Hominids characteristic. Evolution and climate change. Classification of Great Apes, Hominoid

Issues under discussion:

The main signs of hominids: upright posture, development of the hand, brain, tool making, communication, hair reduction, dental structure.

Systematics and main stages of hominid evolution. The problem of combining paleoanthropus and neoanthropus into one species. The difficulty of studying fossil hominids associated with their life in the shroud. Theories explaining bipedal locomotion. Theories of the origin of tool activity. The origin of speech.

Hominids

(lat. Hominidae) is a family of the most progressive primates, including humans.

Traditionally, two genera are distinguished within the family:

The genus Australopithecus, which include the massive Australopithecus (Paranthropus) and Ardipithecus;

The genus Homo, which includes modern and fossil humans.

Modern biologists often classify pongid as hominids (due to the common origin), dividing the family into two subfamilies:

Subfamily Ponginae (genera: orangutan, gigantopithecus, sivapithecus);

Subfamily Homininae (genera: gorilla, chimpanzee, australopithecus, ardipithecus, paranthropus, Homo).

Within the framework of anthropology, the first classification is adhered to.

Signs of hominids

New ecological niche

Climate

• Savannah - 10 - 12 million years of cooling on the earth (freezing of the poles) - the African climate has become drier more spaces to cross.

  Seasonality periods with an abundance of food are replaced by periods of its lack

  Crustal faults the emergence of many gorges and caves

Nutrition

• Mixed feed increase in the proportion of meat in the diet

  Poop not attached the need to move and follow them

  The need to carry guns with you they are harder to get than flying

Movement due to climate change

1. Adaptation to bipedal movement and upright posture

Spine straightening the emergence of two new bends in addition to the cervical - thoracic and lumbosacral for shock absorption when walking and protecting the brain from concussions–osteochondrosis increases after 35 years.

Shoulder girdle unfolds shoulders "look" straight.

Changing the pelvic bone to maintain whole body weight

1. Bones are parallel to the ground bowl-shaped basin

   Pubic anterior articulationto increase strength it shortens the gestation period

Lower limb changes legs perform a locomotor function

1. Limb bone changes

   1. Longitudinal-transverse arches of the foot formed by the age of 4

      Reduction of the 1st fingerto increase resilience 1st finger gets bigger

      Small length of the remaining fingers loss of the ability to differentiate finger movements

The emergence of new muscle groups in the leg calf muscles, thigh muscles, gluteal muscles for movement and support

2. Adaptation to work

Changes in the structure of the hand the hand loses its locomotor function and becomes only a manipulative organ

1. Short arm and finger length fingers become short and straight, their mobility and flexibility increase

   1st toe change it gets bigger, its pillow grows precise clamping ability

   One of the hands becomes the leading

Brain development for the implementation of tool activities

1. Parietotemporal lobesanalysis of the tool, the image of the tool, the plan of action with it

   Precentral area vision + kinesthetics minor manipulations under vision control

   Lower frontal lobes braking processes for the control of instrumental activity and speech

HOMINIDES

(article for "Encyclopedia of Scientific Concepts")

Ó 2010

The article contains a comprehensive biological and behavioral description of representatives of the Hominidae family - fossils and modern humans. Particular attention is paid to the evolution of hominids and the development of culture.

Keywords : physical anthropology, human evolution, hominids.

HOMINIDES (from lat.homo–Human), a family of the order of primates. Includes a modern human (Homo sapiens) and fossils of people: Pithecanthropus, Neanderthals and, probably, some fossils of great apes such as Australopithecus.

"Soviet Encyclopedic Dictionary". M., "Soviet Encyclopedia", 1984.

HOMINIDES (hominidae), a family encompassing fossils and modern human species.

W. Bray, D. Trump. Archaeological Dictionary. M., "Progress", 1990.

Comparative analysis of hominids. The initial premise of a large-scale biological analysis of hominids can be the statement of the fact that some signs of morphophysiological evolution in line with hominization, the genesis of consciousness and socialization can be stated in other evolutionary phyla, at other levels of vertebrate evolution.

How much need to be distracted from the discussion of the most recent paleoanthropological finds, "refuting our ideas about the origin of modern man," in favor of the proposed aspect of the analysis? Let us imagine only one of the possible theoretical conclusions, namely, about the exobiological aspects of anthropogenesis. Whatever development radio astronomy and astrophysics undergo, only evolutionary anthropology is today able to discuss the reality of the recurrence of the terrestrial phenomenon of the development of intelligent life in other conditions.

An important aspect of large-scale analysis of hominids appears in an attempt to provide a general definition of the process of anthropogenesis, hominids and, in particular, modern man.

What can biology give to describe the human phenomenon? Purely biological material - a series of ontogenesis of tissues, organs, functions of the organs of the human body demonstrate the way of excretion, liberation of a person from an animal state. Here the importance of the ontogenetic component of the human development process is shown.

Modern ideas about the place and role of man in the Universe often follow precisely from the idea of ​​the evolution of the organic world, and the latter is based on broad biological comparisons in the field of anatomy, taxonomy, etc. The discussed way of developing a definition of anthropogenesis is fraught with difficulties due to the special nature of human evolutionary processes. An even broader biological approach is possible. C. Wickramasinghe (1982) believes that earthly life, including intelligent life, is part of the "general galactic living system" constantly transmitting information to the earth. The evolutionary connection between the lower and higher forms of life is denied. Opponents of such a position, on the contrary, emphasize the deep unity of man and the organic world, based on molecular, cellular and many organismic processes and functions.

When assessing the general significance of human development, anthropogenesis, accompanied by the development of human society, can be equated in importance with biogenesis on our planet (Dubinin, Shevchenko, 1976). On the other hand, anthropogenesis can be considered only as one of the directions of the progressive evolution of the biosphere.

You can try to give a definition of a person through, formed in anthropogenesis, "junction" of laws of different nature(biological and social). Thus, a person is related to an area in developing matter where laws of a different nature coexist (more precisely, biological ones exist, and social ones arise). There are no laws of a mixed, hybrid nature in nature. Biological and social patterns in the development of hominids act on the same objects, while maintaining their specificity. It can be assumed that the emergence of social laws is associated with the subdomain of statistical connections between objects, and not dynamic, deeply determined (Roginsky, 1966).

Thanks to speech and labor in the conditions of social life, man has risen above nature (Hollicher, 1971). He is the only biological organism that has gone beyond the limits of biological evolution (Dubinin, 1983). At the same time, a person includes the most highly organized forms of biological movement, the supra-biological sphere of a person (material and spiritual life of society) significantly depends on the biological conditions of existence.

It is possible to define the human phenomenon through the quality of consciousness, because, according to a number of authors, it is not the development of the corresponding function of animals, but is caused by a sudden, biological transformation, which is completely optional in nature in its predecessor (Dubinin, 1983).

The relative importance of the biological and the social in the essence of a person is assessed in different ways. So, on the one hand, the whole essence of a person can be represented as social, having a biological basis (Dubinin, 1983). The cited author believes that the biological properties of humans have no analogues in the animal kingdom. But it is possible in a human being, uniquely adapted to work, society and the noosphere, that is, a social being, to see the “most biological” being, which carries the entire biological experience (Zubov, 1983).

The desire to abandon the attempt to subordinate the biological and social essence of a person does not clarify anything in the issue under consideration. Let us recall the thesis about the organs of human labor as "organs of activity" attached to other organs of man in Marxism. One can, apparently, argue with the assertion that the biological in man is "not peculiar" (Zubova, 1983), but is fully correlated with spiritual wealth and material culture.

In comparison with other biological organisms, hominids (especially modern humans) are characterized by the manifestations of the individuality of each individual, based on the uniqueness of the genetic program, and in the social plane - the specificity of the assimilated social program. The second component of human essence is based on a special form of transfer of social experience from generation to generation.

The human phenomenon is also based on a combination of such qualities as universality and non-specialization formed in evolution (Roginsky, 1966; Zubov, 1983; Dubinin, 1983; Dobzhansky, 1970).

The most essential in human biology can be determined through leading adaptation. Let's give an example of this kind. (1947) believed that most of all the structure of a person reflects adaptation to work, he is a "labor organism". Thus, human adaptation to nature is carried out through the production and use of tools. From another point of view, human uniqueness can be demonstrated through a combination of traditional biological adaptations (Foley, 1990).

Since the works of Charles Darwin and T. Huxley, the emphasis in the results of comparing humans and closely related zoological species has shifted. From the development of the idea of ​​a special similarity between humans and anthropoids against the background of lower primates (Huxley, 1864), a transition was made to the identification of traits of a qualitative difference in humans (in the value of cephalization indicators, in the severity of the functional asymmetry of the cerebral hemispheres, in the presence of a second signaling system in humans, in human ability purposefully change the environment, etc.).

Finally, considering man and the biosphere, let us recall the view of man and mankind as a whole as a special planetary "organ" ("God-creating" in T. de Chardin, geological strength and premise of the noosphere in, organ of self-knowledge and self-government of the planet in I. Zabelin).

So, these examples allow us to conclude that a large-scale approach to hominids makes sense and is simply interesting for biologists of different profiles. It is impossible to know the essence of the whole by studying only a part of it. The theory of anthropogenesis in its development approached the line after which the study of details and the identification of new particular features in hominid biology does not provide fundamentally new knowledge. The future of anthropology is in the study of the interaction of general and particular trends in the material design of matter.

