Home natural farming The same events in the lives of different people. Xerox of life or “Why situations repeat themselves. Break the vicious circle

natural farming

The same events in the lives of different people. Xerox of life or “Why situations repeat themselves. Break the vicious circle

An ancient man known as the "hobbit" has taken evolutionary biologists on a very unexpected journey. In 2004, a team of scientists led by archaeologists Mike Morwood and Peter Brown announced the discovery of a one-meter-tall hominin skeleton with an unusually miniature build and small skull. A skeleton was discovered in the Liang Bua cave on the Indonesian island of Flores. Reports published in 2009 suggested that scientists had found many more fossils at the site, including eight hobbits.

Known to scientists as the Floresian man, the hobbit has a very unusual skeleton. In part, its anatomical structure is similar to very ancient people. According to the analysis, the found skeleton is about 18 thousand years old. This means that primitive-looking hobbits lived at the same time as modern man (Homo sapiens), who appeared about 200 thousand years ago. In other words, the hobbit seems to be the last human species that survived at that time, apart from our own.

This week marks ten years since the first publications describing the hobbit appeared in the journal Nature. But even after a decade filled with debate, the tiny skeleton continues to cause controversy and controversy. Some experts argue that the skeleton does not represent a separate species, but is simply a deceased modern human. It is easy to get lost in the competing theories about the origin of the Floresian man and how he got to Indonesia. Therefore, we offer you a guide to what scientists know about this unusual find, and what they do not know.

Why is the hobbit so weird?

At first, archaeologists suspected they had found the bones of a modern human child. However, a closer analysis made them change their minds. The older hominin, known as Australopithecus afarensis, and represented by the remains of the famous "Lucy", has strong jaws, flared femurs and short legs. The Floresian man has the same features. The small Hobbit skull indicates that this species had an orange-sized brain, reminiscent of another ancient species, Homo habilis, or Homo habilis, who lived 2.4-1.4 million years ago. The hobbit has protruding brow ridges, a thick skull and the same brain structure as Homo erectus, which appeared almost two million years ago. As scientists delved deeper into the study of the hobbit, it became clear that he had a very curious mixture of modern and primitive features. "It's like we suddenly have a human evolution lab that happened on planet Earth that we didn't know anything about," says palaeontologist Rick Potts, who leads the Human Origins Program at the National Museum of Natural History. stories.

Are we sure that the hobbit is not just a very short modern man?

Given the young age of the skeleton, some experts have suggested that Floresian man represents a modern person with dwarfism, Down's syndrome, or other pathology, which explains his small stature and brain. But none of the modern human pathologies can explain all the features of a hobbit. Remarkably, the bones of Floresian humans do not have some of the characteristics of modern human foot, face, and wrist bones, such as the trapezoidal bone in our wrists. But this has not stopped scientists who continue to argue about whether the Floresian man is really a unique species.

So where did the hobbit come from in the process of evolution?

Not from the Shire. Perhaps the most common version is that the Floresian man evolved from some kind of erectus, or Homo erectus. Coincidentally, erectus remains were discovered on the Indonesian island of Java. The very first remains of Homo erectus were found outside of Africa, in the Georgian town of Dmanisi. They also showed that these hominins were not always large and tall as we thought. Skeletons from Dmanisi are smaller and retain some primitive features. All this indicates that a group of early Homo erectus could reach mainland Southeast Asia, and some part of the population ended up on Flores, laying the foundation for the hobbits.

Could he be even older?

It would be very interesting. Given the similarities in anatomy between Lucy and Homo habilis, it is possible that Hobbits had more ancient ancestors. If this is the case, we will have to take a fresh look at the settlement of ancient man from Africa. “This means that we were missing a whole branch of the tree of human evolution until these important findings were made at Liang Bua,” writes anthropologist Chris Stringer of the Natural History Museum in London in a commentary published in Nature. However, Australopithecus like Lucy could not cover the distance from Africa to Indonesia through all of Asia. We see strong legs of hominins that allow us to overcome long distances only in erectus.

In short, it has shrunk. The most common theory is that the ancestors of Floresian man may have undergone the effect of insular dwarfism. Islands are subject to unique evolutionary pressures, including resource scarcity and irregular availability. To somehow compensate for such a deficit, some animals are reduced in size, and this allows them to spend less energy. “If you want to survive on the island, you have to physically reduce all the organs of the body, which become an unaffordable luxury,” says Potts. Among the animals found during excavations at Liang Bua, along with Floresian man, were dwarf species of the ancient Stegodon elephant and normal-sized Komodo dragons. Morewood and Brown speculated that since the effect of insular dwarfism played a role on Flores, it determined the size of the hobbit, and that this effect could explain the reappearance of primitive skeletal features.

Why such a small brain?

Proponents of the later origin of Floresian humans attribute the small size of the brain to developmental disorders such as microcephaly, which stops the growth of the brain. Initially, researchers doubted that island dwarfism could shrink the brain to the extent that we see in the Hobbit. But in 2009, a study published in the journal Nature showed that Madagascar hippos, subject to the effect of insular dwarfism, had brains that were disproportionately small compared to their bodies. A large brain requires expensive care, and therefore it is possible that it is subjected to stronger evolutionary pressures.

How did the hobbit get to Flores?

Even at the time of the last glacial maximum, when the sea level dropped very much, Flores was never connected by land isthmuses either with other Indonesian islands or with the mainland of Southeast Asia. The ancestors of the Floresian man needed a boat or a raft. Although this cannot be ruled out, there is no evidence to indicate that Homo erectus built boats. There is probably another option here. Some of the upright people could end up on a cluster of some kind of vegetation or on a miniature island that broke away from the mainland and collided with Flores. This happens in coastal areas during typhoons and tsunamis.

