In four articles published in previous issues of the journal (N 3, 4 for 2010 and N 1, 2 for 2011), based on extensive material, a hypothesis was proposed for three scenarios (models) of convergent transition from the Middle to Upper Paleolithic in Africa and Eurasia as a result of the evolutionary development of autochthonous Middle Paleolithic industries. This article deals with the problem of the formation of a modern anatomical human species and its behavior in the Upper Pleistocene. In Africa and Eurasia, not only the transition from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic took place according to three different scenarios, but also the formation of a modern anatomical type of man in the chronological interval 200-40 thousand years AGO. As a result of these processes, the polytypic species Homo sapiens sapiens sensu lato was formed from four subspecies: Homo sapiens africaniensis (Africa), Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Europe), Homo sapiens orientalensis (East and Southeast Asia), and Homo sapiens altaiensis (Southern Siberia, Central Asia).

Key words: modern behavior, symbolism, Homo erectus.

Introduction

Researchers dealing with the problems of anthropogenesis have no doubt that the ancestral homeland of humanity is Africa. It is here that the ancestral forms of man - Australopithecine, as well as the oldest stone tools aged 2.6 and 2.5 million years-were found. After 1.8 million years AGO, the earliest human populations began to leave Africa and settle in Eurasia. More complex and controversial is the question of where the formation of a modern anatomical human species took place. There are two alternative points of view on this problem. The first hypothesis is that Homo sapiens sapiens was formed in Africa and spread to all other continents [Stringer and Andrews, 1988; Stringer, 1992; et al.]. According to the second hypothesis, the initial settlement of Eurasia by Homo ergaster - Homo erectus from Africa began after 1.8 million years AGO and later in different regions of Eurasia, along with other regions of the world. As a result of divergence, adaptation to special ecological conditions, which did not exclude gene exchange with other populations in certain periods, the formation of regional populations of anatomically modern humans could occur.

Currently, there are more supporters of the monocentric hypothesis, according to which the modern anatomical type of man was formed 200-150 thousand years ago in Africa and 80-60 thousand years ago.It began to spread first to the eastern part of Eurasia and Australia, and later to Central Asia and Europe. The views of monocentrists on the consequences of this process vary. Some believe that anatomically modern people replaced the archaic autochthonous population: new populations were exterminated by aborigines or pushed into less convenient ecological areas, where their mortality increased, especially children, the birth rate decreased, and as a result, Neanderthals almost disappeared from the face of the earth by 30-25 thousand years AGO. Other proponents of the monocentric hypothesis do not rule out the possibility of

page 2
in some cases of long-term coexistence of Homo sapiens sapiens and Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, for example, in the south of the Pyrenees. The result of contacts between the alien and autochthonous populations could be the diffusion of cultures, and sometimes hybridization. Still others believe that there was a process of acculturation and assimilation, as a result of which the autochthonous population dissolved into the newcomers.

V. Eswaran (2002; Eswaran, Harpending, Rogers, 2005) proposed a slightly modified model of the distribution of modern anatomical humans from Africa. When they moved about 100 thousand years AGO, people could not keep the original genotype. During contacts with autochthonous populations as a result of gene exchange, gene diffusion, mestizoation, and natural selection, it was strongly modified.

There is also a compromise hypothesis, according to which the migration of people of modern anatomical type was accompanied not by the replacement of the autochthonous population, but by assimilation [Smith, Jankovic, Karavanic, 2005; Kozintsev, 2004, 2009; et al.]. Among Russian archaeologists, M. V. Anikovich is the most consistent proponent of this hypothesis [2003, 2004; Anikovich, Anisyutkin, Vishnyatsky, 2007].

The polycentric hypothesis also has several modifications. The main point of this theory is that where Homo erectus sensu lato settled, there could have been a process of sapientation, the final result of which is the appearance of a modern anatomical type of person. This model has more supporters among archaeologists and anthropologists involved in the study of the Paleolithic of East and Southeast Asia.

One of the initiators and consistent proponents of the hypothesis of multi-regional human evolution of the modern anatomical type, M. H. Wolpoff [Wolpoff, Wu, Thorne, 1984; Wolpoff, 1989, 1992, 1998; Wolpoff and Caspari, 1996; Wolpoff, Hawks, Caspari, 2000; et al.], briefly formulates its essence: "The term" multi-regional development of the human body " is used in the following way:"it does not mean an independent multiple origin with a divergence of modern populations in antiquity, the simultaneous appearance of characteristic adaptive features in different regions of the world, or parallel development. Depending on gene exchange as the basis for explaining what different geographical and evolutionary changes of the human species took place during its development, the model of multi-regional development is the opposite of all these theses" [Wolpoff, Hawks, Caspari, 2000, p. 134].

Many anthropologists and archaeologists are now considering the multi-regional hypothesis of the origin of modern anatomical man within the framework of ideas of broad monocentrism or polycentrism. I approach the problem from the point of view that where Homo erectus settled, as a result of divergence, gene exchange, the influence of environmental conditions and other factors, sapient development of erectoid forms and, ultimately, the formation of anatomically modern humans could occur.

As a result of studies of localities dating back to the 90-30 Ka BP interval, three different scenarios of transition from the Middle to Upper Paleolithic can be distinguished: in Africa, South-East and East Asia, and in the rest of Eurasia. In these regions there was a convergent development not only of the industry, but also of man himself, which ultimately led to the formation of a modern anatomical type of man. In the article devoted to the transition from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic in East and Southeast Asia, I have already considered the problem of the formation of anatomically modern humans in this territory (Derevyanko, 2011a). The available archaeological and anthropological data suggest that the Sino-Malay zone underwent a convergent process of transition from the Middle to Upper Paleolithic, and in the chronological interval of 120 (150?) -40 thousand years AGO, a modern type of man was formed on the basis of the sapient development of erectoid forms. It was a subspecies of the polytypical species Homo sapiens sapiens, which can be designated as Homo sapiens orientalensis. Let us consider the problem of forming a modern type of person and his behavior in other regions of Eurasia and in Africa.

Africa is one of the ancestral homelands of modern anatomical man

Since the 1980s, the results of not only archaeological, anthropological, but also genetic studies clearly indicate that the ancestral homeland of modern anatomical man is Africa. Skeletal remains of its oldest representatives have been found there: at the sites of the second half - end of the Middle Pleistocene (200-150 Ka BP) Florisbad (southern Africa), Latoli (Tanzania), Omo and Herto (Ethiopia), Jebel Irhud (Morocco), etc. One of the most widespread hypotheses is that the evolutionary center of human development of the modern anatomical type was located in tropical Africa (sub-Saharan Africa) [Foley and Lahr, 1997; Lahr and Foley, 1998; et al.].

Without considering in all retrospect the problem of the formation of a modern human species in Africa, we will focus on the development of human populations on the African and Eurasian continents 120-40 thousand years ago. This interval is important because anatomically modern people appear within its framework not only in the following areas:

page 3
In Africa, but also in Eurasia; the formation of Upper Paleolithic cultures is taking place; the fate of Neanderthals is being decided.

It should be noted that there is no clear and generally accepted definition of a modern physical type of person as a species. Traditionally, anthropologists focus on the division of species, rather than on their unification, so far there is no satisfactory morphological description of homo sapiens [Schwartz, Tattersall, 2005].

Paleoanthropological finds dating back to the mid-Middle Pleistocene have many primitive features. Materials of the second half of the Middle Pleistocene from the Florisbad, Latoli, Omo, Herto, Jebel Irhud and other localities. anthropologists note morphological features characteristic of modern humans. Thus, the Latoli skull is less archaic than earlier Middle Pleistocene skulls, and some of its features anticipate modern ones. The brow ridges protrude moderately, the parietal bones are large and strongly curved. The posterior part of the arch is rounded rather than curved (Rightmire, 2001). However, the differences from the modern human skull are quite obvious and the evidence of continuity is not as convincing as it might be [Ibid., p. 233].

The localities at the mouth of the Clasies River in South Africa, where several caves and shelters are known, are important for understanding the problem under consideration. As a result of excavations in 1967-1968. Extensive material has been collected, including stone artefacts, faunal remains, conch clusters, and paleoanthropological finds (Singer and Wymer, 1982). Since 1984, field research on these localities has been continued by Kh. Deacon [Deacon, Geleijnse, 1988; Deacon, 1992, 1995; Rightmire, Deacon, 1991]. Few human bones were found during excavations: lower jaws and teeth, frontal bone, a fragment of the temporal and ulnar bones. Parts of the skeleton of a child and the skull of an adult individual were found in the Border Cave.

The ulna from the Clasies River locality shows great similarity to Neanderthal bones (Churchill et al., 1996). The relative heights of the ulnar and coracoid processes have archaic values. The relative length of the ulnar process, the location of the humerus tuberosity, and the relative thickness of the cortical layer of the diaphysis do not give unambiguous indications of kinship. According to S. E. Churchill and co-authors [Ibid., p. 233], the archaic general morphological model of the ulna from the location on the Clasies River suggests (if one element can be considered as a representative of the general postcranial anatomy) that these hominids were not completely anatomically modern. They may have represented a population that was archaic in its postcranial morphology, or that was undergoing a modernization of its postcranial anatomy and, as a result, displayed a mosaic combination of archaic and modern features.

Human leg bones from the Clasies River location also do not allow researchers to establish unambiguous phylogenetic relationships between Late Pleistocene populations (Rightmire et al., 2006). The phalanges of the big toe found there differ in shape and size from similar finds from Skhul and Kafzeh, and the metatarsal bone differs in cross - section. This, according to the researchers, confirms the assumption that in the Middle Stone Age, hominids that settled in South Africa represented only one of the almost anatomically modern populations that existed earlier than 100 thousand years AGO [Ibid., p.102]. A comparison of paleoanthropological materials from the Clasies River locality with similar finds from Omo-1 and Herto in Ethiopia is given by J. R. R. Tolkien. Wrightmire et al. concluded that there is an African lineage (or lines) of hominid evolution that have the morphology of Homo sapiens or are in the process of developing in this direction [Ibid.].

Fragments of the skull were recovered in the Border Cave from a cultural horizon dating back to ca. 100 thousand years. This hominid had many features characteristic of a modern anatomical type of human (Miller et al., 1992). Some researchers have noted that the structure of its skull is similar to that of morphologically modern Bushmen (Deacon, 1992). This conclusion also confirms the possibility of early divergence and does not exclude several intraspecific lines in the development of the morphology of anatomically modern humans.

Despite the controversial nature of the anatomical differences between people of the modern anatomical type in Eastern and Southern Africa, almost no one doubts that the African continent is the ancestral home of Homo sapiens sapiens. Agreeing with this conclusion, I think it is necessary to add that Africa is one of the centers of formation of modern anatomical humans, where the subspecies Homo sapiens africaniensis was formed.

Almost contemporaries of the people who settled in South Africa (localities on the Clasies River) were the populations of the Levant. They are important, if not crucial, for understanding migration processes in the Middle Pleistocene and solving the problem of the origin of modern anatomical humans. Paleoanthropological discoveries in the Tabun and Skhul caves caused a lively discussion. Even the first researchers of these localities had different points of view on their interpretation.

page 4
T. McCown considered that the paleoanthropological finds from the Skhul Cave represent two different anthropological types (McCown, 1934). One group (burials III, VI-X) is earlier, the other (I, IV and V) is later. Subsequently, this point of view was supported by A. Ronen (1976), who believed that the two-meter thickness of sediments B, where burials were found at different levels, accumulated over a long time. A. Case, who also studied paleoanthropological finds, attributed them to Neanderthals, but noted that they are more modern compared to the Neanderthals of Europe. In a generalizing monograph, T. McCown and A. Keyes combine the Skhul hominids into a single species, Paleoanthropus palestinensis (McCown and Keith, 1939). F. Howell (Howell, 1958) considered the paleoanthropological materials from Skhul and Kafzeh as representing an intermediate stage between the Neanderthals of the Herd and people of the modern anatomical type. Later, he suggested that the lower jaw from layer C in the Tabun Cave belongs to Homo sapiens (Howell, 1999).

Currently, there are two main points of view regarding paleoanthropological materials from Israel. Some researchers believe that all the finds represent a single population group close to anatomically modern humans (Kramer, Crummett, and Wolpoff, 2001; Arensburg and Belfer-Cohen, 1998). Others refer the skeletal remains from Tabun, Amud, and Kebara to Neanderthals, and those from Skhul and Kafzeh to early Homo sapiens (Vandermeersch, 1992, 1997; Stringer, 1992, 1998; et al.).

Issues related to the stratigraphic position of paleoanthropological finds remain debatable. This is especially true for the Tabun Cave. Finds from Layer C include an incomplete female skeleton (Tabun I), a complete lower jaw (Tabun II), the main part of the thigh (Tabun III), and wrist and finger bones (Tabun IV-VI). The female skeleton was assigned to the upper part of layer C, although it lay 85 cm above the lower jaw, and Garrod (1937) does not rule out that it could have been redeposited from layer B. This point of view is also shared by other researchers (Bar-Yosef and Callander, 1999). The taxonomic position of the mandible from layer C. Some researchers attributed it to Neanderthals (Trinkaus, 1993), others to modern anatomical humans (Quam and Smith, 1998; Rak, 1998). There is no doubt that the femur belongs to a Neanderthal.

According to many scholars, the Levantine population of 110-50 thousand BC consisted of two different groups. The earliest-modern or similar highly variable humans-settled in the Levant during 120-70 thousand years ago. Later, as a result of a cold snap in Europe, Neanderthals could migrate south, including to the Middle East, and for some time coexist with the populations represented in Skhul and Kafzeh. It is possible that an antagonistic relationship developed between them, and modern anatomical humans were eventually exterminated by Neanderthals (Shea, 2001).

Researchers have different assessments of paleoanthropological findings from the Skhul and Kafzeh sites, but most attribute them to modern physical humans who migrated from Africa. From my point of view, there is no sufficiently convincing archaeological evidence for such a conclusion.

One important aspect that should be taken into account is the human remains in the Skhul Cave. There is every reason to attribute the two skeletons in this cave to deliberate burials with a certain ritual. In the heads of one buried person, placed in a special depression, was the horn of a large deer, and in the hands of another-presumably a full boar's jaw. Together with the skeletons, many ornaments in the form of shells with a drilled hole and a large amount of ochre were found. The stone tools found next to the human remains have a Middle Paleolithic appearance, typical of the Middle Eastern Mustier. In Africa, shells with drilled holes are recorded in the Blombos cave, in a culture-containing horizon dating back no earlier than 80 thousand years ago.

