Rice. I. 7. Olduvai culture of the Lower Paleolithic. Pithecanthropes
(earliest people, archanthropes)

Pithecanthropes - This is the second stadial group of hominids after Australopithecus. In this aspect, special literature they are often designated (all variants of the group) as "archanthropes", that is, "the most ancient people"; here you can also add the definition of "true people", since the belonging of Pithecanthropus to the family of hominids is not disputed by any of the anthropologists. Previously, some researchers combined Pithecanthropus with Neanderthals in one evolutionary stage.

Pithecanthropus finds are known in three parts of the world - Africa, Asia and Europe. Their ancestors were representatives of Homo habilis (later East African representatives of this species are often referred to as Homo rudolfensis). The time of existence of pithecanthropes (including the earliest ones, Homo ergaster) can be represented in the interval of 1.8 million years - less than 200 thousand years. The most ancient representatives of the stage were discovered in Africa (1.6 million years - 1.8 million years); since the turn of 1 million years, they have been common in Asia, and since 0.5 million years, pithecanthropes (often referred to as "preneanderthals", or representatives of Homo heidelbergensis) lived in Europe. The almost worldwide distribution of pithecanthropes can be explained by their rather high level of biological and social development. The evolution of various groups of Pithecanthropes occurred at different speeds, but had one direction - towards the sapiens type.

For the first time, the bone fragments of Pithecanthropus were discovered by the Dutch doctor E. Dubois on about. Java in 1891. It is noteworthy that the author of the find shared the concept of an “intermediate link” in the human genealogy, which belonged to the Darwinist E. Haeckel. Near the village of Trinil were found (successively) the upper molar, the skull cap and the femur. The archaic character of the cranial cover is impressive: a sloping forehead and a powerful supraorbital ridge and a completely modern type of femur. The layers containing the Trinil fauna date back to 700 thousand years ago (currently 500 thousand years). In 1894, G. Dubois first gave a scientific description of "Pitpecanthropus erectus" ("monkey-man erectus"). Some European scientists met such a phenomenal discovery with distrust, and Dubois himself often did not believe in its significance for science.

With an interval of 40 years, other finds of Pithecanthropes were made on about. Java and elsewhere. In the Pungat layers with the Dzhetis fauna near the village of Mojokerto, a baby skull of a Pithecanthropus was discovered. The age of the find is close to 1 million years. Findings of bones of the skull and skeleton were made in the Sangiran locality (ancient about 800 thousand years) during 1936-1941. The next series of finds near Sangiran refers to the period 1952-1973. The most interesting find was the skull of a Pithecanthropus with a preserved facial section of the skull, made in 1963. The remains of a Paleolithic culture on about. Java not found.

A fossil man similar to Pithecanthropus was found in the Middle Pleistocene deposits of China. The teeth of Sinanthropus (Chinese Pithecanthropus) were discovered in the limestone cave of Zhoukou-dian in 1918. The collection of random finds was replaced by excavations, and in 1937 the remains of more than 40 Sinanthropus individuals were discovered in this location (Fig. 1.8). The description of this variant of Pithecanthropus was first made by the Canadian specialist Vlekom. The absolute dating of Sinanthropus is estimated at 400-500 thousand years. The bone remains of Sinanthropus are accompanied by numerous cultural

Rice. I. 8. Skull of the Chinese Pithecanthropus (0.4 Ma)

remains (stone tools, crushed and burnt animal bones). Of greatest interest is the multi-meter thickness of ash found in the hunting camp of Sinanthropus. The use of fire for processing food made it more digestible, and the long-term maintenance of a fire indicates a fairly high level of development of social relations among Sinanthropes.

Multiple finds allow us to confidently speak about the reality of the Pithecanthropus taxon. Here are the main features of its morphotype. The modern type of the femurs and the position of the foramen magnum, similar to what we see on modern skulls, testify to the undoubted adaptation of Pithecanthropus to upright posture. The overall massiveness of the Pithecanthropus skeleton is greater than that of Australopithecus. Numerous archaic features are observed in the structure of the skull: a highly developed relief, a sloping frontal region, massive jaws, pronounced prognathism of the facial region. The walls of the skull are thick, the lower jaw is massive and wide, the teeth are large, while the size of the canine is close to modern. A highly developed occipital relief is associated with the development of the cervical muscles, which played a significant role in balancing the skull when walking. Given in contemporary literature estimates of the brain size of pithecanthropes vary from 750 to 1350 cm3, i.e., approximately correspond at a minimum to the lower threshold of values ​​given for australopithecines of the habilis type. Previously compared species were attributed a significant difference. The structure of the endocranes testified to the complication of the structure of the brain: to a greater extent, Pithecanthropes have developed areas of the parietal region, lower frontal and upper posterior parts of the frontal region, which is associated with the development of specific human functions- labor and speech. On the endocranes of synanthropes, new growth foci were found associated with the assessment of body position, speech, and fine movements.

Sinanthropus is somewhat different in type from Pithecanthropus. The length of its body was about 150 cm (Pithecanthropus - up to 165-175 cm), the dimensions of the skull were increased, but the type of structure was the same, with the exception of a weakened occipital relief. The skeleton of Sinanthropus is less massive. Noteworthy is the graceful lower jaw. The volume of the brain is more than 1000 cm3. The difference between the Sinanthropus and the Javanese Pithecanthropus is assessed at the subspecies level.

The nature of food residues, as well as the structure of the lower jaws, indicates a change in the type of feeding of synanthropes towards omnivorousness, which is a progressive sign. Sinanthropus is likely to have cannibalism. On the question of their ability to make fire, archaeologists disagreed.

Analysis of human bone remains of this phase of anthropogenesis allows us to reconstruct the age and sex composition of synanthropus groups: 3-6 males, 6-10 females and 15-20 children.

The comparative complexity of culture requires a sufficiently high level of communication and mutual understanding, therefore, it is possible to predict the existence of primitive speech at this time. The biological basis for such a prognosis can be considered an increase in the bone relief in the places of attachment of the muscles of the tongue, the beginning of the formation of the chin, and the gracilization of the lower jaws.

Fragments of skulls of antiquity, commensurate with the early Pithecanthropes of Fr. Java (approximately 1 million years old), found in two provinces of China - Lantian, Kuvanlin. It is interesting that the more ancient Chinese Pithecanthropus differ from the Sinanthropes in the same way as the early Pithecanthropes from the later ones, namely, the greater massiveness of the bones and the smaller size of the brain. Late progressive Pithecanthropus include a recent find in India. Here, together with Late Acheulean tools, a skull with a volume of 1300 cm3 was found.

The reality of the existence of the Pithecanthropus stage in anthropogenesis is practically not disputed. True, the later representatives of the Pithecanthropes are considered the ancestors of subsequent, more progressive forms. The question of the time and place of the appearance of the first Pithecanthropus has been widely discussed in science. Previously, Asia was considered its homeland, and the time of appearance was estimated at about 2 million years. Now this issue is resolved differently. Africa is considered the birthplace of both Australopithecus and Pithecanthropus. In 1984, in Kenya (Nariokotome), a 1.6-million-year-old Pithecanthropus (complete skeleton of a teenager) was discovered. The main finds of the earliest pithecanthropes in Africa are: Koobi Fora (1.6 million years), South African Swartkrans (1.5 million years), Olduvai (1.2 million years). African pithecanthropes of the Mediterranean coast (Ternifin) have an antiquity of 700 thousand years. The geological antiquity of the Asian variants can be estimated at 1.3–0.1 Ma. Archaeological evidence from sites in the Middle East, closer to Africa than to Asia, is known, suggesting that the antiquity of African pithecanthropes could reach 2 million years.

The synchronous forms of the fossil man from Europe are younger and rather peculiar. They are often referred to as "pre-Neanderthals" or referred to as Homo heidelbergensis, which in Africa, Europe and Asia was ancestral to modern humans and the Neanderthals of Europe and Asia. European forms have the following age: Mauer (500 thousand years), Arago (400 thousand years), Petralona (450 thousand years), Atapuerca (300 thousand years). Broken Hill (300 thousand years) and Bodo (600 thousand years) have a transitional evolutionary character in Africa.