In biology, one can imagine the following main approaches to the comparative study of hominids.

Comparative anatomical features of hominids. The discussed approach to the study of humans in general biological categories is the most traditional. It is most often found in modern works (in the field of primatology, paleoanthropology). What seems to be relevant or insufficiently developed so far? The totality of new discoveries in paleontology has complicated the picture of phylogenetic transitions due to the multiplicity of parallel transitions in time and space at the main levels, starting with the mammalian class. The picture of specific morphogenesis of organs and organ systems seems complicated due to the phenomena of convergence and parallelism in the development of characters. Two aspects of primate phylogeny seem to be poorly developed. Why, unlike many other orders, primates in the modern classification are represented by all the main divisions of the order, which make it possible to represent the main stages of their evolution? What is the reason for the comparative non-specialization of primates against the background of other mammals (Romer, 1939; Roginsky, 1966). The transformation of human ancestors proceeded not by a method of sharp specialization (which should be reflected in human taxonomy in the form of the appearance of a special taxonomic unit), but within the variation of homologous organs (Skovron, 1965). Historians of biology are aware of attempts to distinguish the features of morphology, supposedly inherent only in humans, which would make it possible to assign him a particularly significant taxonomic rank. Traditional Darwinism in the works of T. Huxley (1864), in the opposite way, demonstrates the comparative closeness of man and great apes, along with a similar dissimilarity with lower apes.

The issue of locomotor evolution of primates, which is characterized by extreme species-specificity, is intensively discussed in modern anthropology and primatology. For the evolution of hominoids, the directions of morphophysiological evolution seem to be significant, leading to the differentiation of the structures and functions of the fore and hind limbs, a change to the vertical position of the body, to the improvement of peripheral and central receptors. nervous system, for example, tactile, proprioceptive, spatial. The increase in the variety of movements led to the development of the motor regions of the brain (Reshetov, 1966).

The complex of progressive changes that took place in the morphology of hominids in anthropogenesis is, in fact, a kind of repetition of "ancient" aromorphoses, which led at one time to the appearance of terrestrial vertebrates, mammals and primates (Roginsky, Levin, 1978). In the morphological evolution of hominids there is no deep specialization, there is a strong development of the basic properties of the class, and a number of archaic features such as pentacle, foot walking, opposition of the first ray to the rest, the presence of a clavicle, there is no specialization in the dental system (Shmalhausen, 1969; Roginsky. Levin, 1978) ...

Man is uniquely individualized in various aspects. So in a certain way was reflected in him characteristic feature the entire order of primates, in which a sufficient number of hail can be distinguished for a wide variety of forms. Primates are extremely diverse (Grant, 1980).

In evolutionary morphology, there are two views on humans as the result of progressive evolution. In accordance with the first, biological evolution is, as it were, directed towards the level of organization of hominids and towards humans as a result. Everything else is defined by "dead ends" and "parallels". In accordance with the second, more elaborate, man crowns only one of the directions of progressive biological evolution, and therefore progress in biological evolution cannot be interpreted using anthropogenesis as a criterion for achieving, since significant achievements have been achieved in various evolutionary phyla (Grant, 1980).

The question of the relative evolutionary advancement of the "working hand" complex and the system of bipedal locomotion in hominids has not been resolved in modern science. Some researchers believe that progress in locomotion made it possible to preserve the features of the primitive grasping organ, and there is a view of the hand as a rather specialized organ. The development of the hand in hominids proceeded in parallel with the development of the central nervous system (Danilova, 1979).

Bipedia is of indisputable importance for hominids as a key adaptation, it is considered as the most important prerequisite for hominization, and it has been established that this mode of locomotion evolved not only in the hominid branch. Transitions to bipedia are known in reptiles, mammals and primates. This conclusion is the reason for the objections put forward by those classifiers - paleoanthropologists, who, on the basis of bipedality, ranked all bipedal hominoids as hominids (Yakimov, 1966). Bipedia in hominids is combined with a straightened body position and the development of the grasping function of the forelimbs. The latter anatomical properties contributed to the omnivorousness of hominids, the ability to view and use external objects for tool activities. It was this combination of possibilities that distinguished the hominid from the animal world (Bunak, 1980).

Different researchers estimate the depth of hand transformations in anthropogenesis in different ways. Some morphological transformations of the hand of hominids were regarded as relatively modest, but made possible labor operations (the comparison was locomotor adaptations). Others have highlighted big number new morphological features of the hand, which led to the expansion and improvement of its functions. As a result, the human hand combines irreducible properties, at first glance: significant strength, tactile sensitivity, virtuoso dexterity and the ability to subtle manipulations (Danilova, 1979). The huge functional role of the area of ​​motor and sensory representation of the human hand in the cerebral cortex determines its greater size than the areas of representation of the trunk and lower extremities combined.

It is not at all trivial to think that the human hand's capacity for labor operations is prepared by a long history of organic evolution. Factors more general than those that acted within the framework of anthropogenesis took part in the formation of the human hand. Thus, the transition to bipedalism from woodiness enhanced the separation of limb functions inherent in primitive mammals. The duration of the evolutionary formation of the modern anatomical type of the hand is determined by the complexity of the process, which ends only at the stage of paleoanthrope (Khrisanfova, 1978).

Strongly expressed cerebralization of hominids is the final stage of progress in the development of the central nervous system of vertebrates and the higher physiological functions inherent in them. It is noteworthy that the progress of the central nervous system, as evidenced by paleontological materials, is a general trend for the evolution of biological organisms and has been noted, in particular, for invertebrates. It is tempting to try to isolate features in morphology, ecology, and ethology for the evolution of tertiary hominoids, which subsequently determined the development of the human form of reflection. But they are also based on the results of previous development. It is possible that the question of whether the "labor complex" of hands and bipedia are the only possible prerequisites for humanization has an ambiguous answer.

Attention to the ecological aspects of anthropogenesis has actualized such issues as the dynamics of sexual dimorphism in anthropogenesis and the role of increased overall body size (Foley, 1990).

The accumulation of neontological and paleontological information allows us to consider bipedia in a number of other methods of locomotion, which successfully removes the contradiction between the organs of movement, which develop in the direction of ensuring high speed of movement, maneuverability and efficiency, and other systems (Yakimov, 1966). It is important to consider bipedia in a number of other modes of locomotion that have arisen in the framework of the tendency towards terrestrialism in primates, and as a very specialized way. The ecologist sees only the energetic benefits of bipedia in humans (Foley, 1990), the evolutionary-morphological perception of this feature of hominids is different. Bipedia formed the optimal combination of morpho-physiological, ecological and ethological components in early anthropogenesis, and also, creating motor activity, along with an increased level of nervous activity, directly influenced speciation.

Comparative neurological features of hominids. This aspect of large-scale biological analysis for many anthropologists seems to be the most significant, despite the fact that it is extremely difficult to study, since the cephalization of even genetically similar forms (expressed, for example, in the weight of the brain or its individual parts) depends on many environmental reasons.

The increase and complication of the brain in the evolution of hominoids (higher apes and hominids) were preceded by the formation of adaptive features of wide ecological significance, including the design of the ability to oppose the thumb of the hand (from the very beginning of the history of the taxon) and stereoscopy of the visual analyzer (Raup, Stanley, 1974).

The progress in the development of the brain of hominoids is so great that as a result they sharply differ in brain macromorphology and architectonics from other higher animals (Shevchenko, 1971). There is also a very extreme point of view: the specific features of the human brain, which are the material substrate of consciousness, are due to the existence of structures that are characteristic only of humans (Dubinin, 1976). The human brain combines in a unique way two qualities: a very high organization and a characteristic non-specialization.

It can be assumed that the features in the structure of the human brain are due to the effect of selection on the ability to make tools. And the lifestyle that became possible due to their use and turned out to be successful - acted on the evolution of the brain according to the feedback principle (Washburn, 1981).

The evolution of the brain, proceeding in a complex manner, is, in general, characteristic of the mammalian class, but has extremely dissimilar results, which make it possible to distinguish sequential levels (monotremes, marsupials, placental), and in the upper series, various levels (including sub-primates, primates and humans) ( Nikitenko, 1974).

(1978) showed on numerous paleontological materials that cephalization of vertebrates has been observed since the Cambrian. The evolution of the hominid brain is a continuation of this process. The horizontal aspect of the comparative analysis of organisms also revealed a continuous increase in the mass of the brain, accompanied by aromorphic changes in the structure of its various departments. The evolutionary morphophysiology of the brain reflected the complication and differentiation of all organs of the body. In higher vertebrates (mammals), the brain itself has become an evolutionary factor (Nikitenko, 1974).

Let us concretize the above regularities for anthropogenesis. In anthropogenesis, a whole complex of factors influenced the morphogenesis of the brain (bipedia, a complex of properties of the "working hand", combined with the improvement of the visual and tactile analyzers, tool activity - in a decisive way, the social qualities of hominoids). In the course of anthropogenesis, the brain is formed - a multifunctional system for controlling the position and functioning of the body, hand activity, building behavior programs, and, in addition, a system that includes nervous and hormonal mechanisms for regulating ontogenesis and the most important genetic processes.