Red ochre was found in the Kafzeh cave. It is very important that it is also found in the hearths. This suggests the possibility of artificially producing ochre from hematite by heating it (Vandermeersch, 1981). Another hypothesis is that fire was used to change the yellow color of iron ore to red (Hovers et al., 2003). However, the authors do not insist on the validity of this very interesting hypothesis. Pieces of mostly red ochre are found in the lower crop-bearing layers. The authors consider several options for its use: as a technological auxiliary tool for tanning animal skins; as a connecting material for fixing a stone product on the handle; symbolic. Pieces of ochre of a certain red color were brought to the cave, where they were processed. The greatest amount of ochre is found in the XXIV-XVII cultural horizons, which accumulated over several thousand years. Most of them were found together with human remains. So, in layer XVII, where five burials were found, the largest number of ochre pieces was recorded. In this layer, in square B-16, a spatial connection was traced between the burial of Kafzeh 8, a well-scraped piece of ochre and an engraved stone

page 5
an artifact [Ibid., p. 507]. The joint occurrence of human remains, traces of intensive use of fire, ochre, and some inedible marine mollusks indicates, according to the authors, a structured behavioral system. The presence of a deer antler near the grave of Kafzeh 11 and the double burial of an adult woman and child (Kafzeh 9 and 10) also indicate a higher-order relationship within this population. A very important conclusion reached by the authors is that the use of ochre around 100 thousand years AGO in Africa and the Levant had a different symbolic context and independent development [Ibid., p. 510-511].

The independence of the appearance of symbolism in Africa and the Levant is also evidenced by the difference in technical and typological indicators of the Middle Paleolithic in these territories. Comparing the industries of the Levant and Southern, Eastern and Northeastern Africa, where there was a corridor connecting it with the Middle East, we can see that the entire African technical and typological complex of the Middle Stone Age was significantly different from the Levantine one. An example is the Paleolithic localities studied on the Clasies River. Populations that settled in South Africa and the Levant lived almost at the same time. They refer to people of a modern anatomical type with some archaic or atavistic anthropological characteristics. But their stone industries were completely different. Having some common anatomical characteristics, these populations are not culturally and historically related to each other. But they might have shared a common genetic background, a common ancestor. Who was it? Some kind of erectoid form, Homo heidelbergensis or Homo rhodesiensis? It is not yet possible to answer this question. It cannot be ruled out that the ancestors of people from Skhul and Kafzeh came to the Middle East much earlier, in the Early Paleolithic. And in this regard, I consider the following hypothesis promising. The world's oldest Late Assyrian plate industry (ca. 500-300 Ka BP) was discovered in the Kapturin Formation at the GnJh site in Kenya. This formation with a thickness of about 125 m lies to the west of the lake. Baringo on an area of approx. 150 km2. It consists of river, lake, and volcanic deposits from the Middle Pleistocene. The entire thickness is divided into five sections. Skeletal remains of hominids belonging to H. erectus or H. rhodesiensis have been found in river sediments (McBrearty, 1999; McBrearty and Brooks, 2000; Deino and McBrearty, 2002; Tryon and McBrearty, 2006; Johnson and Mc. Brearty, 2010). On GnJh locations-03, -15, -17, -42, -50 a small number of plates, which were removed in one direction and reversed, were found to be 300-500 thousand years old.

The nuclei at the earliest GnJh-42 and -50 localities (545 ± 3 and 509 ± 9 Ka BP, respectively) were represented by lamellar, radial, and subradial forms. Four lamellar nuclei were found: two in the layer and two on the surface. Carriers of this industry may have migrated to the Middle East, where a plate industry of about 300 thousand years AGO is also recorded. In this scenario, the hominids of Africa (Florisbad, Herto, Omo, Latoli, etc.) and the Middle East (Skhul and Kafzeh) may have had a common ancestor and were descendants of the migrating population with a plate industry.

The Levantine Middle Paleolithic has some differences from the early one in this area, but there is still a connection between them. The population of people close to the modern anatomical type that settled in the Levant 130-70 thousand years AGO was connected by the origins of the industry with populations of an earlier stage. The Middle Paleolithic in the Levant is divided into three stages - Tabun D, C, and B. The Tabun C stage, which is associated with skeletal remains of modern and possibly Neanderthal anatomical types, is characterized by the Levallois split. The operating chain was focused on the production of numerous elongated Levallois spikelets, wide and thin plates that often have a sub-triangular shape (Meignen, 2000). These blanks were obtained from Levallois nuclei, which were removed in one direction or reversely. Elongated plates were chipped with a rigid bump from one or two opposite impact pads along the largest length of the nuclei. The tools are represented by side scrapers, elongated points with retouching, incisors, and bifaces were found in some localities in small numbers.

It is impossible to exclude the possibility of a fairly long coexistence in the Middle East of people of Neanderthaloid and modern anatomical types with similar technical and typological indicators of the Middle Paleolithic industries. From my point of view, there was no break in the development of Middle Paleolithic industries and their evolution into Upper Paleolithic ones in the Middle East (Derevyanko, 2009b). This also implies the possibility of forming a modern anatomical type of person on this territory.

K. Stringer (Stringer, 1989) and B. Vandermeersch (Vandermeersch, 1981) drew attention to the very significant morphological and metrical similarity between the Skhul-Kafzeh group and the people of the early Upper Paleolithic of Europe. The territorial and chronological gap in paleoanthropological materials can be filled with future finds. Earliest remains of Homo sapiens sapiens,

page 6
Dating back to the Upper Paleolithic of the Levant, they were found at the Kzar-Akil locality and date back to about 37 Ka BP (Bergman and Stringer, 1989; Mellars, 2004). Future research, I hope, will allow us to more definitely answer the question about the possibility of the formation of a modern anatomical type of person in the Middle East, as well as about the reality of the simultaneous residence of modern and Neanderthal types in this territory in the final middle - first half of the Upper Pleistocene. The latter is also an intriguing problem, and its solution will help clarify the genetic and cultural links between the two populations.

At this stage of research, there are no sufficiently convincing facts to state that there are similarities in the technical and typological characteristics of the Levantine and African Middle Paleolithic, as well as about the arrival of modern or close anatomical type people from Africa to the Middle East 140 - 120 thousand years AGO. It is very likely that populations of the highly variable hypothetical Homo helmei type emerged from Africa around 300-280 thousand years AGO and settled in the Middle East. Later, both on the African continent and in the Middle East region, there was an independent development of Middle Paleolithic industries and the physical type of man.

Another possibility is that since the Middle or Early Paleolithic, people and industries in the Middle East developed independently of the African ones. This assumption can be confirmed by finds from the Middle Pleistocene site in the Kezem Cave in Israel (Hershkovitz et al., 2011). The industry found here differs from that found at sites of this time in Africa and Europe. I. Hershkovitz and co-authors propose three hypotheses that explain the morphology of teeth from the Kezem cave. The first one is the most convincing. Its essence lies in the fact that the inhabitants of the cave belong to the local archaic population of Homo, who lived in South-West Asia for 400 - 200 thousand years. Their teeth indicate a greater degree of kinship with the populations of Skhul and Kafzeh than with Neanderthals [Ibid.]. This hypothesis is confirmed by archaeological materials. In the Levant, the first bifacially processed tools were found at the Ubaydiya site. Despite the fact that they are somewhat different from African ones, their appearance is probably associated with the second global migration wave from Africa - about 1.4 million years ago.Bifacial products were not recorded in the adjacent territories at this time. Cleavers and bifaces typical of Africa have been found at the Gesher Benot Yaakov site. Later in the Middle East there was already a convergent development of industry and the physical type of a person. And, apparently, after 400 thousand BC, the bifacial and Levallois industries spread to the territory of Arabia and further east, up to East Asia.

The late Acheulean period in the Levant includes one of the most informative sites in Eurasia - Berehat-Ram (Goren-Inbar, 1985, 1992), where the Levallois technique, bifaces, and probably the first manifestations of symbolism are presented in a developed form. The continuation is the Mugharan industry. It is very important that recent radiometric and other studies have significantly aged it: the Ed-Ea layers in Tabun Cave are assigned to 385 - 240 Ka BP (Jelinek, 1992; Bar-Yosef, 1995; Schwarcz and Rink, 1998), and the Levallois-Mousterian part of layer D is assigned to 263 - 244 Ka BP.n. [Mercier, Valladas H., Valladas G., 1995; Mercier, Valladas H., Valladas G. et al., 1995]. In the Laboratory of Dosimetry, Environmental radioactivity, and radiothermoluminescence analysis of MSU, the dates for layer E were obtained 260 ± ± 60; 270 ± 60; 340 ± 80; 410 ± 110; 480 ± 120 thousands of years ago [Laukhin et al., 2000].

Thus, it cannot be ruled out that the plate industry has developed in the Middle East in a convergent way. The presence of Levallois complexes with a large number of preforms in the form of plates and tools decorated on plates in the Middle Eastern Lower and Middle Paleolithic and its difference from the African one suggest that in this scenario, there was no migration of modern anatomical people to the Levant at the end of the Middle and beginning of the Upper Pleistocene. In the Middle Pleistocene of the Near East, ancient populations developed independently in the direction of sapientation. This, of course, did not exclude their contacts with the population of neighboring territories, including East and North-East Africa. And the highly variable population represented by paleoanthropological findings at the Skhul and Kafzeh localities is the result of the development of an earlier autochthonous one. This hypothesis can be confirmed by subsequent research and the discovery of new anthropological materials related to the Lower and Middle Pleistocene in the Middle East. The distribution of populations in this area in the Early Paleolithic, on the basis of which a modern anatomical type of person could have been formed, allows us to explain important processes that took place in Central and Northern Asia. The migration of populations with the Mugharan industry to North Asia, which is recorded in the Paleolithic localities of the Altai, and then the further development of the Middle Paleolithic in this territory and its transition to the upper one suggest the formation of a highly variable anatomical type of people.

page 7
Homo sapiens neanderthalensis and its contribution to the formation of modern anatomical humans

Homo sapiens neanderthalensis is the first representative of archaic humans who became known to science. Its remains were first found in the middle of the 19th century in the Neanderthal Valley in Germany. Over 150 years of research, hundreds of Neanderthal sites, settlements, and burials have been studied. Neanderthals settled mainly in Europe. Their morphological type was adapted to the harsh climatic conditions of northern latitudes. They were short, stocky people with great physical strength. The volume of their brain was 1,400 cm3 and was not inferior to the average brain volume of modern people. Paleolithic Neanderthal sites have also been discovered in the Middle East, Near and Central Asia, and southern Siberia.

The fate of Homo sapiens neanderthalensis is "tragic". Until the 1980s, many anthropologists attributed it to the ancestral form of a modern anatomical human. After the 1980s, when Neanderthal mtDNA sequencing began, they were separated into a separate species and deleted from the modern human genealogy. At the current level of anthropological and genetic research, it is necessary to return to this problem. One of its main aspects is the relationship between Neanderthals and modern anatomical populations. According to many researchers, Neanderthals were replaced in Europe by a modern anatomical type of person who came out of Africa. Some believe that there may have been hybridization and the fate of Homo sapiens neanderthalensis is not so "tragic". One of the leading anthropologists, E. Trinkaus, after comparing Neanderthals and modern humans with early-and Middle-Pleistocene Homo in 75 characters, concluded that about a quarter of the characters are characteristic of Neanderthals and modern humans, the same number-only Neanderthals and about half - modern humans (Trinkaus, 2006). I will not elaborate on the discussion that unfolded in connection with the publication of this article in Current Anthropology. The opinions of scientists were divided: some supported E. Trinkaus, while others did not share his main conclusions. Until now, there are diametrically opposite points of view on the problem of possible hybridization.

Many archaeologists have drawn attention to the great efficiency of the Neanderthal industry at the final stage of the Middle Paleolithic and the presence of many elements of behavior that characterize a modern anatomical type of person. There is ample evidence of deliberate burial by Neanderthals of their relatives. This was first noticed by A. P. Okladnikov, who discovered a special ritual performed during burial in the Teshik-Tash cave [1949]. Later, his hypothesis was confirmed by other researchers. Particularly striking evidence was obtained during the excavation of Neanderthal burials in the Shanidar Cave (Solecki, 1971). Extensive materials on Mousterian burials were collected and summarized by Yu. A. Smirnov [1991] and A. Defleur [Defleur, 1993]. Nevertheless, some researchers still have doubts about intentional burials in the Middle Paleolithic (Gargett, 1999). Many other elements of behavior that characterize anatomically modern humans are noted in Neanderthals [Chase and Dibble, 1987; Lindly and Clark, 1990; D'Errico et al., 1998; Zilhao, 2001; D'Errico, 2003; Conard, 2005; Hovers and Belfer-Cohen, 2006; Conard, 2009; et al.]. In this respect, Homo sapiens neanderthalensis was not much inferior to Homo sapiens africaniensis.

It is very likely that the transitional areas from the Middle to Upper Paleolithic, such as Chatelperron, Uluzzo, Bachokiro, etc., were left by Neanderthals. These data, as well as materials from the Castillo Grotto (Contabria) in Spain, allow us to hypothesize the transition from the Middle to Upper Paleolithic in Western and Central Europe as an autochthonous phenomenon. In the Castillo Grotto, the inventory from the culture-bearing horizons 18b and 18c, for which more than ten dates were obtained in the interval 42-37 Ka BP, traces the Middle and Upper Paleolithic stone processing techniques and types of stone tools (Cabrera et al., 2001). The mosaic nature of the industry, which combines Middle Paleolithic and Aurignacian elements, bone products, and art objects, allowed the authors to conclude that Neanderthal man is also associated with the first Aurignacian industries of the transition stage from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic:"...if the lower Perigordienne or Chatelperron descended from the moutier of the Acheulean tradition, then Aurignac must have found its predecessor in the Charente moutier of the type of Quin, as F. F. suggested. Board" [Ibid., p. 530]. Of course, not all researchers agree with this hypothesis, but in Europe they are discovering more and more new facts confirming the connection between the Middle and Upper Paleolithic industries. Hence, Neanderthals played a significant or even decisive role in the transition from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic.

Currently, Neanderthals belong to one of the sister groups that took part in the formation of modern anatomical humans [Green et al., 2010]. The authors of this article, including geneticists, anthropologists, and archaeologists, note that the results of the study

page 8
The results of the analysis of the Neanderthal genome may be incompatible with the hypothesis of the origin of modern humans from a small African population, which then replaced all other forms of Homo and settled on the planet [Ibid., p. 721]. Genetic studies show that up to 4% of the genome of non-African humans is borrowed from Neanderthals [Green et al., 2010; Reich et al., 2010]. At the current level of knowledge, there is no doubt that the processes of not only cultural diffusion, but also hybridization and assimilation took place in the border areas of Neanderthals and modern humans or in the territories of their cross-settlement. And Homo sapiens neanderthalensis has undoubtedly also contributed to the morphology and genome of the modern human species.

