Names of ancient people by species. The oldest people - Pithecanthropes
the thecanthropus to the Neanderthals is relatively and absolutely very intense, although at that time the methods of primitive technology and the primitive forms of human society changed relatively little over hundreds of thousands of years.
Thanks, however, to the novelty and strength of the impact of labor on the human body, the brain of the first people experienced such rates of development that no animal has ever had and could not have. If our Miocene ancestors have dryopi-
tekov - the brain had a volume, probably 400-500 cm 3, and in Pithecanthropus it almost doubled, retaining many more primitive features, then in modern people its size has already tripled, and the shape of the brain and the complexity of its structure have changed greatly (Kochetkova, 1967). The very strong development, the large size and weight of the human brain constitute an obstacle for idealists, for religiously inclined people, to the assumption of the correctness of the scientific explanation of the natural course of the process of anthropogenesis. However, it was precisely the completely new factor of labor, unusual for a monkey, in a society of its own kind with the manufacture and use of artificial tools with the most essential needs for food and protection from enemies that very intensively stimulated the creative functions of the brain to rapid and powerful unique progress in the process of group selection (Nesturkh, 1962a).
During the Pleistocene, there was a progressive evolution of the absolute size, shape and structure of the brain of hominids in parallel with the reduction of some of its sections. Certain information about changes in the shape and size of the brain of fossil hominids was obtained from the study of casts of the internal cavity of the cerebral part of the skull.
On the inner wall of the skull of a fossil man, traces of blood vessels that once walked along the surface of the brain are clearly visible, but the convolutions of the brain are weakly projected. Even the division of the brain into parts is not always possible to establish with sufficient clarity. The same difficulties are experienced in the study of casts of the brain cavity of the skulls of modern people. All this complicates and sometimes makes it impossible to study smaller, but important areas, such as motor, speech and lower parietal areas, which have great importance from an evolutionary point of view.
The human brain is enclosed in membranes that are adjacent to the wall of the brain cavity much closer in a child than in an adult, therefore, casts of the cerebral cavity of the child's skull better express the structure of the surface of the brain. Tilly Edinger (Edinger, 1929) points out that in humans, as well as anthropoids, elephants, whales and other animals with a large brain covered with convolutions, the surface of the cast of the brain cavity seems to be almost smooth, Edinger writes that if “one wants to examine the brain by cast of the cranial cavity, as a paleoneurologist is forced to do, he wanders in the dark.
In this respect, Edinger rather agrees with Symington (1915), who believes that:
1) one cannot judge the simplicity or complexity of the relief of the brain from a cast of the cavity of the human skull;
2) from the casts of the brain cavity of the Neanderthal skull from La Chapelle-aux-Seine, one cannot even approximately judge the relative development of the sensory and associative zones of the cortex;
3) various conclusions of Boole, Anthony, Elliot-Smith and others
researchers in relation to the primitive and simian features of the brain of some prehistoric people, obtained by studying the spanking of the cavity of the cerebral part of the skull, are highly speculative and erroneous.
Nevertheless, these casts make it possible, as Edinger agrees, to draw some conclusions about the form and the main features of the brain, for example, about the degree of development of the frontal and occipital lobes. Thus, E. Dubois (Dubois, 1924), when describing a cast of the brain cavity of a Pithecanthropus, emphasizes that important, although not direct, indications of the characteristic features of the original form of the human brain are visible on the print. The brain of Pithecanthropus, judging by the model, had very narrow frontal lobes with a strong development of the inferior frontal gyrus. Dubois believes that the latter proves the possibility of developing articulate speech.
According to Dubois, the flatness of the Pithecanthropus brain cast in the parietal region is very characteristic. The similarity with the brain of other hominids lies in the fact that its greatest width lies 3/5 of the length from the anterior edge of the frontal region. In general, the Pithecanthropus brain, according to Dubois, is, as it were, an enlarged copy of the brain of great apes. Some features bring it closer to the gibbon brain: this, according to Dubois, is evidenced by the position of the superior precentral gyrus and other signs.
To judge the type of Neanderthal, casts from the following skulls are usually used: Neanderthal, La Chapelle-au-Seine, Gibraltar, La Quipa. Edinger gives (with reservations) the following characterization of the Neanderthal brain: by the type of structure it is a human brain, but with pronounced monkey features. It is long and low, narrower in front, wider behind; the elevation in the parietal region is lower than that of modern man, but higher than that of great apes. By a smaller number of furrows and their location, to a certain extent, it resembles the brain of great apes. The same is evidenced by the angle of origin of the medulla oblongata and the sharpness of the frontal lobe in the form of a beak, as well as the greater development of the occipital lobes, which contain the visual zone. The vermis in the cerebellum is relatively more developed than in modern man, and this is a more primitive feature.
More confidence, according to Edinger, can be given to data on the main brain sizes of fossil hominids (Table 5).
From Table. Figure 5 shows that some Neanderthals had relatively large heads and large brains.
In the same way, it was possible, although not always, to obtain sufficiently accurate figures characterizing the volume of the cerebral cavity of the skull of other hominids. Of all the formed (earliest and ancient) people, the Neanderthal from La Chapelle-aux-Seine apparently had the maximum volume of the brain box (1600 cm 3), and Pithecanthropus II - minimal (750 cm 3). In Neanderthals, the range of variations in its volume was comparable to
Table 5
Dimensions of the skull and cast of the brain cavity (endocran) in hominids (according to T. Edinger, 1929)
is still relatively small, amounting to approximately 500 cm 3 against 900 - in modern man. However, one should not forget that the minimum and maximum (range of variations) also depend on the number of individuals studied. The length of the endocrane of a modern person is approximately 166 mm, and the width is 134 mm (Bunak, 1953).
The brain of fossil hominids is characterized by the development of asymmetry in its shape. The left hemisphere is usually more strongly developed, which may indicate the predominant use of the right hand. Right-handedness or left-handedness is feature humans as opposed to mammals. Significant asymmetry of the upper limbs could appear only after our ancestors developed upright posture and labor appeared.
Asymmetry in the size of the hemispheres is already seen in Pithecanthropus. According to E. Smith (Smith, 1934), he had to be left-handed. On the contrary, F. Tilney (Tilney, 1928) draws attention to the fact that the left frontal lobe of the Pithecanthropus was larger, and believes that this indicates rather his right-handedness. In general, the stronger development of the left hemisphere in Pithecanthropus can be judged by the fact that on its skull a more noticeable depression is visible on the inner surface of the left occipital bone. Asymmetries were also noted on the cast of the brain cavity of the Sinanthropus skull.
Brain asymmetry is clearly seen in Neanderthals, in which it is visible in a form typical of modern humans. On a cast of the brain cavity of the skull from La Chapelle-aux-Seine, the left hemisphere is shorter than the right by
3 mm, but wider than it by 7 mm and higher, and the parietal-temporal area protrudes more strongly on it. Added to this is the fact that in the skeleton of the right hand, the humerus from La Chapelle-aux-Seine is larger than the left.
On the cast of the brain cavity of the Gibraltar skull, the occipital lobe of the left hemisphere clearly protrudes backward more strongly. On the cast of the cranial cavity from La Quina, the left hemisphere is longer, while the right is more developed. Finally, in a Neanderthal cast of the cranial cavity, the right hemisphere is larger than the left.
From this description it can be seen that among the most ancient and ancient hominids, right-handedness seemed to occur more often or on an equal footing with left-handedness. The form and method of making stone tools, as well as the wall paintings of ancient people, sometimes also make it possible to judge the predominant use of the left or right hand. According to R. Kobler (Kobler, 1932), people first developed a left-handed bone; later, due to the use of more complex shapes weapons (for example, in combination with such a defensive device as a shield), the right hand began to be used predominantly. Kobler refers to the fact that most of the oldest tools show traces of their processing with the left hand. But Edinger reports that primitive people of the Upper Paleolithic, 2/3 of all flint tools were made by right-handers, as well as wall paintings in caves. Casts of the brain cavity of the skulls of fossil forms of modern humans and their descendants are similar in all essentials.
As a result, one can rather agree with J. J. Kenningham (1902), who, even before the brain casts of fossil people became known, wrote that right-handedness developed as a characteristic feature of man already at a very early period of his evolution, in all likelihood, before how the ability to articulate speech developed. He notes that the left hemisphere of most modern people is more developed than the right.
