Vigorous resettlement, rapid expansion of the range indicates the emergence of new ecological features in humans, that is, its ecological role in the biosphere periodically changes. We are talking about a man, while in fact, without taking into account the monkeys, at least three species and two subspecies of people have changed on the planet. Who are they?
Australopithecus is skilled.
Although its name is translated simply as "southern monkey", but many experts attribute it to the human race. They are designatedyut him -skilled man . It appeared in Africa at the border of the early and middle Pliocene, about 5 million years ago and lived to the ancient Pleistocene (about 1.5 million years ago). It was a tropical savannah. He withstood competition with other Australopithecus, shared an ecological niche with them, and in this regard, he had a shift in many morphological and ecological characters. He ceased to be a consumer of grass, but he did not become a pure predator either. Other australopithecines that specialized in one or the other, as we remember, lost out to ungulates or large predators and left the scene. A skilled man became a real omnivore, had a rich diet of grass, seeds, roots, small and large game, and remained in the savannah the only large primate.
Between the most ancient Australopithecus and the first representatives of a skilled man, apparently, there were many transitional forms. Only at the end of this series, 2 million years before us, did the last of the Australopithecus acquire completely human features.
He had numerous achievements generated by his large brain: he conquered the entire tropical savannah. It is also characterized by the first artificial dwellings. They left circles of stones, which apparently propped up the poles that held the skins on them. Such tents were made almost two million years ago.
A skilled man produced and used many primitive stone tools, which also helped in the competitive struggle. This was the first stone tool culture, or Olduvai. It was named so by Louis and Mary Leakey, who discovered and described these tools in the Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania. Often this culture is called "pebble", because the tools were made from river pebbles. Later australopithecines (prezinjantrops) at the very end of their history were already doing a thorough processing of their products. They trimmed the tools to get the required size, shape, weight. Such already more complex tools are attributed to the Acheulean culture, named after the village of Acheul in France. The Acheulean culture lasted for more than a million years, tools of this type were made by Pithecanthropes and even early Neanderthals.
In those days there was a huge "tropical corridor" of forests and savannahs. It circled the Indian Ocean along the east coast of Africa, along the Indian subcontinent and further to the Malay Archipelago. According to him, skillful people spread over vast territories. They lived until the great glaciation. When it began, the tropics also suffered from cold and desiccation. The climate has changed so dramatically that a skilled person quickly lost his habitat, that is, a whole range of essential resources and conditions.
Climate change has led not only to the disappearance of our ancestor on the planet - a skilled man, but also to the change of the whole fauna. So this australopithecine left the biospheric scene along with a large number of cohabiting species. Their complex, as I have already noted, is called the hipparion fauna, because of the numerous species of three-toed horses (hipparions) that were part of it. Many animals of this fauna were the ancestors of modern African species. Among them were the so-called comb-toothed and comb-toothed mastodons, ancient relatives of elephants. The biocenoses of a skilled man included ancient rhinos, giraffes, antelopes, relatives of deer - pliocervuses and crousetoceros, as well as bulls - parabos. All of them grazed in the savanna and disappeared along with the entire fauna at the end of the Pliocene - the beginning of the Pleistocene. Many of them also changed their ecological roles, changed their appearance. Their descendants - giraffes, antelopes, deer - still live on the plains of the planet.
Homo erectus (Pithecanthropus)
However, man remained on the planet. Approximately one and a half million years ago, in the populations of this most skilled person, individuals of a new species that originated there appeared - Homo erectus (Pithecanthropus). It is not difficult to translate its name into Russian - ape-man. So he was named for some simian features of appearance, but he was already quite a man. Despite the simian facial features of this primate, he differed in posture from a skilled person. He was taller, had a straight posture and a completely human gait. He did not stumble across the savannah, hunched over like his Australopithecus ancestor. According to the places of finds, this man had many names:synanthropus (find in China),javanthropus (find in Java). They are all representatives of the same species of fossil people. This newly emerged species had new capabilities in contrast to its predecessor. He had his own ecological role. In the beginning, he was also a purely tropical animal, but much best hunter than Australopithecus. In hunting, he specialized in the big game of the savannah, so he had many new qualities in comparison with his ancestor.
