be interpreted as follows: “I don’t understand how the reconstruction is carried out, which means it is incorrect.” In fact, since the 19th century, scientists began to develop methods for reconstructing appearance using bone remains. In Russia, the famous anthropologist, scientist and sculptor Mikhail Gerasimov worked in this direction. He collected a large collection of statistical data from his studies of both primates and humans. The scientist identified a pattern in the formation of soft tissues of the head depending on the characteristics of the bones. Gerasimov proved that these patterns operate in the same way for both humans and chimpanzees. Consequently, the approach also applies to fossil hominids. Therefore, the scientist was able to create the now classic reconstructions of the faces of our ancestors, starting with the Australopithecus and ending with the first Homo sapiens. It should be noted that the technique developed by Gerasimov has been repeatedly proven through experiments. The scientist was reconstructing the appearance of a person whose photograph was available but not shown to the anthropologist himself. As a result, the reconstructions created were very similar to the original. The Criminal Investigation Department was the first to recognize the scientist’s methodology. But this is a serious organization that will not work only with the fantasies of scientists. Since 1939, Gerasimov’s methods have been used in forensic medical examination. Reconstructions helped identify missing people. So in 1939, in the Leningrad region, far from human habitation, the skeleton of a boy with traces of predator teeth on the bones was found. Gerasimov was able to reconstruct a sculptural portrait from the skull; he was photographed from different angles in a cap and cloak for credibility. The father of the lost boy immediately identified his son, however, noting that he did not have such clothes. So those who consider this technique to be quackery should contact the Forensic Expert Center of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and tell them that they are engaged in nonsense.

The age of ancient bones was obtained using rather dubious methods based on a number of assumptions. Not everyone believes that it is possible to accurately indicate the millionth age of some finds. Usually, doubters talk about inaccurate radiocarbon dating. But this approach is wrong from the very beginning. After all, such a technique cannot in any way indicate millions of years; it is used to process much younger finds. Over the past half century, scientists have developed many techniques for determining the age of ancient remains. These include the uranium-thorium method, the potassium-argon method, the uranium series method, the fission track method, the thermoluminescent method, the optical method, the electro-spin resonance method and others. From school course we know that solutions to the equation must be checked. Also the age of the remains identified various methods in different cities and laboratories must be the same. For example, the famous skeleton of Australopithecus Lucy was found in a rock whose samples were sent to different laboratories. The track division method showed the age of the remains to be 2.58 million years, and the potassium argon method - 2.63 million years. The results are almost the same, but can the two different methods be equally unfaithful?

All fossil human ancestors are described from only one dubious find. There is a first cell effect in human memory. We all remember only the first heroes, representatives of brands. This effect also applies to anthropology. In the end, all knowledge ordinary people about Australopithecines fit into a fleeting memory of some monkey Lucy, whom they once heard somewhere. In fact, Lucy became simply one of the first, and therefore the most famous, discovery of Australopithecus afarensis. It was discovered back in 1974. Since then, scientists have found several hundred more similar remains. The story is similar with other human ancestors; we have only heard about one, the most famous. But there are not so many people who want to get into the scientific jungle and learn about the latest discoveries.

At the end of his life, Charles Darwin renounced his theory. Stories about a person's remorse just before his death are quite common. There is a similar legend about Charles Darwin. Allegedly, at the end of his life, he himself doubted his theory. Only the source of such a story remains unclear. In fact, the story of Darwin's alleged abdication surfaced many years after his death, in 1915. Such a moralizing story about spiritual transformation scientist was published in the American Baptist magazine. Allegedly, Darwin himself communicated his doubts personally to the preacher Elizabeth Hope. Only there are no real facts in support of this story. Shortly before his death, the scientist published an autobiography, which does not contain any doubts about the work of his entire life. And those close to the great naturalist do not mention anything about Darwin’s hesitations regarding his theory. The scientist’s children, Francis and Henrietta, generally stated that Lady Hope never met their father. So this story is a fairy tale invented by a preacher upon her arrival in America.

Eugene Dubois, at the end of his life, admitted that he had discovered in Java not a Pithecanthropus at all, but simply a huge python. This story of “repentance” of a prominent scientist is very reminiscent of the previous one. Meanwhile, she is very popular on the Internet. They say that a military doctor from Holland, Eugene Dubois, visited the island of Java in 1890-1891. There he found the remains of Pithecanthropus - a femur, skull bones and teeth. The anthropologist announced to the whole world that he had found a human ancestor, a transitional species. However, most scientists simply did not believe him. The scientific community, after consulting, came to the conclusion that the remains actually belonged to Pithecanthropus. Tired of arguing with the majority, Du Bois eventually admitted that he was initially mistaken. This story has several inconsistencies. First of all, it is worth asking how exactly Du Bois made his confession? Whispered to a loved one or written in a will? Or maybe he made a public confession? There is not and cannot be a clear answer. Skeptics point to the August 1935 issue of Nature. One, in fact, there are no confessions or repentances from Dubois. There is only a link to the scientist’s report, which talked about the place of Pithecanthropus in human evolution. Supporters of the myth should also ask the following question: “Has anyone other than Dubois found the remains of such a huge gibbon in Java or somewhere else?” It turns out that no other similar creatures were found. Maybe they simply did not exist in nature? But since the 30s of the last century in Java, as well as in Africa, Asia and southern Europe, people have found many remains of Pithecanthropus, or Homo erectus. In total, parts of about 250 individuals fell into the hands of scientists.

The theory of the origin of man from the ape is based only on our external similarity. External similarity became the basis for the classification of living beings many centuries ago. Thanks to him, the whale, which is a mammal, was considered a fish for a long time. Today, in addition to external similarities, the relationship between humans and great apes is eloquently evidenced by anatomical, biochemical, embryological, behavioral, paleontological and genetic factors.

The fossil remains found by scientists actually belong to ancient monkeys. Formally, this statement is true, because once upon a time our ancestors were not people in the modern form, they were ancient monkeys. For a long time, the differences between the ancestors of humans and monkeys were clear to any scientist. However, as more and more samples and remains were found, the line between the concepts narrowed. Looking at the skulls of anthropoid creatures, you won’t immediately understand when the monkey became a man. The fact is that at one point the creature learned to think and became intelligent. Thus a new evolutionary branch appeared.

The fossils found do not belong to human ancestors at all, but to degraded branches of his evolution. It’s easy to believe in this, because no one saw with their own eyes how a monkey became a man. But the degradation and descent of a person to an animal state can often be observed. Only paleoanthropology works in close collaboration with chronology. If you plot all the known remains found on the time axis, you get a clear picture. The brains of ancient hominids continuously progressed over time. To obtain such an eloquent graph, 300 points were needed. If this is degradation, it will be a very strange one, accompanied by brain growth. Although its volume is only one of the characteristics describing human evolution, the picture quickly destroys the myth of human degradation.

The ancient ancestors of man did not descend from one another, but lived simultaneously. The argument is based on the fact that there are known finds of the ancestor species that coincide in time with the age of the descendant. For example, there are remains of the species Homo habilus dating back to 1.5-2.3 million years ago. From it came the species Homo ergaster, which appeared about 1.8 million years ago. As can be seen, on the time scale, the time of residence of these species on the planet partially overlaps. However, only partial, not complete, intersection occurs. There is nothing strange about this. After all the new kind usually appears in one of the isolated populations of the ancestral species, but rapid and complete replacement never occurs. That is why, after the appearance of a descendant species, the ancestors still live on the planet for a long time; moreover, they can give rise to not just one, but several species. A similar story happened with Australopithecus afarensis, which gave birth to several groups of hominids. It doesn’t bother anyone that both a wolf and a dog live on the planet at the same time. But the second subspecies is part of the first species, its descendant.