So, as a result of a long development from ape to man over the past few million years, the brain of our ancestors - Miocene and then Pliocene anthropoids - increased and changed, and in the Pleistocene experienced a special rise in development in fossil hominids and reached a high development to the stage of people of the modern type (Koenigswald, 1959).
The evolution of the human brain becomes understandable in the light of Darwin's teaching on the development of the organic world and Engels' teaching on the role of labor in the process of man's formation. The brain reached a high level of development already in the immediate predecessors of the hominids, i.e., in the Australopithecus, but this development received a special, powerful impetus only when labor actions arose among the Pithecanthropes.
The transition from ape to man would have been unthinkable without the presence of a highly developed brain in his closest ancestor. This greatly contributed to the fact that there were drastic changes in the behavior of our ancestors, new
forms of life, i.e., methods of obtaining food and protection from enemies, special techniques in carrying out other necessary actions with the help of artificial organs in the form of manufactured tools.
Darwin put in a prominent place the high mental development of our ancestors. According to him, the mind should have been of paramount importance for a person even in a very ancient era, since it made it possible to invent and use articulate speech, make weapons, tools, traps, etc. As a result, a person, with the help of his social habits, has long became the dominant of all living beings.
Further, Darwin writes: “The development of the mind had to take a significant step forward when, thanks to previous successes, speech came into use in man as a half art and half instinct. Indeed, prolonged use of speech must have affected the brain and caused hereditary changes, and these, in turn, must have influenced the improvement of the language. The great volume of the brain of man, as compared with the lower animals, in relation to the size of their body, may be principally attributed, as Mr. Chauncey Wright rightly remarked, to the early use of some simple form of speech, that wondrous mechanism which designates various kinds of objects and properties by certain signs and evokes a series of thoughts that could never be born from sensory impressions alone, or even if they were born, could not develop ”(Soch., vol. 5, p. 648).
For the evolution of the human brain, the emergence and development of articulate speech, which is probably a very ancient acquisition of man, was of exceptional importance. According to Engels, it originated already during the transitional period from ape to man, that is, in developing people. Describing the historical stages of culture, Engels presumably speaks of the lowest section of the first of them, that is, the epoch of savagery, as follows: “Childhood of the human race. People were still in their original places of residence, in tropical or subtropical forests. They lived, partly at least, in trees; only this can explain their existence among large predatory animals. Their food was fruits, nuts, roots; the main achievement of this period is the emergence of articulate speech. Of all the peoples that have become known in the historical period, not one was already in this primitive state. And although it probably lasted for many millennia, we cannot prove it on the basis of direct evidence; but, recognizing the origin of man from the animal kingdom, it is necessary to allow such a transitional state ”(Marx and Engels. Works, vol. 21, pp. 23-178).
Some people attribute the origin of sound speech quite far, to the times of the Lower or Middle Paleolithic. Sinanthropus, maybe
be, it already possessed in its infancy. The Neanderthals probably already had the initial stage of it.
Black believes that Sinanthropus already had the ability for articulate speech. It must be assumed that the Javanese Pithecanthropes were still really non-speaking people; they, like animals, had a number of vital inarticulate sounds that denoted one or another internal state, but had a signal, labor meaning and were more diverse than those of modern chimpanzees. Probably, the most ancient people, like the anthropoids of the chimpanzee mud, also used ineffective, relatively quiet vocal sounds, or “life noises”, which, according to V.V. Bunak, were of particular importance for the emergence of speech (Bunak, 1951, 1966, Yerkes, Learned, 1925).
American scientists Robert Yerkes and Blanche Learned specifically studied the sounds made by chimpanzees. They came to the conclusion that chimpanzees have about thirty peculiar sounds and that each of these sounds has its own specific signal meaning, denoting some kind of internal state or attitude to the phenomena occurring around. It is possible, however, that there are not so many of these sounds in chimpanzees, a dozen or two - two and a half.
Little is known about the sounds made by gorillas. They usually describe the roar of a male going to the enemy. One scientist observed a male mountain gorilla sitting on a lying tree along with two females: the scientist heard soft sounds that they peacefully exchanged with each other. The number of basic sounds in gorillas is small (Shaller, 1968). Orangutans have few sounds: they are silent and emit a growl, roar or screech only under some special circumstances - when frightened, in anger, in pain. The loud sounds made by gibbons can be heard for miles.
All attempts by Robert Yerkes to teach his chimpanzees to speak ended in failure, although he used various teaching methods. Yerkes intended to apply to chimpanzees also the methods by which specialist educators teach deaf-mute children to speak. If such attempts could be crowned with a certain success, then only if suitable training methods are applied to the smallest cubs, since the ontogenetic development of the brain in chimpanzees ends earlier than in humans.
But it must be borne in mind that the main reason why it is very difficult for monkeys to teach even a few words is, first of all, the rudimentary state of their speech zones. In addition, one cannot ignore the noticeable differences in the structure of the vocal apparatus in monkeys compared with humans (see the articles by VV Bunak, 1951 and 1966b mentioned above).
Ludwig Edinger (1911), noting the high development of the chimpanzee's cerebral cortex, admits that a patient trainer could teach a few words to an ape, but the ape always remains
would be at an immeasurably distant distance from a person, since the foundations for a clear understanding, that is, the corresponding parts of the brain, are not developed in her.
Many authors believe that the presence of a chin protrusion is an anatomical prerequisite for the development of human speech. This protrusion is present only in modern man. It was absent, as a rule, in Neanderthals, it was not in ape-men, and also (except for the joint-toed gibbon - siamang) it is not present in modern and fossil monkeys and semi-monkeys.
The emergence of sound speech does not necessarily need to be associated with the presence of a chin protrusion, since the production of articulate sounds requires, first of all, a clear coordinated work of everything speech apparatus, including the sensory and memory zones of the brain, located in phylogenetically new areas of the parietal and temporal lobes.
The formation of the chin protrusion in humans occurred, according to L. Bolk, mainly due to the reduction of that part of the lower jaw that bears teeth. The lower half, which makes up the body of the jaw itself, underwent a reduction process to a lesser extent, as a result of which the chin protrusion was designated.
Among mammals, some analogy could be seen in the protruding chin of the lower jaw of an elephant, since its dental system has undergone an even stronger reduction, as a result of which it consists of only four molars and two upper incisors, or tusks, that is, all of six teeth.
Speech function could only have a secondary effect on the main process of the formation of the chin protrusion (Gremyatsky, 1922). For the development of speech in humans, the transformation of the shape of the jaw from elongated to horseshoe-shaped, an increase in the volume of the oral cavity in which the tongue moves, as well as a freer movement of the jaw in new directions due to a decrease in the size of the fangs, had no less positive significance.
Incomparably more important for the development of articulate speech are the anatomical and physiological features of the corresponding sections of the cortex of the frontal region of the cerebral hemispheres (along with the temporal and parietal). Attempts have been made to establish on the casts of the brain cavity of fossil people the degree of development of this so important section of the cortex. Unfortunately, from a cast of the brain cavity of the skull, or endocran, even with a cast of the brain cavity of the skull of a modern person, it is difficult to draw a conclusion about the use of articulate speech (Edinger, 1929). It is also very difficult to study the brain itself. The model of the cavity of the cranium gives an idea only of what the shape of the brain was, dressed in its shells, which form such a dense cover that they very much hide the convolutions and furrows of the brain, revealing clearly only a picture of the location of larger blood vessels. But-
The first successful attempt to study the endocranes of hominids was made using a large amount of material in the brain laboratory of the Institute of Anthropology (Kochetkova, 1966).