The volume of the brain also increases in comparison with a skilled person by almost a third, reaching an average of 950 cubic meters. see In some groups of Homo erectus, this increase was even stronger. So, the brain of Sinanthropus has an average volume of 1040 cubic meters. see. The range of variation of the brain, however, is significant - from 700 to 1200 cubic meters. see, so there were considerable opportunities for further development. Recall that a skilled person had an average brain of 508 cubic meters. cm, but this man himself was small - less than one and a half meters, but there were his individuals with a brain of up to 720 cubic meters. cm, and this is already more than the minimum size of the Pithecanthropus brain. As you can see, there was no too sharp increase in brain volume with the transition to Homo erectus, but the qualitative changes are significant.
Along with an increase in body weight and an increase in the brain, he continued the structural reorganization of the brain, in which already 
protrude and increase the zones associated with the perception of visual images, speech, exercising control over the actions of others.
The area associated with manipulation greatly increases in the brain.objects, and the area that controls purposeful actions. This immediately makes itself felt in the creation of new guns. They are much more complex and more skillfully made in Pithecanthropus than in Australopithecus.
However, Pithecanthropus borrowed the technology of making his tools from a man of skill. These were all the same works of the Acheulean culture, made by the same methods as a million years ago. Even the same set of their types. True, they were made more carefully, better upholstered and pointed. An innovation in the manufacture of tools was that the Pithecanthropus, using fire, found that the bone or wood worked on it became noticeably harder. This gave impetus to the emergence of a huge number of tools made of wood and bone, processed at the stake.
The main advantage of the ape-man was an increased migratory ability. As a big game hunter, one of the predators of the highest order, he increasingly left the tropical zone for high latitudes, where hunting was more productive. With a decrease in species diversity there, the number of each species greatly increased. Accordingly, this affected the growth of the density of game animals here. However, it was cold there, Pithecanthropus began to adapt to the cold. It was this ancestor of ours who learned to use fire and preserve it. True, he did not know how to make fire and used it ready-made - from volcanic eruptions or forest fires. The fire helped to overcome the cold, made food of better quality. People used the flame not only for defense against large rival predators, but with its help they could win comfortable dwellings - caves - from them. Having received fire, Homo erectus became less dependent on climate change. And he was able to survive at the beginning of the glaciation.
Another important change has taken place in the new kind of people. TOTheir skin has noticeably lost their hair, but on the other hand, the number of sweat glands has greatly increased on it. The number of sweat glands modern man from 2 to 5 million, no mammal has such a number. Scientists suggest that such a network of sweat glands is necessary for reliable cooling of the body. This became especially necessary during heavy physical exertion, and even in extreme heat. A thick coat of hair would have prevented evaporation and would have stuck together with drying sweat. Perhaps that is why this cover has changed so much. .
The ecological role of Homo erectus thus expanded so much that he left the tropics, became a hunter-predator with a very small share of plant foods in the diet. In this capacity, man has conquered almost the entire planet.
Meanwhile, the climate is becoming more and more severe, and the Pithecanthropus, due to the onset of ice, is deprived of large territories for its hunting. In addition, this species still has too few adaptations for protection from the cold. Not adapting quickly enough to the increase in harsh conditions, the Pithecanthropus gradually dies out, which is due to both cold weather and lack of food. The remnants of the populations of these people were most likely assimilated or destroyed by a new, more competitive human species. Note that if a skilled man lived on the planet for about 3.5 million years, then the historical life of Pithecanthropus was somewhat shorter - only 1.5 million years.
Many populations of Homo erectus, and especially the northernmost ones, have acquired a specialization for severe winter conditions. Somewhere among them, a new species was formed, little different from us. It was already a man of almost modern appearance, but of a different subspecies - a reasonable man (Neanderthal).
