general information

australopithecines(lat. Australopithecus, from lat. "australis" - "southern" and other Greek. "Pitekos" - "monkey") - a genus of extinct upright ("two-legged" or bipedal) hominids. Its name is somewhat misleading, because. although it is translated as "southern monkey", in fact the species of this genus are regarded as more progressive than any monkeys. From the evidence collected by paleontologists and paleoanthropologists, it follows that the genus Australopithecus arose in East Africa approximately 4.2 million years ago, spread across the continent, and eventually disappeared just under 2 million years ago. Currently, six species of Australopithecus that existed during this time are known, the most famous of them are Afar and African.

It is widely believed among archaeologists and paleontologists that Australopithecus played a significant role in human evolution, and that a species of Australopithecus eventually formed the genus Homo (People) in Africa about 2.5 million years ago.

Apparently, Paranthropus or "robust" Australopithecus, which lived simultaneously with early human species, also descended from Australopithecus proper.

History of study

The first discovered and documented find was the skull of an ape-like creature aged about 3-4 years, found in 1924 by workers in a limestone quarry near Taung (South Africa). Raymond Dart, an Australian anatomist and anthropologist who worked at the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, became interested in the skull. He found that the skull had features similar to those of a human. In particular, the opening for the spinal cord is located below, and not behind as in monkeys, which indicates an upright posture. Dart concluded that these were the remains of an early human precursor (the so-called "missing link") and published his findings in the February 1925 issue of Nature. He named the species he discovered Australopithecus africanus.

Initially, other anthropologists were hostile to the idea that these were the remains of something other than simple apes. Dart's discovery directly contradicted the then prevailing hypothesis that the development of the brain should precede upright posture, all the more so was it confirmed by Piltdown Man. However, in the 1940s, their opinion began to change. And in November 1953, the falsification of the "Piltdown Man" was finally proven.

The first trace of an Australopithecus found in East Africa was a skull belonging to Boyce's paranthropus, which was excavated by Mary Leakey in 1959 in Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania. The Leakey family continued to excavate the gorge, discovering subsequent remains of both Australopithecus, Homo habilis and Homo erectus. Discoveries of the Leakey family in 1959-1961. were a turning point in the recognition of Australopithecus as a link between apes and humans, and Africa as the cradle of mankind.

On November 24 (or 30), 1974, Donald Johanson discovered in the Hadar Desert (Ethiopia, East Africa) the most complete Australopithecus ever found, which was named by the expedition members "Lucy". The temporal bones, lower jaw, ribs, vertebrae, bones of the arms, legs and pelvis have been preserved - a total of about 40% of the skeleton. In total in 1973-1977. more than 240 different hominid remains have been found, belonging to at least 35 individuals. Based on these findings, the species Australopithecus afarensis was described. In 2000, the skeleton of another young australopithecine of this species was discovered in Ethiopia, most likely belonging to a 3-year-old cub who lived about 3.3 million years ago (the so-called "Lucy's daughter").

Recently, scientists have found the remains of a new species of Australopithecus in South Africa. Fossils of the Australopithecus sediba, which lived about 1.98 million years ago, were discovered in the Malapa cave. Some scientists believe that A. sediba (which in turn evolved from A. africanus) may have evolved into H. erectus.

Origin and evolution

According to the data of the Chimpanzee Genome Project, the human (Ardipithecus, Australopithecus and Homo) and chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes and Pan paniscus) lines, having descended from a common ancestor, separated about 5-6 million years ago (assuming a constant rate of evolution). One theory suggests that although the human and chimpanzee lineages diverged at first, then some populations interbred over a million years after this divergence.

Classification and known species

There is still debate among scholars as to whether certain African hominin species of the time, such as aethiopicus, boisei, and robustus, are members of the genus Australopithecus. If so, then they (according to Western European terminology) can be distinguished into the group of “robust” (from the English “robust” - strong, strong, reliable) Australopithecus, while the rest form a group of “gracil” (from the English. “ gracile" - slender, thin).

And, although the opinions of various scientists regarding the inclusion of "robust" species in the genus Australopithecus differ, the consensus scientific community in general at the moment is that they should be separated into a separate genus Paranthropus. It is believed that paranthropes are a further development of Australopithecus. Morphologically, paranthropes are noticeably different from Australopithecus, and the features of their morphology give reason to believe that they also differed significantly from their ancestors in behavior.

Currently, the remains of about 500 individuals of Australopithecus and Paranthropus are known, which belong to the following species:

Russian name	Latin name	Alternative and legacy options	Period of existence, million years ago
Australopithecus anamanis	Australopithecus anamensis		3,9-4,2
Australopithecus afarensis	Australopithecus afarensis		2,9-3,9
Australopithecus Bahr el Ghazal	Australopithecus bahrelghazali		3,6
australopithecine africanus	Australopithecus africanus	Plesianthropus transvaalensis	3,03-2,04
Australopithecus gari	Australopithecus garhi		2,6
Australopithecus sediba	Australopithecus sediba		1,98
Ethiopian Paranthropus	Paranthropus aethiopicus	Australopithecus aethiopicus	2,7-2,39
Boyce paranthropus	Paranthropus boisei	Australopithecus boisei, Zinjanthropus	2,3-1,2
Paranthropus massive (Robustus)	Paranthropus robustus	Australopithecus robustus	2,0-1,2

Morphology

Common and defining features for all (“gracil” and “robust”) Australopithecus are:

1. Anatomy adapted for upright walking.
2. High value of the brachial index (the ratio of the length of the forearm and shoulder).
3. Sexual dimorphism, more pronounced than in humans and chimpanzees, but weaker than in gorillas.
4. Height 1.2-1.5 m, weight 29-55 kg (estimated).
5. The capacity of the skull is 350-600 cm3.
6. The molars are relatively large with thicker teeth than those of humans and modern monkeys enamel.
7. Incisors and fangs are relatively small, sexual dimorphism in the structure of canines is less pronounced than in modern monkeys.

Adaptation to upright posture has special meaning in human evolution. All australopithecines have anatomical features skull, spine, pelvis, and legs that promote upright posture. The foramen in the occipital bone is at the bottom of the skull, indicating the angle at which the spinal cord enters. The S-shaped spine helps to maintain balance when walking on two legs and absorbs vibrations. The pelvis is wide and short. The femoral neck lengthens, increasing leverage for the muscles attached to the femur. The hip and knee joints provide the necessary distribution of weight when walking.

The high value of the brachial index suggests that, despite the clear morphological evidence of adaptation to life on the ground, Australopithecus still could use the arboreal habitat. Perhaps they slept in the trees, fed, or escaped from land-based predators.

The degree of sexual dimorphism inherent in Australopithecus is hotly debated. For some skeletal specimens, it is debated whether the difference in size is due to dimorphism or to the presence of two different species. Despite the lack of certainty in the estimation of body size from fossil specimens, it is currently believed that the sexual dimorphism of Australopithecus is markedly more pronounced than that of humans and chimpanzees. In particular, in humans, men are more than women on average by 15%. At the same time, in Australopithecus, males could be up to 50% heavier than females. However, the dimorphism in the structure of the fangs, which is characteristic of monkeys, is much weaker. The importance of the degree of dimorphism is important because social organization and reproduction depend on it.

As already noted, it is very difficult to estimate body size from fragmentary fossil samples. In addition, some species are known from very small sets of fragments, which further complicates the task. However, other species are represented fairly well, and their height and weight can be estimated relatively reliably. In terms of body weight, Australopithecus are comparable to chimpanzees, but due to upright posture they are taller.

The general trend of human evolution is an increase in the volume of the brain, but over the millions of years of the existence of Australopithecus, progress in this direction was very small. The brain volume of most Australopithecus species was approximately 35% of the brain of a modern person. This is only slightly more than that of a chimpanzee. A noticeable increase in the brain volume of primates occurred only with the advent of the genus Homo.

The cognitive abilities of Australopithecus are unknown, but there is evidence that at least some species made and used the simplest stone tools around 2.6 million years ago. Perhaps the tools were made from other materials (for example, wood), but the processes of destruction of organic materials do not allow us to detect them. There was no evidence of Australopithecus proficiency in speech or fire control.

The study of the structure of the teeth is very important, because. isolated teeth are the most common fossils. The study of their structure can be used for phylogenetic relationships, diet and social organization. The molars of Australopithecus are large and have thick enamel (it is especially thick in Paranthropus).

Today, living primates with a similar structure of teeth eat solid plant foods - nuts, seeds, etc. Therefore, it is believed that such food was a significant part of the diet of Australopithecus. In addition, some "gracile" Australopithecus probably also ate the meat and bone marrow of animals killed by predators. To separate the meat from the bones and extract the bone marrow, some of them, according to the results of individual studies, even used primitive stone tools. It is possible that animal food rich in protein and microelements also served as one of the reasons for the increase in the brain and the development of intelligence.

In addition to the features described above, certain types of Australopithecus could have others that bring them closer to humans. These include a developed hand, with a long and strong opposable thumb, a foot with an arch (in contrast to the flat feet of monkeys), etc.

Evolutionary role

Examination of the remains shows that Australopithecus is a common ancestor separate group hominids, called Paranthropus ("robust" Australopithecus) and most likely the genus Homo, which also includes modern humans. A key feature of all these primates is upright posture (“bipedalism” or bipedalism). The morphology of australopithecines refuted the previously widespread opinion that it was the large brain that preceded upright posture.

The earliest evidence of erect walking hominids is from Laetoli, Tanzania. Footprints surprisingly similar to modern human footprints have been found in this area, and dated to about 3.6-3.8 million years ago. It is believed that these are footprints of Australopithecus, because. they are the only human ancestors living there at that time.

Such evidence makes it abundantly clear that the large brain evolved much later than the transition to upright posture. At the same time, the reason for discussions is the question of how and why millions of years ago it appeared at all. The advantages of upright walking are freeing up the hands for manipulating objects (carrying food and young, using and making tools), high eye level (higher than the grass in the savannah) to see possible food sources or predators. However, many anthropologists believe that these advantages are not sufficient to cause it to appear.

New studies of primate evolution and morphology have shown that all apes (modern and fossil) have a skeletal adaptation to the upright position of the body. Orrorin was already upright about 6 million years ago, during the separation of human and chimpanzee lines (according to the results of genetic studies). This means that walking in an upright position on straight legs originally appeared as an adaptation to a lifestyle in the trees. A study of modern orangutans in Sumatra shows that they use all four limbs when walking on large, stable branches. Under branches of a smaller diameter, they move by clinging to them with their hands, but on flexible thin (less than 4 cm in diameter) branches, they walk on straightened legs, using their hands for balance and additional support. This allows them to get closer to the edge of the forest canopy to forage or move to another tree.

The ancestors of gorillas and chimpanzees became more specialized in climbing up vertical tree trunks using their knees bent, which is consistent with their knuckle-footed way of walking on the ground. This was due to climate change about 11-12 million years ago, which affected forests in East and Central Africa, when treeless spaces appeared that made it impossible to move only along the forest canopy. At this time, the ancestral hominins may have adapted to walking upright for movement on the ground. Man is closely related to these apes, and shares features with them, including carpal bones reinforced for their way of walking.

However, the opinion that human ancestors used this way of walking is now in question, because. the anatomy and biomechanics of such locomotion differ between gorillas and chimpanzees. This means that such a feature arose independently after the separation of the human line. Further comparative analysis suggests that these bone changes arose in order to adapt to moving through trees with the help of hands.

