Neanderthals (ancient people, paleoanthropes)

Neanderthals (ancient people, paleoanthropes)

In the traditional stadial model of anthropogenesis, the intermediate evolutionary stage between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens was represented by paleoanthropes ("ancient people"), who in absolute chronology lived in the period from 300 thousand years to about 30 thousand years in Europe, Asia and Africa. In non-professional literature, they are often referred to as "Neanderthals", after one of the first finds in 1848 in the Neandertal area (Germany).

In general, paleoanthropes continue the line of evolution of Homo erectus (more precisely, Homo heidelbergensis), but in modern schemes they are often designated as a lateral branch of hominids. In terms of the general level of evolutionary achievements, these hominids are the closest to modern humans. Therefore, they underwent changes in their status in the classifications of hominids: paleoanthropes are currently considered as a subspecies of Homo sapiens, that is, as its fossil version (Homo sapiens neanderthalensls). This view reflects new knowledge about the complexity of biology, the intellectual sphere, and the social organization of Neanderthals. Anthropologists who attach great importance to the biological differences between Neanderthal and modern humans still consider them to be a special species.

The first finds of Neanderthals were made in the 19th century. in Western Europe and did not have an unambiguous interpretation.

Groups of paleoanthropines, located in a significant range of geological time, are very diverse in morphological appearance. Anthropologist V.P. Alekseev made an attempt to classify groups of Neanderthals, similar morphologically and chronologically, and identified several groups: European, African, Skhul type, and Near East. Most of the finds of paleoanthropines from Europe are known. Often the Neanderthals inhabited the periglacial zones.

On the same grounds (morphological and chronological), among the European forms of the indicated time, the following levels are distinguished: "the earliest Neanderthals" - "preneanderthals", "early Neanderthals" and "late Neanderthals".

Anthropologists suggested that objectively there were multiple transitions between successive stadial groups, therefore, in different areas, from several variants of Pithecanthropus, an evolutionary transition to paleoanthropus could have taken place. Representatives of the species Homo heidelbergensis could have been predecessors (Petralona, \u200b\u200bSvanscombe, Atapuerca, Arago, etc.).

The earliest European group includes a fossil skull from the Steinheim monument (200 thousand years old), found in Germany in 1933, as well as a female Swanscombe skull (200 thousand years old), discovered in England in 1935. These findings refer to the second interglacial according to the alpine scheme. Under similar conditions, a fossil lower jaw was found in France - the Montmoren monument. These forms are characterized by a small size of the cerebral cavity (Steinheim - 1150 cm3, Swanscomb - 1250-1300 cm3). A complex of features that bring the earliest forms closer to modern humans has been identified: a relatively narrow and high skull, a relatively convex forehead, a massive brow, like in Pithecanthropus, not divided into constituent elements, a rather rounded back of the head, a straightened facial region, the presence of a rudimentary chin of the lower jaw. There is a clear archaism in the structure of the teeth: the third molar is larger than the second and first (in humans, the size of the molars decreases from the first to the third). The bones of this fossil human species are accompanied by archaic Acheulean tools.

Figure: I. 10. Skull of the late European Neanderthal (equal to the wurm)

Many known to science Neanderthals belong to the last interglacial. The earliest of them lived about 150 thousand years ago. You can imagine their appearance on the basis of finds from European monuments Eringsdorf and Sakkopastore. They are distinguished by a vertical profile of the facial region, a rounded occipital region, a weakened superciliary relief, a rather convex forehead, a relatively small number of archaic features in the structure of the teeth (the third molar is not the largest among others). The brain volume of early Neanderthals is estimated at 1200-1400 cm3.

The lifetime of the late European Neanderthals coincides with the last glaciation. The morphological type of these forms is clearly visible on the fossil bone remains of Chapelle (50 thousand years), Moustier (50 thousand years), Ferrassi (50 thousand years), Neandertal (50 thousand years), Engis (70 thousand years), Circeo (50 thousand years), San Sezer (36 thousand years) (Fig. I. 10).

This option is characterized by a strong development of the brow, the occipital region compressed from top to bottom ("chignon-like"), a wide nasal opening, an expanded cavity of the molars. Morphologists note the presence of an occipital ridge, a chin protrusion (rarely and in an embryonic form), a large volume of the cerebral cavity: from 1350 to 1700 cm3. By the bones of the trunk skeleton, one can judge that the late Neanderthals had a strong, massive physique (body length - 155-165 cm). The lower limbs are shorter than in modern humans, the thigh bones are curved. The wide facial part of the skull of the Neanderthals protrudes strongly forward and is oblique on the sides, the cheekbones are streamlined. The joints of the arms and legs are large. In terms of body proportions, Neanderthals were similar to the modern type of Eskimo, which helped them maintain body temperature in cold climates.

An interesting attempt to transfer ecological knowledge about modern man to paleoanthropological reconstruction. Thus, a number of structural features of the "classical" Neanderthals of Western Europe are explained by the result of adaptation to cold climates.

The earliest and later European forms appear to be genetically linked. European Neanderthals have been discovered in France, Italy, Yugoslavia, Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Crimea and the North Caucasus.

To resolve the issue of the origin of modern man, finds of paleoanthropes outside Europe, mainly in South-West Asia and Africa, are extremely interesting. The lack of features of specialization in morphology in most cases distinguishes them from European forms. So, they are characterized by straighter and thinner limbs, less powerful supraorbital ridges, shortened and less massive skulls.

According to one point of view, a typical Neanderthal man existed only within Europe and some regions of Asia, where he could have migrated from Europe. Moreover, starting from the turn of 40 thousand years, Neanderthals coexisted with fully developed people of the modern anatomical type; in the Middle East, such coexistence could have been longer.

The finds of the paleanthropes of Mount Carmel (Israel) are exceptional. They attracted researchers with a mosaic of sapient and neanderthaloid features. These findings can be interpreted as actual evidence of the cross breeding of early Neanderthals and modern humans. However, it should be noted that some of Skhul's findings are currently considered as belonging to "archaic Homo sapiens". Let's name some of the most famous finds.

Tabun is a fossil skull discovered in Tabun cave, Mount Carmel. Antiquity - 100 thousand years. The skull is not high, the forehead is sloping, there are supraorbital ridges, but the obverse and occipital region have a modern character. The curved limb bones resemble the type of European Neanderthals.

Skhul-V, antiquity - 90 thousand years (Fig. I. 11). The skull combines a large volume of the cerebral cavity and a rather high forehead with the modern structure of the facial region and occiput.

Amud, antiquity - 50 thousand years. Found in Amud Cave near Lake Tiberias. (Israel). Has a large brain volume: 1740 cm3. The limb bones are elongated.

Kafzeh, antiquity - about 100 th. years old. Opened in Israel. Sapiens is quite pronounced, therefore it is considered an established sapiens.

In northern Iraq, the Shanidar Neanderthal was discovered, classical in type, with a large brain section, the researchers drew attention to the absence of a continuous supraorbital ridge. Age - 70-80 thousand years.

A Neanderthal man with traces of a funeral rite was found on the territory of Uzbekistan. The skull belonged to a boy with an unformed supraorbital ridge. The facial region and limbs of the skeleton, according to some anthropologists, are of the modern type. Place of discovery - Teshchik-Tash cave, antiquity - 70 thousand years.

Figure: I. 11. Skull of a progressive Neanderthal (archaic sapiens) (90 thousand years)

In the Crimea, in the Kiik-Koba cave, the bone remains of an adult paleoanthropus (the type is close to Western European Neanderthals) and a very young Neanderthal child were found. Bone remains of several Neanderthal children were discovered in the Crimea and in the area of \u200b\u200bBelogorsk. A fragment of the skull of a Neanderthal woman was also found here with some modern features that make it look like Schul finds. Neanderthal bones and teeth were discovered on the territory of Adygea and in Georgia.

The skull of a paleoanthropus was discovered in Asia - in China, in the Mala grotto. It is believed that it cannot be attributed to any European variant of the Neanderthals. The importance of this find lies in the fact that it proves the replacement of one stadial type by another in the Asian part of the world. Another point of view is that in finds of the type Mala, Chanyan, Ordos (Mongolia), we see transitional forms from Pithecanthropus to "early" sapiens. Moreover, this transition in some forms can be dated to a time of at least 0.2 million years (uranium method).

On about. Java, near the village of Ngan-dong, found a kind of skull, bearing traces of cannibalism. The researchers noticed their very thick walls and a powerful supraorbital ridge. Such signs make the Ngandong skulls similar to the Pithecanthropus type. The existence of open hominids is the Upper Pleistocene (about 0.1 million years), i.e., they are synchronous with the late Pithecanthropus. In science, there was an opinion that this is a local, peculiar type of Neanderthal, formed as a result of a slowed down evolutionary process. Alternatively, the "Javanthropus" of Ngandong are defined as late Pithecanthropus genetically related to the Late Pleistocene sapiens of Australia.

Until recently, it was believed that Neanderthals existed not only in the north, but also in the south of Africa. Hominids from Broken Hill and Saldanya were cited as examples of "South" Africans. In their morphological type, common features of Neanderthals and Pithecanthropus were found. Their brain volume reached about 1300 cm3 (slightly less than the average for Neanderthals). It has been suggested that the Broken Hill man is the successor to the Olduvai Pithecanthropus of East Africa. Some anthropologists believed that there was a parallel line of evolution of paleoanthropes in Southeast Asia and southern Africa. Currently, the Broken Hill variant is assigned the role of a fossil sapient form.

The change in taxonomic views on late hominids led to the fact that many forms preceding modern humans are attributed to archaic Homo sapiens, often understanding this term as "pro-Neanderthals" (Swanscombe, Steinheim), then - peculiar African forms (Broken Hill, Saldania), Asian (Ngandong), as well as European variants of Pithecanthropus.

Paleontological evidence suggests a mestizo origin for the classic European Neanderthals. Apparently, there were two waves of migrants from Africa and Asia about 300-250 thousand years ago, with subsequent mixing.

The evolutionary fate of the Neanderthals is not clear. The choice of hypotheses is wide enough: complete transformation of Neanderthals into Sapiens; complete extermination of Neanderthals by sapiens of non-European origin; cross breeding of both options. The last point of view has the greatest support, according to which the emerging man of the modern type migrated from Africa to Europe through Asia. In Asia, it was recorded for about 100 thousand years, and in Europe it came to the turn of 40 thousand years. Further, the assimilation of the Neanderthal population took place. Evidence is provided by European finds of Neanderthal hominids, modern type and intermediate forms. The early Neanderthals, penetrating into Western Asia, could cross with the ancient sapiens there as well.

Fossil odontological materials give an idea of \u200b\u200bthe scale of the breeding processes. They show the contribution of European Neanderthals to the gene pool of modern humans. The Neanderthal version of the hominid fossil has coexisted with the modern one for tens of thousands of years.

The essence of the evolutionary transition that took place on the border of the Upper Paleolithic is explained in the hypothesis of Professor Ya.Ya. Roginsky.

The author summarizes the data on the structure of the endocrane with clinical observations of modern humans and, on this basis, suggests that the social behavior of paleoanthropes and modern humans is significantly different (control of behavior, manifestation of aggressiveness).

The Mousterian era, which coincides in time with the era of the existence of the Neanderthals, belongs to the Middle Paleolithic. In absolute terms, this time is from 40 to 200 thousand years. Mousterian weapon complexes are not uniform in the ratio of different types of tools. Mousterian monuments are known in three parts of the world - Europe, Africa and Asia, and the bone remains of Neanderthals were also discovered there.

The technology of stone processing by Neanderthal man is distinguished by a relatively high level of technology of splitting and secondary processing of flakes. The pinnacle of the technique is the method of preparing the surface of the workpiece stone and processing the plates separated from it.

Figure: 1.12. Mousterian tools of the Middle Paleolithic

Careful tweaking of the surface of the workpiece entailed the thinness of the plates and the perfection of the tools obtained from them (Fig. 1.12).

The Mousterian culture is characterized by disc-shaped blanks, from which flakes were chipped off radially: from the edges to the center. Most of the Mousterian tools were made on flakes by secondary processing. Archaeologists count dozens of types of tools, but their variety is reduced, apparently, to three types: pointed, side-scraper, ruber. The point was a tool with a point at the end, it was used for cutting meat, leather, processing wood, and also as a dagger or spearhead. A flake processed along the edge with retouching served as a scraping tool. This tool was used for scraping or cutting when processing carcasses, hides or wood. Wooden handles were added to the side-scrapers. Toothed tools were used for turning wooden objects, for cutting or sawing. In the Mousterian, there are punctures, incisors, scrapers - tools of the Late Paleolithic. Labor tools are represented by special chippers (pieces of stone or elongated pebbles) and retouchers (pieces of stone or bone for processing the edge of the tool by pressing).

Contemporary ethnographic research on Australian Aborigines helps to visualize Stone Age technological processes. The experiments of archaeologists have shown that the technique of obtaining blanks of tools in the form of flakes and plates was complex, required experience, technical knowledge, precise coordination of movements, and great attention.

Experience allowed ancient man to reduce the amount of time it took to make tools. The bone processing technique in the Mousterian is poorly developed. Wood tools were widely used: clubs, spears, spears with fire-hardened ends. Vessels for water and elements of dwellings were made of wood.

Neanderthals were skilled hunters. At their sites, accumulations of bones of large animals were found: mammoths, cave bears, bison, wild horses, antelopes, mountain goats. Complex hunting actions were within the power of an agreed team of Neanderthals. The Mousterians used the techniques of raiding or driving animals to the cliffs and swamps. Composite tools were found - spearheads with flint fragments. Bolas were used as throwing weapons. The Mousterians practiced cutting the carcasses of killed animals and roasting meat over a fire. They made simple clothes for themselves. Gathering was of some importance. The discovered stone grain grinders suggest that there was a primitive grain processing. Cannibalism existed among Neanderthals, but was not widespread.

In the Mousterian time, the character of the settlements changed. Sheds, grottoes and caves were populated more often. The types of Neanderthal settlements are identified: workshops, hunting and base camps. To protect the fires from the wind, wind screens were installed. In the grottoes, pavements were made of pebbles and pieces of limestone.

Bone remains of Neanderthals can be found together with tools of the Upper Paleolithic, as was the case, for example, when a late paleoanthropus was found in France (Saint-Sezer monument).

In the era of the early Wurm, Mousterian burials appeared on the territory of Eurasia - the first reliable traces of the burial of the dead. Today about 60 such monuments have been discovered. Interestingly, the "Neanderthaloid" and "Sapient" groups more often buried adults, while the "Neanderthal" population equally buried both adults and children. The facts of the burial of the dead give grounds to assume the existence of a dualistic worldview among the Mousterians.

The next stage in the evolution of hominids, paleoanthropes, is represented by the so-called neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis), the specific name of which is associated with the first find of fossil remains of these people in the Neandertal Valley near Düsseldorf. Neanderthals, like Archanthropus, were distributed almost throughout the Old World and are very diverse. They appeared on Earth about 300 thousand years ago (during the Mindelrisian interglacial) and existed until the first half of the Wurm glaciation, that is, about 35 thousand years ago.
Paleoanthropes have made tremendous progress in increasing brain mass. The cerebral volume of Neanderthal men averaged about 1550 cm3, reaching 1600 cm3. The dimensions of the brain achieved by the Neanderthals did not increase further during subsequent evolution when they reached the neoanthropic stage, although the brain structure was rearranged.

Despite the bulky cerebral box, the skull of the Neanderthals still retained many primitive features: a sloping forehead, a low arch and nape, a massive facial skeleton with a continuous supraorbital ridge, the chin protrusion was almost not pronounced, large teeth were preserved. The proportions of the body of paleoanthropes were generally close to those of modern humans. Compared to archanthropus, the paleoanthropus has improved the structure of the hand. The average height of the Neanderthals was 151 - 155 cm. The Middle Paleolithic culture was created by the paleoanthropes. Neanderthals buried their dead with funeral rites, which suggests that they have a sufficiently developed abstract thinking.

The main morphological transformations that occurred during the formation of neoanthropes are expressed in some structural changes in the brain and skull, especially in its facial region (relative decrease in the jaws, formation of the chin protrusion, reduction of the supraorbital ridge and postorbital narrowing, increase in the height of the cranial vault, etc.) ...
Cro-Magnons were the creators of the culture of the late Paleolithic, characterized by high perfection of stone and bone processing. It was the Cro-Magnons who were the creators of cave drawings depicting animals of the mammoth fauna, as well as the most ancient sculptural images and the first musical instruments. Therefore, it can be argued that art arises with neoanthropes.
Let us emphasize once again that each of the stages of human evolution we have considered included a large number of variations - both in space (in different regions) and in time. The characteristic features of the next stage did not appear suddenly and all at once, but gradually developed in different populations, so to speak, "in the depths" of the previous stage of anthropogenesis. At the same time, various characters, in accordance with Osborne's rule, changed at their own pace, and different combinations of more progressive and archaic features appeared in different populations.

The stage of neoanthropes corresponds to a modern human species - Homo sapiens (Homo sapiens). The oldest neoanthropines are traditionally called Cro-Magnons after the place of the first discovery of their fossil remains in the Cro-Magnon grotto, in the French province of Dordogne. Cro-Magnons already fully corresponded to the anthropological type of modern man, differing only in minor features (a slightly lower vault of the skull, a more developed dental system, etc.). Cro-Magnons are known since the Middle Wyrm glaciation in the Late Pleistocene about 38-40 thousand years ago. However, according to some sources, the organization of neoanthropes began to form even earlier, and the most ancient neoanthropes could have existed as early as 40-50 thousand years ago.
The average volume of the cranial cavity in neoanthropes is 1500 cm3, i.e., as we have already noted, the increase in the size of the brain stopped after reaching the stage of paleoanthropes. Obviously, this volume of the brain turned out to be sufficient for the entire subsequent complication of the higher nervous activity of a person, up to the present day. Moreover, the brain of a modern person, the volume of which does not exceed that of Neanderthals, according to physiologists, preserves enormous resources of nerve cells, with the possibility of the emergence of even more nerve connections that remain unused throughout the life of an individual.

Homo sapiens (reasonable person).Oddly enough, the course of evolution from H.erectus before H.sapiens, i.e. to the modern-day stage is as difficult to satisfactorily document as the initial branching stage of the hominid lineage. However, in this case, the matter is complicated by the presence of several applicants for the desired intermediate position.

According to a number of anthropologists, the stage that led directly to H.sapiens, was a Neanderthal ( Homo neanderthalensis, or, as is customary today, Homo sapiens neanderthalensis). Neanderthals appeared no later than 150 thousand years ago, and their different types flourished until the period of approx. 40-35 thousand years ago, marked by the undoubted presence of a well-formed H.sapiens (H.sapiens sapiens). This era corresponded to the onset of the Wurm glaciation in Europe, i.e. ice age closest to modern times. Other scientists do not associate the origin of modern humans with the Neanderthal, pointing, in particular, to the fact that the morphological structure of the face and skull of the latter was too primitive to have time to evolve into forms H.sapiens.

Neanderthaloids are usually thought of as stocky, hairy, bestial people with bent legs, with a protruding head on a short neck, giving the impression that they have not yet fully reached upright posture. Paintings and reconstructions in clay usually emphasize their hairiness and unjustified primitiveness. This image of a Neanderthal is a big distortion. First, we don't know if the Neanderthals were hairy or not. Secondly, they were all completely bipedal. As for the evidence for a tilted body position, it is likely that they were obtained from the study of individuals suffering from arthritis.

One of the most striking features of the entire Neanderthal series of finds is that the least modern ones were the most recent in appearance. This is the so-called. the classic Neanderthal type, whose skull is characterized by a low forehead, a heavy brow, a cut chin, a protruding mouth region and a long, low skull. However, their brain size was larger than that of modern humans. They quite definitely had a culture: there is evidence of funerary cults and, possibly, animal cults, since animal bones are found along with the fossils of the classical Neanderthals.

At one time it was believed that the classical type Neanderthals lived only in southern and western Europe, and their origin is associated with the onset of the glacier, which put them in conditions of genetic isolation and climatic selection. However, today clearly similar forms have been found in some regions of Africa and the Middle East, and possibly in Indonesia. Such a widespread distribution of the classical Neanderthal forces us to abandon this theory.