In the Caucasus, the most ancient find in Georgia is the Dmanisi man, whose antiquity is estimated at 1.6-1.8 million years. Anatomical features make it possible to put it on a par with the most ancient hominids of Africa and Asia! Pithecanthropes were also found in other sites: in Uzbekistan (Sel-Ungur), in the North Caucasus (Kudaro), Ukraine. A form intermediate between Pithecanthropes and Neanderthals was found in Azerbaijan (Azykh). The Acheulean man apparently lived on the territory of Armenia (Yerevan).

Early pithecanthropes differ from later ones in greater massiveness of bones and a smaller brain size. A similar difference is observed in Asia and Europe.

In the Paleolithic, the Acheulean corresponds to the physical type of Pithecanthropus and early Neanderthals. The leading tool of the ashel is a hand ax (Fig. I. 9). It demonstrates a high level in the development of stone processing technology. Within the limits of the Acheulian era, one can observe an increase in the thoroughness of finishing axes: the number of chips from the surface of the tool increases. The surface finish becomes finer when stone chippers are replaced with softer ones made of bone, horn or wood. The size of a hand ax reached 35 cm. It was made from stone by chipping on both sides. The ax had a pointed end, two longitudinal blades and a raw opposite edge. It is believed that the ax had various functions: it served as a percussion instrument, was used for digging up roots, dismembering animal corpses, and processing wood. In the southern regions, an ax (jib) is found, which is distinguished by a transverse blade, not corrected by retouching, and symmetrically processed edges.

Rice. I. 9. Acheulean hand axes

A typical Acheulean ax does not exhaust all the technological diversity characteristic of that period. There was a flake "klekton" culture, as well as a flake progressive culture "Levallois", which is distinguished by the manufacture of tools from flakes of disc-shaped blanks, the surface of the blanks was preliminarily processed with small chips. In addition to axes, small tools such as points, scrapers, and knives are found in the Acheulean sites. Some of them survive to the time of the Cro-Magnons. There are also Olduvai tools in the Acheulean. Rare wooden tools are known. It is believed that the Pithecanthropus of Asia could make do with bamboo tools.

Hunting was of great importance in the life of the Acheuleans. Pithecanthropes were not only collectors. The Acheulean monuments are interpreted as hunting camps, since bones of large animals are found in their cultural layer. The life of the Acheulean groups was difficult, people were engaged in different types labor. Different types of camps are open: hunting camps, flint quarry workshops, long-term camps. The Acheuleans built dwellings in open places and in caves. In the area of ​​Nice, a settlement of huts was opened.

The natural environment of the Acheulean man determined the features of material culture. The types of tools in different sites are found in different proportions. Hunting for large animals required the close rallying of a team of people. Parking lots of different types testify to the existence of a division of labor. The remains of hearths speak of the effectiveness of the use of fire by Pithecanthropes. In the Kenyan site of Chesovanja, traces of fire are 1.4 million years old. The Mousterian culture of Neanderthal man is the development of the technological achievements of the angelic culture of Pithecanthropes.

As a result of the Afro-Asiatic magrations of the first people, two main centers of human evolution arose - western and eastern. Pithecanthropus populations separated by vast distances could progress long time in isolation from each other. There is an opinion that Neanderthals were not a natural stage of evolution in all regions, in Africa and Europe Pithecanthropes (“preneanderthals”) were such.

International scientific name

Homo erectus erectus (Dubois, 1892)

Synonyms

• Pithecanthropus erectus Dubois, 1894
• Anthropopithecus javenensis
• Hylobates giga Krause, 1895
• Hylobates giganteus Bumüller, 1899

Discovery history

Term Pithecanthropus(Pithecantropus) was first proposed in 1866 by Ernst Haeckel as a designation for a hypothetical intermediate between ape and man.

The danger that lay in wait for the Pithecanthropes at every turn forced them to live in large families, or more or less large stable associations, in relation to which the concept of “primitive herd” or ancestral community.

A study of the tool materials of camps in Africa showed that the latter, as a rule, were permanent. Judging by the spaciousness of the dwellings known to modern scientists, several generations of a large family could coexist in one room for a long time. Life in large groups facilitated the hunting of large animals, distinguished by remarkable strength and speed of movement. In addition to hunting, pithecanthropes could engage in fishing, most often catching fish with their bare hands.

According to scientists, skirmishes often occurred in the Pithecanthropus society, often leading to the death of certain members of the community, and in times of famine, cannibalism was common. In order to coexist peacefully even in such a primitive society, considerable efforts had to be made to curb primitive instincts. It was for this purpose that it was necessary to develop some generally accepted norms of behavior, which made it possible to move to a new stage in the development of coexistence for all relatives. To control the implementation of such specific rules, there is a need for leaders who were assigned a leading role.

Unlike modern humans, at an early stage, strict sexual restrictions did not yet exist among Pithecanthropes and, in fact, promiscuity prevailed. However, at a later stage, stable married couples could periodically arise in their herds, and some male, showing aggression towards his fellow tribesmen, chose a specific female, as is artistically described in Jack London's historical story "Before Adam" (1907).

According to the French anthropologist A. Valois and the Soviet scientist A.V. Nemilov, in the early Paleolithic, due to the consequences of the transition to upright posture, which caused complications during childbirth, the life expectancy of female pithecanthropes was significantly lower than that of males, due to which the number of the latter in primitive human collectives exceeded the number of the first.

If most of the life of males was occupied by hunting or clashes due to personal rivalry, females were engaged in everyday life, raising children, caring for the wounded and sick. The inclusion of meat in the daily diet of Pithecanthropus helped solve the problem of providing the body with reliable sources of replenishment of the energy reserve necessary to perform hard physical work. And the use of various plants for food was an excellent way to learn their healing properties, which can be considered the first steps towards healing.

Science has the facts of the manifestation by Pithecanthropes of collective care for sick fellow tribesmen. So, on the Pithecanthropus femur discovered by Dubois on the island of Java, there are pronounced changes in bone tissue (exostosis). Obviously, without the support of relatives, this lame, with handicapped self-defense, the individual inevitably had to die, but he lived, remaining a cripple, for many years.

Even in those distant primitive times, Pithecanthropus begins to realize the importance of hygienic skills, such as removing the remains of eaten animals from dwellings or burying dead relatives. But at that stage of human development, in the absence of abstract thinking, all this did without special rituals or the creation of a funeral cult.

material culture

Unlike Australopithecus, the hands of Pithecanthropes were already capable of superficial processing of wood, bone and stone. Working on the creation of primitive tools, the Pithecanthropes had to gradually bring to perfection the stones that were split in a natural way or split them on their own, make chips and flakes on them.

There is no direct evidence that Pithecanthropus made tools, since the bone remains on the island of Java were found in a redeposited state, which excludes the discovery of contemporary tools. On the other hand, in the same layers and with the same fauna as the finds of Pithecanthropus, finds of archaic tools similar to the Acheulian culture were made. In addition, among the later finds (Sinanthropus, Heidelberg man, Atlanthropus) belonging to the same species Homo erectus or close species ( Homo heidelbergensis, Homo ergaster, Homo antecessor), tools of the same culture as the Javanese were found. Therefore, there is reason to think that Javanese tools were made by Pithecanthropes.

Along with stone ones, pithecanthropes were able to make primitive tools from bones and horns, use wooden clubs and pointed branches as spears.

Scientists do not have convincing data to argue that pithecanthropes were able, like sinanthropes, to produce or maintain fire on their own, but they undoubtedly knew how to use it. In addition to protection from the cold, predators, and cooking, the mastery of fire made pithecanthropus herds less dependent on the climate and more mobile.

Pithecanthropus and modern humans

While the majority of Soviet anthropologists were of the opinion that Pithecanthropes were an intermediate link between Australopithecus and people of the genus Homo, modern researchers are not inclined to consider them the ancestors of modern people. Apparently they were a distant and isolated population. Homo erectus, which, under the conditions of Indonesia, survived until the appearance of modern people and died out about 27 thousand years ago [ ] .