Australopithecus - extinct bipedal apes; usually regarded as a subfamily of the hominid family. The name proposed for the first find of Australopithecus - the skull of a 3-5 year old calf in South Africa. Skeletal remains of several hundred Australopithecus from South Africa and East Africa (Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania) have been found. Australopithecus lived in the period from 4-5 to 1 million years ago. Their appearance is associated with the onset of cooling, when tropical forests began to be gradually replaced by savannahs. Their ancestors were probably some late driopithecus, less adapted to the woody environment and moving to living in more open areas.

african australopithecine

Australopithecus were the first reliable representatives of the evolutionary branch that eventually led to man. Their main distinguishing feature - upright posture (established by the structure of the pelvis and other bones of the lower limb, as well as by footprints in volcanic tuffs) is combined with a monkey brain and a primitive skull. The oldest australopithecines lived in the region of the East African Rift Zone 3-4 million years ago and, probably, have not completely broken the connection with the arboreal way of life. Usually they are referred to as Australopithecus afarensis (after the name of the tectonic depression in Ethiopia where the excavations were carried out). Remains from several dozen individuals of this species are known, including the most complete skeleton of a female (“Lucy”), of which approximately 40% of the bones have been preserved (1974). Many scientists consider Australopithecus Afar as a "transitional link" between the ape and early humans. It looked somewhat like a "straightened" chimpanzee in appearance, but with shorter arms (and fingers) and less developed fangs, an average brain volume of about 400 cc - like that of a chimpanzee. The existence of other, earlier species of australopithecines is also possible, but finds older than 4.5 million years are extremely rare and fragmentary. The early Australopithecus lived in wandering groups scattered over a wide area. Their life expectancy averaged 17-22 years.
Later Australopithecus, which lived from 3 to 1 million years ago, is represented by three species: the miniature (gracil) African Australopithecus (Australopithecus africanus), known mainly from South Africa, as well as two massive Australopithecus: the South African Paranthropus (Paranthropus robustus) and the East African Zinjanthropus ( Zinjanthropus boisei). The latter appeared about 2.5 million years ago and were distinguished by a powerful physique: male individuals could have the growth of a modern person, female ones were much smaller. The volume of the brain (on average 500-550 cc) was almost three times less than that of a modern person. These australopithecines are credited with the use of natural objects (animal bones and horns). In later Australopithecus, the tendency to increase the masticatory apparatus prevailed over the tendency to further increase in brain volume.
It is assumed that the most ancient apes of the Australopithecus Afar type could give rise to both late specialized massive Australopithecus, which died out about 1 million years ago, and early representatives of the human genus, which appeared about 2-2.4 million years ago. Usually they are referred to as a skilled person (Homo habilis). In terms of size and general appearance, a skilled man differed little from the classic African Australopithecus, with which he is even united, but had much more big brain(an average of 660 cc) and was able to make crude tools by surface treatment of basalt and quartz pebbles.

Australopithecus?

Around the same time, relatively small upright humanoid creatures appear in Africa and southern Asia. Confidently moving on their hind limbs, they had free forelimbs - hands.

These were "Australopithecines", that is, "southern monkeys". Their main difference from the great apes was that they had completely human lower limbs.

Some of them knew how to make primitive stone tools, which they used to protect themselves from large predators, during hunting, and to butcher the carcasses of their victims.

Between 5 and 0.5 million years ago, four species of Australopithecus lived in South and East Africa:

Until the mid-90s, the most ancient form of Australopithecus was considered to be “Australopithecine Afar” (A. afr.), discovered by the expedition of D. Johansson in 1974. Then a fairly complete skeleton of a female was found, which is why she received the name “Lucy”. The age of the remains was more than 3.5 million years (some dating methods indicate an age of 3.8 million). It was a creature that looked like a pygmy chimpanzee, but clearly walked upright. It was as tall as a six-year-old child (about 120-130 cm), its weight was about 30 kilograms.

In 1995, it was reported that the expedition of T. White, Gen Suva and B. Asafu discovered the remains of 17 Australopithecus 4.4 million years old in the valley of the Awash River (near the village of Aramis). This ancient form of Australopithecus is named A. Ramidis , which in Afar means "Indigenous Australopithecus".

The latest discovered remains of A.afar. are 2.5 million years old. These creatures had a well-formed bipedal gait with an erect body, which was described in detail in the Morphology section.

The third variety is represented by Australopithecus Africanus, who lived in the interval of 0.5 - 0.7 million years ago. These creatures were larger, their height reached 150 cm.

Approximately in the same period and in the same areas even larger “Australopithecines massive” or “paranthropes” lived, their height reached 180 cm and weight 60 kg. The remains of these creatures are found throughout southern Asia. According to the general opinion, these creatures were similar in appearance to gorillas.

The photo shows the skeletons of Australopithecus: from left to right Avstralophitecus afar, Avstralopithecus afrikanus and Avstralopithecus robustus or “massive” (found parts of the skeleton are highlighted).

In the interval from 2.5 to one million years, even larger "Australopithecines Boys" (named after Charles Boyes, who financed the expedition) lived in East Africa. Another name for this creature is "Zinjanthropus" or "East African Man". He also had a very strong resemblance to a gorilla and supposedly lived in the forest. The growth of these creatures reached 180 cm, but possibly more.

Zinjanthropus is interesting in that, next to some of the remains of these creatures, roughly beaten pebbles (tools of the pebble culture, another name is “Olduvai culture” after the name of the Olduvai Gorge where they were found) and the skulls of monkeys and small Australopithecus, obviously injured by these tools, were found .

Most scientists do not consider Australopithecus to be the direct ancestors of modern humans and classify them as a dead end branch of hominin evolution. But perhaps it isn't. In 2004, a message arrived from Flores Island in Indonesia. Well-preserved remains of humanoid creatures unknown to science were discovered there. Paleontologists have named them Homo-florensis.

To which family of hominids scientists have not yet decided to attribute these creatures.

But there is no reason to exclude Australopithecus from the number of possible ancestors of some modern races of modern relict hominoids.

For example, Australopithecus, among which were large, massive forms (“Zinjanthropus”) may well be the ancestors of the giants of the African population. are distant descendants of various types of australopithecines. In Russia, a supporter of this hypothesis was the founder of the Seminar on the problem of "Bigfoot" P.P. Smolin.

Homo habilis or Homo erectus?

The first being who really stood at the origins of the evolution of modern man is currently considered to be Nomo habilis - “a skilled man”. He had a height of 120-150 cm, a weight of about 50 kg, a larger brain than that of Australopithecus, and a number of other "human features".

Its habitat was East and South Africa, where it is known as the "Meganthrope", and Southeast Asia - where it was called the "Pithecanthropus".

Burian's drawing shows a reconstruction of the appearance of this creature with fragments of the bones of some animal. The Habilis made stone tools (“pebble culture”), built simple shelters, gathered plant food, and hunted small and, possibly, rather large animals. The time of their existence is from 2 to 1.5 million years ago. Thus, they were contemporaries of some Australopithecus.

The next representative of the oldest hominids is Homo erectus - "upright man" (the former name Pithecanthropus), which appears about 1.6 million years ago. Its remains disappear about 200 thousand years ago. These were rather large creatures up to 180 centimeters tall, with a brain volume only 25-30% less than that of a modern person.

Recently, many scientists have combined these two groups of hominids into one group - archanthropes.

Nomo-erectus was well developed physically, knew how to make quite diverse and perfect tools for labor and hunting, built primitive dwellings and, most importantly, he learned to use fire, as evidenced by the numerous finds of bonfires at his sites. Fire provided him with an undeniable advantage in the fight against cold and large predators.

Judging by the structure of the skeleton, pithecanthropes were unsurpassed runners and, according to a number of scientists, they hunted ungulates with a “corral”, that is, they pursued their prey until it was exhausted, after which they finished it off and butchered it with stone tools .

This is how the Maasai hunt today. Moreover, it would seem that beaters can replace one another. So no, a deer is driven by one person for many hours. As a result, the deer falls exhausted, and the hunter finishes it off.

It was mentioned above that relic hominoids have a high running speed and also drive their prey, after which they kill it, but the use of any tools is usually not mentioned. The exceptions, however, are the West Siberian Tungus and the Yakut Chuchuna (most likely, we are talking about representatives of the same race of relict hominoids - author's note), which in some stories recorded in the 19th century were credited with the ability to use stone knives and primitive bows with arrows. They used these tools of the Chuchun ineptly - they shot at the hunters without aiming until they ran out of arrows. Based on this, some researchers considered the Chuchun to be people - representatives of a tribe unknown to science, standing at a very low stage of development. Similar views were expressed, for example, by the famous Soviet scientist Academician A.P. Okladnikov, who lived and worked in Siberia for many years and heard numerous stories about ““ wild people”- chuchuna.

Pithecanthropes settled throughout the South and South-East Asia, some groups, having overcome or bypassed the Himalayas and Tibet, penetrated into Central Asia and China, where they are known as "Synanthropes" (sinatrop - "Chinese man"). Sinanthropes lived in caves, used fire - layers of ash several meters thick were found at the site of their camps - this means that they burned fires there for more than one thousand years.

Until recently, it seemed that the sites of synanthropes near Beijing are the northern border of the range of synanthropes.

But not everyone agreed with these theories. At the beginning of the twentieth century. In 1915-1919 Professor P. Sushkin gave lectures on the evolution of vertebrates at Kharkov University. The most original part of this course was devoted to the origin of man - he did not develop from African tree-climbing forms, but was formed in the mountainous, cold regions of Asia.

In the article “The Evolution of Vertebrates and the Role of Geological Climate Changes,” he wrote that the structure of the human foot testifies to the ancient fitness of the primate for climbing, from which bipedalism developed. It passed this phase in high-mountainous Asia as early as the Tertiary period, however, it was lost among the then numerous fauna of mammals, until the bulk of them died out in the process of the coming cooling in the Quaternary era. The rock-climber inhabitant of the highlands was better adapted to the cooling of the climate and, thanks to this, survived. In his last article Sushkin compromised with traditional science and agreed that man may have descended from the tree-climbing form, but in the conditions of the rapid disappearance of forests due to cooling during the geological uplift of the mountains of Central Asia, he was forced to master climbing and then switch to upright walking.

One of the main arguments against Sushkin's hypothesis was the lack of relevant archaeological material on the territory of Central Asia. But then this gap was eliminated.

During excavations by the expedition of anthropologist M. Gerasimov at the site of Malka (Altai), primitive stone tools were found, similar to those of the “pebble culture” (“Olduvai culture” of Africa).

In the 70s of the XX century, the hypothesis of Professor P. Sushkin was once again confirmed by the sensational discoveries of Soviet archaeologists in the center of Yakutia. The Prilensky archaeological expedition, led by the famous Soviet archaeologist Yu.A. Mochanov, carried out excavations on the coastal terraces of the Lena River and its tributaries, discovered traces of the presence of ancient people in various regions of central Yakutia and the Yano-Chukotsky region in the northeast of Yakutia.

The discovered sites belong to the period from 2.5 (2.8) million to 10-11 thousand years BC. .The largest number of stone tools was found at the Dyuktai and Diringg-Yuryakh sites. The oldest layers were unearthed during excavations at the Deering-Yuryakh site, about 90 kilometers north of Yakutsk. Archaeologists have found here a large number of rough-hewn pebbles - typical tools of the "pebble culture". The age of the layers in which these tools were found was amazing - 2,800 - 1,800 thousand years, that is, the hominids who made these tools were contemporaries of the Australopithecus, who lived in Africa and southern regions of Asia and left stone tools of the "Olduvai culture".

In what environment did the "Dirings" live? Judging by the remains of plants and animals in the soil layers in which Diring tools were found, the climate at that time there was quite different from the modern one - it was more severe. There was already permafrost, and the winters were cold enough - mean annual temperature was hardly above plus 10 degrees Celsius. Under such conditions, the ancient hominids could hardly exist without fire and clothing.

Yu. Mochanov adheres to the Asian hypothesis of the origin of man, which was developed at the beginning of the century by Academician P. Sushkin. According to Mochanov, insignificant changes in natural conditions during the year in the tropical and subtropical zones, where ancient hominids mainly lived, did not create incentives for changes in their morphology and behavior, which would subsequently lead to the formation of people. Is it not for this reason that the highest anthropoids, chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans, have survived to this day in these areas? The abundance of a variety of plant foods does not create nutritional problems for them throughout the year. “The inability to feed oneself by gathering in cold regions,” writes Mochanov, “forced the ancient man to hunt and make stone tools. The cold forced him to "tame" the fire (in the tropics - this is a biological inconsistency). Escaping from the cold with the help of fire, clothes and dwellings, the ancestors of man lost their hair...”.

As mentioned above, during the ice ages, when huge masses of water accumulated in the ice sheets of the northern and southern hemispheres, huge deserts grew in the equatorial zone. In the summertime, powerful winds from these deserts carried to the northern latitudes many cubic kilometers of loess that fell on the surface of glaciers. The surface of northern Asia was not covered by a continuous ice sheet, but the loess sediments that fell on the ground formed layers hundreds of meters thick. This created conditions for the formation of a fertile layer of soil on the surface of the earth, on which grasses and shrubs could grow. It is in such places that archaeologists find traces of the oldest stone industry - tools of the “Olduvai culture” type: Deering-Yuryakh, Malka, etc. It is unlikely that the Deering people could survive in the harsh conditions of North Asia if they lived in scattered small groups. It can be assumed that they were quite numerous. The fate of small groups or individual families that found themselves isolated for one reason or another, most likely, was tragic, and they died out.