At the moment, there is no material evidence of any gradual morphological transformation of the classical type of Neanderthal into a modern type of man, with the exception of finds made in the Skhul cave in Israel. The skulls found in this cave are very different from each other, some of them have features that put them in an intermediate position between the two human types. According to some experts, this is evidence of the evolutionary change of a Neanderthal to a modern human, while others believe that this phenomenon is the result of mixed marriages between representatives of two types of people, thereby believing that H.sapiens evolved independently. This explanation is supported by evidence that as early as 200-300 thousand years ago, i.e. before the appearance of the classical Neanderthal, there was a type of person that most likely belongs to the early H.sapiensrather than the "progressive" Neanderthal. We are talking about well-known finds - fragments of a skull found in Swansky (England), and a fuller skull from Steinheim (Germany).

The controversy over the "Neanderthal stage" in human evolution is partly due to the fact that two circumstances are not always taken into account. First, it is possible for more primitive types of any evolving organism to exist in a relatively unchanged form at the same time when other branches of the same species are undergoing various evolutionary modifications. Secondly, migrations associated with a shift in climatic zones are possible. Such displacements were repeated in the Pleistocene as glaciers advanced and retreated, and man could follow the shifts in the climatic zone. Thus, when considering long periods of time, it must be borne in mind that the populations occupying a given area at a certain moment are not necessarily descendants of populations that lived there in an earlier period. It is possible that early H.sapiens could migrate from the regions where they appeared, and then return to their former places after many thousands of years, having undergone evolutionary changes. When fully formed H.sapiens appeared in Europe 35–40 thousand years ago, during the warmer period of the last glaciation, it undoubtedly replaced the classical Neanderthal, who occupied the same region for 100 thousand years. Now it is impossible to determine for sure whether the Neanderthal population moved northward, following the retreat of its usual climatic zone, or mixed with the invaders. H.sapiens.

The transition from the stage of archanthropus to the stage of paleoanthropus took place in the almond riss about 200-300 thousand years ago. The change in the physical type of a person has opened up new opportunities for the development of production activities, and thereby for all other forms of economy of emerging people.

And shifts in this area, maybe not immediately, but followed.

Resettlement. The transition to the late archaeolite marked the end of the uniformity of stone tools characteristic of the preceding period. A multitude of distinct and isolated cultures emerged, which indicates an emerging regional specialization158. At the same time, the number of camps is sharply increasing, which can only be interpreted as a result of a rapid and widespread increase in the population 1–9.

People of a new physical type populate such territories where their ancestors, the archantrophes, were unable to settle. In Africa, this time includes data testifying to their firm development of the area of \u200b\u200btropical forests, on the one hand, and areas that are now deserts and semi-deserts of the Horn of Africa and North-West Africa, on the other * 60. There is no doubt the existence of people in this era on the territory of Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, the Transcaucasus, the Caucasus, throughout Southeast Asia, in southern China. Moving to the north, paleoanthropes settled in Central Asia, Kazakhstan, southern Siberia (Altai, Khakassia, Tuva, South Angara region) and the Far East (Amur and Zeya basins), Mongolia, Korea, and Japan. A significant part of Eastern Europe was included in their range. They firmly mastered the territory of the European part of the USSR, located south of 50 ° north latitude, up to the Volga. Separate Mousterian sites in the Desna basin (Khotylevo, Betovo, etc.), the upper reaches of the Oka, the Middle Volga region (Krasnaya Glinka, Tunguz) and some other places are located further north, up to 55 °. Finding Mousterian tools in the Cave Log on the river. Chusovaya (Perm region) testifies that paleoanthropes penetrated further to the north and east. A kind of connecting link between the Mousterian localities of the European and Asian parts of the USSR is the Mysovaya site near Magnitogorsk in the South Urals 181.

Labor tools. In the evolution of the stone industry of this period, two main stages can be distinguished, which are especially clearly traced in materials from Europe. The first of them includes cultures that are characterized by researchers as Middle Acheulian, Late Acheulian, Premustier, and Early Mousterian. Time of their existence: mindel-riss, riss c riss-wurm. This is the early neoarcheolithic. The second stage includes the late Mousterian cultures. Time of their existence - wurm I

(wurm I and wurm II according to the scale adopted by French archaeologists) and partly wurm I-II. Their absolute age is from 70-75 thousand years to 35-40 thousand years. This is the late neoarcheolithic.

Along with stone tools, bone tools were also used in this era, but in general, bone processing was poorly developed. In the Mousterian camps, sharpened fragments of animal bones are found, turned into primitive points, awls, tips, and spatulas 182.

The development of the stone industry was accompanied by the improvement of hunting weapons. Wooden spears were still used, but they were of great perfection.

In the Leringen site (Lower Saxony, Federal Republic of Germany), belonging to the late Achel and dating from Riess-wurm, a spear made of yew 244 cm long (circumference 84 mm) was found between the ribs of an elephant's skeleton. Its end was sharpened and fire-hardened. On the front, there were several thin longitudinal grooves leading to a sharp end. In order to provide a stronger grip, a series of narrow cross-notches were made on the center of the spear163. At the late Acheulean site at the Kalambo waterfall (Zambia), wooden tools were found: digging sticks, knives, clubs. In their manufacture, fire was used, with the help of which they were given the desired shape and hardness. One of the weapons was a short club with a thin handle and a thick expanding head. It is possible that it was used as a throwing weapon. The age of the site where these tools were found was originally determined at 60 thousand years, now - at 190 thousand years. At one of the sites in Central Africa, a weapon was discovered, possibly a wooden club with a stone tip164.

The existence of composite hunting weapons in the late Mousterian is undoubted. During the excavations of the Pokala Cave near Trieste (Italy), a bear skull was discovered with a Mousterian flint point pierced into it. Perhaps this weapon was the tip of a battle ax. A flint spearhead 11.7 cm long was found in one of the Mousterian layers of the Zaskalnaya VI locality (Crimea). The bones, in which the fragments of flint stuck out, were found during excavations of the La Quina cave (France). Careful analysis of the features of the damage showed that the fragments belonged to the spearheads of 165.

There was also a bone hunting weapon. At the site of Salz-Hitter-Lebenstedt (Federal Republic of Germany), dated by a radiocarbon meto house 55000 \u003d b1000 years old, a 70 cm long fragment of a carefully sharpened bone dagger and a stag antler club were found186.

"Economic activity. Improvement of weapons, together with the accumulation of experience and an increase in the level of cohesion of collectives, resulted in an increase in the effectiveness of hunting. This is evidenced by the huge accumulations of animal bones in the camps belonging to this period. It was at this time that a certain specialization of hunting activities of human collectives was outlined. One particular species of animals becomes the main object of hunting of this or that ancestral community, especially the bear.

The predominance of bear remains is noted in the upper Mousterian layers of the Tsukhvat cave system (Western Georgia), in Sakazhia cave (ibid.), Kudaro I and III (South Ossetia), Voroptsovskaya, Akhshtyrskaya, Navalishenskaya, Ltsinskaya, Khostinskaya (all - Black Sea coast of the Caucasus), Ilyinke (Northern Black Sea region), Temnaya (Poland), Shipka (Czechoslovakia), Igrita, Cyklovina (both - Romania), Pokala (Italy), Drachenhele, Salzofen (both - Austria), Wildkirchli, Drachenloch, Wildmannlisloch, Kotenscher (all - Switzerland), Kummetsloh, Gilentrate, Peterschele, Kartstein, Irpfeldhele, Siergenpttein (all - FRG), Regurdu, Cluny (both - France), in the upper layer of the Shubatok cave and the Erd site (both - Hungary) deer remains - in Salzgitter-Lebenstedt (Germany), Pesch de l'Aze and La Chappelle (both - France), the Agostino grotto and the Marino di Camerota caves (all - Italy); bison - in the Volgograd site, Ilskaya (Kuban), Rozhok I and II (Azov region), early Mousterian layers of the Tsukhvat cave system; a bull - in the lower horizon of La Ferrassi, the middle layer of Le Moustiers (both - France), the Skhul (Yalestina) site; horses - in the Valikhanov camp (South Kazakhstan), the upper layer of La Micok and the Cavre camp (both - France); mammoth - in Molodov V (Transnistria), Tata (Hungary), Mont-Dol (France) mountain goat - in the lower layer of Shubayuk, Teshik-Tash, Amir-Temir and Obi-Rakhmata (the last three - Uzbekistan); a wild donkey - in the Starosele cave (Crimea); a wild ram - in the Aman-Kutan grotto (Uzbekistan); gazelles - in the cave of Amud (Palestine); saigas - in Adzhi-Kobe, Mamat-Kobe and the middle layer of the Wolf grotto (all - Crimea), etc. 167

In addition to land animals, paleanthropes hunted birds, and, where possible, sea animals. Bones of penguins and seals were found at the sites of Klasies River and Dee Kelders (South Africa). Separate groups of people were engaged not only in hunting, but also in catching fish. A large number of salmon remains were found in the Mousterian horizons of the Kudaro I site. One of the layers (3c) contained 23,579 salmon bones, including 4,400 vertebrae and their fragments 169

Especially great was the role of hunting among the paleoanthropes who lived in Europe during the advance of the glacier in the areas directly adhering to it.They probably hunt, in all likelihood, was the main source of livelihood.As evidenced by ethnography, among peoples with appropriating households who inhabited the polar regions, gathering delivers no more than 10% of all food The rest was provided by hunting and fishing

Gathering among paleoanthropines played the greater role, the milder the climate was.The prehumans living in areas with warm and hot climates, the products of gathering probably still constituted the predominant part of the diet 1.0

The remains of plant food, of course, have not survived from such a distant era.However, a number of finds testify to the complication of the activity of preliminary processing of plant parts before use in spets. In the sites of Molo 1,

ova I and V, a lot of graters, pestos, pestles from pebbles were found.It can also be mentioned I pebble graters from the Old Druitory ridge (Moldavia) and the Valikhanov site, a bone mortar cup for grinding from Kiik-Koba (Crimea) and sandstone tiles - Gatherer from Kepshinskaya Cave (Caucasus) 171 Gathering was not limited to obtaining plant food As evidenced by finds in South Africa, people who lived on the seashore used the contents of shells for food 172

The economic activity of people at this time became much more complicated. There is no doubt that people could not live in Europe during Wurm I if they did not learn how to make warm clothes. The only material for this could be animal skins. This assumption is found by PO 1, solidification in data of archeology In this respect, convincing materials were obtained during excavations of the Ortto grotto (France) Analysis of the composition of the bones of such animals as panthers, lynxes, and wolves indicates that people brought to the site only their skins, ripped off at the hunting site Similar results were obtained during the excavation of the Mousterian The Erd site173 The use of animal skins by paleoanthropes is evidenced by the abundance "and but ubiquitous (within but at least Europe) distribution of flint scrapers174

Indisputable signs of the use of fire are found in the sites of all parts of the world inhabited at that time, including Africa.There is reason to believe that by this time people had already mastered its production

Dwellings and way of life At this time, people increasingly often settle in caves In the late Mousterian era, the habitation in caves becomes unusually widespread. Settling in the caves, people adapted them for housing. In La Baume Bonne cave (France), an oval dwelling was built in the Rice time 5x2.5 m, the floor of which was covered with pebbles to protect it from moisture17 An interesting find was made by A. Lumley in the Lazaret cave in the layer II of the Rissian layer with the late Acheulean industry. There was discovered a large structure, Imi, 3.5 m long, built near the exit from caves The skeleton of the dwelling consisted of 15 wooden racks. The top of the frame was covered with animal skins, the coverage area was 53 m2. The entrance of the dwelling was turned into the cave. A small wall of stone at the entrance to the cave protected the dwelling from winds from the sea. Two bonfires were burning People lived in the cave from November to March, that is, all winter176 Traces of structures were found in cave sites belonging to the mutieres era, in particular in Chokurcha 177

But even in the late Mousterian era, not to mention the pre-Urmian time, people settled not only in caves.And recently, archaeologists have discovered many remains of artificial dwellings not directly connected with caves, although sometimes located not far from them In one of the horizons At the site of the Kalambo waterfall, which is now 190 thousand years old, stones laid in a semicircle were discovered. Perhaps they were the basis of the fence178. The remains of a circular structure with an area of \u200b\u200b25 m2 were found at the site "Commona's workshop" (France) with a developed Middle Acheulean industry, dating back to the beginning of the Riss. ”9

The finds at the sites of Molodova I and Molodova V180 are of great interest.In the fourth layer of Molodova I, whose age was determined by the radiocarbon method at approximately 44 thousand years, an oval ring was discovered, consisting of specially selected large mammoth bones.The dimensions of its inner part are 8X5 m, the outer 10X7 m Layout of mammoth bones surrounded an area with intensive accumulation of cultural remains.This oval layout can be considered the remains of the base of the wall of a large above-ground dwelling.Its frame, made of group poles, was apparently covered with ma mont skins. Below these skins were pressed down with limb bones.

Judging by some data, the main chamber of the dwelling was subdivided into two parts, southern and northern. Each of the halves had its own exit. Two additional eastern ones were adjacent to the main chamber, measuring 5X3.5 m, and the northeast. Each half had a separate exit to the eastern chamber, and the northern part also leads to the north-east. Remnants of hearths were discovered inside the oval enclosure.

Remains of a long-term dwelling, the basis of which was also made of mammoth bones, were found in the 11th layer of Molodova V. It existed about 40,300 years ago.

Remains of about 10 small dwellings were found in France in the lower reaches of the river. Duran. They belong to wurm I. By the end of wurm I (to wurm II according to the scale of French archaeologists) there are large multi-pitched dwellings, traces of which were found in Le Perard, Vaux-de-l'Aubezier, Esqupo-Grano (all - France). The hut at Le Perard measured 11.5X7 m (that is, its area was 80 m2) 181.

On the basis of these and a number of other data, some researchers came to the conclusion that already in Acheulean people moved to a settled way. Others speak of the presence of a certain settledness in the estate182. Unfortunately, they do not elaborate on their statements, so it is not entirely clear what kind of settlement they are talking about. Meanwhile, such a clarification is necessary, otherwise all disputes on this issue will remain pointless.

All human settlements can be subdivided into two main types: camps, in which people stayed for a period from one day to several weeks, and rural areas, in which people settled for a period of several months to hundreds of years. Camps are divided into short-term, where people stayed for one or several days, and long-term, where they lived for several days. Among the agricultural lands, one can distinguish seasonal, in which people lived only for several months, and year-round, in which people lived throughout the year. In turn, year-round agriculture can be divided into annual, in which people lived only for several years, and secular (generation), where people have lived for centuries, generation after generation.

In the case when people live in camps all year round, we have a wandering way of life. Its two varieties are a mobile-wandering way of life, when the only form of settlement is short-term camps, and mobile-wandering, when people live in long-term camps. If people live in camps for one season and in rural areas for another, we have a seasonal settlement. Seasonally sedentary lifestyle includes a wandering-sedentary way of life, when the duration of a wandering existence exceeds the duration of a sedentary one, and a sedentary-wandering way of life, when the opposite relationship takes place. A peculiar form is the variable settlement, when people live seasonally in one farmland, season in another. There is also such a situation when the farmland is inhabited all year round, but in a certain season some of the inhabitants (usually men) leave it and spend quite a long time outside it. This is the annual settled rate, combined with the seasonal migration of a part of the population. And finally, one can distinguish simply the annual settlement and the secular (generational) settlement183.

In the late Mousterian, there were entire regions, the population of which led a year-sedentary lifestyle. These primarily include southwestern France. It is not excluded, of course, the possibility that this annual settlement was combined with seasonal migration of a part of the population - male hunters. And, of course, she not only did not exclude, but, on the contrary, assumed more or less lengthy hunting expeditions, the participants of which set up temporary camps 184. However, not all people of the later Mousterian of Western Europe led this way of life. A significant part of them was characterized not by annual, but by seasonal settlement. In the summer they roamed the tundra and lived in camps. 185. It is difficult to say anything definite about the specific forms of settlement in the Late Mousterian outside Western Europe, as well as throughout the ecumene in pre-Turkic times. In any case, it can be considered established that with the transition to the late archaeolite, the way of life of people in general became noticeably less mobile.

Neanderthals and the Neanderthal problem. By far the most interesting is the question of social relations and their evolution in this era. It is especially important because this era is the final stage in the formation of human society. With the end of this era, a ready-made society came to replace the primitive society. However, before turning to the problem of the formation of social relations in this final period, it is necessary to familiarize yourself in somewhat more detail with the characters - the people of that era. Without repeating everything that is said about them in Chapter III, let us dwell only on those aspects of the problem that are necessary for understanding the process of sociogenesis.

Sometimes people of this era, taken together, are called Neanderthals. However, many authors, especially foreign ones, categorically oppose such a wide use of this term. In their opinion, only one specific group of people of a given era can be called Neanderthals. This term is completely inapplicable to the rest of the groups. And it's not always about the term itself. A significant part of researchers refuses to consider all people of a given era as a single whole, opposed to archantropics, on the one hand, and neoanthropists, on the other.

People of this era are indeed divided into several distinct groups. And an important issue of anthropological science has long been the problem of the relationship of these groups to each other and to a person of a modern physical type. This problem is traditionally referred to as Neanderthal.

Initially, people of this era were mainly represented by a significant number of finds in Western Europe, which belonged to Wurm I and the first half of Wurm I-II, were associated with the late Moutier industry (Neandertal, Spy, La P1-pelle-au-Seine, Le Moustier, La Ferrassi, La Quina, etc.). All of them formed a morphologically relatively homogeneous group, for which the name Neanderthal was stuck. It is quite understandable that at that stage of development, the problem under consideration was practically reduced to the question of the ratio of representatives of this group and people of the modern type.

Neanderthals on the territory of Western Europe immediately preceded people of the modern physical type, who appeared there in the second half of Wurm I-II. Many features of their morphological appearance were indisputably intermediate between archanthropus and neoanthropus. Therefore, it was completely natural to see them as the ancestors of modern man. Some of the researchers came to this conclusion. This point of view was most consistently developed and substantiated by A. Hrdlichka, who clearly formulated the position of the existence of the Neanderthal phase in human evolution186.

Another part of the researchers opposed this point of view. They first of all pointed to the presence in the morphological organization of the Neanderthals of such features that were not present in the Archantropians and which were completely absent in the Neanthropes. This meant that from a biological point of view, Neanderthals could not be viewed otherwise than as a form that deviated from the path leading to modern man, that is, underwent specialization. As other arguments, they pointed to a sharp morphological difference between the Late Stier and Late Paleolithic populations of Western Europe and the extraordinary speed with which the replacement of Neanderthals by people of the modern physical type occurred in this “territory. From their point of view, the Neanderthals represented a lateral, dead-end branch in the evolution of hominids, exterminated by people of the modern type who invaded Europe on the verge of the Late Mousterian and Upper Paleolithic. The most consistent defender of this concept was M. Boulle 187.

Later, on the territory of Europe, the remains of people who lived in an earlier era (mindel - riss, riss, riss-wurm) were discovered, but were no longer archantropics. Being the forerunners of the Wurm Neanderthals, they at the same time differed from them in the absence of specialization and in the presence, on the one hand, of archaic, Pithecoid characters, on the other hand, features that bring them closer to a person of the modern physical type. At the same time, they all had quite clearly expressed Neanderthal features. This gave many researchers reason to call them, as well as the representatives of the group described above, Neanderthals. But it was impossible to ignore the difference between the first and the second, as a result, the representatives of the later group began to be called classical, late, typical, extreme, specialized, conservative Neanderthals, and the representatives of the previous group - early, atypical, moderate, generalized, progressive Neanderthals, or pre-Anderthals.

Almost all anthropologists attribute the finds in Steheim, Eringsdorf (both of the Federal Republic of Germany), Krapina (Yugoslavia) to generalized Neanderthals, and most also in Saccopastor (Italy) and Gibraltar. As already indicated, the Steheim skull is most often dated by Mindel-Riss; people from Eringsdorf, Krapina and Sakkopastore are attributed by most researchers to rice-wurm 188.

The finds in Swapecombe (Great Britain) and Fonteschevade (France) occupy a special place. The first of them is most often dubbed by the almond - riss, the second - by the riss-wurm 189. Their sapient features are so distinctly expressed that some anthropologists single them out as a special group of presapiens. According to their views, this group later gave rise to neoanthropes, and as for the Neanderthals, all of them, both early, atypical, and late, typical, represent the dead-end branch of human evolution 19 °.