The problem of forming a modern anatomical type of man in Southern Siberia

Middle Paleolithic sites in Gorny Altai are relatively poor in anthropological findings. But the available paleoanthropological material is invaluable and causes a lively discussion. In Altai, the remains of hominid fossils are represented by teeth and fragments of postcranial skeletons from the Okladnikov and Denisova caves. Earlier it was noted that completely different industries were recorded in these caves. In the Okladnikov Cave, the stone inventory was distinguished by its mousterioid nature and was assigned to the Sibiryachikhinsky culture, while in the Denisova Cave, from the lower layer 22, which dates from about 280 thousand years AGO, to the 12th, there is a continuous development of the Middle Paleolithic industry and the transition to the bright, well-formed Upper Paleolithic in the 11th layer, which dates from 50-35 thousand hp

Five teeth of adolescents aged 12-14 and children aged 5-7 were found in the Okladnikov cave: the second lower right milk molar-in the lowest culture - containing horizon 7, the first lower left premolar, the first (second?), third left and third right lower permanent molars-in the 3rd. In addition, postcranial bones were extracted from layers 1-3 under the canopy. In the Denisova Cave, the second lower left milk molar of a 7-8 - year - old child was found in the culture - containing horizon 22.1, the first upper left medial permanent incisor of an adult was found in layer 12, and fragments of the skull, teeth, and a small number of postcranial bones were found in horizon 11.

Important results were obtained from paleogenetic studies carried out by an international team of scientists led by Professor S. Paabo in the Paleogenetics laboratory of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig (Krause et al., 2007). Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA was isolated from three tubular bones found in layers 1-3 of the Okladnikov Cave. It was not obtained from a fragment of the humerus of an adult individual, and, as noted by researchers, there is no evidence that this person possessed the Neanderthal genotype [Ibid., p. 902]. The isolation of Neanderthal mtDNA from paleoanthropological materials is a major breakthrough in solving the problem of hominid origin from Okladnikov Cave. In all cultural horizons, a completely homogeneous industry was traced.

In the article, conclusions about the age of culture-bearing horizons were made without taking into account the specifics of sedimentation under the cave canopy, the conditions of organic material occurrence and the impact of anthropogenic factors on it. The U-and 14C-dates are of particular importance for the interpretation of cave finds. The uranium values of 44,600 ± 3,300 and 44,800 ± 4,000 Ka bp obtained from samples from the 7th layer of Gallery 1 should be considered absolutely reliable (Derevyanko and Markin, 1992). It was a narrow (maximum width of 1 m) corridor, not adapted for habitation, and, judging by the preservation of loose sediments, it did not experience any later anthropogenic impact: all the finds here were in situ. The most problematic age definitions are for crop-bearing horizons under the canopy. The spread of dates obtained from animal bones for layer 3 from 43,700 to >16,210 BP is explained by the fact that the open cavity under the canopy, facing the Sibiryachikha River valley, served for decades as a shelter for domestic animals, in spring and autumn - from bad weather, and in summer - from heat. Undoubtedly, the penetration of the products of their vital activity into the thin layer of loose sediments, as well as root bioturbation of shrubby vegetation, which affected almost all sediments, caused an increased content of young carbon in the organic material included in the sediments. Another confirmation of the impossibility of obtaining correct dates for crop-bearing horizons under the canopy are the results of direct dating of paleoanthropological materials from Okladnikov Cave: uncalibrated dates obtained from adult and adolescent bones, respectively, 24,260 ± 180 and from 37,800 ± 450 to 29,990 ± 500 BP [Ibid.]. From my point of view, the base dates should be considered to be those obtained from samples from the 7th layer of Gallery 1, which was not exposed to anthropogenic or other contamination with young carbon. Taking into account the homogeneity of in-

page 9
dustries from Okladnikov cave all culture-bearing horizons belong to the interval of 45-40 thousand years ago.

Important information was obtained by M. B. Mednikova during a thorough and comprehensive study of the postcranial skeleton fragments from Okladnikov Cave [2011]. The vast majority of them, apparently, belonged to women. The body length of a man could be in the range of 160-163 cm, a woman-approx. 158 cm. Of particular interest is the similarity between the postcranial skeleton fragments from Okladnikov Cave and paleoanthropological finds in other territories identified by M. B. Mednikova. Let us dwell on these conclusions in more detail, since they are, in my opinion, of fundamental importance for solving the problem of ancient migrations. The child's shoulder from the cave approaches the Tabun C1 by the cross-sectional index in the middle of the diaphysis. The child's right femur shows medial-lateral elongation of the diaphysis, which is considered a characteristic feature of erectoid morphology. Among the skeletal remains of Neanderthals, it was found in Tabun E 1. The index of the pilastrium of the right femur from the Okladnikov cave is close to the index of the Tabun C1 femur, which is strongly flattened in the anteroposterior direction.The left femur of the Altai child also shows a weak prolongation of the diaphysis in the lateral plane. The humerus of an adult individual shows similarities with the most graceful forms, including the closest Shanidar 6 and Tabun C 1. The patella coincides in length (height) with the kneecap of Tabun C 1. The right calcaneus also converges with this skeleton in width and height of the body and the talus of an adult in total length, head length and the neck due to the small size of the articular facet of the lateral malleolus for Neanderthals. The medial phalanx of the third or fourth ray along the articular length and width in the middle of the diaphysis is in the field of variability of Shanidar males, and according to the index of massiveness it coincides with the eponymous bone of the Herd C 1. The destroyed medial phalanx of the second ray is similar to that of the Herd C 1 in height (degree of flatness) and to a lesser extent in the width of the head.

Thus, paleoanthropological finds from Okladnikov Cave have the greatest similarity with the Neanderthals of the Levant. The problem is that there is a large chronological and territorial gap between them. The Sibiryachikha industry identified in the Okladnikov Cave together with paleoanthropological findings is significantly different from the Karakol and Karabom Upper Paleolithic industries of Altai. It appeared here about 50-45 thousand years AGO, belongs to the Mousterian group, and belonged, as it turns out, to representatives of the Neanderthaloid taxonomic type. The appearance of a new population in Altai with a completely different industry stands out in contrast to the entire historical and cultural background of the region. Apparently, this small group came from the southwest. At this stage of the study, we can assume the following scenario. The Neanderthal population in the Middle East continued to co-exist with modern anatomical people, and then some of it, possibly under pressure from the latter, moved to Iraq (Shanidar), Uzbekistan (Teshik-Tash), and about 50 thousand years AGO to Southern Siberia. The Sibiryachikhinsky culture did not last long in the Altai. The fate of its carriers is unknown: either they were assimilated by the autochthonous population, or they became extinct (Derevyanko, 2009b).

All the extensive material accumulated as a result of almost 30 years of field research of multi-layered cave localities and open-type sites in the Altai Region indicates the evolutionary development of the Middle Paleolithic industry here during 20 - 30 thousand years and the formation of the Upper Paleolithic industry on its basis 50 - 45 thousand years ago - one of the most striking and expressive in Eurasia. The transition to the Upper Paleolithic can be clearly traced in the 11th cultural layer of Denisova Cave, which is divided into five habitat horizons. The following radiocarbon dates were initially determined for it: 29,200 ± 360 BP (AA-35321) for the roof; >37,235 (SORAN-2504) for the middle part; and 48,650 ± 2,380 / 1,840 BP (KIA 25,285 SP 553 / D19, Albrecht University Kiel, Germany) for the bottom one. New dates have been obtained for habitat horizon 11.2: in the eastern gallery, for deposits containing the human phalanx, as well as stone and bone ornaments in situ, 50 and 50.3 Ka BP, respectively; in the southern gallery, where the human molar was found, 51.2, 48.9 and 48.6 Ka BP. They confirm that the sediments of this horizon are ca. 50 thousand years [Reich et al., 2010].

In the industry from layer 11, primary stone processing is characterized mainly by a parallel splitting system, with single specimens representing the radial and Levallois ones (Derevyanko, 2001, 2009b, 2010a; Derevyanko and Volkov, 2004; Derevyanko and Shunkov, 2004). End nuclei of the carenoid type and microplates removed from them appear. The tool kit is characterized by scrapers, incisors, punctures, retouched plates, microplates with a blunted edge, leaf-shaped bifaces. Along with the Upper Paleolithic items in the stone inventory, there are scrapers of various modifications, a small number of Levallois pinnacles, jagged, notched and beak-shaped tools.

Without a doubt, the 11th layer of Denisova Cave represents a vivid version of the early Upper Paleolithic,

page 10
which was formed as a result of the evolutionary development of the Middle Paleolithic industry in the Altai. This is evidenced by materials from other multi-layered cave sites and open-type sites. In the Altai region, approx. 60 culture-bearing horizons dating back to 90-40 thousand years AGO. They clearly show the transition to the Upper Paleolithic. The Upper Paleolithic industry on this territory was formed in the interval of 50-45 thousand years AGO on the basis of the Late Middle Paleolithic. About 50 thousand years AGO, subprismatic and rotary nuclei, spin splitting (a soft bump was used at an earlier time), karenoid forms, scrapers of various modifications, incisors, punctures, screwdrivers, and other Upper Paleolithic products appeared in the Altai. The bone industry (needles, awls) and non - utilitarian items made of bone, stone, and shells (beads, pendants, etc.) clearly confirm that the Altai population of 50-40 thousand years AGO had behavioral patterns characteristic of a modern anatomical type of person. An unexpected find in layer 11 was a fragment of a bracelet made of stone, which was designed using several techniques: grinding, polishing, sawing and drilling. Archaeologists have no doubt that the creators of the Upper Paleolithic industries in the Altai, who had a modern type of behavior, must also be people of a modern anatomical type.

The results of sequencing the nuclear genome from the finger phalanx of a girl approximately 7 years old from Denisova Cave, performed by the team of Professor S. Paabo, were unexpected [Reich et al., 2010]. The deviation of the Denisovan nuclear genome from the reference human genome is 11.7% (confidence interval 11.4-12.0%), and the deviation of the Neanderthal from the Vindia Cave (Croatia) is 12.2% (confidence interval 11.9 - 12.5%), i.e. almost the same. This indicates their origin from a single ancestral population [Ibid, p. 1055]. Denisovans and Neanderthals were sister groups with a common ancestor before 640 thousand years AGO, but after the separation they already had a different history of development. This is evidenced by the fact that Neanderthals have more common genetic variants with modern people in Eurasia than with modern people in tropical Africa, and 1 - 4% of the human genome in non-Africans is borrowed from Neanderthals [Green et al., 2010]. Denisovans did not participate in gene drift to Eurasians as a result of divergence, whereas Melanesians, standing apart from other non-African populations, recorded 4-6% of the genetic material of Denisovans.

Genetic analysis data showing that the history of Denisovans ' evolution differed from that of Neanderthals and modern humans confirm that the molar from Denisova Cave has no morphological features in common with them [Reich et al., 2010]. The conclusion of the study of paleoanthropological findings is that Denisovans belonged to a group of hominids that shared a common ancestor with Neanderthals, but had a different history of population development. In Eurasia, at least two archaic hominin forms existed in the late Pleistocene: the Western Eurasian form, where it is designated as Neanderthal on the basis of widely known morphological features, and the eastern one, which includes Denisovans [Ibid.]. When discussing the article before its publication, the authors decided to refrain for the time being from formally assigning it within the framework of biological classification. taxonomies of Neanderthals and Denisovans to a species or subspecies. The hominids that settled in the Denisova Cave area are called Denisovans by analogy with Neanderthals, since they were first described on the basis of molecular data obtained from the materials of this cave, just as Neanderthals were first anthropologically described from skeletal remains found in the Neanderthal Valley in Germany [Ibid.].

The fact that Homo sapiens altaiensis is genetically related to the Melanesians remains difficult to explain. About 30 thousand years AGO, a part of the population of Southern Siberia migrated to the territory of Northern China, as evidenced by the appearance of the plate industry there. It is unlikely that any group of Denisovans could have reached the island part of Southeast Asia. But when migrating to the territory of Northern China, Denisovans had to be assimilated primarily by the autochthonous population. And this will become clear with a paleogenetic study of Late Pleistocene anthropological finds in China. Genetic links between Denisovans and Melanesians should probably be sought in an earlier Homo ancestral lineage of the Middle or Lower Pleistocene.

It is very important to try to combine the available results of archaeological, anthropological, and genetic research into a single system. It is necessary not only to discuss the different points of view of geneticists, anthropologists, and archaeologists on the problem of the formation of a modern anatomical type of man, but also to look for its solution in field and laboratory studies. All the archaeological material accumulated during the study of Paleolithic sites in the Altai region allows us to conclude that the Denisovan was a modern anatomical person. This suggests that the erectoid or Homo heidelbergensis populations migrated to Southern Siberia in the Middle Pleistocene, and that modern anatomists may also have formed in the Middle East.-

page 11
This group of rocks is considered to be of an intermediate line of development, as well as possibly paleoanthropological finds from the Skhul and Kafzeh localities.

It is important to detect the talus of a person near the village. Baigara (58°02 ' N) is higher than Tobolsk along the Irtysh River. In this area, the river cuts through the entire thickness of the Neo-Pleistocene. The talus was found on a towpath among the bones of Pleistocene animals and had the same degree of fossilization. A sample from its inner part was used to obtain a date >40,300 BP (AA-61831) (Kuzmin et al., 2009; Razhev, Kosintsev, and Kuzmin, 2010). The composition of the fauna and the preservation of the finds allow us to attribute this bone to the period 55-40 thousand years AGO. According to morphological characteristics, it differs from Neanderthal and, according to researchers, is very close to the talus bones of modern physical people, especially Middle Paleolithic, whose remains were found in the Skhul and Kafzeh caves [Razhev, Kosintsev, Kuzmin, 2010, p. 134]. It is very likely that the talus of a person from the Baigara site belonged to a representative of the Denisovans, i.e. Homo sapiens altaiensis.

This raises the question of the population whose remains were found in the Okladnikov Cave. It is determined on the basis of mtDNA as neanderthaloid. This population, unlike the Denisovans, had a completely different, musteroid Sibiryachikhin industry. Fragments of the postcranial skeleton from Okladnikov Cave, as defined by M. B. Mednikova (2011), are closest to Tabun C1. Stone tools are closest to the moustache of Western Europe, which also does not find convincing explanations yet. Okladnikov Cave is separated from the nearest Mousterian localities by a huge distance. In the transit territories of Western Siberia and Eastern Europe, such an industry is not known. The most likely scenario for the emergence of a population of people who left the Sibiryachikhinsky industry is as follows. Neanderthals of the Middle Eastern type first migrated to the Iranian Highlands (Shanidar), then to the territory of Uzbekistan (Teshik-Tash) and ca. 50 thousand years AGO - to Southern Siberia, where they were assimilated by the autochthonous population in a short period of time. Some similarity of paleoanthropological findings from the Teshik-Tash and Okladnikov caves is indicated by indicators of internal massiveness of the femur bones. Among other Neanderthal finds, according to Mednikova, the most thick-walled are children's bones from these caves. Until recently, only one location with the Sibiryachikha industry was known in the Altai - Okladnikov Cave, and in 2007 S. V. Markin discovered the Chagyr Cave with the same musteroid complex (Derevyanko, Markin, and Zykin, 2008). It is important to note that this industry did not affect the autochthonous Upper Paleolithic. Two known localities of the Sibiryachikha culture indicate a small population that penetrated the Altai territory, and, apparently, it was assimilated by the Denisovans for a short time.