Distant descendants of another branch of ancient Asian hominids formed a population of Asian relic hominoids. They were huge apes - Gigantopithecus. In a harsh climate and lack of food resources, the Pithecanthropes ("ancient people") inevitably had to fight against the Gigantopithecus (devas) and, as we know, they won in it.

Neanderthals?

The most common is the hypothesis of B.F.Porshnev, according to which modern relict hominoids are descendants of Neanderthals. This hypothesis was actively supported by the Belgian scientist B. Euvelmans.

For a long time there was an opinion that all Neanderthals died out, or were destroyed by the Cro-Magnons (the first people modern type) between 100,000 and 50,000 years ago. But Neanderthals are not at all such a homogeneous group of ancient hominids.

There are two types: progressive type Neanderthals, which have a significant resemblance to modern humans, and classical Neanderthals - more primitive creatures that retained signs of more ancient forms of hominids. In addition, progressive Neanderthals are residents of the southern regions of their common range, and the classical inhabitants of the northern regions of Europe.

A group of progressive Neanderthals (according to Burian)

B.F. Porshnev considered relic hominoids to be relic Neanderthals, but this applied only to classical Neanderthals, their most human-like varieties, mainly to Caucasian Almas and Mongolian Almas. Perhaps they include the Vanmas and the barman of Western Asia. He simply kept silent about relic hominoids from other regions, logically believing that at first one should deal with at least one form of these creatures unrecognized by science, and only then take on the rest.

B.F. Porshnev drew attention to the great external similarity of Almas and Almasty with classical Neanderthals, and he took their differences from modern people, the main of which he considered the lack of articulate speech, as evidence that both cannot be considered people in the full sense of the word. In his opinion, classical Neanderthals, like relict hominoids, should be classified as wild animals (recall St. Augustine's statement in Chapter 2 about the main feature of man - the "rational soul").

Based on many years of research by B.F. Porshnev came to the conclusion that the boundary separating the ancient and ancient hominids from HOMO SAPIENS is the appearance of articulate speech.

Analyzing the process of improving the stone tools of the ancient hominids, one can see that the most ancient tools have not changed for hundreds of thousands of years. The process of their manufacture, as experiments showed, consisted in applying several blows of one stone to another. The invariability of the form and nature of the actions of the "master" indicates that these actions were stereotyped. This is how an insect (bee, wasp, spider, etc.) operates - no one teaches them "labor actions", these actions are innate, instinctive. It is impossible to teach an insect new techniques in the manufacture of mink, cobwebs or honeycombs. The same examples are observed in the world of birds or animals: for example, skillfully woven mitten-like nests of chickadees or weavers, stucco nests of swallows, etc. are well known - their actions are also instinctive and it is also impossible to teach these birds to “work” in a different way. It seems that the most ancient hominids "worked" in the same way: Australopithecus and Homo habilis.

The Paris Museum of Man has a diagram (exponential curve) showing the evolution of the complexity of the labor skills of ancient hominids over time - we see that the curve illustrating this process has an extended almost horizontal "instinctive" section, the duration of which is not less than 2 million years.

The diagram of labor skills of ancient hominids (Scheme 1) shows that the first rudiments labor activity they appeared 2 - 2.5 million years ago.

The diagrams above show the speed with which the methods of processing stone tools were improved and complicated over time. It is clearly seen that this process gradually, but with increasing speed, accelerated. And over the past few tens of thousands of years, the curve of labor skills begins to rise with increasing steepness - this indicates a rapid improvement in labor skills (Scheme 1). Obviously, somewhere in this period, the hominoid turns into a man.

What could be the reason for this sharp jump in the evolution of labor habits of hominids? According to B.F. Porshnev, this could be caused by only one thing - the appearance of articulate speech in hominids, thanks to which they had a tool for accumulating and transferring experience, learning and accumulating knowledge about nature and materials, etc.

During this period, a person begins to learn the properties of things and materials, and this allows him to improve his labor actions, improve the quality of manufactured tools, and invent new ones. This, obviously, was within the power of the representatives of the Cro-Magnon race and possibly the progressive Neanderthals. And the classical Neanderthals, according to Porshnev, stopped at the "instinctive" stage of evolution, although they had stone tools (Mousterian culture), they knew how to use fire and built primitive dwellings. Caucasian Almas and Mongolian Almas, humanoid, hairy, dumb creatures, are the best fit for this theory. Both of them do not know how to make fire, but more than once they have observed how they warm themselves at a fire left by a man and put branches in the fire. They do not know how to make clothes, but often use things thrown by people for their intended purpose. With the manufacture of tools and the construction of dwellings, things are worse - neither one nor the other has been noticed among these creatures.

Thus, there are some difficulties here and require clarification. So, it is not clear why, after millions of years of instinctive labor activity, possessing a set of Mousterian tools, being able to build at least some dwellings and use fire, modern Neanderthals have lost all this? After all, all this was very useful and important for survival in the fight against cold and predators. If Neanderthals had hair, why did they lose it? Dollo's strictly established principle states that evolution is a one-way process and has no reverse.

Were Neanderthals hairy or hairless? To say that the Neanderthals who lived at the same time as furry mammoths and hairy rhinoceroses and hunted them were also hairy is simply impossible. Perhaps they were hairy, if, however, they had not lost their hairline earlier, long before that time.

There are several hypotheses on the issue of hair loss by human ancestors. One of the most exotic - "littoral" comes from the assumption that man was formed in the coastal strip of seas and lakes, and this is allegedly confirmed by the finds in some areas of huge piles of mollusk shells and fish bones.

The authors of the hypothesis argue that ancient monkeys wandering in shallow water and often forced to straighten up acquired upright posture and an upright posture. And the constant washing of the surface of the body by waves - the alternation of getting wet and drying under the tropical sun, led to the loss of hair (however, why didn’t seals and fur seals, living in such conditions for millions of years, lose their hair? - author's note).

Another belongs to the famous Soviet anthropologist Y. Roginsky. He suggested that hominids formed in tropical rainforests. Due to the onset of cooling in high latitudes, in the tropical zone, the forest zone began to gradually shrink, savannahs arose in place of forests, and the ancestors of hominids were forced to adapt to life in savannah conditions: instead of a quiet life in the shade of a tropical forest, they had to master hunting for swift-footed inhabitants of the savannahs. Since they had to run a lot under the hot sun in a "fur coat", they gradually threw it off (but why did wild dogs, antelopes, zebras - the descendants of those who were the object of hunting of ancient hominids, never part with their "fur coat"? - approx. author).

Both of these hypotheses suggest that the formation of man took place in a hot climate. But it was shown above that another point of view is also possible. We know that some races of ancient hominids lived in the harsh climate of Central (Synanthropes) and North (Diring) Asia. If so far only primitive stone tools have been found from the Diringians, then after Homo-erectus-a (Sinanthropus) grandiose deposits of ash remained - in the Zhou-kou-dian cave, the thickness of the ash layer reaches several meters. There is no doubt that for many thousands of years these fires served primarily for heating.

Imagine what happened in the cave by firelight during the long winter months? Despite the cold and blizzards, Sinanthropes or Diringians had to get food - to hunt.

To do this, it was necessary to periodically leave the warm and cozy cave in the cold, look for and track down deer or some other animals. The killed animal was hardly skinned on the spot, most likely its carcass, unless, of course, it was a mammoth or a rhinoceros, was brought to the cave. Skinned, of course, carefully cleaned, scraping out edible soft tissue. The scraped skin apparently served as bedding for some time or simply lay on the floor of the cave. It is unlikely that ancient people differed from other primates and especially carefully observed the rules of personal hygiene; most likely, they performed their natural needs, at least some of them, in the same place where they lived. Apparently, this is also the practice of modern relic hominoids, whose distinguishing feature is a disgusting smell, in which the smells of urine, rot and mold differ.

Under the influence of urine, the skins lying on the floor were subjected to a natural "dressing" - they became soft and flexible. And with soft skins, you can already do a lot: for example, wrap yourself in them during sleep or wrap yourself up when leaving a warm cave, from the hot fire of a fire to frost. Such skins could already be used for protection from the cold and during hunting, simply throwing them over the shoulders. Then it was easy to understand that the long ends of the skin, left over from the limbs, were conveniently tied, and then the cape freed the hands. Then it remains to take a very small step to figure out how, having made holes along the edges of the skin and threading a narrow strip of skin or tendon through them, fasten the two edges of a piece of skin, turning this piece into a primitive vest, and then into shirt sleeves. All these inventions were needed in order to protect themselves from the cold, especially when leaving a warm cave.

The appearance of clothing, combined with a hot fire in the cave, made the hair on the parts of the body protected by clothing unnecessary and, as we know, it was preserved on the hands and feet of a person, since it is much more difficult to make mittens and pants than a shirt. The head obviously remained without a hat for a long time - even in our time, the Swedes and Norwegians do without hats in winter.

The hairy mammals of the tropical zone did not have such a need and their hairline was preserved.

If we accept these assumptions, then the classical Neanderthals and their descendants - Almasty, Barmanu, Pikilyans and the like, separated from the common evolutionary trunk of progressive hominids before the time when the latter lost their hair. Living like Sinanthropes for tens of millennia in isolation, in places where there were no raw materials for the manufacture of stone tools and fuel, classical Neanderthals could lose their cultural skills. Of course, under such conditions, the most severe natural selection took place and only the most physically developed and viable individuals survived. The individuals that won this struggle for survival developed some internal mechanisms of adaptation to the cold and long winter. We do not yet know all these mechanisms for sure, but using the example of relict hominoids, we can assume that they formed a layer of subcutaneous fat in autumn, and in winter the physiological activity of the body decreased - they could go without food for a long time.

The groups of Neanderthals who found themselves for a long time in conditions of isolation and shortage of food resources could not be numerous - most likely, they were separate families. They lived dispersed, since in such conditions cannibalism was a completely natural phenomenon, and the proximity of neighbors was dangerous. Living by hunting, and even in the open spaces of a huge ice sheet that covered a significant part of Europe, Neanderthals, obviously, did not feel the need for articulate speech - for communication they had enough short sound signals (whistles, short exclamations), gestures and postures (like lions, wolves and other pack animals). Yes, even members of a small family, leading a secluded lifestyle, in domestic conditions manage with the minimum number of words and perfectly understand each other. If classical Neanderthals once had the beginnings of articulate speech, then over tens, and possibly hundreds of thousands of years of isolation, they lost them.

True, relic hominoids do not confirm this point of view. It seems to be proved by numerous observations in natural conditions and in captivity that relict hominoids do not have articulate speech, but articulate speech is not only the ability to pronounce words, which parrots, starlings and other birds are excellent at doing.

Articulate speech, as a natural ability of a particular type of animal, implies the presence of appropriate structures in the brain that form and transmit signals to the muscles of organs that reproduce sounds (larynx, pharynx, tongue, lips), from which sounds, words and phrases are formed.

It would seem that without these two components, articulate speech is impossible, but the work of primatologists has shaken this point of view. Since none of the primates, except humans, is able to reproduce the sounds of the human language, attempts were made to teach monkeys the language of the deaf and dumb. Amslen -y. Experiments were conducted with chimpanzees and gorillas - both of them showed excellent results.

So the female chimpanzee Washoe not only memorized more than 400 words, from which she put together the correct phrases, both of a narrative and interrogative nature, but also formed new words denoting objects unfamiliar to her, for example, for a watermelon, she came up with the name "water-berry" , for a swan - "water-bird".

Gorillas are not only not inferior to chimpanzees, but probably surpass them in their linguistic abilities - the female gorilla Koko remembered more than 600 words (although if chimpanzees were taught the language of the deaf-mute, then gorillas were taught using pictures on a computer screen).

What would have been the success of classical Neanderthals and relic hominoids in such experiments, we do not know. But if the ancestors of classical Neanderthals and modern relic hominoids once possessed articulate speech, then they should still have the ability to reproduce human sounds. At the same time, in the stories about Zana from Abkhazia and the “Kul Nenets Serikov”, who lived for about twenty years among people, it was stated that they could not speak. True, in 2003-2004, there were reports that the SASKWATCH family lives in the US state of Tennessee, the dictionary of which contains about 150 words, which they use quite meaningfully. It was hoped that the future would show if this was true. But these hopes were not destined to come true, since this farm was sold for debts, and the new owner has no desire to be friends with the terrible SASKWATCHES.