However, there are no serious enough grounds for opposing the people from Swanscombe and Fonteschewade to the finds in Steinheim and the like. As a result, many anthropologists consider all the pre-Wurm finds described above as representatives of the same group, but characterize them differently.

Some consider all of them as moderate Neanderthals or pre-Neanderthals. Accordingly, they include them in one HIV with the late classical Neanderthals - the species Homo anderthalensis This opinion is shared by the majority of Soviet anthropologists. Others consider all these pre-Urmian finds as primitive pre-Mousterian and early Mousterian representatives of the species Homo sapiens. Accordingly, from their point of view, only people of the type represented by the classical Neanderthals of Western Europe belong to the species Homo neanderthalensis. According to the proponents of the latter point of view, the primitive non-Remustier and early Steer Homo sapiens gave rise to two lines. One of them - direct - led to the emergence of the modern races of Homo sapiens. The development of the Other went along the line of specialization and ended with the emergence of the classical Neanderthals 191

Recently, among foreign anthropologists, the view has received a pacnpoci wound, according to which all hominids that are higher in development than archaigropes form one species - Homo sapiens. People of the modern physical type enter this species as a subspecies - Homo sapiens sapiens. Another subspecies is Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. The composition of this subspecies is determined in different ways. Some include only typical Neanderthals, others - both typical and some atypical Neanderthals. More or more often, some of the atypical Neanderthals, and above all the finds in Svanscombe and Steipheim, stand out as a special subspecies - Homo steinhei- mensis. People who are modern to the typical and atypical Neanderthals of Western Europe, but who lived in other parts of the world, are usually distinguished into special subspecies. As a result, the total number of subspecies of people who lived in the period from Mindel Riss to Wurm I-I,

The closest to the truth is nevertheless the view according to which all the finds that are higher in level than the archantropes, but lower than the neoanthropes, constitute one group with the rank of species. The other two species that are part of the genus Homo are archanthropus and neoanthropus. All Soviet anthropologists adhere to the view of all the finds discussed above as one species. As already noted, the emerging people belonging to this species are commonly referred to in Soviet science as paleoanthropes.

Among European paleoanthropes, two main groups are quite clearly distinguished, of which one is made up of typical Neanderthals, and the other is all other finds. The former could be called late paleoanthropines, and the latter - early paleoanthropines.

The find in Quinzano (Italy), presumably dated by Riss-wurm, must also be attributed to the early paleoanthropines. The find in Montmoren (France), related to the mindel-riss or riss-wurm193, is characterized by some researchers as archanthropus, others -? as a primitive Neanderthal. The question of people from Tatavel near Arago (France) is controversial. A. Lumley, to whom science owes this find, calls them Antenheanderthals and refers them to the stage corresponding to that to which the Pithecanthropus of Java belong. However, he himself notes their closeness to the man from Steinheim 194. There are many difficulties with the dating of these hominids. When opened, they were assigned to the beginning of the rice. However, now some researchers determine their age at 320, 450 and even 500-700 thousand years.

Each of the groups identified above is associated with one of two stages in the evolution of the Late Archeolithic stone industry: the early paleoanthropes - with the stage represented by the Middle Acheulian, Late Acheulian, Premousterian, and Early Stieri Kuptiers, and the late ones - with the stage represented by the Late Mousterian cultures. This suggests that the early and late paleoanthropes are two successive stages in the evolution of paleoanthropes.

From a biological point of view, there is no obstacle to considering classical Neanderthals as descendants of early paleoanthropes. All the available facts speak in favor of this view. Therefore, at present, no one doubts that the classical Neanderthals of the late Mousterian descended from the early paleoanthropes of the Middle Acheulean - early Mousterian.

But if the classical Neanderthalps represent a natural stage in the evolution of paleoanthropes, then it follows that they were the ancestors of the neoanthropes. However, the discovery of early paleoanthropes made even more visible that feature of the classical Neanderthals, to which opponents of the concept of the Neanderthal phase had long drawn attention, namely, the specialization of their morphological appearance, their deviation from the sapient direction. To recognize typical Neanderthals as the ancestors of neoanthropes means nothing more than to admit that the evolution of paleoanthropes proceeded not along the line of further development of sapient characters that were inherent in early paleoanthropes, but along a more than strange path: at first, their almost complete disappearance, and then a sudden and rapid revival ... Biologically speaking, this assumption is incredible.

That is why many anthropologists, who consider themselves to be supporters of the concept of the Neanderthal phase in human evolution, have come to the conclusion that development from the early paleoanthropes proceeded in two directions. The evolution of one branch followed the line of further sapientation and ended somewhere outside Europe with the emergence of modern man; the evolution of the other - along the line of specialization and ended with the appearance on the territory of Western Europe of the classical Neanderthals, who were later driven out, exterminated and, perhaps, partially assimilated by the neoanthropes who came from outside.

However, this, and any other concept that excludes the classical Neanderthals from the ancestors of modern humans, is in conflict with a number of well-established facts. First of all, it is in contradiction with the data of archeology, which testify to the existence of a deep and direct successive connection between the Late Styrian industry of the classical Neanderthals and the Late Paleolithic industry of modern humans. At present, the overwhelming majority, if not all, archaeologists recognize that the Late Paleolithic of Europe arose from the Late Mousterian that preceded it in this territory * 95. And this necessarily presupposes the recognition of the classical Neanderthals as the ancestors of modern man.

The facts refute the concept that explains the deviation of the classical Neapderthals from the sapient direction by the long existence of this group in the unfavorable conditions of the periglacial zone, which was at that time Western Europe. By the present time, paleoanthropes, the morphological appearance of which reveals quite distinct features of specialization, have been found far beyond this region, and in regions with a warm climate.

A fairly homogeneous group is formed by finds in the caves of Mugaret-et-Tabun, Wadi-el-Amud, Kebara (all - Palestine), Shapidar (Iraq), Teshik-Tash (Uzbekistan) and Haua-Fteakh (Libya). In all likelihood, a person from Mugaret el-Zuttiyah (Palestine) should also be referred to it. All of them show similarities with the classical Neanderthals of Western Europe, and so significant that some of them were directly included by anthropologists in this group. This applies, in particular, to Tabun I, Teshik-Tash, to people from Shanidar. Later it turned out that there are certain differences between the representatives of this group and the classical Neanderthals of Europe, in particular, the specialization of their morphological appearance is somewhat less deep. It represents a different variant of the same basic type as the Western European classical Neapderthals.

Their belonging to the same stage of evolution of paleoanthropes as Western European classical Neanderthals is evidenced not only by morphological data. All of them lived at the same time as the latter - in the period from 35 to 75 thousand years ago. The dating of only the person from Zuttie is unclear. Their industry, like that of the classical Neanderthals of Western Europe, was late Steer.

Undoubted features of morphological specialization were noted in the paleoanthropes from the Kiik-Koba grotto and the Zaskalnaya V and VI sites (Crimea), which gave researchers grounds to speak of their closeness to the classic Neanderthals 1E6. All of them are associated with the industry of the developed Mousterian * 97. The time of their existence, by all indications, is Wurm I 198. A typical Neanderthal is a man from Jebel Irhud (Morocco), who is 55 thousand years old. Its industry is Late Steyer 189. A highly specialized form is the Broken Hill (Zambia) man associated with one of the Middle Stone Age industries in Africa 200.

In any case, at the time corresponding to Wurm I, no other paleoanthropes, except specialized ones, were found either in Europe or outside of it. Not even traces of the existence at that time of a "progressive" branch of paleoanthropes were found, the development of which would lead directly to the neoanthropus.

Paleoanthropes with epient features appear again only at a time corresponding to the wurm I-II of Europe. But they differ significantly from the early paleoanthropes. They lack the archaic features characteristic of the latter. They are essentially not so much paleoanthropes as beings intermediate between the latter and people of the modern physical type. The most prominent representatives of this stage are the people from the Mugaret es-Skhul cave (Palestine). The features of the morphological organization of people from Skhul show that they represent forms that are intermediate not just between Neanderthals and modern people, but between paleoanthropes, either completely coinciding or very close to the classical Neanderthals of Western Europe, on the one hand, and neoanthropes on the other. Many researchers have come to this conclusion long ago.

Proponents of concepts that exclude classical Neanderthals from the ancestors of modern humans are unable to either refute or explain all of the above facts. As a result, the view of the classical Neanderthals as the ancestors of neoanthropes, at one time almost completely abandoned by anthropologists and finding supporters mainly among archaeologists, in recent years has again attracted the attention of the former. Prominent specialists in the field of paleoanthropology began to lean towards him, and some even came out decisively in his defense201. The tone of opponents of this point of view has also changed. If earlier they simply did not take it seriously, now they consider it as a concept that has no less rights to exist than the one that they themselves adhere to 202.

However, the view of the classical Neanderthals as the ancestors of paleoanthropes has not yet become dominant. And the main reason is that none of the anthropologists who spoke in its defense even tried to explain either the reason for the disappearance of sapient characters during the transition from early paleoanthropes to the late ones, or the mechanism of their revival during the transition from late paleoanthropes to neoanthropes. And this is understandable. From a purely biological point of view, this is all completely incredible, and they are biologists. That is why they, firstly, try not to talk about the specialization of classical Neanderthals, and secondly, they try to blur the line between early and late paleoanthropines.

But even if one does not take into account specialization, from a purely biological point of view, it is impossible to explain how the morphological organization of classical Neanderthals, which has almost not changed at all for tens of thousands of years, could, within some 4-5 thousand years, transform into a significantly different physical organization of peoattrops. And this question is also a stumbling block for anthropologists who consider the classical Neanderthals to be the ancestors of neoanthropes. They also prefer not to touch him, which, of course, weakens their position.

Thus, it is impossible to explain the evolution of paleoanthropes and their transformation into neoanthropes from a purely biological standpoint. But this is not surprising. As already indicated, with the transition from habilis to archanthropus, the biological development of hominids from an independent process, which it was a brine, turned into one of the moments of another, more complex process, which is anthroposociogenesis. And this excludes an approach to the formation of human morphological organization only from the standpoint of biology. Since the essence of anthropogenesis is sociogenesis, it is imperative to take into account the formation of social relations, that is, the development of the original community.

Formation of public relations. As already indicated, the transformation of the early paleoanthropines into the later ones was associated with the transition from one stage of the evolution of the stone industry to another, on the whole, undoubtedly higher. But the replacement of early paleoanthropes with later ones was accompanied not only by progress in the development of industrial and economic activity in general. It was marked by a sharp turning point in the formation of social relations. There are many signs of this change.

As evidenced by the data of paleoanthropology and archeology, murder and, perhaps, cannibalism were quite widespread in the ancestral community of early paleoanthropians. Damaged by a powerful blow that caused death, and the skull from Steinheim 203 was opened. Traces of wounds inflicted by stone tools were found on the skull from Ehringsdorf. It, too, was opened to extract the brain 204. Traces of a fatal blow caused by a blow from a heavy blunt weapon were found on one of the Fonteshevad skulls 205. The cannibals were apparently people from Krapina. Human bones found under the canopy of the rock were split, sometimes burned, as were the bones of animals 206. One skull from Saccopastore 207 may have been opened to extract the brain. In general, according to some researchers, traces of fatal wounds were found on skulls and skeletons 16 out of 25 early paleoanthropines, the remains of which were found in Europe 208.

Much more remains of late paleoanthropines have been found than early ones. However, more or less convincing signs of violent death and traces of cannibalism were found on a significantly smaller number of people. Among the numerous finds of classical Neanderthals in Western Europe, this is only one - Monte Circeo 1 (Italy) 20e. Interesting finds were made outside Europe in the Shanidar Cave in the Zagros Mountains (Iraq). In a man Shanidar III, a wound was found on the left ninth rib, caused by a sharp, probably wooden tool. It pierced the top of the rib and apparently hit the lung. It doesn't seem like the injury was accidental. The general impression is that the blow to the side was inflicted during a skirmish by a person holding a weapon in his right hand. The fact that the wound was inflicted during life is evidenced by clear traces of healing. The person lived for several days or even a bedell. Some researchers believe Shanidar III died as a result of a secondary complication associated with trauma. Others believe that the injury had nothing to do with it, the person was already recovering when a collapse occurred in the cave, which cut off his life 21 °. One undoubted case of murder is noted among the later paleoanthropes. Skull IX's skull and skeleton bear the marks of the wounds that caused the death of the gi.

It cannot be ruled out, of course, that the damage to the skulls of some of the early paleoanthropes named above, interpreted as traces of fatal wounds inflicted by weapons, in fact have a posthumous origin and are associated with the action of natural forces. However, in any case, the contrast between early and late paleoanthropines is striking in this respect.

But besides these, there are direct data on a higher level of cohesion of the late Neanderthals' collective than among the early paleoanthropes. In this respect, the finds in the Shanidar cave give especially much. In total, 9 late paleoanthropes were found in this cave, living in the period from 64-70 to 44-46 thousand years ago. Particular attention of researchers was attracted by the remains of an adult male Shanidar I, who lived about 45 thousand years ago. A scar was exposed on the right side of his forehead - the result of a slight superficial injury. The outer side of the left eye socket has traces of severe damage. As a result, Shanidar I was probably blind in his left eye. His right arm was apparently deliberately amputated above the elbow. In any case, the lower end of the preserved part shows signs of healing. The entire remaining part of the right hand is extremely atrophied. Some researchers believe that the right hand of Shanidar I was undeveloped from birth. Others associate atrophy of the right hand with damage to the left side of the head. In their opinion, the result of the blow was damage to the left side of the brain and, as a result, partial paralysis of the right side of the body. To this must be added severe arthritis that affected the ankle of the right leg, a healed fracture of one of the bones of the right foot and, finally, completely worn out teeth.

Thus, Shanidar I was essentially a complete cripple, unable not only to make any significant contribution to ensuring the existence of the collective, but even to feed and protect himself. And yet he lived to be at least 40 years old, which meant deep old age for a Neanderthal (40 years for a Neanderthal is equivalent to about 80 years for a modern person). And some researchers determine its age at 40-60 years. And he could have lived more if not for the collapse.

At least the last years of his life, a man from La Chanelle, who died at the age of 40-50, was also a complete cripple. His spine was struck by the most severe deforming arthritis. The man was literally crooked and, of course, could not take part in the hunt. He even ate, apparently, with difficulty, for his lower jaw joint was affected by arthritis and almost all of his teeth were missing. In addition to all this, he once had a broken rib 21.3.

All this testifies to the fact that communal relations were finally and irrevocably established in the ancestral community of the late paleoanthropines. Only under the condition of the uninterrupted operation of the communalist principle of distribution, people like Shanidar I and La Chapelle could, day after day, receive the share of the product necessary for existence. In any other conditions, they would inevitably be doomed to die of hunger. They would be doomed to hunger not only in the case of complete domination of domination, but also in the case of a frequent breakthrough in this sphere of zoological individualism.

But these findings testify not only to the existence of communal relations in themselves, but also to the fact that they began, if not completely, then at least to a large extent to determine all other relations in the original community. Shanidar I didn't just get enough food. In general, he was under the protection of the collective: they took care of him, they looked after him when he was seriously injured. Without this, he could not have survived.

And Shanidar I was no exception in this respect. As already indicated, Shanidar III lived for several days or even weeks after the serious injury. A broken rib healed in an adult male Shanidar IV. Shanidar U recovered, the left side of his forehead bears traces of a sliding blow.

The abundance of lifetime injuries on the bodies of the Shanidars can, of course, raise certain doubts about the cohesion of their ancestral community. However, according to the researchers, none of these injuries, except for the wound on the body of Shanidar III, do not indicate the need for violence. All of them could well have been the result of an accident. The life of the paleoanthropists was hard. At every step, people were trapped by various kinds of dangers. And the longer a person lived, the more likely it was that he would encounter them. All four of the Shanidars in question reached the age of 40-60 years. Not a single injury was found in the bodies of Shanidar II and Shanidar VI, who died before the age of 30.

Traces of healed injuries were also found in other late paleoanthropes. A man from Neanderthal had a disfigured left hand as a child, which apparently made him a cripple for life; La Ferrassi's man has a damaged right thigh. The young woman La Kipa V had a wound on her left arm, and a man from Chalet (Slovakia) had a wound on the right side of his forehead above the eyebrow 215.

Two lesions are observed on the left temporal region of the skull from Broken Hill. One of them is a narrow hole V VIS0CHP0I KOS! and pierced by a sharp weapon, possibly a stone or wooden spearhead16. The wound was inflicted, apparently, long before death; its edges bear clear signs of healing. The second injury is most likely the result of an inflammatory process that began after injury 217.

A. Kiesz described three lesions on the frontal bone of a man from Zuttie. In his opinion, none of them is the result of violent actions. He considers two of them as traces of inflammation. Regarding the third, representing a round, narrow hole in the bone, A. Keyes categorically declares that it arose long before death2] d *. A. Brodrick, who considers the damage to the skull of a Galilean person to be the result of a blow with a stone tool, also emphasizes that the bone has clear signs of healing219. They fused after a fracture of bones in one of the later paleoanthropes - Skhul IV 220.

Data testifying to the existence in the ancestral community of the late paleoanthropians in general, the Shanidarians in particular, of a high degree of care for each of its members, makes us take a fresh look at the wound of Shanidar III. It is highly doubtful that the blow was struck by a member of the same primordial community. Most likely, the wound was received in a skirmish with outsiders. To such a conclusion is inclined, in particular, R. Solecki, to whom science owes the discoveries in Shanidar 22 '.

Neanderthal burials. The existence of deliberate burials in Shanidar is indisputable. All researchers agree that Shanidar IV was buried. R. Solecki believes that Shanidar VI, VII and VIII were also buried 222. Shanidar I died as a result of a collapse, which, apparently, made the burial impossible in the full and exact sense of the word. However, additional stones were piled on his remains, and animal bones were placed nearby 223. This still allows us to speak of burial.

The sensation was caused by the study of the soil around the burial of Shanidar IV, whose age is determined at about 60 thousand years. As it turned out, flowers tied in bouquets were placed in the man's grave, which made it possible, in particular, to establish that the burial took place between the end of May and the beginning of July. To some extent, this find lifts the veil hiding the spiritual life of the later paleoanthropines. She primarily speaks of the development of purely human emotions in them. But that is not all. Of the 8 plant species, the flowers of which were placed in the grave, 5 have medicinal properties, one is edible and one is both medicinal and edible. Such a selection can hardly be considered accidental. Probably, later paleoanthropists already knew the beneficial properties of these plants. Several of the 6 species are still used in folk medicine for the treatment of wounds and inflammations.22 It cannot be ruled out that these particular plants contributed to the healing of wounds found on the bodies of the Shanidars.

Burials are not exclusive to the people of Shanidar. They are found in camps and other late paleoanthropines, but only in them. No signs of burials were found in early paleoanthropes. In other words, burials arose only with the transition from early paleoanthropines to later ones.

In addition to the five burials in Shanidar already noted above, the deliberate Late Stier burials include: in Europe - Spi I and II (Belgium), Le Moustier, La Chappelle, La Ferrassy I, II, III, IV, V, VI, Regurdou , Roque de Marsal, Combe Grenal (all France), Shipka (Czechoslovakia), Kiik-Koba I and II and one of the finds in Zaskalnaya VI (Crimea); in Asia - Tabun I, Skhul I, IV, V, VI, VII, IX, X, Kafzeh, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, Amud (all - Palestine), Teshik-Tash (Uzbekistan) 225.

An interesting find was made in Monte Circeo in the Guattari grotto. This cave consisted of several chambers. The main part of its premises was clearly adapted for living. In particular, in order to protect it from dampness, the floor is lined with stones. The researchers' attention was attracted by one of the inner chambers of the cave, in which people, apparently, have never lived. In the center of this semicircular chamber lay the skull of a typical Neanderthal, base up. It belonged to a man about 45 years old. The skull was surrounded by a circle of stones. The skull bore traces of two injuries. One of them in the right temporal region was caused by blows of some kind of weapon. It testifies to the murder, which, according to some researchers, is of a ritual nature. After the man was killed and beheaded, the opening at the base of the skull was artificially enlarged. All this was done outside the chamber, for not the slightest trace of skeletal bones or fragments of the base of the skull was found in it. There is no doubt that after all the actions discussed above, the human skull was deliberately placed in the center of the cave and just as deliberately surrounded by stones. Therefore, most researchers believe that in this case there was a ritual burial.