Ice Age Man - Neanderthal
In the harsh conditions of the tundra, and possibly the tundra steppe, the Neanderthal, deprived of plant food for most of the time of the year, became a perfect meat-eater. (In our time, this diet is followed by the peoples of the Far North.) A diet very rich in animal proteins contributed to many changes in the morphology and physiology of this person. It is possible that it was reflected in the volume of his brain. According to anthropologists, Neanderthals have an average brain size larger than modern humans. These relatives of ours have a very strongly developed lower parietal region of the brain due to increased labor physical activity. Needless to say, the physical activity of the glacial man was the largest in the history of the human race. Structurally, the Neanderthal brain differed little from the brain of Sinanthropus, and in size all transitions from a volume of 1055 to 1700 cubic meters were found. cm.
Hunting, almost complete meat-eating, is already a new role. The absence of hair is associated with it, their loss occurred, apparently, from increased stress and began even with the ancestors. The Neanderthal hunted during the day, under the scorching sun. It is known that all large predators are nocturnal hunters. The human hunter, moving away from competition with them, changed the time of his hunt. Why did this relatively small creature surpass even the largest animals in the success of its craft? And he just changed the way he hunts. This was especially evident in regions of the highest latitudes. After all, primitive man was a specialized hunter. Its production turned out to be quite specific, and the ecological niche narrowed noticeably. He became a predator, a consumer of such animals, which, in terms of their size, did not have special predators. Often he was even a predator of large predators, that is, a super predator.
In this and bit had a very special ecological role, neither before nor after it, not a single animal occupied in ecosystems 
similar ecological niche. The objects of his hunting were no longer available to anyone: mammoth, woolly rhinoceros, cave bear. Small and frail in comparison with them, a person for such a hunt united in fishing groups and came up with various hunting aids and tackle (pits, stones, spears, spear throwers, etc.). He was very skillful in organizing his group hunting, helped by a large brain and initial speech skills. He made weapons better and better. These people also inherited the Acheulean tool culture, but rather quickly, already in the Upper Pleistocene, they spread new culture tool making - Mousterian. It is named after the Le Moustier cave located in southwestern France. These stone tools were technically superior to the Acheulean ones. At the same time, Neanderthal hunters produced fewer tools from bone and wood, preferring stone.
The man of the Ice Age accumulated and passed on the experience of not only hunting techniques, but also knowledge of the habits of various game. And so it becamedertal is a predator of the highest order, a consumer of even very large predators
cave bears. The role is unique, giving the opportunity to live to another kind of fauna - man, lengthening the food chain. A long food chain allows you to more smoothly transfer the substance, prolong the planetary cycle.
What happened to this subspecies reasonable person Further? The Neanderthal man appeared about 500 thousand years ago, before him, for 200 thousand years, apparently, there were other subspecies of Homo sapiens, of which there are very few traces. These residues are usually grouped under the general name " early man reasonable". The stone tools of these people are known in large numbers, but there are almost no bone remains.
The most severe and longest glaciation began 250 thousand years ago and ended only 75 thousand years ago. It came from the region of the Alps, and it was called Rissky, at the same time, the Saal glaciation was advancing from the European north, rapidly reducing the territory of the Neanderthal. In the vastness of North America, the Illionian glaciation took place at the same time, and all this cold time with several short warmings was endured by a reasonable man - a Neanderthal.
Unlike a skilled man and a man erectus, he turned from an omnivore into a pure meat-eater. As already noted, its victims - a mammoth, a woolly rhinoceros, a southern elephant, did not have their own predators before, cave bears themselves were large predators. There were not many predators in the bison or the huge bull of the tour. It is clear that the Neanderthal man had his own large resource, for which there were no other consumers.
It can be assumed that the superhunter of the Ice Age ate large animals of its fauna environment very intensively. Many species of camels and horses, giant deer and beavers were completely eaten by the tribes of these hunters. The same fate awaited larger animals - a woolly rhinoceros, a mastodon, a mammoth, and even a cave bear. So, by the end of the ice age, the Neanderthal man had thoroughly undermined his food supply. From the glacial fauna, only large forest species and small animals of open spaces survived longer than it. They had their predators - wolves, lynxes, foxes. So, again we can note the loss of the resource and, to a greater extent, the change in the climatic features of the habitat. Apparently, on the whole Earth after the glaciation, the climate softened a lot, which led to the extinction of the glacial fauna. Together with her, the Neanderthal man left the planet.