And the last thing to note is that the remains of Neanderthals have been found to date only in Europe, North Africa and Western Asia. Consequently, the relict hominoids of all other regions of the globe cannot in any way be descendants of these very Neanderthals and are descendants of other species or races of ancient hominids.

So who are they?

More about the hypotheses of the origin of relict hominoids

Among the ancient natural-philosophical ideas about the origin of hominids, of course, the most interesting and complete are the views of the ancient Indian materialists-lokayatniks, nastikas and learned Tantrics. According to the Vedas and other Buddhist sources, the meaning of their teaching is as follows (according to Yu.G. Reshetov: y):

The development of the world is cyclical. The smallest cycle is the south and the duration is from 432 thousand to 1728 thousand years. Every 4 yu g and make up a larger cycle - mah a y y y with a duration of 4230 thousand lunar years.

About 4.5 mahayugas ago, that is, approximately 18.6 million lunar years, large terrestrial monkeys appeared on earth - the ancestors of humans. descended to the plains and settled the forests, where in search of food they moved from place to place, without having a permanent residence.

At the beginning of the last majajug (about 4.3 million lunar years ago), the ancestors of people switched to the collective extraction of food, which gave them the opportunity to stock up and form permanent settlements along the banks of rivers. Gradually, they became more and more like people and would have lived in complete contentment, except for the fight against monsters - deva and m and., Which were cannibals. Nevertheless, it was a golden age, a creta or deva yuga. However, during the subsequent, treta yug and, or yug and half people, they dealt with monsters - devas and greatly multiplied. So at the beginning of the penultimate, two and pra south (about 870 thousand lunar years ago) in the forests of Jambudvipa there was not enough food. Clashes began between people, as a result of which they settled in the east, north, south and northwest. From those migrants from Jambudvipa who settled in the east, peoples belonging to the Mongoloids originated, from those who went south - Negroids (blacks), from those who went to the northwest - the peoples of the Bull, the latter include the Caucasoids of Iran and Central Asia, whose totems are in W millennium BC was the image of a bull. Large terrestrial humanoid apes, left to live in the mountains, where they were forced out by ancient people, did not turn into people ..

This surprisingly well-organized concept contains quite progressive ideas: 1) the idea of ​​evolution, development; 2) the idea that man descended from a monkey, and not vice versa, as other religious teachings of India believe; 3) the idea that a significant role in the development of monkeys was played by natural conditions and their way of life; 4) it was also progressive that monkeys turned into people under the influence of joint labor for food; 5) the idea of ​​the unity of the origin of human races is quite reasonable; 6) it is curious that the discovery of the ancestral home of mankind is associated not with Africa, but with Hindustan and Southeast Asia.

And for the topic of this work, the thought of the meeting of the ancestors of people with the giants devas, a long struggle with them, and, finally, the victory of people and the displacement of the devas into the mountains and other hard-to-reach places seems to be exceptionally more important.

"The line of hominids is the history of the successive displacement of less perfect groups by more perfect ones," writes Academician A.A. Velichko in the article "Nature and the cradle of mankind" (Nature magazine, 1985, 3). , the place of Homo erectus, who were replaced by paleoanthropes (Neanderthals), who were then forced out by Homo sapiens (homo sapiens).The explanation for this lies, most likely, in the living conditions...

Australopithecus and other hominids willingly mastered open spaces. Naturally, in this case, the more highly adapted and more highly organized groups displaced their predecessors, sometimes by direct hunting for them. According to available data, Homo-habilis, for example, preyed on Australopithecus.

The attraction to open spaces is a trend that will accompany humanity throughout its history with increasing intensity...

From the point of view of optimal satisfaction with food resources, a person has always been, relatively speaking, a creature of open spaces. However, from what has been said, one should not at all conclude that in the past man only "bypassed" the forests. With sharp fluctuations in climate in the Quaternary period in the same areas, forest conditions were repeatedly replaced by steppe ones.

Some groups preferred to migrate, others adapted to the new landscape. It is quite obvious: in order for a shift in the state of the natural environment to "work" in the process of phylogeny (change in species), it is necessary that in this moment evolution in the natural environment there were organisms, as if already prepared for a certain reaction to this shift.

In the case under consideration, the higher primates already had the rudimentary ability to move on their hind limbs, to operate with external objects, and to eat meat food. Radical landscape changes, as it were, forced the organism to develop and improve these properties ... "

What has been said above with regard to ancient hominids is true for any living organisms, including relict hominoids. The appearance of each new, more advanced form of hominids caused a centrifugal wave of migration of more primitive forms - including those that we now know as relic hominoids.

The American professor Ivan Sanderson mentioned above divided all relict hominoids into four groups:

NEOGIANTS - inhabitants of the northern, polar regions and hard-to-reach highlands.

SUB-HOMINIDS - inhabitants of some areas of East Asia;

SUB-PEOPLE - inhabitants of the taiga and mountain belt of North Asia and America;

PROTOPIGMEIA - inhabitants of the tropical rainforests of Africa and Southeast Asia.

On the pages of this book, the reader has repeatedly met with representatives of all these groups.

Let's try to imagine how these groups could form. To do this, let us once again turn to the monograph by Yu. Reshetov "The nature of the earth and the origin of man." This most interesting book contains a graph similar to the graph from the Paris Museum of Man, showing the dependence of the evolution of the labor skills of ancient man on changes in the natural environment. Unlike "Paris", Reshetov's schedule, covering about 2 million years, is tied to time and those global climate changes that occurred at one time or another. From this graph it follows that the allocation of the so-called "dead-end" forms of hominids coincides in time with the main periods of glaciation, which, as shown above, was quite natural. It seems to us that this graph shows nothing more than the time of formation and separation from the common main trunk of progressive hominids. certain types relic hominoids.

THE GENUINE GIANTS are the descendants of the ancestral Asian race of the GIANTOPITECS, those demons that were discussed at the beginning of the section, who for a long time lived quietly in their homeland, isolated from other hominids in the mountainous regions of the Hindu Kush, the Himalayas and Tibet, and then settled in icy expanses of North Asia. They are more isolated biologically and genetically from other protogominid. They survived several periods of powerful glaciation there and adapted well to life in the harsh climate of the highlands and northern latitudes of Asia. We know that they, like other relic hominoids, show a sexual interest in humans, but we do not know of a single case of the appearance of offspring from such relationships, not only producing, but in general of any kind.

In our opinion, all the largest representatives of relict hominoids should be attributed to them: EKKI, CHULYUKOV, MAIGIKI, TUNGA, TEREKE, possibly the Caucasian MAZILKH, Chinese EUGENE, Central Asian JONDOR, Himalayan DZU-TI, Australian YAHO and American SASKVATCH, UKUMAR and TARM .

Habitats of TRUE GIANTS

It can be assumed that the American NEOGIANTS are descendants of the ancestral form of hominoids from one of the first waves of migration of the Asian fauna to the North American continent, which subsequently settled on the southern one.

Areas of settlement of NEO-GIANTS

Note that there are no analogues of ALMASTA, BARMAN and other, more human-like forms of relict hominoids on the American continent. This indicates that for some reason, after the Gigantopithecus, there were no more migrations of other forms of relict hominoids from Asia to the Americas. It can be assumed that after the first wave of migration, the approaches to the land bridges connecting Asia and America during the Ice Ages were blocked by some races of ancient people who settled there (perhaps these were the DIRINGTS or SINANTROPS mentioned at the beginning of the chapter), or maybe they were not allowed there by the descendants of the Gigantopithecus of the previous wave. Nobody knows.

Archaeological excavations show that the next wave of migrants to the American continent about twenty thousand years ago were primitive hunters - the ancestors of the modern Khanty, Nenets and other indigenous peoples of North Asia, that is, people of a modern type.

They were armed and able to act collectively, which gave them an advantage in the fight against the hairy giants.

SUB-HOMINIDS are the descendants of those primitive hominids that formed immediately before the Gunz and Mindel glaciations and after their completion were forced out of their habitats by the NEANDERTHALS. These are none other than the descendants of Pithecanthropes and Sinanthropes (HOMO ERECTUS-s). During their forced long-term isolation, some of their populations degraded and lost all their cultural achievements that their ancestors possessed. These include the Almas and Xygyiks of Mongolia, the Pikilyans of Northeast Asia, and some populations of relict hominoids of Southeast Asia.

SUB-PEOPLE are forms closest to humans, and obviously descendants of the classical NEANDERTHALS, but not those who made perfect and diverse stone tools, used fire, buried the dead with certain rites, but some of their populations, which, obviously , for a long time lived in isolation from the bulk of their relatives. They did not have at hand suitable raw materials for the manufacture of stone and lost all these useful knowledge and skills. This could have happened during the last glaciations, when all Northern Europe was covered with a powerful ice sheet, and extensive glaciers covered the mountain ranges of the Caucasus, Karakoram and Hindu Kush. Perhaps it almas of Mongolia, almasty North Caucasus andvanmasy (to the barman) Front Asia.

PROTO-PYGMIES - inhabitants of the tropical rainforests of Africa, Southeast Asia and South America, where their ancestors, obviously, were forced out by pithecanthropes or Homo - erectus -s.

In 2004 scientific The public was struck by the report of the discovery in the jungles of the island of Flores of perfectly preserved remains of humanoid creatures unknown to science. Paleontologists have named them Homo-floresiensis , but silently for their short stature (about a meter) they dubbed them “hobbits”.

Probably, such creatures were descendants of Australopithecus or Homo habilis -ov, who supposedly settled these places about a million years ago. In isolation, they acquired a rather strange appearance: disproportionately long arms and a round head the size of a soccer ball.

It is especially interesting that legends about short people who very much resemble hobbits who lived in the distant past on the islands of this region have survived to this day. According to the descriptions of eyewitnesses, the body of these people was covered with thick hair, and they constantly muttered something under their breath.

Obviously, the bulk of these creatures were exterminated by more advanced Homo-sapiens -s, or they died out for some other reason.

What actually happened is not yet known. Some experts, based on these stories, believe that the descendants of the Hobbits are still hiding in the deep unexplored regions.

of the large islands of Indonesia, and the finds of their remains are the best confirmation of this.

Experts believe that hobbits are sentient beings.

There are also legends about such creatures among the indigenous inhabitants of Ceylon, and some of them claim that they are still hiding in the jungle of the central part of the island. The local name for these hairy little men is "didi".

Author's note: stories about undersized men are widespread in the Pamirs, and in the habitats of huge ghouls and jondors. Unlike the children of the latter, these hairy little men “adjina” are adults - they live in groups (herds) of dozens of heads in deep caves and are sometimes seen when they play on moonlit nights in front of the entrance to their shelter. They are completely harmless and avoid humans. Perhaps this is an unknown species of tailless monkeys, leading a nocturnal lifestyle (?).

Scientists hope to isolate DNA from the found remains of hobbits. If this succeeds, science will receive answers to many still unclear questions about these creatures.

There is no consensus among anthropologists about where man formed. Some argue that this happened in Africa, which is confirmed by the finds of most of the bone remains of the oldest hominids on this continent (Australopithecines and Paranthropus). R. Dart, L. S. B. Leakey, K. P. Oakley and others rely on numerous findings of Australopithecus in South and East Africa.

In 1871, M. Wagner put forward a hypothesis about the extratropical origin of man. His approach was ecosystem. Wagner believed that in order to turn a monkey into a man, it was necessary: ​​frequent and drastic changes environment, i.e. change of the adaptive zone, geographic isolation, significant role of meat food and the need to hunt for its prey, lack of fear of fire and the need to develop tool-making skills, collective lifestyle and collective work. His supporters were I.Muller, A.Katfrraz L.Wilzer, D.N.Anuchin, V.E.Larichev.

Wagner's hypothesis was supported by V.I. Vernadsky

The well-known science fiction writer of the 1111th century, HG Wells, in his novel “The Time Machine” also supported Wagner’s hypothesis: “We forget about the law of nature, which says that the presence of mind is a reward for the dangers, anxieties and vicissitudes of life. Beings that live in perfect harmony with the environment, turns into a simple machine. Nature never has recourse to reason as long as habit and instinct serve her. Where there is no change, the mind perishes. Only those beings have it who are faced with all sorts of needs and dangers.”

Supporters of the M. Wagner hypothesis believe that this happened somewhere in the mountainous regions of Asia (P. Sushkin, G. G. von Koenigswald, M. F. Nesturkh, G. F. Debets, Yu A. Mochanov).