When did the hobbit get to Flores?

Volcanic ash in the deposits around the remains of the Floresian man indicates that they are between 18 and 38 thousand years old. But other archaeological finds, such as stone tools found in the Liang Bua cave, are between 13,000 and 98,000 years old. Scientists from the Smithsonian Institution are conducting analyzes on the skeletons, hoping to more accurately determine the age of the hobbits. The oldest stone tools found on Flores are 1.02 million years old and could have belonged to a Floresian man or, more likely, to his ancestors.

What answers will the next decade bring?

Those skeletons that may be found in Liang Bua or elsewhere on Flores will help fill in the gaps in our knowledge, and perhaps solve the most important question about the origin of the hobbits. The answer to this question can affect our understanding of human evolution in mainland Asia and even the theory of human migration from Africa.

The new book by Alexander Markov is a fascinating story about the origin and structure of man, based on the latest research in anthropology, genetics and evolutionary psychology. The two-volume book "The Evolution of Man" answers many questions that have long interested Homo sapiens. What does it mean to be human? When and why did we become human? In what are we superior to our neighbors on the planet, and in what are we inferior to them? And how can we better use our main difference and dignity - a huge, complex brain? One way is to read this book thoughtfully.

Alexander Markov - Doctor of Biological Sciences, Leading Researcher at the Paleontological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences. His book on the evolution of living beings, The Birth of Complexity (2010), has become an event in non-fiction literature and has been widely acclaimed by readers.

7. The main distinguishing feature of the "hobbits" - a small brain combined with short stature - according to the authors, is a consequence of microcephaly. The authors report that microcephaly is usually accompanied by a whole range of other abnormalities, among which one of the most common is dwarfism. The extremely high degree of overgrowth of the cranial sutures, characteristic of the “hobbit” skull, could be the root cause of a whole complex of anomalies, including a small brain volume. In particular, the authors note a strongly pronounced asymmetry of the skull, especially its facial part. This asymmetry goes beyond what is considered clinically normal and suggests that the Liang Bua skull belonged to an individual with severe developmental disabilities.

8. The discoverers of the "hobbits" indicated the structural features of the teeth that distinguish their find from modern people. The authors analyze these features in detail and show that all of them are found with varying frequency in modern human populations, and some features indicate the proximity of the "hobbit" to the modern Floresian pygmies of the Rampasas.

9. Considering the structure of the postcranial skeleton (that is, all bones that are not related to the skull), the authors point to a number of features indicating that the type specimen H. floresiensis suffered from severe malformations. The postcranial bones of other individuals belonging to the same species are mentioned only in passing by the authors, noting that “they generally correspond to the idea that the Lang Bua population was dwarfed” and, most importantly, “these bones do not say anything about the size cranium of their owners.

In most anthropology textbooks, you can read that the chin protrusion is one of the most characteristic distinguishing features of Homo sapiens, by which the jaw of a modern person can always be distinguished from the jaw of a Neanderthal or Pithecanthropus. However, among the Pygmies of the Rampasas from the island of Flores, there are individuals lacking a chin protrusion. Photo from Jacob et al., 2006.

Many of the arguments listed (especially the third, fourth and seventh) are, in my opinion, very vulnerable to criticism. Nevertheless, the article was a serious blow to the positions of the "optimists". Undoubtedly, the whole argument of skeptics will instantly crumble to smithereens if one can dig up another small skull with the same features on Flores. But this has not happened yet.

However, in the last 2–3 years, the “optimists” have clearly begun to gain the upper hand. This is evident from the fact that other anthropologists, who have not themselves studied "hobbits", are increasingly using Homo floresiensis as a material for comparison and a basis for evolutionary hypotheses. New "optimistic" arguments are also put forward.

In 2007, the "optimists" published an article in Science, in which they drew attention to the fact that so far the discussion has been mainly around the structure of the skull and teeth, although the bones of the limbs in primates can also serve as an important source of information about family ties and group affiliation. In particular, the bones of the wrist Homo sapiens have a number of advanced features not found in other modern primates.

The authors showed that these "human" signs are also characteristic of our closest fossil relatives: the Upper Paleolithic sapiens (Cro-Magnons) and Neanderthals, as well as for Homo antecessor- a species that is considered close to the common ancestor of Neanderthals and sapiens (see below). Insofar as Homo antecessor lived about 1.0–0.8 million years ago, the authors believe that this complex of carpal signs formed no later than ( Tocheri et al., 2007). Scientists examined three bones of the left wrist belonging to the type specimen Homo floresiensis(instance LB1). The bones were excavated in September 2003, they are well preserved and show no signs of pathology.

It turned out that all three bones do not have advanced features characteristic of sapiens and Neanderthals, and are in the original, primitive state that is observed in chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, australopithecines and habilis.

The authors used for comparison 252 bones of the wrists of modern people from all over the Earth, including those suffering from various developmental disorders of the skeleton; 117 chimpanzee bones, 116 gorilla bones, 40 orangutan bones, 19 baboon bones, four Upper Paleolithic sapiens bones, 13 Neanderthal bones, three Australopithecus bones and one habilis bone. In addition, they used extensive literature data on various anomalies in the structure of the wrist that occur in modern people. The scientists concluded that the primitive traits seen in the LB1 hobbit cannot be the result of known diseases or developmental anomalies. According to them, progressive features in the structure of the wrist, characteristic of modern man, appeared between 0.8 and 1.8 million years ago in an evolutionary line that includes sapiens, Neanderthals and their common ancestor. As for the "hobbits", they descended from some more primitive hominids, in which these signs were still in their original, "monkey" state, like in Australopithecus and Habilis.