What species of large mammals disappeared with the Neanderthal before the end of the Pleistocene? There are a lot of them. The Neanderthal itself appeared in the middle Pleistocene and had already died out by the Holocene, so it existed on the planet for less than 500 thousand years. This is much smaller than Pithecanthropus, and even more so - skillful Australopithecus. Simultaneously with the Neanderthal man appeared and died out at the same time: a large and a small cave bear, a cave lion, about 20 species of mammoths, about 10 species of forest elephants, large-horned deer.
Many large animals that appeared back in the Pliocene and even earlier, that is, long before the Neanderthal, also entered the Pleistocene fauna and ended their lives together with the Neanderthal or during his life on the planet. These are Deninger's bear, Schlosser's wolverine, about 15 species of saber-toothed cats, comb-toothed and tuberculate-toothed mastodons. There were more than 30 types. Archidyscodont elephants - more than a dozen species, deinotherium - relatives of ancient elephants. There were also about 10 species of them, numerous species of horses: Stenon's horse, the Sivalik and Sanmen horses, and at least a dozen more species of these ungulates disappeared in the Late Pleistocene. About 30 species of rhinos, ancient hippos and camels, having appeared in the Eocene, have already ended their existence in the Pleistocene. At the same time, 9 species of bulls, 2 species of bison became extinct. Several species of giant sloths - megatheriums at the same time disappeared from the planet on the American continents.
Cro-Magnon - Stone Age Man
When studying the life of Neanderthals, they examine those layers in which their bones and traces of their vital activity remained. Such excavations make it possible to approximately find out how and when this ancient man ended up, as well as who came after him. The layers with the tools of the Neanderthals end, then come the layers with almost no tools at all, and only then do the layers with the tools of another subspecies of people begin, to which we also belong. How can we explain this time of relative “desertion” on our planet?
Most likely, this second subspecies of Homo sapiens, who lived along with the first, was at first very small in number. Survive in the iceNew times were much more difficult for him than for a Neanderthal. Hence the tool-sterile layers between Neanderthals and modern humans. In severe cold weather, their range was small, but with warming they came to the fore. Cro-Magnon then received a noticeable advantage. The climate suited him more than a Neanderthal. The Cro-Magnon man, with his finer hunting gear, caught the remaining types of game more successfully. Yes, and he could organize a big public hunt better with his great opportunities for coherent speech. If the Pithecanthropus knew how to use fire, and the Neanderthal knew how to save it, then the Cro-Magnon learned how to get fire. He also invented the needle and began to sew warm, durable clothes, perfectly fitted to the body.
Using the remaining presources of his predecessors, and in addition, by significantly expanding the register of his own, this person also learned to noticeably mitigate the effect of adverse factors on his populations. Its role only began 40 thousand years ago, and after about 20 thousand years it was left alone on the planet, without its related subspecies.
Usually closely related species that compete fiercely for a resource turn out to be very aggressive.stingy to each other. Predators can directly destroy the opponent. However, it is unlikely that the Cro-Magnon massacred the last Neanderthals. There was no point in killing a man of the Ice Age as a competitor, because he lived a different life and his main resources were different. The few Neanderthals that had survived by that time were most likely assimilated by the Cro-Magnon, as evidenced by the found intermediate types of skeletons. The remains of the resources of the Neanderthal also went to the Cro-Magnon.
It was a period of climate warming, a kind of prolonged thaw in the last third of the Würm glaciation. The new subspecies of man that appeared on Earth had some progressive features, he had a more developed and complex throat. This gave him increased opportunities for coherent speech. His jaws were not as powerful as those of a Neanderthal, and the lower one had a chin protrusion. In general, his skull was no different from ours. This subspecies knew how to make more advanced tools for hunting and farming; for the first time, it made a device for making various tools - a chisel. So it was this man who, for the first time on Earth, took up the production of means of production, which no animal could do.