Genetically, a pig is much closer to a person than a monkey. Proponents of this theory cite the transplantation of pig organs to humans as an argument. From a genetic point of view, this statement is absolute absurdity. There are hundreds of thousands of differences between the pig and human genomes. We occupy a firm place in the order of primates, and the pig is located among the artiodactyls. The mouse is much closer to humans; by the way, it is its stem cells that are used to create artificial human skin. The choice of pigs for organ transplantation is quite understandable. In this matter, genetic proximity is not so important. Transplant doctors are faced with the task of mass organ transplantation. Which animal should you choose as a donor? It must be well studied, bred in captivity and not have new unexplained diseases and abnormalities. The donor should be of comparable size, it should be relatively cheap, and experiments with it would not cause criticism international organizations. In this regard, the monkey loses to the pig in all respects. We love pork soup, but how many of us would eat chimpanzee soup? And how much would it cost? Every year, humans kill several hundred million pigs. There are only 15 thousand gorillas on the planet, and chimpanzees are only several times more.

Most scientists around the world have long refuted the theory of the origin of man from apes. There are many people in our lives who consider themselves, if not scientists, then certainly experts in any field. In fact, a runner is unlikely to achieve records in weightlifting. In the same way, a scientist working at the intersection of sciences is simply obliged to invite a consultant. Many people like to talk about evolution. You can spend a lot of time searching for real specialists in this field. Scientists who are professionally involved in anthropology and have their own scientific works, not so much. In our country there are only a few. In fact, this is the “majority” whose opinion is important in this matter. Even if primatologists, archaeologists, anthropologists and geneticists sometimes disagree on private issues. However, the basic provisions (the reality of evolution, the origin of man from ancient apes, Africa as the birthplace of mankind) cannot be doubted.

The main feature separating apes from humans is brain mass. The brain mass of great apes does not exceed 450 g. With a brain mass of 750 g, the child masters speech. Excess brain mass is directly related to an increase in the volume of the cranium (Fig. 53).

Rice. 53. Changes in the volume of the human brain in the process of historical development: 1 - giant australopithecus; 2 - Australopithecus africanus; 3 - the oldest person; 4 - ancient man (Neanderthal)

In the process of human development, three main stages are distinguished: 1) ancient people (archanthropes), 2) ancient people (paleoanthropes) and 3) modern people (neoanthropes) (Fig. 54).

Rice. 54. Ancestors of modern humans: 1 - Australopithecus; 2 - homo erectus (ancient man); 3 - Neanderthal (ancient man); 4 - Cro-Magnon - the direct ancestor of modern humans

Dutch anthropologist. Basic scientific works dedicated to human evolution. He irrefutably proved the correctness of Charles Darwin's theory about the origin of man from closely related higher apes.

The most ancient people (archanthropes). All groups of ancient people belong to a single species of upright people (Homo erectns). In 1891, the Dutch scientist E. Dubois (1858-1940) found the fossil remains of an ancient human on the island of Java. The age of this find is 1.9 million-600 thousand years. E. Dubois called him Pithecanthropus (Greek pithekos - “monkey” and anthropos - “man”, i.e. ape-man). The forehead of Pithecanthropus is strongly sloping, a solid bony ridge above the eyes protrudes forward, and the occipital bone is pushed back.

These were signs characteristic only of great apes. The mass of their brain reached 900 g, that is, it was significantly greater than that of apes. Noteworthy are the similarities in the structure of the femur of Pithecanthropus and humans, and walking on two legs. In some ways they resembled monkeys, and in others, they resembled humans, which is why they received the name “ape-man” (Pithecanthropus). Later, their remains were found in China, Germany, Hungary, North and South Africa. When the fossil remains of Pithecanthropus were found, nothing was known about Australopithecus and Homo habilis, so Pithecanthropus has long been considered a connecting creature between apes and humans (Fig. 55).

Rice. 55. Pithecanthropus

Now Pithecanthropus is classified as archanthropus (ancient people), or upright walking people (Homo erectns). Despite significant external differences, all ancient people are classified as one species. Archanthropes lived on Earth from approximately 1 million to 500 thousand years ago. According to the place where the fossil remains were found, they received the names “Pithecanthropus” (“Javanese man”), “Sinanthropus” (“Chinese man”), “Heidelberg” man. The most ancient people looked similar to modern humans; compared to Australopithecus and Homo habilis, they were distinguished by a large brain mass. The brain mass reached 750-900, sometimes 1000-1100 g. Archanthropes were quite tall, 165-170 cm, which further proved their similarity to modern humans. However, they were distinguished by powerful brow ridges, a low and sloping forehead, and the absence of a chin protrusion. Their jaws are large, the facial part of the skull is well developed, but the brain part of the skull was still small. The next group of archanthropes - Sinanthropus ("Chinese man") - lived in East Asia. The remains of Sinanthropus were found in 1937 in a cave near Beijing. They dressed in animal skins, lived in caves, and used fire and stone tools. In many ways, Sinanthropus, compared to Pithecanthropus, was more similar to modern humans.

In 1907, near the city of Heidelberg in Germany, the remains of an ancient man were found. Scientists called him “Heidelberg Man” and classified him as an archanthrope. There have been noticeable changes in the way of life of the archanthropes. They mostly hunted large animals together and knew how to use fire. Stone tools were improved. They knew how to make cutting, chopping, and sharp tools from stone. One of the main features in the history of the development of archanthropes is the appearance of speech. The word has become the most important means communication between them, since the frontal and temporal lobes of the brain associated with speech were quite well developed.

Fossil remains of archanthropes in large quantities found in Central and Northern Africa, Southern Europe, Western Asia. There is an opinion that from these places the archanthropes gradually spread to other areas of Europe and Asia.

On the territory of Kazakhstan, many remains of the dwellings of ancient people, the stone tools they used, and the remains of wild animals that they hunted were found. However, the remains of ancient people were not found. This is proven by archaeological research conducted recently in Kazakhstan. Stone Age tools were first found in 1928 in Kazakhstan in the Altyn Kolat pasture area. Later, similar stone tools were found on the territory of the village of Kyzyltu, Zhambyl region.

As a result of research, scientists have clarified several areas of distribution of ancient people on the territory of Kazakhstan. Such areas include Mangistau, Ustyurt, Karatau in Southern Kazakhstan, the small hills of Kokshetau in the north and the areas of Naryn-Bukhtarma and Irtysh. Based on these data, Kazakh scientists Zh. Taimagambetov and others came to the conclusion that 1 million years ago the most ancient people lived on the territory of Kazakhstan.

Archanthropes lived mainly in caves and could use fire. Many scientists support the view that modern humans descended from groups of archanthropes who lived in Central and North Africa. The period of appearance of people, from archanthropes to modern man, covers about 500 thousand years.

The main directions in the evolution of archanthropes are an increase in brain mass, a social lifestyle, improvement of tools and the use of fire. However, in the evolution of archanthropes, the main role was played by biological factors, among them is natural selection.

Archanthropes (ancient people). Pithecanthropus. Sinanthropus. Heidelberg Man.

1.What stages of human evolution do you know?

2. Describe synanthropes.

3.What groups of archanthropes existed?

1.Name the main directions of evolution of archanthropes.

2.Describe the main features of the body structure of archanthropes.

3.Which signs of Pithecanthropus were similar to those of a monkey, and which were similar to those of humans?

1. Describe how an increase in brain volume occurs separate groups There is a change in the lifestyle of individual groups of archanthropes.

2.Where in Kazakhstan were archanthrope sites and tools found?

3.Where in the world were the remains of individual groups of archanthropes found?

Give characteristics of the main groups of ancient people in the form of a table.

Currently, science has a significant amount of paleoanthropological, archaeological and geological data that makes it possible to illuminate the course of anthropogenesis (in general terms). Analysis of this information gives grounds to identify four conventional stages (segments) of anthropogenesis, characterized by a certain type of fossil man, the level of development of material culture and social institutions:

1) Australopithecines (predecessors of humans);

2) Pithecanthropus (ancient people, archanthropus);

3) Neanderthals (ancient people, paleoanthropes);

4) modern man, fossil and modern (neoanthropes).