Brush skeleton. The bones of the wrist, preserved in the “hobbit”, are highlighted (from left to right: scaphoid, trapezoid, capitate).

Unfortunately, the bones of the wrist Homo erectus- the probable ancestor of the "hobbits" - has not yet been found.

Another portion of "optimistic" arguments appeared in 2009. Examination of the endocran (cast of the brain cavity) of a single skull Homo floresiensis showed that, although the brain size of the "hobbit" was the same as that of a chimpanzee, its structure underwent a significant reorganization. In particular, the size and shape of some sections of the cortex associated with "higher" mental functions have changed. It is not a monkey brain, but it is not the brain of a modern human suffering from microcephaly either. The discovered features help to understand how the "hobbits" managed to have a fairly high culture with such a small brain, in particular, to make stone tools ( Falk et al., 2009). Archaeological evidence also indicates that modern people who arrived in Flores about 12 thousand years ago may have adopted some stone processing techniques from the natives - "hobbits" (the age of the bones of "hobbits" found, according to the latest data, is from 95 to 12 thousand years Most likely, the "hobbits" lived to see the arrival of sapiens) ( Moore et al., 2009).

Important facts that shed light on the origin and family ties of the “hobbits” were obtained during the study of the LB1 foot ( Jungers et al., 2009). According to some signs, the “hobbit” foot resembles a human one: the thumb is adjacent to the rest (and not opposed to them, like in a chimpanzee); the upper part of the arch is reinforced, which allows you to effectively push off when walking; the bones of the metatarsus are also similar to human ones in a number of ways. But in other respects the hobbit foot is very different from ours. First of all, she is too big for a person of her height. In terms of the relative size of the foot, the "hobbit" corresponds to chimpanzees and australopithecines, but not to sapiens. Very long fingers also belong to primitive features, except for the thumb, which, on the contrary, is shortened (this also brings the “hobbits” closer not to sapiens, but to early hominids). The hobbit foot is well adapted for walking on two legs, but it is not well suited for fast running. For example, its vault does not have a special springy mechanism characteristic of Homo sapiens. Long fingers could be comfortable with a measured step, but would be a hindrance when running.

Footprints found in Kenya Homo erectus, whose age is 1.43 million years (see above), show that by that time our ancestors already had a completely modern gait and foot structure. Therefore, the evolutionary paths of the ancestors of the "hobbits" and modern people diverged, most likely before this date (unless the primitive foot developed secondarily in hobbits).

Until now, the most probable ancestors of the "hobbits" were considered erectus, who supposedly entered Flores 800-900 thousand years ago and gradually shredded, turning into a special dwarf species of people under conditions of island isolation. New data testify in favor of another version, which was also expressed, but seemed less likely - about the origin of "hobbits" from more primitive hominids close to Australopithecus or Habilis. This version, by the way, fits better with the small brain size of hobbits. The patterns of change in the relative sizes of the brain and body during the evolution of mammals, including primates, are well studied. On the basis of these regularities, it can be concluded that dwarfs of a meter height, descended from sapiens, should have had a brain volume of about 1100 cm 3, from erectus - about 500-650 cm 3. But the brain volume of LB1 is only 400 cm 3, so in this respect the habilis and australopithecines are better suited to the role of the ancestors of the "hobbits" than the erectus, or even more modern people.

The problem, however, is that neither the Australopithecus nor the Habilis ever ventured outside their native African continent—at least no evidence has yet been found to suggest such a possibility. To get to distant Flores, primitive African hominids would have had to travel a huge distance, including through such landscapes to which they would hardly have been able to adapt. How did the ancestors of the "hobbits" get to Flores?

In principle, the ancestors of the "hobbits" could be the early representatives of the human race, intermediate between the habilis and the typical erectus. It was at this stage of development, about 1.77 million years ago, that people first went beyond their native African continent, as evidenced by the finds in Dmanisi. But the brain volume of people from Dmanisi was 600–650 cm 3 and weighed about 40 kg (“hobbits” weighed about 30 kg). Calculations based on the above regularities show that the people from Dmanisi were still too "brainy" to claim to be the ancestors of the hobbits.

To solve this problem in an unexpected way helped ... hippos. True, not modern, but fossil pygmy hippos, which lived relatively recently (a thousand years ago) on the island of Madagascar. In the conditions of island isolation, hippos, like the ancestors of the "hobbits" and many other mammals in a similar situation, began to shrink. At the same time, the volume of their brain, as it turned out, decreased faster than it was “supposed” in accordance with previously established patterns. Within the same species, mammalian brain volume generally varies in proportion to body volume raised to the power of 0.25 or less; for groups of closely related species, this indicator ranges from 0.2 to 0.4. In other words, the volume of the body usually changes much faster than the volume of the brain. That's why relative the size of the brain in dwarf forms, as a rule, is larger than in large ones. However, in the case of a rapid decrease in body size under conditions of island isolation, this indicator, as it turned out, can approach 0.5. This means that insular dwarfism can lead to abnormally rapid brain shrinkage ( Weston, Lister, 2009). If we extrapolate this pattern to people from Dmanisi and the "hobbits", it turns out that the former could well be the ancestors of the latter. The resulting reduction in the brain is comparable to what was observed in Madagascar hippos.