The Cro-Magnon was a caveman, like his ancestors, and this tied him to housing, that is, disposed to settled life. These people were finally settled by the consumption of fish and shellfish, and then plant foods - cereal seeds. Their tribes, like their ancestors, hunted big game, but at the same time they expanded the register of food species of organisms to an extraordinary extent. Thus, he greatly increased the range of food resources and, with the disappearance of large game, it became easy to switch to other types of food.
The role of even the super-predator is very short. After all, large animals have the most insignificant reproduction rate, and a prolific person, if this were his only job, would leave the biosphere scene immediately after his eaten game. But he did not leave, because smaller animals remained on the planet, but also quite large, for example, bulls, hippos. Preserved on Earth and very large giraffes, elephants, whales, finally! Some of them had their own predators, and much larger than a man, but the human mind helped him to successfully compete and take on some of the work of lions, tigers and even wolves. One must think that this immediately significantly reduced the number of large predators on Earth.
The Cro-Magnon significantly changed the characteristics of its ecological niche, having mastered many new types of food. He became a real euryphage, so his role as a universal and effective consumer in the biosphere expanded unusually. This species is already difficult to drive out of the biospheric scene, most likely it will be able to survive the fauna in which it appeared.
There are suggestions that humanity has already experienced a planetary catastrophe in which most of it died. This happened just at the time of the Cro-Magnons at the end of the mammoth era. It was associated with acute competition for food resources. The tribes fought over the last large herbivores leaving the planet: mammoths, woolly rhinos, giant deer and bulls. The lack of game among them was so palpable that most of humanity was then destroyed in civil strife for the hunting grounds of the tribes. This, for many reasons, unlikely incident allegedly gave impetus to people mastering crop production, and after that - animal husbandry. What is the doubtfulness of these sad events?
The first reason for the impossibility of human extinction following large and medium-sized ungulates is that, before getting rid of the surplus of fellow tribesmen, a person would first starve to death of competitors - large predators: wolves, lions. Nevertheless, they continued to exist, remaining less successful hunters in comparison with humans. The second reason is that these giants were less convenient hunting objects than medium and small ungulates: deer, pigs, wild goats and rams. The loss of the mammoths was probably less hard-pressed for the ancient people than the loss of the buffalo was felt by the Indians. Finally, the third and more likely reason is that the ecological niche of the Cro-Magnon has been expanding all the time. It included more and more plant foods. He seemed to be returning in his biocenotic role to a skilled man (Australopithecine). At the same time, coastal settlements became more and more numerous. Here people became sedentary, for the sea steadily supplied them with food. As you can see, there is no close connection between their numbers and the population of mammoths and rhinos.
And yet man turned to raising animals for food purposes. Often on this occasion they talk about the appearance in the biosphere of a new biochemical cycle, the author of which was a human genius. Agriculture and cattle breeding, according to many ecologists, are artificial ecosystems (agrocenoses), and they live according to their own new laws (Moiseev, 1996). I do not see this human invention as such a biospheric innovation. Let's see what's new here.
Man was a predator-consumer of ungulates. Like any other such predator, it had ecological mechanisms that control this system (predator - prey). To prosper, he had to keep his game from overpopulating. He could select from the herd only evading individuals: sick, ugly, with mental deficiencies and disorders, as well as old and young animals that had strayed from the herd. Unlike the wolf, man was not a highly specialized consumer of ungulates and therefore did not have innate immunity to their diseases. He differed from the wolf in his hunting techniques and hunting equipment. Nevertheless, the hunter-man did not stand out from overall picture biocenotic relations. In the culture of people-hunters, ecological patterns of interactions of the “predator-prey” system were laid down, and they were strictly observed. The traditions of the tribe did not allow the killing of pregnant females, nor did they allow excess prey. Subsequently, human traits appeared in the management of hunting, the calculation of the herd of hunting animals began in relation to the number of people in the tribe. Hence, in some tribes birth bans appeared. So the regulation went not only on the prey population, but also on its own.