The question of the existence of burials in the Pesch de l'Aze and La Quina caves (all - France) is controversial. Some authors acknowledge their existence, others are more skeptical.

In some cases, animal parts have been found next to the skeletons. On the right side of La Chappelle's skeleton, near the arm, a part of a bovine leg was found with an anatomically correct position of the bones, behind it was a significant part of the deer's spine, also anatomically correctly located, and a variety of various bones. Near the skeleton of Skhul V, the lower jaw of a very large wild boar was found. According to the researchers, all the circumstances of the find leave no doubt that the jaw was deliberately placed with the corpse of 228. All this suggests that the paleoanthropes supplied the dead with food. It is also very possible that the tools found with the skeletons from Le Moustiers and La Chappelle were deliberately buried. In this case, we can say that the Neanderthals supplied the dead not only with food, but also with tools.

All these facts have been used by some scientists to substantiate the view that the appearance of Neanderthal burials is caused by the emergence of faith in the souls of the dead and the afterlife among paleoanthropes. However, another explanation is also possible.

Even if we do not take into account the finds together with the skeletons of parts of animals and tools, then in this case, the presence of a burial appears primarily as a manifestation of the care of the living for the dead. The corpse was not thrown away, but left in the dwelling with the living. If we take into account the noted findings, then this moment will come out even more clearly. And it is absolutely impossible to interpret it otherwise than caring for the dead, placing flowers in a grave.

It is quite clear that the concern of the living members of the collective for its dead members could not have appeared without the appearance of the concern of the living members of the collective for each other. As evidenced by ethnographic data, among peoples at the stage of pre-class society, concern for the dead is explained by the fact that they continue to be considered members of the collective even after death. The care for the dead, which was shown by the later and later paleoanthropists, cannot be explained without admitting that the dead were considered as full members of the collective, the community.

Since the deceased continued to be regarded as a member of the collective, the norms governing relations within the collective were applied to him. Each member of the ancestral community had the right to live in a cave, which was the habitat of the collective. Therefore, the deceased was left in the cave. Each member of the original community had the right to a share of the production of the collective. Therefore, next to the deceased, he put the share due to him. The deceased continued to retain the right to the tools that were the property of the collective. This most likely explains the location of the tools together with the skeleton.

In that era, the observance of the norms in relation to the dead, which guided the living in their relations to each other, was an absolute must. Failure to do so constituted a dangerous precedent. In conditions when the formation of human society had not yet been completed, when there was still a danger of a breakthrough in zoological individualism, he could open the way for refusing to comply with these norms in relation to living members of the collective.

However, it is impossible to explain all the features of Neanderthal burials only by the awareness of the unity of the human community and the manifestation of norms prescribing care for each of its members. There are signs of them that indicate that the paleoanthropes took such measures in relation to the dead that they did not apply to the living. They are: the presence of grave pits, the laying of the corpse with earth, stones, branches, crumpledness, or rather the curliness of corpses. The presence of these features is often interpreted as evidence that Neanderthals have ideas about the afterlife. However, they are quite open to a different interpretation.

A characteristic feature of all peoples at the stage of pre-class society is a sharp duality of attitude towards the dead. On the one hand, they were grieved and cared for, and on the other hand, they were feared and feared 229. As evidenced by ethnographic data, the idea of \u200b\u200bthe existence of a soul that leaves the body after death, and fear of it, is a relatively late phenomenon. Earlier is the idea of \u200b\u200bthe "living" dead, emerging from the graves and harming the living, and the most original - the belief in the existence of a mysterious, incomprehensible, but harmful to the living influence emanating from the corpse, the result of which is illness and death. The existence of the latter belief is recorded among all peoples of the world 23 °.

Precisely in order to neutralize this lethal influence emanating from the corpse, they buried it, laid it with stones, tied it up (as a result of which it assumed a twisted position) and applied a lot of other measures. And the above-mentioned features of Neanderthal burials indicate that the late paleoanthropes not only cared about the dead, but were also afraid of them, moreover, they were afraid of the corpses.

The fear of corpses was so universal among peoples at the stage of pre-class society, and was so tenacious that it could not be explained without admitting that corpses actually posed a real danger to the living. They began to pose such a danger when people began to care for the dead. The stay of a decomposing corpse in a dwelling had a harmful effect on the living, entailed illness and death of other members of the collective. Caring for sick members of the community, which became common, facilitated the transmission of infection from them to healthy ones, which led to new cases of illness and death.

Over time, people could not help but realize that they were in danger from the side of the dead, that some kind of deadly influence emanated from the dead. It is quite clear that the paneoanthropes could not reveal the real nature of this harmful influence. It was realized by them in an illusionary form.

This realization came to them in the course of practical activities aimed at neutralizing the real harmful influence of the corpse. The means of neutralization were throwing it with branches, stones, filling it with earth, and finally placing it in a specially dug hole, followed by filling it with earth. All these measures neutralized the danger posed by the decaying corpse, but could not prevent the transmission of infection from sick to healthy. Feeling their insufficiency, people began to use such techniques as, for example, tying the deceased.

This explanation of the fear of the dead is reinforced in ethnographic materials. The dangerous influence emanating from the corpse was conceived, first, as having an unconditional, automatic character; secondly, as a threat, first of all, to the relatives and friends of the deceased, that is, to people who originally lived in the same dwelling with him; thirdly, as existing for a relatively short period after death, usually only during the time when the process of decomposition of the corpse takes place, and disappears after this time; fourthly. how contagious. All people and things that were in contact with the deceased were exposed to this influence, were infected with this influence and in turn became its source 231.

Thus, the reason for the appearance of burials in the late paleoanthropians was the joint action of two opposite factors: concern for the members of their collective, which prompted to leave the dead in their dwellings and supply them with food and tools, and fear of corpses, which prompted to bind them, place them in a pit, cover them with earth, and so, burials in the true sense arose only with a practical awareness of the danger posed by the dead. But this danger could not be immediately recognized. This required a certain period of time, during which the corpses were simply left in the dwelling. It follows from this that the awareness of the unity of the human collective and the approval of the norms that prescribed care for each of its members date back to the time before the appearance of the first real burials.

The formation of society, as already indicated, is the formation of not only production, material, but also ideological relations. Ideological relationships are formed only by passing through consciousness. Therefore, the formation of public consciousness and will is an important moment in the formation of society. At a certain stage in the formation of social relations, the further growth of the cohesion of the primitive society, the further growth of its objective unity became impossible without the awareness of this unity by the members of the primitive society. And this awareness of the unity of the original community became not only necessary, but also possible.

In the course of their practical activities, members of the original community were increasingly convinced that all of them, taken together, constitute a single whole, that the existence of each of them is inextricably linked with the fate of all other members of the association, with the fate of the collective as a whole.

The emergence of totemism and magic. However, the awareness of the unity of the original community, which became both necessary and possible, could not be either direct or adequate. The basically existing economic unity of all members of the original community could be reflected in the heads of the primitive people only in an indirect (mediated) and inadequate (illusory) form. At the same time, the awareness of the community that exists between the members of the primitive community could not have an abstract, abstract form. Thus, the first form of awareness of the unity of the human collective inevitably had to be both visual, and mediated, and illusory.

It is these features that distinguish totemism, which, as ethnography testifies, is the most archaic of all known forms of awareness of the community of members of a human group. It was most widespread among peoples at the stage of primitive society. The main thing in totemism is the belief in the deep identity of all members of one or another primitive human association (most often - a genus) with representatives of one specific species of animals, less often - plants, etc. This species (and thus each individual belonging to it) is the totem of a given group of people and thus each of its members. In totemism, in a visual form, the unity of all people who make up this association is expressed, and at the same time, their difference from members of all other human groups.

Based on the analysis of Neanderthal burials, the assumption that in the epoch immediately preceding their appearance, an awareness of the unity of the human collective arose, and the assumption based on ethnographic data that totemism was the initial form of awareness of the unity of the human collective, find their confirmation in the data of archeology.

In this respect, the finds in the Drachenloch cave (Switzerland) are of particular interest, the stone tools of which are characterized by some authors as premier. In two of the three chambers of this cave, at some distance from the walls (40-60 cm), walls of limestone tiles up to 80 cm high were erected.In the gap formed, bear bones were folded, mainly skulls, partly intact, partly broken, by 3 4 or more together, in a specific order. The first two vertebrae were found with the turtles - evidence that they were placed there while still fresh. Long limb bones were found together with the skulls. In front of the entrance to the third chamber, six rectangular boxes made of limestone slabs were found, which were covered with a stone slab on top. The boxes also turned out to be filled with bear skulls and long limb bones. Finally, in one place in the cave, a whole bear skull was found surrounded by small stones, the arrangement of which followed the contour of the skull 232.

Drachenloch is no exception. A similar picture was found in a number of sites belonging to different stages of the Mousterian. In the Peterschele Cave (Federal Republic of Germany), in a special niche-shaped depression in one of the side compartments, bear bones were found in a certain way, covered with stones on top. Nearby, bear skulls were placed in small depressions in the rock. One of the more significant niches contained five skulls and three limb bones 233 put together.

In the Salzofen Cave (Austria), a stump of bear skulls was found, placed in niche-shaped depressions. Each of them was placed on a stone slab, surrounded on all sides by stones and covered with a layer of charcoal. In Cluny Cave (France), five bear skulls were arranged in a circle, three of them on slabs 234. In Le Furten Cave (France), six bear skulls lay on limestone slabs and two more were nearby. On a slab near the northwestern wall lay a mass of long limb bones of the same animal 235. In one place in the Régourdou cave (France), a huge stone slab with an area of \u200b\u200b3 m2 covered a pit containing a large number of bear bones. In another, a stone slab also covered a pit containing a skull and various bones of a brown bear. In the third, in a pile of stones, a container was found - something like a box in which the bones and skull of a brown bear were placed,

Bear bones, set with stones, have also been found elsewhere 236.

In the Upper Cave of Tsukhvati (Georgia), there were six intact bear skulls. One of them lay in the center of the cave, the rest were laid along the walls: three on the right and two on the left. From the side of the cave cavity, the skulls were covered with the whole bones of the bear's limbs and limestone fragments of a specially selected oblong shape. It is possible that the skulls were originally placed in specially dug holes. The cave was not a living space. There was an artificial fence 237 at the entrance to it.

Perhaps one of this kind of monuments is the Ilyinka cave near the village of the same name (Odessa region). In it, along with a large accumulation of bones of a cave bear, stone tools were found. According to A. V. Dobrovolsky, during the excavations in the right pocket of the cave, limestone tiles on the edge were found. Most of the bear bones were located in the same place. This suggests that they were originally, as in Drachenloch, piled in between a cave wall and a tile wall. In the front of the pocket, a bear's jaw was found, which stood with its teeth upwards on four slabs of limestone and rested with its upper end against the vault of the cave. There was also found a bear skull, surrounded by stones 238. SB Bibikov and PI Boriskovsky, who believe that the accumulation of bear bones in Ilyinka is not associated with human activities, adhere to a different opinion 239.

The objects of this attitude were the remains of other animals.

At the Ilskaya site, a whole bison skull was attached to the largest stone (45x40 cm) at the western edge of the stone fence, so that one of its horns looked up and the other down. Nearby there was a second skull with knocked down horns and two lower jaws of a bison 240. In the Skhul cave, a deliberate burial of a bull's head was discovered. This is evidenced by the fact that the hole dug for the burial of the head destroyed most of the skeleton of Skhul IX241.

In all likelihood, the find in the Teshik-Tash cave should also be attributed to the same range of phenomena. Six pairs of goat horns, of which three were well preserved, formed a circle, inside which was the burial of a Neanderthal boy. At the same time, one perfectly preserved pair of horns was in a completely unusual position: upside down, points down. Apparently, other pairs of horns were originally in an upright position 242. A close analogy is presented by a child burial in the Kafzeh cave,

A child, about 13 years old, was lying on his back, a part of a fallow deer skull with horns was carefully placed on his arms crossed on his chest 243.

In the literature, there are reports of a number of similar finds: whole wolf skulls at the entrances to both rooms of the dwelling in Lazaret g "cave, a cache with four bear skulls in Lzykh cave 245, two animal skulls placed almost symmetrically at the entrance to the central chamber of the Kudaro cave 1 246, two skulls of animals, laid at the walls in the cave Aman-Kutan 247. However, the available information is so fragmentary and uncertain that it is impossible to form any clear idea of \u200b\u200bthe nature of these finds.

Undoubtedly, in most of the cases described above, we are dealing with such human activities that cannot be interpreted as utilitarian. It is associated with the existence in people, in addition to certain knowledge about the external world, also illusions about it, and a certain kind of illusion - religious. The essence of the latter was a belief in supernatural power.

The emergence of religion at a certain stage of human development was inevitable. The deepest root of religion in the early stages of its evolution was the impotence of man in front of nature. And in this case it is not at all about the feeling of powerlessness, but about real, objective powerlessness. This impotence cannot be reduced to human helplessness in the face of the formidable natural phenomena "thunderstorms, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, etc. The root of religion is the real impotence of man, which manifests itself at every step of his daily, everyday life.

The real powerlessness of a person is always manifested in the same way in which the power of a person is manifested - in his practical, primarily production activities. A person always sets himself certain goals and seeks to achieve their implementation.

The strength of a person is manifested in the fact that he successfully, in accordance with the planned plan, achieves the implementation of the set goal; lack of strength is that he cannot ensure the success of his activities. The impotence of man is the impotence of his practical activity.

To achieve the goal, a person must, firstly, have the necessary material resources for this, and secondly, foresee the course of events and the results of their actions, which in turn presupposes knowledge of the internal connections of phenomena. In this case, he knows the path leading to the realization of the goal, knows what course of action needs to be chosen, what means to use. In this case, the person is free. He freely makes decisions and acts freely. He directs not only the course of his actions, but also the course of events. In this case, a person rules over the objective world, is the master, master. His practical activity is free.

When a person does not have the material means that could guarantee him the success of his practical activity, he, as a rule, turns out to be unable to penetrate into the internal connections of phenomena, to reveal their internal necessity. Practice is the basis of knowledge. Insufficient development of practical activity always necessitates an insufficient development of cognitive activity. When a person does not have the material means that could guarantee the realization of goals, and does not know the internal connections of phenomena, he thereby turns out to be unable to foresee the course of events and the results of his own actions. He is forced to act blindly, groping, in the dark. The adoption of this or that decision, the choice of this or that course of action in such a situation depends not so much on the consciousness and will of a person, as on a random coincidence of circumstances beyond his control. In such a situation, he does not direct the course of his own actions, much less the course of events. Accidents, determining the way a person acts, largely determine the results of his actions. It is from their unaccountable and controllable confluence, and not from a person's own efforts, whether his activity will be crowned with success or whether he will fail.

Under such conditions, man is at the mercy of accidents, in which the blind necessity of nature is manifested. The latter, in the form of accidents, dominates man, making him her slave. The impotence of a person thus turns into his dependence on blind necessity, his lack of freedom. In this case, his practical activity is not free, dependent.

In the earliest stages of human development, the sphere of free practical activity was unusually narrow. Almost all the practical activities of primitive people were not free, dependent. At every step of daily activity aimed at maintaining existence, a person felt the dependence of its results not only and not so much on his own efforts, but on the play of chances uncontrollable by him. This primarily applies to hunting, which was an important source of livelihood.

The very course of practical activity irrefutably proved to a person the existence of some forces influencing its results and thus for the whole life of people. Therefore, the forming person inevitably had to realize the power of these forces over himself and thus his own helplessness in front of them. However, this could not happen immediately. This kind of awareness presupposed a certain degree of maturation of consciousness itself. But perhaps the most important thing is that the awareness of one's own powerlessness in one sphere of activity was impossible without the awareness of one's own strength in another sphere. This area was the activity of making tools. Only when a person realized his strength, his power over certain children, in a certain area of \u200b\u200bactivity, he was able to realize that in other areas he is not the master, that there are some other forces acting over which he not only not dominant, but who themselves rule over him.

With the achievement of such a stage of development, a person, on the one hand, could not help but realize the oppression of chances over himself, and on the other, he could not adequately realize the blind necessity dominating over him. The power of chance, the power of nature's blind necessity over man could be realized only in an illusory form. The natural forces of nature dominating over man, determining the course and the results of his practical activity, were perceived by him as supernatural, supernatural forces. This is how religion came into being. “Any religion,” wrote F. Engels, “is nothing more than a fantastic reflection in the heads of people of those external forces that dominate them in their daily life - a reflection in which earthly forces take the form of unearthly ones” 248.

Religion did not arise in the process of thinking about the causes of any natural or social phenomena. The realization of the dependence of the outcome of human actions on forces other than the natural abilities of a person came in the course of practical attempts to ensure the achievement of the desired results by all means. It was initially expressed in the fact that the actions that turned out to be insufficient, really aimed at achieving the goal, began to be supplemented by acts of behavior that did not actually contribute to the realization of the goal, but were considered necessary for this.

A stone with deliberately applied red spots, as well as a stone slab with cupped depressions, was found in the Late-Stière site of La Ferrassi. A tile with traces of red paint was also found at Le Moustier. A number of researchers have suggested that these stones are monuments of hunting performances, during which stones depicted animals, and red spots and depressions were 250 wounds. However, according to some of them, these performances were not yet magical in nature, they were rehearsals, during during which the distribution of roles in the upcoming hunt took place.

One can agree with the suggestion that the hunt was preceded by its rehearsal among the ancestors. The complication of hunting activities inevitably demanded at a certain stage a preliminary development of an action plan. Due to the extreme concreteness of the thinking of the first people, the development of a hunting plan and the distribution of roles could only take place in the form of a dramatization of a hunt, its rehearsal. Initially, the staging of the hunt was not magical, but later it inevitably turned into a ritual. In our opinion, red spots on the stone, symbolizing the wounds that will be inflicted on the animal, indicate that by the time to which the finds described above belong, this transformation was completed. Of course, there was no real practical need for symbolic wounding of the likeness of the beast.

If initially a magical positive or negative influence was attributed only to human actions, then later any influence that had a positive or negative effect on people began to be interpreted as magical. Paleoanthropes, for example, were not able to reveal the true nature of the harmful influence that came from sick and dead members of the collective. The logical way of thinking was powerless here, and in this situation it was replaced by a magical way of thinking. The real and harmful influence of the dying and the dead has been recognized as magical negative influence. So there was a belief in the existence of certain objects of the external world of the property of magical influence on people - primitive fetishism. As a result of the awareness of the harmful influence of the corpse as magical, such quite real measures of protection against it, such as laying stones, falling asleep with earth, were realized as magical actions. And already such actions as binding the dead were purely magical. Thus, Neanderthal burials, among other things, are proof of the existence among the later, Neanderthals, of religion in the form of magic and primitive fetishism.

The emergence of fetishism is perhaps evidenced by some of the finds dating back to this era.

The most interesting of them was made in the late Tata site of the Tata, whose age was determined by the radiocarbon method at 50 thousand years. The master cut a piece of 11 cm from the mammoth tooth. The plate was engraved, oval shaped, then polished to a mirror shine and finally covered with ocher. Having discovered this object, L. Vertes considers it as churingu. The edges of the object were rounded, apparently as a result of prolonged constant use251. There was also found a slightly polished round nummulite, on the surface of which intersecting lines formed a cross. There is an assumption that he was amulet 252.

In the light of all that has been said, the actions of people, expressed in the appearance of monuments of the Drachenloch type, cannot be regarded otherwise than as magical, ritual, ritual. These monuments have many ethnographic parallels.

The custom of collecting and storing heads or skulls, as well as the bones of killed animals, had a universal spread in the recent past. It existed among almost all peoples at the stage of pre-class society, and its remnants were noted among a huge number of peoples who lived in a class society. The object of this relationship was the skull and bones of a bull, buffalo, bison, horse, sheep, lion, dog, tiger, panther, skull and horns of a deer, elk, goat, etc. In the northern hemisphere, the ubiquitous cult relation to the head and bones bear. Its specific forms were different. In most cases, the skull and bones of a bear were hung on trees, high stumps, pillars, poles, somewhat less often they were placed on a special platform, folded into a special frame, even less often buried in the ground.