. Man at that time still practically did not stand out from the animal world. The economic life of the forefathers and their social relations did not differ from those of other social animals. start date anthropogenesis

Pithecanthropus. During this period, the most ancient forefathers successively succeeded each other. Pithecanthropus was the first in this chain. He was an upright creature and differed from modern man in the structure of the cranium, the brain volume was 900 cm3, the skull retained many monkey features: low height, primitive structure, and a highly developed brow ridge. The hands of Pithecanthropus were capable of performing the simplest labor operations. Pithecanthropus already knew how to make some tools. To do this, he used wood, bone, boulders and pebbles, subjecting them to primitive processing: the chips on the stones still do not show any regularity. The era of primitiveness is usually called the Stone Age, and its initial stage is the early Paleolithic (Ancient Stone Age). The ancient Paleolithic ended approximately 100 thousand years BC. Pithecanthropus habitats are associated with the ancestral home of mankind. Most likely this is Central and South Africa, central Asia. Separate types Pithecanthropes lived in relative isolation, did not meet among themselves and were separated by genetic barriers. Their everyday life was similar to the life of Australopithecus monkeys - a predatory lifestyle, hunting for small animals, gathering, fishing, nomadism. They lived in groups of 25-30 adults in caves, grottoes, rocks, shelters made of trees and bushes. They didn't know how to make fire.

Synanthropes. Appeared on Earth300 thousand years ago. Like the Pithecanthropus, the Sinanthropus was of medium height, dense build, and its brain volume was 1050 cm3. Sinanthropus was capable of sound speech. More complex labor activity and stone tools. The most common were hand axes and flakes with obvious traces of artificial processing. They hunted such large animals as deer, wild horses and rhinos. They lived in caves, learned to build ground dwellings. They led a nomadic lifestyle, preferring the banks of rivers and lakes as habitats. They did not know how to make fire, but they had already learned how to maintain natural fire. They had hearths where fire burned day and night. The extraction of fire became the most important economic task, and the struggle for fire became a frequent cause of conflicts and wars between neighboring human groups.

Neanderthals. The Neanderthal type of man was formed about 200 thousand years ago. Neanderthals were small in stature (the average height of a man was 156 cm), broad-boned, with highly developed muscles. The brain volume of some Neanderthal forms was larger than that of modern humans. The structure of the brain remained primitive: poorly developed frontal lobes, important for the function of thinking and inhibition. Have limited ability logical thinking. The behavior was characterized by a sharp excitability, which led to violent conflicts and clashes.

Stone tools were made: axes, points, punctures, drills, flakes. The main methods of stone technology: squeezing, breaking stone, for which flint, sandstone, quartz, volcanic rocks were used. Stone technology is gradually improving, stone tools are gaining correct form. Previously unknown tools appeared: side-scrapers, awls. Part of the tool could be made of stone, part of wood or bone.

Successfully located sheds and caves were used as permanent dwellings, they could be used throughout the life of several generations. Complex ground dwellings were built in open places. Economic life was based on gathering, fishing, hunting.

Gathering required a lot of time, and food provided little and mostly low-calorie. Fishing required exceptional attention, quick reaction and skill, but did not provide much prey. Hunting was the most efficient source of meat food. Hunting objects: hippos, elephants, antelopes, wild bulls (in the tropical zone), wild boars, deer, bison, bears (in the northern regions). They also hunted mammoth and woolly rhinoceros. They made trapping pits and used the driven method, in which all adult males of the community participated. Hunting was a form of labor activity that ensured the organization of the collective, the most progressive branch of the economy, it was it that determined the development of primitive communal society. Any prey belonged to the whole team. The distribution of prey was equal. If there was little food, then hunters received it first of all. In extreme conditions, the killing of children and the elderly was practiced. Endless bloody conflicts, as well as difficult living conditions, did not allow Neanderthals to live to old age. Gradually their numbers increased and they settled throughout Europe, Asia and Africa.

Read also:

II. The economic life of the primitive human herd.

The most ancient period of human history is usually referred to as era of the primitive human herd. Man at that time still practically did not stand out from the animal world. The economic life of the forefathers and their social relations did not differ from those of other social animals.

start date anthropogenesis- human development and human society- 2.5 million years. This epoch ends with the emergence of modern man about 100,000 years ago.

Pithecanthropus. During this period, the most ancient forefathers successively succeeded each other. Pithecanthropus was the first in this chain. He was an upright creature and differed from modern man in the structure of the cranium, the brain volume was 900 cm3, the skull retained many monkey features: low height, primitive structure, and a highly developed brow ridge.

The hands of Pithecanthropus were capable of performing the simplest labor operations. Pithecanthropus already knew how to make some tools. To do this, he used wood, bone, boulders and pebbles, subjecting them to primitive processing: the chips on the stones still do not show any regularity. The era of primitiveness is usually called the Stone Age, and its initial stage is the early Paleolithic (Ancient Stone Age). The ancient Paleolithic ended about 100,000 years ago.

BC Pithecanthropus habitats are associated with the ancestral home of mankind. Most likely it is Central and South Africa, Central Asia. Separate species of Pithecanthropus lived in relative isolation, did not meet with each other and were separated by genetic barriers. Their daily life was similar to the life of Australopithecus monkeys - a predatory lifestyle, hunting for small animals, gathering, fishing, nomadism.

They lived in groups of 25-30 adults in caves, grottoes, rocks, shelters made of trees and bushes. They didn't know how to make fire.

Synanthropes. Appeared on Earth300 thousand years ago. Like the Pithecanthropus, the Sinanthropus was of medium height, dense build, and its brain volume was 1050 cm3.

Sinanthropus was capable of sound speech. More complex labor activity and stone tools. The most common were hand axes and flakes with obvious traces of artificial processing.

They hunted such large animals as deer, wild horses and rhinos. They lived in caves, learned to build ground dwellings. They led a nomadic lifestyle, preferring the banks of rivers and lakes as habitats. They did not know how to make fire, but they had already learned how to maintain natural fire.

They had hearths where fire burned day and night. The extraction of fire became the most important economic task, and the struggle for fire became a frequent cause of conflicts and wars between neighboring human groups.

Neanderthals. The Neanderthal type of man was formed about 200 thousand years ago.

years ago. Neanderthals were small in stature (the average height of a man was 156 cm), broad-boned, with highly developed muscles. The brain volume of some Neanderthal forms was larger than that of modern humans. The structure of the brain remained primitive: poorly developed frontal lobes, important for the function of thinking and inhibition. Possessed limited ability of logical thinking. The behavior was characterized by a sharp excitability, which led to violent conflicts and clashes.

Stone tools were made: axes, points, punctures, drills, flakes.

The main methods of stone technology: squeezing, breaking stone, for which flint, sandstone, quartz, volcanic rocks were used.

Stone technology is gradually improving, stone tools acquire the correct shape. Previously unknown tools appeared: side-scrapers, awls. Part of the tool could be made of stone, part of wood or bone.

Successfully located sheds and caves were used as permanent dwellings, they could be used throughout the life of several generations. Complex ground dwellings were built in open places.

Economic life was based on gathering, fishing, hunting.

Gathering required a lot of time, and food provided little and mostly low-calorie. Fishing required exceptional attention, quick reaction and skill, but did not provide much prey. Hunting was the most efficient source of meat food. Hunting objects: hippos, elephants, antelopes, wild bulls (in the tropical zone), wild boars, deer, bison, bears (in the northern regions). They also hunted mammoth and woolly rhinoceros.

They made trapping pits and used the driven method, in which all adult males of the community participated. Hunting was a form of labor activity that ensured the organization of the collective, the most progressive branch of the economy, it was it that determined the development of primitive communal society.

Any prey belonged to the whole team.

The distribution of prey was equal. If there was little food, then hunters received it first of all. In extreme conditions, the killing of children and the elderly was practiced. Endless bloody conflicts, as well as difficult living conditions, did not allow Neanderthals to live to old age. Gradually their numbers increased and they settled throughout Europe, Asia and Africa.

Read also:

stick

Pithecanthropus tool

Alternative descriptions

No eyes, no ears, but leads the blind (riddle)

Cut thin trunk or branch of a tree without knots

Ski support

A piece of wood that can be bent

Skier's helper

Striped girlfriend of a traffic cop

She has two ends

. ...-lifesaver

stake and staff

Bat, stake or stick

. ...-digger

about two ends

Cane, staff

. skier's "staff"

Ski …

She is taken to extremes

Oryasina

She is put into the wheels of the enemy

The owner of two ends at once

Eternally bent

piece of wood

Polish biathlete

A piece of wood

Straight tree branch without knots

A thick branch of a tree without knots, used as a support when walking

Cut thin trunk or cut straight tree branch without knots

. "Staff" skier

. "baton" in French

. “if the dog is a bat, there will be ...” (last)

a perch, stake or club, convenient in size, for wielding it with one hand; batog, baidig, batozhek, padozhek, cane, staff, staff, hard, cut twig.