Articulate speech is not an innate property. This follows, in particular, from the description of rare cases when children grew up in complete isolation or among animals, far from human society, and, being found, did not know how to speak. Of the connections and relationships of an individual and group nature among the ancient hominids, those that developed on the basis of labor processes were of the greatest importance for the emergence of speech. During the collective hunting of animals and the subsequent distribution of meat among members of society, during the joint production of tools, during the activities during the working day, filled with the struggle for existence, people constantly felt the need for such a sound signal that would regulate and direct their actions. Thus, various sounds, as well as the facial expressions and gestures associated with them, became vitally important for them, showing in a generally understandable form the necessity of certain actions and not others, the usefulness of acts, one way or another agreed between members of the primitive herd. Voice sounds were of particular importance in the dark. On the other hand, the gathering of our ancestors around a fire in a cave should also have contributed to the development of a spoken language. The use of fire and the invention of ways to obtain it, presumably, gave a powerful impetus to the development of articulate speech already among the Neanderthals. The Marxist explanation of how articulate speech arose and developed was given by Engels. He came to the conclusion that speech, as a means of communication between people, necessarily arose from the sounds of the voice that accompanied and preceded labor operations, as well as other joint actions of members of the collective of people who were being formed. Engels writes:
“Beginning with the development of the hand, along with labor, the mastery over nature expanded the horizons of man with each new step forward. In natural objects, he constantly discovered new, hitherto unknown properties. On the other hand, the development of labor necessarily contributed to a closer unity of the members of society, since thanks to it, cases of mutual support, joint activity became more frequent, and the consciousness of the benefits of this joint activity for each individual member became clearer. In short, emerging people came to the fact that they had the need to say something each other. Need created its own organ: the undeveloped larynx of the monkey was slowly but steadily transformed by modulation for more and more developed modulation, and the organs of the mouth gradually learned to pronounce one articulate sound after another ”(Marx and Engels. Works, vol. 20, p. 489).
If the high development of the brain along with upright
hand and hand was the most important prerequisite for the emergence of speech, the reverse effect of speech on the brain is no less important. Engels wrote: “First, work, and then articulate speech along with it, were the two most important stimuli under the influence of which the monkey brain gradually turned into a human brain” (ibid., p. 490).
Being an extremely profitable, socially useful phenomenon, speech inevitably developed further and further.
In support of his theory of the development of language in the labor process, Engels draws on examples from the life of animals. While for wild animals the sound of human speech can, generally speaking, only denote a sign of possible danger, for domestic animals, for example for dogs, human speech is made intelligible in a number of respects, no matter what language a person speaks, but, of course, only within their own range of ideas.
For pets, the words spoken by a person become signals of certain actions that must be followed by a person or be performed by them themselves. Animals that are more capable of rapid and stable formation of conditioned reflexes, of training, also turn out to be the most intelligent in a tamed or domestic state, when compliance with the necessary actions, according to these signals, can lead to approval, and non-compliance causes punishment.
The sounds of articulate speech, which initially served, most likely, as signals of actions, then began to designate objects and phenomena as well; the number of sound signals increased; their strength, pitch, timbre (overtones), intonation, and sequence acquired increasing importance. In connection with the development of the sound language, the speech apparatus that produced them also evolved. The auditory analyzer was also improved, which in humans, in comparison with some mammals, is not always so refined in terms of capturing the smallest differences in pitch and in the timbre of the sounds of articulate speech. But man is sharply superior in understanding their inner meaning, in particular, when it comes to certain combinations of sounds: in this respect, his auditory analyzer is highly specialized, making it possible to distinguish a much greater number and meaning of sounds than is available to any animal. At the same time, the peripheral part of the auditory analyzer in humans, like in some monkeys, underwent reduction, which is indicated, in particular, by the almost complete immobility of the human auricle with its rudimentary muscles.
The cortical section of the human auditory analyzer, according to the study of S. M. Blinkov (1955), is qualitatively different and sharply superior in complexity of structure to the corresponding section even in anthropoids; the same applies to the entire temporal lobe. However, not only the frontal, temporal and parietal lobes, but the entire cortex as a whole take part in the formation of speech.
Verbal thinking is found only in humans: the second signaling system, according to the term of IP Pavlov, is the most important basis for the development of consciousness. Being inextricably linked with the first signal system, covering conditioned reflexes of the usual type, the second signal system combines conscious conditioned reflexes peculiar only to man to words that signify actions, objects, relationships between them, concepts, etc. The thesis of I. P. Pavlov about the second signal system is one of the greatest achievements of Soviet science. It makes it possible to deepen the development of Engels' idea of the origin of speech in labor processes. This problem attracted the attention of the largest Russian thinkers. We read very interesting lines regarding the emergence of speech from A. M. Gorky: “It is known that all the abilities that distinguish a person from an animal have developed and continue to develop in labor processes, the ability of articulate speech also originated on this soil.” ( complete collection soch., 1953, v. 27, p. 164). First, he says, verbal and measuring forms (heavy, far) developed, then the names of tools. According to A. M. Gorky, there were no meaningless words in the initial speech (p. 138). Both speech and the mind of a person are put by A.M. Gorky into the closest, organic connection with labor activity: “The human mind has kindled in the work of reorganizing grossly organized matter and in itself is nothing more than finely organized and more and more finely organized energy, extracted from this same energy by working with it and over it, by researching and mastering its powers and qualities” (ibid., pp. 164-165).
Probably, articulate speech contributed to the progressive development of mankind already in the Neanderthal phase of its formation: the intensive development of speech at that time, probably, to a large extent contributed to the transformation of ancient people into a higher type of Cro-Magnons. The later Neanderthals, with their ability to make fire, the emerging custom of burying the dead in caves, grottoes that served as dwellings, with their bone processing techniques, stood above their predecessors, i.e., earlier Neanderthals (Semenov, 1959).
To an even greater extent, articulate speech developed and became more complicated among fossil people of the modern type, that is, among the “new” or “ready” - “reasonable” people, more and more rapidly passing through subsequent epochs of history material culture, stages of socio-economic development (Voino, 1964).
As can be seen from the previous presentation, modern humanity is the result of a long evolution, which in the first, longest segment of the phylogenetic genealogy of man was an integral part of the general course of development of the animal world with its characteristic biological patterns.
But the very appearance of the first people with their labor, public,
language was a leap, a special break in gradualness in the course of the evolution of their immediate ancestors. Through a sharp transition, a sharp, decisive turn in the course of evolution, a new stage in the development of living matter began, when the most ancient mankind arose. This was the beginning of a completely new process of human formation - hominization. The most ancient and ancient people that were being formed were not animals, as suggested by B. F. Porshnev (1955a), who considers only representatives of the Homo sapiens species to be people.
The work of the most ancient and ancient people, who made tools, fundamentally, qualitatively, differs from the "labor" of beavers, ants, bees, nest-building birds. Only natural, biological factors act in the evolution of animals.
Under the influence of a combination of social and biological factors, the transformation of apes into humans took place: this process of formation, qualitatively different from the evolution of the animal world, can be correctly understood only in the light of Engels's dialectical-materialist doctrine of the decisive role of labor.
According to Ya. Ya. Roginsky (1967), the appearance of labor actions marked the beginning of a dialectical leap from animal to man - the first turning point in the evolution of hominids, and the second - with the advent of modern man and the opening of the era of the domination of social laws, means the end of the leap. The development of the culture of modern man is not associated with progressive evolution, as was the case with the paleoanthrope or archanthrope. The entire course of the formation of hominids under the influence of labor naturally led to the emergence of a new quality in the neoanthrope. For any modern nation, regardless of its racial composition, the transition to a higher socio-historical formation takes place regardless of the evolutionary process, under the influence of only historical patterns.