They are supported by the hypothesis of "broad monocentrism" (Ya. Roginsky, V.P. Alekseev), according to which the area of ​​human formation covers both Africa and South Asia. These areas in the distant past belonged to the vanished part of a single Pro-Mainland that united Africa and Asia - Lemuria, part of which, in turn, was Jambudvipa mentioned above.

With another, quite realistic hypothesis of the origin of man, we will get acquainted below.

Hypothesis of Professor Yavorsky.

This the version was put forward by the professor of mineralogy Yavorsky. In his opinion, representatives of extraterrestrial civilizations monitor the evolution of wildlife on the planet, where natural conditions arise that are suitable for the development of wildlife. In particular, they have been conducting such monitoring of the Earth for a long time. Presumably at the end of the Tertiary period, they decided that the large apes living on earth had already reached that level of physical and intellectual development that one can try to speed up the process of their evolution in order to form a civilization of intelligent beings on earth. They created several breeding stations in different regions. Using the methods of genetic engineering and artificial selection, they raised the progenitors of the main modern human races and released them "into free swimming". At the same time, as in any scientific work, they had unsuccessful samples that did not have the necessary set of features necessary to turn them into sentient beings. And, probably, they continue to observe the terrestrial fauna. And what? Flying saucers (UFO) people watch, they are photographed. Our contemporaries encounter humanoids from time to time. They are still doing some research on the representatives of the human race. Why would they be so interested in earthly people, stubbornly not making contact with us? They clearly behave towards us, people, like earthly scientists observing the life of animals, insects and other living beings.

The above hypothesis, for all its exoticism, belongs to the Theories of External Intervention (ETI) and is recognized by a number of scientists. In particular, here is what Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences Valery Doronin writes:
The earth was “seeded” by UFO pilots.

Even the discoverer of DNA, Francis Crick, in the late 70s of the last century, suggested that the Earth “purposefully ” "inseminated" by alien civilizations. Otherwise, it is impossible to explain the similarity of the DNA of all living organisms. How does nature, using one code, create billions of different creatures? If life evolved according to Darwin - gradually, obeying the game of chance, with the help of trial and error - then it would be logical for the emergence of many different genetic codes at once. And if they are not, then the evolution of the rules is not a case, but reason.

In 1967, American geneticists Vincent Sarich and Elan Wilson from the University of California at Berkeley, studying the blood of monkeys and humans, found that the lines of evolution of the two genetically closest species of primates - humans and chimpanzees, separated from the common trunk no earlier than 5-7 million years ago. Studies of mitochondrial blood DNA taken from several hundred people belonging to different races and living on different continents led to a surprising conclusion - all people, regardless of their race, belong to the same species and are descended from the same the only woman- a prototype of the Biblical Eve, however, who lived not 6000, but not less than 200,000 years ago. And this "Eve" lived somewhere in southern Africa.

Another group of scientists from the University of Berkeley, led by Douglas Wallis, found that "Eve" could live in Asia, and more precisely in Southeast China.

So maybe all three groups of scientists are right, and Homo sapiens was created not at two, but at three “selection stations”, one located in southern Africa, the second in Western Asia and the third in Southeast Asia? Best wishes reached the “breeders” of the South African station - they created the Cro-Magnon race - HOMO - SAPIENS -ov. Was it really a success?

So far, a sentient being created by the Supermind is destroying the environment with a diligence worthy of a better use, creating a consumer society. This creature mindlessly squanders minerals, seeing the purpose of its existence not so much in the improvement of technology, but in the unlimited expansion of production and consumption. In general, this is the only kind of living beings that does everything possible for its own destruction. How can one not watch such an unreasonable “reasonable” creature - his own brainchild. In the process of such selection work, mistakes and failures were inevitable. These "failed hominoids" were simply released into the wild, and the descendants of some of them may well have survived to this day in the form of hairy humanoid creatures, which we call relic hominoids. It is definitely too early to draw a final line on this issue. After all, archaeologists, paleontologists and anthropologists are still dealing with material collected at separate points of the modern dry land of the earth's surface. And the ancient layers that hide the truth about the past thousands and millions of years of human evolution are generally single. There are no final solutions in science - the solution of a single problem gives an answer to a specific question, but at the same time gives rise to many new questions that need to be solved. This is the essence and logic of the process of cognition and modern materialistic science.

On the mind, language and thinking of animals and

relic hominoids.

“Probably no aspect of the behavior of gorillas and other great apes,” Schaller writes, “is of such general interest as the way group members communicate with each other. Do they have any rudiments of language? Or do they grunt, grunt and bark without any meaning or purpose? As I watched the gorillas, first for weeks and then for months, there was some change in my assessment of the great apes. At first, I was strongly impressed by their human behavior, but then I began to feel that they lacked the main thing that even their expressive eyes could not convey, that they did not have the opportunity to tell each other about the past and the future, and about what exists. at the moment, but not in their immediate field of vision. In other words, gorillas lack language in the truly broad sense of the word.”

Knowing that great apes are not capable of reproducing the sounds of human language, a group of American scientists from the University of Nevada, Beatrice and Allen Gardner, who attempted to teach them the language of the deaf ( amslen ) and a group of Stanford University scientists, Herbert Terrace, who tried to teach them to communicate with a person using a computer (symbols). Both methods gave positive results. The greatest success in mastering amslen -and from the Gardners, the female chimpanzees Washoe and Lucy achieved, and from Herbert Terrace, the young gorilla Koko.

Washoe, at the age of nine, not only mastered the meanings of more than three hundred words, but also learned how to build short phrases from them, form new words, and even change the order of words in a sentence depending on whether it is a phrase, declarative or interrogative. In this group, a more complex experiment was also carried out, when a female and a male chimpanzee, who knew the language of the deaf and dumb ( Amslen ), were planted in one enclosure to see how they behave when offspring appear. When they had a cub, scientists watched with satisfaction as the mother taught her baby some words on her own. amslen -a. But, unfortunately, the chimpanzee does not have an internal need for a “foreign” language, and all the amazing achievements described belong to young animals - this is a game. Adult chimpanzees do not need human language, they are quite satisfied with their natural language of gestures, postures and a small set of inarticulate sounds.

The experience of teaching human language, as already mentioned, was also carried out with gorillas, but not sign language was used, but the “language of cards”. The young female Koko, already familiar to us, became the champion here. She began to be taught in 1972, when she was one year old, in 1978 she knew 645 characters. She freely used 345 of them in communication with the instructor: she could say that she was in pain when she was unwell; freely express their desires; answer questions about past and future tense. Koko has an understanding of such abstract concepts as boredom and imagination; knows how to swear - to declare to the female instructor who offended her: “You are a bad dirty restroom!”; comes up with a name for previously unfamiliar objects and animals: “water-bird” is a swan, “water-berry” is watermelon, etc. Later, the stock of English words that she understands exceeded 2000. When Koko was presented with a tailless kitten, she fell in love with him very much and came up with the name “Sharik” for him.

In August 1999, Koko took an active part in a press conference held on the Internet. She answered various questions from correspondents, and not only about what was in the studio, but also about the house and yard of her owners, about the people and pets living there, called their names and nicknames, and many others. When asked by a reporter who she is, Koko replied: “I am a great animal - a gorilla.”

It was the first ever press conference of an animal in front of humans. It was shown on television and millions of people could see it.

Monkeys have a sense of humor. Once Koko took advantage of the fact that the instructor entered her cage and left the key in the lock. Jumping out of the cage, she locked the door and played for more than an hour, refusing to let him out. Having thoroughly enjoyed the contemplation of the man in the cage, she took pity on her prisoner and released him.

At the Pyongyang zoo, a chimpanzee stole a pack of cigarettes from his attendant, hid it behind his back and amused himself by giving him only one cigarette each until they ran out.

When Washoe was asked who she sees when she looks in the mirror, she replied, "I am Washoe."

amslen trained Vika was asked to divide a set of photographs of people and animals into two piles - one of people and another of animals. She put her photo next to people (and next to Eleanor Roosevelt!), And she put a photo of her handsome father to animals, next to elephants and rhinoceroses.

It turned out that chimpanzees trained in human language feel their superiority over their "illiterate" relatives. They regard them as an “inferior race”, act arrogantly towards them and contemptuously call them “black monkey”, etc.

Orangutans are not inferior to chimpanzees and gorillas. Thus, the vocabulary of the male orang Panibanisha is approximately 3000 English words, and his colleague Chanteki is approximately 2000.

Panibanisha is talking to journalist Jonathan Lee, whom he has never met before:

- Guest, bring me something delicious?

- Of course I put it in the fridge. Do you want me to bring this?

Yes!

When the journalist brought a closed paper cup, he asked Panibanisha:

- Do you know what this is?

Jelly.

Please note that this is a fragment of a conversation that a young orangutan, Panibanisha, had with a stranger.

After analyzing the results of these experiments, one of the leading scientists in this field, Herbert Terrace, came to the conclusion that most of the phrases composed by his pets were only an imitation of the words and expressions that the researchers used in the process of communicating with their pets, the results of constant training and memorization " by heart". In other words, the animal resorted to a kind of forgery, not understanding the interdependence between the elements that make up a word and a phrase.

The data obtained in the experiments with Washoe Gardner refute this point of view. How, without understanding the meaning of words, you can create new words like: “water-berry” - watermelon or “water-bird” - swan, or rearrange the words of a narrative phrase into an interrogative one. Even dogs understand the meaning of many words of their owners.

The researchers of the Center have developed a program of experiments to find out whether the trained amslen -in a monkey, without the intervention of people, to transfer the acquired knowledge and skills to their fellows.

In 1985, at a congress in Los Angeles, researchers from the Footes Spouse Center reported on the results of their work. They said that they put a little chimpanzee, Lulu, in Washoe's cage. Thirteen-year-old Washoe showed truly maternal feelings for the baby and took up his upbringing. After some time, it was noticed that she was teaching her pupil sign language. She started from the very a simple word"food". She folded his hands in the right way and made the sounds that chimpanzees use to indicate the presence of food. With loud cries, she expressed the feeling of hunger, confirming her demand with the sign “food”. Lulu first sat next to her and looked at her in surprise. But then he understood the meaning of the desired position of the hands - the first word was learned.

The student gradually made progress, and by the age of three his “dictionary” was 28, and two years later 47 “words”. The perseverance of the hairy teacher was amazing. After all, no one taught Washoe pedagogy and methods of teaching foreign languages!

Washo was happy to adopt some of the human skills that are not characteristic of chimpanzees. For example, she took a bath in the morning with pleasure and rubbed herself with oil and subjected her beloved doll to these procedures.

These observations completely refute the traditional animal psychologists' claim that animals have no long-term memory.

Another series of experiments included the analysis of the content of "conversations" between "educated" monkeys. At first, chimpanzees were divided into two groups. One included Washoe, 16, Moya, 8, and Luli, 3. The other group consisted of 5-year-old female Tatya and 8-year-old male Dar. At the final stage, both groups were combined.

Based on observations of these animals, the scientists made the following conclusions: During the period of isolation, when chimpanzees lived in isolated groups, the number of “conversations” between them was approximately 38 per month, and since the connection of the two groups into one, it has increased to 378! From this follows the conclusion that the wider the social circle, the more “talkative” the monkeys are. At the same time, it was noted that 39% of the signs used during the “conversations” related to various aspects social activities(e.g. cleaning up), 29% were trying to calm or encourage other group members, 29% were about games, and only 5% of the signs used were related to food. In the process of communication, the monkeys came up with names for each other.

The analysis also showed that during the first stage of the experiment (two groups), 90% of all signs Lulu used in “conversation” only with his foster mother, and at the second stage only 54%, since now he also communicated with his older brothers: 9 % of the “words” were addressed to Mine, 10% to Taty and 27% to Dar. In addition to the fact that chimpanzees were able to transfer acquired knowledge to each other, scientists noted the fact that it is possible to establish contact between animals in ways that are not inherent in their nature. At the same time, according to many scientists, they, on their own initiative, used the language created for them by people.

Trained chimpanzees place themselves above other monkeys, whom they call "dirty." In an experiment with a trained female chimpanzee, Vicki, the result was completely unexpected. She was asked to arrange photographs of various animals and people into two piles. She did it quite right, but she put her photo to the people (and next to the photo of the President's wife, Eleanor Roosevelt). So, the ability to communicate in a human language, according to Wiki, is the main sign of belonging to the human race! Here you have the whole philosophy from Plato and Aristotle to Professor Porshnev about the role of articulate language in the origin of man.