Of particular interest is the custom of the Nivkhs of the Chome region. Their heads, wrapped in birch bark, together with their paws, were kept in a special barn, located a few dozen steps from the camp. Not far from the barn, there was a burial place for other bear bones. The analogy with the find at Drachenloch is striking. Both here and there there was a special storage for the heads and paws, next to which there was a cluster of other bones 253.

All such actions were manifestations of a kind of magical ritual care for the killed animal. Their goal is to atone for the guilt of the hunters before the killed beast and to ensure its bodily revival. An analysis of these rites shows that in their original form they were associated with totemism 254. All this gives reason to believe that monuments of the Drachenloch type are evidence of the existence in the Mousterian not only of magic, but also of totemism.

This conclusion is confirmed by another feature of the finds in Drachenloch, Peterschel, Salzofen, Cluny, Le Fyurten, Regurdu, Ilyinka, Ilskaya, Skhula, Teshik-Tash. It consists in the fact that in each of the listed sites, the objects of ritual care were the skulls and bones of animals of only one species, namely the one whose remains predominated in this site.

As noted, with the transition from archanthropus to paleoanthropus, a certain specialization of the hunting activity of human groups has emerged. The latter, taken by itself, of course, could not lead to the emergence of totemism. But in conditions when the awareness of the unity of the members of the collective became necessary, the specialization of hunting activity should have contributed to the formation of totemism. The totem of the collective most often became the animal, which was the main object of the hunt. The meat of animals of this species was the main food of the members of the ancestral community. This could not but contribute to the formation of the conviction so characteristic of totemism that all members of a given collective and all individuals of a given species have one flesh and one blood, that they are all creatures of the same "meat", of the same breed.

The emergence of totemism meant that each member of a given primordial community began to be regarded as an animal of the totemic species, and each animal of the totemic species - as a member of a given human collective. But this presupposed the extension to animals of the totemic type of all the rules governing relations between members of the original community, first of all, the manifestation of care for them. Outright refusal to take care of the illusory members of the collective, which were animals of the totemic species, was dangerous, because it opened up the possibility of evading compliance with these norms in relation to the real members of the collective. But the observance of these norms in relation to animals of the totem species, in particular the refusal to hunt them, was also impossible at that stage. The prohibition to kill a totem animal and eat its meat arose much later. In the era under consideration, the only way out of the situation was the appearance of the appearance of caring for animals of the totemic species, that is, the emergence of ritual, magical care for them. The finds in Drachenloch and other sites discussed above are the monuments of such ritual care for totem animals.

The above-described find in Monte Circeo convinces of the correctness of this interpretation. The human skull found in the Guattari cave was the object of exactly the same magical and ritual care as the skulls of bears in Drachenloch, Zaltsofen, Ilyinka.

The man from Monte Circeo was killed and then probably eaten. In any case, the brain was removed from the skull. One can only guess why, how and by whom he was killed. Perhaps he died in a skirmish with members of another ancestral community. However, it is possible that he was killed by his own comrades, and, possibly, as a violator of the norms that operated in the original community. It is very likely that members of his own team were directly involved either in the murder or in his eating. Otherwise, it is difficult to explain the ritual care for him, to the smallest details similar to that which paleoanthropes showed about the killed and eaten totem animal.

Thus, there are serious reasons to believe that totemism, magic and fetishism already existed among the late paleoanthropines. If the attribution of Drachenloch to the pre-Mousterian or early Mousterian is correct, then the finds in it cannot be interpreted otherwise than as direct evidence of the origin of totemism at the stage of early paleoanthropes. But in any case, it is legitimate to assume that the phenomena of spiritual life, which so clearly revealed themselves at the stage of the late paleoanthropes - totemism and magic - began to form at the previous stage.

The development of rational knowledge and the emergence of art. Of particular interest are archaeological materials associated with the maturation of the first prerequisites for the formation of visual activity in the Lower Paleolithic. Among the monuments of this kind, first of all, bones and stone slabs with regularly repeated cuts, pits, and stains of paint stand out. The technique of drawing various kinds of straight, broken, curved lines, as well as the linear grouping of the applied pits and other elements on these monuments, which obviously did not have any utilitarian purpose, allow us to see in them the most ancient evidence of the origin of primitive graphics as a special, previously unknown method. communication, during which information began to be recorded with the help of specially drawn lines on some objects and products.

The oldest of the objects discovered so far with elements of Lower Paleolithic graphics is a fragment of a bovine rib from the Middle Acheulean layer of the Pesch de l'AzeP (Dordogne) site in the south of France 255. Deep curving, at the same time mutually parallel grooves are scratched on the surface of the rib, which they are partially intersected by thinner straight cuts, between which parallelism and almost equal distances are also maintained for a certain grouping, three lines are located between the furrows, the next three are in front of the furrows (here, one more line is directed to each of the three lines at an angle of 90 °, so as a result *, three right angles are obtained), then two straight clear strokes are connected somewhat to the side at an angle of about 60 °, and three more short and one long lines form a kind of zigzag with rectangular teeth

From a purely technical point of view, such cuts, scratches, grooves are a derivative of the traces usually left by Paleolithic tools on anvils, on bones when cleaning meat, etc. the evolution of the psyche of emerging people, the accumulation of technical and social experience, especially during the long-term settlement of the collective, when traces of work on wood, bone, stone persisted for a long time after their application and even after the death of the individuals who left them. Of course, the members of the collective could extract from these strokes various information, in addition to technical, thanks to the usual practice for primitive hunters of an accurate recognition in the traces left by people and animals of the characteristic features of their life

A qualitatively new, higher stage in the development of cognitive activity, captured in monuments such as the considered bone from Pueche de l'Aze, was expressed in the orderly and deliberate application of a number of cuts.This procedure required not only appropriate technical skills and experience, but also a stable direction of thinking for the limits of the sphere of consciousness in which purely technical problems were solved The nature and meaning of such a fundamentally new direction of thinking, which matured in the psyche of fossil hominids, cannot be reliably judged without referring to the later, relatively fairly numerous materials on the Mousterian graphic and other evidence of extra-utilitarian activity of paleoanthropists

The new level of development of social needs of emerging people prompted the search for and deliberate use of material means for recording information, immeasurably superior to the previous means of communication (gesture sounds, etc.) in the scale of its transmission in space and time, and as a result - in accuracy and longevity Demanding a certain extrabiological experience in the possession of raw materials and tools, initially emerging as a by-product of technology within the framework of purely utilitarian activities, graphic symbolism contributed to the accumulation of rational iterations, the unification and development of social ties. Its creation, "reading", penetration into its meaning required prior unambiguous coordination within a closed group of communicating hominids, knowledge of "their" symbolism distinguished the group from neighboring ones who did not possess this knowledge Fragment of material evidence of the most ancient conventional pictorial "intermediaries" in hominid communication (and none of them reproduce a specific, unambiguously understood object) it is extremely difficult to decipher them

The main types of this kind of evidence have been identified and fairly fully studied in the grotto of La Ferrassi near Eyzi (Dordogne) 256. In the Mousterian layer, here, as already mentioned, six Neanderthal skeletons, stone slabs with cupped depressions and stains of paint were found. Let us pay attention to the fact that one n'1 slabs with cupped pits, grouped in two and three, covered a pit with a child's skeleton, which had a triangle shape both in plan and in section. Another similar slab was found not far from this pit. The same layer contains pieces of mineral dyes, brownish-colored ocher and black manganese dioxide - with traces of scraping and increased friction against a hard surface (possibly stone slabs). In a pit with an almost intact skeleton of an adult Neanderthal, in a bent position, three flat stones and a long shaft (the middle part of the tubular bone) of an animal lay on top, along the entire surface of which groups of straight parallel cuts were applied, separated by groups of cuts of a different direction or half as long2 ”. This bone will be discussed below, for now let us pay attention to the especially frequent grouping of cuts on it in three. Researchers of the complex of finds in La Ferrassi, especially D Peyropy, have repeatedly noted the primary role in their quantitative characteristics of the number Z - for example, the mentioned pits with skeletons are separated by three small pits filled with human bones, and 9 mounds, under one of which there were several children's bones, next to 6 shallow pits, and in one of them with the remains of an infant lay 3 magnificent Mousterian scrapers.In other musier / localities, this number was apparently repeated and in other objects, for example, in groups of three lay in the cave site Rebier 1 near Brantome (Dordogne) balls 258 hewn from limestone - another type of extra-utilitarian products of the Mousterians, made at other sites also from flint, clay, sandstone (attempts to present these balls as bolas throwing stones were unsuccessful and their purpose remains unclear).

A natural continuation of these observations are hypotheses about the possible (in the general line of development of rational knowledge in the Lower Paleolithic) prerequisites for the formation of the simplest counting operations and elements of paleoanthropes' ideas about number as an ordered set. In order to judge the validity and prospects of such hypotheses, it is necessary to consider with the maximum possible completeness the entire set of related data available to modern science. It is important to note that some of these data have one way or another analogy with the above-mentioned finds from La Ferrassi.

These are, first of all, pieces of mineral dyes with traces of abrasion or scraping on the edges with flint tools, in the Mousterian layers of the French caves of La Quina (Charente), Le Moustier, Pesch de l'Aze, and in the latter, the best preserved pieces of manganese dioxide, The Mousterians with a special sharpening gave the shape of a kind of “pencils” 259. In Le Moustier, as well as in the late Stier layer of the nearby Hermitage grotto, fragments of bones were found with rhythmically repeating straight cuts260. On one bone (diaphysis) from the Hermitage grotto, three large deep "corners" can be distinguished in a series of cuts connected in pairs at an acute angle, alternating at equal intervals; here the same number 3 is highlighted, typical of La Ferrassi, as, indeed, for Acheulean engraving using angled lines in Pesch de l'Aze. The complication of the motive, based on the rhythmic alternation of corners, we see in the carving on the bone from the Mousterian site of Bacho Kiro in Bulgaria: deep straight lines of one direction, mostly parallel, are connected at an angle with lines, also parallel, in the other direction, eventually forming continuous zigzags with two or even three peaks 261.

Another variant of the ordered mutual arrangement of straight lines is provided by other monuments of Mousterian graphics. On the phalanx of a deer from the Turske Mashtale site (Czechoslovakia), the cuts, crossing, form a cross. On the lower jaw of a large mammal from the Vilen site near Lorrach (in the south of Germany), straight cuts are made, two of which, crossing at an angle of 90 °, form a cross 262. In this connection, the already mentioned discovery in Tata is of particular interest: on a slightly polished nummulite, having the shape of an almost regular circle, found in the same layer with the "churinga" of a mammoth tooth, two thin diametrically located lines, intersecting at right angles in the center of the circle, form a cross 203. But the most striking proof of the selection of the rectangular cross by the Mousterians is its correct deep and a clearly cut image on a limestone slab in the Mousterian layer of the Donskoy cave in the Caucasus 264. This find testifies to the further development of extra-utilitarian stone work in comparison with the La Ferrassi Mousterian slabs, as well as with pebbles deliberately knocked out of the Mousterian layer in the grotto Tivoli near Rome and pebbles with linear engraving from the Mousterian layer in the Isturitz Cave (France ) 265.

Finally, the discovery in 1976 at the Molodova 1 site (on the Dniester) in the reliably dated second layer of the Mousterian scapula of a mammoth 50X34 cm in size with the most complex graphic composition still known for the Lower Paleolithic prompts a new approach to the question of the time of occurrence of the Paleolithic art 266. Indeed, on the shoulder blade in Molodova 1, in one composition, different, previously studied separately, directions of development of technical and semantic means of Pizhnepaleolithic graphics are combined. Let us recall them: 1) knocking out round pits, grouping them by 2, by 3; 2) rubbing paint, applying stains, stripes; 3) cutting of repeating lines with the following conditions, and possibly also stages of ordering: a) equality of the sizes of lines, b) equality of the intervals between them, c) parallelism of lines, d) the same angles of convergence or intersection of lines, up to zigzags with three peaks and up to four final rectangular cross. In the La Ferrassi complex, each of the directions is fixed on isolated objects (slabs, bone), the Molodov composition is the first case of their summation in the design of one object. Here, pits, black and carved lines are located on the shoulder blade in such a way that in a number of cases a new motif for Piznepaleolithic graphics is formed: the lines intersect or converge at right angles, forming not only 4-sided crosses, but also rectangular figures with adjacent corners; however, attempts to alternate in one direction homogeneous elements (pits, lines) do not continue beyond three.

The considered samples of extra-utilitarian activity of emerging people contain undoubted signs of a complex long evolution of the cognitive and creative activity of primitive mankind from Acheule to the end of Moustier. Technique, forms, outlines of individual elements, other achievements of the visual activity of the Lower Paleolithic are preserved and then developed in the Upper Paleolithic and in subsequent eras of the addition of primitive art and primitive positive knowledge. In turn, the Acheulo-Mousterian era of the spiritual development of mankind was deeply rooted in the social and industrial basis of its formation. Outside of this circumstance, the monuments of interest to us cannot receive an adequate interpretation, and above all their such features: 1.

The general growth of the number of things and the variety of their forms towards the end of the Lower Paleolithic. 2.

An increase in the number of repetitions of a homogeneous graphic element on one thing (if in Pesche de l'Aze on the edge of a bull in Acheule no more than 3 indisputably homogeneous elements in a row are carved quite clearly, then on the diaphysis from La Ferrassi in the late Moustiers there are no less than 9 parallel lines) ... 3.

Complication of the shapes of graphic elements (from furrows, "corners" and the semblance of a zigzag in Pesch de l'Aze to zigzags in Bacho Kiro, a rectangular 4-pointed cross in Donskoy, a rectangle in Molodova 1). In a number of cases, it is possible to ascertain the tracing of figures that are practically geometrically correct. 4.

The tendency to unite heterogeneous motives of extra-utilitarian activity into one whole. In addition to the complexes La Ferrassi, Tata (circle, cross, painted "churinga" from a mammoth tooth), mammoth shoulder blades in Molodova 1 (colorful and carved lines, figures such as crosses and rectangles, pits), it should be mentioned here that in La Quina the Mousterians left not only pieces of paint, but also a phalanx of a deer and a fox's tusk with specially drilled (for hanging?) holes, stone balls, and finally, a carefully processed lenticular disc made of limestone with a diameter of 22 cm 267. The last object finds the closest analogies in Mousterian flint discs of smaller sizes, made from cores with such a careful finishing that researchers find it difficult to associate with any utilitarian purpose. And the Mousterian bone pendant from the Crimean site Prolom, which has a hole and a polished (apparently, due to prolonged wearing on the chest) surface, can serve as strong evidence of the practice of making such objects among paleoanthropes

These facts reflect the development of the extra-utilitarian orientation of primitive consciousness and activity. The Lower Paleolithic is characterized by an increase in the number of tools, types of tools, types of operations for the manufacture of tools. The further development of primitive technology inevitably required an ever more accurate orientation in quantitative, spatial, and temporal relationships. Obviously, in the collectives of emerging people, the abilities for this kind of orientation quite early went beyond the limits inherent in higher animals (for example, the latter are able to distinguish between small quantities, within 5-6, objects) 269 More and more data speaks in favor of the fact that paleoanthropes are already confidently followed the path of mastering the initial elements of counting and number as an ordered set.

So, if the Aitel's hand ax, as we remember, was a “fossil concept”, then achieving its symmetrical shape required a certain abstraction, some kind of binary counting: one-bit correspondence in the repetition of sepia strikes on both sides of the workpiece. This rule is then carried into graphics: already in the Middle Acheulean engraving we see a POSTREY symmetrical outline (the corners of two converging lines are repeated), in the Mousterian similar constructions are diversified, Three-fold repetitions of the corners of two lines (Pesch de l Azae, Hermitage), the continuation of the series parallel, lines to Y (La Ferrassi) give reason to doubt that the practice of specific counting of paleoanthropines went beyond three - a completely possible limit for counting their predecessors. In this regard, let us recall the above-mentioned finds in the Mousterian "bear caves": a group of 5 bear skulls is repeated here at least at three points: Peterschele, Salzofen, Cluny.

To understand the peculiarities of the formation of counting among paleoanthropians - since counting is "the first theoretical activity of the mind, which still fluctuates between sensibility and thinking" "° - let us recall the following factors of their life: dividing the whole into parts (at the first stage of developing tools, when dividing prey), composing a whole from parts (construction of dwellings, equipping hearths, making compound tools), the simplest paired relationships (two hands, day and night, heat and cold, etc.), uniform repetition of similar elements in space and time (walking and running in the pursuit of game, symmetry and rhythm in the creation of tools, long-term maintenance of fire, etc.).

Recognized in different forms, repeated many times from generation to generation, these factors inevitably led to an ever more strict rational ordering of quantitative temporal relationships, up to the expression of these relationships in practical terms (from visual and tactile beginnings to fixed in speech, in the grouping of counting means, in the repetition of graphic elements on different surfaces, including wood, bone, stone), in elementary geometric constructions with the simplest measures and figures (various lines: parallel, converging at an angle, etc., a cross , rectangle, circle, disk, ball). It is likely that they reflect the simplest astronomical-geographical, biological, geological concepts, concepts, knowledge, rooted in the pre-pictorial era of the history of the Lower Paleolithic, where they were closely intertwined with the initial empirical foundations of other spheres of embryonic rational comprehension of reality.

The initial close interweaving of various spheres of primitive knowledge with the sensory and emotional experience of labor, obtaining, fixing, storing, using, developing information and, of course, with the social and production practice that gave rise to them, of course, makes it very difficult to analyze this primitive cognitive and creative syncretism, to translate it into the language peculiar to modern scientific classification.

It is difficult to dispute a statement such as: "Just as the instrument of labor was the basis of physics and mechanics, so fire is the basis of chemistry"? But the fact is that the named cultural achievements of the early period of the Lower Paleolithic are associated with a much broader cognitive and creative context. Thus, long-term maintenance of fire is practically impossible without an appropriate level of division of labor, a sufficiently clear correlation of the amount of fuel with the time of its combustion and the boundaries of fire in space, that is, appropriate calculations of the space-time and quantitative parameters for the present and foreseeable future.

The successful solution of such problems by the emerging people contributed to the development of the pre-foundations of knowledge, the development of new rhythmic and color correlations. Like the sun, fire also warmed the luminaries, and this analogy between the celestial and earthly sources of energy, contributing primarily to the highlighting of red and black colors in the palette of future rituals and paintings of the Paleolithic, could not but stimulate equally ancient observations of the connection between earthly and heavenly phenomena. In this regard, apart from the already mentioned finds of mineral dyes in the Early Sashelian localities of Oldway, Ambrona, Terra Amata, brief preliminary reports

on the discovery of pieces of ocher with traces of their deliberate use in the Aschel site of Bechev (Czechoslovakia), as well as a large bone with rhythmically repeated cuts at the site of Bilzingsleben (GDR) belonging to the almond rissus hunters depended on the daily and annual rhythms of the movement of the Sun and the corresponding regular changes in the surrounding nature. All this required attention to the trajectory of the luminary, from the point of sunrise to the point of sunset - this is, therefore, another practically important area for the formation of the pre-foundations of mathematical and geophysical knowledge, which depended on the development of the simplest astronomical, geographical and biological observations.

The general rhythm of life made joint actions in a team unified, facilitating the achievement of a common goal with less expenditure of energy, that is, the most productive and rational. The process of labor with rhythmic movements and sounds was easier and evoked more positive emotions, which apparently determined the rather early development in primitive society of rhythmic work songs, the simplest musical accompaniments of various types of activity 273. Possible indirect evidence in favor of their early existence seems the indisputable attention of paleoanthropes to different manifestations of rhythm, which is captured in the carefully calibrated symmetry of the chopper and in the graphics, which initially expressed rhythmic repetitions of conditional homogeneous elements.

Some archaeologists consider the Acheulean axes with their symmetrical shape as the most ancient material evidence of the formation of the first stable skills of aesthetic mastering of reality, the emergence of the need to make not only useful, but at the same time beautiful products. The rhythm of working hands created the first samples of precision, harmony, beauty. The primitive graphics testified to the gradual separation of the means of communication from the tools of labor, to the first steps of the conditional fixation of the abstractive work of the mind; the graphics of the Lower Paleolithic reflected a qualitatively new level of development of the rational-cognitive and emotional-aesthetic mastering of reality. In its highest achievements, this graphic appears to us both as the first attempt to construct an ornament and as the simplest carrier of the properties inherent in mathematical structure (as defined by Bourbaki) 274.