Much has been written about the exceptional importance of primate trees for their morpho-physiological evolution. A number of human adaptations are directly related to it (Grant, 1980), including the hominid brain (Romer. 1939). In this aspect, the following are considered, first of all: the transition from monotonous four-legged locomotion along the earth's surface to virtuoso in diversity, dexterity and speed of movements in three-dimensional space (Roginsky, 1977), a movable hand analyzer, a combination of vision and dexterous forelimbs (Grant, 1980) , the formation of special qualities of space perception (Shevchenko, 1971), the high development of the auditory analyzer (Strelnikov, 1970), the orientation of the head, contributing to the optimal interaction of the senses (Uspensky, 1964), the complicated strategy of food search (Foley, 1990).

More than once in evolution, a successful combination of ecological and biological aspects has caused the emergence of a large and complex brain (Roginsky, 1977; Strelnikov, 1970; Krushinsky, 1977). The need to master complex, three-dimensional locomotion and a certain type of executive organ equipped with a system of receptors (hand, trunk, fins) are highlighted. The main thing for our analysis is that these prerequisites existed not only in the evolution of hominoids, but in different evolutionary phyla caused similar results. At the same time, the process of accumulation of the potential capabilities of the brain, as a result, exceeded the level required for a specific adaptation (the indicated potency consists of the reserve of redundancy of neurons, the variety of systems of contacts between them).

Comparative taxonomic features of hominids. The taxonomic fixation of a person's place among other animals varies enormously in different classifications of animals (from a particular genus and species to a subclass or kingdom). It is remarkable that in the ecological aspect, a human taxon that has occupied all possible ecological niches can be equated to a class, but due to the absence of features of morphological specialization in niches where it is competitive, and if we recognize the primacy of the morphophysiological criterion, then the family rank for hominids is sufficient (Zubov, 1976).

The question of what is the magnitude of the taxonomic rank of the difference between anthropoids and humans is extremely relevant today? The answer to this question is associated with a wide front of comparative biochemical, molecular biological, physiological and psychological research. Morphological differences do not seem to some taxonomists to be sufficient for the separation of hominoids into different subfamilies and families (Grant, 1980). What then is the scale of the difference is not indicated. Complex (most importantly, really existing) genetic differences that underlie morphological, behavioral (and any other) differences are apparently not taken into account.

A sober view of the problem of hominoid taxonomy lies in the understanding that the analysis of the results of molecular biological methods for studying the similarity (difference) does not automatically bring us closer to understanding the important adaptive morphological, ecological, and behavioral differences of hominoids (Grant, 1980).

We associate the simial concept of anthropogenesis with traditional Darwinism. In morphological taxonomy since the time of T. Huxley's work, she declares the assignment of hominids and pongids to one superfamily of hominoids and opposing them to the lower narrow-nosed monkeys.

The question of how to take into account the unique features of their ecology and ethology in the zoological classification procedure used for hominids by all modern biologists has not been resolved? It is proposed, for example, to highlight those features of morphology that are associated with work.

There are known attempts by zoologists to estimate the rank of hominid subtaxa based on the rate of formation of macrotaxa in other evolutionary phyla (Mayr, 1971; Vorontsov, 1973). We regard this approach as insufficiently substantiated. It seems necessary to take into account the degree of difference and equivalence of distribution by ranks in related taxa, if a single procedure for their identification is used.

It can be considered, in principle, that possible variants of taxonomic schemes of the hominid family (more often with one genus Homo) have already been developed and discussed in the anthropological literature. The range of differences in the points of view on ranks for the main stages of human evolution is large: from the inclusion of all hominids in one genus Homo (Robinson) to their division into separate genera corresponding to the stages of anthropogenesis (McCone, Keys). Finally, hominids of the same time stage can be separated by classifiers into different genera (for example, progressive variants of the Australopithecines or pre-archanthropus). The latter feature of hominid taxonomy implies possible intergeneric competition, for example, in early African hominids (Foley, 1990).

In our opinion, in taxonomy, it is necessary to take into account not only the degree of difference in specific characters, but also the confinement of the most pronounced divergence to different systems that are not similar in meaning. Thus, it is necessary to reach a mutual correction of the internal subdivision of taxa, reflecting in the classification the features of the real diversity (taxonomy) formed in evolution.

Returning to the hominids, it can be assumed that the morphological differences between the stadial groups of hominids and macrotaxons (genera, families, orders) in other orders of mammals are quite comparable. Hence, we can conclude that the depth of evolutionary transformations of hominids is quite pronounced, and the stadial groups correspond to the supraspecific level.

Academician (1978) believed that a complex hierarchy of diversity is one of the basic properties of life. It can be assumed that there are features of diversity that mature in the processes of hominization and, finally, sapientization. They can be "shown" if the peculiarities of the relationship between taxonomic and phylogenetic differentiations in anthropogenesis are clarified.

Comparative ethological features of hominids. Evolutionary ethology is developing rapidly, the number of results obtained in recent years is immense, we will cite only a few that are especially interesting for large-scale biological analysis.

In classical primatology, the idea that the tool activity of hominids arose on the basis of the developed ability of monkeys to manipulate has long been established (Nesturkh, 1934). Now the level of development of the latter is being clarified, from which tool activity arises (Deryagina, 1986). An interesting conclusion is that a number of features of the manipulative activity of primates and other mammals arose convergently.

Identified "ethological analogues" of primates within the boundaries of vertebrates, characterized by a high level of reflection and development of the psyche. A striking example is birds with their complex constructive behavior, with a complex of unconditional reflex and conditioned reflex connections that underlie behavior. The biological prerequisites for complex behavior lie in the significant development of the nervous system, sensory organs, mobile limbs, and the ability to various forms of movement. Pet-

people are capable of a fairly detailed and in-depth analysis of the properties of the environment, of a complex synthesis of stimuli based on the accumulation of individual experience (Ladygina-Kots, 1958). Ravens with a characteristic plasticity and variety of intragroup relations associated with the sufficient development of elementary rational activity are especially interesting (Krushinsky, 1977).

Zoologists saw evolutionary analogs of hominoids in the behavior of some rodents, highlighting attempts to transition to bipedia with separation of limb functions and sound signaling (Vorontsov, 1973). Comparatively, the phenomenon of cetaceans attracts close attention, and it is the most famous.

Canines from the class of mammals are characterized by a high plasticity of behavior, a pronounced social instinct, and games that shape the behavior of animals in ontogenesis (Krushinsky, 1977).

Finally, among invertebrates there are known forms, the study of which is interesting, however paradoxical it may seem at first glance, for anthropologists. For example, it became known that cephalopods are capable of exhibiting complex behavior. Cousteau tells on the pages of his books about the cases of the use of stones by cephalopods for building nests and defenses. It was suggested to them that they have approached in their development to the brink of mental development inherent in primates.

Human social life is essentially the result of the development of the herd of primates. Two main biological features of primates that determine the complexity of their behavior in communities are important here - prolonged childhood and the absence of pronounced seasonality in reproduction. Complex forms of offspring care lie at the foundation of hominid behavior as the development of a similar quality in primate life (Foley, 1990). The study of existing groups of primates shows that the evolution of the order was accompanied by an increase in the size of the social group, the complication of its structure, communication systems, the development of intelligence and an increase in the period of formation of puberty. In the formation of the sociality of modern man, the main role was played by group selection, which tested not populations, but communities, acting on the multidimensional complexity of the hominid community (Grant, 1980).

The sociality of modern monkeys is based on a high level of development of their rational activity (Krushinsky, 1977; Foley, 1990). The latter is manifested in the individual knowledge of each other, a high level of mutual assistance. Often, the line of abilities between anthropoids and humans is erased during interpretation, monkeys are recognized as an ability for language, abstract thinking, making tools, and anthropoid communities are characterized as completely human. Some researchers believe that human language has a distinct biological history.

The phenomenon of human qualities can be discussed from different perspectives. We can assume that evolutionary theory is powerless to explain the emergence of a man endowed with self-awareness and a unique personality (Eccles, 1967). "Reasonableness of a person", "primordial sociality" can be associated with the driving forces of anthropogenesis, but those that existed initially, changed only in quantitative terms.

We believe that the work of prof. (1977), who considered the elementary rational activity of animals as the prehistory of the human mind. Animals are able to reflect the laws that link elements and phenomena of the environment. High rates of cephalization, the development of associative areas, a complicated system of contacts underlie elementary rational activity, which manifests itself in various forms of instrumental and constructive activity of birds, marine mammals, canines, cats, bears and primates. In the evolution of the human brain, the great potentialities of its predecessors have been added up.

Let us say a few words about ethological reconstructions for the area of ​​early anthropogenesis. The organization of the early hominid communities may have been similar to that of the terrestrial primates. Perhaps it was based on free associations of groups of related males competing for the possession of females (Foley, 1990). Of course, only assumptions are made here. Changing the diet by including meat could lead to the division of labor, and ultimately the ability to share food, which strengthened the first collectives of people. Anthropologists pay close attention to the problem of the origin of hunting as a source of new skills. Recently, hunting acts have been identified and studied in baboons and chimpanzees. Important phenomena in the life of primitive man may arise from hunting. For example, the first dwellings are considered as special places for dividing prey. Hunting stimulated the cooperation of the actions of team members, the development of language and social ties, that is, the most important human qualities (Fowley, 1990). It seems that there should be a limit in attempts to find an analogy in the study of the behavior of fossil hominids, and there is no reason to identify human labor processes with the instinctive activity of animals (Mayr, 1970).