A stick serving as a handle, or in business, called. looking at things: a scythe, a kopeck, a shaft, a stalk, a banner, a nag, a lever, a gag, a twist, etc. He walks, propped up with a stick. and app. wand. Drum sticks. There is no razor, so the awl shaves; there is no fur coat, so the stick warms.

soldier We work from under the stick, reluctantly. The stick does not rule, but breaks. her stick, and she gave me a rolling pin! A fool always grabs a stick. There is no learning without a stick. To whom the first cup, that and the first stick, rank. Your will, our stick: beat us, but listen to you. Stick on stick, not good, but glass on glass, nothing. When a soldier is not afraid of a stick, he is not fit for service or business. our regiment is of no use: whoever got up earlier and took the stick was the corporal. He rode off on a stick.

There is a dog, so there is no stick; stick eat dog no! Whoever needs to hit the dog will find the stick.

Pithecanthropus and Sinanthropus

He gives a stick to himself. There is nowhere to cut a drumstick: there is nothing to carve a guy with (treelessness). If there was a dog, we would find a stick (and vice versa). Happiness is not a stick: you can’t take it in your hands. No eyes, no ears, but leads the blind? (stick). The red stick strikes in vain; the white stick strikes for the cause. Do not stir if the sticks (fingers) are not good. Stick, Vologda. pralnik, kichiga, laundry roll. A stick of sealing wax. Lollipop stick. Stick (tile) chocolate. Stick pl. a short blow with sticks on the drum, like a sign, a lighthouse, for a friendly volley from cannons, on a ship; also a sign to the infantry officers, to enter from behind the front to their places, after the firing stops.

Mn. card game. Wand cf. sticks for punishment, beating; rods, batozhe, old. lengths. Palchina vlad. club. collected sib. stick, pole. Stick insect m. batozhnik, bushy or young wood, suitable for sticks. Rusten. Typha; Angustifolia: tyrlych vyat. chakan donsk.

robin? cattail or cattail; tub? philatics? latifolia: kubys south. cattail and cattail, kuga, ears, chakan, tyrlik, wad, siskin, tub. Downy, but very hard cobs of stick insects, in asters. dipped in lard or blubber, and burned vm. candles; from its trunks they weave bedding, braid chairs, knit floats for a seine. Timothy grass, rye, Phleum. Rusten. Dactilis glomerata? hedgehog, south, miser? Stick fragments. That's what life is like beating with a stick! The cane guard, in the camp, and now the back, where the prisoners are, and where the guilty are punished.

Mace a cane, a club, a stick, a bulldyuga, especially a weighty one; novg. hard. kichiga, pralnik or pralo, pralny roll, hoof; but the handle of the hoof is longer, for winter. (Acad. Sl. erroneously available). Oslop, a club for defense, as a weapon, with a heavy rhizome, butt or with a bound knob, a combat mace.

Elm, two-handed club. old potes baroque, instead of the helm and oars. Expects that the drunkard will drink a jar, that the dog will bludgeon, dumbfounded. Clubbing. Mace army, palichniks, bludgeons, oslopniki

What word Dunno came up with the rhyme "herring"

Dunno rhyme to the word "herring"

The one that is always "two-way"

. "..., ..., cucumber" (children's drawing)

Report: Pithecanthropus.

IN late XIX V. (1890-1891) a sensation was caused by the finds of fossil remains of a humanoid creature in the early Pleistocene deposits of the river. Solo in Java. A skull cap and long bones of the lower extremities were found there, on the basis of the study of which it was concluded that the creature moved in an upright position, which is why it received the name Pithecanhropus erectus, or “upright ape-man.”

Immediately after the discovery of the remains of Pithecanthropus, a lively controversy arose around him. Views were expressed that the skull belonged to a huge gibbon, a modern microcephalus, just a modern man, and acquired its own characteristics under the influence of post-mortem deformation, etc.

etc. But all these assumptions have not been confirmed by a thorough comparative morphological study. On the contrary, it irrefutably proved that the peculiarity of the find cannot be explained by pathology. In addition, starting from the 30s of the 20th century, the remains of almost 20 more similar individuals were found on the island of Java. Thus, there is no doubt about the real existence of Pithecanthropes.

Another remarkable discovery of human remains from the Early Pleistocene era was made in 1954-1955.

in North Africa. Unfortunately, it is even more fragmentary than the finds on the island of Java. Only incompletely preserved mandibles were found, belonging to three individuals, who received the name Atlanthropus mauritanicus. However, they were deposited in an unredeposited state and together with tools, which significantly increases the value of the find.

The most important discoveries for understanding the evolution of the morphological type of the most ancient hominins were made starting from 1927 in northern China, not far from Beijing, in the Zhoukoudian cave.

Excavations of the camp of the most ancient hunters discovered there have brought huge archaeological material and bone remains of more than 40 individuals - men, women and children. Both in the development of culture and in their morphological appearance, these people turned out to be somewhat more advanced on the path of approaching modern man than the Pithecanthropes.

They belong to a later era than the Pithecanthropes, and were separated into an independent genus and species Sinanthropus pekinensis - Peking ape-man. The preservation of the bone material made it possible to almost completely study the structure of the Sinanthropus skeleton and thereby fill in the gaps in our knowledge due to the fragmentary nature of the finds of Pithecanthropus and other ancient hominins.

Sinanthropus, like Pithecanthropus, was a creature of medium height and dense build.

The volume of the brain exceeded that of the Pithecanthropus and varied in different individuals from 900 to 1200 cm3, averaging 1050 cm3. Nevertheless, many primitive features were still observed in the structure of the skull, bringing Sinanthropus closer to anthropoid apes.

An indirect argument in defense of this conclusion can be the relatively high level of labor activity of synanthropes.

The tools are diverse, although they do not have a completely stable form. There are few implements worked on both sides, the so-called hand axes, and they also do not differ in typological uniformity. Sinanthropus has already killed such large animals as deer, gazelles, wild horses and even rhinos.

He had permanent habitats in caves.

Probably two more European finds have a very ancient dating. One of them was made in 1965 at the Vertesselles site in Hungary. This is the occipital bone of an adult individual. Some researchers assess the morphological features of the bone as very primitive and suggest that it was left by Pithecanthropus.

Given the insignificance of the preserved fragment, it is difficult to resolve the issue definitely, but the volume of the brain restored from the occipital bone exceeds 1400 cm3, which is closer to Neanderthal values. Perhaps the bone belonged to a very ancient Neanderthal or some transitional European form from Pithecanthropus and Sinanthropus to Neanderthals. True, it is also possible that the volume of the brain determined from such small fragments may be erroneous.

The second find was made in 1972-1975.

at the Bilzingsleben site in Thuringia. The tools and fauna found with her also testify to her early age. Fragments of the frontal and occipital bones were found. The supraorbital relief is characterized by exceptional thickness, and therefore we can think that we are dealing in this case with a very early type of hominid, possibly with the European Pithecanthropus.

Finally, the remains of creatures morphologically similar to pithecanthropes have been found in ancient Early Pleistocene and Middle Pleistocene layers in many locations in Africa.

In terms of their structure, they are quite peculiar, but in terms of the level of development and brain size they do not differ from the Javanese ape-men.

Ape-like people - Pithecanthropus, Sinanthropus, Atlanthropus, Heidelberg Man and others - lived in warm climatic conditions, surrounded by heat-loving animals and did not settle far beyond the area of ​​\u200b\u200bits original appearance; judging by the fossil finds, most of Africa, southern Europe and southern Asia were inhabited.

The existence of the genus Pithecanthropus covered a huge period of time and belonged to both the lower and the middle Pleistocene.

Thus, at present, the point of view of those researchers who, on the basis of morphology, attribute Australopithecus to the family of hominids (assuming, of course, that we are talking about representatives of all three genera - Australopithecus, Paranthropus and Plesianthropes), is the closest to reality, singling them out as subfamily Australopithecus.