As already noted, the Upper Paleolithic industry in the Altai was formed 50-45 thousand years AGO, and by many indicators, the behavior of Denisovans characterizes a modern anatomical type of person. I suggest that Denisovans should be classified as a special subspecies of Homo sapiens altaiensis. Further development of the autochthonous industry is observed in the Altai and at a later time (30-10 thousand years AGO), i.e. there is no migration of populations of modern anatomical type with another industry to this territory. This means that the people who settled in the Altai were descendants of Denisovans, and therefore people of a modern anatomical type.

The designation of Denisovans as Homo sapiens altaiensis was discussed with S. Paabo two years ago while preparing an article on the results of mtDNA sequencing from the phalanx found in the 11th layer of the Denisova Cave [Krause et al., 2010], but due to insufficient grounds for identifying a new species, it was decided to abandon this proposal. After deciphering the genome, I believe that the Denisovan should be included as a subspecies in the pedigree of a modern anatomical human. Based on archaeological, anthropological, and genetic studies, I consider it possible to designate a polytypic anatomically modern human species Homo sapiens sapiens sensu lato, including the subspecies H. sapiens sapiens africaniensis (Africa), H. sapiens neanderthalensis (Europe), H. sapiens orientalensis (East and Southeast Asia), and H. sapiens altaiensis (Southern Siberia and Central Asia).

The results of archaeological and, to some extent, anthropological and genetic studies allow us to put forward a hypothesis about the formation of modern humanity during the last 40 - 200 thousand years from four subspecies. At the same time, H. sapiens sapiens africaniensis, due to its greatest genetic diversity, probably played a major role.

The emergence of behavior that characterizes a modern anatomical type of person in Africa and Eurasia

One of the most controversial issues is the formation of modern human behavior. What do most researchers mean by this

page 12
a concept? Based on archaeological and ethnographic data, we understand modern behavior not as twentieth-century human behavior, but as the behavior of Homo sapiens sapiens in the late Pleistocene, in contrast to other archaic Homo species. R. Mellars (1991) calls the stage of formation of such behavior a symbolic revolution. Various aspects of this problem are discussed at international conferences, and to varying degrees are considered in dozens, if not hundreds of papers. The most extensive bibliography on this subject is contained in the articles by S. McBrearty and E. Brooks [McBrearty and Brooks, 2000], K. Henshilwood and K. Marin [Henshilwood and Marean, 2003], N. Conard [Conard, 2005; Conard, 2009] and others.

Researchers primarily try to find the reasons for the beginning of the formation of modern behavior in the process of becoming Homo sapiens sapiens. They name different motivations. The reasons could be population growth [Powell, Shennan, Thomas, 2009] and active use of coastal resources [Parkington, 2001]. R. Klein [Klein, 1995, 2000, 2001] argues that the emergence of modern behavior is associated with genetic mutations, followed by significant changes in the nervous system, the development of linguistic abilities. All these qualitative changes cannot be recorded in paleoanthropological findings, but they have played a crucial role in the development of human behavior. There are other points of view, but many of them are one-sided or difficult to prove on the available archaeological and anthropological materials.

There is no consensus about the time of the emergence of modern human behavior. Prior to the discovery of Paleolithic sites of the Middle Stone Age in Africa, the most widespread hypothesis was that modern human behavior was formed in the Late Middle-early Upper Paleolithic, ca. 50-40 thousand years AGO (Binford, 1985). R. Klein (Klein, 2003) emphasizes that after 50 - 40 thousand years AGO, people can be called modern and by their behavior. An extreme point of view is taken by T. Holliday (2003), who believes that signs of modern human behavior appeared among the creators of the Acheulean industry in the Middle Pleistocene and Mousterian times. Most archaeologists, anthropologists, and other scientists involved in the human problem are inclined to hypothesize that the formation of modern human behavior in Homo sapiens sapiens occurred in a wide chronological interval: in the late Middle to first half of the Upper Pleistocene (McBrearty and Brooks, 2000; Henshilwood and Marean, 2003; et al.).

Different points of view on the causes, time of appearance of modern human behavior and other issues are explained by the fact that, in fact, there is no theoretical model that forms a clear definition of this concept and generally accepted criteria. At this stage, its creation is hardly possible due to the lack of archaeological and anthropological materials. The main purpose of introducing this concept is to distinguish a modern anatomical type of human from archaic Homo species. From my point of view, the formation of modern human behavior, or rather its elements, is a long evolutionary path of development of the most physical type of human (H. sapiens africaniensis, H. sapiens neanderthalensis, H. sapiens orientalensis, H. sapiens altaiensis), industry, the emergence and accumulation of innovations as a result of changes in adaptation strategies due to changing ecology. Elements of modern behavior or culture could not arise immediately, in a "revolutionary" way, there was a gradual increase in qualitative changes, innovations appeared that were passed on and fixed in the next generations. It should also be borne in mind that human populations that spread from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean in the Middle Pleistocene could not have exactly the same adaptation strategies, and the characteristics that characterize modern behavior can also differ significantly.

One of the most fruitful discussions of the problem took place in connection with the publication of an article by K. S. Henshilwood and K. V. Marin [Henshilwood and Marean, 2003]. After this discussion, a large number of papers appeared that dealt with this problem to one degree or another. Many scientists believe that elements of modern behavior could have been formed only in Homo sapiens sapiens, although many effective adaptation strategies, skills, and innovations inherent in early humans of the modern anatomical type are also known in Neanderthals.

Human formation has been taking place over the last 2 million years. years. The development of morphology was accompanied by the complication of behavioral actions, the accumulation of knowledge about the surrounding reality. The most important stage was the recognition by ancient Homos of the need to transfer new knowledge and innovations from generation to generation within small teams. This process was also evolutionary. It depended on the methods of communication within primitive collectives and reached its highest level with the emergence and development of voice communication, i.e. speech, which was also improved over a long time. All this was associated with the development of the brain, the complication of its functions, and led to an increase in the social factor in the life of hominids. The process of sapientation was evolutionary and lengthy; it could not take place all over the ecumene in the same way and at the same time. High ime value-

page 13
la habitat. Harsher conditions required a person to develop complex adaptation strategies, maximize the use of natural resources in the region, promote the further development of social relations within the team, care of parents for children and children for their parents, invent innovations and transfer them from one generation to another. Contacts with closely related populations and migration processes played an important role in complicating human behavior. In the Middle and even Upper Paleolithic, the Ecumene did not represent a zone of continuous settlement. There were refugia with the most favorable ecological conditions for human settlement, where there were enough water resources, and the climate contributed to the diversity of the animal world. A very important role was also played by the availability of sufficient raw materials for the manufacture of stone tools. These refugiums had the highest population density and created the most favorable conditions for innovation. Such areas were basic for the beginning of migration processes and the settlement of free or sparsely populated territories. During migrations, long expeditions for the purpose of hunting or searching for the most suitable raw materials for making stone tools, contacts with neighboring populations took place and people exchanged innovations, acquired skills, and genetic material. Innovations could also be passed on by relay from one population to another.

The hypothesis about the formation of modern human behavior in Africa and then its distribution by carriers - people of modern anatomical type-cannot be accepted for many reasons. Having considered three models (scenarios) of the transition from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic, we can state with a sufficient degree of confidence: the gradual formation of signs of modern human behavior also occurred in each of these large regions autochthonously, which did not exclude the enrichment of skills and innovative acquisitions as a result of acculturation and dialogue of cultures of different regions.

What innovations of the first half of the Upper Pleistocene are signs of modern human behavior? They can be grouped into two main categories that define material and spiritual culture. The first category includes all innovations related to the tool kit and methods of food extraction. A new strategically important element in the operational chain of stone tool manufacturing, according to many scientists, is plate technology. The earliest industries with this technology are known in Kenya (c. 500-300 thousand years ago) and in the Middle East (c. 300 thousand years ago). It is still difficult to draw definite conclusions about their origins.

It is possible that the Middle Eastern plate industry is connected with the East African one. In the Early Middle Stone Age in Southern Africa (MSA I), subprismatic and pivoting nuclei appeared. These innovations are almost unknown in MSA II. They reappeared several tens of thousands of years later-in the Howison's port industry.

The plate industry is crucial for the transition from the Middle to Upper Paleolithic in Eurasia. In Africa, plate fission based on prismatic nuclei became widespread after 25-20 thousand years AGO. In the north of East Asia, the plate industry appeared about 30 - 25 thousand years AGO, and in the south of East and Southeast Asia, in the Upper Paleolithic, it did not play a significant role at all. This indicates different adaptation strategies on the territory of the ecumene. In Africa, where, apparently, the plate industry first appeared, it has been disappearing and reappearing for 250 thousand years. Only in Europe, Southwest, Western, Central, and Northern Asia did the plate industry play an important role in the transition from the Middle to Upper Paleolithic.

One of the signs of modern human behavior is the use of new types of raw materials. In many industries in Africa and Eurasia, especially in East and South-East Asia, various coarse-grained quartz, quartzite, and other rocks served as raw materials for a long time, and it was only in the second half of the upper Pleistocene that fine-grained rocks were used almost everywhere, which made it possible to obtain higher-quality and more regular billets, which were modified in various forms during secondary processing. tools of labor. Not all areas of human habitation had sufficient amounts of such fine-grained rocks, and therefore multi-day expeditions were made, exchanges developed, and reserves of this material were created, as evidenced by the "hoards" of nuclei and billets. And in East and Southeast Asia, tools made of quartzite are widely represented throughout the Stone Age.

Especially important was the transition to the use of bone for making tools. It may have been sporadically processed since the Early Paleolithic. But the production of bone tools for the extraction of fish and marine animals; needles, awls; jewelry and other products means significant progress in human culture, because not only did the methods of food extraction improve, but it also became possible to make various clothes and shoes.

Since the early Upper Pleistocene, the complexity of the tool set has been associated with more efficient use of natural resources. The person began to understand and evaluate changes in the-

page 14
the advantages and disadvantages of each of the annual cycles, and therefore its settlement and movement were determined by seasonality. It also indicates an important element of modern human behavior and the complexity of adaptation strategies.

The second category of signs of modern human behavior includes artificial burials, various manifestations of symbolic activity, and other elements of spiritual culture. Moreover, elements of spiritual culture, as well as material culture, could have appeared in the Upper Pleistocene, disappeared, and then reappeared after several tens of thousands of years. The reasons for this dynamic are not clearly explained. Apparently, they can be different for each region: migrations, changes in environmental conditions, acculturation, etc.

Let us consider the problem of complication of the behavioral model in the Upper Pleistocene in three remote regions: Eastern and Southern Africa; southern Siberia; the insular part of Southeast Asia; and Australia. The choice of these territories allows us to demonstrate once again the independence of the formation of modern human behavior. This process was autochthonous and had nothing to do with the spread of modern anatomical humans from Africa.

The African continent is quite rightly considered the original center of anthropogenesis. The earliest modern anatomical type of human was formed here and the greatest genetic diversity is observed. The already mentioned discussion on the origin of modern human behavior, conducted in the journal "Current Anthropology" (2003) in connection with the publication of an article by K. S. Henshilwood and K. V. Marin [Henshilwood and Marean, 2003], showed the predominance of the opinion about its earliest formation in Africa [Deacon, 1989, 1993, 2001; Mellars, 1995; Wurz, 1999; McBrearty and Brooks, 2000; Wadley, 2001; Henshilwood et al., 2001, 2002; Henshilwood and Marean, 2003; and others]. R. G. Klein [Klein, 2001, 2003] proposed a hypothesis that for the first time the behavior characteristic of anatomically modern humans is similar to that of a modern human. It was formed in populations in the equatorial part of East Africa.

Currently, the earliest elements of modern human behavior are recorded at the Blombos and Howison's Port sites in southern Africa. In the Blombos cave, in cultural horizons dating back more than 70 thousand years, bone tools with a carefully sanded surface, shell beads, engraved pieces of ochre were found, as well as in the form of a "pencil" or "chalk" for use as a dye, possibly for applying paint to the body.

Starting from stilbay and especially at the Howison's port stage, there is a significant complication of economic activity for the most efficient use of natural resources, including marine ones (fishing for spawning fish, harpooning fish and marine animals, collecting various shellfish for food). In the stone industry, a fairly large share is made up of plates. Some of them were used for the manufacture of geometric products with a blunted edge, which could be used as inserts for composite tools with a bone or wooden base. Judging by the specifics of the settlements, the presence of individual foci is not excluded, and this may indicate the appearance of a nuclear family. Faunal remains indicate that people began to actively hunt for bovine ruminants. Plant resources have been used more efficiently. In the interval of 70-50 thousand years AGO, there is a wide spread of various kinds of symbols, there is evidence of the exchange of artifacts and fine-grained minerals that served as raw materials for the manufacture of tools. These and other facts cited by experts who study late Middle Paleolithic sites in Eastern and Southern Africa certainly indicate the emergence and complication of elements of modern human behavior 80-50 thousand years AGO. However, a number of questions arise. At the end of the Middle and first half of the Upper Pleistocene, populations that retained many archaic features in their skeletal morphology settled in Eastern and Southern Africa. Paleoanthropological findings at localities in the Clasies River basin show signs of cannibalism, which does not correspond to the concept of modern human behavior. There is another paradox that has not yet received a sufficiently convincing explanation: at Paleolithic sites dating back to 45-30 thousand years AGO, a more archaic industry is spreading and many evidences of symbolism in human culture are almost disappearing.

In connection with the topic under discussion, I consider it necessary to briefly address the problem raised by N. J. Conard and L. Wadley. Conard quite rightly writes that many scientists have accepted the hypothesis of the African origin of modern behavior as an axiom, and the point of view that Eurasia played an important role in the development of modern behavioral traits is considered old-fashioned, exaggerating or even Eurocentric [2009, p.122]. Researchers should also pay close attention to the opinion of L. Wadley [Wadley, 2001, 2005]. He expressed his doubts

page 15
As to the origin of modern human behavior in southern Africa, he criticized, not without reason, the haste with which a number of innovations are sometimes given symbolic meaning, excluding the possibility of their utilitarian application.