The dialectical-materialistic idea of the process of the formation of a person, his brain, speech, thinking serves in Soviet anthropology as the most solid basis for an in-depth study of anthropogenesis, for the struggle against all and sundry idealistic hypotheses in this field of the science of man, as well as in the field of racial science to expose racism on based on anthropological data.
| Foreword | ||
| Part I. Darwinian and other hypotheses of anthropogenesis |
||
| Chapter first | Darwin on the origin of man | |
| The idea of anthropogenesis before Darwin |
||
| Darwin on the evolution of the animal kingdom |
||
| Human ancestry according to Darwin |
||
| Essay on the development of knowledge about primates |
||
| Development of primatology in the USSR | ||
| Chapter Two | Great apes and their origin | |
| Modern anthropoids |
||
| fossil anthropoids | ||
| Chapter Three | The latest hypotheses of the origin of man and their criticism |
|
| Religious interpretations of anthropogenesis |
||
| Tarsia hypothesis |
||
| Simial hypotheses |
||
| Osborn's Anthropogenesis Hypothesis |
||
| Weidenreich's Anthropogenesis Hypothesis |
||
| Some factors of hominization and extinction of Pliocene and Pleistocene fossil anthropoids | ||
| Part II. Features of the structure human body and the emergence of ancient people | ||
| Chapter first | Man as a Primate | |
| Features of the adaptability of the human body to upright posture |
||
| Characteristic features of the human body that are not directly related to upright posture |
||
| Special similarities between humans and anthropoids |
||
| Rudiments and atavisms in humans | ||
| Chapter Two | The role of labor and bipedalism in anthropogenesis |
|
| The role of labor |
||
| Modes of locomotion in great apes |
||
| Body weight at center of gravity in humans and apes |
||
| lower limbs |
||
| Bone pelvis, spine and thorax |
||
| upper limbs |
||
| Body proportions and asymmetries |
||
| Scull | ||
| Chapter Three | The brain and higher nervous activity man and apes |
|
| The brain and analyzers of humans and monkeys |
||
| Development of peripheral parts of analyzers |
||
| Higher nervous activity of monkeys |
||
| The second signal system is a characteristic difference in human thinking | ||
| Chapter Four | Herding in monkeys and rudimentary forms of labor |
|
| herding in monkeys |
||
| Rudimentary forms of labor |
||
| Anthropogenesis and its factors | ||
| Part III. The formation of man according to paleoanthropology |
||
| Chapter first | ||
| Literature | ||
Myth #1: Neanderthals had very big eyes.
This is one of the fresh, but already spread pseudo-scientific myths. Look at the Neanderthal skull: it has huge eye sockets! And that means big eyes. Perhaps Neanderthals were twilight or even nocturnal? Imagine a squat creature with headlight eyes like an owl's, hiding in caves during the day, but as soon as the sun disappears, it silently crawls out onto big road, sneaking up on a peacefully sleeping mammoth. Where did the talk about huge eyes come from? In the spring of 2013, the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences published an article by English anthropologists who put forward an original hypothesis: Neanderthals lived for a long time in the north, where "there is less sun than in the tropics." Their visual system adapted to the dusk, and their eyes grew in size. Accordingly, the area of the visual cortex of the brain also increased, to the detriment of thinking and the ability to communicate. The researchers decided to test their hypothesis: they calculated the average size of the eye sockets of Neanderthals and ancient sapiens, and in Neanderthals they really turned out to be larger on average - 6 mm in height and almost 3 mm in width. Then this news gets into the media, and from there - into our heads. But how do you like this fact: among modern races, the highest eye sockets ... in the Mongoloids! And they have the smallest eyes. The suggestion that northerners must have large eyes to see better in constant twilight also fails empirical testing. According to this logic, the equatorials should have the smallest eyes, and the inhabitants of the Far North should have the largest ones. In fact, it's exactly the opposite. In addition, a number of studies of modern primates have shown that there is no direct relationship between the size of their eye sockets and the size of their eyes ... not revealed. Therefore, we will continue to trust the classical reconstructions, in which Neanderthals are the owners of albeit sad, but quite human eyes.
Summary: Neanderthals did not have large eyes, but large eye sockets. Studies have not revealed a direct relationship between the size of the eye sockets and the eyes in humanoids. Modern inhabitants of the North - the owners of large eye sockets - do not differ at all with large eyes.
Myth No. 2: Ancient people walked wrapped in skins and with a club in their hand.
A shaggy savage in a skin and with a heavy club clutched in his paw is a classic image of mass culture, which may never have existed in nature. Great apes use sticks, which means, most likely, Australopithecus had enough brains to swing a stick for intimidation and protection. However, the finds of prehistoric "clubs" are unknown to archaeologists. And even if something similar were found, how to distinguish a club from an ordinary fragment of a branch or trunk? The oldest undisputed wooden tool is a spear. The wooden tools now used by the tribes of Africa or Australia are not at all like those spectacular gnarled monsters that our ancestors invariably equip in classical illustrations. Of course, there are no finds of “cloaks of skins” in which our ancestors were wrapped, although, probably, ancient people wore something similar. Something else is important here. Apparently, the source from which the authors of popular pictures and descriptions of prehistoric life drew their inspiration is not archaeological finds or scientific facts, but popular publications and cinema. The replicated "caveman" became a kind of brand, the hero of commercials and even comedy cartoons (The Flintstones, 1960).
Alexander Sokolov. "Myths about human evolution"
Artists portrayed people of the Stone Age, guided by their ideas of what a real savage should be: powerful, furry and ruthless. However, the roots of the “caveman with a club” image can be found in a much deeper past. It turns out that the wild man (wildman) was popular character even in the Middle Ages. His image appears in European literature and decorative arts, on tapestries, bas-reliefs and even on coins, adorns coats of arms. The “wild man” was depicted as completely covered with hair, and in his hands, you guessed it, he was clutching a club. From the depths of centuries, from the depths of the human subconscious, the image of the “wild man” has come down to us in all its primeval beauty.
Summary: "Caveman" is a very stable archetype that has been living in human culture for more than 2 thousand years. In the last quarter of the 19th century, the image of the "wild man" fit perfectly into the newfangled idea of the origin of man from animals. And - under the mask of either a Neanderthal or a Cro-Magnon - our renewed hero returned to popular culture. So natural science and folklore imperceptibly mixed up. "Wild Man" is not a product of scientific research, but of folklore and popular culture.
Myth #3: Ancient people were very hairy.
Ask anyone you know to describe primitive man. Most likely, the word "hairy" will be in the top three epithets. Shaggy, covered with hair - this is how we remember them from illustrations in popular books, where the emphasis was on the bestial essence, the ape-like ancestor. But what do we really know about their hairline, and at what point did it disappear? Did it happen gradually, or did the hair fall out all at once and completely? Even so, the loss of hair should have been accompanied by a parallel restructuring of many systems: the number of sweat glands increased, the fat layer thickened, and the entire mechanism of thermoregulation changed. The growth of hair on the head, on the contrary, increased, and the men, in addition, grew an impressive beard. Paleontology will not help us: bones are preserved in the fossil form, but not hair. Yes, mammoth carcasses are sometimes extracted from permafrost, but no one has found Neanderthal mummies. And yet, Neanderthals did not differ fundamentally from us in terms of skeletal structure and lifestyle: they did not live in forests, but in open areas, used fire and tools, and went hunting. We are unlikely to be mistaken if we assume that there was no radical difference between us and them in terms of the degree of hairiness. In 2004, experts studied variations in the gene responsible for skin color in Africans and concluded that human skin became dark at least 1.2 million years ago. In great apes, under the coat, the skin is light, as it is protected from ultraviolet radiation by the hairline. It should have darkened after our ancestors lost their wool. This means that already more than a million years ago people were not “shaggy troglodytes”. Why is our hair thinning? Here is a possible explanation. After our ancestors got down from the trees and went out into the savannah, under the scorching sun, they needed a more efficient system of thermoregulation. The number of glands that secrete sweat increased, which, evaporating, lowered the body temperature. In such a situation, the hairline was more of a hindrance: evaporation occurs more efficiently from the open surface of the skin. So the fur disappeared. Please note that on the head exposed to the sun's rays, a cap of hair has been preserved, which performs the function of thermal protection. You ask: why didn't the ancient people again become overgrown with wool when they went north, into the cold? You can answer this way: instead of waiting for the mercy of evolution, man invented clothes and a hearth. The disappeared wool was replaced by a warm skin taken from a dead animal. The walls of the cave or hut protected from rain and wind, and the fire made it possible to survive the harsh winter.
Summary: It is believed that ancient people were very hairy. Unlike bones, hair decomposes quickly, so the degree of hairiness of our ancestors can only be guessed at. However, it is very likely that the hairline disappeared already in the early stages of human evolution.
Myth #4: Ancient people had knee-length arms, short and crooked legs, and walked hunched over.