Time of existence and alleged family ties of fossil hominids. On the vertical axis - time in million years ago. Solid arrows show more or less accurately established family ties, dotted arrows show hypothetical ones. Two possible origins shown Homo floresiensis - from early erectus and from habilis. According to the drawing from Lieberman, 2009.

Under the pressure of new facts, many experts who still doubted that "hobbits" are a special kind of people, and not a degenerate dwarf tribe of sapiens, are reconsidering their views. Among them is Daniel Lieberman of Harvard University. According to Lieberman, the most likely ancestors of the "hobbits" today should be considered the early erectus, close to the people from Dmanisi, however, the habilis cannot be discounted. It is possible that the early representatives of the human race (habilis, early erectus and the like) were much more diverse, and their area of \u200b\u200bdistribution was much wider than we know today ( Lieberman, 2009).

<<< Назад

Forward >>>

Human evolution. Book 1. Monkeys, bones and genes Markov Alexander Vladimirovich

"Hobbits" from the island of Flores

In October 2004 in the magazine Nature published a description of a previously unknown species of fossil people - Homo floresiensis who lived on the island of Flores (Indonesia) less than 20 thousand years ago (that is, quite recently, when the Neanderthals had already died out, and the sapiens were widely settled in the Old World). The find was made in the Lang Bua cave. These strange people, nicknamed hobbits for their small stature (no more than a meter), had a tiny brain (about 400 cm 3, about the size of a chimpanzee or even a little less) and at the same time made quite perfect stone tools. The authors of the unique find pointed out the similarity of the "hobbits" with Homo erectus. In their opinion, the "hobbits" are most likely the shredded descendants of the erectus, who settled on the island more than 800 thousand years ago (judging by the finds of tools). This point of view seemed to be the most reasonable from the very beginning to many experts.

However, other interpretations have been proposed. Some authors have admitted that Homo floresiensis originated not from erectus, but from more archaic hominids - Australopithecus, the remains of which are still known only from Africa. Others generally argued that the "hobbit" was simply an unusually ugly representative H. sapiens suffering from severe microcephaly.

Around the "hobbits" a heated discussion unfolded. I will go into more detail about it so that readers can get a general idea of how paleonthropologists solve controversial issues in the absence of direct evidence.

In April 2006, a meeting of the Paleoanthropological Society was held in Puerto Rico, at which several important presentations were made ( Culotta, 2006). Susan Larson from the State University of New York reported on new anatomical details of the skeletal structure H. floresiensis confirming the original version of the origin of this species from H. erectus.

The humerus of the "hobbit", as it turned out, is significantly different from ours. If our head of the humerus is rotated relative to the elbow joint by 145–165 degrees, due to which our elbows are directed backward and it is convenient for us to work with our hands in front of us in a standing position, then in the “hobbit” the head of the shoulder is turned only 110 degrees. This feature in itself could hamper gun activity. H. floresiensis, however, it is compensated by a slightly different shape and orientation of the scapula than ours. Apparently, the “hobbits” could work with their hands as efficiently as modern people, but the comfortable position of the hands was achieved in a slightly different way, and the “hobbits” had to hunch a little while working. But they most likely could not throw objects over long distances.

Larson also studied the skeletons of other fossil hominids and found that the only more or less complete skeleton H. erectus, found in Kenya, the humerus is arranged in the same way as in H. floresiensis. Previously, this was ignored. Larson came to the conclusion that the transformation of the shoulder on the way from the first hominids to modern man took place in two stages, with the "hobbit" and erectus corresponding to the first of them.

In another presentation at the same meeting, William Jungers, a colleague of Larson's at the university, spoke about the results of the reconstruction of the "hobbit" pelvis. Although early publications reported the similarity of the pelvic bones H. floresiensis with those of Australopithecus, Jungers found a number of advanced features, which confirms the version of the origin of the "hobbits" from H. erectus.

The authors of the sensational discovery believed that the skeleton they found belonged to a female, but later some experts doubted this. Jungers reported that limb bones from other individuals found near the first skeleton were noticeably smaller. This suggests that this species may have had sexual dimorphism (males were larger than females). It is possible that the skeleton belonged to a man, and individual bones of the limbs belonged to women.

Jungers also said that among the bones found there is a well-preserved foot, which has not yet been properly examined. Its large size attracts attention: it is possible that the "hobbits" from the island of Flores, like the heroes of Tolkien's novel, were the owners of impressive hairy feet.

In general, as the "hobbits" are studied, the positions of skeptics become more and more shaky. However, some of them persist. For example, paleoanthropologist Robert Martin and his colleagues believe that the brains of "hobbits" are too small to belong to a full-fledged hominid of this size ( Martin et al., 2006). “I'm not 100% sure it's microcephaly,” says Martin. “I’m only saying that his brain is still too small.”

The strongest argument against the "microcephalic" version is that, in addition to the original skeleton, the remains of several more individuals clearly related to the same species were found in the Lang Bua cave on the island of Flores. According to Jungers, Martin actually insists that there was a whole village of microcephalic idiots on the island. True, the skull was preserved in only one specimen (LB1), but there are lower jaws, the structure of which suggests that the brains of other inhabitants of Liang Bua were no larger than those of LB1.

Homo floresiensis . Flores Island (Indonesia), 95–12 thousand years ago.

It is curious that even after the discovery of Neanderthals, some scientists tried to prove that the bones found did not belong to a special variety of ancient people, but to people of a modern type who suffered from mental retardation. It seems that the situation is repeating itself, and the outcome of the discussion seems to be again not in favor of the skeptics.