Orangutan Panibanisha, like Washoe, independently teaches the human language to his one-year-old son Newt, and he even tries to translate from “monkey language” into human.

From the foregoing, we can conclude that language does not appear when the morphological prerequisites for this appear - the great apes obviously have them (albeit without the means of speech reproduction), but when, in addition to this, animals appear in this internal need. The latter is the more important factor. In human society, they actively use their vocabulary, but once in natural conditions, chimpanzees do not need it and get along well with their natural means of communication.

Relic hominoids mostly lead a solitary lifestyle, only mother and cubs live together for quite a long time. But we saw that the father visits his family from time to time and also spends some time near him. Under such conditions, contacts between different individuals are quite limited. For members of the same family, a large vocabulary is not needed - for the needs of life and safety, obviously, those sound signals that eyewitnesses tell about are enough:

1) a piercing whistle, which is a warning of danger and expresses a threat to the enemy; with the help of a series of two or three whistles, hominoids communicate some information to each other - in any case, for several whistles of a person from the depths of the forest, observers in many cases heard exactly the same number of whistles in response (by the way, the indigenous people canary islands in the past, they spoke with a whistle over long distances, while reporting rather complex information - approx. author);

2) a loud, intimidating roar, which most likely means a feeling panic fear with an unexpected appearance near a person (in a similar way, some ungulates, such as wildebeest, or defenseless miniature antelopes, which Tajiks call “eliks” scare away the enemy. - Note by the author); in this situation, eyewitnesses note the presence of a disgusting smell - this is the “smell of fear” (the same is observed in gorillas and other animals, including humans - they say “sweat from fear.” - Note by the author);

3) sounds resembling horse neighing;

4) sounds reminiscent of the gentle lowing of a cow, soothing

cabbage soup calf;

5) affectionate sounds of a mother holding a child in her arms, something like a “lullaby”.

6) the most mysterious is the indistinct muttering that people usually hear from Almasty and ghouls, when there are several hominoids, but it happens that a hominoid separately wandering or making its way in the bushes “mumbles” - maybe this is their language?

Surely there are some other sound signals, but the fact that there are not so many of them, in any case, no more than those of chimpanzees, is obvious. From all that has been said, only one sad conclusion can be drawn: relic hominoids do not have their own articulate language.

But let's not despair. Recall that the hallmarks Homo sapiens - Homo sapiens are:

Gait on two legs with a straightened position of the body - we also see this in relict hominoids;

The ability to make tools is something we observe not only in great apes and Japanese macaques, but also in some birds. Galapogos finches, for example, extract larvae from under the bark of a tree using a sharp thorn, which they break out from a thorny tree. Some weavers' nest-building skills are so complex that it's simply amazing. For example, fixing thin fibers, they tie them with a real “sea knot” (it is possible that sailors learned how to tie such a knot from these birds - ed.).

The presence of articulate speech, which is the most important sign of a reasonable person. But after all, articulate speech is a whole complex of interrelated properties and specific functions of the body: mind, thinking, brain, auditory and speech-reproducing organs. We seem to have sorted out articulate speech in relic hominoids - most of them do not have it. If Chuchun-Sasquatch and Almasty have a similarity of human speech, then it has not yet been proven that this speech consists of phonemes - that is, it is articulate.

But there is still reason, thinking and consciousness. After all, why do relic hominoids have such a large brain?

But even Aristotle wrote that "man is an animal with consciousness."

If mind is understood as the ability to perform rational actions in non-standard, changed conditions (of course, within its specific ecological niche), then, as we have seen, many animals are endowed with mind to one degree or another: dolphins, elephants, dogs, monkeys, pigs , bears, cats, rats and others. Obviously, all animals and birds in general, as well as such social insects as ants, termites and bees, are endowed with this ability to one degree or another.

Pets, in particular, show us their intelligent behavior in particular.

The dog is a pack animal. And in the pack there is a hierarchy, and the leader enjoys unlimited power. Deprived of the society of its own kind, the dog sees the leader of the pack in the face of the owner, and perceives the members of his family as members of his pack, which, of course, is completely fair. The dog understands not only intonation, but also the meaning of most words used in the daily life of their owners. She "idolizes" them and, looking at them, passionately seeks to understand what they are saying. According to the famous geneticist and physiologist S.N.Davidenkov, “if a dog had a mechanism for mastering and reproducing speech, it could, according to the capabilities of its brain, learn a school algebra course.” But there is no such mechanism, and the dog resembles a bad student who, during the exam, has “intelligent eyes, but cannot say anything.”

Mind is a manifestation of the action of the totality conditioned reflexes, and behavioral programs acquired in the process of learning (and self-learning) and one's own subconscious - a set of instinctive programs that are inherited.

Instincts and reason coexist not to fight with each other, but to interact. The mind is a later acquisition of the animal, and nature tests its suitability for a long time. Upon completion of such a test, some of the achievements of the mind are fixed in the genetic memory - instinct. If this did not happen, then we would have to admit that all the most complex instinctive programs of any actions existed from the very beginning, and this is impossible without the participation of God or the Higher Mind.

Let's stay realistic. We will assume that everything in the human brain happens in the same way as in a computer: the mind is the information contained in the RAM - random access memory (obviously, in the cerebral cortex). And the set of instinctive programs is the content of long-term memory stored in the ancient, deep structures of the brain and spinal cord.

In all animals, in the brain, except for hereditary programs of behavior (instincts), there was always room for the formation of programs of voluntary behavior (conditioned reflexes), without this it would be impossible for an adequate behavior of an individual in changing conditions, learning, development and improvement of consciousness. In vertebrates, the role of consciousness from an auxiliary expanded, became more complicated and gradually turned into such a complexly organized “machine” that it became able to set tasks for itself and solve them “in its free time from work”, when the brain is not completely occupied with instinctive programs. We have clearly seen this in the behavior of many animals and birds, and, moreover, we see it from our own experience, successfully combining innate behavior with reasonable actions.

In the process of evolution of vertebrates, one of the primate species that led a group lifestyle was able to make artificial tools for hunting and protection from predators. Primary forms of collective labor were born, during which communication was required more informative than the exchange of only vital signals. Articulate speech appeared as a tool for the accumulation and transfer of labor skills and experience. Joint work gradually turned group relations into social relations. If at the previous stage of development, learning took place reflexively, experience was acquired by observing the behavior of other individuals, primarily parents, then with the advent of articulate speech, it became possible to transfer and improve experience to students in words.

Gradually, these hominids developed an understanding of themselves, their difference from all other animals, an understanding of their capabilities. These were the foundations for the emergence of consciousness in this group of hominids, that which fundamentally distinguishes a person from an animal. The most highly developed unconditionally intelligent animals are not aware of themselves, their capabilities and abilities. So dolphins, sea lions and killer whales, demonstrating virtuoso acrobatic abilities in dolphinariums, jumping 3-5 meters out of the water (and they do all this for their own entertainment and on the high seas), are not able to jump over a rope stretched at a height of several tens of centimeters. , limiting the cage in which they were placed. Representatives of higher primates, having learned hundreds and thousands of names of various objects and actions, and even constructing new names and phrases from them, are not able to apply their knowledge in a new unfamiliar environment.

In the famous experiments with the chimpanzee Lodygina - Kots, the chimpanzee, trained to walk along bridges laid over water, with a mug to the source, was unable to realize that the bridge, set on fire while he was at the source, could be extinguished with water from the mug. And he knew that the fire can be extinguished by pouring water from the tap into a mug.

Such a highly intelligent animal as an elephant does not realize that with her trunk she can easily help her own baby elephant who has fallen into a ditch. True, an elephant from the Moscow Corner of Durov, once, when crossing some kind of bridge, saved her teacher from falling, grabbing her with her trunk when she slipped and began to fall from this bridge (they had worked together by that time for more than 20 years).

The role of consciousness from the auxiliary was more and more expanded and complicated. In the end, their brain turned into such a complexly organized "machine" that it became capable of setting tasks for itself and solving them "in its free time from the main work." Based on the signals coming from the sense organs, the machine-brain forms its own internal virtual world, in which a scheme and a sequence of actions are modeled and played, different options are compared and the optimal one is selected for given, specific conditions. Intelligence is born.

But the bet on intelligence did not bring much benefit to primates and human ancestors. This is seen in the example of great apes. Most of them have died out, and the rest are few and also on the verge of extinction. The same fate awaited the ancient ancestors of man - these undersized and defenseless creatures. And this would have happened if two and a half million years ago, human ancestors had not learned how to make tools. Just as Japanese macaques and pygmy chimpanzees, imitating the first brilliant monkey, learned to wash vegetables, so the human ancestors learned from their “first genius” to give a sharp edge to one edge of a large pebble by hitting it with another stone. This technique of making tools has been preserved for more than two million years. Improvement in the technique of stone processing, of course, took place, but it went very slowly. This can be explained by the fact that the transfer of work skills occurred only in a direct way from one master to another through observation and imitation, since the ancient master could not tell how he makes a stone ax, he could only show it. It is ridiculous to think that ancient people made and used only stone tools. Surely they used in everyday life and processed for more convenient use the horns and bones of animals, as well as pieces of wood and other materials.

The acceleration and improvement of tool processing technology began about 100,000 years ago, and was of an explosive nature. According to the general opinion, this was due to the appearance of an articulate language in ancient man. People got the opportunity to accumulate and transmit information to subsequent generations in a discrete form, and discrete signals have greater noise immunity - information is less distorted during transmission and storage. After that, only one major step remained to improve the preservation of information and the accumulation of experience - this is the invention of writing about 4,000 years ago, which contributed to an even greater acceleration of technical and intellectual progress.

Professor B.F. Porshnev believed that before the appearance of articulate speech, hominids cannot be considered people. But a person became himself not at the moment when he began to speak in words consisting of syllables, but much earlier - when he learned to think and was able to stand above nature, having the opportunity to influence it not only by the means that natural selection gave him, and additional ones - invented (invented) and made by him tools, which no animal is capable of, that is, much earlier than the appearance of an articulate language, even at the stage homo habilis.

We should also stop at this point. Indeed, for the appearance of articulate speech, it is not enough to have only a large brain, this is not a computer, the memory of which is relatively easy to load with certain programs, after which it immediately begins to execute them. In the large brain of human ancestors, for some reason, specialized areas must have formed that control speech hearing and speech. And they had to somehow form control programs for the corresponding physiological processes and organs, including hundreds of nerves and muscles. Yes, and these speech organs themselves had to be formed, since, as we can see, those available in primates are completely unsuitable for reproducing human speech. All this could not appear by itself and took a long time.

Of course, the statement of Friedrich Engels is correct that labor created a person, but philosophy does not answer the question, what is the mechanism for the emergence of new programs in the brain and related structures and tissues of the body, the need for which is dictated by the struggle for survival in a changing environment? environment. Conditioned reflexes that allow an individual to adapt to these changes do not become unconditioned and are not inherited. Similarly, labor skills cannot be inherited. But somehow they were fixed in the memory of generations. Even such simple as “instinctive” techniques, as the manufacture of the simplest stone tools of the “pebble culture”. The process of improving stone tools, which lasted more than two million years, obviously took place in parallel with the improvement of the structures of the brain and the speech apparatus of the ancient hominids, and we have to admit that this was the process of the emergence, development and improvement of not only articulate language, but also the process of development and improvement of Hominid consciousness and thinking.

Thus, the ancient primitive man became a man long before the appearance of articulate language. But already at that time he had an advantage over other animals - he had a more developed brain and a more developed intellect.

The point here is that, thanks to the appearance of a larger brain, they were smarter, and some of them from time to time invented all sorts of useful innovations: for example, a way to create a sharp edge on a piece of flint by hitting one stone on another; or maintaining a fire in a fire, etc. These innovations attracted the attention of fellow tribesmen who tried to imitate the skills of the inventor, but these skills did not last long, since the brain of ancient hominids was not able to remember for a long time what they saw, which was not related to such vital things as food, a female, a cub, or the appearance of a dangerous predator. Too much and too long had to be learned by each human individual independently and by imitation. In the absence of a mechanism for the transfer of knowledge, many outstanding inventions were only briefly distributed among relatives and fellow tribesmen, and then inevitably lost.