In accordance with zoological taxonomy, the classification of hominids is as follows:

Family - Hominidae

Subfamily Australopithecinae - Australopithecus

Genus Australopithecus - Australopithecus

A. afarensis - A. afar A. robustus - A. powerful A. boisei - A boisei, etc.

Subfamily Homininae - Humans

Genus Homo - Man

N. erectus - Erect Man

N. sapiens neanderthalensis - Homo sapiens

N. sapiens sapiens - Homo sapiens sapiens.

Autralopithecus (predecessors of humans)

Paleontological and modern biological (to a greater extent) data have confirmed Darwin's theory of the origin of man and modern anthropologists from a common original form.

Establishing a specific hominoid ancestor remains a challenge for 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), originating from the Oligocene Aegyptopithecus (30 million years). In the 50-60s. one of the Dryopithecus, Proconsul, was put forward as a “model” of the common ancestor of hominids and pongids. Miocene Dryopithecus were semi-terrestrial, semi-arboreal apes that lived in humid tropical, mountainous or ordinary conditions. deciduous forests, as well as forest-steppe areas. 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 many millions of years later to modern apes, the second, hominid, ultimately led to the emergence of humans of the modern anatomical type. These two branches developed independently of each other over many millions of years in different adaptive directions. In accordance with natural and landscape conditions, specific features of biological organization have been formed in each of them, corresponding to the way of life.

The branch of higher apes evolved in the direction of adapting to an arboreal lifestyle, to brachiatory 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, sharp predominance of the facial region skull above the brain, etc.

The human branch of evolution, on the contrary, developed in the direction of adaptation to a terrestrial lifestyle, upright walking, liberation of the forelimbs from the function of support and locomotion, using them to use natural objects as tools, and later - to the manufacture of artificial tools, which was decisive in separating a person from natural world. Performing these tasks required lengthening the lower and shortening the upper limbs, while the foot lost its grasping functions and turned into an organ of support for the straightened body, the brain, the main coordinating brain organ, rapidly developed, and accordingly the part of the skull became predominant; There is a disappearance of the ridges, the supraorbital ridge, the formation of a mental protuberance on the lower jaw, etc.

The next important question in 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 timing of the separation of the two branches of evolution based on the genetic differences of modern hominoids and the estimated time of its origin.

Possible ancestors of hominids, in addition to Ramapithecus (the latter is often considered a link in the evolution of orangutans), are the European higher primates: Rudapithecus and Ouranopithecus, African Kenyapithecus (descendant of the more ancient proconsuls from the “dryopithecus circle”), lufengopithecus (Chinese Ramapithecus).

Australopithecines represent one of the first stages of human evolution. They may be regarded by the most careful investigators as the ancestors of all fossil and modern man. Australopithecus, the most interesting object in modern human paleontology, has become known to science since the 30s of our century. The first discovery of Australopithecus was made in the south of the African continent. It consisted of the remains of a skull and the natural cast of its brain part, belonging to a child.

Analysis of the “cub from Taung” showed that a number of structural features differ from the anthropoid type and at the same time resemble modern humans. The find caused a lot of controversy: some classified it as a fossil anthropoid, others as a fossil hominid. Subsequent discoveries of South African australopithecines demonstrated the presence of two morphological types - graceful and massive australopithecines. Initially they belonged to two independent genera. Currently, several hundred African Australopithecines are known. The South and East African massive and graceful variants of Australopithecus are classified as different species. The South African species lived between 3 and 1 million years, and the East African species lived for 4 or more - 1 million years.

Modern anthropologists have no doubt that Australopithecus is an intermediate type between apes and humans. The main difference from the first is bipedal locomotion, which is reflected in the structure of the skeleton of the body and some features of the skull (the middle 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 trunk, proves the vertical position of the trunk. Part of the abdominal muscles that support the internal organs when walking with a straight body.

The landscape environment of australopithecines - 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 permanent feature. It has been experimentally proven that bipedal gait is energetically more beneficial than other types of primate locomotion.

Signs of a modern type of human were identified on the lower jaws. Relatively small canines and incisors do not protrude above the general level of the teeth. Quite large molars have a “human” pattern of cusps on the chewing surface, referred to as the “dryopithecus pattern.” The structure of the teeth and the joint of the lower jaw indicate a predominance of lateral movements in the act of chewing, which is not typical 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 eyebrow protrudes forward; the brain cavity is small; the occipital region tends to be rounded.

The volume of the brain cavity of australopithecines is small: gracial australopithecines - on average 450 cm3, massive australopithecines - 517 cm3, anthropoids - 480 cm3, i.e. almost three times less than that of modern humans: 1450 cm3. Thus, progress in brain development based on the absolute size of the brain in the Australopithecus type is practically not visible. The relative size of the brain of australopithecines, in some cases, was larger than that of anthropoids.

Among the South African forms, “Australopithecus africanus” and “Australopithecus powerful” 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 Australopithecus africanus, the lower jaw is stronger. A pronounced bony ridge on the crown served to attach strong masticatory 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. The vegetarian Australopithecus had such morphological features, gravitating towards the forest line in its habitat.

Australopithecus africanus had smaller sizes (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 body position when walking was more straightened.

The structure of the teeth corresponded to adaptation to omnivory with a large proportion of meat food. Australopithecines were engaged in gathering and hunting, possibly taking advantage of the hunting trophies of other predators. When hunting baboons, Australopithecines used stones as throwing weapons. R. Dart created the original concept of pre-culture of australopithecines - “osteodontokeratic culture”, i.e. the constant use of parts of the animal skeleton as tools. It was suggested that the mental activity of australopithecines became more complex: this was evidenced by the high level of their tool activity and developed gregariousness. The prerequisites for these achievements were upright walking and a developing hand.

Interesting are the finds of australopithecines and similar forms made in East Africa, in particular in the Olduvai Gorge (Tanzania). Anthropologist L. Leakey conducted research here for 40 years. He identified five stratigraphic layers that made it possible to establish the temporal dynamics of the earliest hominids and their culture in the early Pleistocene.

Initially, the skull of a massive australopithecus was discovered in Olduvai Gorge, named "Zinjanthropus bois" ("Nutcracker"), later renamed "Australopithecus bois". This find is confined to the upper half of layer I (age 2.3-1.4 million years). The archaic stone tools found here in the form of flakes with traces of retouching are noteworthy. Researchers were confused by the combination of lithic culture and the primitive morphological type of Australopithecus. Later, in layer I below Zinjanthropus, bones of the skull and hands of a more advanced type of human being were found. It was he, the so-called Homo habilis (Skilled Man), who owned the oldest Olduvai tools.

As for Zinjanthropus (A. boisei), in the evolution of australopithecines it continues the line of adaptation of massive forms to predominantly feeding on plant foods. This Australopithecus is larger than the “powerful Australopithecus” and is distinguished by a less perfect ability for bipedal walking (Fig. I. 6).

The fact of the coexistence of two types of early hominids, Australopithecus bois and Homo habilis, proven by fossil materials from the Olduvai Gorge, is of great importance, especially since they differ very noticeably in morphology and methods of adaptation.