Short, absurd, with monkey-like long arms, the Neanderthal cowardly huddles up to the entrance to the cave ... An important role in creating such a repulsive image was played by the French anthropologist Marceline Boulle. In 1911, in a book on the skeleton of a Neanderthal old man from La Chapelle-aux-Seine, Boule described the Neanderthal as a stooped subhuman, with his neck stretched forward, moving on half-bent legs. And the artist Frantisek Kupka, under the guidance of Buhl, embodied the image created by the anthropologist on paper. It turned out to be an extremely unattractive creature, something like a character in a horror movie. Decades later, it turned out that the signs that Buhl took as characteristic of Neanderthals were actually the result of old age: the old man was twisted by arthritis. In his youth, he could well have been a stately handsome man with his head held high. However, the standard has been set. And off we go. Hairy and scary, with a large, mask-like face, massive eyebrows and no hint of a forehead, clutching a huge stone and moving like a baboon. This is how the ancient man entered the mass consciousness. As you understand, finding a complete skeleton that would include both upper and lower limbs, so that proportions and posture can be assessed, is a rare success. For a long time, anthropologists had to be content with fragments and guess the rest. They reasoned as follows: since evolution is a smooth and uniform process, then all parts of the human body "humanized" gradually and synchronously. A primitive head should correspond to an ape-like body (although the first finds of Pithecanthropus contradicted this: an almost modern femur was attached to the archaic skull). It seemed logical that Neanderthals, and even more so Pithecanthropes, climbed down from the trees yesterday and did not have time to really master walking on two legs. The stereotype has survived. It is now known that our ancestors became upright several million years before the appearance of Pithecanthropus: this time is more than enough to achieve high skill in walking and running on foot. Judging by the structure of the legs, pelvis and spine, Australopithecus already walked lightly and naturally, and there was absolutely no need for them to stoop.
Summary: The image of hunched, crooked and awkward ancient people arose at the beginning of the last century on the basis of early ideas about the stages of human evolution. The formation of the stereotype was facilitated by the study of the skeleton of a Neanderthal old man: scientists incorrectly interpreted age-related changes as inherent in the whole species. Now we know that almost modern proportions and the structure of the body (except for the skull) developed among ancient people already 1.5 million years ago. We can be quite proud of the posture of our ancestors.
Myth #5: Ancient people were giants
What epic did without giants, titans, giants or cyclops? Of course, it is tempting to think that the mythical characters had real prototype- some ancient race, builders of gigantic stone structures, which are beyond the power of an ordinary person to erect. What do supporters of the reality of the ancient giants cite as evidence? Firstly, spectacular photographs of huge skeletons and perfectly preserved, and secondly, eyewitness accounts - for example, peasants who once found huge bones right in their garden. True, then these bones usually disappeared somewhere. Thirdly, megalithic buildings - for example, the famous Stonehenge. People of our complexion with you, with the then technologies, were not able to drag multi-ton stones for tens or even hundreds of kilometers, only giants are capable of this! Fourth, quotes from chronicles, diaries medieval travelers who described encounters with giants on an exotic island, in Patagonia, in the snowy Himalayas, or somewhere else at the end of the world. And finally, stories about the remains of Gigantopithecus and Meganthropes found already in the 20th century. Well, well-packaged, such a set of arguments makes a strong impression on the unprepared reader. But speaking seriously, it is easy to make sure that the photographs of "huge skeletons" are a banal photomontage, and in some cases even the author of the fakes is known. Eyewitness accounts are not evidence. The honest eyes of an eyewitness cannot replace the main thing - the finds themselves. Meganthropes and Gigantopithecus have long found their place on the evolutionary tree, but they have nothing to do with the legendary "giants" and definitely did not build Stonehenge (Gigantopithecus are relatives of orangutans, and meganthropes are now classified as Javanese Homo erectus). The builders of megaliths have also been known for a long time, described, and in some cases experimentally tested technologies that make it possible to build Stonehenge without the help of giants or aliens. In addition, when getting acquainted with biomechanics and the laws of physics, it becomes obvious that a person who mysteriously grew to several meters would not be able to move normally. His legs would break, crushed by the weight of his own body. Take a look at real giant animals - elephants or at least gorillas, at the shape of their body, at the thickness of their limbs. A primate that grew to the size of an elephant, and even walked upright, would have completely inhuman proportions. What does paleoanthropology say about the growth of our ancestors? Despite the difficulties associated with the reconstruction of a fossil creature, modern science has accumulated considerable statistics on the size of the body of ancient people. And we can say with confidence that in the process of evolution, the growth of our ancestors did not decrease, but increased.
Summary: Science knows neither the finds of the remains of giant people, nor any indirect evidence of their existence in the past. Judging by the data of paleoanthropologists, in the process of evolution, the growth of our ancestors did not decrease, but increased. Compared to Australopithecus, we are real giants.
Alexey Gerasimenko, Samogo.Net
The question of when the most ancient man appeared and where our ancestral home is located has not yet been finally resolved by scientists. Most researchers are of the opinion that Africa is such a place, and either the Eastern and Southern, or the North-Eastern parts of the African continent are called as the small homeland of mankind. Before the discovery in the north of Tanzania in the Olduvai Gorge of many finds of the prehistoric period, it was customary to consider Near East and Western Asia as such a small homeland.
Olduvai Gorge. In the north of Tanzania, there is a gorge that gave archaeologists the opportunity to make the greatest discovery. The remains of more than 60 hominids have been found here, as well as two early stone tools. This area was discovered by the German entomologist Wilhelm Kattwinkel in 1911, when he fell there while chasing a butterfly. The research began in 1913 under the leadership of the archaeologist Hans Reck, but the First World War prevented the research. In 1931, the excavations were continued by the Leakey family of archaeologists. They were able to find several types of hominids here at once, including Australopithecus. Of particular note is the discovery of Homo habilis - a creature resembling an Australopithecus, but already a skillful and upright man who lived more than 2 million years ago. In this area, the remains of large antelopes, elephants, hares, giraffes and subsequently extinct hipparions were found. Olduvai Gorge contains a large number of remnants that have been able to strengthen the argument that humanity originated in Africa. The finds made it possible to understand how hominids lived. So, in 1975, Mary Leakey found footprints that showed that the ancestors walked on two legs. This discovery became one of the most important in paleontology of the last century.
There is a hypothesis suggesting that humanity arose in a vast territory, including the North - Eastern part Africa, as well as the southern half of Eurasia.
The African continent looks very attractive to many archaeologists, since the prehistoric finds discovered there lay in geological layers with a large number of animal remains, and for exact definition their age can be used potassium - argon research method.
The dating of geologists, paleontologists and the data obtained from the results of radiometric measurements made it possible for archaeologists to prove the age of African finds more convincingly compared to other territories. In addition, the historical finds of Louis Leakey in the Olduvai Gorge attracted particular interest to Africa, and it was here that the search for the most ancient man was most intensively conducted. However, after the finds in Georgia, Israel, Central Asia and Yakutia, the question of the ancestral home of mankind again became controversial.
And here is another sensation that once again turned the views of scientists towards Africa. A team of scientists led by Dr. Johannes Haile - Zelassi from the Cleveland Museum announced an amazing find. They found and analyzed the remains of a 3.6-million-year-old Homo erectus. A well-preserved skeleton was discovered in Ethiopia in the Afar region on the territory of Woranso - Mille (in 2005).
According to researchers, the hominid is a representative of the species Australopithecus afarensis. He was called "Kadanuumuu", which is translated from the local language as "big man". Indeed, the hominid had a height of 1.5 - 1.65 m. Examination of the remains of the limbs showed that he walked like modern people, relying on only two limbs. The found skeleton allows scientists to better understand how a person's ability to walk upright was formed.
Australopithecus afarensis
Undoubtedly, in the future, archaeological research will bring new interesting discoveries, and it is very likely that the question of the most ancient person will become the subject of heated discussions among scientists more than once.
Stages of human evolution
Scientists argue that modern man did not originate from modern anthropoid apes, which are characterized by a narrow specialization (adaptation to a strictly defined lifestyle in tropical forests), but from highly organized animals that died out several million years ago - driopithecus.
|
Dryopithecus includes a single genus with three subgenera, several species, a subfamily of extinct great apes: dryopithecus, proconsuls, sivapithecus.
sivapithecus They lived in the Upper Miocene, from 12 to 9 million years ago, and probably had great ape ancestors. Traces have been found in East Africa, Western Europe, South Asia.