Comparative ecological features of hominids. One of the most important ecological problems for the theory of anthropogenesis is the hypothesis of a "natural shock" (a global change in the nature of the Earth), which coincides in time with the beginning of the evolution of hominoids. Apparently, it is possible to link the beginning of deep ecological research in the theory of anthropogenesis with the names of J. Lamarck and C. Darwin. Integration of paleogeographic, paleoclimatic data, information on tectonic changes on our planet that influenced the ecological background of Tertiary hominoids and changed the direction of natural selection, which led to the formation of the first components of the hominid morphophysiological complex, left an imprint on the processes the development of ancient technologies and other aspects of the life of human beings.

The role of the ecological factor in early anthropogenesis can be revealed by comparing analogous ecoforms that arose in the process of adaptive radiation of placental and marsupial mammals.

The reconstructed hominid lifestyle is essentially the result of natural selection. Phylogenetic heritage is the internal driving force of anthropogenesis, and the environment plays the role of an external driving force of evolution (Schmalhausen, 1969; Fowley, 1990).

Anthropological futurology also has an ecological aspect. What is the human ecology evolving in the future? Perhaps, the development of the "noosphere" created by man and mankind as a result of its activity ("the sphere of reason", according to Academician).

Ethnographic observations can also be used as primatological information in ecological reconstructions. There are interesting data on modern groups living by hunting and gathering, taking into account their general level, corresponding not to the Paleolithic phases, but to the Mesolithic. It is natural to assume that early hominids had forms of behavior conditioned by ecology, which are absent in modern groups studied by ethnographers.

In anthropology, the question of the need to study changes in the overall size of the body over time has been raised more than once; there were ideas about the possible existence of ancestral megaforms. Now this issue is being studied in the environmental aspect. An interesting conclusion was made that group selection, cooperation and altruism are more common among large mammals (Foley, 1990). Differences in body size are associated with dissimilar dietary tendencies of Australopithecines, and reproduction restrictions caused by increase in body size and emerging changes in social behavior led to increased parental care, which was facilitated by the ability of males to carry food and equal sharing of food.

The solution of two main problems arising from the living conditions in a terrestrial lifestyle, namely, the optimal mode of movement through the development of bipedalism and the arrangement of terrestrial dwellings, was, from the point of view of an ecologist, the basis for the development of many unique characteristics (Foley, 1990).

New data on the nutritional characteristics of modern monkeys in theoretical terms allowed a new look at the evolution of venom in anthropogenesis. It can be assumed that in the savannah, due to the intensification of drought, the dependence of hominids on meat food increases. This circumstance exacerbated the competition between species. It is not entirely clear why hominoids started consuming meat (Foley, 1990). It has been suggested that the main purpose of the first tools was not their use for hunting, but for butchering the carcasses of large animals with thick skin. Poison can also be considered to have influenced relationships between people, since the consumption of a rare type of food implies the need to share (Fowley, 1990).

Discussion of the role of the ecological factor is extremely important for the later stages of human evolution. It is possible to classify different points of view on the role of the natural environment for the biological evolution of hominids - the predecessors of modern humans, the development of their material culture and social institutions. The existing points of view on the role of natural factors are opposite: from the recognition of the dominant significance to the complete non-recognition of their significance.

The way of feeding the ancestral hominoids was important not only to compensate for the enormous energy costs during vigorous activity. Food, apparently, also played the role of a mutagen, and in this capacity was a link in the chain of the planet's evolution, geochemical processes and evolutionary transformations (Reshetov, 1966).

It is methodologically important to take into account the specifics of primatological data used as a source of information (Foley, 1990). Is it possible to follow the path of direct analogy, comparing early hominids and great apes, or is it more important to take into account the patterns of variability in the morphology and behavior of primates in connection with their ecology?

An attempt to consider the evolution of early hominids as part of ecological communities as a whole is of great interest. For example, it has been hypothesized that the divergence of early hominids in northeastern Africa could lead to the consolidation of Homo erectus and a group of large predators. The hominids were part of a general biogeographic process that united many species, proceeding under the influence of the same factors. In the opinion of a prominent ecologist, the expansion into new environments was carried out more successfully by species with large individuals, predatory behavior, and social inclinations (Fowley, 1990). This is modern ecological reductionism.

Comparative ontogenetic features of hominids. The process of hominization, like any evolutionary process, is a set of changes in ontogenetic, and, ultimately, phylogenetic differentiations. With a large-scale comparison in the biological analysis of hominids, the features of ontogenetic rearrangements are clearly visible. Taxonomic differentiation reflected the ontophylogenetic features of anthropogenesis adequately.

It is assumed that it is possible to trace the continuation of the evolutionary tendencies of mammals and other vertebrates in the evolution of the order of primates and, in fact, hominids. Therefore, it is logical to look for changes in ontogenetic and phylogenetic differentiation within the limits characteristic of the mammalian class. Complicated and simplified ontogenetic differentiations are formed in a complex way in the developing ontogenesis of hominids. This view of anthropogenesis corresponds to the general picture of the restructuring of ontogeny in evolution (Severtsov. 1981).

Late ontogenetic specialization of modern man in comparison with anthropoids was noticed by L. Bolk, as is known, at the beginning of our century. Dobzhansky (1970) noted the universal despecialization of man, but already phylogenetic. Evolutionary anthropologists, which follows from the logic of the study, are tempted to combine these two conclusions into a single model of evolving ontogenesis, which should correspond to the general model of development of ontogeny of vertebrates.

It can be assumed that the main ontogenetic aspect of hominization will be the prolongation of growth and complex ontogenetic rearrangements of the brain, which acquires sapient features in anthropogenesis.

Researchers have different assessments of the cognizability of the evolution of ontogeny of fossil forms. A. Dahlberg (Dahlberg A., 1965) suggested that the shape of any growth curve is unique due to the uniqueness of combinations of hereditary inclinations and environmental conditions, on the contrary, (1934) in a number of his works (in the spirit of the orthodox Darwinian tradition) confidently restores many aspects of ancestral ontogenesis. Our own research leads us to accept the second point of view on the question.

Mutual conditioning and mutual transitions of ontogenetic and phylogenetic differentiations in the evolution of hominids were of paramount importance, since they made it possible to use the deep reserves of the evolutionary process in anthropogenesis. The manifestation of the traits of neoteny in anthropogenesis is one example of this. The mechanism of restructuring the ontogeny of hominoids lies in the sphere of growth processes, more precisely, in the selection of growth gradients in the ontogeny of related organisms (Roginsky, 1977).

For the modern picture of morphogenesis of hominids, L. Bolk's assumption about fetalization of the ancestor and retardation of ontogeny of sapiens is no longer enough. This approach is unacceptable for explaining the evolution of the brain (Dubinin, 1983), as well as the entire set of features of the skull. At the same time, it is recognized that a number of morphological features of the hominid type can be explained by the phenomenon of retardation (Bunak, 1980). It is noteworthy that the manifestations of the acceleration of the growth of osteological signs were noted by various researchers for the stadial groups of archanthropus and paleoanthropus (Gremyatsky, 1949; Alekseev, 1985). The design of morphological features associated with labor adaptations is attributed in a number of works to the established differences in growth rates. The article summarizes the constructive criticism of L. Bolk's views on anthropogenesis: retardation in ontogenesis of the anthropoid human ancestor is one of the possible modes of restructuring of anthropogenesis, namely, negative anabolism (Roginsky, 1977). For a modern person in a comparative ontogenetic plan, it is not dominance that is characteristic, but a combination of accelerations and decelerations in growth rates, as well as a special periodicity of ontogenesis.

At the same time, the existence of a broad evolutionary perspective of phenomena such as retardation has been discovered, creating the necessary basis for progressive restructuring. Hypomorphosis (neoteny) leads to a secondary simplification of the organization, as if partially reversing the evolutionary process (Schmalhausen, 1969). Heterochronies played an important role in the origin of new taxa of supraspecific ranks, and the hominoid superfamily is no exception (Raup and Stanley, 1974).

The evolution of morphological types of hominids in anthropogenesis has a certain endocrinological background, which can also be attempted to reconstruct (Khrisanfova, 1978). In this we see a successful attempt to develop the strengths of L. Bolk's concept.

It can be assumed that in anthropogenesis there were significant mutual transitions of different types of restructuring of ontogenesis, dialectically related to each other, so the fetalization of a number of signs turns into its opposite. The expression of a number of significant features is due to the preservation of high growth rates characteristic of the early periods of ontogenesis (Bunak, 1980). Thus, we see that the consistent development of the retardation model leads us to the concept of evolving ontogenesis, which combines the moments of acceleration and deceleration of the growth rates of characters.

Postnatal ontogenesis, the period of individual development, in which major changes in the structure and size of the brain occur (Dubinin, 1983), is of significant importance in the morphogenesis of hominids. The existence of a long period of postembryonic development in humans is due to the improvement of the entire embryogenesis (Severtsov, 1981). But this phenomenon is combined with a tendency to reduce the time of biological maturation. The process of complication of ontogenesis in hominids, like in other vertebrates, is accompanied by an acceleration in the rate of evolution.

Thus, the formation of the type of ontogeny characteristic of hominids is not the result of specialization, but a characteristic phenomenon, since it continues the main trends in the evolution of ontogeny of vertebrates. The genesis of hominids, as a result of the evolutionary process, is natural, since all aspects of it (according to the data of large-scale biological analysis) - comparative morphological, comparative ontogenetic, comparative taxonomic - do not look exceptional, extremely specialized in the evolution of the mammalian class.