The remains of Habilis in the Olduvai Gorge are not isolated: they are always adjacent to the pebble (Olduvai) culture, the oldest Paleolithic culture. Some anthropologists dispute the generic name

Rice. I. 6. Skull of supermassive Australopithecus (“Boycean”) (1.9 million years old)

habilis - "Homo", preferring to call it "Australopithecus habilis". For most experts, habilis is the oldest representative of the genus Homo. He not only used for his own needs suitable items surrounding nature, but also modified them. The antiquity of Homo habilis is 1.9 - 1.6 million years. Finds of this hominid are known in Southern and Eastern 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 reveals its ability to be omnivorous (a human characteristic). It differs from Zinjanthropus habilis in the large volume of the brain cavity (volume - 660 cm3), as well as the convexity of the cranial vault, especially in the occipital region. The lower jaw of Habilis is more graceful than that of other australopithecines, and the teeth are smaller. Due to fairly advanced bipedal walking, the big toe could move, like a human’s, only in the vertical direction, and the foot had arching. The body of the habilis was practically straightened. 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 size, judging by the bone elements, is small. The phalanges of the fingers are curved, which is not typical for modern humans, 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 was also discovered in this location.

It is difficult to interpret and classify forms similar to the Australopithecines of Africa, but found outside this continent. Thus, on the island of Java, a fragment of the lower jaw of a great ape was discovered, the overall size of which significantly exceeded the size of modern humans and the largest apes. It was named "Meganthropus Paleo-Javanese". Currently, it is often classified as a member of the Australopithecus group.

All of these australopithecines and early representatives of the genus Homo were preceded in time by the graceful “Afarensis australopithecines” (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 fortunate discovery of a very complete skeleton of a subject named “Lucy” allows us to imagine Australopithecus afarensis as follows. The body dimensions are very small: body length - 105-107 cm, weight slightly exceeded 29 kg. The structure of the skull, jaws and teeth shows very primitive features. The skeleton is adapted to a bipedal gait, although different from that of humans. A study of foot prints in volcanic ash (at least 3.6 million years old) leads to the conclusion that Australopithecus afarensis did not fully extend its leg in 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 ape-like features (the forefoot is not motionless). Upper proportions
and lower limbs correspond to upright walking, but there are clear signs of adaptation to the arboreal method of locomotion. In the hand, progressive features are also combined with archaic ones (relative shortening of the fingers), associated with the ability to move in trees. There are no signs of a “forceful grip” characteristic of hominids. As primitive features of the skull, one should note the strong protrusion of the facial region and the developed occipital relief. Even compared to other australopithecines, the protruding fangs and diastemas between the teeth of the upper and lower jaws look archaic. The molars are very large and massive. The absolute size of the Australopithecus afarensis brain is indistinguishable from that of anthropomorphic monkeys, but its relative size is somewhat larger. Some individuals of the Afar people have a clear “chimpanzoid” morphology, proving the not so distant separation of the evolutionary branches of hominids and pongids.

Some neurologists believe that in very ancient representatives of australopithecines it is already possible to record a 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 apes. The restructuring of the brain could begin at the cellular level.

The most modern paleoanthropological discoveries make it possible to tentatively identify the species of Australopithecus, which preceded the “Afars” 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 masticatory 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 earliest australopithecus 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). The progressive features 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 australopithecines? Anthropologists do not have a consensus regarding the indissolubility of the connection between tool activity and bipedal walking. Despite the discovery of very ancient stone tool cultures, there is a significant gap in time between the appearance of bipedality and the emergence of labor. It is assumed that the reason for the separation of the first hominids from the animal world could be the transfer of the defensive function of the dental apparatus to artificial tools of defense, and the use of tools became an effective adaptation in the behavior of the first people who populated the savanna. Monuments of the Olduvai culture did not clarify the question of the connection of Australopithecines with Olduvai tools. Thus, it is known that the bones of the progressive “Habilis” and the massive Australopithecus were found in the same horizon with Olduvai tools.

The oldest tools were found in more ancient horizons than fragments of the first undisputed representatives of the genus Homo. Thus, Paleolithic cultures in Kenya and Ethiopia are 2.5-2.6 million years old. Analysis of new materials shows that australopithecines were only capable of using tools, but only representatives of the genus Homo were able to make them.

The Olduvai (Pebble) Age is the earliest in the Paleolithic (Old Stone Age). The most typical tools are massive archaic artifacts made from pebbles and stone fragments, as well as stone blanks (cores), tools on flakes. A typical Olduvai weapon is the chopper. It was a pebble with a beveled end, the unprocessed part of which served to hold the tool in the hand (Fig. I. 7). The blade could be processed on both sides; Tools with several edges and simple striking stones were also found. Olduvai tools differ in shape and size, but have the same type of blade. This is explained by the purposefulness of actions to develop tools. Archaeologists note that already from the beginning of the Paleolithic there was a set of tools for different purposes. Finds of broken bones suggest that Australopithecines were hunters. Olduvai tools survive into late times, especially in South and Southeast Asia. Olduvai's long existence (1.5 million years) was almost not accompanied by technical progress. Australopithecines could create simple shelters such as wind barriers.

Rice. I. 7. Olduvai culture of the Lower Paleolithic. Pithecanthropus
(ancient people, archanthropes)

Pithecanthropus is the second stadia group of hominids after the Australopithecines. In this aspect, in the specialized literature they are often designated (all variants of the group) as “archanthropes,” i.e., “the most ancient people”; here you can also add the definition “ true people“, since the belonging of Pithecanthropus to the hominid family is not disputed by any anthropologist. Previously, some researchers combined Pithecanthropus with Neanderthals into one evolutionary stage.

Finds of Pithecanthropus are known in three parts of the world - Africa, Asia and Europe. Their ancestors were representatives of Homo habilis (late East African representatives of this species are often called Homo rudolfensis). The lifetime of Pithecanthropus (including the earliest, Homo ergaster) can be represented in the range 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); from the turn of 1 million years they were widespread in Asia, and from the time of 0.5 million years, Pithecanthropus (often called “pre-Neanderthals”, or representatives of Homo heidelbergensis) lived in Europe. The almost worldwide distribution of Pithecanthropus can be explained by their fairly high level of biological and social development. The evolution of different groups of Pithecanthropus occurred at different speeds, but had one direction - towards the sapient type.

For the first time, bone fragments of Pithecanthropus were discovered by the Dutch doctor E. Dubois on the island. Java in 1891. It is noteworthy that the author of the find shared the concept of an “intermediate link” in the human pedigree, which belonged to the Darwinist E. Haeckel. Near the village of Trinil, an upper molar, a skull cap and a femur were found (sequentially). The archaic character of the skull cap 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 (currently 500 thousand years). In 1894, G. Dubois first gave a scientific description of “Pitpecanthropus erectus” (“Ape-man erectus”). Some European scientists greeted such a phenomenal discovery with disbelief, and Dubois himself often did not believe in its significance for science.

With an interval of 40 years, other finds of Pithecanthropus were made on the island. Java and other locations. In the Pungat layers with the Jetis fauna near the village of Mojokerto, a child's skull of Pithecanthropus was discovered. The age of the find is close to 1 million years. Finds of skull and skeleton bones were made in the Sangiran locality (antiquity about 800 thousand years) during 1936-1941. The next series of finds at Sangiran dates back to the period 1952-1973. The most interesting find is the skull of Pithecanthropus with the preserved facial part of the skull, made in 1963. Remains of the Paleolithic culture on the island. Java not found.

A fossil man of a similar type to Pithecanthropus was discovered in the Middle Pleistocene deposits of China. The teeth of Sinanthropus (Chinese Pithecanthropus) were discovered in the limestone cave of Zhoukou-dian in 1918. The collection of random finds gave way to excavations, and in 1937 the remains of more than 40 individuals of Sinanthropus were discovered at this location (Fig. 1.8). The description of this variant of Pithecanthropus was first made by the Canadian specialist Vlecom. 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 thick layer of ash found in the Sinanthropus hunting camp. The use of fire to process food made it more digestible, and maintaining a fire for a long time indicates a fairly high level of development of social relations among synanthropes.