Shortly after the publication of the commentary by Martin and his colleagues, a large international group of archaeologists reported a strong new argument that Homo floresiensis- not a microcephaly, not a pygmy and not a hallucination, but a special dwarf type of person.

Together with the bones of nine individuals Homo floresiensis in the Lang Bua cave, the discoverers found numerous stone tools. Skeptics argued that these tools were too perfect to be made by a creature with a brain volume of 400 cm 3, and that in fact they were the products of sapiens - people of the modern type.

Ancient skeletal remains Homo sapiens, found on Flores, are 11.5 thousand years old - they are slightly younger than the youngest bones of the "hobbits". Together with the bones of sapiens, much more advanced tools with polished blades were found, as well as beads and other artifacts, indicating a fundamentally different (Upper Paleolithic) level of culture.

In addition to the relatively primitive tools of the "hobbits" and exquisite Upper Paleolithic products of modern people, very ancient tools were found on the island, apparently belonging to representatives of the species Homo erectus who inhabited the island more than 800 thousand years ago. The bones of the erectus themselves have not yet been found. If the skeptics who consider the “hobbits” to be ugly people of the modern type are right, then the tools found with the “hobbits” must be very different from the production of erectus. If the discoverers of the "hobbits" are right, then Homo floresiensis- direct descendants of the erectus that settled the island, and their tools should be similar to each other and differ sharply from the products H. sapiens. A study conducted by a group of scientists from Australia, Indonesia and the Netherlands confirmed the second version ( Brumm et al., 2006).

For the first time, ancient tools (in the amount of several dozen) were found in 1994, 50 km east of the Lang Bua cave. In 2004-2005, during intensive excavations in the area, archaeologists recovered about 500 more artifacts. In Lang Bua, 3264 stone artifacts were found along with the bones of hobbits.

Hobbit skull. Photo from Brown et al., 2004.

Ancient tools come from a layer of lake-river sediments, which in some places is limited above and below by volcanic layers, which makes it possible to determine the age of artifacts with great accuracy. The lower volcanic layer has an age of 880 ± 70, the upper - 800 ± 70 thousand years. The guns, therefore, were made between these dates.

The stone industry of the island's first settlers was quite primitive - not far from Olduvai. Most of the artifacts are made of low-quality material - pebbles of volcanic origin, which were picked up right on the spot, but there are also items made of higher-quality fine-grained siliceous limestone (27 artifacts) and chalcedony. The material for these products, apparently, was brought from afar.

The technology consisted in breaking off flakes from the core. To do this, they simply beat another with one pebble or used a spent core as a hammer. Flakes were obtained mainly in small and medium sizes. Most of the "production" was abandoned at the place of manufacture and never used. Some (mainly large) flakes were subjected to additional processing - retouching. For example, the edge of a flake could be sharpened by chipping off smaller flakes from it. Five tools were especially carefully processed - small pieces were chipped off from them until they got a kind of point that could be used, for example, to pierce holes in skins.

The stone industry of the island's first settlers turned out to be very similar to products H. floresiensis according to the main qualitative and quantitative parameters. Punctures found among ancient tools resemble similar tools from Liang Bua, and spent cores from two locations are almost indistinguishable in many cases. Perhaps the only significant difference between the two sets of stone tools is that among the finds from Lang Bua there are 12 artifacts that crumbled under the influence of fire, while this is not observed among the ancient tools.

These results support the hypothesis of the origin H. floresiensis from the erectus that inhabited the island about 800 thousand years ago or earlier. For hundreds of thousands of years of quiet life on the island among exotic pygmy elephants - stegodons, giant rats and monitor lizards, the islanders have been crushed, and their technological development has almost completely stopped. The appearance on Flores of people of the modern type - tall Upper Paleolithic hunters with a highly developed stone industry - doomed the small backward people to inevitable death. However, judging by the legends about the small forest people that exist among modern islanders, the last "hobbits" may have died out only a few centuries ago.

The discussion did not end there. Soon in the magazine Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences another article of skeptics appeared ( Jacob et al., 2006), which considered the following arguments.

1. The main distinguishing feature H. floresiensis- small brain volume (about 400 cm3). However, only one skull was found; the bones of other individuals do not provide strong evidence that they also had small brains.

2. Stone tools found along with the bones of "hobbits" are very complex. In particular, small blades were found that were parts of composite tools. Only people of the modern type owned such technologies. The similarity of the tools of the "hobbits" with the ancient products of the erectus found on the island, according to the authors, is very superficial.

3. In order for a new kind of people to form on the island, complete isolation is necessary. However, there is no good reason to assert that the archanthropes entered the island only once and there were no further contacts between the inhabitants of Flores and other human populations. About pygmy elephants - stegodons, it is known that they penetrated Flores at least twice. And if contact between the islanders and other people persisted, how can it be argued that the islanders were really a distinct species? People, apparently, could repeatedly penetrate Flores during the glacial maxima, when the sea level fell and the straits between the islands of the Malay Archipelago narrowed or completely disappeared.

4. Flores Island is too small for an isolated population of hunter-gatherers to survive for 40,000 generations. The area of the island (14,200 km 2) is estimated to be sufficient for only 570-5700 primitive people, while according to other available estimates, the population of large vertebrates must have at least 5816-7316 adults for it to have a realistic chance last 40 thousand generations.

5. Dwarfism alone cannot serve as an argument in favor of distinguishing "hobbits" as a separate species, since such size variations are widespread in many mammals, including humans. For example, African pygmies are not a separate species at all, and they are not genetically isolated from neighboring tribes.