In this regard, examples of the use of red and black paint, forms of quadrangular crosses and circles by paleoanthropists acquire new meaning. Such are the complexes in Tata, La Quina (ocher, circle, cross; ocher, disc, "pendants"). Continuing, let us note the use of the circle shape in dwellings of the second half of the Lower Paleolithic, in the burials of the Mousterians [Teshik-Tapg, Monte Circheo], and in the burials of animal remains in the Mousterian [Cluny et al.]. The strong connection in the subsequent primitive symbolism of the circle, cross, red color with the concept of the Sun - heavenly fire, supplemented in the Mousterian by the orientation of the buried along the east-west line, quite definitely marks the connection of the mentioned Mouster monuments with the development of the initial astronomical, biological and geographical concepts, possibly up to the birth of the idea of \u200b\u200bthe world as a whole 275. Which, however, does not exclude the possible use, for example, of dyes in Pesch de l'Aze 1 for other purposes (coloring the body, clothing, skins, dwellings, dictated by beliefs and medical reasons ) 278. As evidence of certain medico-botanical knowledge (sufficiently developed in comparison with the skills of "self-healing" by plants in anthropoids and other animals), it is natural to consider the finding of pollen from flowers of medicinal plants in the grave of the Shanidar paleoanthropus. Mousterian burials of people and animals testify to the emergence of biological concepts: there is a clear awareness of the differences between living and dead organisms, the identification of elements of the anatomical structure, the distinction of certain types of animals, etc.

At the end of the Lower Paleolithic and especially in the Upper Paleolithic, burials contain ocher, a universal primitive symbol of hot blood and life itself. The presence of ocher (as well as graphics) can be viewed as a natural tendency of the primitive collective to accentuate, in spite of the destructive element of death for it, a creative, life-affirming principle that promotes procreation.

All this testifies to the strengthening of team cohesion,

On the gradual awareness of the continuity of social traditions, which created the foundation for the subsequent development of rational knowledge and the emergence of fine art on the basis of visual activity.

By the turn of the Lower and Upper Paleolithic, judging by archaeological data, an ornament based on the allocation of rhythmically ordered elements-symbols of labor, communication and cognition is definitely taking shape, and the prerequisites for the creation of the first artistic images of animals and people in graphics, color painting, and sculpture are being completed.

In the Lower Paleolithic, artistic creativity is ripening 277. At the same time, the syncretism of this process is understood as the indivisibility of various manifestations of artistic activity (ornamentation, singing, dance, etc.), but this does not mean the equal coexistence of early forms of art and rational knowledge, on the one hand , and early forms of religion on the other.

At the same time, the realities of the Paleolithic clearly show the inconsistency of the hypotheses that the origins and stimuli of the development of art lie in the sphere of instincts, in human biology. On the contrary, the prehistory of art in the Lower Paleolithic is inseparable from the social and intellectual progress of emerging people, from the development of their rational knowledge. There is a growing body of evidence that line and color performed diverse functions in the rational-cognitive sphere before becoming the main means of artistic creation, and some local differences in the graphics of the Lower Paleolithic (highlighting the number 3 in western Europe, a cross with 4 ends - in the east) determined the development in the art of the Upper Paleolithic of two ethno-cultural variants of primitive artistic creativity, counting systems, primitive cosmology 278. These evidences, among many others, also show that at the final stage of the formation of man and society, those richest potentialities of spiritual progress of mankind appear. partially realized during the heyday of primitive society.

Progress and regression in the evolution of later paleoanthropes. In the light of the above data, it is indisputable that in terms of the level of development of social consciousness, the nostril paleoanthropes undoubtedly stood above the early paleoanthropes. They were indisputably higher than the early paleoanthropes in terms of their social development. Late paleoanthropes were representatives of a new, higher stage in the formation of human society, which naturally replaced the previous stage. In this respect, there can be no question of any deviation from the path leading to the neoanthrope. Progress, and huge progress, is undeniable. In terms of the development of social relations, late paleoanthropes are undoubtedly the predecessors of modern humans.

As evidenced by all the data, the ancestral community of the late paleoanthropines was a solid, close-knit collective, all members of which showed comprehensive care for each other. The ancestral community of the late paleoanthropines was not only a single collective, but also realized (in the form of totemism) its unity. But the human collective's awareness of its unity, the awareness of the community of all its members was at the same time an awareness of the difference between all members of this collective from all other people.

Before the emergence of totemism, the difference between members of different ancestral communities was understood simply as the difference between people who were part of different groups. When a person passed from one original community to another, he ceased to be considered a member of the first and began to be considered a member of the second. Of course, at the same time, members of the second ancestral community remembered that this person was not born in it, but came from outside. But this did not prevent them from considering the alien as a member of this particular group, and not another.

With the emergence of totemism, a person born in a group was considered to belong to it due to the fact that he had the same totem as the other members of the group, he had the same flesh and blood, was the same “meat” with them. And now he was distinguished from members of other prototypes not only by his real entry into another group, but by the fact that he had a different totem, a different flesh and blood. A person now carried the sign of belonging to one specific group for life, namely, the one in which he was born. With the emergence of totemism, members of different primitive communities were divided by a clear line, which, in principle, was impossible to cross. Now, even if a person passed from one primitive community to another, in principle he should have remained a stranger forever.

The transformation of the original community into a tightly welded collective, whose members realized both their unity and their difference from members of other similar groups, resulted in its closure in itself. The regrouping of the composition and the mixing of human collectives have ceased. Of course, the isolation of the ancestral communities of the late paleoanthropes cannot be understood as absolute. Individual people, or even groups of people born outside of them, could have entered the composition of one or another prototype. However, the most recent archeological data also testify to the closed nature of the collectives of late paleoanthropines.

There is no doubt that the sites of the second half of the Late Archaeolite are subdivided into many groups, each of which is characterized by a certain set of stone tools. Some archaeologists talk about the presence of various archaeological cultures in the Late Mousterian, others prefer to write about local variants or simply variants of the stone industry.

A frequent, if not generally characteristic of the late Mousterian, is the situation when in the same area, side by side, there are sites belonging to different archaeological cultures. So, for example, in the Dordogne-Vienne region in France, such cultures identified by F. Borde coexisted as the Mousterian with the Agaelian tradition, the typical Mousterian, the jagged Mousterian

and, finally, two variants of the Taranta Mousterian: the La Quina Mousterian and the La Ferrassi Mousterian. And although the collectives belonging to different archaeological cultures have been living in intermixture on the same limited territory for tens of thousands of years, no influence of them on each other is found. This testifies to the absence of any regular contacts between them, to their isolation, isolation from each other.

It follows from this that the unity of material culture in a certain number of collectives could not have developed as a result of the mutual influence of the ancestral communities that originally possessed different cultures. It should have arisen in a completely different way. The only explanation that suggests itself is that collectives distinguished by a common culture arose as a result of a series of successive divisions of human groups that went back to the original, original original community. In other words, the community of culture was here the result of the unity of origin. Primary communities belonging to the same culture formed a community, but not organic, integral, social, but genetic and cultural. And not only the emergence, but also the long-term existence of this community does not necessarily imply strong ties and, in general, any kind of contacts between the original communities included in it. The maintenance of the unity of culture was provided by such a factor as the strength of tradition.

If the ancestral communities of the late paleoanthropes were already closed, isolated collectives, then it is clear that the process of their closure in themselves, the process of their isolation from each other, began earlier, at the stage of early paleoanthropes. This assumption is also confirmed by archaeological data. A. Lumley, who pointed to the existence of four archaeological cultures in France since Riss: Acheulean, Teiak, Eveno and Premier, emphasized that although the people who were carriers of these cultures lived side by side for many tens of thousands of years, they practically did not know each other about a friend. Mutual influence, if took place, is extremely rare 28 °.

The progressive closure of the original communities in themselves, their isolation from each other resulted in the transformation of each of them into a group consisting of blood relatives. The emergence of inbreeding (that is, closely related crossbreeding), and rather close, because the size of the ancestral communities was relatively small, could not but affect the physical development of paleoanthropes. Inevitably, the impoverishment of their hereditary basis occurred. The morphological organization of paleoanthropines has lost evolutionary plasticity and acquired a conservative character. As a result, any significant restructuring of the morphological organization of paleoanthropes, and, consequently, their further development along the path to neoanthropus, became impossible. Accordingly, primordial-individual selection ceased to function.

Of course, the morphological appearance of paleoanthropes could not lose any ability to change at all. Only further sapientation, development along the path of aromorphism, ie, an increase in the general level of morphological organization, became impossible. As for idioadaptation, that is, changes of an adaptive nature that do not go beyond the already achieved general level of development, it was not only possible, but also inevitable.

With the fading of the primordial-individual selection, ordinary individual natural selection again came to the fore, under the influence of which the change in the morphological appearance of paleoanthropes proceeded along the line of increasing physical strength and the general coarsening of their entire organism, that is, away from the path leading to the modern type of man. The consequence was the transformation of the early generalized Neanderthals into the later specialized ones. The morphological appearance of Western European classical Neanderthals bears such obvious features of evolutionary stagnation that many anthropologists directly characterize them as conservative Neanderthals.

The deviation of the physical development of the late paleoanthropes from the sapient direction is, therefore, not an accident caused by a confluence of unfavorable external circumstances, but a natural result of the evolution of the primitive society. Therefore, clear features of specialization and stagnation are found not only in Western European, but in general in all late paleoanthropes, wherever they lived. Many anthropologists, noting certain differences between the paleoanthropes of the Tabun and Shanidar types from the Western European Late Neanderthals, at the same time characterize them as conservative.

This is one of the possible solutions to the question of the reasons for the deviation of the development of late paleoanthropines from the sapient direction. It explains not only the uniqueness of the appearance of the late Neanderthals, but the peculiarities of the development of their stone industry. Isolation and inbreeding, making it impossible for a radical restructuring of the morphological organization of producing beings, thereby closed the way for any profound shifts in the evolution of production activity. As a result, the development of the stone industry has become contradictory. On the one hand, the transition from the Middle Acheulean - early Mousterian to the late Mousterian was a significant step forward, and on the other, it also turned into a regression to a certain extent. Just as in the morphological appearance of the early paleoanthropines archaic and sapient features were contradictory, in the stone industry of the Middle Acheulean - early Mousterian primitive features were equally contradictory side by side with those that are characteristic of the late Paleolithic technology of modern humans. In a number of local variants (for example, the Amudian layers of the sites Yabrud, Tabun, etc.), the Late Paleolithic features are so clearly expressed that some archaeologists characterize them as true Upper Paleolithic cultures281.

Just as during the transition from the early paleoanthropines to the late ones, the sapient features inherent in the first were lost, the transition from the Middle Acheulean - early Mousterian to the late Mousterian was accompanied by the almost complete disappearance of the Late Paleolithic features in the stone industry of paleoanthropines. With the transition to the late Mousterian, the evolution of technology in a number of respects became stagnant. This was pointed out at one time by many scientists, in particular the American researcher G. F. Osborne 282 and the Soviet archaeologist P. P. Efimenko 283.

Recently, the American archaeologist R. Solecki paid special attention not only to the conservatism of the morphological appearance of the people from Shanidar, which practically did not change for more than 15 thousand years, but also to the stagnant (stagnant) nature of their typical Mousterian industry, which did not undergo any significant changes over several tens of thousands of years 284.

Thus, the tremendous progress in the formation of social relations, which marked the transition from early paleoanthropes to later ones, had unexpected consequences. The transformation of the primordial community into a strong, close-knit and thus closed, isolated collective led to inbreeding and thus made impossible the sapientation and, as a result, the continuation of the formation of production and society. Completion of the formation of man and society was impossible without overcoming the isolation of the original communities, their isolation from each other. And, as evidenced by the facts, this isolation was overcome. Formation of man and society ended On the verge of the Early and Late Paleolithic, 35-40 thousand years ago, paleoanthropes turned into ready-made people - neoanthropes, and their primitive society - into a formed human society.

The question of how this happened is far from easy to answer. Various hypotheses can be proposed. 1

Washburn S. L., Lancaster C. S. The evolution of hunting. HO, p. 293, 296; Simonds P. E. Social primates. Evanston, 1974, p. 233 etc. 2

Novozhenov Yu. I. Selection at the population level. - ZHOB, 1976, vol. 37, No. 6, p. 851.3

Chauvin R. Life and customs of insects. M .: Selkhozgiz, 1960, p. 197-198. 4

See: Goodall 3. Continuities between chimpanzee and human behavior, HO, p. 83.5

Chauvin P. Life ..., p. 197-198; On the same. From bee to gorilla. M .: Mir, 1965,

See: Yu. I. Semenov. About the original form of primitive socio-economic relations. - SE, 1977, no. 2; He's the same. The evolution of the economy of early primitive society .- In the book: Research in general ethnography. Moscow: Nauka, 1979.7

Mathiassen T. Material culture of the Iglulik Eskimos. - RTE, Copenhagen, 1928,

v. 6, No. 1, p. 901.8

Lenin V.I.Poly. collection cit., v. 29, p. 194.9

Briffault R. The mothers. V. 2. L., 1927, p. 252-253, 352-365; v. 3, L., 1927, p. 251-253; Reinak S. A few notes on taboos. - Atheist, 1926, no. 5, p. 16.10

Leakey M. D. Olduvai Gorge. V. 3. Excavations in beds I and II. 1960-1963. Cambridge, 1971, p. 1, 2, 64, 89, 93, 266, 269.11

Ibid., P. 266, 269, 442.12

See, for example: Boriskovsky PI The most ancient past of mankind. L .: Nauka, 1979; Grigoriev G.P. Paleolithic of Africa, - In the book: The emergence of human society. Paleolithic of Africa. L .: Nauka, 1977.14

Leakey M. D. Olduvai Gorge, v. 3, p. 2.15

Bordes F. Physical evolution and technological evolution in man: a parallelism. - WA, 1971, v. 3, N 1.16

Isaac G. The food-sharing behavior of protohuman hominids. - SA, 1978, v. 238, No. 4, p. 104.17

Child VG Archaeological documents on the prehistory of science. - VIMK, 1957, no. 1, p. 30.18

Childe G. Social evolution. L., 1951, p. 73.19

See: Classification and human evolution. Ed. by S. L. Washburn. VEPA. Chicago, 1963, No. 37.20

Debets G. F. On the taxonomy and nomenclature of fossil forms of man. - KSIIMK, 1948, No. 23. 21

See: Nestrukh M.F. Monkey-people and their relationship to other fossil hominids. - UZMGU, 1948, no. 115, p. 13.22

Weidenreich F. Giant ealy man from Java and Southern China - APAMNH, 1945, v. 40, pt. 1.23

Koenigswald G. H. R. Java: pre-Trinil man. - PVIII ICAES, v. 1, p. 104-105. 24

Gremyatsky M. A. About phylogenetic connections of the most ancient hominids - CSIE, 1952, № 15. 25

Koenigswald G. H. R. Ealy man in Java - PMP, p. 304, 306.26

Wed: Roginsky Ya. Ya., Levin M.G. Anthropology. M .: Higher school, 1978, p. 233; Koenigswald G. H. R. Java: pre-Trinil man, p. 105; Riscuita C. A study of the Modjokerto infant calvarium. PMP, p. 374.27

Broom R., Robinson J. T. Man contemporaneous with the Swartkrans apeman - AJPhA, 1950, v. 8, N 2; Robinson J. T. Telanthropus and its phylogenetic significance - AJPhA, 1953, v. 11, No. 4, p. 500; Idem. Australopithe- cines and their bearing on the origin of man.- ARSI for 1961. Washington,

Dart R. Australopithecus prometheus and telantropus capensis. - AJPhA, 1955,

v. 13, N 1; Clark W. E. Le Gross. The fossil evidence for human evolution. Chicago, 1955, p. 157-158. 29 Leakey L S В, Tobias P V, Napier J R A new species of genus Homo from Olduvai Gorge - Nature, 1964, v 202 N 4927 30

Tobias P V, Koenigswald G H R A comparison between Olduvai homini- des and those of Java and some implications for hommid philogeay- Nature 1964, v 204 N 4958 31

Robinson J T Homo "habilis" and austialopithecus-Nature, 1965, v 205 N 4967 32

Robmson J R The bearing of East Rudolf fossils on early hommid s "jstematics - Nature 1972 v 240, N 5377, p 240 33

Oakly K P ihe eailiest toolmakers - EH p 267, Kochetkova VI New data on the microstructure of the brain of homiiids and their interpretation - VA, 1970, vyi 34, p. 10, etc.

3 'Koenigswald G N R Early man in Java p 30f 35

Koenigswald G H R Java pie Trmil man, p 105 Riscuita C A study p 374 36

Boaz AT, Hoioell F С A gracile hommid cranium from Uppei Member G of the Shungura formation - AJPhA, 1977, v 46, N 1 37

Leakey M D Olduvai Gorge, p 13 38

Curtis G H, Hay R L Further geological studies and potassium argon da ting of Olduvai Gorge and Ngorongoro crater - CHE p 294

351 Isaac G L Chronology and tempo of culture change during the pleistoce ne - CHE, p 386, Leakey M D Cultural patterns m the Olduvai sequence - ATA p 477 40

Hay R L Stratigraphy of beds I through IV, Olduvai Gorge, langanyika - C A, 1965, v 6, N 4, p 389 41

Leakey M D Olduvai Gorge, p 4, Howell I С Pliocene / pleistocene homi- mdae m Lastern Africa - CHE p 334 43

Isaac G L Chronology p 409, Leakey M D Culture patterns p 486, Clark 3D A comparison of late asheulean mdustiies of Africa and Middle East - ATA, p 608 44

Pilbeam D R Middle pleistocene homimds - A1A, p 827 45

Rightmire G P Cranial remains of Homo erectus from Bed II and IV 01 duvai Gorge Tanzania - AJPhA, 1979, v 51, N 1, p 100 46

Isaac G L Chronology, p 409, 410 47

Howell F С, Coppens Y An overview of homimdae from the Omo succes sion, Ethiopia - EMER p 531 48

Ivanova IK Geological age of fossil man M Nauka, 1965 p 37 38 49

Oakly K P Dating of emeigence of man - AOS 1962, v 18, N 75, p 420 50

Jacob T Paleontological discoveries m Indonesia - JHE 1973, v 2, N 6, p 477, Idem Morphology and paleoecology of early man m Java - PMP, p 320 51

Pilbeam D R Middle pleistocene homimds p 830 52

Correlations charts complied at the symposium - A1A, p 891 53

Pilbeam D R Middle pleistocene homimds p 830 54

Ivanova IK Geological age from 37-38 55

Pilbeam D R Middle pleistocene homimds, p 823, Jacob T New finds of lower and middle pleistocene homimnes from Indonesia and examination of their antiquity - EPSEA, p 14; idem Hommid evolution m South East Asia - APhAO, 1979, v 14, N 1, p 2 56

Pilbeam DR Middle pleistocene homimds, p 823, Leakey RE Skull 1470 - NG, 1973, v 143, N 6, p 820-829, Idem Evidence for advanced plio pleistocene hommid from East Rudolf, Kenya - Nature, 1973, v 242, No. 5348, p. 447, 449, 450 51

Uryeon M And Is Man Really 3 Million Years? - Nature, 1974, no. 6 58

Walker A Remains attnbutable to austidlopithecus m tho East Rudolf sussession - EMER p 488-489 59

Wells L H Foward from Taung - JHE v 2, N 6, 1973 p 564-565 60

Walker A, Leakey REF The hommids of East Turkana - SA, 1978 v 239, N 3, p 53-54, Koobi Fora research pro] ect V 1 The fossil hommids and an introduction to their context 1968-1974 Oxford 1978, p 89 , 131 61

Walker A, Leakey REF The hommids p 51, 55 62

Taieb M, Johonson D C, Coppens Y Aronson JL Geological and paleontological backgrounds of Hadar hommid site Afar, Ethiopia - Nature, 1976 v 260, N 5549, p 289-293, Johonson D C Taieb M Plio pleistocene homi nid discoveries m Hadar , Ethiopia - Ibid p 293-297, Johonson D C, Whi te TDA systematic assesment of early African hommids - Science, 1979 v 203, N 4378, p 331-328 63

Lnmley H de Cultural evolution in France m its paleoecological setting during the middle pleistocene - ATA p 747 751 64