Multiple finds allow us to confidently speak about the reality of the Pithecanthropus taxon. Let us present the main features of its morphotype. The modern type of femurs and the position of the foramen magnum, similar to what we see on modern skulls, indicate that Pithecanthropus undoubtedly adapted to upright walking. The overall massiveness of the skeleton of Pithecanthropus is greater than that of Australopithecus. Numerous archaic features are observed in the structure of the skull: highly developed relief, 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, and the size of the canine is close to modern ones. The 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 Pithecanthropus given in modern literature vary from 750 to 1350 cm3, i.e., they approximately correspond, at a minimum, to the lower threshold of the values ​​​​given for Australopithecines of the Habilis type. Previously, the compared species were considered to be significantly different. The structure of the endocranes testified to the complexity of the brain structure: in Pithecanthropus, parts of the parietal region, lower frontal and upper posterior part of the frontal region are more developed, which is associated with the development of specific human functions - labor and speech. New foci of growth were discovered on the endocranes of synanthropes, 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. The graceful lower jaw is noteworthy. Brain volume is more than 1000 cm3. The difference between Sinanthropus and Javan Pithecanthropus is assessed at the subspecies level.

The nature of food remains, as well as the structure of the lower jaws, indicates a change in the type of nutrition of synanthropes towards omnivory, which is a progressive feature. Synanthropes are likely to exhibit cannibalism. Archaeologists disagreed on their ability to make fire.

Analysis of human bone remains from this phase of anthropogenesis makes it possible to reconstruct the sex and age composition of synanthrope groups: 3-6 males, 6-10 females and 15-20 children.

The comparative complexity of culture requires a fairly 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 this prognosis can be considered the strengthening of the bone relief in the places of attachment of the tongue muscles, the beginning of the formation of the chin, and the gracilization of the lower jaws.

Fragments of skulls of antiquity commensurate with the early Pithecanthropus of Fr. Java (about 1 million years old), found in two provinces of China - Lantian, Kuwanlin. It is interesting that the more ancient Chinese Pithecanthropus differs from Sinanthropus in the same way as the early Pithecanthropus from the later ones, namely, in greater massiveness of bones and smaller brain size. Late progressive Pithecanthropus includes a recent discovery 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 Pithecanthropus 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 its appearance was estimated at approximately 2 million years. Now this issue is being resolved differently. Africa is considered to be the homeland of both Australopithecus and Pithecanthropus. In 1984, a 1.6-million-year-old Pithecanthropus (a complete skeleton of an adolescent) was discovered in Kenya (Nariokotome). The main finds of the earliest Pithecanthropus in Africa are considered to be: Koobi Fora (1.6 million years), South African Swartkrans (1.5 million years), Olduvai (1.2 million years). African Pithecanthropus of the Mediterranean coast (Ternifin) is 700 thousand years old. The geological antiquity of the Asian variants can be estimated at 1.3-0.1 million years. There is archaeological evidence from sites in the Middle East, located closer to Africa than to Asia, indicating that the antiquity of African Pithecanthropus could reach 2 million years.

Synchronous forms of fossil humans from Europe are younger and quite distinctive. They are often called "pre-Neanderthals" or referred to as Homo heidelbergensis, which in Africa, Europe and Asia was the ancestor of 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 considered to be the Dmanisi man, whose antiquity is estimated at 1.6-1.8 million years. Anatomical features allow us 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 Pithecanthropus and Neanderthals was found in Azerbaijan (Azykh). The Acheulian man apparently lived on the territory of Armenia (Yerevan).

Early Pithecanthropus differs from later ones in having more massive bones and a smaller brain. A similar difference is observed in Asia and Europe.

In the Paleolithic, the Acheulian era correlates with the physical type of Pithecanthropus and early Neanderthals. The leading Acheulean weapon was a hand ax (Fig. I. 9). It demonstrates a high level in the development of stone processing technology. Within the Acheulean era, one can observe an increase in the careful finishing of handaxes: the number of chips from the surface of the tool increases. The surface treatment becomes finer when replacing stone bumpers with softer ones made of bone, horn or wood. The size of the hand ax reached 35 cm. It was made from stone by processing chips on both sides. The chopper had a pointed end, two longitudinal blades and a rough opposite edge. It is believed that the ax had a variety of functions: it served as a percussion instrument, was used for digging up roots, dismembering animal corpses, and processing wood. In the southern regions there is an ax (cleaver), distinguished by a transverse blade, not corrected by retouching, and symmetrically processed edges.

The typical Acheulean handaxe does not exhaust all the technological diversity characteristic of that period. There was a flake “Klekton” culture, as well as a flake progressive “Levallois” culture, which is distinguished by the manufacture of tools from flakes of disc-shaped stone blanks, the surface of the blanks was pre-processed with small chips. In addition to axes, small tools such as points, scrapers, and knives are found in Acheulean sites. Some of them survive to the time of the Cro-Magnons. Olduvai tools are also found 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. Pithecanthropus were not only gatherers. Acheulean sites are interpreted as hunting camps, since bones of large animals are found in their cultural layer. The life of the Acheulian groups was difficult, people were engaged in different types labor. Various types of sites are open: hunting camps, flint mining workshops, long-term sites. The Acheulians built their dwellings in open areas and in caves. A settlement of huts has been opened in the Nice area.

The natural environment of Acheulean man determined the characteristics of material culture. The types of tools in different monuments are found in different proportions. Hunting large animals required close cohesion of a team of people. Sites of different types indicate the existence of a division of labor. The remains of the hearths indicate the effectiveness of the use of fire by Pithecanthropus. In the Kenyan site of Chesovanja, traces of fire are 1.4 million years old. The Mousterian culture of Neanderthal man is a development of the technological achievements of the angelic culture of Pithecanthropus.

As a result of the Afro-Asian migrations of the first people, two main centers of human evolution arose - Western and Eastern. Separated by vast distances, populations of Pithecanthropus 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, Pithecanthropus (“pre-Neanderthals”) were such.

Neanderthals (ancient people, paleoanthropes)

In the traditional stage model of anthropogenesis, the intermediate evolutionary stage between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens was represented by paleoanthropes (“ancient people”), who, in absolute chronology, lived in the period 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 area of ​​Neanderthal (Germany).

In general, paleoanthropes continue the line of evolution of “Homo erectus” (more precisely, Homo heidelbergensis), but in modern schemes often referred to as a lateral 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 version (Homo sapiens neanderthalensls). This view reflects new knowledge about the complexity of Neanderthal biology, intelligence, and social organization. Anthropologists giving great importance biological differences between Neanderthals and modern humans, they are still considered a special species.

The first discoveries of Neanderthals were made in the 19th century. in Western Europe and did not have an unambiguous interpretation.

Groups of paleoanthropes, located over a significant range of geological time, are very diverse in morphological appearance. Anthropologist V.P. Alekseev attempted to classify groups of Neanderthals that were morphologically and chronologically similar, and identified several groups: European, African, Skhul type and Western Asian. Most of the finds of paleoanthropes are known from Europe. Neanderthals often inhabited periglacial zones.

On the same grounds (morphological and chronological), among the European forms of this time, the following levels are distinguished: “the earliest Neanderthals” - “pre-Neanderthals”, “early Neanderthals” and “late Neanderthals”.

Anthropologists suggested that objectively there were multiple transitions between successive stage groups, therefore, in different areas, from several variants of Pithecanthropus, an evolutionary transition to paleoanthropus could have occurred. Representatives of the species Homo heidelbergensis could be predecessors (Petralona, ​​Swanscombe, Atapuerca, Arago, etc.).

The earliest European group includes a fossil skull from the Steinheim site (200 thousand years old), found in Germany in 1933, as well as the Swanscombe female skull (200 thousand years old), discovered in England in 1935. These finds relate to the second interglacial according to the alpine scheme. Under similar conditions, a fossil lower jaw was found in France - the Montmorin monument. These forms are distinguished by the small size of the brain cavity (Steinheim - 1150 cm3, Swanscombe - 1250-1300 cm3). A complex of features has been identified that bring the earliest forms closer to modern humans: a relatively narrow and high skull, a relatively prominent forehead, a massive supercilium, like that of Pithecanthropus, not divided into its component elements, a rather rounded occiput, a straightened facial region, the presence of a rudimentary chin of the lower jaw. There is obvious archaism in the structure of the teeth: the third molar is larger in size than the second and first (in humans, the size of the molars decreases from the first to the third). The bones of this type of fossil human are accompanied by archaic Acheulean tools.