Dryopithecus They ate plant foods, such as fruits. Most of their lives were spent in trees. The first species was discovered in France in 1856. The five-peak pattern of its molar teeth, known as Y-5, is typical of dryopithecines and hominoids in general. Other representatives of this species have been found in Hungary, Spain and China. |
The process of human evolution is very long, its main stages are presented in the diagram.
The main stages of anthropogenesis (the evolution of human ancestors)
According to paleontological finds (fossil remains), about 30 million years ago, ancient parapithecus primates appeared on Earth, living on open spaces and in the trees. Their jaws and teeth were similar to those of great apes. Parapithecus gave rise to modern gibbons and orangutans, as well as an extinct branch of driopithecus. The latter in their development were divided into three lines: one of them led to the modern gorilla, the other to the chimpanzee, and the third to Australopithecus, and from him to man. The relationship of driopithecus with man was established on the basis of a study of the structure of his jaw and teeth, discovered in 1856 in France.
The most important step in the transformation of ape-like animals into the most ancient people was the appearance of bipedal locomotion. In connection with climate change and the thinning of forests, there has been a transition from an arboreal to a terrestrial way of life; in order to better view the area where the ancestors of man had many enemies, they had to stand on their hind limbs. Subsequently, natural selection developed and fixed upright posture, and, as a result of this, the hands were freed from the functions of support and movement. So australopithecines arose - the genus to which hominids belong (a family of people).
australopithecines
australopithecines- highly developed bipedal primates who used natural objects as tools (hence, Australopithecus cannot yet be considered people). Bony remains of Australopithecus were first discovered in 1924 in South Africa. They were the height of a chimpanzee and weighed about 50 kg, the brain volume reached 500 cm3 - on this basis, Australopithecus is closer to humans than any of the fossils and modern monkeys.
The structure of the pelvic bones and the position of the head were similar to those of a person, which indicates a straightened position of the body. They lived about 9 million years ago in open steppes and fed on plant and animal food. The tools of their labor were stones, bones, sticks, jaws without traces of artificial processing.
skillful man
Not possessing a narrow specialization of the general structure, Australopithecus gave rise to a more progressive form, called Homo habilis - a skilled man. Its bone remains were discovered in 1959 in Tanzania. Their age is determined at about 2 million years. The growth of this creature reached 150 cm. The volume of the brain was 100 cm3 larger than that of Australopithecus, the teeth of a human type, the phalanxes of the fingers, like those of a person, are flattened.
Although it combined signs of both monkeys and humans, the transition of this creature to the manufacture of pebble tools (well-crafted stone ones) indicates the appearance of labor activity. They could catch animals, throw stones, and perform other activities. The heaps of bones found along with the fossils of Homo sapiens testify to the fact that meat has become a permanent part of their diet. These hominids used rough stone tools.
Homo erectus
Homo erectus - Homo erectus. the species from which modern man is believed to have descended. Its age is 1.5 million years. His jaws, teeth, and brow ridges were still massive, but the brain volume of some individuals was the same as that of modern man.
Some bones of Homo erectus have been found in caves, suggesting a permanent home. In addition to animal bones and rather well-made stone tools, heaps of charcoal and charred bones, so that, apparently, at this time the Australopithecus had already learned how to make fire.
This stage of hominin evolution coincides with the colonization of other colder regions by Africans. It would be impossible to survive the cold winters without developing complex behaviors or technical skills. Scientists suggest that the prehuman brain of Homo erectus was able to find social and technical solutions (fire, clothing, food supply and cohabitation in caves) to the problems associated with the need to survive in the cold of winter.
Thus, all fossil hominids, especially Australopithecus, are considered to be the precursors of humans.
The evolution of the physical features of the first humans, including modern humans, spans three stages: ancient people, or archanthropes; ancient people, or paleoanthropes; modern people, or neoanthropes.
archanthropes
The first representative of archanthropes - Pithecanthropus(Japanese man) - ape-man, upright. His bones were found on about. Java (Indonesia) in 1891
Initially, its age was determined to be 1 million years, but, according to a more accurate modern estimate, it is a little over 400 thousand years old. The growth of Pithecanthropus was about 170 cm, the volume of the cranium was 900 cm3.
Somewhat later there was synanthropus(Chinese person).
.jpg)
Numerous remains of it were found in the period 1927 to 1963. in a cave near Beijing. This creature used fire and made stone tools. This group of ancient people also includes the Heidelberg man.
.jpg)
heidelbergers
Paleoanthropes
Paleoanthropes - Neanderthals appeared to replace the archanthropes. 250-100 thousand years ago they were widely settled in Europe. Africa. Front and South Asia. Neanderthals made a variety of stone tools: hand axes, side-scrapers, sharp-pointed ones; used fire, coarse clothing. The volume of their brain grew 1400 cm3.
Features of the structure of the lower jaw show that they had rudimentary speech. They lived in groups of 50-100 individuals and during the onset of glaciers they used caves, driving wild animals out of them.
Neoanthropes and Homo sapiens
Cro-Magnon
Neanderthals were replaced by modern humans cro-magnons or neoanthropes. They appeared about 50 thousand years ago (their bone remains were found in 1868 in France). Cro-Magnons form the only genus and species of Homo Sapiens - Homo sapiens. Their monkey features were completely smoothed out, there was a characteristic chin protrusion on the lower jaw, indicating their ability to articulate speech, and in the art of making various tools from stone, bone and horn, the Cro-Magnons had gone far ahead compared to the Neanderthals.
They tamed animals and began to master agriculture, which made it possible to get rid of hunger and get a variety of food. Unlike their predecessors, the evolution of the Cro-Magnons took place under the great influence of social factors (team building, mutual support, improvement of labor activity, more high level thinking).
The emergence of Cro-Magnons is the final stage in the formation of a modern type of person. The primitive human herd was replaced by the first tribal system, which completed the formation of human society, the further progress of which began to be determined by socio-economic laws.
Cro-Magnons vs Neanderthals
during the ice age 
Brief chronology
4.2 million years ago: appearance australopithecines, the development of bipedalism, the systematic use of tools.
2.6-2.5 million years ago: Appearance of Homo habilis, first man-made stone tools.
1.8 million years ago: the appearance of Homo ergaster and Homo erectus, an increase in brain volume, the complication of manufactured tools.
900 thousand years ago: the disappearance of Australopithecus.
400 thousand years ago: mastery of fire.
350 thousand years ago: the appearance of the oldest Neanderthals.
200 thousand years ago: the emergence of anatomically modern Homo sapiens.
140 thousand years ago: the emergence of typical Neanderthals.
30-24 thousand years ago: the disappearance of the Neanderthals.
27-18 thousand years ago: the disappearance of the last representatives of the genus Homo (Homo floresiensis) except for modern man.
11,700 years ago: End of the Paleolithic.
9500 BC: Agriculture in Sumer, beginning of the Neolithic Revolution.
7000 BC: Agriculture in India and Peru.
6000 BC: Agriculture in Egypt.
5000 BC: Agriculture in China.
4000 BC: The arrival of the Neolithic in northern Europe.
3600 BC: Beginning of the Bronze Age in the Near East and Europe.
3300 BC: Beginning of the Bronze Age in India.
3200 BC: End of prehistory in Egypt.
2700 BC: Agriculture in Mesoamerica.
Races and their origin
human races
- these are historically established groupings (groups of populations) of people within the species Homo sapiens sapiens. Races differ from each other in minor physical features - skin color, body proportions, eye shape, hair structure, etc..
There are various classifications of human races. In practical terms, a classification is popular, according to which there are three large race : Caucasoid (Eurasian), Mongoloid (Asian-American) and Australo-Negroid (Equatorial). Within these races there are about 30 minor races. Between the three main groups of races there are transitional races (Fig. 116).
Caucasian race
People of this race (Fig. 117) are characterized by light skin, straight or wavy light blond or dark blond hair, gray, gray-green, hazel-green and blue wide-open eyes, a moderately developed chin, a narrow protruding nose, thin lips , well-developed facial hair in men. Now Caucasians live on all continents, but they formed in Europe and Western Asia.