As the findings of archaeologists show, progress in the development and improvement of the skills of processing products of material culture came unexpectedly, and this progress was of an explosive nature. The reason for this, according to the general opinion, was the appearance of an articulate language among homiiids and its combination with thinking, which led to their mutual enrichment. This can be explained as follows: without language, information accumulated in a figurative, analogue form, in which individual small details were lost with each transmission, and for each subsequent correspondent, knowledge turned out to be less and less accurate until it became completely unusable .. Articulate speech - this is the transmission of information in a discrete form, in which case its distortion during transmission occurs much less frequently, and the information is suitable for accumulation and transmission to subsequent generations. And this is the basis of progress.

Those examples of various animal languages ​​that were mentioned above show that they are only figurative and communicative in nature, that is, they serve to exchange information with other individuals of their species, with a trainer or instructor. Perhaps only parrots penetrate so deeply into the depths of human language that they are able to build complex phrases in an adequately changing environment, change intonation, address questions to to a stranger and answer his questions. A bird speaking in a human voice easily converts a word heard from one person (for example, from the owner) into the manner of speech of another person who has never uttered this word. In accordance with its emotional state, a parrot can pronounce the same phrase affectionately or rudely, interrogatively or imperatively, tongue twisters or underlined clearly, etc.

Man and a large parrot in this area, obviously, are on the same level of linguistic possibilities.

Living with a person for decades, a parrot, on its own initiative, learns new words, remembers their meaning and uses them for several purposes: self-improvement in this activity (that is, it enjoys it), communication with a person or a dog, if it is necessary for him to to play with her, to tease her; to comment aloud on their own actions and thoughts. We often hear a parrot talking to itself. Many such cases are known: a thief climbed into an apartment and heard that someone was talking in the next room. Frightened that he will be discovered, he rushes to run, stumbles in a panic, breaks his leg. Or the parrot has fun, giving commands to the dog in the voice of an absent owner, or imitating the voice of a cat. There are other options.

Parrot Roma knows several hundred words. If he dropped something on purpose, he comments: “Dropped”. And if by accident, then: “Fell!” If he breaks something, knowing full well that it cannot be broken, he quietly or in different voices says: “Well, what are you doing, Roma?” - “Stop it!” - "Hooligan!"

If he needs something, he persistently calls the owner in an increasingly demanding voice. When the owner responds: “What do you want?”, - he already shouts in a commanding voice, for example, “Sleep!” This means that you need to turn off the light. If he wants to drink, he says demandingly: “Do you want to drink?” (it means “give me a drink”). And then in an insinuating voice he asks: “Milk?”. Receiving what is required, he says: “On” (it means “give” for him). Before trying unfamiliar food, he asks: “Is it tasty?”

One of the parrots is sitting alone on the windowsill, he is bored. I saw a homeless person passing by and shouted to him: “Hey! Man! Why are you so dirty? Go to the bath!". The next day, the same bum hears: “Hey! Man! Have you been in the bath? This is not a joke, but a documented fact. The fact is that the homeless man did not believe that it was a parrot sitting on the windowsill, and decided that it was the owner of the apartment and complained to the police about the owner of the bird. I had to conduct a special investigative experiment.

Parrots love to watch TV and remember the names of the characters in their favorite programs.

Talking parrots sing songs, read poems and whole poems, perform in the circus, give interviews to television and radio correspondents. Being in the studio and answering some questions, the parrot talked about what he had or happened at his house - he called the names of absent family members and the names of dogs and cats.

Of course, not all parrots have such abilities, but some more talented individuals, and even those who ended up with capable educators.

If the language of parrots amslen Washue, Lucy, Lulu and the “computer language” of the gorilla Koko and the orangutans Panibanisha and Eddie are not yet languages, in the human sense of the word, but only the first steps towards its development, is not the language of dolphins such?

Dolphins belong to the order of cetaceans. Cetaceans, according to science, were terrestrial herbivores in the past. All herbivores are herd animals. And herd terrestrial animals, when communicating with each other, in addition to postures and movements, emit various sound signals. Consequently, they have developed both the means of reproducing sounds, and the auditory organs, as well as the corresponding parts of the brain. Mastering the aquatic habitat, cetaceans retained the means of sound communication, but sound vibrations are unsuitable in water due to strong attenuation, and they were forced to change the frequency range. Some species, like dolphins, have mastered the ultrasonic range - whistles and clicks, and large whales, in addition to ultrasonic signals, also use infrasonic vibrations. In these ranges, they not only report prey, coordinate their actions during the hunt, warn of danger, but also perform love serenades.

In addition to the information that determines the most important factors of life, dolphins are able to transmit information to each other about the objects and situations with which they natural environment never collide. For example, freshly caught dolphins were brought to one of the dolphinariums. They were placed in a pool, next to which was the pool of old-timer dolphins. The "newcomers" were very excited. Between them and the "old-timers" almost immediately began an active exchange of signals, which continued all night. By morning, the “newcomers” calmed down. But the most surprising thing was that the “newbies” learned to perform almost all the tricks that the “old-timers” dolphins were taught overnight. This means that in the process of exchanging signals, the old-timers not only calmed the newly arrived dolphins, but also told them what they should do in order to live and eat well in the dolphinarium pools.

Long-term observations of dolphins in different countries, and especially the work of the laboratory of J. Lily, accumulated such rich material on the intellectual abilities of dolphins that hypotheses about the possibility of linguistic communication between humans and dolphins began to be seriously discussed. It seemed that it was enough to take just one more step and the language of the dolphins would be unraveled, but... so far no one has succeeded in taking this last step. And the estimates of the intelligence of these wonderful animals turned out to be somewhat overestimated. For example, jumping in dolphinariums to a height of up to five meters, dolphins “do not guess” to jump over a fishing net suspended on floats (at the level of the water surface).

Close relatives of dolphins are killer whales. Contained in some dolphinariums, they are not much inferior to dolphins in terms of learning certain tricks. But here's what's great! It turns out between the natives living on the coast Pacific Ocean and there is an “tacit agreement” between whaling and killer whales that during the hunt they do not interfere with each other. Whalers on their canoes do not hunt killer whales, but they give them the hunting area. Whalers wish the same. They tell such a case: in the hunting area of ​​a flock of killer whales, a whaler with a harpoon gun, who did not know local traditions, appeared and shot at the whale, but missed. The flock, which continued to quietly hunt, immediately left the area. But after that, as soon as this whaling ship appeared in the hunting place of other flocks of killer whales, they immediately stopped hunting and hid.

This indicates that the first flight informed the others that the ship with the cannon on its prow was dangerous.

How is their language fundamentally different from human language - after all, human language is also modulated sound vibrations, with the help of which we exchange information?

The speech of some pet parrots is the highest achievement of a non-human vertebrate in mastering the human language with its phonetics and elements of syntax. But with all the perfection of the reproduction of human speech, this is not the speech of the parrot itself, it is only the “foreign” (human) language learned by him. In the natural environment, parrots, like monkeys, get along just fine with their slurred language and do not feel the need to improve it.

Passerine birds: crows, jackdaws, magpies and starlings are also capable of mastering human speech, of course, yielding to parrots in this. But the crows were ahead of everyone in their ability to independently create new “words”. At the same time, they, unlike chimpanzees and gorillas, come up with new “words” not in the language of the deaf and dumb. amslen -e or computer “card language”, but “words” of their own language. So, they “invent” certain sound signals to denote simply a person and a person with a gun, dogs and cats. These signals are remembered by other individuals from their flock, and sometimes by crows from other flocks. But these “words” are only designations, labels of certain objects, and they do not become part of their language and are not passed on to the next generations. This is a conditioned reflex.

American Albert Ostman, abducted by a sasquatem, witnessed how his abductor listened to his wife's angry rebuke for bringing a bad groom for his daughter.

In chapter 3, several stories were given that eyewitnesses, watching two hominoids, heard that they were talking among themselves.

In 1947, policeman Belalov was captured by a huge captar, who then fought and “quarreled” with his wife, who showed too active attention to the captive.

In 1978, Valentin Kataev witnessed two hairy hominoids talking as they swam across a river, and then talking peacefully behind the bushes he was hiding behind. Moreover, he noticed that they had something like a box in which they had some kind of food (!).

In the same 3rd chapter, it was said that two Tajik hunters heard the steps and “mumbling” of two ghouls (jondors) approaching them, who came out of the dense bush and stood and looked at the people for some time.

There is a legend among the Yakuts that two Chuchun approached the plague of one family, one of which had a broken leg. The Yakuts accepted them, provided the necessary assistance, and treated the victim for about two months (it was winter).

During this time, they and people became friends and learned to understand each other. It turned out that the Chuchun have their own language, and they told people about their lives. When asked if they had wives and children, the Chuchuna said that they had, and that for the winter they go south, to the mountains, where they spend the winter in caves. Maybe the stories of the Yakuts about stone knives and bows with arrows from the Chuchun are not so fantastic?

In previous chapters, it was told that American farmer Jessie Clark from Tennessee compiled a dictionary of the language spoken by the Sasquatch living near her farm. This dictionary includes about 150 words. As the subsequent linguistic analysis showed, it contains mainly words from different human languages: the Shoshone Indians and English. If the memorization by the Sasquatch of the words of the language of the Shoshone Indians is quite acceptable, since they could communicate with them, and the words in English they were taught by Jessica's grandfather, then the presence in their language of the words of some other languages ​​​​is deeply doubtful. If, upon objective linguistic analysis, it turned out that Jessica's vocabulary contained words that were not borrowed from the languages ​​\u200b\u200bof the local inhabitants and other known languages, this would be the main confirmation that relict hominoids have their own language. Jessica, who was present at her grandfather's classes with Fox, writes that although she remembered many words, it was difficult for her to understand the Sasquatch at first, since they pronounce them very quickly.

True, if we assume that the Chuchuna and Sasquatch are one and the same variety of relict hominoids, then one of these cases confirms the other.

The mysterious “mumbling” of Almasty and ghouls often appears in stories about these hominoids and has long aroused suspicion that this is their language. Unfortunately, in the Caucasus and elsewhere, such long-term observations of hominoids are not known, as was the case in the US state of Tennessee.

In 2008, when studying tape recordings of high-frequency sounds attributed to the Sasquatch, some evidence appeared indicating that some phonemes differ in these sounds. But the research has not yet been completed.

Above were examples of the reasonable behavior of wild and domestic animals and relict hominoids. And it turns out that relic hominoids still have examples of behavior that is not characteristic of other animals. This is observed by people that a “hairy man” in the Ryazan region and a jondor in the Pamirs helped a male to his wife during childbirth; repeated cases of helping a wounded person; this is the funeral of a deceased Sasquatch baby in Tennessee, accompanied by a whole ritual of farewell to him; this is the provision of assistance to people who find themselves in difficult conditions in the Pamirs and Mongolia - and without any remuneration; out of purely friendly motives; these are signs of gratitude for the service rendered (Sasquatch in North America, ghouls in Tajikistan, Almasts in the Caucasus).

It is especially necessary to single out some actions of relict hominoids that are not observed in other animals: these are the use of some kind of combs for combing hair and “pigtails” of almasty; “maigiki bridges” and finally “ghoul traps”. In the latter case, we note that this is not a stick or a blade of grass for catching ants or termites in chimpanzees, orangutans and gorillas, and not ready-made stones for cracking palm nuts in pygmy chimpanzees.

This is already a device that had to be invented, then broken desired length and the thickness of the workpiece, split it, but not completely, set it in the right position and in the right place, and most importantly, mentally simulate the process of catching the victim: wait for this right moment and frighten the gophers or mice so that they rush into their holes.

The whole program of these actions had to be imagined mentally, without a prototype, and to imagine not only the manufacturing process, but also the operation of this “device”, the process of getting a rodent into it and “working” it - capturing the victim.

Accomplishing such a fantastically difficult task was a huge achievement of the primate - not human. Note that this was the first time in history for millions of years of existence of this species on earth. The author of this invention had to have not only a sufficiently developed consciousness, but also its highest form - thinking, which until now was considered a privilege of man. Of course, the thinking of a person in its capabilities is thousands of times greater than the thinking of a ghoul (jondor) or maigiki, but this superiority is only quantitative. And there is no fundamental difference between them. Both create a virtual, mental image of changed objects that do not exist in nature, and simulate the behavior of these objects in nature (without seeing all this in reality). The first was the most difficult of all, while all his followers could see the manufacturing process and the operation of the “trap”. The first one had no one to learn from.