Zeaner F E Dating of Past L, 1952, p 285, Movms H L The old stone age - In Man Culture and society N Y, 1956, p 55 66

Debets GF About taxonomy 67

Ivanova IK Geological age, from 41-43 68

Kretzoi M Vertes L Upper Bihanan (inter mmdel) pebble industry occupation site m Western Hungary - CA 1965, v 6, N 1, Archeology of Hungary Stone Age M Nauka, 1980, p. 31 69

Correlation chart complied at symposium ATA, p 897; Archeology of Hungary Stone Age from 3170

Ivanova IK Geological age, from 39-40 71

Ibid, from 46-47 72

Ibid., P. 48, OaMu K P Dating the emergence of man, p 424; Lestred P E Hommid cranial capacity versus time - JHE, 1975, v 2, N 5, p 407, Correlation charts, p 892 73

Alekseev V P Paleoanthropology of the globe and the formation of human races Paleolithic M Nauka, 1978, p. 31-32, VISek E A new discovery of Homo erectus m central Europe - JHE, 1978, v 7, N 3 74

Ivanova IK Geological age, from 56-58 75

Ibid., P. 56, 59, Lestred P E Hommid cranial capacity, p 407, Pideat D R Middle pleistocene hommids, p 833 Correlation sharts, p 825, 827.76

Ivanova IK Geological age, from 54

1 Hajiyev DV, Huseynov MM The first find of an angelic man for the USSR (Azerbaijan, Azykh cave) - Uch zap of the Azerbaijan State Medical Institute, Baku, 1970, t 31 18

Lubin VP Lower Paleolithic of the Caucasus - In the book Ancient East and World Culture M Science 1981, p. 13

"9 Butzer K Environment and archeology Chicago, 1964, p 37-39, Pubeat D R Middle pleistocene hommids, p 821, Lumley H de Cultural evolution, p 756, 771 80

Mortilla G de and Mortilla A de Prehistoric life St. Petersburg XX century 1903, p. 133 81

Obermeier G Prehistoric man SPb Brockhaus - Efron, 1913 p 183 82

Efimenko P P Primitive Society Kiev Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian SSR, 1953, p. 150, see also p. 245, Okladnikov AP Study of the Stone Age Monuments of Tajikistan - MIA, 1958, No. 66, p. 69 83

Bordes F The old stone age N Y, Toronto, 1977, p 116, 140, Lumley H de Cultural evolution, p 790 84

See Efimenko PP Prenatal Society - IGAIMK, 1934, issue 7, p. 167; He is the Primitive Society L Sotsekgiz, 1938, p 227, Ravdonikas VI History of the Primitive Society Ch 1 L Publishing House of Leningrad State University, 1939, p. 185; Artsikhovsky VA Introduction to archeology M Publishing house of Moscow State University, 1947, p. 11.85

Chernysh AP Early and Middle Paleolithic of Transnistria - Proceedings of the Commission for the Study of the Quaternary Period XXV M Nauka, 1965 p 128 86

Ibid, p. 129.87

Hordes F. Mousterian culture in Franco. Science, 1961, v. 134, N 3482 p. 813.88

Boriskovskiy P. I. The most ancient past of man, p. sixteen; Isaac G. L. Chronology .... p. 385: Butzer K W. Environment, culture and human evolution. ^ AS. 1977, v. 65, No. 5, p. 578.89

See: V.A.Artsikhovsky, Introduction to Archeology, p. 10-11; Clarke J.D. Prehistoric Africa, p. 8-9, 75, 80, etc. 90

See: Klein R. G. Chellean and achellean on the territory of the Soviet Union, AA, 1966, v. 68, No. 2, pt. 2, p. 8: Zeuner F. C. Dating of Past, p. 285.91

Boriskovsky P.I. The most ancient past of mankind, p. sixteen; Zeuner F. C Op. cit., p. 386-287; Howell F. C. Observations on the earlier phases of the European lower paleolithic. - AA, 1966, v. 68, No. 2, pt. 2, p. 137; Lumley II, de. Cultural evolution .... p. 774-790. 92

Lumlei / H. de. Op. cit .. p. 774-798. 93

Ibid., P. 771; Hordes F. Physical evolution .... p. 2.94

Lyubin VP On the method of studying the Lower Paleolithic tools.- MIA, 1965. No. 131, p. 38-39; Praslov N. D Early Paleolithic of the Northeastern Azov region and the lower Don. - MIA, 1968, No. 157, p. 144.95

Praslov N. D. Decree. op, p. 144-145. 96

Goodwin A. J. H., Lowe V. van Rift. The stone age culture of South Africa - Annals of the South African Museum, 1929, v. 21.97

Proceedings of the third Pan-African Congress on prehistory, Livingstone. 1955. L „1957.98

Clarke J.D. Prehistoric Africa, p. 8-9, 99, 101, 167; Gabel C. African prehistory. - BRA, 1965, p. 60.99

Klein R. G The ecology of early man in Southern Africa. Science, 1977, v. 147, No. 4299, p. 121.

0 ° Clark 3.D. The legacy of prehistory. - In: The Cambridge history of Africa. V. 2. L. etc., 1978, p. 37.101

Clarke J.D. Prehistoric Africa, p. 9, 100-103. 102

Ibid, p. 99.101.103

Clark 3. D. African origins .... p. 29.104

Klein R G. Chellean .... p. 118, 120; Butzer K. Environment ..., p. 578.105

Butzer K. Op. cit., p. 573.

108 Lyubin V.P. The Lower Paleolithic.- In the book: Stone Age in the USSR. M .: L., 1970, p. 19-27 (MIA), No. 166; Boriskovsky P.I. Ancient Stone Age of South and South-East Asia. L .: Nauka, 1971; He's the same. The Most Ancient Past of Humanity, p. 93-94; The emergence of human society. Paleolithic of Africa. L .: Nauka, 1977; Formozov A.A.Problems of the ethnocultural history of the Stone Age in the European part of the USSR. M .: Science. 1977, p. 13; Paleolithic Near and Middle East. L .: Nauka, 1978, p. 22-23, 37. 197, 210, 225, 229, 238; Archeology and paleogeography of the Early Paleolithic of the Crimea and the Caucasus. Moscow: Nauka, 1978, p. 5-6; Ranov V. A., Davis R. S. Towards a new outline of the Soviet Central Asian Paleolithic. - CA, 1979, v. 20, No. 2, p. 249.107

Clark 3. D. African origins, p. 29.108

Isaac G. L. Olorgesailie. Archaeological studies of a middle pleistocene lake basin in Kenya. Chicago; L., 1977, p. 213.109

Isaac G. L. Traces of pleistocene hunters. - MH, p. 255-258. 110

Lee R. B. What hunters do for living ... - MH, p. 31-32.

1,1 See: Yu. I. Semenov, On the maternal gender and settled life in the Late Paleolithic, - SE, 1973, no. 4, p. 56-57.

112 Clark JD Prehistoric Africa, p. 92.

1.3 Tindale N. B. Tne pitjandjara. - HGT, p. 241-242. 114

Isaac G. L. Traces ... 115

Clark J. Prehistoric Africa, p. 89; Freeman L. G. Acheulean sites and stratigraphy in Iberia ar\u003e d the Ma ^ roh. - ATA. p. 679-680. 6 Clarke J.D. Prehistoric Africa, p. 90.7

Ibid, p. 88.8

Isaac G. L. Traces ..., p. 258.9

Lumley H. de. Cultural evolution ..., p. 766-770. 20

Leakey M. D. Olduvai Gorge, p. 260.21

Ibid., P. 199.22

Howell F. C. Observations ..., p. 137; Lumley H. de. Cultural evolution .., p. 766.23

Freeman L. G. Archeulean sites ..., p. 676-682. 24

Ibid., P. 674.25

Howell F. C. Observations ..., p. 102, 185.26

Ibid., P. 100, 103, 104.27

Freeman L. G. Acheulean sites ..., p. 680.28

Clarke J.D. Prehistoric Africa, p. 88-89, 94.29

See: Lee R. B. What hunters do for living ..., p. 46-48. thirty

Clarke JD Prehistoric Africa, p. 76, 86.32

J am the same, p. 96.33

Mourns H. L. Early man and pleistocene stratigraphy in Southern and Eastern Asia - PPMAAE, 1944, v. 19, N 3.34

Clarke J.D. Prehistoric Africa, p. 96.35

Howell F.C. Observations ..., p. 109; Coles J. M., Higgs E. S. The archeology of early man. L., 1969, p. 205.

38 Clarke, J.D., Pre-Fat Africa, p. 94.37

Boriskovsky II And the Most Ancient Past of Mankind, p. 80-88. 39

Norshnev BF About the most ancient method of making fire, - SE, 1955, No. 1, Oakley K. P. Use ol lire by Neanderthal and his precursois.- HJN, p. 267 - 268.40

F "reeman L G Acheulean bites ..., p. 680.41

Isaac G. L traces of pleistocene hunters, p. 257-258, 261.42

Freeman L. G. Acheulean sites ..., p. 679-682. 43

See: Semenov IO And How Humanity Arose. Moscow: Nauka, 1966, p. 266 - 269.44

K. Marx, F. Engels Soch., G. 21, p. 41.45

Weidenieich F. Giant caily man ..., p. 17.46

Weidenreich F. The skull of sinanthropus pekinesis. - PS, new series D, N 10, Pehpei, 1943, p. 180-190, idem. The duration of life of fossil man in China and the pathological lenov & found m his skeleton.-In: Weidenreich I. Slioiter anthropological papers. N. Y., 1947, p. 197-199.

147 Weidenreich F. The duration of life ..., p. 203.

’? Cm .: Bergoumous F. M. Notes on the mentality of primitive man. - SLEM, p. 114-115; Hays H. R. In the beginnings. Early man and his gods. N. Y., 1963,

Jacob T., The problem of head-hunting and brain eating among pleistocene men in Indonesia, APhAO, 1972, v. 7, No. 2, p. 82-88. 150

See: Semenov Yu. I. The Origin of Marriage and Family. M .: Thought, 1974, p. 70- 75.151

Clarke J.D. Prehistoric Africa, p. 80; Klein R. G. Chellean ..., p. 119.152

Tolstoy S. P. Problems of the clan society. - SE, 1931, no. 3-4, p. 83; Boriskovsky PI Historical preconditions for the formation of the so-called Homo sapiens.- PIDO, 1935, No. 3. p. 17; Sorokin V. S Some questions of the history of primitive society. - SE, 1951, no. 3, p. 148.153

Koche / kova V.I.Quantitative characteristics of the variability of the frontal lobe of endocranes of fossil hominid - RA, 196), vyi. 6, p. fifteen; She's the same. Evolution of the brain in connection with the progress of material culture. - In the book: At the origins of humanity. M .: School of Moscow State University, 1964, p. 202, 207; She's the same. Evolution of specifically human regions of the hominid cerebral cortex - VA,

1969, no. 7, p. sixteen; She is also Possible variants of the microstructure of the brain of Homo habilis. - BA, 1969, issue 32, She is Paleoneurology. M. Publishing house of Moscow State University, 1973, p. 191, 195, 202 154

Leakey L S. In Recent discoveries at Olduvai Gorge, Tanganyika.- Nature, 1958, v. 181, p. 1099 155

Howell F With Observations, p 129 156

Lumley H de A paleolithic camp at Nice - SA, 1969, v. 220, No. 5, p. 47; Marshak A On paleolithic ocher and early uses of color and symbol. - CA 1981, v 22, No. 2, p. 188.157

Pei W C Notice of the discovery of quartz and other stone artifacts in the lower pleistocene hommid bearing sediments of the Choukoutien cave despo- sits - Bull of Geological society of China, 1931, v. 11, No. 2, p. 109-146, Edwards S W, Climck R. W Keeping the lower paleolithic m perspective - Man, 1980, v. 15, N 2.158

Clarke JD Prehistoric Africa, p. 100-108, Lumley H de Cultural evolution. , p. 774-798. 159

Clarke J.D. Prehistoric Africa, p. 101.160

Ibid., P. 100.161

Beregovaya NA Paleolithic localities USSR-MIA, 1960, no. 81, She is the Discovery of the Paleolithic in the USSR (1958-1968) .- In the book .. Paleolithic and Neolithic of the USSR. M. Nauka, 1972 (MIA, No. 185), Derevianno AP Kamenny Vek of Northern, Eastern, Central Asia Novosibirsk, 1975; Early in VA, Nesmeyanov SA Paleolithic and anthropogenic straigraphy of Central Asia Dushanbe Donish, 1973, Alpysbayev X A Monuments of the Lower Paleolithic of South Kazakhstan (On the earliest settlement of Kazakhstan by primitive man). Alma-Ata Nauka, 1979, Boriskovsky PI The most ancient past of mankind, pp. 129-159, Okladnikov AP, Vasilievsky RS North Asia at the dawn of history Novosibirsk Nauka, 1980; Pow-Koy Sohn The early paleolithic industries of Sok chang-ni, Korea. - EPSEA, p 10-27 162

Boriskovsky PI The most ancient past of mankind, p. OF. 163

Movius H L A wooden spear of the third mterglacial age from Lower Saxony. - SJA, 1950, v. 6, No. 2, p 139-140, Howell F S Observations .., p. 185.164

Howell F C, Clark J D Acheulean hunter-gatheiers of sub Saharian Africa - AEHE, p. 520-521, idem, Afucan origins, p. 29, Clark JD Prehistoric Africa, p. 99, 135 165

Boriskovsky PI The most ancient past of mankind, p. 116, 141 166

Muller-Beck H Paleohunters m America, origins and diffusion. Science, 1966,

v. 152, N 3726, p 1196-1197 167

For a summary of materials and literature on this issue, see Yu. I. Semenov. How humanity arose, from 330-331, in addition, see V. P. Lyubin, Lower Paleolithic, p. 36-39; Praslov ID Early Paleolithic., P. 71; Archeology and paleogeography of the Early Paleolithic of the Crimea and the Caucasus, p. 56, 70, 80-81, 89, Alpysbayev X A Monuments of the Lower Paleolithic, p. 168-169, 172, Boriskovsky PI The most ancient past of mankind, p. 156; Bader ON, Bader NO Wolf Grotto, some results of the study. - In the study of the Paleolithic in the Crimea (1879-1979). Kiev. Naukova Dumka, 1979, p. 25, Archeology of Hungary in the Stone Age, p. 40, 43; Vereshchagin NK, Baryshnikov GF Mammals of the Piedmont Northern Crimea in the Paleolithic-TZI, 1980, vol. 93, p. 39, Amud man and his cave site. Tokyo, 1970, p 54, Barker G W N Prehistoric territories and economics on central Italy.-Palaeoeconomy, L., 1975, p. 114-120. 168

Klein R G The ecology of early man, p. 120-121. 169

Lubin VP Mousterian cultures of the Caucasus. M Nauka, 1977, p. 26170

Lee R In What hunteis do for living., P. 48.171

Chernysh AP Early and Middle Paleolithic of Transnistria, p. 36, Lubin B R Lower Paleolithic, p. 38, Alpysbaev X А Monuments of the Lower Paleolithic ..., p. 186. Klein G. R. G. The ecology ..., p. 120-121.

Boriskovsky P.I. The most ancient past of mankind, p. 36.

Clark G., Pig got S. Prehistoric societies. L., 1965, p. 59.

Lumley H. de. Cultural evolution ..., p. 798.

Ibid., P. 798-799; Lumley H., Pillar B., Pillar F. L'habitat et les activities de l'homme du Lazaret. - In: Une Cabane acheule? Nne la Grotte du Lazaret. P., 1969, p. 214-215, 222-223.

Lyubin V.P. Lower Paleolithic, p. 39; Rogacheva A.N. Paleolithic dwellings and settlements .- In the book: Stone Age in the USSR. Moscow: Nauka, 1970, p. 67 (MIA, No. 166).

Howell F. C., Clark J. D. Acheulean ...

Lumley H. de. Cultural evolution ..., p. 790, 798.

Chernysh A.P. Early and Middle Paleolithic of Transnistria, p. 36-46, 88-89, 121.

Bourdier F. Pr? Histoire de France. P., 1967, p. 215-216.

Chernysh A.P. Early and Middle Paleolithic ..., p. 129; Lyubin V.P. Lower Paleolithic, p. 40.

See: Semenov Yu.I. On the maternal gender ...

Bordes F., Sonneville-Bordes D. de. The significance of variability in paleolithic assemblages, WA, 1970, v. 2, No. 1, p. 65.

Butzer K. Environment and archeology, p. 377-378.

Hrdlicka A. The Neanderthal phase of man. - ARSI for 1928. Washington,

Boule M. Les hommes fossiles. Elements de paleontotogue humaine. Paris, 1921.

Ivanova IK Geological age of fossil man, p. 70-71, 56, 64, 66, 72.

Ibid, p. 58, 69.

Vollois H. V. The Fonteshevade fossil men. - AJPhA, 1949, v. 7, N 3; idem. Neanderthals and praesapiens.-IRAI, 1954, v. 84, pt. 12; Montagu Ashley M. F. Neanderthal and modern type of man. - AJPhA, 1952, v. 10, N 3 etc.

Clark W. E. Le Gros, p. 56-74.

See: Campbell B. Human evolution. An introduction to man’s adaptations. Chicago, 1967, p. 348-350.

Ivanova I.K.Geological age ..., p. 70-71.

Lumley H. de. Cultural evolution in France, p. 774-775, 799-805. Literature see: Semenov Yu. I. How Humanity Arose, p. 324-332; He's the same. The Origin of Marriage and Family, p. 290.

Yakimov V. P. Kharitonov V. M. To the problem of the Crimean Neanderthals. - In the book: Study of the Paleolithic in the Crimea (1879-1979). Kiev: Naukova Dumka, 1979, p. 66; Danilova E.I. Occipital bone of a Neanderthal from the Zaskalnaya V trench near Ak-Kai. - Ibid, p. 82-84; Vekilova E. A. On the centenary of the discovery of the Paleolithic in the Crimea. - Ibid, p. 13.

Bader O. N., Bader N. O. Wolf Grotto, p. 27, 32; Kolosov Yu. G. Akkai Mousterian sites and some results of their research .- In the book: Study of the Paleolithic in the Crimea ...

Klein R. G. The middle paleolithic of the Crimea. - Arctic anthropology, 1965, v. 3, N 1.

Ivanova I.K.Geological age ..., p. 111; Levin M.G., Roginsky Ya.Ya. Anthropology, p. 259.

Pycraft W. P. Description of the skull and other remains from Broken- Hill. - In: Rhodesian man and associated remains. L., 1928; Sampson C. G. The stone age of Southern Africa. N. Y .; L., 1975, p. 142-143.