There is a hypothesis about the formation of modern behavior not only in Africa, but also in other regions of the Old World in various populations, in particular, in Neanderthals (D'Errico et al., 2003). N. J. Conard (Conard and Bolus, 2003; Conard, 2009) and some other researchers have a similar point of view. E. Hovers and A. Belfer-Cohen [Hovers and Belfer - Cohen, 2006] believe that there are no sufficiently convincing data on the formation of a set of modern behavioral traits at the end of the Middle and beginning of the Upper Pleistocene as a global, simultaneous phenomenon associated exclusively with Homo sapiens sapiens. Their distribution and preservation is more a matter of historical chance than of gradual evolutionary changes in culture or Upper Paleolithic innovations [Ibid., p. 301].

Confirmation of the possibility of the emergence of elements of modern behavior not only in Africa is found in the study of Paleolithic sites on the islands of Southeast Asia and Australia. One of the most detailed, systematic, and fundamental works devoted to this problem is the review made by F. D. Habgood and N. R. Franklin [Habgood and Franklin, 2008]. Materials from Paleolithic sites on the territory of Sunda and Sahul indicate not only the independent formation of elements of modern human behavior here, but also the uniqueness of this process. Anthropologists, geneticists, and archaeologists agree that the islands of Southeast Asia and Australia began to be inhabited by modern anatomical humans around 60-50 thousand years AGO. The first migrants had to overcome not only the shallow shelf, but also significant sea areas even with the maximum decrease in the ocean level (O'Connor and Chappell, 2003; Vosis, 2003). 2000]. In the interval of 68-62 thousand years AGO, the sea level was 85-90 m lower than the present one, and 59-55 thousand years ago by about 55 m. But the Strait of Makassar, which coincides with the Wallace Line, has always been the barrier separating the Asian fauna of Kalimantan Island and Australia. The island of East Timor was separated by a large expanse of water. Even with the most favorable conditions and the availability of a sufficiently reliable swimming facility, the transition to the southern version of the settlement of Australia should have taken several days. The northern option of settling New Guinea and Australia via Sulawesi was no less difficult. Even at low sea levels, large expanses of water had to be crossed repeatedly. It is quite obvious that such long sea voyages could have been made by populations with elements of modern human behavior, since this is possible only with reliable swimming equipment and sufficiently good navigation knowledge. Regarding the latter, there is no evidence: the ability to navigate in bad weather and at night is one of the cognitive abilities of a person, which, apparently, cannot be reconstructed. The presence of swimming equipment among the first settlers to Sunda, and then to Sahul, can be indicated by the presence among the finds of axes or adzes with a polished blade, flakes with traces of grinding, tools with hangers, apparently attached to a wooden handle, jagged-notched products, i.e. tools that could be used for wood processing. The earliest cutting tools with traces of grinding found on the territory of Sunda and Sahul are older than 40 thousand years (O'Connel and Allen, 2004).

Migrants who crossed from the mainland to Sunda and Sahul are the world's earliest navigators. The hypothesis of migration of populations from Africa to Australia along the southern coast of Asia by watercraft is not confirmed in archaeological materials: in South Africa, the tools necessary for the construction of reliable swimming facilities designed to cover long distances have not been found. The ability to make multi-day trips by sea, often to areas invisible to the naked eye, is certainly a testament to modern human behavior.

The industry found at Paleolithic sites in the range of 60-20 KA BP on the territory of Sunda and Sahul is similar in terms of technical and typological indicators of the industry of the mainland of Southeast and East Asia and significantly differs from the African and Euro-Asian ones. It is characterized by nuclei for removing flakes that served as blanks for the manufacture of various tools. Flakes are presented both with retouching and without additional processing. If we approach the assessment of this industry from the point of view of Euro-Asian criteria, then in general it had a Middle Paleolithic appearance for a long time. At the same time, stone grinding and polishing techniques were introduced early and standardized wafer products were absent for a long time, which is one of the distinguishing features of the Sunda and Sahul industry. P. Mellars (2006) explained the lack of analogies by the fact that by the time people of the modern anatomical type from Africa reached Australia, they had lost the skills of the plate race.-

page 16
there was no high-quality fine-grained stone material for the manufacture of products. However, there are many examples of manufacturing lamellar nuclei from coarse-grained minerals. It is quite obvious that the Paleolithic industry of Sunda and Sahul has its origins in the industry of East and South-East Asia, which developed according to the second scenario (model) of the transition from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic. Plate technology and the production of microliths of geometric shapes are recorded in Australia in the Holocene. Judging by the stone industry, there were probably two major migrations to Australia: around 60-50 thousand years AGO (initial settlement) and after 10 thousand years AGO (carriers of the industry with microplates and microliths of geometric shapes).

Thus, the industry of Sunda and Sahul, although it had, according to Euro-Asian criteria, a Middle Paleolithic appearance, but it belonged to populations of a modern anatomical type and was probably perfectly adapted to local ecological conditions and maximally efficient. The convergent appearance of such innovations as grinding and the ability to make long sea voyages indicate the formation of modern behavior in the autochthonous population.

The first inhabitants of Sunda and Sahul conducted a complex economy. Judging by the organic and faunal remains, they mainly exploited land resources, while water resources, especially in places relatively remote from the sea, played a secondary role. In the Nia cave on the island of Borneo in the culture-bearing horizon, where a modern anatomical human skull was found, dated to 14 C in the interval of approx. 41-34 thousand years BC (45-39 thousand calendar years BC), more than 10 thousand bones of large vertebrates were found (Barker et al., 2007). Terrestrial animals are represented (574 specimens) with a predominance of monitor lizards (138) and pigs (398); terrestrial and arboreal (253 specimens), mainly snakes (41), langurs and macaques (196); arboreal (138 specimens), of which the most numerous are orangutans (72); terrestrial and aquatic (248 specimens), mostly turtles (243). Fish bones, and exclusively freshwater ones, were found in small numbers. Despite the fact that the cave was located 15 km from the South China Sea, no remains of marine fauna were found in the culture-containing horizon. The presence of semi-fragmented animal bones and traces of cutting on them indicates that the carcasses were cut directly at the parking lot.

Important observations were made during excavations in the lake district. Mungo, where several stages of settlement are distinguished (Bowler et al., 1970, 2003; Bowler, Thorne, and Polack, 1972). In 1969, cremated human remains were discovered at the site (Mungo 1). In 1974, a well-preserved skeleton (Mungo 3) was found 450 m away in the same lithological layer. Next to the cremated remains in the excavation (Mungo B), 775 artefacts were collected, which in terms of technical and typological indicators are similar to the industry that was widespread on the mainland at that time. Mungo 3 was attributed to the time of 30 thousand BP, 45-42 thousand and 62 ± 6 thousand BP. The results of direct dating of these skeletal remains by Th/U and Pa/U were between 82 ± 7 and 50.7 ± 0.9 thousand BP. EPR dates from 78 ± 7 to 63 ± 6 thousand bp were obtained from fragments of tooth enamel (Thorne et al., 1999). The new dating allowed us to answer questions about the stages of settlement of this region more precisely. The first filling of the lake occurred about 60 thousand years ago. In the interval of 50 - 40 thousand years AGO, three phases of water level fluctuations can be traced in it. When the level decreased, pebbles were exposed and a weak process of soil formation took place. It is established that the first human settlement of this territory occurred 50-46 thousand years ago. Both burials, Mungo 1 and 3, date back to 40 ± 2 Ka BP (Bowler et al., 2003). The highest population density in this area is recorded in the range of 45-43 thousand years ago.

The economic life of people was largely connected with the pluvial and arid periods. Diet of the inhabitants of the parking lots on the lake. Mungo was based on the exploitation of land and water resources (Bowler et al., 1970). They caught kangaroo rats on the sand dunes and plains, and hunted small marsupials, including marsupial martens, as well as larger animals in the bush or bush. People collected emu eggs, caught small birds, caught shellfish in shallow water and dug in the mud, and caught golden perch. Some types of food were available at certain times of the year: emu eggs appear at the end of winter, shellfish are easier to collect in summer, and in winter, according to ethnographic data, they are few and unsuitable for food, young perch were caught in late spring or early summer and autumn [Ibid., p. 55]. The seasonality of economic activity of the Late Pleistocene aborigines of Australia is evidenced by the fact that the site was inhabited by humans repeatedly in late winter and late spring - early summer. According to researchers, it was a seasonal temporary camp that was settled several times by a small group of people (12-24 people) [Ibid.]. This way of life corresponded to modern behavior and persisted in Australians until recently.

The significant role of hunting among the early colonists of Sahul is evidenced by the disappearance of megafauna in Australia, which includes about 54 Australian species, including mammals, birds and reptiles. &

page 17
Some researchers estimate that about 12 species probably became extinct before the arrival of humans, and all megafauna disappeared between 50 and 40 thousand years ago (Flannery, 1990; Roberts et al., 2001). The reasons for this are still debatable. Some researchers explain the disappearance of megafauna by climate changes [Field, Dodson, Prosser, 2002], while others do not exclude the role of human hunting on animals [Roberts et al., 2001]. Apparently, the reason was a combination of these two factors.

Judging from faunal remains and shell heaps at Paleolithic sites, the role of water resources in the diet of the first migrants to Australia varied depending on how close the site was to the coast, lake, or river (Davidson, 1997). Plant resources were of considerable importance. But not all wild plants were suitable for food without pretreatment. The inhabitants of Nia Cave had the necessary knowledge and technology to neutralize certain plant-based toxins. So, a yam tuber (Diosorea hipida) found in a cave the size of an apple in raw form can kill an adult. The nuts of the Pangium edule tree, also found in the cave, contain a life-threatening amount of prussic acid. To neutralize it, the aborigines of Australia bury mature fruits for 10 to 14 days, and then boil them or cover them with ash for 40 days. In the Nia cave, rows of parallel depressions were found, in which a large number of nuts mixed with ash were found (Barker et al., 2007, p. 256).

Botanical studies have suggested that the cave's inhabitants burned out forest areas, creating favorable conditions for root crops to grow and improving hunting conditions. Petrographic analysis of stone products, of which a small amount was found, indicates that the initial raw materials were brought to the cave for 50 km. Taken together, it suggests that "by at least 46,000 BC, hominins were living in the lowlands of Borneo and exploiting various resources of the interior landscape, using a range of technologies that may have included setting traps for mammals and fish, some forms of throwing techniques, digging up tubers, detoxifying plants, and burning forests.""[Ibid., p. 259]. Integrated management for life support, long-term planning, a whole range of innovations-all this testifies to the modern behavior of the inhabitants of the Nia cave.

Judging by the composition of the ichthyofauna at a number of sites, some fish species could have been caught using nets. Assessing the life support of the Pleistocene inhabitants of Sunda and Sahul, it is necessary to recognize that land resources played a primary role in them, and water resources, even for coastal residents, with the presence of swimming facilities, were of secondary importance. Marine mollusks (Melo sp.), pearl mussels (Pinctada sp.), bivalves (Tridacna sp.), etc. They served more as raw materials for making tools, jewelry, and trade items than as food resources (Balme, 2000).

The most important innovation of the ancient inhabitants of Sunda and Sahul is the invention and widespread use of grinding. This technique appeared between 60 and 40 thousand years ago (Allen and O'Connell, 2003). Chopping tools, shells, flakes and other products were polished. Chopping tools with a polished blade played a particularly important role in economic activity. Some of them had an intercept or hangers for attaching to a wooden handle. With these tools, it was possible to cut down undergrowth, process wood, build swimming facilities, etc. Grinding of chopping products, apparently, from Sunda and Sahul spread to other islands of the Pacific basin. In Japan, cutting tools with a polished blade are found at Paleolithic sites in the range of 29-27 KA BP (Derevyanko, 1984). Woodwork in Australia is poorly preserved, but at the Weary Swamp site in the south of the continent, dated ca. 10 thousand years AGO, 28 oak artefacts were found, including boomerangs, digging sticks, and others (Habgood and Franklin, 2008).

Bone products in Australia date back to ca. 30 thousand years B.C. The oldest are found at the Devil's Leyer site (ca. 26 thousand years B.C.) and Bone Cave (29,000 ± 520 and 13,700 ± 860 years B.C.). Bone products are found on the territory of Sunda and Sahul at many sites. Points and tips of various sizes, shovel-shaped products were made from bone.

Millstones were used for sharpening chopping tools, shells, flakes, and bone processing. Chemical analysis of organic residues on the surface of these artifacts revealed that they were also used for grinding starch-and silicon-containing seeds and plants. According to R. Fullagar and D. Field (1997), the presence of millstones at the Cady Springs site indicates the existence of a flour milling industry of approx. 30 thousand years BC.

An important argument confirming the modern behavior of the ancient inhabitants of Sahul is the burial sites on Lake Baikal. Mungo. The burial of Mungo 1 with cremation and the burial of Mungo 3, where the corpse was placed in a specially dug depression and covered with ochre, indicate a complex funeral rite and a special attitude towards the deceased member of the collective.

page 18
Many Paleolithic sites on the territory of Sunda and Sahul have been found to contain personal ornaments and displays of art. The earliest beads found at the Sahul sites date back to ca. 42 thousand years ago (Balme and Morse, 2006). It is very important that individual ornaments in the form of perforated shells were found at numerous sites in the interval 35-20 thousand years AGO. On the territory of Sunda and Sahul, perhaps the largest number of Paleolithic sites with personal ornaments is known in the Old World.

In Australia, ochre of various shades (red, yellow, white, purple, orange) was found on several Paleolithic monuments, the use of which had a symbolic meaning. At the Carpenters Gap locality in a layer dated in the interval 42 800 - 33 600 years BC, found a ball of red ochre. In the shelter itself, there were fragments of rock carvings painted in red, yellow, brown, and white on the walls and ceiling (O'Connor and Fankhauser, 2001). Rock art of antiquity ca. It was discovered at the Laura Region locality on the Arnhem Land Peninsula (Habgood and Franklin, 2008). Ochre was found in the culture-containing layer of the Ribi Cave dating back 31,800 years BC (Balme, 2000). Blocks of hematite with polished faces were found at the Malakunanya-2 and Nauvalabila localities of 53-60 thousand years old on the Arnhem Land peninsula (Roberts et al., 1994). Ochre, as well as shells, stone raw materials for making tools, were transported over long distances (Habgood and Franklin, 2008).