Many Neanderthals known to science belong to the last interglacial. The earlier of them lived about 150 thousand years ago. You can imagine their appearance based on finds from the European monuments of 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, and a relatively small number of archaic features in the structure of the teeth (the third molar is not the largest among the others). The brain volume of early Neanderthals is estimated at 1200-1400 cm3.

The 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), Moustier (50 thousand years), Ferrassi (50 thousand years), Neanderthal (50 thousand years), Engis (70 thousand years), Circeo (50 thousand years), San Cesaire (36 thousand years) (Fig. I. 10).

This variant is characterized by a strong development of the eyebrow, a compressed occipital region from top to bottom (“chignon-shaped”), a wide nasal opening, and an expanded cavity of the molars. Morphologists note the presence of an occipital ridge, a chin protrusion (rarely and in rudimentary form), and a large volume of the brain cavity: from 1350 to 1700 cm3. Based on the bones of the skeleton of the body, one can judge that late Neanderthals had a strong, massive physique (body length - 155-165 cm). The lower limbs are shorter than those of modern humans, and the femurs are curved. Wide front part The skull of Neanderthals protrudes strongly forward and is sloping on the sides, the cheek bones are streamlined. The joints of the arms and legs are large. In terms of body proportions, Neanderthals were similar to the modern type of Eskimos, which helped them maintain body temperature in cold climates.

An interesting attempt is 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 as a consequence of adaptation to cold climate conditions.

It appears that the earliest and later forms from Europe are related genetically. European Neanderthals were discovered in France, Italy, Yugoslavia, Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Crimea and the North Caucasus.

To solve the question of the origin of modern man, the finds of paleoanthropes outside Europe, mainly in South-West Asia and Africa, are extremely interesting. The absence of specialization features in morphology in most cases distinguishes them from European forms. Thus, they are characterized by straighter and thinner limbs, less powerful supraorbital ridges, and shorter 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 have moved from Europe. Moreover, starting from the turn of 40 thousand years, Neanderthals coexisted with fully developed people of a modern anatomical type; in the Middle East, such coexistence could be longer.

The finds of paleoanthropes from Mount Carmel (Israel) are exceptional in significance. They attracted researchers with a mosaic of sapient and Neanderthaloid features. These finds can be interpreted as actual evidence of crossbreeding between early Neanderthals and modern humans. True, it should be noted that some of the Skhul finds are currently considered to belong 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 facial part and occipital region have a modern character. The curved limb bones resemble 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 the Amud cave near Lake Tiberias. (Israel). Has a large brain volume: 1740 cm3. The bones of the limbs are elongated.

Qafzeh, antiquity - about 100 thousand. years. Opened in Israel. Sapience is quite strongly expressed, so it is considered an accomplished sapiens.

In the north of Iraq, a Shanidar Neanderthal was discovered, classical in type, with a large brain section; researchers drew attention to the absence of a continuous supraorbital ridge. Age - 70-80 thousand years.

A Neanderthal man with traces of a funeral rite was found on the territory of Uzbekistan. The skull belonged to a boy with an unformed supraorbital ridge. The facial section and limbs of the skeleton, according to some anthropologists, are of a modern type. The location of the find is the Teshchik-Tash cave, antiquity - 70 thousand years.

In Crimea, in the Kiik-Koba cave, the bone remains of an adult paleoanthrope (a type close to Western European Neanderthals) and a very young Neanderthal child were discovered. The bone remains of several Neanderthal children were discovered in the Crimea and in the area of ​​Belogorsk. A fragment of the skull of a Neanderthal woman was also found here with some modern features that make it similar to the Skhul finds. Neanderthal bones and teeth were discovered in Adygea and Georgia.

The skull of a paleoanthropist was discovered in Asia - on the territory of China, in the Mala Grotto. It is believed that he cannot be attributed to any European variant of 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 such as Mala, Chanyan, Ordos (Mongolia) we see transitional forms from Pithecanthropus to “early” sapiens. Moreover, this transition in some forms can be dated back to at least 0.2 million years (uranium method).

On about. In Java, near the village of Ngan-dong, peculiar skulls bearing traces of cannibalism were found. Researchers drew attention to their very thick walls and powerful supraorbital ridge. Such features make the Ngandong skulls similar to the type of Pithecanthropus. The existence of discovered hominids is the Upper Pleistocene (about 0.1 million years), i.e., they are synchronous with the late Pithecanthropus. There was an opinion in science that this was a local, unique type of Neanderthal, formed as a result of a slow evolutionary process. From other positions, the "Javanthropes" from Ngandong are defined as late Pithecanthropus, 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 the south of Africa. Hominids from Broken Hill and Saldanha were cited as examples of “southern” Africans. In their morphological type, common characteristics of Neanderthals and Pithecanthropus were found. Their brain volume reached about 1300 cm3 (slightly less than the average for Neanderthals). It has been suggested that Broken Hill Man is a successor to the Olduvai Pithecanthropus from East Africa. Some anthropologists believed that there was a parallel line of paleoanthropic evolution in Southeast Asia and southern Africa. Currently, the Broken Hill variant is assigned the role of a fossil sapient form.

Changes in taxonomic views on later hominids have led to the fact that many forms preceding modern humans are classified as archaic Homo sapiens, often understood by this term as “pro-Neanderthals” (Swanscombe, Steinheim), then - peculiar African forms (Broken Hill, Saldanha), Asian (Ngandong), as well as European variants of Pithecanthropus.

Paleontological evidence suggests a mestizo origin for classical European Neanderthals. Apparently, there were two waves of migrants from Africa and Asia approximately 300-250 thousand years ago, with subsequent mixing.

The evolutionary fate of Neanderthals is unclear. The choice of hypotheses is quite wide: the complete transformation of Neanderthals into sapiens; complete extermination of Neanderthals by sapiens of non-European origin; crossbreeding of both options. The last point of view has the greatest support, according to which the emerging modern man migrated from Africa to Europe through Asia. In Asia it was recorded for about 100 thousand years, and came to Europe at the turn of 40 thousand years. Next, the assimilation of the Neanderthal population took place. The evidence is provided by European finds of hominids of Neanderthal appearance, modern type and intermediate forms. Early Neanderthals, penetrating into Western Asia, could interbreed with ancient sapiens there too.

Fossil odontological materials provide an idea of ​​the scale of crossbreeding processes. They record the contribution of European Neanderthals to the gene pool of modern humans. Neanderthal fossil hominids coexisted with modern ones 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 data on the structure of the endocrane with clinical observations of modern humans and, on this basis, puts forward the assumption that social behavior paleoanthropes and modern humans are significantly different (control of behavior, manifestation of aggressiveness).

The Mousterian era, coinciding in time with the era of the Neanderthals, belongs to the Middle Paleolithic. In absolute terms, this time ranges from 40 to 200 thousand years. Mousterian tool assemblages are heterogeneous in the proportion of tools of different types. Mousterian sites are known in three parts of the world - Europe, Africa and Asia; bone remains of Neanderthals were also discovered there.

The technology of stone processing by Neanderthal man is distinguished by a relatively high level of technique for splitting and secondary processing of flakes. The pinnacle of technology is the method of preparing the surface of a stone blank and processing the plates separated from it.