Thus, the invention of a small primitive “trap” allows us to conclude that the relict hominoid, the Pamir ghoul, has already stepped on the first rung of the ladder that led one of the species of ancient hominids to become Homo sapiens - a reasonable person. Therefore, the Pamir ghoul is not a wild animal, it is already a man, such as he was one and a half - two million years ago, the first and whom we call “Homoerectus”, even if he does not have articulate speech.

Although, as we saw above, the behavioral programs of the same ants are even more complicated. But they have the most primitive language - the language of smells (pheromones) and we don’t consider them reasonable at all - they act, obeying instinct. A single ant is doomed - it cannot exist without an anthill. Only the anthill, as we have seen, has a developed collective mind, but even this mind is not capable of creating something that does not exist in nature.

True, and this is not entirely true. For example, the same spiders have an innate ability to weave huge, in comparison with themselves, webs of cobwebs, in which individual threads are arranged in a strictly defined order: these threads sometimes up to a meter long intersect at one point, forming something like the spokes of a bicycle wheel, which on the same distance are connected by the same threads forming concentric circles. And the little spider builds all this structure in one night! And every spider can do this from the moment of its birth. How could such a complex shape behavior?

Arachnologists still do not have a single view on the origin of the skills of building trapping nets and other structures from the web.

Origin, biology and behavior

Primates close to Australopithecus were distributed in Western, South and Southeast Asia. Australopithecus lived during the Pliocene from about 4 million years ago to less than a million years ago. On the time scale, 3 long epochs of the main species are clearly traced, approximately one million years per species. Most species of Australopithecus were omnivorous, but there were subspecies that specialized in plant foods. The ancestor of the main species was most likely the anamensis species, and the first main species known at the moment was the afarensis species, which existed for about 1 million years. Apparently, these creatures were nothing more than monkeys, moving like a human on two legs, albeit hunched over. Perhaps, in the end, they knew how to use improvised stones to crack, for example, nuts. It is believed that afarensis eventually split into two subspecies: the first branch went to humanization and homo habilis, the second branch continued to improve in Australopithecus, forming a new species africanus. africanus had slightly less developed limbs than afarensis, but they learned to use improvised stones, sticks, and sharp fragments of bones, and, in turn, after another million years, formed two new higher and last known subspecies of australopithecines boisei and robustus, which existed until 900 thousand years BC. e. and already could independently produce the simplest bone and wooden tools. Despite this, most of the Australopithecus were part of the food chain of more progressive people who overtook them in development along other branches of evolution, and with whom they intersected in time, although the duration of coexistence indicates that there were periods of peaceful coexistence.

It is also possible that australopithecines were not direct ancestors of humans, but represented a dead end branch of evolution. Such conclusions are prompted, in particular, by the recent finds of Sahelanthropus, an even more ancient anthropoid ape, which looked more like Homo erectus than australopithecines. In 2008, a new species of Australopithecus was discovered, A. sediba who lived in Africa less than two million years ago. Although in terms of certain morphological features it is closer to humans than the more ancient species of Australopithecus, which gave reason to its discoverers to declare it a transitional form from Australopithecus to humans, at the same time, apparently, the first representatives of the genus already existed. Homo, such as Rudolf man, which rules out the possibility that this species of Australopithecus could be the ancestor of modern man.

Most species of Australopithecus used tools no more than modern apes. Chimpanzees and gorillas are known to be able to crack nuts with stones, use sticks to extract termites, and use clubs for hunting. How often Australopithecus hunted is debatable, as their fossil remains are rarely associated with the remains of dead animals.

see also

Notes

Links

• Australopithecus at the Evolution of Man website
• Australopithecus on the portal Anthropogenesis.ru

Anthropogenesis and paleoanthropology
Extinct genera Hominini / Hominina
People (genus Homo)
Hominid finds
Origin
Spreading

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010 .

See what "Australopithecines" is in other dictionaries:

Modern Encyclopedia

australopithecines- (from Latin australis southern and Greek pithekos monkey), a genus of higher bipedal anthropoid primates that lived mainly in East and South Africa from 4 to 1 million years ago. Australopithecus had a small body (length on average 120 ... Illustrated encyclopedic Dictionary

- (from Latin australis southern and Greek pithekos monkey) the sought-after higher anthropoid primates, moving on two legs. There are numerous finds of skeletal remains in southern and eastern Africa (Zinjantrop and others). Lived approx. 3 million years ago… Big Encyclopedic Dictionary

australopithecines- (australopithecines), higher anthropoid primates, who stood at the origins of evolution. For the first time, the remains, naz. A. African (Australopithecus africanus), or South African monkey, were found in the district of Taunga South. Africa in 1924. Later similar ... ... The World History

- (from Latin australis southern and Greek píthēkos monkey), fossil higher anthropoid primates, moving on two legs. There are numerous finds of skeletal remains in the south and east of Africa (zinjantrop and others). Lived 4 1 million years ago. * * * … encyclopedic Dictionary

Anthropology and concepts of biology Kurchanov Nikolai Anatolievich

Origin and evolution of Australopithecus

At present, most anthropologists believe that the genus Homo originates from the Australopithecus group (although it should be said that some scientists deny this path). Australopithecus themselves evolved from Dryopithecines through an intermediate group, conventionally called "pre-Australopithecines". This group includes the latest findings - ardipithecus, orrorina and Sahelanthropus, which allow us to trace the evolution of hominids for 6–7 Ma. Any of them can claim the original form leading to modern man, and there is no consensus among anthropologists on this issue. However, the most likely "candidate" for the role of the ancestral form of Australopithecus is ardipithecus.

At the end of the Pliocene, australopithecines were a thriving group of primates. Currently, 8 species have been identified among them. Approximately 3 million years ago, Australopithecus divided into two branches: "gracil" and "massive". The latter were a group that specialized in eating coarse plant foods. Most anthropologists distinguish them in a separate genus. Paranthropus.

After the first discovery by R. Dart in 1924 of the Australopithecus skull, numerous discoveries were made of various representatives of this genus. However, all of them cannot be compared in their social resonance with the discovery in 1974 by anthropologist D. Johanson in Ethiopia of an almost complete female Australopithecus skeleton, which lived about 3.5 million years ago. The discovery, which, according to the old tradition of anthropologists, received the name Lucy, became the most “loud” and popular anthropological discovery of the 20th century. Lucy was given the role of "the progenitor of mankind." Songs were dedicated to her, ships and cafes were given her name. For Africa, the priority of the ancestral home of man was established.

Lucy got a scientific name Australopithecus afarensis. This species lived approximately 3-3.5 million years ago, and it is considered by most scientists to be the source for all subsequent Australopithecus species. Its representatives were much smaller than a modern person and were distinguished by pronounced sexual dimorphism: men had a height of about 150 cm and a body weight of about 45 kg, and women, respectively, 110 cm and 30 kg. The volume of the brain was 380-440 cm 3 (approximately like that of a chimpanzee). Lucy's Kindred had a stable bipedal gait. From the same species, many researchers draw a direct line to modern man. Possibly, as an intermediate form, the ancestor of the genus Homo served open in Ethiopia in 1997 Australopithecus garhi. The find, which is 2.5 million years old, bears a number of unique features that make it possible to imagine it as a human ancestor (Vishnyatsky L.B., 2004).

Australopithecus afarensis, probably descended from a primitive form discovered in Kenya in 1995 and named Australopithecus anamensis. This species, which lived more than 4 million years ago, can be considered as an intermediate form between ancient primates and Australopithecus. Although the structure of the teeth and jaws of this Australopithecus is similar to fossil monkeys, the structure of the bones of the legs allows it to be considered bipedal.

In 1999, a skull of a peculiar hominid, the “Kenianthropus” was found in Kenya ( Kenyanthropus platyops). The age of the find is 3.5 million years. Together with another species ( Kenyanthropus rudolfensis) it forms an independent genus among Australopithecus. The structure of the skull in representatives of this genus has an even more "human" appearance than that of contemporary Australopithecus. But, possessing a bizarre mixture of primitive and progressive traits, Kenyanthropes represented a dead end branch of evolution. Such findings clearly show that human evolution did not have a consistently progressive and unidirectional character. There were several directions in the evolution of hominids, and the path to modern man was only one of them.

The very first australopithecine discovered by R. Dart was also a dead end branch ( A. africanus), widespread about 3 million years ago, and all "massive" forms ( Paranthropus), formed 2.7 million years ago from the original form Paranthropus aefiopicus. The latter were extremely specialized forms, adapted to feeding on coarse plant foods. They had large jaws and teeth. The top of their skull had a special crest to which powerful chewing muscles were attached. "Massive" survived all other Australopithecus, and their largest species - P. boisei("zinjanthrope") - coexisted with the first representatives of the genus Homo almost a million years.

The phylogenetic relationships of Australopithecus can be represented in this way (Fig. 8.2).

Figure 8.2. Phylogenetic relationships of Australopithecus

There are other options for the initial stages of hominin evolution. So, some authors put at the base of the line leading to a person, orrorin ( Orrorin tugenensis), considering Australopithecus as a lateral branch.

From the book Gender Question the author Trout August

CHAPTER II The Evolution or Origin (Genealogy) of Living Beings We must discuss this question here, for an incredible confusion has lately been created, thanks to the confusion of hypotheses with facts, while we want to build our assumptions not on hypotheses, but

From the book of the Dog. A new look at the origin, behavior and evolution of dogs author Coppinger Lorna

Part I The Origin and Evolution of Dogs: Commensalism Wherever I've been, I've seen stray dogs that feed on the street, backyards, dumps. They are usually small, and quite similar to each other in size and appearance: they rarely weigh more than

From the book Man in the Labyrinth of Evolution author Vishnyatsky Leonid Borisovich

The origin of primates The appearance of the first primates in the evolutionary arena occurs at the turn of the Mesozoic and Cenozoic eras, and this is not accidental. The fact is that at the end of the Cretaceous period, ending with the Mesozoic, the planets that had previously dominated on land and in water disappeared from the face of the earth.

From the book The Human Genome: An Encyclopedia Written in Four Letters author

Origin and evolution of great apes Approximately at the turn of the Oligocene and Miocene (23 million years ago), or a little earlier (see Fig. 2), the hitherto single trunk of narrow-nosed monkeys was divided into two branches: cercopithecoids, or dog-like (Cercopithecoidea) and hominoids,

From the book The Human Genome [Encyclopedia written in four letters] author Tarantul Vyacheslav Zalmanovich

The origin of neoanthropes Before the beginning of the 80s. 20th century it was almost generally accepted that people of modern physical type appeared for the first time about 35–40 thousand years ago. In favor of just such an antiquity of our species, numerous

From the book Evolution author Jenkins Morton

From the book The Search for Life in solar system author Horowitz Norman X

PART III. ORIGIN AND EVOLUTION OF THE HUMAN GENOME

From the book Amazing stories about creatures of various author Obraztsov Petr Alekseevich

ORIGIN OF LIFE The main theories proposed in this regard can be reduced to four hypotheses: 1. Life has no beginning. Life, matter and energy coexist in the infinite and eternal Universe.2. Life was created as a result of a supernatural event at a special

From the book The Theory of Adequate Nutrition and Trophology [tables in text] author

Chapter 3. The Origin of Life: Chemical Evolution An insignificant nothing is the beginning of all beginnings. Theodor Roethke, "Lust" The theory of chemical evolution - the modern theory of the origin of life - is also based on the idea of ​​spontaneous generation. However, it is not based on sudden (de novo)

From the book The Theory of Adequate Nutrition and Trophology [tables with pictures] author Ugolev Alexander Mikhailovich

1. The Origin of Mind Next in order of importance after the question of the origin of life in general is the question of the origin of man. Where did such a creature come from, besides thinking, that is, aware of its own mortality, able to solve algebraic problems?

From the book Masters of the Earth author Wilson Edward

From the book Anthropology and Concepts of Biology author Kurchanov Nikolai Anatolievich

From the author's book

1.8. Origin and evolution of endo- and exotrophy Trophics and the origin of life In the light of modern knowledge, it is clear that the mechanisms of endotrophy and exotrophy are related, and not opposite, as previously thought, when exotrophy was considered as heterotrophy, but

From the author's book

9.5. Structure, origin and evolution of cycles and trophic chains Since its inception, life has been formed as a chain process. As for trophic chains, as we mentioned earlier, they were formed "from the end", i.e. from decomposers - organisms

From the author's book

From the author's book

Origin of life As already noted, the theory of biochemical evolution is the only theory within the framework of scientific methodology on the issue of the origin of life. It was first proposed by A. I. Oparin (1894–1980) in 1924. Subsequently, the author repeatedly introduced into it