Mongoloid race
Mongoloids (see Fig. 117) have yellow or yellow-brown skin. They are characterized by dark stiff straight hair, a wide flattened cheeky face, narrow and slightly slanted brown eyes with a fold of the upper eyelid in the inner corner of the eye (epicanthus), a flat and rather wide nose, and sparse facial and body hair. This race predominates in Asia, but as a result of migration, its representatives settled throughout the globe.
Australo-Negroid race
Negroids (see Fig. 117) are dark-skinned, they are characterized by curly dark hair, a wide and flat nose, brown or black eyes, and sparse facial and body hair. Classical Negroids live in equatorial Africa, but a similar type of people is found throughout the equatorial belt.
australoids(Indigenous people of Australia) are almost as dark-skinned as Negroids, but they are characterized by dark wavy hair, a large head and a massive face with a very wide and flat nose, a protruding chin, significant hair on the face and body. Australoids are often isolated as a separate race.
To describe a race, the signs that are most characteristic of the majority of its members are distinguished. But since within each race there is an enormous variation in hereditary characteristics, it is practically impossible to find individuals with all the characteristics inherent in the race.
Hypotheses of racegenesis.
The process of emergence and formation of human races is called racegenesis. There are various hypotheses explaining the origin of races. Some scientists (polycentrists) believe that races arose independently of each other from different ancestors and in different places.
Others (monocentrists) recognize the common origin, socio-psychological development, as well as the same level of physical and mental development of all races that arose from one ancestor. The hypothesis of monocentrism is more substantiated and evidence-based.
- differences between races relate to secondary features, since the main features were acquired by a person long before the divergence of races;
- there is no genetic isolation between races, since marriages between representatives of different races produce fertile offspring;
- currently observed changes, manifested in a decrease in the overall massiveness skeleton
and acceleration of the development of the whole organism, are characteristic of representatives of all races.
The data of molecular biology also support the hypothesis of monocentrism. The results obtained in the study of the DNA of representatives of various human races suggest that the first division of a single African branch into Negroid and Caucasoid-Mongoloid occurred about 40-100 thousand years ago. The second was the division of the Caucasoid-Mongoloid branch into the western - Caucasoids and the eastern - Mongoloids (Fig. 118).
factors of racial genesis.
The factors of racial genesis are natural selection, mutations, isolation, mixing of populations, etc. Nai greater value, especially in the early stages of the formation of races, natural selection played. It contributed to the preservation and dissemination of adaptive traits in populations that increased the viability of individuals under certain conditions.
For example, such a racial trait as skin color is adaptive to living conditions. The action of natural selection in this case is explained by the relationship between sunlight and the synthesis of anti-rachitic vitamin A D, which is necessary to maintain calcium balance in the body. An excess of this vitamin contributes to the accumulation of calcium in bones , making them more fragile, the deficiency leads to rickets.
The more melanin in the skin, the less solar radiation penetrates the body. Light skin contributes to a deeper passage of sunlight into human tissues, stimulating the synthesis of vitamin B in conditions of lack of solar radiation.
Another example is the protruding nose of Caucasians, which lengthens the nasopharyngeal route, which contributes to the heating of cold air and protects the larynx and lungs from hypothermia. On the contrary, a very wide and flat nose in Negroids contributes to greater heat transfer.
Criticism of racism. Considering the problem of racegenesis, it is necessary to dwell on racism - an anti-scientific ideology about the inequality of human races.
Racism originated in a slave society, but the main racist theories were formulated in the 19th century. They substantiated the advantages of some races over others, whites over blacks, distinguished "higher" and "lower" races.
In fascist Germany, racism was elevated to the rank of state policy and served as a justification for the destruction of "inferior" peoples in the occupied territories.
in the United States until the middle of the 20th century. racists promoted the superiority of whites over blacks and the inadmissibility of interracial marriages.
Interestingly, if in the XIX century. and in the first half of the 20th century. racists claimed the superiority of the white race, then in the second half of the 20th century. there were ideologues promoting the superiority of the black or yellow race. Thus, racism has nothing to do with science and is intended to justify purely political and ideological dogmas.
Any person, regardless of race, is a "product" of their own genetic inheritance and social environment. At present, socio-economic relations developing in the modern human society, may have an impact on the future of races. It is assumed that as a result of the mobility of human populations and interracial marriages, a single human race may form in the future. At the same time, as a result of interracial marriages, new populations with their own specific combinations of genes can form. So, for example, at present in the Hawaiian Islands, on the basis of the miscegenation of Caucasoids, Mongoloids and Polynesians, a new racial group is being formed.
So, racial differences are the result of people's adaptation to certain conditions of existence, as well as the historical and socio-economic development of human society.
More than a million years after the appearance of the first people of the type Homo habilis, the most ancient people of Homo erectus appeared on Earth - Homo erectus(Fig. 1). These are Pithecanthropes, Sinanthropes, Heidelberg man and other forms.
Remains of ancient people
The discovery by E. Dubois on the island of Java of Pithecanthropus - the "missing link" in the human genealogy - was a triumph of materialistic science. Excavations in Java were resumed in the 30s and then in the 60s of our century. As a result, the bone remains of several dozen pithecanthropes were found, including at least nine skulls. The most ancient of the Javanese Pithecanthropes, judging by the latest dating, are 1.5-1.9 million years old.
Pithecanthropus (click on the image to enlarge)
One of the most famous and expressive representatives of Pithecanthropus is Sinanthropus, or Chinese Pithecanthropus. The remains of Sinanthropus were discovered in northern China near the village of Zhou-Gou-Dian, 50 km from Beijing. Sinanthropes lived in a large cave, which they probably occupied for hundreds of millennia (only for such a long time deposits up to 50 m thick could accumulate here). Many crude stone tools have been found in the deposits. Interestingly, the tools found at the base of the sequence do not differ from other tools found in its uppermost layers. This indicates a very slow development of technology at the beginning of human history. Sinanthropes kept the fire in the cave.
Sinanthropus was one of the latest and most developed ancient people; it existed 300-500 thousand years ago.
In Europe, reliable and thoroughly studied bone remains of ancient people, close in time to Sinanthropus, were found in four places. The most famous find is the massive jaw of the Heidelberg man, found near the city of Heidelberg (Germany).
Pithecanthropes, Sinanthropes, Heidelberg man had many common features and were geographical variants of the same species (Fig. 2). Therefore, the famous anthropologist Le Gros Clark united them under one common name - Homo erectus (upright man).
Upright man. Homo erectus differed from its predecessors in height, straight posture, human gait. The average height of synanthropes was about 150 cm for women and 160 cm for men. Pithecanthropes of Java reached 175 cm. The hand of an ancient person was more developed, and the foot acquired a small arch. The bones of the legs changed, the femoral joint moved to the center of the pelvis, the spine received a certain bend, which balanced the vertical position of the torso. Proceeding from these progressive changes in physique and growth, the most ancient man got his name - Homo erectus.
Homo erectus still differed from modern man in some essential ways; low sloping forehead with supraorbital ridges, massive, with a sloping chin and a protruding jaw, a flat small nose. However, as one anthropologist noted, they were the first primates that, when you saw them, you would say: "These are not great apes, they are undoubtedly people."
From other primates, their predecessors, the man erect-walking most of all differed in size and significant complication of the structure of the brain and, as a result of this, in more complex behavior. The volume of the brain was 800-1400 cm 3 , the most developed were the lobes of the brain that control higher nervous activity. The left hemisphere was larger than the right, which is probably due to the stronger development of the right hand. This typically human feature, due to the production of tools, is especially strongly developed in Sinanthropus.
Hunting is the basis of the Pithecanthropus lifestyle
Animal bones, hunting tools, found at the sites of ancient people, testify that they were patient and prudent hunters who knew how to stubbornly wait in ambush near the animal trail and jointly round up gazelles, antelopes and even savannah giants - elephants.
Rice. 2. Skulls: A - gorillas, B - Pithecanthropus. C - Sinanthropus, D - Neanderthal, D - modern man
Such raids required not only great skill, but also the use of hunting tricks based on knowledge of the habits of animals. Homo erectus made tools for hunting much more skillfully than its predecessors. Some of the stones he had hewn were carefully given desired shape: pointed end, cutting edges on both sides, the size of the stone was chosen exactly for the hand.