Careful adjustment 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 disc-shaped blanks, from which flakes were chipped radially: from the edges to the center. Most Mousterian tools were made on flakes through secondary processing. Archaeologists count dozens of types of tools, but their diversity apparently boils down to three types: pointed, scraper, rubel. The point was a tool with a point at the end, used for cutting meat, leather, processing wood, and also as a dagger or spear tip. The side scraper was a flake, retouched along the edge. This tool was used for scraping or cutting when processing carcasses, hides or wood. Wooden handles were added to the scrapers. Toothed tools were used for turning wooden objects, cutting or sawing. In Mousterian one can find piercings, incisors, and scrapers—tools of the Late Paleolithic. The means of labor are represented by special chippers (elongated pieces of stone or pebbles) and retouchers (pieces of stone or bone for processing the edge of a tool by pressing).

Modern ethnographic studies of Australian Aborigines help to imagine technological processes Stone Age. Experiments by archaeologists have shown that the technique of obtaining tool blanks in the form of flakes and plates was complex and required experience, technical knowledge, precise coordination of movements, and great attention.

Experience allowed ancient man to reduce the amount of time required to make tools. The technique of processing bone in Mousterian is poorly developed. Wooden tools were widely used: clubs, spears, spears with fire-hardened ends. Water vessels and elements of dwellings were made from wood.

Neanderthals were skilled hunters. At their sites, accumulations of bones of large animals were discovered: mammoths, cave bears, bison, wild horses, antelopes, and mountain goats. Complex hunting activities were within the power of a coordinated group of Neanderthals. The Mousterians used methods of rounding up or driving animals to cliffs and swamps. Complex tools were discovered - spearheads with flint fragments. Bolas were used as throwing weapons. The Mousterians practiced cutting up the carcasses of killed animals and roasting the meat over a fire. They made simple clothes for themselves. Gathering had a certain importance. The discovered grain grinders made of stone suggest that primitive grain processing existed. Cannibalism existed among Neanderthals, but was not widespread.

During Mousterian times, the nature of settlements changed. Sheds, grottoes and caves were more often inhabited. The types of Neanderthal settlements are identified: workshops, hunting and base sites. Wind barriers were installed to protect fires from the wind. 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 paleoanthropus in France (the Saint-Césaire monument).

In the early Würmian era, 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 opened. Interestingly, the “Neanderthal” and “sapient” groups more often buried adult individuals, and the “Neanderthal” population buried both adults and children to the same extent. The facts of burial of the dead give reason 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 known archaeological finds of hominid remains. The maximum geological age of fully formed fossil neoanthropes was previously estimated at approximately 40 thousand years (find in Indonesia). It is now believed that sapiens found in Africa and Asia were much more ancient (although we are talking about skeletons with archaic features expressed to varying degrees).

The bone remains of fossil humans of this subspecies are widespread: from Kalimantan to the tips of Europe.

The name “Cro-Magnons” (as fossil neoanthropes are designated in the literature) is due to the famous French Upper Paleolithic monument Cro-Magnon. The structure of the skull and skeleton of the body of fossil neoanthropes is, in principle, no different from modern humans, although their bones are more massive.

According to the analysis of bone material from Late Paleolithic burials, the average age of Cro-Magnons was 30-50 years. The same life expectancy remained until the Middle Ages. Pathology of bones and teeth is less common than trauma (Cro-Magnon teeth were healthy).

Signs of differences between the skulls of Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals (Fig. 1.13): less protruding facial region, high convex crown, high straight forehead, rounded back of the head, smaller quadrangular eye sockets, smaller overall dimensions of the skull, a chin protrusion of the skull is formed; the brow ridge is absent, the jaws are less developed, the teeth have a small cavity. The main difference between Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals is the structure of the endocrane. Paleoneurologists believe that in late anthropogenesis the frontal regions of the brain, including behavioral control centers, 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 Cro-Magnon skulls and modern ones: lower vault height, larger longitudinal dimensions, more pronounced brow ridges, greater width of the eye sockets, wider facial part of the skull and lower jaw, greater thickness of the walls of the skull. Upper Paleolithic man retained the features of the dental system characteristic of Neanderthals for quite a long time. The features that distinguish the skull and endocranium of Cro-Magnons from modern humans are often “Neanderthaloid” in nature.

Noteworthy is the fact that the distribution area of ​​Cro-Magnon man is enormous: the entire ecumene. With the advent of Cro-Magnon man, as many experts believe, the species evolution of man ends, and the evolution of biological qualities for man in the future seems impossible.

The most complete finds of Cro-Magnon skeletons in Europe have an antiquity that does not exceed 40 thousand years. For example, the French neoanthropist Cro-Magnon lived 30 thousand years ago, the Cro-Magnon man Sungir (Vladimir region) is 28 thousand years old. The archaic sapiens of Africa (with fairly pronounced Neanderthaloid features) look 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. Australian finds are about 10 thousand years old.

It was previously assumed that modern humans arose in Europe about 40 thousand years ago. Today larger number 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 Western Asia (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 modern humanity- people from Africa.

In accordance with modern evolutionary views, the most plausible model seems to be the “net evolution” of hominids, in which an important place is given to the exchange of genes between different subspecies and species of ancient humans. Therefore, very early finds of sapiens in Africa and Europe are interpreted as evidence of crossbreeding between sapiens species and Pithecanthropus. During the formation of the sapient type, a constant exchange of genes occurred between the primary centers of evolution of the genus Homo (Western and Eastern).

About 40 thousand years ago, the rapid spread of neoanthropus began. The reasons for this phenomenon lie in human genetics 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 formation of modern races. According to one point of view, the features of modern races are present in the Upper Paleolithic. This point of view is illustrated by examples of the geographical distribution of two characteristics - nasal protrusion and the degree of horizontal profiling of the facial region. According to another point of view, races took shape late, and the Upper Paleolithic population was distinguished by great polymorphism. Thus, for Europe, about 8 types of Upper Paleolithic races 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 traits; 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 (Neoanthropus). In Europe, the last period of the Paleolithic (ancient Stone Age) is estimated at 35-10 thousand years before the present day 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, chisels, bone tools such as awls, needles, harpoons, etc. Bone tools made up about half of the total 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 tools arose, such as needles with ears, fishhooks, harpoons, and spear throwers. They significantly strengthened man's power over nature.

The main difference of the Upper Paleolithic was the improvement of stone processing. In Mousterian times, there were several ways to process a stone blank (core). The Lavallusian technique of careful initial surface treatment of the workpiece is the start of the Upper Paleolithic technique. Cro-Magnons used blanks suitable for chopping series of plates (prismatic cores). Thus, during the Upper Paleolithic era, the technique of cleaving was improved, resulting in high-quality microblades suitable for use in composite tools.

Archaeologists have conducted experiments to reconstruct the method of separating the plates from the core, as the Cro-Magnons did. The selected and specially processed core was clamped between the knees, which acted as a shock absorber. The separation of the plates was carried out using a stone chipper and a bone mediator. In addition, flint flakes were separated by pressing on the edge of the core with a bone or stone squeezer.

The knife plate method is much more economical than the flake method. From one workpiece, a skilled craftsman could separate more than 50 plates (up to 25-30 cm in length and several millimeters in thickness) in a short time. The working edge of the knife-shaped plate is much larger than that of the flake. More than 100 types of tools are known for the Late Paleolithic. It has been suggested that different Cro-Magnon workshops could differ in the originality of their technical “fashion”.

In the Upper Paleolithic, hunting was even more advanced than in Mousterian times. This played a huge role in increasing food resources, and, in connection with this, population.

A complete innovation was the spear thrower, which gave the Cro-Magnon hand an advantage 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 effectively catch fish. The Cro-Magnon man invented snares for birds and traps for animals.

Perfect hunting was carried out for large animals: 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 in the thousands. Thus, for the first time, an uninterrupted source of highly nutritious food was formed. The person got the opportunity to live in hard-to-reach areas.

In the construction of houses, the Cro-Magnons used the achievements of the Mousterians and improved them. This allowed them to survive the conditions of the last cold millennium of the Pleistocene.