The remaining later and progressive forms are combined into the second constituent family of hominids - the subfamily of hominins, or humans proper.

The overwhelming majority of serious modern researchers consider all forms known to us without exception. ancient people as members of the same genus.

The cursory list of paleontological finds of anthropomorphic primates of the Late Tertiary and Early Quaternary periods, as well as Australopithecus, made above, clearly illustrates the complexity of the problem of the ancestral home of mankind.

The remains of fossil primates, which can be close to hominids, have been found on various continents of the Old World. All of them are approximately synchronous with each other within the limits of geological time, and therefore paleontological data do not make it possible to make a choice of the territory in which the separation of man from the animal world took place.

Geological, paleozoological, paleobotanical, and paleoclimatological data paint a picture of a fairly favorable habitat for higher primates in wide areas of Central and Southern Africa and Central Asia.

The choice between the Eurasian and African continents is also hampered by the lack of developed prerequisites for determining the region of the ancestral home of mankind.

Some scientists believe that the separation of man from the animal world occurred in the conditions of a rocky landscape of some foothills, others - that the immediate ancestors of the hominid family were inhabitants of the steppes.

Having excluded the hypotheses that are untenable from a factual point of view, the hypotheses about the origin of mankind in Australia and America, which were not at all included in the zone of settlement of higher primates, being cut off from the Old World by impassable water barriers for them, we currently do not have the opportunity to solve the problem of the ancestral home of mankind with due certainty. .

C. Darwin, based on the greater morphological similarity of man with African anthropoids compared to Asian ones, considered it more likely that the African continent was the ancestral home of mankind. The fossil finds of higher primates in India, made at the beginning of our century, have shaken the balance and tipped it in favor of the Asian continent.

However, the discovery of fossil remains of Australopithecus monkeys, Zinjanthropus, Prezinjanthropus and other forms again draws the researchers' attention to the African continent as the cradle of mankind.

Summary: Ancient people

Report on the topic "Ancient people"

NEANDERTHALS- Fossil ancient people (paleoanthropes) who created the archaeological cultures of the early Paleolithic. Skeletal remains of Neanderthals have been discovered in Europe, Asia and Africa. The time of existence is 200-28 thousand years ago. How studies have established genetic material Neanderthals, they apparently are not the direct ancestors of modern man.

They are considered as an independent species of “Neanderthal man” (Homo neanderthalensis), but more often as a subspecies of Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. The name is given by an early discovery (1856) of a fossil man in the Neandertal valley, near Düsseldorf (Germany). The bulk of the remains of Neanderthals and their predecessors "pre-Neanderthals" (about 200 individuals) were found in Europe, mainly in France, and belong to the period 70-35 thousand years ago.

years ago.

Physical type of Neanderthals

Neanderthals inhabited mainly the pre-glacial zone of Europe and were a kind of ecological type of ancient man, formed in a harsh climate and in some ways reminiscent of modern Arctic types, for example, the Eskimos. They were characterized by a dense muscular build with a small stature (160-163 cm in men), a massive skeleton, a voluminous chest, extremely high attitude body mass to its surface, which reduced the relative heat transfer surface.

These signs could be the result of selection acting in the direction of an energetically more favorable heat exchange and an increase in physical strength. Neanderthals had a large, although still primitive brain (1400-1600 cm3 and above), a long massive skull with a developed supraocular ridge, a sloping forehead and an elongated "chignon-like" nape; very peculiar "Neanderthal face" with sloping cheekbones, a strongly protruding nose and a cut chin.

It is assumed that Neanderthals were born more mature and developed faster than fossil humans of a modern physical type. It is possible that Neanderthals were quite hot-tempered and aggressive, judging by some of the features of their brain and hormonal status, which can be reconstructed from the skeleton. There are also signs of constant pressure of stress factors, such as thinning of tooth enamel, which apparently indicates poor nutrition, and a number of other pathological signs on the skeleton, some of which can be explained by life in dark, damp caves.

An unfavorable manifestation of the advanced "strength" specialization of Neanderthals is evidenced by excessive thickening of the walls of the bones of long limbs, which should lead to a weakening of the hematopoietic function of the bone marrow and, as a result, to anemia.

Unilateral strength development could occur at the expense of endurance. The Neanderthal's hand, broad, paw-shaped, with shortened fingers, compacted joints and monstrous nails, was probably less dexterous than that of modern man.

Neanderthal man had a high infant mortality rate, a shortened reproductive period, and a short lifespan.

Neanderthal culture

Intellectually, the Neanderthals advanced quite far, creating a highly developed Mousterian culture (named after the Le Moustier cave in France).

Over 60 different types of stone tools have been found in France alone; their processing was significantly improved: for the manufacture of one Mousterian pointed point, 111 blows were required against 65 when making a hand ax of the early Paleolithic. Neanderthals hunted large animals (reindeer, mammoth, woolly rhinoceros, cave bear, horse, bison, etc.),

Neanderthals: our ancestors or a side branch?

Neanderthals most likely represented an extinct side branch of the hominid family tree; they often coexisted with modern man in Asia Minor and some parts of Europe and could mix with him.

Pithecanthropus Sinanthropus Neanderthals

But there is another view of Neanderthals, they are considered possible ancestors of modern man in certain regions, for example, in Central Europe, or even a universal link in the evolution from Homo erectus (Homo erectus) to modern Homo sapiens. However, work in the 1990s comparing mitochondrial DNA isolated from bones found in Neanderthal with the corresponding genetic material of modern humans suggests that Neanderthals are not our ancestors.

Around 35,000 years ago, Neanderthals suddenly died out. (later sites of Neanderthals have now become known, showing that some of their groups "held out" in the territory occupied by the Cro-Magnons for quite a long time - up to 28,000 years ago). Shortly before this, modern man (Homo sapiens sapiens) appeared in Europe.

Perhaps there is a connection between the two events. Here are some of the most ancient finds of modern man (Cro-Magnon, France):

Neanderthal from the Caucasus. Mysteries clear up

The prestigious scientific journal Nature published an article by Russian, British and Swedish scientists on the analysis of Neanderthal DNA. Perhaps the most dramatic page in the history of the origin of modern man is the problem of Neanderthals. Disputes about their fate and their contribution to our blood have not stopped for many decades.

“To put it simply, we see the mind of modern man, enclosed in the body of an ancient creature ... The Neanderthals had beliefs, customs and rituals. Burial of the dead, compassion for one's own kind and attempts to influence fate - these are the new aspects introduced into human life Neanderthals,” wrote Ralph Solecki.

"Under the sloping forehead of a Neanderthal, a truly human thought burned" - the opinion of Yuri Rychkov.

And these creatures disappeared without a trace from the face of the planet? No, many anthropologists place them among our ancestors. The traces of the first Neanderthals date back to 300,000 years old, and they disappeared somewhere around 25,000 years ago. And for at least 30,000 years, Neanderthals and our direct ancestors - the Cro-Magnons - lived side by side, in the same places in Europe.

So why don't they mix? - ask the supporters of our relationship with the Neanderthals. And yet, in recent times, it is customary to consider Neanderthals a "side" branch of the evolutionary tree of Homo sapiens.

Now, results from analysis of mitochondrial DNA samples from Neanderthal ribs support this view.

A few clarifications regarding the methods of analysis. Mitochondria (the main source of cellular energy) are scattered outside the nucleus, in the cell cytoplasm. They contain small rings of DNA, which contain about twenty genes.

Mitochondrial DNA is amazing in that it is transmitted from generation to generation in a fundamentally different way than chromosomal DNA: only through the female line.

A person receives from his father and from his mother a set of twenty-three specific chromosomes.

But which of them is inherited from the grandmother, and which from the grandfather, is determined by chance. Therefore, the chromosomes of siblings are somewhat different, and they may not be very similar to each other. And most importantly, for this reason, in the course of sexual reproduction between members of the population, a kind of “horizontal” mixing of chromosomes and the emergence of various new genetic combinations occur. These combinations are the material for evolution, for natural selection.

Another thing is mitochondrial DNA. Each person receives mtDNA only from his mother, she - from her own, and so on in a series of only female generations, which has a chance to pass it on.

And now, scientists have analyzed mitochondrial DNA from the bones of the skeleton of a two-month-old baby found by an expedition of the Institute of Archeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences in the Mezmaiskaya cave in the Caucasus.