The variety of economic activities, exchange, the manufacture of personal jewelry, art, and other examples of a non-utilitarian nature indicate that the inhabitants of Sunda and Sahul 50 - 30 thousand years AGO had many elements of modern human behavior. Signs of modern behavior began to appear in them, apparently, on the mainland in Southeast Asia. Later, during the settlement of Sunda and Sahul 60-30 thousand years AGO, new ecological niches formed new adaptation strategies, innovations appeared, and a way of life that fully corresponds to the concept of modern behavior, i.e. its elements were formed gradually over 20-30 thousand years, and did not appear all at once, which should have been the case. It can occur when a modern anatomical type of person from Africa colonizes this territory.

In the south of Siberia, the formation of elements of modern behavior belongs to the transition period from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic. First of all, this is manifested in the high level of primary and secondary stone processing. In the south of Siberia, 80-50 thousand years AGO, the industry developed on the basis of the Levallois and parallel splitting principles. The blanks chipped from this type of nuclei had the correct shape in terms of plan and were intended for the manufacture of standardized products, the percentage of which was constantly increasing. This development of the industry was typical for the whole of Eurasia, with the exception of East and Southeast Asia. This did not mean that industries were similar across the vast territory. They could differ in many technical and typological indicators, but in general the line of development was common. The evolution of the Middle Paleolithic industry can be traced in the range of 80-50 Ka BP in southern Siberia, and the transition to the Upper Paleolithic can be traced in the range of 50-45 Ka BP. Based on the materials of multi-layered sites in Altai, two lines of development of Upper Paleolithic industries are distinguished: karakol and Karabomovskaya streets. The tool kit is characterized by standardized Upper Paleolithic types: incisors, scrapers, punctures, and other artifacts made from knife-shaped plates or lamellar flakes.

Elements of modern behavior in Homo sapiens altaiensis are evident not only in the stone industry, but also in the life support system. It was based on hunting. In the northern latitudes, in principle, it was impossible to provide food to any group in size, except for hunting. Gathering played a secondary role. Extremely scarce plant resources could in no way provide humans with food, especially in winter. During the year, only two or three months it was possible to make small stocks of berries, mushrooms, roots, nuts, etc.

During excavations in Denisova Cave in 1989-1996 alone, a total of 118,848 fragments of fossil mammalian bones and teeth were recovered. All osteological material was highly fragmented. There were almost no intact teeth or bones. The length of the largest fragments from the central hall and from the pre-entrance area did not exceed 18.5 cm (Derevyanko et al., 2003). The bone remains of large and medium-sized mammals belonged to 27 species, among which the inhabitants of steppe spaces predominate. As a result of excavations in 1993-1995, 19,789 specimens were found in the central hall in layer 12 (the transition period from the Middle to Upper Paleolithic). bones and teeth of large mammals, in the 11th (Early Upper Paleolithic)-17,165 specimens, which indicates a high saturation of culture-containing horizons with osteological material. In layers 9, 11, and 22, more bones of medium and small ungulates were found, while in layers 12 - 22, more bones of large ungulates were found. A large number of ungulate bone remains indicate active hunting by Denisovans. Of course, the fragmentation of wild animal bones is not only related to human activity.-

page 19
ka, but also predators. There are traces of rodents on the bones, but according to M. Germontpre (1993), the frequency of their occurrence in the Denisova cave is significantly lower than in bone accumulations associated with hyena activity in Africa. On the bones of mostly ungulates, there are cuts left by stone tools, as well as traces of fire exposure.

Even more convincing evidence of active hunting by Homo sapiens achaiensis was obtained during the excavations of the Kara-Bom open-type site. Using a traceological analysis, it was possible to establish that out of the entire collection of artifacts from the 2nd Middle Paleolithic horizon (estimated date 60 thousand years AGO), 6.8% belong to tools (Volkov, 1998). The main type of tools used here is a knife for cutting up carcasses of relatively large animals and preparing the meat for storage or consumption in the first place. All the scraper tools identified as a result of the traceological analysis are intended for the primary processing of hides.

In the materials of the 6th Early Upper Paleolithic habitat level (43,200 ± 1,500 BP (GX-17597)), tools account for 3.3% of the total number of artifacts. The composition of the tools is similar to that of the 2nd Middle Paleolithic horizon. Medium to well-worn knives for meat processing dominate over those used occasionally. Scrapers for processing animal skins also have the same character of disposal. Punctures and carvers are added to the tools of the Upper Paleolithic horizon. In the materials of the overlying level 5 habitat (43,300 ± 1,600 bp (GX-17596)), tools account for 7.6% of the total number of artifacts. The instrument characteristics are similar to those of the 6th Upper Paleolithic and 2nd Middle Paleolithic horizons. It is also dominated by medium to heavily worn meat cutting knives and scrapers. The number of scraping tools in this horizon is the largest.

The tool sets of the three stratigraphic units described above have many similar characteristics, which indicates the continuity of the culture of the Middle and Upper Paleolithic hunters. At the site in the final Middle and early Upper Paleolithic, intensive processing of hunting products was carried out. Judging by the size, shape and dislocation of wear marks, meat knives served mainly as cutting knives [Ibid., pp. 265-266]. It should be emphasized that they were used for butchering animal carcasses obtained as a result of hunting activities, and not for collecting carrion, since the products of hunting arrived at the parking lot, judging by the number of tools, in large quantities.

The morphological evolution of knives for butchering animal carcasses is very important. In the Middle Paleolithic horizon, these rocks are mostly large-sized Levallois rocks. Their working areas are confined to the distal part and are not retouched. The tools were probably used without attaching them to an additional rigid handle. Knives from Upper Paleolithic horizons are made of large, up to 15 cm, lamellar chips. The working part of them is decorated with a sharpening retouch, and the obushok - blunting. Perhaps the tools had a wooden or bone handle.

Bone products are widely represented in the Upper Paleolithic sites of Southern Siberia: They are known from more than 15 localities in the range of 50-38 thousand years AGO. Bone was used to make needles, awls, points, insert tools, shoulder blades, jewelry, etc. It was processed by cutting, scraping and grinding.

Individual ornaments, mainly beads and pendants, were made from bone, animal teeth and fangs, shells, and stone. Of particular value are two fragments of a chloritolite bracelet found in the Denisova cave in layer 1 1 dating back more than 30 thousand years. Several technological techniques were used in the manufacture of the bracelet: grinding, polishing, internal boring, and machine drilling.

At the Khotyk site (38-30 thousand years AGO) in Western Transbaikalia, a fragment of a bird bone product was found. Its length is 4.5 cm, diameter 0.5 cm. The fragment has obvious traces of processing: it has a carefully designed sub-rectangular opening. On the surface of the bone can be traced polishing. This product is interpreted as a decoy whistle (Lbova et al., 2003) or a flute (Lbova, Volkov, Kozhevnikova, 2010).

The modern behavior of Homo sapiens altaiensis is also evidenced by the existence of extensive connections between populations over a vast territory and interchange. The chloritolite from which the bracelet is made was brought from Rudny Altai, 250-300 km away from Denisova Cave. The shells of ostrich eggs for making beads, also found in layer 11 of Denisova Cave, could have been brought from Transbaikalia or Mongolia, and this distance is 1.5-2.0 thousand km. Tools were also made not only from local raw materials, but also from those brought from afar. Moreover, at the Kara-Bom site, effusive rocks were used, the outcrops of which were located at a distance of 4-5 km, where quarries existed.

Among the Paleolithic sites of Southern Siberia, seasonal hunting camps, short-term hunter camps, and base settlements can be distinguished. Parking lots and settlements have a certain organization of living space. For example, in the lower part of the 6th habitat horizon at the Kara-Bom parking lot on an area of approx. 4 m2 revealed a very interesting planigraphy. In the east

page 20
parts of this area have preserved the remains of a fire pit. In the center, a well-preserved hearth is recorded, probably with traces of lining. It was made in an artificial depression. From the north and east, the hearth is bordered by blocks of slate, possibly the remains of a dwelling. About 100 fragments of bones and teeth of animals, including wild horse, bison and argali, and 198 artifacts were found in the immediate vicinity: nuclei, scrapers, cutting knives, retouched plates and other products. A little more than a meter to the north-east of the hearth, a depression was found in which 88 g of red-brown goethite powder was collected. Pebbles associated with the rubbing of the dye were also found there. Nearby were two bone pendants that had been broken, possibly for the purpose of symbolically "killing" the object. The artifacts found in the recess may have been associated with a symbolic offering or a treasure trove. All of them could have been a transportable set of cultic purposes (dye, heat exchanger, jewelry) and were in a leather bag (Derevyanko and Rybin, 2003). Dyes and colored objects were also detected in other areas of the 6th horizon of the Kara-Bom parking lot.

Very interesting observations were made by V. I. Tashak (Tashak, 2003; Tashak and Kolobova, 2005) during excavations of the Paleolithic settlement of Podzvonkaya (38,900 ± 3,300 BP (AA-26741)). Five hearths and bonfires were recorded on a plot of 25 m2. Three foci are multi-layered, i.e. consisting of several superimposed on each other. The hearths had a stone lining. They belonged to different times, i.e. people repeatedly returned to the same place, which indicates the seasonality of nomadism. In the upper level of focus 4, the bones of the animal's limbs were found in anatomical order, without traces of fire exposure, and nowhere else, except for the foci, bones lying in anatomical order were found. They were probably placed for ritual purposes. In the middle part of the hearth, three artifacts are recorded, densely sprinkled with ochre. Before they were placed in the hearth, the stones were used for their intended purpose for utilitarian purposes: like a heat sink, a chipper, and a "roaster". After the hearth ceased to function, it was covered with round stones. All the noted ritual actions are also traced in other hearths.

The study of the design of the hearths, as well as the findings related to them, led V. I. Tashak to very interesting conclusions: "The whole set of elements associated with the hearths indicates a certain sequence of actions of the ancient inhabitants of the settlement, which can be considered as an image of the burial of the hearth after its functioning ceases. The central part of the hearths was covered with large rock fragments and animal shoulder blades, and the rite of offering animal bones with preserved meat was performed. Moreover, the sacrificial parts were not fleshy, only mandatory actions were observed without a large consumption of food supplies. The presence of ochre on stones deliberately placed in hearth bowls is also an important part of the hearth burial rite. And, finally, when the fire was lit in the same place, the old hearth was not re-opened" [2003]. The observations made by V. I. Tashak are very important for assessing the cognitive level of Homo sapiens altaiensis. Special attitude to the fire, hearth, fixed approx. 40 thousand years AGO (and it was formed, apparently, much earlier), can be traced in the Paleolithic and Neolithic in many regions of the Old and New World. This attitude has been preserved to this day. While visiting the homes of the indigenous peoples of Siberia, I often observed the rite associated with the" feeding " of the hearth spirit.

Structuring the place of vital activity, a special attitude to the hearth, the repeated return of people to their former parking lot, which indicates the seasonality of economic activity - all these are elements of modern behavior.

Archaeological facts recorded at Palaeolithic sites located at considerable distances from each other in Africa, on the islands of South-East Asia, and in Southern Siberia suggest that elements were formed in the ancient populations of Homo sapiens sapiens (H. sapiens africaniensis), Homo sapiens orientalensis, and Homo sapiens altaiensis between 60 and 30 thousand years AGO. modern human behavior.

Homo sapiens neanderthalensis also has many elements of modern behavior. The Neanderthal industry in terms of basic technical and typological indicators was not inferior to the industries distributed in Africa and Eurasia in the range of 60-35 thousand years ago.Moreover, it was well adapted to the ecological conditions of Northern and Central Europe. In the Levant, anatomically modern populations or morphologically similar ones coexisted with Neanderthals for a long time. They had the same technologies for stone processing and stone tool making (Shea, 2003). As mentioned above, there is a lot of evidence that Neanderthals intentionally buried their relatives (Okladnikov, 1949; Solecki, 1971; Smirnov, 1991; Defl eur, 1993). Researchers have also noted other elements of modern human behavior in them [Chase and Dibble, 1987; Lindly and Clark, 1990; D'Errico et al., 1998; Zilhao, 2001; D'Errico, 2003; Conard, 2005; Hovers and Belfer-Cohen, 2006; Conard, 2009; et al.]. In this respect, Homo sapiens neanderthalensis was probably not inferior to Homo sapiens sapiens (H. sapiens africaniensis), Homo sapiens orientalensis, and Homo sapiens altaiensis.

page 21
When modern anatomical humans migrated to Europe, they adopted a number of innovations from Neanderthals (bone processing, including mammoth bone, making pendants from animal tusks, etc.). D. Zilhao, in my opinion, rightly argues that there is no Neanderthal or modern behavior, because Neanderthals and people of modern anatomical type They had similar cognitive abilities [Zilhao, 2006, p. 192]. H. sapiens neanderthalensis disappeared from the face of the earth as a result of assimilation and acculturation rather than replacement.

H. sapiens africaniensis, H. sapiens neanderthalensis, H. sapiens orientalensis, and H. sapiens altaiensis formed a phylogenetic unit. As a result of the divergence, there were different possibilities for the exchange of genetic material, mainly between H. sapiens africaniensis and H. sapiens neanderthalensis, as well as between H. sapiens orientalensis and H. sapiens altaiensis. But they were all subspecies of the same species, shared a common ancestor, Homo erectus, and the later erectoid forms represented a single phylogenetic lineage that evolved towards sapientation.

Looking at the ancient industries of the Old World, I often focus on their convergent development. It is important for me to emphasize the differences between them. But, of course, the three models (scenarios) of late Pleistocene industrial development in Africa, Eurasia, and Australia could not exist in complete isolation from each other. There were frequent contacts, especially in border areas, populations could live in the same territory at the same time, and as a result of hybridization, gene drift and exchange of genetic material, as well as the diffusion of cultures and acculturation in the chronological interval of 200 - 40 thousand years AGO, people of the modern anatomical species were formed. The genetic contribution of H. sapiens africaniensis, H. sapiens orientalensis, H. sapiens altaiensis, and H. sapiens neanderthalensis was different, but the data of archeology, anthropology, and genetics, in my opinion, indicate the possibility of such a scenario of the formation of Homo sapiens sapiens sensu lato.

Conclusion

Archaeologists, anthropologists, and geneticists agree that Africa is the center of anthropogenesis. Researchers do not have a single opinion about the time when humans left the African continent and began settling in Eurasia. In solving this problem, there are three points of view: the long chronology - the beginning of the first migration about 2.0 - 1.8 million years AGO, the middle - about 1.5 million years ago, and the short-about. 1 million years AGO I believe that the first global migration of humans from Africa began around 2.0 - 1.8 million years ago. Homo ergaster-Homo erectus left its "cradle" and moved beyond it, marking the beginning of the first Great Migration, which marked an event of the greatest importance - the human settlement of the planet. From my point of view, the polytypic species. H. erectus occupied large areas in Eurasia for 1 million years, crossed the 50th parallel about 800 thousand years AGO, and settled up to Southern Siberia (Derevyanko, 2009a).