Anthropogenesis summarizes the properties developed by developmental processes in various phylogenetic branches and at different levels of organization of living things. Anthropogenesis is the result of the improvement of all previous evolutionary development, and not just a branch of hominoid evolution. It is difficult to disagree with the opinion of the modern ecologist that the uniqueness of the human species is similar to other species and arose as a result of the influence of the same natural causes (Foley, 1990).

Common signs of hominids.Specific features of modern human biology. Hominids (fossils and modern humans) are characterized by specific biological characteristics that distinguish them from all primates and that arose at a certain time in the process of anthropogenesis.

The similarities between humans and great apes in the structure of the body are explained by the fact that the ancestors of humans were monkeys living on trees, which later moved on to terrestrial habitation. Under the new conditions, they developed upright walking, and then labor, which entailed a restructuring of the body in the direction of adaptation to new living conditions. In the course of a long process of anthropogenesis, a number of sharp differences between humans as a terrestrial bipedal primate and primates climbing or resorting to tree climbing arose.

a) Signs of adaptation to bipedal movement:

Verticality of the trunk and neck with full extension of the lower limbs in the knee joint,

Special development and location of the hip muscles,

Extended pelvis shape, special shape of the hip joint,

Curved S-shaped spine,

The skull is well balanced on the spine,

Flattened chest

Strong development of leg muscles,

Arch of the foot, shortened toes, strong development of the first toe, not opposed to the rest,

A sharp change in body proportions.

b) Signs of the "working hand" complex:

Relatively short arm length,

Increased mobility and strength of the hand,

Strengthening the skeleton of the first and second fingers,

Long first toe,

Strong development of the muscle opposing the first toe, isolation of the muscle that flexes the first toe,

Development of the ability to rotate the arm,

Strong development of parts of the brain that provide fine movements of the hand.

c) Signs of progress in the structure of the brain:

Strong development of the size of the brain,

Strong development of the neocortex and associative zones,

Significant development of the parietal and frontal lobes,

Large number of "third order" furrows,

Larger sizes of the corpus callosum,

Growth and development of cytoarchitectonic fields of the anterior part of the frontal and inferior parietal lobes,

Strong development of speech centers,

A wealth of interneuronal contacts.

d) Signs of the structure of the larynx associated with speech function:

Change in the topography of the larynx

Cartilage and ligament development.

e) Specific signs of the skull and teeth:

Reduction of the facial part of the skull in comparison with the brain,

Reducing the size of the lower jaw,

Straightening the face profile,

Reducing the size of the canines,

Lack of ridges on the skull,

The development of the chin ridge,

Protruding nasal region.

f) Reduction of the hairline of the human body:

Specific distribution of body hair,

Thinning and shortening of the hairline due to sexual and natural selection as a means of thermoregulation.

The main stages of human evolution and hominid species. At present, science has a significant amount of paleoanthropological, archaeological and geological data that make it possible to illuminate the course of anthropogenesis (of course, in general terms). The analysis of this information made it possible to single out four conditional stages (segments) of anthropogenesis, characterized by a certain type of fossil person, the level of development of material culture and social institutions. These stages include segments of the phylogenetic development of hominids. It should be borne in mind that hominids of different stages could coexist at the same time and in the same territories. Further, some hominid species represented an “evolutionary dead end” (massive Australopithecines, Late Pithecanthropus, Late Neanderthals).

1. Australopithecus (human predecessors).

2. Pithecanthropus (ancient people, archanthropus).

3. Heidelberg and Neanderthals (?) (Ancient people, paleoanthropes).

4. Man of the modern type "archaic", fossil and modern (neoanthropes).

From the point of view of zoological systematics, the classification of hominids is as follows:

Family Hominidae - Humans.

Subfamily Australopithecinae - Australopithecus.

The genus Sahelanthropus is Sahelanthropus.

S. tchadensis - S. chadsky.

The genus Orrorin is the Prehuman.

O. tugenensis - P. tugensis.

The genus Ardipithecus - Ardipithecus.

A. ramidus - A. root.

The genus Australopithecus is Australopithecus.

A. anamensis - A. anamskiy.

A. afarensis - A. afarsky.

A. africanus - A. African.

A. robustus- A. powerful.

A. boisei - A. boisov and others.

Subfamily Homininae - Humans.

Genus Homo - Man.

dolfensis - Rudolf man.

H. habilis - Skillful person.

H. ergaster- Working person.

H. erectus - Straightened man.

H. heidelbergensis- Heidelberg man.

H. neanderthalensis - Neanderthal man.

H. sapiens - Homo sapiens.

Characterization of the main evolutionary levels of fossil hominids. Australopithecus. The morphological characteristics seem clear enough, since the finds are numerous and the entire skeleton is known. Habitat - South, East and Central Africa. Representatives of this evolutionary level are distinguished by the greatest antiquity against the background of other hominids. The features of the postcranial skeleton indicate that bipedalism has taken place. The body length varies in gracile variants from 1 to 1.3 m, and in massive ones from 1.5 to 1.78 m.The australopithecus arm was already free of supporting function, but differed in a number of primitive features, characterized by a variety of details and structural instability ... Note the absence of a complete opposition of the thumb to the rest, the phalanges and fingers are curved, but the terminal ones are flat like in humans. The structure of the skull is characterized by a large size of the facial skeleton, the volume of the brain ranged from 300 to 570 cm3. (that is, it did not exceed pongid in absolute value). The gracile variants have an average brain size of 450 cubic meters. see, and for massive ones - more than 500 cubic meters. see Australopithecus had small canines and incisors, rather large molars. The jaws of australopithecines are more massive than those of humans. The symphyseal region of the mandible is escaping. The face is relatively small, but has a protruding brow, the nasal region is cut off. The occipital region has a tendency to round.

Australopithecines were characterized by sexual dimorphism - males were larger than females. It has been suggested that the magnitude of sexual dimorphism in robust australopithecines was similar to large modern anthropoids (Lambert, 1991).

Based on the material of South African forms, variants are distinguished that are different from each other in terms of the degree of massiveness. Initially, the indicated morphological difference between Australopithecus was taxonomically fixed in the statuses of two different genera - Australopithecus (gracile australopithecines) and Paranthropus (massive australopithecines). Further, it was found that the comparative originality affects the relief and shape of the skull, the size and relief of the lower jaws, odontoglyphic signs. The large size of the molars is striking, their significant deterioration, despite the thick enamel. This indicates a habit of eating solid, tough foods such as cereals. Morphological variants of Australopithecus have a pronounced connection with ecological originality, and therefore with different evolutionary paths. Massive australopithecines were herbivorous, inhabited near forests. Gracile - omnivorous forms that live in the savannah. A similar ecological and morphological division of Australopithecus was found in the East African forms.

Direct juxtaposition of the femurs of the Afar Australopithecus (about 4 Ma), as well as curved finger bones, indicate a woody component in locomotion (Lambert, 1991).

(1986) reconstructed the ecological types of hominids, based on our knowledge and the climatic and geomorphological situation in certain geographic zones and extrapolating data on modern populations to antiquity. The tropical adaptive complex was primary in savannah conditions, increased solar radiation, dry air and intense movement of air masses.

The paleodemographic forecast shows that the number of australopithecines, judging by the number of finds, is comparable with anthropoids, i.e., approximately 10-20 thousand individuals (Alekseev, 1993).

For the South African locations of Svartkrans and Sterkfontein (including Macapansgat), the average age of death is 17.2 and 22.2 years (according to Mann), respectively. The lifespan of Australopithecus could be similar to that of chimpanzees - up to 25 years. Only one in seven lived to be 30 years old. Apparently, it can be assumed that different groups of Australopithecus could differ in this demographic characteristic. 120-150 individuals were found in five South African sites, and about 120 individuals in Koobi Fora in East Africa. Such data do not allow even an approximate estimate of the number of Australopithecus in Africa. suggested that, by analogy with the thriving species of mammals, each species of australopithecus should have had several thousand individuals.

Presumably Australopithecines lived in primitive herds of 25-40 individuals (2-3 adult males, several females and young of different ages). Similar numbers in groups of chimpanzees, gorillas, baboons, and hunter-gatherers. Such communities constituted a species, could resist predators, and allowed individuals to move from one community to another.

The structure of the community of the African Australopithecus looks as follows - he is undoubtedly a social hominid with a group structure and, possibly, possessing the embryo of a family. The dominance hierarchy was characteristic of the human predecessor (Idi, 1977).

The analogue of the herd of Australopithecus was the savanna baboon. The communities of the latter include three main components: females with calves, powerful mature males that make up the central group, and young males and adolescents in the periphery. The central group was characterized by a hierarchy, but its males were dominant over the peripheral ones. Periphery males and females also had a hierarchy (Semenov, 1989). The elementary family of Australopithecus hardly existed, according to a number of researchers, it hindered group hunting. The initial labor activity of the habilis also prevented the emergence of families, for it needed relatively large and stable associations.

The Habilis herd was a fairly large and close-knit group. There were fewer conflicts in the herd of habilis than among australopithecines. This is evidenced by isolated cases of intravital injuries on the skulls of the former (Semenov, 1989).

Archanthropes. African Pithecanthropus lived in the interval from million years), Asian - in the interval of 1, million years, and European ones were characterized by antiquity of million years. The habitat was the indicated three parts of the world.