6. None of the morphological features of the single "hobbit" skull and both lower jaws goes beyond the individual variability characteristic of the modern inhabitants of Melanesia and Australia. Even those features that were specifically noted in the original description as "not found in modern people" (for example, some features of the structure of the tympanic bone) are actually found in the natives of Australia and the recently extinct Tasmanians. The absence of a chin protrusion among the “hobbits” also does not mean anything, since this feature is very common among the Rampasas pygmies living near the Lang Bua cave and specially studied by the authors of the article (see photo on p. 192).

Brush skeleton. The bones of the wrist, preserved in the “hobbit”, are highlighted (from left to right: scaphoid, trapezoid, capitate).

Unfortunately, the bones of the wrist Homo erectus- the probable ancestor of the "hobbits" - has not yet been found.

Another portion of "optimistic" arguments appeared in 2009. Examination of the endocran (cast of the brain cavity) of a single skull Homo floresiensis showed that, although the brain size of the "hobbit" was the same as that of a chimpanzee, its structure underwent a significant reorganization. In particular, the size and shape of some sections of the cortex associated with "higher" mental functions have changed. It's not a monkey's brain, but it's not the brain of a modern human suffering from microcephaly either. The discovered features help to understand how the "hobbits" managed to have a fairly high culture with such a small brain, in particular, to make stone tools ( Falk et al., 2009). Archaeological evidence also indicates that modern people who arrived in Flores about 12 thousand years ago may have adopted some stone processing techniques from the natives - "hobbits" (the age of the bones of "hobbits" found, according to the latest data, is from 95 to 12 thousand years Most likely, the "hobbits" lived to see the arrival of sapiens) ( Moore et al., 2009).

From the book The Newest Book of Facts. Volume 1 [Astronomy and astrophysics. Geography and other earth sciences. Biology and Medicine] author

From the book Anthropological Detective. Gods, Humans, Monkeys... [Illustrated] author Belov Alexander Ivanovich

From the book Evolution author Jenkins Morton

From the book Tropical Nature author Wallace Alfred Russell

THE MYSTERY OF THE ISLAND OF MADAGASCAR In ancient Rome, lemurs were called harmful shadows, ghosts of the dead. These restless wandered around at night, vainly seeking peace in this world, and with their very appearance they sent madness on people. When the first Europeans set foot on about. Madagascar and

From the book The Newest Book of Facts. Volume 1. Astronomy and astrophysics. Geography and other earth sciences. Biology and medicine author Kondrashov Anatoly Pavlovich

GALAPAGOS, THE ISLANDS Charles Darwin visited the Galapagos Islands in 1835 during a round-the-world expedition on the Beagle. There he came up with the idea of natural selection. The Galapagos Islands take their name from the Spanish word galapago, meaning turtle; sometimes also called

From the book Reading between the lines of DNA [The second code of our life, or the Book that everyone needs to read] author Shpork Peter

Hummingbirds of Juan Fernandez as an example of variation and natural selection The three species of hummingbirds of Juan Fernandez and Mas a Fuera have some highly remarkable features. They form a distinct genus Eustephanus, one species of which occurs both in

From the book The Most Unusual Animals author Berdyshev Dmitry Gennadievich

Which islands are in the top ten largest in the world? The ten largest islands in the world are the following (the area in square kilometers is indicated in brackets): Greenland (2,175,600), New Guinea (792,500), Kalimantan (734,000), Madagascar (587,000), Baffin Island (507,500) ,

From the book In the wake of the past author Yakovleva Irina Nikolaevna

What unites the name of the Chinese island of Taiwan with the names of cities: Icelandic Reykjavik, Indian Diamond Harbor, Mexican Ensenada and Finnish Lahti? Chinese "van", Icelandic "vik", English "harbour", Spanish "ensenada" and Finnish "lahti"

From the author's book

What is the second (unofficial) name of the Fiji Islands? Even in the early years of the 19th century, sailors bypassed Fiji - due to the fact that the population of the islands was famous for its militancy and cannibalism. Hence the second (unofficial) name appeared -

From the author's book

Centenary Islands It is obvious that a healthy lifestyle is the most decisive way to achieve old age. Even Jeanne Calment's smoking doesn't change anything. On the contrary, the fact that this unhealthy habit could not harm her emphasizes the extraordinary

From the author's book

Wonders of the island of Madagascar Madagascar kingdom is the only insular zoogeographic region of the planet. It lies entirely on the islands belonging to the Mascarene, Seychelles, Amirante and Comoros archipelagos. Its name is the kingdom

From the author's book

BEAVER MOUSE AND OSTRICH OWL FROM THE ISLAND OF CUBA It is interesting that the history of the fauna of the mainland-island of South America, as if in miniature, was repeated on the real island lying to the north of it - in Cuba.

Candidate of Biological Sciences V. MUZHCHINKIN.

In autumn 2004, the preliminary results of the excavations of the Australian-Indonesian expedition on the island of Flores were published. This Indonesian island is located between Java and Timor, south of Sulawesi, where the Asian block of the earth's crust borders on the Australo-New Guinean. The findings made by the expedition in the grotto of Liang Bua became a scientific sensation.

Reconstruction of the Pygmy site from the island of Flores.

Stone tools found on the island may have belonged to Floresian "hobbits". So the world press, remembering the heroes of Tolkien's epic, immediately dubbed the ancient inhabitants of the island.

This is what the forest dwarfs looked like, stories about which have been passed down by the modern inhabitants of the island of Flores by word of mouth for many generations.