Erectoid forms that settled in Southeast and East Asia, Europe, and Africa, due to divergence, being in different natural and climatic conditions, could not preserve not only a single industry, culture, but also a physical type. As a result of evolution, the fate of this polytypic species was different (Mayr, 1998). In the east of Asia, due to divergence (which did not exclude the exchange of gene material with populations of adjacent territories), eventually 150 - 50 thousand years AGO, a modern anatomical type of man, Homo sapiens orientalensis, was formed. This process was no less difficult in other regions of Eurasia and in Africa. At the current level of knowledge, the earliest Paleolithic site in Western Europe is Sima del Elefante (1.2-1.1 million years AGO) in Spain, which, of course, does not exclude the possibility of discovering earlier sites or confirming the antiquity of some controversial sites. Who were the first newcomers to Europe? This issue remains debatable. It is very likely that Homo georgicus may have been the first to enter Western and Central Europe. A number of researchers do not exclude the possibility of phylogenetic relationship between the archanthropes TD 6 and Dmanisi (Bermudez de Castro et al., 2004). In this case, the absence of bifacial techniques at the earliest Paleolithic sites in Europe is understandable. From my point of view, the separation of Homo georgicus into a separate species does not exclude the fact that it was included in the polytypical species Homo ergaster - Homo erectus.

Unique results were obtained at Paleolithic sites in Atapuerca. The oldest stone tools in Europe were found there in combination with the richest paleoanthropological material, which allows us to suggest several scenarios of human settlement of Europe and clarify the course of the processes of archanthropic evolution. Skeletal remains of at least six individuals have been found at the 800-thousand-year-old Gran Dolina site in the TD 6 horizon: two adult individuals, probably female, two teenagers, and two children aged 3 to 4 years. At the Sima de los Huesos site, dated to 500-400 thousand years AGO, found

page 22
remains of 28 individuals. Most recently, a jawbone was discovered at the Sima del Elefante locality in the TE 9 horizon, which belongs to the interval of 1.2 - 1.1 Ma BP (Carbonell et al., 2008).

In connection with the global waves of human migration in Eurasia and the discoveries in Atapuerca, we will consider several main hypotheses of human evolution in the range of 1.2 - 0.5 Ma.Since the early 1990s, there have been some changes in its interpretation [Wood, 1992]. The anagenetic evolutionary model, which postulated a sequential chain of Homo habilis - Homo erectus - Homo sapiens, began to be replaced by the cladogenetic one. Its essence boils down to the fact that in the evolution of Homo there were several episodes of speciation (cladogenesis) caused by the settlement of archanthropes from Africa, migration movements between the African continent and Eurasia in the Pleistocene, both from Africa to Eurasia, and possibly in the opposite direction, reproductive isolation due to geographical remoteness and other reasons. Currently, two main hypotheses of human evolution co-exist in science. The multi-regional feature is that Homo sapiens sapiens originated as an anagenetic modification of Homo erectus due to its wide distribution in Africa and Eurasia [Wolpoff, Wu, Thorne, 1984; Lahr, 1994; et al.]. According to the hypothesis of the African ancestral homeland of a modern physical type of human (Stringer, 1996; Rightmire, 1996; Stringer, Howell, and Melentis, 1979; et al.), the early ancestor, changing in Africa through cladogenesis, 200-150 thousand years AGO, became the "progenitor" of a new species - Homo sapiens sapiens. As a consequence, it is assumed that the Middle Pleistocene and Early Upper Pleistocene hominids in Eurasia disappeared without leaving offspring, and they were replaced by a new species Homo sapiens sapiens from Africa.

J. Rightmire (1996), based on a study of a skull found in 1996 in the Bodo area in the middle reaches of the Awash River (Ethiopia) and dated from the Argon to 640 Ka BP, concluded that there is a similarity between it and the skulls of Homo erectus - Homo ergaster. At the same time, the volume of the brain box (1,300 cm3) and other features of the skull bring this archanthrope closer to European Neanderthals and modern anatomical humans. All this allowed J. R. R. Tolkien to Wrightmire attributed the skull from Bodo, along with paleoanthropological finds from Arago, Mauer, and Petralona in Europe, as well as Kabwe, Elandsfontein, and Ndutu in Africa, and possibly Dali, Jinnyushan, and Yunxiang in China, to the species Homo heidelbergensis. Not all anthropologists supported some of his conclusions.

The discoveries in Atapuerca allowed us to offer a different model. Human remains in the Grand Valley of antiquity ca. 800 thousand years gave rise to the hypothesis of the existence of a new species in the south of Europe - Homo antecessor (man preceding). The brain volume of these hominids was 1,000 cm3, and their skeletal structure was more graceful than that of the late Middle Pleistocene hominids (Neanderthals). H. antecessor had an amazing combination of Neanderthal and anatomically modern human features. A. Rosas (2000) hypothesized that H. antecessor originated in Africa 1 million years AGO as a descendant of H. ergaster and is a common ancestor of modern humans and Neanderthals, whereas neither African nor European H. antecessor originated in Africa 1 million years AGO. heidelbergensis could not be the ancestors of H. sapiens sapiens. The first members of H. antecessor migrated to Europe in the Middle Pleistocene and gave rise to European Neanderthals. African populations of H. antecessor evolved in the Middle Pleistocene and gave rise to new intermediate species of H. rhodesiensis and / or H. helmei, which may have been the ancestors of H. sapiens.

Spanish scientists have a somewhat different point of view [Bermudez de Castro et al., 2004]. In their opinion, H. antecessor is the oldest evidence of human presence in Western Europe. The origin of these hominids is not known; it is possible that they are an evolutionary branch of H. ergaster - H. erectus. Morphological features of the postcranial skeleton described by a number of authors (Corretero, Lorenzo, and Arsuaga, 1999; Lorenzo, Arsuaga, and Corretero, 1999) are more similar to those of modern humans than to those of Middle Pleistocene hominids.

After the discoveries in Atapuerca, new hypotheses about the time of human settlement of Europe emerged. J. M. Bermudez de Castro and co-authors proposed two scenarios. They drew attention to the possibility of a phylogenetic relationship between the TD 6 population and the Dmanisi hominids. The first immigrants from Africa in this case could have reached Southwestern Europe in the late Pliocene-early Pleistocene. However, the authors themselves note that the oldest localities in Spain and France are separated from the Dmanis one by almost 1 million years. In the first scenario, it becomes clear why the industry at all the oldest Western European sites is associated with Olduvai. Even if we take as a basis the hypothesis about the settlement of Europe 1.2-1.1 million years AGO, then at that time the Acheulean industry was known in Africa and the Middle East. In the first scenario, H. antecessor, being a descendant of the Dmanis people, will be a variant of speciation in Eurasia. When the second wave of archanthropes with the Acheulean industry appeared in Europe, this species could disappear or be assimilated by migrants.

page 23
The second scenario implies a migration wave from Africa through the Levant towards Southwestern Europe at the end of the early Pleistocene, ca. 1 million BC or even earlier. In this scenario, H. antecessor is the result of the cladogenesis that took place after the migration of archanthropes with the Acheulean industry. If the speciation process occurred in Africa, then H. antecessor remained on the continent and marked the beginning of the evolutionary branch of Homo sapiens sapiens, and if in Eurasia (or, possibly, in the Middle East), then it must have moved to the African continent to become the ancestor of Homo sapiens [Bermudez de Castro et al., 2004, p. 33]. The reality of the second scenario is supported, according to the researchers, by the morphological similarity of paleoanthropological materials from TD 6, 5 with African ones.

I do not consider it necessary to comment on the two scenarios proposed by Spanish scientists. It should only be added that the recently discovered lower jaw at the Sima del Elefante site in the TE 9 horizon, dated to 1.2-1.1 million years AGO, is evidence in favor of the first of them. According to the authors of the discovery, if we assume that hominids whose remains were found at the TE 9 level belonged to the species Homo antecessor, then people from the Sima del Elefante and Gran Dolina localities may represent the result of speciation that occurred on the territory of this part of Eurasia during the early Pleistocene [Carbonell et al., 2008, p. 467].

When solving the problem of the most ancient migrations and human settlement of Eurasia, it is necessary, in my opinion, to clearly establish what could have predetermined global migration processes. The reasons that are sometimes given (such as "demographic factors") are not convincing. At present, it is impossible to determine with sufficient certainty how many archanthropes inhabited the Old World 1.5 - 0.5 million years AGO.It is obvious that the population at that time was estimated at several hundred thousand people who settled in the vast territory of Africa, Asia and Europe. Many small populations often found themselves isolated from each other. Without completely excluding the possibility of the influence of demographic processes on the earliest human migrations, I assume that serious additional arguments are needed to confirm this hypothesis.

Of course, global climate change played an important role, which required the development of new adaptation strategies and could push people to search for a new, more comfortable ecological niche. One of the main reasons why humans left Africa was probably the proximity of the natural conditions and landscapes of East Africa, the Middle East, and the Arabian Peninsula in the late Pliocene and Early Pleistocene. If the statements of paleontologists that the main migrations of mammals from the African continent to Europe in the Pleistocene occurred about 1.2, 0.9, and 0.6 - 0.5 million years AGO are true (Evolution..., 1978), then it is during these periods that we can assume that hominids moved from Africa to Europe after animals. The main reasons for global human migrations were probably natural and ecological factors.

The current archaeological and anthropological evidence suggests that there were few migrations from Africa to Eurasia and back in the Early Paleolithic. Only two global migration processes can be traced. Each such migration was determined by deep reasons. In the early stages, human settlement was rather chaotic. Attempts to explain emerging intractable problems, including some phylogenetic ones, by ancient migration processes at the current level of knowledge cannot be considered productive. Human settlement in Europe began at the same time as in Asia. It was a single process of getting out of the cradle of humanity - Africa. But the archanthropes most quickly settled the territories of the southern part of the Asian continent that were close to them in terms of ecological conditions, and within a relatively short time they reached the Pacific Ocean. Much more slowly, they could move north, to Europe through the Middle East, Asia Minor, the Balkans, etc., or through the North Caucasus. The shortest way for a person from Africa to Europe could be over a land bridge. But when Europe joined Africa or, at least, there were shallow-water straits, that is, surmountable for the archanthrope, when the level of the World Ocean dropped - this problem requires its solution.

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that many anthropologists note a significant erectoid admixture in the ancient population of Europe. This is evidenced by the skull from Ceprano (Italy). It seems to me that the denial of the role of Homo erectus in the evolutionary process in Europe is unjustified.

Second global human migration from Africa (Middle East?) to Europe occurred approx. It is very likely that it was associated with the last wave of animal migration from the African continent. Migrants brought the Acheulean industry to Europe. In this respect, the finds in the Bodo area (Ethiopia) are extremely important, where, along with the skull, as many believe, of the Heidelberg man, bifaces, cleavers and other tools of the Acheulean industry were found. As noted above, this location is-

page 24
It is very likely that the second migration wave from Africa to Europe was associated with representatives of Homo heidelbergensis, which is characterized by a combination of Neanderthaloid and sapient features.

Naturally, the question arises about the fate of the autochthonous population of Europe. Some Middle Pleistocene localities are dominated by the Acheulean industry, others show a combination of bifacial and pebble industries, and still others do not have woodcutters. Apparently, with the arrival of new migrants in Europe, the process of acculturation rather than substitution took place. In this respect, the findings at the Sima de los Huesos site (500-400 thousand years AGO) in Spain are very important. Anthropological research approx. 4 thousand human bones showed that these archanthropes were significantly different from those whose remains were found in the TD 6 horizon of the Grand Valley, and were close to Neanderthals. Paleoanthropological data from the Sima de los Huesos locality prove the presence of a local evolving branch in Europe, which later gave rise to the so-called classical Neanderthal [Ibid.]. It is very important to add that a medium-sized log was found at this locality, which strengthened the opinion of scientists who considered the location not a natural burial site, but an anthropogenic one.

Despite the complexity of the problem of human evolution in the late Lower-Middle Pleistocene, the most acceptable solution is to recognize that the entire evolutionary chain of modern anatomical humans in Africa and Eurasia is based on the ancestral basis of Homo erectus sensu lato. Probably, this polytypic species is associated with the entire evolution of the sapient line of human development. Homo heidelbergensis, Homo rhodesiensis, and Homo cepranensis in Africa and Europe, and erectoid forms in East and Southeast Asia were sister species, and eventually the modern anatomical and genetic species Homo sapiens sapiens sensu lato was formed in the late Pleistocene. This polytypical species also includes four subspecies: H. sapiens africaniensis (Africa), H. sapiens orientalensis (Southeastern and Eastern Africa), H. sapiens neanderthalensis (Europe), and H. sapiens altaiensis (Southern Siberia and Central Asia) (see figure).

Not all subspecies have made an equivalent contribution to the formation of the modern human anatomical form. The overwhelming majority of researchers are supporters of the hypothesis of the formation of Homo sapiens sapiens in Africa and then its spread around the planet, accompanied by the replacement of autochthonous populations; replacement with hybridization; assimilation. Nuclear DNA and the mtDNA genome indicate that Africans are the most genetically diverse. But with all due respect to genetic research and its contribution to solving the problem of the origin of modern humans, it is necessary to pay attention to the different results obtained by the same scientists. Within one year, two articles may be published with the same researchers among the authors. One article reports that modern humans and Neanderthals are different species and there could be no interspecific interbreeding between them, and another reports that 1 to 4% of the human genome outside of Africa is borrowed from Neanderthals. In the works of geneticists, various chronological frames of divergence of species from one common ancestor are given. Anthropologists and geneticists often draw conclusions about the dispersal of a species, the skeletal remains of which are found at a distance of many thousands of kilometers from each other, in the absence of such finds in intermediate territories and any archaeological evidence of such migrations. One example is the hypothesis of Homo heidelbergensis migrating from Africa to the Middle East, Europe, and China. I'm not saying that they couldn't have happened, but as populations moved in any direction, they should have stayed there.

Formation of a modern anatomical human form.

page 25
locations that indicate such movements. However, often colleagues completely ignore the data of archeology.

My proposed designations of the four subspecies will cause most readers indignation, as well as combining them into a single species Homo sapiens sapiens sensu lato. I don't do this to shock my colleagues. The conclusions are based on a large number of accumulated archaeological facts. It is quite obvious to me that the populations that settled in East and South-East Asia 1,500 - 30 thousand years AGO developed their own industries, which were different from those in neighboring territories. Almost all Paleolithic researchers of the Sino-Malay zone have written about this and are still writing about it. The industry here was by no means primitive or archaic compared to the rest of Eurasia and Africa. It was focused on the ecological conditions of this particular region. This, of course, did not mean that the erectoid populations were completely allopathic. In Eurasia, animal migrations from west to east and in the opposite direction can be traced in the Pleistocene, which implies migration flows of people from neighboring territories to East and Southeast Asia and, accordingly, from east to west. As a result of these migrations, as well as in border areas, gene material was exchanged. But there are no fundamental changes in the material culture of the populations of the Sino-Malay zone. Thus, if micro-migrations occurred, the alien population was assimilated by the autochthonous one. But it is obvious that in the interval of 80-20 thousand years AGO, there was no strong migration flow of people from Africa, which would have led to the replacement or assimilation of the autochthonous population of East and South - East Asia. In the Sino-Malay zone, there was an evolutionary development of both the industry and the anatomical type of the person himself on the basis of erectoid forms. This makes it possible to distinguish a modern type of person, formed in this territory, in the subspecies Homo sapiens orientalensis.