The bones of the skeleton are indicative of bipedal walking. The body length is longer than that of Australopithecus, in males it reaches 175 cm. Long bones have a thick compact, the overall massiveness of the skeleton is greater than that of Australopithecus. The skull is thick-walled, the brain region is long, the maximum width is low. Powerful occipital and supraorbital ridges, escaping frontal part. The jaws are large and prognathous. Teeth are large and have a voluminous cavity. There is no chin protrusion. The occipital region is distinguished by a highly developed relief associated with powerful cervical muscles, which are necessary for balancing the head in an upright position of the body. The volume of the brain is from 727 to 1350 cubic meters. cm (average 1029 cc). The frontal lobes of the brain are less developed than in modern humans. The narrowness of the temporal lobes and the flattening of the parietal lobes are noted. In connection with the development of human-specific functions of labor and speech, there is an intensified development of individual zones of the neocortex, namely, the parietotemporal, inferior forehead and precentral. Apparently, in connection with the rudimentary speech, there is an increase in the relief in the places of attachment of the muscles of the tongue, the beginning of the formation of the chin and the weakening of the mandible.

(1999) writes about the peculiarity of the morphological type of the ancient Pithecanthropus from Kenya (Nariokotome), which is distinguished by its tall stature and linearity, which is associated with the “tropical” type. In the Lower Paleolithic, in the conditions of flat landscapes with lush vegetation of a humid tropical forest, conditions were created for the addition of humid and alpine adaptive types.

The number of archanthropus in Africa is estimated at 125 thousand people, and in total for the ecumene - about 1 million individuals. This assessment is speculative (Alekseev, 1993). There are other estimates as well. numbered about 200 Acheulean points in savannah Africa (each community - 8-10 people). Consequently, Africa was inhabited by 2-3 thousand people. In Europe, Southeast Asia, Western Asia, this author also counted thousands of Acheuleans.

According to G. Isaac, the size of the groups of archantropists was 40-60 people, of which 20-30 were adults. Calculations were carried out for the area of ​​Paleolithic sites. Other data suggest that the size of the adult part of the Acheulean group was equal to 10-35 people, it was determined at the minimum required for driven hunting. During the hunting season, such groups united (Semenov, 1989).

The accepted in the literature view of the number of associations of Pithecanthropus and Neanderthals is such that it ranged from 75-90 to 35-40 people. Existing couples broke up depending on the wishes of the parties, economic relations between the sexes did not exist (Semenov, 1977).

Small communities of Pithecanthropus were not characterized by frequent aggressive clashes. Reported cases of cannibalism (bone remains bear traces of dismemberment) have different interpretation: murder for eating or posthumous eating, the result of rivalry for women (Deryagina, 1999; Semenov, 1977).

The paleodemographic situation characteristic of Sinanthropus was described by F. Weidenreich. In the Lower Paleolithic site of Joukoudian, 38 individuals were discovered. 15 of them died before the age of 14, accounting for 39.5% of child mortality. Three Sinanthropus lived for less than 30 years, three died between the ages of 40 and 50, and only one individual lived for more than 50 years (up to 60 years maybe). The average age of death was calculated by means of calculations - 37.9 years. Given the age of the deceased children, this index would hardly have exceeded that obtained for Australopithecus.

Heidelberg man. Fossil people, attributed in modern paleoanthropology to this stage of anthropogenesis, previously belonged to the stage preceding (archanthropus) or subsequent stage - paleoanthropus. When we talk about Heidelberg man, we understand the common ancestor of Neanderthal man and modern man. The lifetime of the Heidelbergians is 0.8-0.2 (0.1) million years. Heidelberians arose in Africa from some form of archantropus in the period from 1.5 (?) Million to 800-900 thousand years. The species is polytypical, the geographical area of ​​distribution is large - from the southern tip of Africa to 52 degrees north latitude in Europe. The morphological type of Heidelbergerians is characterized by a mosaic of erectoid and sapient features, with a weak manifestation of the Neanderthaloid complex.

In the skulls of Heidelberts, the following are noted: the cerebral cavity is smaller than that of the Neanderthals, the height of the cranial vault exceeding that of the Neanderthal, the forehead is less sloping than that of the Neanderthals, the absence of slanting of the zygomatic bones, a hint of canine fossa, the smaller length of the brain region, the absence of a “chignon-like” occiput like in Neanderthals , not very high orbits, the development of the mastoid processes, a noticeable bend of the base of the skull, a large thickness of the bones of the vault, narrowing of the postorbital section of the skull, etc.

Among the famous representatives of this stage, we note: Bodo (Ethiopia, 600 thousand years), Mauer 1 (Germany, 400-500 thousand years), Bilzingsleben (Germany, 400 thousand years), Vertessellesh (Hungary, 400 thousand years), Arago 21 (France, 600-400 thousand years), Petralona 1 (Greece, 400-300 thousand years), Steinheim (Germany, 250 thousand years), Atapuerca 5 (Spain, 780 thousand years), Ceprano (Italy , 700 thousand years), Brocken Hill (South Africa, 300 thousand years), Saldanya (South Africa, 300 thousand years), Solo (Indonesia, 100 thousand years).

It is believed that the Heidelberians came from Africa, where they arose, to Europe through Gibraltar or Sicily about 800 thousand years ago, and to Asia 400-200 thousand years ago. The fossil population of Europe in the period of about 1.0-0.8 million years was not numerous and occupied the southern regions (Italy, Spain). Late Heidelbergians, adapting to more northern regions, gradually acquired the features of the Neanderthal species.

The cultural accompaniment of the remains of the Heidelberg man was the same as that of the archantropists. They made their tools, most often attributed to the Acheulean culture, from bone, wood and stone. Wooden tools were processed with stone tools. In habitats with a temperate climate, the Heidelberians built various buildings and made clothes. In the settlements, there are family buildings and the remains of permanent hearths. The Heidelberg tools are distinguished in some cases by the desire to give them an aesthetic appearance.

Paleoanthropes. Ancient people, belonging to different morphological types, settled in a time interval of about a thousand years. The habitat was Africa, Europe and Asia. Apparently, the most characteristic variants (actually Neanderthals) were included in the fossil European population .

Late European Neanderthals are notable for their small stature (males up to 170 cm), broad shoulders, highly developed bones and muscles. The compacta of long bones is strongly developed. The proportions of the body, apparently, are similar to the modern indigenous Arctic groups (Eskimos), which was an adaptation to a reduced heat transfer.The massiveness of the skeleton is also explained by an adaptation to the transfer of large quantities of fresh meat over long distances. According to (1993), a large number of adaptive types of paleoanthropes did not find an adaptive interpretation.

The brain volume of paleoanthropes averages 1350 cubic meters. see The maximum values ​​are approaching 1700 cubic meters. see On endocranes, foci of increased growth of the neocortex are manifested: the lateral edge of the frontal lobe, the precentral part of the frontal lobe, the parietal-temporal region.

The skull of Neanderthals is large, elongated, the thickness of the walls is greater than that of modern humans. Powerful supraorbital ridges, sloping forehead, “chignon-like” nape are visible on turtles. The facial part of the skull is distinguished by prognosis, the jaws are characterized by large size and massiveness. The chin protrusion is rare. The teeth are large and taurodont.

There is a point of view according to which the rates of skeletal ontogeny in Neanderthals exceeded modern standards. It was formed by the authors of the works, which describe immature forms of fossil hominids and carry out a comparative analysis using modern children's material. M. Boule and G. Vallois suggest the accelerated formation of specific Neanderthal features on the example of the skull from La Quin. , analyzing the skeleton of the Neanderthal man Teshik-Tash, suggests a more rapid development of paleoanthropes in comparison with modern humans. A. Keyes also concluded by studying Gibraltar II. elevates the increased rate of “maturation” to the rank of a distinctive feature of the taxonomic group (Kharitonov, 1985).

The Middle Paleolithic and the settlement of the temperate climatic zone of Eurasia (with a sharp change in seasonal temperatures and snow cover in winter) made it necessary to form an adaptive type of the temperate zone. According to (1999), classical Neanderthals are characterized by massive addition with an emphasized eury and mesomorphism.

The population of the Middle Paleolithic (about 300 thousand years from the present day) is estimated at about 1 million people.

The paleodemographic situation typical for Neanderthals is described based on the premise that the age variability of representatives of this species did not differ from modern humans. This opinion is not indisputable. A. Vallois analyzed 17 skeletons of Middle Paleolithic hominids and found that 29.4% (five skeletons) were children. Three skeletons belong to juveniles (12 to 20 years old). The nine remaining skeletons belong to adults. The average age at death is 31.1 years. The indicator, which is underestimated in comparison with the age of death of synanthropes, should not be given importance, since it was obtained on a small number. (1993) supplemented the information of A. Vallois with data on other Mousterian sites. In the Skhul cave, 10 skeletons were discovered, and in Tabun - 2. Of the 12 schul skeletons, three are children. The average age of the rest is 37.5 years. According to B. Vandermeersh, bone fossil material in the Kafzeh cave demonstrates a high infant mortality rate, the skeletons of children of different ages made up 60% of all. None of the adults have died over the age of 30. 4 skeletons were discovered in the Amud cave. One adult individual died at the age of 25, the other skeleton also belongs to an adult, the other two skeletons are children. In the Shanidar cave, out of nine skeletons, two are children, the average age of the rest is 33.1 years. It can be assumed that Neanderthals rarely survived to the age of 30, half of the Neanderthal population died in childhood. states that there was no increase in life expectancy in Neanderthals compared with representatives of the previous stage.