Note that this is the easternmost find of a Neanderthal man, and he lived 29 thousand years ago. From the ribs found, geneticists managed to extract the remains of the child's genetic substance and, as a result, obtained a segment of mtDNA of 256 pairs.

What did the analysis show? First, the "Caucasian" mtDNA differs by 3.48 percent from a segment of 379 pairs from the bones of a native Neanderthal from Germany, from the Neander Valley, whose analysis was made back in 1997. These differences are small and speak of the relationship of the two beings, despite the great distance separating them and the time. It is curious that, according to scientists, German and Caucasian Neanderthals had a common ancestor about 150 thousand years ago.

But the main thing: this segment is very different from the DNA of a modern person. It failed to find traces of genetic material that could be transferred from Neanderthals to modern humans.

How reliable is the analysis of fragments of ancient DNA obtained with great difficulty as a reliable tool for studying the distant past? - my question to one of the authors sensational discovery, Igor Ovchinnikov.

“A fairly large segment of DNA cannot be obtained from ancient remains.

It is possible to obtain a number of different short DNA fragments, or to obtain a large fragment by combining overlapping segments. Nevertheless, there is, of course, an opportunity for comparing ancient and modern material and for phylogenetic analysis.

As a rule, in such work, for comparison, two highly variable regions in the control region of human mitochondrial DNA are used, for which studies have been carried out on various modern populations and the approximate rate of mutations is known.

From here, it becomes possible to build a phylogenetic tree showing the relationship between different populations and the time of their origin from a common ancestor.

However, in my opinion, the final point in the dispute about the degree of kinship between the Neanderthal and humans should not be put. It is possible to compare the mtDNA of a Neanderthal with the mtDNA of not only modern humans, but also our direct ancestor, the Cro-Magnon.

True, such mtDNA has not yet been obtained, but everything is ahead.

Perhaps there were different - genetically different - groups of Neanderthals, and some of them were still among our ancestors.

But all this does not remove the drama of the situation: two parallel branches were moving towards the bright future of civilization. And one of them disappears! The circumstances of this are yet to be explored and studied.

This is how you can imagine the main developments in the field of ancient DNA research.

1984 - Obtaining and determining the nucleotide sequence of DNA from the extinct species of quagga zebra in the laboratory of Allan Wilson in California.

1985 - Cloning and sequencing of an ancient Egyptian mummy.

In subsequent years, small stretches of DNA from the ancient remains were multiplied a thousandfold using the polymerase chain reaction, a method that was developed in 1985.

This method revolutionized molecular biology and genetics, and the authors received Nobel Prize. By obtaining many copies of the source material, the researchers significantly simplified their work.

1988 - the possibility of analyzing mitochondrial DNA from 7,000-year-old human brain samples was shown.

1989 - Two groups in the USA show the possibility of multiplying ancient mitochondrial DNA.

1989 - Analysis of the mitochondrial DNA of a marsupial wolf from Australia, which became extinct in the last century.

1990 - a DNA fragment was obtained from the chloroplasts of ancient magnolia species.

1992 - a DNA fragment was obtained from a fossil termite in amber.

Somewhat later, the main work on the ancient human remains began. The most interesting are:

1995 - study of mitochondrial DNA from the Tyrolean mummy.

1997 - study of mitochondrial DNA from the remains of a Neanderthal found in the vicinity of Düsseldorf in 1856.

Quite a lot of research in recent years has been associated with the study of mummies from North and South America.

If all previous studies were related to the analysis of mitochondrial DNA, then in recent years there have been works related to the analysis of DNA of chromosomes from ancient human remains.

1993 - the possibility of determining sex in ancient and medieval human remains is shown.

1996 - the possibility of studying microsatellites (short repeats) of DNA from medieval remains was shown. These two approaches are of great interest to anthropologists and archaeologists for the study of the sexual and social structure of human communities of the past.

Homo erectus (Homo erectus)

Homo erectus(lat. Homo erectus) is an extinct species from the genus People (lat. Homo). The first evidence of its existence appears in the early Pleistocene (about 1.8 million years ago), and the last disappear only about 27 thousand years ago. The species originated in Africa and then spread to Europe and Asia.

Discovery and study

The Dutch anatomist Eugène Dubois, fascinated by Darwin's theory of evolution as applied to man, set out in 1886.

to Asia (which, despite the opinion of Darwin, began to be considered the cradle of mankind) to find the ancestors of man. He spent his first few years in Sumatra as an army doctor. However, his search there was fruitless. But in 1891, his team discovered human remains on the island of Java in the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia). Dubois called it " Pithecanthropus"(lat.

Pithecanthropus erectus). The name comes from other Greek. words "pithekos" - monkey and "anthropos" - man, i.e. "monkey man" The remains consisted of several teeth found on the banks of the Solo River (Trinil, East Java), a cranial vault and a femur, similar to the corresponding bones of a modern person. The find became known as the Java Man. These fossils are now classified as Homo erectus.

In 1921, the Swedish geologist and archaeologist Johan Gunnar Andersson and the American paleontologist Walter Granger arrived in Zhoukoudian (near Beijing, China) in search of prehistoric fossils.

Excavations began immediately, led by Andersson's Austrian assistant paleontologist Otto Zdansky, who found something that turned out to be a petrified human tooth. Zdansky returned to the excavation site in 1923, and the materials extracted from the ground on both of his visits were sent to Uppsala University (Sweden) for analysis.

In 1926, Andersson announced the discovery of two human teeth in the materials, and Zdansky published this discovery.

Canadian anatomist Davidson Black of the Beijing United medical college, delighted with the discovery of Andersson and Zdansky, received funding from the Rockefeller Foundation and resumed excavations in 1927, together with Chinese and Western scientists. Swedish paleoanthropologist Anders Birger Bolin discovered another tooth during these excavations, a description of which Black published in the journal Nature.

He characterized the find as belonging to a new species (and genus), which he called Sinanthropus Pekinensis (lat. Sinanthropus pekinensis). generic name " Sinanthropus"comes from other Greek. words denoting "China" and "man", i.e. "Chinese Man".

Many scientists were skeptical about identifying a new species based on a single tooth, and the foundation requested additional samples to continue funding. In 1928, several more teeth, skull fragments and a lower jaw were found.

Black presented these finds to the foundation and was awarded an $80,000 grant with which he founded the Cenozoic Research Laboratory.

Excavations with the participation of specialists from Europe, America and China continued until 1937, when Japan invaded China. By this time, more than 200 different remains belonging to more than 40 individuals have been discovered.

Among them were 15 partially preserved skulls, 11 lower jaws, many teeth and some bones of the skeleton. In addition, many stone tools were also found.

Almost all of the original finds were lost during World War II.

Origin, classification and evolution

There is no single point of view on the classification and origin of this species.

There are two alternative points of view. According to the first, Homo erectus can only be another name for a working person and, thus, is the direct ancestor of later hominids, such as Heidelberg man, Neanderthal man and modern man (lat. Homo sapiens). According to the second, it is an independent species.

Some paleoanthropologists consider H. ergaster to be only an African variety of H. erectus.

This led to the terms "Homo erectus sensu stricto" ("Homo erectus in the strict sense") for the Asiatic H. erectus and "Homo erectus sensu lato" ("Homo erectus in the broad sense") for a group including both early African (H . ergaster) and the Asian population.

The first origin hypothesis is that H. erectus migrated out of Africa about 2 million years ago.

years ago during the early Pleistocene, possibly as a result of the action of the "Sugar pump", and widely distributed in the Old World. Fossilized remains aged 1-1.8 million years have been found in Africa (Lake Turkana and Olduvai Gorge), Spain, Georgia, Indonesia, Vietnam, China and India.

The second hypothesis, on the contrary, states that H. erectus originated in Eurasia, and from there already migrated to Africa. Individuals found in Dmanisi (Georgia) date back to 1.77-1.85 million years ago.

years ago, which corresponds to the appearance of the earliest African remains or slightly older.

It is now generally accepted that Homo erectus is a descendant of earlier genera, such as Ardipithecus and Australopithecus, or earlier species of the genus Humans - a skilled person or a working person.

H. habilis and H. erectus have coexisted for several hundred thousand years and may have descended from a common ancestor.