The owner and creator of a herd of food animals must take care of food for them, that is, not allow excessive density of individuals in the place of their grazing. He needs to remove sick and old animals from the herd, as well as ugly, underdeveloped, with evasive behavior. So he conducts a directed selection to increase production, getting more and more fertile, faster gaining weight individuals. Along the way, he also selects calm, more and more tame animals, which no predator in nature usually cares about. And, finally, he has to protect his herd from predators and thieving fellow tribesmen.
So, animal husbandry basically has all the same rules of interaction that are characteristic of the “predator-prey” system. When performing them, the owner of the herd is lucky and well-fed, like, for example, a tiger “herding” his herd of wild boars. Attempts to modify ecological rules by the shepherd result in overgrazing, epizootics and lead to losses and starvation. It turns out that the livestock breeder is the same large predator. The novelty here is not great, it consists only in selection, aimed at increasing the meat from each individual, and in domestication, in order to make hunting less laborious. As for the wintering grounds for their livestock, millions of years before us, ants were “invented” for the aphids they graze. Further, I will return more than once to the consideration of animal husbandry as one of the achievements of mankind.
Let us summarize the formation, development and change of human species and subspecies in the Earth's fauna. For about 5 million years, human species and subspecies appeared and replaced each other in the composition of different terrestrial faunas. They reached ever greater intellectual perfection. Their appearance changed in the direction of the appearance of an ever greater harmony of physique, loss of hair and increase in growth. We seem to be the tallest among other kinds of people.
Meanwhile, with the improvement of man, the life span of each of his new species on the planet, their historical age, was steadily and rapidly decreasing. This trend should give food for thought about the fate of mankind. The rate of change of fauna on Earth is also increasing, which indicates the evolutionary acceleration of changes in living conditions here. I think that humanity is left to exist not so many millennia, and possibly even centuries, if people do not make any cardinal attempts to extend their historical life. So far, the social tactics of survival is aimed at reducing the period of human stay on Earth, that is, it is quite in harmony with the observed evolutionary trend.
Modern man has no less hair follicles on his skin than great apes, but the hair is much thinner and shorter, so they are practically invisible in many parts of the body.
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 of Pithecanthropus by E. Dubois on the island of Java - 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 shaped into the right shape: a pointed end, cutting edges on both sides, the size of the stone was selected exactly to 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. (The human face is very mobile, even now we understand without words emotional condition another person: 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 Coast mediterranean sea. 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 driopithecus and ramapithecus in India and Pakistan speak in favor of the South Asian ancestral home, the remains of fossil apes close to Australopithecus found in South China and in the north of India, as well as the remains of the most ancient people - Pithecanthropus and Sinanthropus.
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.
The oldest people appeared on Earth about 2.5 million years ago. According to Darwin's theory, their predecessors were australopithecines - a group of higher primates, in the genes of which mutation processes occurred. The oldest people are divided into two types - Asian ancient people (upright man) and African ancient people (working man).
Where did the earliest people live?
We all know that the most ancient people lived in caves, hence their second name - "caveman". However, the cave served as a home for ancient people not long at all, over time, the caves turned into primitive places of worship, where magic rites were performed and the dead were buried.
At times early paleolithic, the oldest people built their dwellings from tree branches, and for reliability, they lined their foundations with stones. Very often, the bones of mammoths killed during the hunt acted as a building material. Instead of a roof, such huts were covered with skins. The leather held up well in wind and rain.
At the time of completion ice age, people began to build dwellings from logs. The houses of the most ancient people accommodated about 15 people. Dwellings were built in a circle, in the center of which was a hearth. In the northern territories, houses often looked like semi-dugouts, that is, they were partially deepened into the ground.
Appearance of ancient people
The most ancient people had an appearance that was close to the appearance of a modern person, but still retained many common features with animals. The average height of the most ancient people was approximately 1.6 m. They had a straight gait, which distinguished them from animals.