Archaeological data testify to the process of the closure of the Neanderthal primitive communities in themselves (a paradoxical consequence of their cohesion), their isolation, which led to relative interbreeding, and as a result to biological changes (Semenov, 1977). It is believed that the loss of evolutionary plasticity by the late Neanderthals is related to this.

The social organization of the Neanderthals was complex, this is proved by the facts of complex hunting techniques, long multi-step camps, etc. Long-term coexistence required friendly forms of social behavior and altruism. This is proven by the finds of old, sick and injured individuals (Neanderthal remains in Iraq and France). Caring for the elderly was accompanied by the transfer of their experience to young people. In the Neanderthal society, there was a differentiation of social roles and a high degree of cooperation. Cannibalism was inherent in Neanderthals. There are fewer signs of violent death in the late Neanderthals than in the early ones. For this time, the first burial rites associated with the culture of dealing with the body of a deceased person, as well as with dualism in the perception of the world, are noted. The deceased person remained a member of the collective (Deryagina, 1977; Semenov, 1977).

Fossil humans of the modern anatomical type. The Cro-Magno people, fully developed according to the type, appeared about 40 thousand years ago. Archaic representatives of the species Homo sapiens have an antiquity of more than 100 thousand years in Asia and Africa. The Cro-Magnon habitat covers all parts of the world.

Cro-Magnons differ from modern man in their massive skeleton. They are taller than Neanderthals (males up to 169-177 cm), the bones of the skeleton are less cortical. The facial part of the Cro-Magnons protruded less forward than that of the Neanderthals, the eye sockets were smaller. The overall dimensions of the skull and cerebral cavity are smaller. High cerebral region, high and straight forehead, rounded occiput. The mastoid processes are well developed, the relief of the skull is less pronounced than in the Neanderthals. The brow ridge is missing. The jaws are smaller, the teeth are smaller, the cavity is smaller. The chin protrusion is well developed. The inner surface of the symphysis of the mandible has a complex relief at the points of attachment of the hyoid muscles.

The Cro-Magnon skull is distinguished from modern humans by a greater thickness of bones, a lower height of the arch, large size of the eye sockets, the facial skeleton is larger, the brow ridges are larger.

The average brain volume of Cro-Magnons is about 1400 cubic meters. see, it is often smaller than that of the Neanderthals in overall size. The endocranes show the completion of the development of the frontal and parietal lobes, and significant internal restructuring of the brain is predicted.

The arctic adaptive type was formed in the Cro-Magnon man, who inhabited, among others, periglacial zones with deep snow cover. Thus, the adaptive types of hominids evolved gradually, reflecting the sequence of human colonization of climatic zones and various ecological niches. Adaptation to the harsh climate is seen in the type of Sungir Kroman with broad shoulders and strong bones. The ratio of weight to body area is very high and exceeds the group maximum for the modern Arctic population.

As for the stadial type of fossil Homo sapiens, the connection between the retreating glacier and the emergence of modern man has not been proven (Alekseev, 1993). A more likely reason lies in the reaction to the complication of the social environment (Roginsky, 1977).

The population of the Upper Paleolithic in four continents at the level of 25-10 thousand years from the present day is estimated at 3.3 - 5.3 million people (E. Divi, after Alekseev, 1993). The last author believes that the increase in the population in the Paleolithic eras was not expressed and took place at the turn of the Middle and Upper Paleolithic during settlement. (1980), based on the number of dwellings and hearths, estimates the number of people at individual sites at the described time at 40-50 people. According to him, there are about 1,000 sites in Europe, so the Upper Paleolithic population of Europe is about 50,000 people. In the interval from Acheulean to the Upper Paleolithic, the population of Western Europe alone increased 17 times.

According to A. Vallois (Vallois, 1937), children and adolescents make up 41.5% of the known Upper Paleolithic skeletons, that is, the size is close to half. The average age of death for an adult (determined on 31 skeletons) is 33.9 years. In contrast, 36% of Neolithic and Bronze Age people live to be 41 years old.

The emergence of a person of the modern anatomical type was accompanied by the formation of a dual-primordial organization, each component of which represented a genus (Semenov, 1977). The genetic advantages from this arrangement of marriages have led to an increase in the size of human groups and an increase in the number of humanity in general.

The data (1962) and the above show that the life expectancy of modern humans, so contrasting against the background of modern primates, has not always been like this in the history of mankind. Here are some of them: lemurs - up to 25 years old, capuchins - over 25 years old, macaques - over 30 years old, baboons - over 50 years old, gibbons - over 30 years old, orangutans - up to 50-60 years old, gorilla - up to 50-60 years old, chimpanzees - up to 50-60 years old, people - 75 years old. The higher monkeys, against the background of the lower ones, are quite well adapted to their habitat. The increase in the life expectancy of a modern person against the background of fossil hominids can only be explained by the improvement of his material culture and social institutions.

LITERATURE

1. Alekseev teshik-tash finds in the hominid system // Man. Evolution and taxonomy. M., 1985.

2. Alekseev human ecology. M., 1993.

3. Alekseeva processes in human populations. M., ed. Moscow State University, 1986, 216 p.

4. Bunak Homo, its origin and subsequent evolution. M., 1980.

5. Vernadsky substance. M., Science, 1978.

6. Reflections of an astronomer on biology // UNESCO Courier, 1982, no. 6.

7. Vorontsov preconditions of human evolution // Nature. 1973, no. 2.

8. 1864. On the position of man among organic beings. SPb., 1864.

9. Evolution of organisms. M., 1980.

10. Gremyak Neanderthal child from Teshik-Tash grotto, South Uzbekistan // Teshik-Tash. Paleolithic man. M., 1949.

11. Danilov's hands. Kiev, 1979.

12. Deryagin activity of primates. M., 1986.

13. Dubinin is such a person. M., 1983.

14., Shevchenko issues of human biosocial nature. M., Science, 1976.

15. Zhedenov anatomy of primates (including humans). M., 1962.

16. Teeth as a phase of the evolution of the animal world / Biological prerequisites for hominization. M., 1976.

17. Teeth preconditions for hominization // Questions of anthropology, 1983, issue 71.

18. The emergence of man. Missing link. M., 1977.

19. Krushinsky foundations of rational activity. M., 1977.

20. Ladygina-Kots psyche in the process of evolution of organisms. M., 1958

21. Prehistoric man. L., 1991

22. Principles of zoological taxonomy. M., 1971.

23. Nesturkh and his ancestors. M., 1934.

24. Nikitenko and the brain. Minsk, 1974.

25. Fundamentals of paleontology. M., 1974.

26. Reshetov and the origin of man. M., 1966.

27. Roginsky foundations of anthropology // Biological sciences, 1966, no. 3.

28. Roginsky anthropogenesis. M., 1977.

29., Levin. M., 1978.

30. Paleontology of vertebrates. M.-L., 1939.

31. Severtsov in the theory of evolution. M., 1981.

32. On the original form of primitive socio-economic relations // Sov. ethnography. 1977, no.

33. At the dawn of human history. M., 1989.

34. Development of the theory of evolution. Warsaw, 1965.

35. Strelnikov -physiological bases of speciation of vertebrates. L., Science, 1970.

36. Human Washburn // Evolution. M., 1981.

37. On some biological prerequisites for the humanization of monkeys // At the origins of mankind. M., 1964.

38. Another unique look. Environmental aspects of human evolution. M., Mir, 1990.

39. Kharitonov evolution of individual development in the process of anthropogenesis on paleontological material // Issues of anthropology. 1985, vol. 75.

40. Man in the scientific picture of the world. M., 1971.

41. Khrisanfova morphology of the human skeleton. M., 1978.

42., Carriers. M., 1999.

43. Shevchenko cerebral cortex of primates and humans. M., 1971.

44. Schmalhausen of Darwinism. M., 1969.

45. Schmidt of labor in the formation of man. M., 1947.

46. ​​Yakimov (Australopithecinae) // Fossil hominids and human origins. M., 1966, p. 43-90.

47. Dahlberg A. Evolutionary backround of dental and facial growth // J. Dent. Res., 1965, vol. 44, part 2.

48. Dobzhansky, Th. Genetics of the Evolutionary Process. New York, 1970.

Eccles J. Evolution and Consciens Self // A discussion at the Nobel conference. Amsterdam, 1967.

Vallois H. La duree de la vie chez l`home fossile // L`Anthropologie. P., 1937. Vol. 47, N5 / 6.

HOMINIDS

(Article for "Encyclopedia of scientific concepts")

Kharitonov V. M.

Article contains the complex biological and biological description of representatives of family Hominidae - fossil and modern people. The special attention is given evolution hominids and to culture development.

Key words: physical anthropology, hominids.

Evolutionary Anthropology Laboratory

20Jan

What are hominids

Hominids Is a biological family of creatures to which humans belong. Literally, the word " hominid"Means -" humanoid". In the broad masses, representatives of this family are known as great apes.

In turn, hominids are divided into:

Genus of hominids

• People
• Chimpanzee
• Gorillas
• Orangutans

Hominid subfamily

1. Pongins which include orangutans, and hominins , which include gorillas and chimpanzees.
2. Humans and their extinct close relatives such as the Neanderthals.

There is evidence that hominids, as a biological family, appeared on earth at least 7 million years ago. About six million years ago, the evolutionary line that gave rise to modern humans split from the rest. However, genetically, we are the closest relatives to gorillas, orangutans and chimpanzees. All humanoid species have at least 97% genetic similarity to modern humans.