Comparison of the skulls (from left to right) of Floresian man, Neanderthal man and modern Homo sapiens.

The dwarf stegodon, which pygmies could hunt, is now an extinct relative of the elephant (one and a half meters at the withers).

The Indonesian region is remembered for one of the first anthropological sensations. In 1891, the Dutch explorer E. Dubois found fragments of the skeleton of an ape-man, Pithecanthropus, in Java. The commotion then made in the press was gradually replaced by the obligatory presence in all school textbooks of a detailed story about the Javanese find. It was found that creatures similar to Pithecanthropus - upright, about 170 cm tall, with a kilogram brain, capable of using fire (the oldest bonfires are more than a million years old) and making a variety of stone (and, probably, bone and wood) inventory - were common in the expanses of Eurasia and Africa. Now they are referred to as "upright man".

The island itself was discovered in the 16th century by the Portuguese, who gave it the name Flores - the island of Flowers. Archaeologists have been digging on Flores since 1952, and even then it became clear that people lived here in the early Pleistocene. Dutch priest and amateur archaeologist Theodore Verhoeven discovered human stone tools along with the bones of giant Komodo dragons and medium-sized stegodons (distant relatives of modern elephants). And now, in a karst failure 40 meters deep, filled with sediment and located 25 kilometers from the seashore, at an altitude of 500 meters above its current level, an almost complete skeleton of a woman and the remains of several more similar individuals were found.

The skeleton belonged to a normally built adult woman, only a meter tall and apparently weighing 20-30 kilograms. These miniature sizes are very confusing for anthropologists. Of the three species of the genus Homo currently distinguished (Homo habilis, Homo erectus, and Homo sapiens), the creature found, in all respects, except for size, fits into the limits of the “upright walking” species, which also includes the Javanese Pithecanthropus. But so far, a separate species has been created for him (more precisely, for her) - the Floresian man, Homo floresiensis.

The small size of the Floresian man and especially the small size of his brain inevitably lead to the continuation of a discussion that has lasted for almost two centuries about the importance of such indicators as the size of the brain and the whole body for assessing human capabilities.

A 400-gram brain (judging by the volume of the cranium) was possessed by a Floresian man, the brain of an adult chimpanzee and a newborn modern man weighs the same. The intellectual capabilities of a newborn baby are still difficult to assess. Every year we learn something new about the capabilities of the chimpanzee brain: this brain allows us to operate with two hundred words of sign language, use improvised objects as tools, adopt the skills of members of our social group ... So the four hundred gram brain of "hobbits" is fraught with more possibilities than it seems at first sight. But is it really possible to consider the stone scrapers, cutters and piercers found in the same layer with the skeleton as the products of these pygmies, and not other members of our genus Homo? And the next inevitable and still unanswered question: what is the difference between the capabilities of the four hundred gram brain of Floresians and the capabilities of the kilogram brain of their closest relatives and alleged progenitors - Pithecanthropes? After all, those, in turn, are in terms of brain size at the lower limit of the normal weight of this organ in a modern person. Everyone remembers the school example with the kilogram brain of Anatole France and the two-kilogram brain of Turgenev, writers equally successful in their work.

Body size is easier to deal with than brain size. The heights of representatives of modern tribes range from less than one and a half meters in the Zairian Mbuti (and, possibly, in some groups of Andamanese and Filipinos) to almost two meters in the Central African Watussi-Tutsi, that is, they differ by one and a half times. Within our own species, populations can be found in which short stature is combined with small head size. Then the last reasons to isolate the Floresian pygmies from other local variants of Homo erectus are removed.

It turns out a completely similar picture for the type of Homo sapiens and the type of Homo erectus: a double spread in the volume of the cranium and one and a half - in height. In this case, the Floresian find prolongs the presence of Homo erectus on the historical scene up to one and a half million years, from the beginning of the Pleistocene and almost to its end. Our own species, having appeared in the geological record only in the last third of the Pleistocene, almost immediately, judging by the latest data from genetic studies, broke up into two long coexisting trunks: the so-called Neanderthals and all the rest. Moreover, for almost all of its history, our species, Homo sapiens, coexisted with the widespread Homo erectus.

Here we move into the realm of folkloristics. Stories about the presence in the area of some humanoid creatures (large, small, ferocious, peaceful, avoiding contact with people or going towards them), inhabiting mountains, forests or swamps, are common throughout the Old and New Worlds. And what is curious: their descriptions are similar to reconstructions of fossil anthropological finds, with which the locals who talked with folklorists, as a rule, are unfamiliar.

So, Bigfoot in the descriptions of eyewitnesses resembles Australopithecus or Gigantopithecus. There are also "forest people" in Indonesia. Modern inhabitants of the island of Flores talk in detail about "ebu-gogo". The name translates as "omnivorous grandmothers". These are forest inhabitants about a meter tall, long-haired, with rounded tummies, long arms and fingers. They speak among themselves in their own language in low voices and are able, like parrots, to repeat the words of a person addressing them. In their hands, they never noticed stone or other tools or weapons. They ate everything raw - vegetables, fruits, meat (including human), hence the epithet "omnivores" (you can also translate "gluttonous"). When people offered food to strangers from the forest, they ate the treat along with bowls made from pumpkins. Ebu-gogo sometimes ravaged the fields of local residents, people endured these tricks, but when the forest men stole and ate the baby, they decided to drive them away from their homes. They fled, among other things, in the direction of the Liang Bua grotto, where the current finds were made. Residents of Flores claim that the last time the gluttonous "grandmothers" were seen was a hundred years ago. Three hundred years ago, when colonists from Holland first landed on the island, voracious forest dwarfs were, they say, quite common, but now it is not possible to meet them in the forest. Maybe these were the "hobbits" who have survived almost to this day?