For much of the 20th century, anthropologists debated the role homo erectus in human evolution. At the beginning of the century, thanks to the finds from Java and from Zhoukoudian, it was believed that man appeared in Asia. However, several naturalists (Charles Darwin most famous among them) believed that the earliest ancestors of people were Africans, because.

chimpanzees and gorillas, the closest living primate relatives to humans, live only in Africa. Numerous finds of fossilized remains of extinct primates in the 50s - 70s of the XX century in East Africa gave evidence that early hominids appeared there.

Homo erectus georgicus

In 1991, the Georgian scientist David Lordkipanidze, as part of an international group of researchers, found fossilized remains in Dmanisi (Georgia) - jaws and skulls.

At first, scientists believed that these remains belonged to H. ergaster, but due to the difference in size, they subsequently concluded that they belonged to a new species. They called him a Georgian man (lat. Homo georgicus). It was assumed to be a descendant of H. habilis and an ancestor of the Asiatic H. erectus. However, this classification has not been accepted, and is now considered to be a divergent group of H. erectus - sometimes referred to as a subspecies of Homo erectus georgicus (Georgian Homo Erectus).

Possibly this is a stage shortly after the transformation of H. habilis into H. erectus.

In 2001, a partially preserved skeleton was discovered. The remains are about 1.8 million years old.

The oldest people (Chinese Sinanthropus, Javanese Pithecanthropus), or archanthropes

A total of 4 skeletons were found, with a primitive skull and torso, but progressive spine and lower limbs, providing high mobility. H. erectus georgicus exhibits a high degree of sexual dimorphism, with males significantly larger than females.

Skull D2700, dated to 1.77 million years ago, has a volume of about 600 cm3 and is located in good condition, which makes it possible to compare its morphology with that of the modern human skull. At the time of discovery, it was the smallest and most primitive hominin skull found outside of Africa.

However, in 2003, a skull of a hominid (Floresian man) was found on the island of Flores, which had an even smaller brain volume.

The excavations also unearthed 73 stone cutting and chopping tools and 34 bone fragments of unidentified animals.

Morphological features

The brain volume of H. erectus is larger than that of H. habilis and ranges from 850 cm3 in the earliest specimens to 1200 cm3 in the latest ones (however, the skulls from Dmanisi are noticeably smaller).

The skull is very thick with massive supraorbital ridges. Height reached 180 cm, the physique is more massive than that of a modern person. Sexual dimorphism was greater than that of modern man, but much less than that of Australopithecus. On average, males are 25% larger than females.

material culture

Erectus made extensive use of stone tools.

However, they were originally more primitive than the Acheulean Homo ergaster instruments. Products of the Acheulean culture outside of Africa appear only about a million years ago.

There is evidence of the use of fire by a man who walks upright. The earliest of them date back to about 1 million years ago and are located in the Northern Cape of South Africa. There are traces of the use of fire dating back to 690-790 thousand years in northern Israel. In addition, there is such evidence in Terra Amata on the French Riviera, where it is believed that about 300 thousand

H. erectus lived years ago.

Excavations in Israel suggest that H. erectus could not only use and control fire, but also produce it. However, some scholars argue that the use of fire became typical only for later human species.

Undoubtedly, the development of stone-working techniques and the mastery of fire made Homo erectus one of the most successful species of the genus.

Stone weapons made it possible to successfully defend against predators and hunt, fire warmed and illuminated, heat treatment made animal food better digestible and disinfected it.

Society and language

Probably, along with working humans, Homo erectus became one of the first human species to live in hunter-gatherer societies. Erectus are believed to have been the first hominids to hunt organized groups and caring for sick and infirm members of the group.

An increase in brain size, the presence of Broca's center and anatomy similar to modern humans suggest that Homo erectus began to use verbal communication. Apparently, it was a primitive proto-language that did not have a complex developed structure. modern languages, but much more advanced than the wordless "language" of a chimpanzee.

Until now, scientists have not had many remains of primitive people. At the moment, archaeologists have managed to find a large number of remains of ancient people. The most ancient are found on the African continent. In this regard, it is generally believed that it was on this hot continent that the evolution of mankind may have originated, the evolution that ultimately led to the appearance of the present person. 3.5-1.8 million years ago, humanoid creatures, which were called Australopithecus - southern monkeys, already roamed the vast expanses of the African continent. They already had a certain brain, and large jaws necessary for animals, besides, they could move like a person on two legs, and they could not only hold a stick in their hands, but also use it “correctly” as a tool.

Based on the findings, scientists suggest that the first tools appeared about two and a half million years ago. These were primitive tools made of sticks and stone. You can’t do much with them, but you could kill an animal, skin it, or dig up root crops. Those primitive people who managed to learn how to make a primitive tool of labor were called in science "handy man" (homo habilis). Now they are considered the first representatives of the human race.

This "Handy Man" could move on his hind legs, and his "hands" could not only use tools, but also make them. So far, these people have not been able to speak. All their spoken language was reduced to "sign language" like monkeys. The diet of their food was both vegetable and animal meat, which they had at the expense of hunting.

Pithecanthropus tools

Their "society" was not large, their groups consisted of a small number of individuals. Several males, several females with cubs.

A little later, about one million years ago, a new type of ancient man appeared, this is “homo erectus” - a straight man. In science, he was called Pithecanthropus - this is already an ape-man. This man was still very animal-like. His body was all covered in wool. He had a low forehead, and superciliary arches that protruded strongly forward. And the brain was already closer to the person. It was quite large, approaching the size of the brain of a modern person. Pithecanthropus, as well as the early representatives of mankind, could make tools from stone, these tools could greatly facilitate his life in ancient world. They could kill animals, cut meat, skins, dig the ground and much more.

Work, as is commonly believed, makes a person. So it happened with Pithecanthropus. The development of "ancient craftsmanship" contributed to adapting to the various climatic conditions of our planet. Their remains were found in various regions of the Earth. Due to the formation of glaciers, the planet has the opportunity to migrate not only to animals, but also to “people.” So they appeared even on the American continent.

The ancient sites of pithecanthropes, as a rule, were located near rivers, lakes and other bodies of water, where there were many animals. They hunted, as a rule, large animals such as deer. People hunted in groups, then the prey was divided among all members of the herd.

Primitive pithecanthropes already knew fire. The fire allowed them to keep warm in the cold season, protected them from predators. They also began to “cook” food on the fire, which they had hitherto eaten raw.

Such a way of life demanded "collectivism" from them. Their teams should be fairly close-knit. This led to the transfer of knowledge from the elders to the younger generation, from parents to their children. However, despite this, Pithecanthropus could not advance further on the evolutionary ladder. Development was very slow. They "died" in their original state.

In 1891, on the island of Java in the valley of the Solo River, in the early Pleistocene layers, at a depth of 15 m Dr. Dyubu found the scattered remains of a humanoid creature, which he later named based on the morphological features of Pithecantropus erectus. The vault of the skull found here, despite its primitiveness, still had a number of features that brought it closer to the human. In particular, the volume of his brain was one and a half times the brain of a gorilla, the shape of the thigh categorically testified to the vertical setting of the torso.

In 1926-1927, on the basis of the casting of the skull of Pithecanthropus I (Dubois), the tooth found there, as well as the lower jaw of the Heidelberger, I created my first reconstruction of the Pithecanthropus. This reconstruction of the Pithecanthropus skull, which has many minor flaws, turned out to be fundamentally not so erroneous, as evidenced by the comparison of this skull with the skull reconstructed by Weidenreich, published by him in 1935. They were New finds of Pithecanthropus skulls in Java are taken into account.

When restoring the head of Pithecanthropus, the morphological features of the skull were taken into account, and when reproducing the hairline of the head and face, the latter was taken as it is in chimpanzees and young gorillas. As a result, despite the fact that the face of the Pithecanthropus I restored undoubtedly has more human features than monkey features, the impression is that this is a portrait of some higher ape, which at the same time has human features.

This first reconstruction attempt of mine, despite the obvious errors, showed, however, the possibility of such hypothetical works.

In the same year, an attempt was made to restore the head of a Neanderthal and a man of the Neolithic period from the Glazkovo necropolis. The reconstructions are exhibited in the archaeological department of the Irkutsk Museum.