The structure of the skull is archaic: the frontal part was much smaller than the jaw, the supraorbital ridges protruded, the chin was in most cases oblique. The hands of the most ancient people remained elongated.
In ancient Asian people, the total brain volume significantly exceeded the brain volumes of working people. They were the forerunners Neanderthals(old people who replaced the ancient ones).
The geography of the settlement of the most ancient people
According to research, the oldest people first appeared in East Africa. Approximately 1.8 million years ago, the most ancient people moved to the lands of the Middle East, and spread widely across the territories of Eurasia favorable for life.
The most ancient people also settled in all the lands of the Old World. Existence in different geographical conditions contributed to the division of the most ancient people into various subspecies. The ancient people who lived on the territory of Eurasia quickly began to overcome the next step of evolution compared to their African and Middle Eastern relatives.
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. By appearance Nomo egestus was even more different from the monkey: its growth was close to the growth of modern man, the volume brain was big enough.
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 are also 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 (ape-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 of 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). Muste stone products are characterized by a wide variety of types and careful 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 have given way to 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.
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, in connection with the use of more complex forms of weapons (for example, in combination with such a defensive device as a shield), the right hand began to be used predominantly. Kobler refers to the fact that most of the oldest tools show traces of their processing with the left hand. But Edinger reports that among the primitive people of the Upper Paleolithic, 2/3 of all flint tools were made by right-handed people, as well as wall paintings in caves. Casts of the brain cavity of the skulls of fossil forms of modern humans and their descendants are similar in all essentials.
As a result, one can rather agree with J. J. Kenningham (1902), who, even before the brain casts of fossil people became known, wrote that right-handedness developed as a characteristic feature of man already 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 anthropoids, the chimpanzee mud, also used ineffective, relatively quiet vocal sounds, or “life noises”, which, according to V.V. Bunak, were of particular importance for the emergence of speech (Bunak, 1951, 1966, Yerkes, Learned, 1925).
American scientists Robert Yerkes and Blanche Learned specifically studied the sounds made by chimpanzees. They came to the conclusion that chimpanzees have about thirty peculiar sounds and that each of these sounds has its own specific signal meaning, denoting some kind of internal state or attitude to the phenomena occurring around. It is possible, however, that there are not so many of these sounds in chimpanzees, a dozen or two - two and a half.
Little is known about the sounds made by gorillas. They usually describe the roar of a male going to the enemy. One scientist observed a male mountain gorilla sitting on a lying tree with two females: the scientist heard soft sounds that they peacefully exchanged with each other. The number of basic sounds in gorillas is small (Shaller, 1968). Orangutans have few sounds: they are silent and emit a growl, roar or screech only under some special circumstances - when frightened, in anger, in pain. The loud sounds made by gibbons can be heard for miles.
All attempts by Robert Yerkes to teach his chimpanzees to speak ended in failure, although he used various teaching methods. Yerkes intended to apply to chimpanzees also the methods by which specialist educators teach deaf-mute children to speak. If such attempts could be crowned with a certain success, then only if suitable training methods are applied to the smallest cubs, since the ontogenetic development of the brain in chimpanzees ends earlier than in humans.
But it must be borne in mind that the main reason why it is very difficult for monkeys to teach even a few words is, first of all, the rudimentary state of their speech zones. In addition, one cannot ignore the noticeable differences in the structure of the vocal apparatus in monkeys compared with humans (see the articles by VV Bunak, 1951 and 1966b mentioned above).
Ludwig Edinger (1911), noting the high development of the chimpanzee's cerebral cortex, admits that a patient trainer could teach a few words to an ape, but the ape always remains
would be at an immeasurably distant distance from a person, since the foundations for a clear understanding, that is, the corresponding parts of the brain, are not developed in her.
Many authors believe that the presence of a chin protrusion is an anatomical prerequisite for the development of human speech. This protrusion is present only in modern man. It was absent, as a rule, in Neanderthals, it was not in ape-men, and also (except for the joint-toed gibbon - siamang) it is not present in modern and fossil monkeys and semi-monkeys.