But let's go back to 18 thousand years ago, at the height of the last ice age, when a significant part of the waters of the World Ocean was drawn into the circumpolar ice sheets. The ocean level was more than a hundred meters lower than the modern one, the shelves were exposed, the Mediterranean water barrier between Africa and Eurasia became shallow, Beringia connected Eurasia with the Americas, and the southeastern edge of Eurasia almost merges with the Australo-New Guinean mainland. The island of Flores, which has grown in size due to the shallowing of the ocean, almost adjoins Eurasia with its western edge, and is pushed far into the strait separating the shallow Banda Sea from the Australo-New Guinean mainland by its eastern edge. In the middle of this strait is Timor, which has grown in size, so that if not by land, then on primitive rafts and boats it was possible to move from Eurasia to present-day New Guinea and Australia, which, according to current finds, was inhabited by humans about 60 thousand years ago. It turns out that for at least 50 thousand years, the Floresian pygmies lived in the conditions of a "passage yard", when waves of future Australian aborigines swept through them.

With the end of the ice age and the rise of the ocean, the outskirts of the continents broke up into many islands, and the Homo sapiens populations that had long settled down here had to move to dry places. The end of the history of the newly discovered species of our genus is hidden, apparently, in the deposits of the last ten thousand years on the southern edge of the present Malay Archipelago.

Captions for illustrations

ill. 1. The outline of the island of Flores in our time and 18 thousand years ago, when the masses of water were collected in huge polar ice caps, and the ocean level dropped by more than 100 meters. The dotted line shows the modern outlines of the land, the solid line shows the coast during the period of low ocean level, when it was possible to pass on dry land from Asia to America, and on primitive rafts to sail to Australia.

Sometimes there are difficulties in life. Sometimes these difficulties are long and complex. Sometimes we wait for the end of the black streak with the last of our strength. But those problems that are repeated are especially exhausting and take away the last spiritual strength. In different situations, in a different wrapper, with new circumstances. But the essence does not change. It would seem that they have just gone through a difficult stage in life, they did not have time to come to their senses, how everything starts again. As if a curse lies, a corruption. Or is it fate - to suffer all the time. Or something is mixed up in the heavenly office and by mistake they send only trials, only difficulties.

What is the repetition of the situation really talking about? Is it an accidental injustice or a planned plan by a higher power to make you suffer? The answer to this question can be found if you look at your problems from the side, drawing one unusual analogy.

Imagine a student who does not study well, is irresponsible in doing homework, behaves ugly and violates all the rules of decent behavior. And he does it systematically, deuces for him are not an exception, but a rule. What is the risk of his behavior? The fact that he will not be transferred to the next class, but left for the second year. And he will go through the same lessons again, again he will have the same tasks that he did not cope with a year ago. Because such a school program. Because that is his mission - to get an education.

In ordinary life, the situation is very similar to our school education system. We are students, higher powers are our teachers. Life situations are the challenges that we face. And the repetition of the situation only says that the last time they failed to overcome it and, like a schoolboy, remained in the second year. What does it look like in real life?

There are many examples. Let's consider just a few of them:

- An unhappy relationship that constantly develops according to the same scenario. A woman meets a seemingly decent man. There is sympathy, interest, attraction. Relationships begin. And over time it changes. He starts drinking, for example. Or be rude. Treats her disrespectfully. Change. There are many options. And after a long time of her tears and suffering, they part. Or get divorced if they managed to get married by that time. And then after a while she meets another man, completely different from the previous one. Relationships begin and everything again develops according to the same scenario. Like a carbon copy.

- Diseases that are very long and difficult to treat. Cause physical suffering and complete mental exhaustion. Doctors, healers, psychics. And after long attempts comes. But not for long. Over time it relapses and it only gets worse. Or another disease arises, no less complex and painful.

- Problems with money. When everything falls apart And business, and all the work done earlier. Deferred stocks are thinning out. Everything is getting out of hand. After a long rehabilitation, when, it would seem, I managed to get to my feet, the situation repeats again and everything collapses again. No money left.

- Relationships with loved ones. When betrayal follows betrayal and it seems that there are no more benevolent and sincere people at all. Or when a person is constantly faced with deception. Or envy. meanness. It doesn't matter with what. The main thing is that he is haunted by a repetition of the situation.

As you can see, this can apply to any area of life. And this does not mean at all that or that a generational curse has been imposed on you. It's just a reflection of your mistakes, which you make systematically, just like a schoolboy who gets a whole diary of F's before he repeats the year. To understand what these errors are is your task.

It's hard to believe that all the alcoholic men you meet along the way are the result of some of your mistakes. Taking responsibility for your life is never easy. What if it's a debilitating disease? What are you doing here? It's hard to believe, but this is also a consequence of mistakes. Any repetition of the situation is not an accident, but a pattern that needs to be recognized.

If you understand this, then it will become easier to solve problems. After all, what schoolboy blames his fate, higher powers or teachers for the fact that he stayed for the second year? If you cut yourself with a knife while cooking, do you blame the knife? If a child stumbles and falls, does he blame the stone on the road? No. In these cases, taking responsibility for yourself is quite a simple and clear task. But with more global life problems, we lack awareness, wisdom and tact to admit ourselves guilty.

And understanding this is the first step to changing your destiny.