Alekseev V.P. Paleoanthropology ..., p. 38; Livingstone F. More on middle pleistocene hominids. - CA, 1961, v. 2, No. 2, p. 118; Brace C. L. The fate of the classic Neanderthals. - CA, 1964, v. 5, N 1; Agogino G. A. Comment to the article C. L. Brace. - Ibid .; Tobias P. V. Comment to article C. L. Brace.-

Ibid, Jehnek J Neandeithal man and Hochot sapiens m Central and Eastern Europe - CA, 1969, v 10, N 5, Poulianos A Comment to article J Jellmek - Ibid, Brose DS, Wolpoff MN Eaily upper paleolithic man and late middle paleolithic tools - AA, 1971, v 73, N 5, Bdsboroagh A Cranial morphology of Neanderthal man - Nature, 1972, v 237, N 554 202

Howells W W Neanderthal man fact and figures -PMP, 1975, Timka us E, Howells W W The Neanderthals - SA, 1979, v 241, N 6 203

Blanc A С Some evidence for the ideologies of early man - SLEM, p 129 Vallois H V. The social life of early man evidence of skeleton - Ibid p 231 204

Weidenreich F Der Schadelfund von Weimar Ermgsdorf Jena, 1928, p 135 205

Vallois H V The Fonteshevade fossil man -AJPhA, 1949, v. 7, N 3, p 340 206

Keith A The antiquity of man V 1 L, 1929, p 196-197, Weidenreich F The duration, p 203 207

Leakey L S In Adam's ancestors L, 1953, p 201 208

Roper M K A survey of the evidence for intrahuman killing in pleistoce ne - CA, 1969, v. 10, N 4, p 437 209

Blanc A С Some evidence, p 124-128

2,0 Solecki R S Shanidar Ihe first flower people N Y, 1971, p 208-209, 212, Trmkaas E Hard times among the Neanderthals - NH, 1978, v 87, N 10, p 61-62

211 McCown T D, Keith A The stone age of Mount Carmel, V 2, The fossil remains from the levalloise mousterian Oxford, 1939, p 74, 76, 373

"L" - "L Solecki R S Shanidar, p 184, 195-196, Trmkaus E Hard times, p 62 213

Straus W L, Cave A J Pathology and the posture of Neanderthal man- QRB, 1957, v 32, N 4, Constable D Neanderthals M Mir, 1978, p 88, 101, Trmkaus E Hard times, p 63 214

Trmkaus E Op. cit, p 62 215

Hrdlcka A The skeletal remains of early man - SMC Washington, 1930 v 83, p 156, 272, 295-296, Trmkaus E Hard times, p 63 216

Keith A The antiquity of man, v 2, p 389-390, Yearsley M The patholo g\u003e ot the lelt temporal bone of the Rhodesian skull - In Rhodesian man and associate remains L, 1928, Courville C B Cranial injures m prehisto ric man with particular references to the Neanderthals - YPhA, 1951, v 6, p 197 217

Keith A The antiquity of man, Yearsley M The pathology 218

Keith, A New discovery relating to the antiquity of man N Y, 1931, p 185 219

Brodnck A Early man A survey of human origins L, 1948, p 160 220

McCown T D, Keith A The stone age, p 274 221

Solecki R S Shanidar, p 212 222

Ibid, p 238, 265, Idem Shanidar IV, a neanderthal flower burial m Northern Iraq - Science, 1975, v 190, N 4217, p 880, Steward TD The nean derthal skeletal remains from Shanidar cave, Iraq - PAPhS, 1977, v 121, N 2, p 164 223

Solecki R S Shanidar, p 195 224

Ibid, p 246, idem Shanidar IV, p 880-881 225

Literature see Semenov Yu I How mankind arose, p. 382, Paleolithic of the Near and Middle East, p 71, Kolosov 10 G Akkai Musg'er sites, p 44, The Amud man and his cave site Tokyo, 1970, p 6, Catalog of fossil hommids Part II Europa L, 1971, p 61, 98, 101, 111, 150, 164, 319 226

Blanc A С Some evidence, p 124-128 227

Obermeier G Prehistoric man, from 159-160, Efimenko P P Primitive society Kiev, 1953, p 250, Smirnov Yu A [Retz] Les sepultu res neandertaliennes, 1976 - CA, 1979, N 4, p. 189-190 228

Garrod DAE, Bate DMA The stone age of Mount Carmel, V. 1. Oxford, 1937, p. 100, 104. For a summary of materials and literature on this issue, see Yu. I. Semyonov, How Humanity Arose, pp. 402-405

For a summary of materials and literature on this issue, see ibid, with 392 Ibid, with 398-492

Efimenko PP Prenatal society M, L, 1934, p 108, He is also Primitive society, p 236-237, Bogaevsky BL Magic and religion - Militant atheism 1931 N ° 12, p 40 Efimenko P P Primitive society, p 234- 235 Hays HR In the beginnings p 63

Coles] M, Higs E S The archeology of early man, p 220 Bonifay E La Grotte du Regourdou (Montignate, Dordogne) - L'Anthropologie, 1964, t 68 N 1 2 p 58-60

Maruashvili Jl I the Tsukhvat cave system and the cult room of the Mousterians who lived in it - TZI, 1980, v. 93, Archeology and paleo-geography of the early Paleolithic of the Crimea and the Caucasus, from 53-59 Dobrovolsky A In the Pechera colo from Illinka Odessa region - Archeology, 1950, N ° 4

Boriskovsky PI, Paleolithic of Ukraine - MIA, 1953, no. 40, p. 69-70 Gorodtsov VA Results of the study of the Ilskaya Paleolithic site - MIA, 1941, no. 2, p. 22-23 Garrod DAE, Bate DMA The stone age, p 102-103 Okladnikov AP Investigation of the Mousterian site and the burial of a Neanderthal from the Teshik Tash grotto, South Uzbekistan (Central Asia) - In the book Teshik Tash Paleolithic man M Publishing house of Moscow State University, 1949, p. 33-34, He is On the significance of Neanderthal burials for the history of primitive culture - SE, 1952, N ° 3, p. 167-169

Paleolithic Near and Middle East, p 72, Bar Josef O Prehistory of the Levant - ARA, Palo Alto 1980, v 9, p. 113

Lumley H M, Pillar B, Pillar F. L'habitat Lumley H M Cultural evolution m France, p. 799

Huseynov M M The dwelling of the most ancient man in our country - Nature 1974, N ° 3

Lyubin VP, Kolbutov A The most ancient human settlement on the territory of the USSR and the paleogeography of anthropogenesis - BKICHP, 1961, no. 26, p. 77. Okladnikov AP Paleolithic and Mesolithic of Central Asia - In the book Central Asia in the era of stone and bronze M, L Nauka, 1966, p. 27 Marks K, Engels F Soch, v. 20, p. 328

For more details on the emergence of religion see: Semenov Yu. I.

humanity, p. 347-379

Gushchin AS The origin of art M; L Art, 1937, p. 50, 97; Zamyatin SN Essays on the Paleolithic M, L Publishing house of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1961, p. 47-

Marshak A Implications of the paleolithic symbolic evidence for the origin of language - AS, 1976, v 64, N 2

Boriskovsky PI The most ancient past of mankind, p. 210.

See Zolotarev AM Remnants of the clan system among the Gilyaks of the Chome region - Sov North, 1933, N ° 2 He [Retz Efimenko PP P P Primeval society L, 1938] - VDI, 1939, N 2

See Semenov Yu And How Humanity Arose, p. 418-446

Bordes F Os perce must? Nen et os grav? acheul? en du Pech de l'Az? II -

Quaternana, 1969, t 11, p 1-6, idem A tale of two caves N Y, 1972, p. 62,

Marshack A Some implications of the paleolithic symbolic evidence for the

origin of language - CA, 1976, v 17, N 2, p 279, f 12

Peyrony D La Ferrassie - Pr? Histoire, 1934, t 3, p. 1-92.

Ibid, p 24, f 25 (1).

Pittard E Le pr? Historique dans le vallon des Rebieres_ (Dordogne) - Congr? S International d'anthropoloqie et d'arch? Ologie pr? Historique, t 1, Geneve, 1912 p 363

Bordes F Les gisements du Pech de d'Az? (Dordogne) - L'Anthropologie 1956, t 58, N 5 6, p 425-426, f 17

Pradel L et J H Le Moust? Nen? Volu? de l'Ermitage - L'Anthropologie 1956, t 58, N 5 6, p 438, 441, f 3, N 15 Marshack A Some implications p 277, f 7

Bandi HG, Marmger J Kunst der Eiszeit Basel, 1952, Eppel F Fund und Deutung Eine europ? Ische Urgeschichte Wien - M? Nchen, 1958, Bourdi er F Pr? Histoire de France P 1967, p 218, 220, f 84 (6 )

Vertes L Tata Budapest, 1964, Bordes F Les Pal? Olithique dans le mon de P, 1968, p 110-111

Kalandadze A H Tsonskaya cave and its culture - In the book Caves of Georgia t 3 Tbilisi, 1965, p. 34

Delporte H Le Moust? Rien d'Isturitz d'apres la collection Passemard (Mus? E des Antiquit? S Nationales) - Zephyrus, 1974, t 15, p 31,? 5 Chernysh AP About the time of the emergence of Paleolithic art in connection with the research in 1976 of the site Moldova 1 - In the book At the origins of creativity, Novosibirsk Nauka, 1978, from 18-23 (with commentary by AP Okladnikov, from 23-25)

Bourdier F Pr? Histoire de France, p 218-219

Kolosov YG New Mousterian site in the Prolom grotto - In the book Studies of the Paleolithic in the Crimea (1879-1979) Kiev Naukova Dumka, 1979 p. 169

Piaget J Biologie et connaissance P, 1967, p 356-357, Taton R Le calcul mental P, 1961, p 115 Marx K, Engels F Soch, vol. 1, p. 31

Bernal D Science in the history of society M, Publishing house of foreign literature, 1956, pp. 45-46

Marshack A On paleolithic ocher and tho early uses o? color and symbol - CA, 1981, v. 22, N 2, p 188-191

Bucher K Work and rhythm SPb, 1899, M New Moscow, 1923

Frolov BA Numbers in Paleolithic Graphics Novosibirsk Nauka, 1974,

Teshik-Tash Paleolithic man from 75-8e) Okladnikov AP Morning of Art L Art, 1967, p 23-32, Wed Bourdier F Pr? Histoire de France, p 217-230, 284-285; Okladnikov AP, Frolov BA [Retz F Bourdieu Prehistory of France] - VI, 1968, no. 7, s 193-195 Bordes F Sur l'usage piobable de la peinture corpoiolle dans certiins tribu "mousteriennes - BSPF 1952, t 49, p 169-171

To the results of the discussion on the origin of art - SE, 1978 No. 3 p. 105-

Frolov BA Numbers, s 142-144, Frolov B A Variations cogmtives et cr? Atrices dans l'art mobilier au Pal? Olithique Sup? Rieur rythmes nombre images - IX CISPP Colloque XIV, Nice 1976 p 8-23, Idem L ' art pal? o lithique pr? histoire de la science? - X CISPP Mexico 1981, Moberg С A What does Mankmd remember - and? Or how long? - Tn The Condition of Man Goteborg 1979 p 60-79

Chapter 6. CHANGES IN THE BIOSPHERE AND THEIR IMPACT ON HUMAN SOCIETY

Question 33 WHAT IS THE APPEARANCE OF MANAGEMENT IN HUMAN SOCIETY CONNECTED WITH?

B. FORMATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF ECONOMIC RELATIONS IN POLITARY AGRARIAN SOCIETIES

Globalization, the formation of the noosphere and the formation of the information society as aspects of a single process

Verena Erich-Hefely TO THE QUESTION OF THE FORMATION OF THE CONCEPT OF FEMINITY IN THE BOURGEOIS SOCIETY OF THE XVIII CENTURY: THE PSYCHHISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE HEROINE J.-J. RUSSO SOFI

On the whole, paleoanthropes are a group of people transitioning from Homo erectus ("Homo erectus") to a modern man ("Homo sapiens"). These were people of diverse morphological structure, who combined primitive and progressive features to varying degrees. There are 3 groups of paleoanthropes: early (atypical) European, antiquity 250-100 thousand years; Near East - "progressive", antiquity 70-40 thousand years and classical (late) Western European Neanderthals, antiquity 50-35 thousand years.

Broad bones compared to Homo sapiens;

The brush is massive, rough, clumsy;

Height 155 - 165 cm;

Bone and skull structure (round shape);

12,000 years of coexistence with Homo sapiens.

European Neanderthals

This includes the oldest large human fossil remains found on any continent. Some of them show that even individuals living together in one group differed significantly from each other in the structure of the skull and jaws.

More than half of all found individuals come from France - these are fragments of the remains of 116 people from about three dozen sites. Two sites - Ortyu and La Quina - account for most of the remains found in France. Traits characteristic of Neanderthals are also inherent in about two dozen individuals from the Krapina site (Yugoslavia), eleven from Italy, ten from Belgium, eight from Germany, and several more from other places, including the UK, Spain, Gibraltar, Czechoslovakia and Crimea.

The age of the finds ranges, perhaps, from 250 to 30 thousand years, but the most "mature" Neanderthals belong to the first half of the last (Wurm) glaciation: 70-30 thousand years ago.

1) Skull from Eringsdorf. These remains include a Neanderthal-type skull with a high forehead and a jaw without a chin, but with small teeth. Age - perhaps 200 thousand years. Location - Ehringsdorf, Germany.

2) La Chapelle-aux-Seine. This site is famous for the skeleton of a classic Neanderthal man - an old man with arthritis. Age - perhaps 50 thousand years. Location - La Chapelle-aux-Seine, southern part of Central France.

3) Neandertal. The first Neanderthal skeleton described in the literature was found in a cave on the banks of this river. Age - perhaps 50 thousand years. Place - Feldhofer Cave, Neandertal ("Neander Valley"), Dusseldorf, Germany.

Asian and African Neanderthals

Neanderthals also lived in Southwest Asia and possibly Africa, but some of them lacked the coarse features that were characteristic of the classical European form. Probably, among the European Neanderthals, such features arose as a result of adaptation to the severe cold of the Ice Age.

Some of the Asian and African Neanderthals had straighter and thinner limbs, less powerful supraorbital ridges, and shorter, less massive skulls. Along with the supraorbital ridges and the protruding facial region, some of the skulls had a high forehead and a high rounded cranium.

Outside Europe and Southwest Asia, no typically Neanderthal remains have been found. Approximately 40 thousand years ago, the last Neanderthals of Southwest Asia apparently existed simultaneously with people who had a completely modern look. Some of the skulls described below can already be classified as nearly modern.

Jebel Irhud; elongated and low skull with large supraorbital ridges, but with a modern type of facial region and a small occipital ridge. Age - about 7 thousand years. Location - Jebel Irhud, Morocco.

Shanidar; classic Neanderthal with a large brain, but the supraorbital ridges are not connected, as in European Neanderthals. Age - perhaps 70-45 thousand years. Location - Shanidar Cave, Northern Iraq.

Teshik-Tash; a boy's skull with undeveloped supraorbital ridges and other classical features; the facial part of the skull and limbs of the modern type. Age - perhaps 45 thousand years. Place - Teshik-Tash cave, Uzbekistan.

Mousterian guns.

A sharp point is a flake, trimmed in the form of a long sharp triangular point, which may have been tied to a wooden shaft or inserted into a split, thus making an arrow or a spear.

Scraper - a convex scraper with a thickened working edge, possibly used for making skins.

A knife - a long flake with a sharp blade and a blunt chipped) back part, which could be pressed by hand - was used for skinning carcasses, gazetting meat, processing wood.

Serrated file ("dantikule") - a flake with a trimmed sawtooth cutting edge, suitable for processing wood.

Notched tool - a flake with a notch, suitable for grinding sticks, which may have been used as spears.

In the conditions of the ice age, only hunting was suitable. The main prey of European Neanderthals were such large animals as bison, cave bears, horses, reindeer, wild bulls, hairy mammoths and woolly rhinos. Small-scale prey included foxes, hares, birds, and fish. More than 50 thousand bones of 45 species of large and small animals were found at only one Hungarian site. There is no doubt that some animals valued not only meat, but also hides, bones, and tendons, which were used to make clothing, shelters, and traps.

Dwellings - a cave, covered with skins, a base of mammon bones, fire.

Burials: a - The body of the deceased in the sleeping position. b - The body is oriented east-west. c - The head is turned to the south. d - Stone pillow. e - Burnt bones. f - Tools made of stone. g - Horsetail litter. h - Flowers.

PALEOANTHROPES OF PALEOANTHROPES

(from paleo ... and Greek anthropos - man), the generalized name for fossil people, to-ryh is considered as the second stage of human evolution, following the archantropus and preceding neoanthropus. P. is often not quite correctly called Neanderthals. P.'s bone remains are known from the Middle and Late Pleistocene of Europe, Asia, and Africa. Geol. P.'s age is from the end of the Mindelris interglacial to almost the middle of the Wurm glaciation. Abs. age from 250 to 40 thousand years. In morphological. P.'s relation is a heterogeneous group. Along with the primitive forms similar to archanthropus among P. there are representatives close to neoanthropes. The culture of P. is the Middle and Late Acheulean and Mousterian (Early Paleolithic). Ch. arr. hunting large animals (cave bear, woolly rhinos, etc.). Social organization - "primitive human herd". Although in general P. were the predecessors of the modern. man, not all P. are direct. his ancestors. Many of them, due to their specialization and other reasons, did not turn into a modern man. species and became extinct (eg, "classical Neanderthals" of Western Europe). Others (for example, the Near Asian P.) followed the path of progressive evolution and gave rise to the fossil people of the present. species.

.(Source: "Biological Encyclopedic Dictionary." Ed. M. S. Gilyarov; Editorial board: A. A. Babaev, G. G. Vinberg, G. A. Zavarzin et al. - 2nd ed., Revised - M .: Sov.Encyclopedia, 1986.)

paleontrope

The generalized name of ancient fossil people. Often paleanthropes are not quite rightly called neanderthals... which are just one of the groups of ancient people. On the whole, paleoanthropes are a group of people transitioning from Homo erectus ("Homo erectus") to a modern man ("Homo sapiens"). These were people of diverse morphological structure, who combined primitive and progressive features to varying degrees. They lived during the Middle and partly Upper Pleistocene. There are 3 groups of paleoanthropes: early (atypical) European, antiquity 250-100 thousand years; Near East - "progressive", antiquity 70-40 thousand years and classical (late) West European Neanderthals, antiquity 50-35 thousand years.
The features of paleoanthropes were most clearly manifested in the classical Neanderthals of Western Europe, who lived in the harsh conditions of the last glaciation and had a pronounced specialization in the structure of the skull and skeleton. This and many other things do not allow in the late Western European paleoanthropes (Neanderthals) to see directly the ancestors of modern humans. The most progressive (sapient) features were of the Near Asian paleoanthropes from the Skhul and Tabun caves (Israel), which occupy an intermediate position between Neanderthals and modern humans. Probably, the more “progressive” groups of paleoanthropes had great opportunities for development in the course of evolution towards Homo sapiens (“Homo sapiens”).
Paleoanthropes hunted large animals ( cave bear, woolly rhino and others) and gathering, lived in a primitive human herd and created a culture of the Middle Paleolithic - Mousterian.

.(Source: "Biology. Modern illustrated encyclopedia." Ed. A. P. Gorkin; Moscow: Rosmen, 2006.)

See what "PALEOANTHROPES" are in other dictionaries:

Ancient people: . Neanderthal (Homo neandertalensis) and possibly: Homo heidelbergensis See also Neoanthropes modern humans. ... Wikipedia

- (from paleo ... and Greek anthr, o pos man), the collective name of the ancient people of Africa, Europe and Asia, who lived 300 30 thousand years ago. Presented mainly by Neanderthals ... Modern encyclopedia

- (from Paleo ... and Greek antropos man) fossil people of the Paleolithic period (Pithecanthropus, Neanderthals, etc.) ... Big Encyclopedic Dictionary

Paleanthropus - (from paleo ... and Greek anthr, o pos man), the collective name of the ancient people of Africa, Europe and Asia, who lived 300 30 thousand years ago. They are mainly represented by Neanderthals. ... Illustrated Encyclopedic Dictionary

Ov; pl. (unit paleoanthropus, a; m). Anthrop. Fossil people of the Paleolithic period; Neanderthals. * * * paleoanthropes (from paleo ... and Greek. ántrōpos man), fossil people of the late Acheulean and Mousterian times (see Neanderthals). Occupy intermediate ... ... encyclopedic Dictionary

Paleanthropus - the stage of hominid evolution, following the arhantropus and preceding the neoanthropus. They differ from archanthropes with a large brain, from neoanthropes with a sloping chin, an elongated skull and significant massiveness. European and some ... ... Physical Anthropology. Illustrated explanatory dictionary.

- (from Paleo ... and Greek anthropos man) generalized (not systematic) name of fossil people who lived in Asia, Africa and Europe 250 35 thousand years ago. Geologically, this corresponds to the time from the end of the Mindel-Riss interglacial and ... ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia

- (from Paleo ... and Greek tntropos man), fossil people of the late Acheulean and Mousterian epochs (see Neanderthals). They occupy an intermediate position between archanthropics and neoanthropes ... Natural science. encyclopedic Dictionary

- (paleo ... gr. anthropos people) ancient people; the term is used in anthropology to refer to Neanderthals. New dictionary of foreign words. by EdwART, 2009 ... Dictionary of foreign words of the Russian language

paleanthropes - s; pl. (units paleoa / ntrop, a; m); anthrop. Fossil people of the Paleolithic period; Neanderthals ... Dictionary of many expressions

Books

• Predecessors. Ancestors? Part 5. Paleoanthropes, S. V. Drobyshevsky. This work presents a continuation of a brief overview of the most important and most studied localities of fossil hominids, with an outline of the main accompanying data on natural and ...