The emergence of sound speech does not necessarily need to be associated with the presence of a chin protrusion, since the production of articulate sounds requires, first of all, a clear coordinated work of the entire speech apparatus, including the sensory and mnestic zones of the brain, located in phylogenetically new areas of the parietal and temporal lobes.
The formation of the chin protrusion in humans occurred, according to L. Bolk, mainly due to the reduction of that part of the lower jaw that bears teeth. The lower half, which makes up the body of the jaw itself, underwent a reduction process to a lesser extent, as a result of which the chin protrusion was designated.
Among mammals, some analogy could be seen in the protruding chin of the lower jaw of an elephant, since its dental system has undergone an even stronger reduction, as a result of which it consists of only four molars and two upper incisors, or tusks, that is, all of six teeth.
Speech function could only have a secondary effect on the main process of the formation of the chin protrusion (Gremyatsky, 1922). For the development of speech in humans, the transformation of the shape of the jaw from elongated to horseshoe-shaped, the increase in the volume of the oral cavity in which the tongue moves, as well as the 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.” (Poln. sobr. soch., 1953, v. 27, p. 164). First, he says, verbal and measuring forms (heavy, far) developed, then the names of tools. According to A. M. Gorky, there were no meaningless words in the initial speech (p. 138). Both speech and the mind of a person are put by A.M. Gorky into the closest, organic connection with labor activity: “The human mind has kindled in the work of reorganizing grossly organized matter and in itself is nothing more than a finely organized and more and more finely organized energy, extracted from this same energy by working with it and on it, by studying and mastering its forces. and qualities” (ibid., pp. 164-165).
Probably, articulate speech contributed to the progressive development of mankind already in the Neanderthal phase of its formation: the intensive development of speech at that time, probably, to a large extent contributed to the transformation of ancient people into a higher type of Cro-Magnons. The later Neanderthals, with their ability to make fire, the emerging custom of burying the dead in caves, grottoes that served as dwellings, with their bone processing techniques, stood above their predecessors, i.e., earlier Neanderthals (Semenov, 1959).
To an even greater extent, articulate speech developed and became more complicated among fossil people of the modern type, that is, among the “new”, or “ready” - “reasonable”, people who passed further epochs of history at an ever faster pace 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 emergence of labor actions marked the beginning of a dialectical leap from animal to man - the first turning point in the evolution of hominids, and the second - with the advent of modern man and the opening of the era of the domination of social laws, means the end of the leap. The development of the culture of modern man is not associated with progressive evolution, as was the case with the paleoanthrope or archanthrope. The entire course of the formation of hominids under the influence of labor naturally led to the emergence of a new quality in the neoanthrope. For any modern nation, regardless of its racial composition, the transition to a higher socio-historical formation takes place regardless of the evolutionary process, under the influence of only historical patterns.
The dialectical-materialist conception of the process of the formation of man, his brain, speech, and thinking serves in Soviet anthropology as the most solid basis for an in-depth study of anthropogenesis, for the struggle against all and sundry idealistic hypotheses in this field of the science of man, as well as in the field of racial science to expose racism on based on anthropological data.
| Foreword | ||
| Part I. Darwinian and other hypotheses of anthropogenesis |
||
| Chapter first | Darwin on the origin of man | |
| The idea of anthropogenesis before Darwin |
||
| Darwin on the evolution of the animal world |
||
| Human ancestry according to Darwin |
||
| Essay on the development of knowledge about primates |
||
| Development of primatology in the USSR | ||
| Chapter Two | Great apes and their origin | |
| Modern anthropoids |
||
| fossil anthropoids | ||
| Chapter Three | The latest hypotheses of the origin of man and their criticism |
|
| Religious interpretations of anthropogenesis |
||
| Tarsia hypothesis |
||
| Simial hypotheses |
||
| Osborn's Anthropogenesis Hypothesis |
||
| Weidenreich's Anthropogenesis Hypothesis |
||
| Some factors of hominization and extinction of Pliocene and Pleistocene fossil anthropoids | ||
| Part II. Features of the structure 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 rib cage |
||
| 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 | ||