European Cro-Magnons, populating the caves, used their good knowledge of the area. Many caves had access to the south, so they were well heated by the sun and protected from the cold northern winds. The caves were chosen near water sources, with good review pastures where herds of ungulates grazed. The caves could have been used all year round or for a seasonal stay.

Cro-Magnons also built dwellings in river valleys. They were made of stone or dug into 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 at the Kostenki site (Russian Plain), 27 m long, is marked by a number of hearths in the center, indicating that several families wintered here.

Nomadic hunters built light huts. Warm clothing helped the Cro-Magnons endure harsh climatic conditions. Images of people on bone artifacts suggest that they wore tight-fitting pants that retained heat, parkas with hoods, shoes and mittens. The seams of the clothes were well stitched.

The high intellectual development and psychological complexity of the Cro-Magnons is proven by the existence of numerous monuments of primitive art, which is known for the 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 from clay and stone, and the drawings were made by the 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.

Burial studies provide abundant information about the life of Cro-Magnons. It was found, for example, that the life expectancy of Cro-Magnon man increased in comparison with Neanderthals.

Some Cro-Magnon rituals have been reconstructed. Thus, the custom of sprinkling the skeleton of the deceased with red ocher apparently testifies to 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 lies an old man (“Leader”) in fur robes, richly decorated with beads. The second burial is interesting - a pair of children’s burials. The skeletons of the children were accompanied by spears made from mammoth tusks and were decorated with ivory rings and bracelets; the 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 maintained stability in its biological status. The evolutionary completeness of man is relative and does not mean a complete cessation of changes in his biological properties. Various changes in the anatomical type of modern humans have been studied. Examples are a decrease in the massiveness of the skeleton, the size of the teeth, changes in the small toes, etc. It is assumed that these phenomena are caused by random mutations. Some anthropologists, based on anatomical observations, predict the appearance of Homo futurus - the “Man of the Future”, with a large head, a reduced face and teeth, and fewer fingers. But these anatomical “losses” do not characterize all human populations. An alternative view is that modern man's biological organization allows for limitless social evolution, so he is unlikely to change as a species in the future.

Darwin's opponents have been dealt another blow. Biologists have found new evidence that human evolution continues

In a couple of years, every sixteenth resident of the American city of Framingham will end up in the clinic. The doctors themselves will persistently invite them there. First, they will send polite letters of invitation to the townspeople. Then they will call home phone. As a result, doctors hope that 4,000 of the town's 60,000 residents will come for a detailed medical examination. They will be measured and weighed, given blood tests and forced to fill out lengthy questionnaires. People in Framingham have long been accustomed to this.

Back in 1948, a large-scale medical study began here - scientists invited 5,000 people of all ages to participate in the experiment. The volunteers were examined every two years, and in 1971 the researchers switched to their children. Now doctors are working with the third generation of volunteers. 100 participants in the experiment served science even after death - they bequeathed their brains to neurophysiologists.

The results of all studies are entered into a single database. With its help, scientists are trying to figure out to what extent the tendency to various diseases is inherited. And more recently, the famous experiment attracted the attention of scientists from another field of biology. Stephen Stearns of Yale University studied how its participants changed over generations. He managed to prove: real evolution is still taking place in the modern human population.

Many scientists believe that man has long ceased to change. Seven years ago, the famous British geneticist Steve Jones sent everyone who disagreed with this thesis to the cemetery. “Look at the old Victorian headstones. You’ll immediately see how many people died in early childhood back then,” Jones told reporters before speaking at a seminar on evolutionary theory. The successes of modern medicine, he explained, have put an end to human evolution: carriers of unfavorable genes now not only live to old age, but also leave offspring - what kind of natural selection is that? Stephen Stearns convincingly refutes his British namesake.

The researcher compared the results of medical examinations of 5,000 Framingham residents of different generations. He was interested exclusively in women - simply because doctors monitored their condition with special attention. Each participant in the experiment was examined at least nine times.

Stearns was able to discover an interesting pattern - daughters were noticeably different from their mothers on a number of indicators. First of all, the scientist was struck by the difference in proportions. On average, daughters were slightly heavier than their mothers. It was not about obesity, but about a slight increase in body fat. But the blood pressure and cholesterol levels in the blood of daughters were lower than those of their parents. The differences between generations were not limited to these simple indicators. Representatives of the younger generation retained the ability to reproduce longer - menopause occurred later. All the differences between mothers and daughters were not very large - just a fraction of a percent. However, Stearns proved that all his observations were statistically reliable.

Among the participants in the experiment were women of very different origins - with English, Irish, Italian and French roots. All of them fell under the pattern discovered by the biologist. The researcher also took into account possible social differences between the volunteers. All this had a very slight effect on medical indicators.

Finally, the difference between generations could be explained by the intervention of medicine - the examination results could not but be influenced by the medications women took. First of all, these are strong hormonal agents. The biologist also refuted this version - during the experiment, women reported hormonal drugs which they accepted. Stearns studied their list and concluded that they had no influence.

Stearns now argues that his observations reflect nothing less than the course of evolution. Over many years of experimentation, natural selection has taken place in the population of modern humans, he says. And the difference between generations is the result of changes in the genotype. "You don't need to think about natural selection too categorical, says Stearns. “In order for certain genes to become widespread in a population, they do not necessarily have to directly affect the survival of their owners.” It is quite enough that people with a certain genotype will, on average, have more offspring. The biologist supports his reasoning with statistics. For example, a slight increase in weight among daughters compared to mothers was correlated with an increase in the number of children.

“It is known that hormonal status is highly dependent on fat levels,” says Stearns. “Changes in this parameter may well affect reproductive capacity.” The number of children could not but be influenced by another factor - later menopause. According to the biologist, the selection of women for these characteristics has been going on for more than one generation and his research covers only a minor stage of such evolution. However, it cannot be said that it is going so slowly. “At the same rate, traits are changing in some fish populations,” says Stearns. He cites the example of chinook salmon, one of the largest salmon species. Fish, of course, are subject to real natural selection.

Biologist built mathematical model, capable of predicting human evolution for many years to come. If everything continues like this, in 300 years the weight of the leading healthy image A woman’s life will increase by about 2%, but menopause will on average occur almost a year later.

“This work is a powerful argument in favor of the fact that selection continues in modern populations,” says renowned scientist and anti-creationism activist Jerry Coyne in his blog. Comments on this entry consist almost entirely of technical terms and links to publications - the news is discussed by professional biologists. Harvard Medical School professor Shamil Sunyaev is delighted with the new work: “No one has ever been able to track changes in the human body over such a short period of time for evolution.” True, according to him, only large-scale genetic analysis can definitively prove the presence of evolution in modern society.

Perhaps this will happen soon. More and more scientists are making such observations. And now, with the help of these studies, it is possible to prove that human evolution occurred quite recently. In 2007, an international group of geneticists led by Leena Peltonen from the University of Helsinki conducted a large-scale comparison of the genomes of representatives of various nationalities. Scientists were looking for special forms of genes responsible for the normal absorption of lactose. This carbohydrate found in milk can cause serious stomach upset in some people.

After the first five years of life, the body begins to lose the ability to absorb this substance. How quickly this happens depends on the genes. Lactose intolerance is least common in the European population. But the residents of Asia are not so lucky. Almost all of them suffer from this congenital defect. You can read about this in any biology textbook.

Europeans began drinking milk almost 10,000 years ago. At that time, lactose resistance was not very common in the population. Over time, gene variants that allow drinking milk without problems came to the fore - selection acted on them. Peltonen's group proved that the classic school example is not so simple. Scientists have discovered previously undescribed variants of genes that determine lactose resistance in the genotype of residents of Southern Italy and the Basque region. These genes were not similar to each other, but they had one thing in common - analysis showed that they arose only 1,500 years ago. For evolution this is a negligible period of time.