But it is especially important that Homo erectus was able to notice the seasonal migrations of animals and hunted where one could count on abundant prey. He learned to memorize landmarks and, having gone far from the parking lot, find his way back. Hunting gradually ceased to be a matter of chance, but was planned by ancient hunters. The need to follow nomadic game had a profound effect on the lifestyle of Homo erectus. Willy-nilly, he found himself in new habitats, gaining new impressions and expanding his experience.
Based on the structural features of the skull and cervical spine of the most ancient people, it has been established that their vocal apparatus was not as large and flexible as that of a modern person, but it made it possible to produce much more complex sounds than the muttering and screeching of modern monkeys. It can be assumed that Homo erectus “spoke” very slowly and with difficulty. The main thing is that he learned to communicate using symbols and designate objects with combinations of sounds. Facial expressions and gestures probably played a significant role as a means of communication between the most ancient people. ( human face very mobile, even now we understand the emotional state of another person without words: delight, joy, disgust, anger, etc. - and are also able to express specific thoughts: agree or deny, greet, call, etc.)
Collective hunting required not only verbal communication, but also contributed to the development of a social organization that was clearly human in nature, as it was based on the division of labor between male hunters and female food gatherers.
The use of fire by ancient man
In the Zhou-Gou-Dian cave, where the remains of Sinanthropes and their numerous stone tools were found, traces of fire were also found: coals. ashes, burnt stones. Obviously, the first hearths burned more than 500 thousand years ago. The ability to use fire made food more digestible. In addition, fried food is easier to chew, and this could not but affect the appearance of people: the selection pressure aimed at maintaining a powerful jaw apparatus has disappeared. Gradually, the teeth began to decrease, the lower jaw no longer protruded so much, the massive bone structure required for attaching powerful chewing muscles was no longer necessary. The person's face gradually acquired modern features.
Fire not only expanded the sources of food many times over, but also gave mankind constant and reliable protection from the cold and from wild animals. With the advent of fire and the hearth, a completely new phenomenon arose - a space strictly intended for people. Gathering around the fire, which brings warmth and security, people could make tools, eat and sleep, communicate with each other. Gradually, the feeling of “home” was strengthened, a place where women could look after children and where men returned from hunting.
Fire made man independent of the climate, made it possible to settle on the surface of the Earth, and played an important role in the improvement of tools.
Despite the widespread use of fire, Homo erectus could not learn how to mine it for a very long time, and perhaps, until the end of his existence, he did not comprehend this secret. "Fire stones", such as silicon and iron pyrite, were not found among the cultural remains of Homo erectus,
At this stage of human evolution, many physical features of the most ancient people are still under the control of natural selection, primarily associated with the development of the brain and the improvement of bipedalism. However, along with the biological factors of evolution, new, social patterns begin to emerge, which over time will become the most important in the existence of human society.
The use of fire, hunting wanderings, the development of the ability to communicate to some extent prepared the spread of a man who walked upright beyond the tropics. From Southeast Africa, he moved to the Nile Valley, and from there north along the East Mediterranean coast. His remains were found even east - on the island of Java and in China. What are the boundaries of the ancestral home of mankind, the territory where the separation of man from the animal state took place?
Ancestral home of mankind
In favor of the African ancestral home of humanity, numerous finds in the south and especially in east Africa of very ancient (up to 5.5 million years) remains of Australopithecus, skilled man and ancient stone tools testify. The fact that anthropoids, the chimpanzee and the gorilla, that are closest to humans, live in Africa, is also significant. Neither in Asia nor in Europe has so far been found such a complete evolutionary range of primates as in East Africa.
Findings of dryopithecus and ramapithecus in India and Pakistan, the remains of fossil apes close to Australopithecus found in southern China and northern India, as well as the remains of ancient people - pithecanthropes and sinanthropes speak in favor of the South Asian ancestral home.
At the same time, the finds of fossil remains of the most ancient people, made in Germany, Hungary. Czechoslovakia, testify in favor of including the south of Europe in the boundaries of the settlement of the most ancient people. This is also evidenced by the discovery in the Ballone grotto in southeastern France of the remains of a hunting camp, which has an antiquity of up to 700 thousand years. Of great interest is the recent discovery in the north-east of Hungary of the remains of Ramapithecus monkeys, which were on the path of hominization.
So, many researchers do not give preference to any of the three named continents, believing that the transformation of anthropoid apes into humans occurred in the process of their active adaptation to the most diverse and changing environmental conditions. Probably, the ancestral home of mankind was quite extensive, including a significant territory of Africa, Southern Europe, South and Southeast Asia. New discoveries of the bone remains of our ancestors constantly force us to expand the boundaries of the alleged ancestral home of mankind. It should be noted that America and Australia were inhabited by people of a modern physical type who came from Asia not earlier than 30-35 thousand years ago.
Among scholars there is no consensus on the issue of continuity between Nomo Habilis and Noto egectus (upright man). The oldest find of the remains of Homo egectus near Lake Turkan in Kenya dates back to 17 million years ago. For some time, Homo erectus coexisted with Homo habilis. In appearance, Nomo egestus was even more different from a monkey: its growth was close to the growth of a modern person, the volume of the brain was quite large.
According to archaeological periodization, the time of the existence of a walking man corresponds to the Acheulean period. The most common tool of Nomo egestus was a hand ax - bnfas. It was an oblong instrument, pointed at one end and rounded at the other. Biface was convenient to cut, dig, hollow, scrape the skin of a dead animal. The other greatest achievement of man at that time was the mastery of fire. The oldest traces of fires date back to about 1.5 million years ago and have also been found in East Africa.
Homo egectus was destined to be the first human species to leave Africa. The oldest finds of the remains of this species in Europe and Asia are dated to approximately 1 million years ago. Even at the end of the XIX century. E. Dubois found on the island of Java the skull of a creature he called Pithecanthropus (monkey-man). At the beginning of the XX century. in the Zhoukoudian cave near Beijing, similar skulls of Sinanthropes (Chinese people) were unearthed. Several fragments of the remains of Nomo egestus (the most ancient find is a jaw from Heidelberg in Germany, 600 thousand years old) and many of its products, including traces of dwellings, have been discovered in a number of regions of Europe.
Nomo egestus died out about 300 thousand years ago. He was replaced Noto sieps. According to modern ideas, there were originally two subspecies of Homo sapiens. The development of one of them led to the appearance of about 130 thousand years ago Neanderthal man (Homo sapiens neanderthaliensis). Neanderthals populated all of Europe and much of Asia. At the same time, there was another subspecies, which is still little studied. It may have originated in Africa. It is the second subspecies that some researchers consider the ancestor modern man- Noto sapies. Homo sarins finally formed 40 - 35 thousand years ago. This scheme The origin of modern man is not shared by all scientists. A number of researchers do not classify the Neanderthal as Homo sapiens. There are also adherents to the previously prevailing point of view that Homo sariens originated from the Neanderthal as a result of its evolution.
Outwardly, the Neanderthal was in many ways similar to modern man. However, his height was on average smaller, and he himself was much more massive than a modern person. The Neanderthal had a low forehead and a large bony ridge hanging over the eyes.
According to archaeological periodization, the time of the existence of the Neanderthal corresponds to the Musta period (Middle Paleolithic). For stone products, muste is characteristic big variety types and processing. The biface remained the predominant tool. The most significant difference between the Neanderthal and previous human species is the presence of burials in accordance with certain rites. So, in the cave of Shanidar in Iraq, nine graves of Neanderthals were excavated. Near the dead, various stone items were found, and even the remains of a flower. All this indicates not only the existence of religious beliefs among Neanderthals, a developed system of thinking and speech, but also a complex social organization.
Approximately 40 - 35 thousand years ago, Neanderthals disappear. They gave way modern man. According to the town of Cro-Magnon in France, the first Homo sapiens of the type are called Cro-Magnons. With their appearance, the process of anthropogenesis ends. Some modern researchers believe that the Cro-Magnons appeared much earlier, about 100 thousand years ago in Africa or the Middle East, and 40 - 35 thousand years ago they began to populate Europe and other continents, exterminating and displacing the Neanderthals. According to the archaeological periodization, 40-35 thousand years ago, the period of the late (upper) Paleolithic began, which ended 12-11 thousand years ago.