Only seven years later, during which I systematically collected factual material to solve the problem of facial reconstruction from the skull, in 1934 I again tried to create a new reconstruction. This time, the head of Sinanthropus was reproduced (Fig. 37).

Later, Pithecanthropus in the territory of modern northern China lived one of the oldest representatives of the ancestors of modern people - Sinanthropus Pithecantropus pekinensis. Sinanthropus bones were discovered as a result of systematic excavations from 1927 to 1938 in a cave near Zhou-kou-dian in 40 km southwest of Beiping (Beijing).

In 1929-1930. Chinese scientist Pei found the first two Sinanthropus skulls. By 1938, many bones had already been found that belonged to at least 11 Sinanthropus individuals. These are separate, scattered, mostly fragmented bones and teeth. All of them were found in a redeposited state, i.e. in a secondary position. The bones of men, women and children were found here.

At the same time, extremely primitive, but at the same time undoubted stone tools, bones of killed and eaten animals, and thick layers of coal and ash were found in the same layers, indicating that Sinanthropus knew how to prepare stone tools, knew fire well and knew how to use it. support.

The Anthropological Museum of Moscow State University has at its disposal the whole complex of the main finds of Sinanthropus in beautiful dummies. These dummies were the basis for creating a series of reconstructions of Sinanthropus. In 1934, a man No. I was made, in 1938 - a man No. II, in 1939 - a man No. III and a woman.

S i n a n t r o p I (male) . The basis for the creation of this reconstruction was the skull, restored

updated on the basis of the first finds and, in particular, set II. The incompleteness of the data led to a number of errors in the construction of the facial skeleton, which was

Rice. 37. Sinanthropus, the oldest representative of man.

unnecessarily weighted and had a greater prognathism than it should have, which gave a greater primitiveness to the entire appearance of the skull. The portrait of Sinanthropus reproduced on this basis can serve as an illustration of the extreme, most primitive type. The reconstruction is exhibited at the MAE Academy of Sciences of the USSR in Leningrad (Fig. 37).

S i n a n t r o p I I (male) . This is the second version (significantly supplemented and corrected on the basis of published data. The reconstruction is stored in the Zoological Museum of the USSR Academy of Sciences in Leningrad.

S i n a n t r o p (women) . The female skull was reconstructed on the basis of a number of authentic castings from the bones of Sinanthropus. The vault of the reconstructed skull was an exact copy of the skull cap found by Pei in 1930 and known as category II. The facial skeleton is reproduced taking into account the fragments of the jaws and teeth, selected by size. The sum of these fragmentary remains of a genuine female skull of Sinanthropus made it possible to reproduce, with a sufficient degree of probability, the skull of a woman aged 35 to 40 years.

Constant consultation and exchange of opinions with anthropologists, primarily with Sinelnikov, Roginsky and Gremyatsky, ensured maximum consideration necessary data, so that one can think that this reconstructed female skull of Sinanthropus really closely reflects its true features. In contrast to the skull made by Weidenreich, our reconstruction has a smaller number of bright specialized details than significantly and approaches morphologically to modern man. The reconstruction of this skull deserves at least a brief description.

When considering the proposed female skull of Sinanthropus in profile, first of all, a significant prevalence of the facial skeleton in relation to the cranium is noted in comparison with modern skulls. The face is heavy, especially the jaw section of it, and all of it, as it were, is pushed forward. The vault of the skull in profile is strongly flattened, but has a sharp transition of a low, but rather steep forehead. Strongly protruding superciliary ridges are sharply delimited by a strong inflection of the forehead. The glabella has a sharp inflection edge, and the sharpness of the inflection of the angle is most pronounced in the middle part. As it passes into the superciliary ridges, the facet becomes rounded and forms sharply protruding flattened brow ridges. The structure of the glabella gives the skull pronounced simian features.

In horizontal projection, this Sinanthropus skull, like that of the Pithecanthropus, approaches the beloid form, with the depression between the forehead and the occiput being very strong and sharply limited by the protrusion of the superciliary. The greatest width of the skull is confined to the region of the mastoid processes.

When examining the cranial vault, the medial crest is clearly visible, almost along its entire length, starting from the inflection of the frontal bone to the occipital. This ridge gives the cross-section of the vault the appearance of a roof-shaped outline, despite its strong flattening. The occiput is protruding, with a pronounced ridge, which, perhaps, should be called a crest due to the sharpness of its outline. The occipital foramen is strongly displaced posteriorly. A wide flattening in front above the bridge of the nose indicates the presence of a flattened wide vault of the root of the nose in Sinanthropus, in which it differs very sharply from all known higher apes. This form of the structure of the root of the nose seems to indicate that the nasal bones of Sinanthropus were wide, slightly wavy, of a simple pattern, that they formed a wide vault of a wide heart-shaped pear-shaped opening of the nose. The direction and degree of development of the zygomatic process of the temporal bone to some extent indicate the external shape of the zygomatic bone.

All Neanderthal skulls that have preserved the facial skeleton have a very peculiar structure of the orbital part of the maxillary bones. Their frontal part is flattened and oblique to the side and backwards, as a result of which there is no crest of the lower edge of the orbit and the canine fossa is smoothed to nothing. When reconstructing these missing parts of the Sinanthropus facial skeleton, I reproduced it by analogy with Neanderthal forms, which gave the skull some forms of primitiveness, but was morphologically fully justified. Precisely in connection with this form of the zygomatic and maxillary bones, the contours of the orbits and the structure of the alveolar part of the upper jaw acquire a very special pattern. These details of the structure of the skull reconstructed by me are very different from the skull of Sinanthropus, reproduced by Weidenreich, published by him in 1938. The lower jaw of Sinanthropus was preserved in a number of fragments, so that its reproduction was simple and sufficient. reliable. It is very massive, with a short ascending ramus and complete absence of a chin prominence.

Comparing the female skull of Sinanthropus, created by Weidenreich, with the skull reconstructed by me completely independently of him (since they were both made almost at the same time and the publication of Weidenreich e x a was still unknown to me), it should be said that

The orbits of “my” skull are lower and less profiled, the nasal bones, when viewed in profile, are longer and flattened, the alveolar process of the upper jaw is less profiled, there is no sharp frontal bend in it, and in general my skull is less prognathous. Weidenreich's skull contains more specialized features, which is unlikely to be correct, especially considering that the reconstructed skull is female. If these ultimately small individual features are ignored, both skulls undoubtedly represent the same racial type, and the degree of difference does not exceed the norm of variation within the same racial group. In this book, there is no need to cover these reconstructions in more detail, since this is beyond the scope of the popular presentation of the material. According to the skull, reconstructed by me, a bust of a Sinanthropus woman was created. When reproducing this bust, the specific features of the head fit, characteristic of the early racial types of man, were taken into account.

S i n an tro p I I I (male) . This reconstruction was performed taking into account the bone material, which, according to morphological data and size, presumably belonged to a man, and the features of sexual dimorphism were taken into account, at these early stages of the formation of the human type, probably more pronounced. That is why the reconstruction

Rice. 38. Sinanthropes - a man and a woman. finds recent years in a cave near Beiping, our understanding of Sinanthropus was so expanded that it makes it possible, speaking about their appearance, to assume that these images, restored from genuine bones, are really close to appearance these primitive people who lived at the dawn of human times, but who already knew the elementary techniques for making primitive stone tools and knew how to use fire.

The version of the synanthrope III man has much more so-called primitive features when compared with the synanthrope woman and modern man. Both reconstructions are on display at the Anthropological Museum of Moscow State University.

Of course, it is impossible to consider these reconstructions of synanthropes as portraits, and no one could set himself the solution of such a problem, since, after all, the skulls used for the reconstruction were largely reproduced only on the basis of the sum of the data obtained as a result of the study. fragments of the skull bones of Sinanthropus, but belonging to many individuals. As expected, the proposed reconstructions are generalized racial portraits of these ancient representatives of the hominin genus (Fig. 38).

The oldest representatives of hominids (Pithecanthropes and Sinanthropes) are archaeologically associated with the most ancient cultures of the Lower Paleolithic, Pre-Shellian, Shelian and Acheulian epochs. This epoch is characterized by a stage of primitive gathering, although, undoubtedly, since the advent of fire, hunting has become more and more important.