Hominids are social creatures. They usually live in groups. Some people use simple tools in their everyday life, such as sticks to catch insects, or stones to crush something. They also have a character or personality, as well as a more complex way of intraspecific communication with respect to other animals.

The most reasonable and progressive representative of this family, undoubtedly, can be considered - a person. Human intelligence products are ubiquitous, take the same computer or tablet with which you read this information.

In other representatives of hominids, intellectual abilities are at a lower level and they are still far from humans. Although, as a fun fact, you can cite a gorilla named Coco, who learned to use human sign language to communicate with people. Her successes are really amazing, since she quite meaningfully expresses her thoughts and desires.

"Hominid" translated as "humanoid", and this biological family includes people. In general, four main branches are distinguished in it: humans, chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans. Previously, only people were included in the Hominid family, in the other three branches they were united into the Pongid family. However, in modern biology, it is customary to combine them all into a large Hominid family, already distinguishing two subfamilies in it:

• Pongins - This includes orangutans.
• Hominins - This includes humans, chimpanzees and gorillas.

However, in anthropology, another system has been preserved, according to which only humans and their extinct ancestors belong to hominids. In this case, we will build on the anthropological definition, and carry out a comparative analysis of hominids, highlight their common features, and also consider the main stages of evolution.

Rice. 1 - Hominids

Common signs of hominids

Hominids are distinguished from other primates by a number of traits that arise gradually during anthropogenesis. Modern man has both similarities with great apes and differences from them. The former are due to its origin, while the latter are due to the fact that from life in trees he moved to living on earth, as a result of which he developed upright posture and labor activity - the body changed, adapting to new conditions.

Let's highlight the signs of adaptation of hominids to walking on two legs:

• the trunk and neck are located vertically, while the lower limbs are fully extended at the knee joint;
• the hip muscles are developed and located in a specific way, the shape of the pelvis is expanded;
• the spine is curved, has an S-shape;
• the chest is flattened;
• the skull is balanced;
• leg muscles are highly developed;
• the foot is arched, the toes on it are shortened, the first toe is more developed than the others and is not opposed to them;
• the proportions of the body as a whole have changed a lot.

Changes in the structure of the hominid arm due to its adaptation to work:

• there was a shortening of the arm;
• the strength of the hand has become higher, as well as its mobility;
• the skeleton of the thumb and forefinger has become stronger;
• the thumb is lengthened;
• the muscle opposing it has developed more strongly, the muscle that carries it out has become isolated;
• the ability to rotate the arm has developed;
• the parts of the brain responsible for hand movements have developed more strongly.

Changes in the structure of the hominid brain:

• the brain has increased in size;
• the cortex and associative zones are highly developed;
• the parietal and frontal lobes also developed, their cytoarchitectonic fields expanded and developed;
• speech centers were developed;
• interneuronal contacts have increased;
• the corpus callosum has become larger;
• furrows of the third order became more numerous.

There was also a reduction in the hairline, it thinned and shortened, the structure of the larynx changed due to increased speech function - the development of cartilage and ligaments occurred, the topography of the larynx changed.

Specific features of the skull and teeth that distinguish hominids:

• the facial part of the skull, in comparison with the cerebral part, decreased;
• the lower jaw has become smaller;
• the canines have decreased;
• the ridges on the skull have disappeared;
• the nasal section began to protrude;
• the chin protrusion has developed;
• the profile of the face as a whole was straightened.

The main types of hominids

Australopithecus... Their finds are numerous, as a result of which the entire skeleton is known. They lived in most of Africa, with the exception of the northern part. The oldest hominids- the earliest Australopithecines (Fig. 2), lived about 7 million years ago. There are two main genera: Australopithecus, also called Gracile Australopithecus, and Paranthropus, or Massive Australopithecus.

The skeleton indicates that upright posture has taken place, the length of the body: for gracile ones - 100-130 cm, for massive ones - 150-178 cm. The hand was freed from the supporting function, but still retained many primitive features, its structure is unstable. The thumb is not yet completely opposed to the rest, the phalanges are curved, except for the terminal ones, which are flat.

The brain volume averaged 450 cubic centimeters for gracile individuals, and a little more than 500 cubic centimeters. see - for massive. Canines and incisors are small, molars are large. The jaws are more massive than those of humans. They had a protruding brow, with a small size of the face as a whole, a cut off nasal region and a rounded occipital region. They had pronounced sexual dimorphism: the size of the males exceeded the size of the females.

Rice. 2 - Australopithecus hominids

The size and degree of wear of the molars indicates that the Australopithecus ate solid food, for example, cereals. If massive australopithecines were exclusively herbivorous, then the gracile ones were omnivorous.

Based on the number of finds, it is believed that the total number of Australopithecus was approximately 10 to 20 thousand. The average life expectancy was 19.7 years. Being social hominids, they lived in herds, each of which consisted of several dozen individuals, including several, adult males, as well as a larger number of females and cubs. This made it possible, if necessary, to resist predators. It is unlikely that an elementary family existed, since it was impeded by the need for group hunting, as well as the initial labor activity, which required the participation of dozens of individuals.

(fig. 3). Habitat - Eurasia and Africa. Lived in Africa for about 1.6 million years before our time, a little later appeared in Asia, and only 500 thousand years ago - in Europe. The body is longer than that of Australopithecus, reaching 175 cm for males. The bones are long and thick, the skeleton is massive. The skull has thick walls, the occipital and supraorbital ridges are powerful, the escaping frontal part, large jaws. The teeth were also large. The relief of the occipital region is highly developed, since powerful muscles were required to balance the head when standing upright.

The average brain volume exceeded 1000 cubic meters. m. The frontal lobes are not as well developed as in modern humans, the temporal and parietal lobes are narrow. The zones of the neocortex have undergone increased development due to the development of speech functions and manual labor. The relief of the muscles of the tongue increases, the chin begins to form.

Rice. 3 - Archantropus

The total number is estimated in different ways: from ten tens of thousands to a million individuals. Groups of archanthropus were larger than those of australopithecines, averaging about fifty individuals. Conflicts often occurred in communities, and cases of cannibalism were also noted, which are interpreted in different ways - either as killing for food, or as eating someone killed as a result of conflict because of females.

Child mortality was 40%, which is why the average life expectancy hardly exceeded that of Australopithecus, however, if you subtract those who died before the age of 14, it will be 38 years.

They began to be distinguished relatively recently, but earlier they were attributed either to archanthropus or to paleoanthropus. However, they have many features that made it possible to distinguish them into a separate evolutionary stage. Habitat - 800-200 thousand years ago. Descended from archantropians. This species is polytypical, has a wide distribution area - from the very south of Africa to the north of continental Europe (excluding Scandinavia).

The cerebral cavity is smaller than in Neanderthals, and the height of the cranial vault is greater, the forehead is less sloping, the zygomatic bones are not sloping, the cerebral region is shorter, the orbits are relatively low, the mastoid processes have developed.

In Europe, at first they lived in the south, then began to move to the north, more and more acquiring the features of the Neanderthals. The Heidelberg man (Fig. 4) was engaged in the manufacture of tools from wood, bone, stone, made buildings, was engaged in the manufacture of clothing. It is noted that the Heidelbergers tried to give their guns a more aesthetic look. The remains of the settlements contain permanent hearths and family buildings.

Rice. 4 - Heidelberg man

Paleanthropus(fig. 5). They lived approximately in the interval of 300-30 thousand years BC in Eurasia and Africa. Late Neanderthals are distinguished by their small stature (up to 170 cm in males), shoulder width, skeletal and muscular development. The proportions of the body are similar to the current representatives of the peoples of the Arctic as a result of adaptation to weather conditions. The massive structure of the skeleton is usually explained by an adaptation to the need to carry a lot of meat over long distances.

The volume of the brain is on average 1350 cubic meters. see, the growth of the neocortex is noted. The skull is large in size, the shape is elongated, the wall thickness exceeds that of modern people. The supraorbital ridges are massive, the forehead is sloping, the jaws are large and massive, and the teeth are large.

Rice. 5 - Paleontrop

There are theories asserting that skeletal ontogeny in Neanderthals proceeded faster than in modern humans. At the same time, comparisons are made between the remains of immature Neanderthals with modern children. These theories point to the rapid pace of maturation as an important feature of Neanderthals.

The number of Middle Paleolithic Neanderthals is estimated at one million. There was no increase in life expectancy in comparison with the previous forms, a Neanderthal who lived to 30 years was rare, while the average life expectancy was about 20 years.

They had a complex social organization, demonstrated friendly social behavior, as well as altruism, expressed, in particular, in caring for old and sick individuals. Social roles were differentiated, the level of cooperation was high. However, cannibalism was practiced, albeit to a lesser extent over time. At this time, the first burials appeared. According to archeology, Neanderthal communities tended to become isolated, resulting in crossbreeding and biological changes. Perhaps this is related to the loss of their evolutionary plasticity and the subsequent extinction of this species.

Fossil humans of the modern type... Cro-Magnons of the modern type fully developed about 40 thousand years ago. Differences from a modern person are small. First of all, there is a massive skeleton, a greater thickness of the bones of the skull and a larger size of the eye sockets, a lower height of the fornix.

The total population ranged from about 3 to 5.5 million, including about 50 thousand in Europe. The average life expectancy for an adult is 34 years, more than a third of them are over 40 years old. A dual-communal organization arose. Since it brought advantages in the field of genetics, the size of the groups increased.