A similar process of convergent development of the human industry and its anatomical type took place in Southern Siberia and Central Asia. Denisovans left 4-6% of their genetic material in the genomes of modern Melanesians, and therefore they cannot be attributed to a dead-end branch in human evolution. Moreover, in Northern and most of Central Asia, the Upper Paleolithic industries formed 50-45 thousand years AGO continued to develop without any fundamental changes until the end of the Stone Age. Consequently, there was no migration of modern anatomical people from Africa to this territory, as well as to East and South-East Asia. Thus, Homo sapiens altaiensis and its culture developed convergently in Southern Siberia.

My colleagues-archaeologists, anthropologists, and geneticists-will accept a number of hypotheses in different ways: some with disbelief and bewilderment, others with indignation. It doesn't scare me. I am not afraid to return to some old ideas, for example, F. Weidenreich.

Today, archaeologists, anthropologists, geneticists and all those who deal with the problem of human origin have accumulated a large amount of new material that allows us to put forward different hypotheses, sometimes diametrically opposite. And the time has come for all the conclusions, ideas, and assumptions expressed by scientists of various fields of human science, if not to be brought into a single system, then at least to be thoroughly discussed, but under one indispensable condition: they should be based on the results of research not only of their own, but also of colleagues from related sciences. This is a multidisciplinary problem, and its solution should not be limited to the conclusions of geneticists, or anthropologists, or archaeologists. Only a respectful attitude to the results obtained by colleagues from related sciences will ever lead us to the truth. From my point of view, it is very important to develop a new mathematical model for recalculating genetic research data, taking into account not only the "zero" monocentric hypothesis of the formation of a modern human anatomical species in Africa, but also the hypothesis of broad polycentrism.

List of literature

Anikovich M. V. Rannaya pora verkhnego paleolita Vostochnoi Evropy [Early time of the Upper Paleolithic of Eastern Europe]. - 2003. - N 2. - p. 15-29.

Anikovich M. V. Rannaya pora verkhni paleolita Vostochnoi Evropy: periodizatsiya, khronologiya, genezis [Early part of the Upper Paleolithic of Eastern Europe: periodization, chronology, and genesis]. Voronezh: Istoki Publ., 2004, pp. 86-90.

Anikovich M. V., Anisyutkin N. K., Vishnyatsky L. B. Nodal problems of transition to the Upper Paleolithic in Europe. Saint Petersburg: Nestor-Istoriya Publ., 2007, 355 p. (in Russian)

Volkov P. V. Functional analysis of Kara-Bom parking tools // Derevyanko A. P., Petrin V. T., Rybin E. P. et al. Paleolithic complexes of the stratified part of the Kara-Bom site, Novosibirsk: INET SB RAS Publishing House, 1998, Supplement 4, pp. 263-271.

Derevyanko A. P. Paleolithic of Japan. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1984, 271 p. (in Russian)

Derevyanko A. P. Perekhod ot srednego k verkhnem paleolitu na Altae [Transition from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic in the Altai]. - 2001. - N 3. - p. 70-103.

page 26
Derevyanko A. P. Drevneyshie migratsii cheloveka v Evrazii v rannem paleolite [The oldest human migrations in Eurasia in the Early Paleolithic]. simp. "The oldest human migrations in Eurasia "(Makhachkala, September 2009). Novosibirsk: Publishing House of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineering of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2009a. - 232 p.

Derevyanko A. P. Transition from the Middle to Upper Paleolithic and the problem of formation of Homo sapiens sapiens in East, Central and Northern Asia. Novosibirsk: Publishing House of IAET SB RAS, 2009b. - 328 p.

Derevyanko A. P. Three scenarios of transition from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic. Scenario one: Transition to the Upper Paleolithic on the territory of Northern Asia / / Archeology, Ethnography and Anthropology of Eurasia. - 2010a. - N 3. - p. 2-32.

Derevyanko A. P. Three scenarios of transition from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic. Scenario One: Transition to the Upper Paleolithic in Central Asia and the Middle East / / Archeology, Ethnography and Anthropology of Eurasia. - 2010b. - N 4. - p. 2-38.

Derevyanko A. P. Three scenarios of transition from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic. Scenario Two: Transition from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic in the mainland of East Asia / / Archeology, Ethnography and Anthropology of Eurasia. - 2011a. - N 1. - p. 2-27.

Derevyanko A. P. Three scenarios of transition from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic. Scenario three: transition from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic in Africa and the problem of settling Eurasia by a modern anthropological type of person / / Archeology, Ethnography and Anthropology of Eurasia. - 2011b. - N 2. - p. 2-29.

Derevyanko, A. P. and Volkov, P. V., Evolution of stone splitting in the transition period from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic in Gorny Altai, in Archeology, Ethnography, and Anthropology of Eurasia. - 2004. - N 2. - p. 21-35.

Derevyanko A. P., Markin S. V. Mousse of Gorny Altai. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1992, 223 p. (in Russian)

Derevyanko, A. P., Markin, S. V., and Zykin, V. S., Chagyrskaya Cave-a new site of the Middle Paleolithic in Altai, Problemy arkheologii, etnografii, antropologii Sibiri i sopredel'nykh territorii: mat-ly Godovoy sessii IAET SB RAS 2008 goda (Problems of Archeology, Ethnography, and Anthropology of Siberia and Adjacent Territories). Novosibirsk: Publishing House of IAET SB RAS, 2008, vol. 14, pp. 52-54.

Derevyanko, A. P. and Rybin, E. P., The oldest manifestation of the symbolic activity of the Paleolithic man in the Altai Mountains, in Archeology, Ethnography and Anthropology of Eurasia. - 2003. - N 3. - p. 27-50.

Derevyanko A. P., Shunkov M. V. Stanovlenie verkhnepaleoliticheskikh traditsii na Altae [Formation of Upper Paleolithic traditions in the Altai]. - 2004. - N 3. - p. 12-40.

Derevyanko A. P., Shunkov M. V., Agadzhanyan A. K., Baryshnikov G. F., Ulyanov V. A., Kulik N. A., Postnov A.V., Anoikin A. A. Natural environment and man in the Paleolithic of Gorny Altai: Habitat conditions in the vicinity of Denisova Cave. Novosibirsk: IAET SB RAS Publ., 2003, 447 p. (in Russian)

Davidson I. Pervye cheloveka, stav'shie australitsami [The first people who became Australians]. Chelovek populates the planet Earth: Global Settlement of Hominids: simp materials. A. A. Velichko, O. A. Soffer," The primary settlement of humanity", ed., Moscow: Institute of Geography; University of Illinois USA, 1997, pp. 226-246.

Germontpré M. Preliminary results of the Denisova Cave taphonomy (based on the materials of the 1992 excavations) / / Altaica. - 1993. - N 2. - p. 11-16.

Kozintsev A. G. Sungir: Stary spor, novye argumenty [Sungir: The Old Dispute, new arguments]. - 2004. - N 1. - p. 19-27.

Kozintsev A. G. Evolutionary history of the species Homo sapiens in the light of new population genetics data // Vestn. MSU. Ser. XXIII (Anthropology). - 2009. - N 4. - P. 64-70.

Konard, N. J., Critical review of evidence for the South African origin of behavioral traits of the modern type, Kyuseki jidai kenkyu. - 2009. - N 5. - p. 121-130 (in Russian).

Laukhin S. A., Ronen A., Ranov V. A., Pospelova G. A., Burdukevich Ya. M., Sharonova Z. V., Volgina V. A., Kulikov O. A., Vlasov V. K., Tsatskin A. New data on the Paleolithic geochronology of the Southern Levant (Near East). Geological correlation. 2000, Vol. 8, No. 5, pp. 82-95.

Lbova, L. V., Volkov, P. V., and Kozhevnikova, D. V., Drevneyshie posledstviya muzykal'noi kul'tury v Severnoi Evrazii (Ancient evidence of musical culture in Northern Eurasia), III Severnyj arkheologicheskij kongress: tez. dokl. - Yekaterinburg; Khanty-Mansiysk: Nauka-Service, 2010, pp. 34-36.

Lbova L. V., Rezanov I. N., Kalmykov N. P., Kolomiets L. V., Dergacheva M. I., Fedeneva I. K., Vashukevich N. V., Volkov P. V., Savinova V. V., Bazarov B. A., Namsaraev D. V. Natural environment and man in the Neo-Pleistocene (Western Transbaikalia and South-Eastern Baikal region). Ulan-Ud e: BSC SB RAS Publishing House, 2003, 208 p.

Mednikova M. B. Postcranial remains of representatives of the genus Homo from Okladnikov Cave in Altai (morphology and taxonomy). Novosibirsk: IAET SB RAS Publ., 2011 (in print).

Okladnikov A. P. Studies of the Mousterian site and burial of a Neanderthal in the Teshik-Tash grotto, Southern Uzbekistan (Central Asia) // Teshik-Tash: Paleolithic Man, Moscow: Moscow State University Press, 1949, pp. 7-85.

Razhev, D. I., Kosintsev, P. A., and Kuzmin, Ya. V., Pleistocene human talus (os talus) from the Baigara locality (center of Western Siberia), Vestn. archaeology, anthropology, and ethnography. - 2010. - N 1 (12). - P. 134-147.

Smirnov Yu. A. Mousterian burials of Eurasia: The emergence of funeral practices and the basics of tafology, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1991, 340 p.

Tashak, V. I., Foci of the Paleolithic settlement of Podzvonkaya as a source for studying the spiritual culture of the ancient population of Transbaikalia, in Archeology, Ethnography and Anthropology of Eurasia. - 2003. - N 3. - p. 70-78.

Tashak, V. I. and Kolobova, K. A., Design of stone tools in the Podzvonka industry, in Paleolithic cultures of Transbaikalia and Mongolia (new monuments, methods, hypotheses). Novosibirsk: Izd-vo IAET SB RAS, 2005, pp. 64-68.

Allen J.O., O'Connell F.J. The long and the short or it: archaeological approaches to determining when humans fi rst colonized Australia and New Guinea // Austral. Archaeol. - 2003. - Vol. 57. - P. 5 - 19.

Arensburg B., Belfer-Cohen A. Sapiens and Neanderthals: Rethinking the Levantine Middle Paleolithic hominids / eds. T. Akazawa, K. Aoki, O. Bar-Yosef // Neanderthals and Modern Humans in Western Asia. - N.Y.: Plenum Press, 1998. - P. 311 - 322.

page 27
Balme J. Excavations revealing 40.000 years of occupation at Mimbi Caves south central Kimberley, Western Australia // Austral. Archaeol. - 2000. - Vol. 51. - P. 1 - 5.

Balme J., Morse K. Shell beads and social behaviour in Pleistocene Australia // Antiquity. - 2006. - Vol. 80, N 310. - P. 799 - 811.

Barker G., Barton H., Bird M., Daly P., Datan I., Dykes A., Farr L., Gilbertson D., Harrisson B., Hunt C., Higham T., Kealhofer L., Krigbaum J., Lewis H., McLaren S., Paz V., Pike A., Piper P., Pyatt B., Rabett R., Reynolds R., Rose J., Rushworth G., Stephens M., Stringer C., Thompson G., Turney C. The "human revolution" in lowland tropical Southeast Asia: the antiquity and behavior of anatomically modern humans at Niah Cave (Sarawak, Borneo) // J. of Human Evolution. - 2007. - Vol. 52, Iss. 3. - P. 243 - 261.

Bar-Yosef O. The Low and Middle Paleolithic in the Mediterranean Levant: Chronology and cultural entities // Man and Environment in the Paleolithic. - Liège: Université de Liège, 1995. - P. 247 - 263. - (Etudes et recherches archéologiques de L'Université de Liège; N 62).

Bar-Yosef O., Callander J. The Woman from Tabun: Garrod's Doubts in Historical Perspective // J. of Human Evolution. - 1999. - Vol. 37, Iss. 6. - P. 879 - 885.

Bergman C.A., Stringer C.B. Fifty years after: Egbert an early Upper Palaeolithic juvenile from Ksar Akil, Lebanon // Paléorient. - 1989. - Vol. 15 (2). - P. 99 - 111.

Bermudez de Castro J.M., Martinón-Torres M., Carbonell E., Sarmiento S., Rosas A., Van der Vade J., Lozano M. The Atapuerca sites and their contribution to the knowledge of human evolution in Europe // Evolutionary Anthropology. - 2004. - Vol. 13, Iss. 1. - P. 25 - 41.

Binford L.R. Human ancestors: Changing views of their behavior // J. of Anthropological Archaeology. - 1985. - Vol. 4. - P. 292 - 327.

Bowler J.M., Johnston H., Olley J.M., Prescott J.R., Roberts R.G., Shawcross W., Spooner N.A. New ages for human Occupation and climatic change a Lake Mungo, Australia // Nature. - 2003. - Vol. 421, N 6925. - P. 837 - 840.

Bowler J.M., Jones R., Allen H., Thorne A.G. Pleistocene Human Remains from Australia: A Living Site and Human Cremation from Lake Mungo, Western New South Wales // World Archaeology. - 1970. - Vol. 2, N 1. - P. 39 - 60.

Bowler J.M., Thorne A.G., Polack H.A. Pleistocene man in Australia age an significance of the Mungo skeleton // Nature. - 1972. - Vol. 240, N 5375. - P. 48 - 50.

Cabrera V., Maillo J.M., Lloret M., Quiros F.B. La transition vers le Paléolithique supérieur dans la grotte du Castillo (Cantabrie, Espagne): la couche 18 // L'Anthropologie. - 2001. - Vol. 105. - P. 505 - 532.

Carbonell E., Bermudez de Castro J.M., Parés J.M., Pérez-González A., Cuenca-Bescós G., Olle A., Mosquera M., Huguet R., Made J., van der, Rosas A., Sala R., Vallverdú J., García N., Granger D.E., Martinón-Torres M., Rodríguez X.P., Stock G.M., Vergès E.A., Burjachs F., Cáceres I., Canals A., Benito A., Díez C., Lozano M., Mateos A., Navazo M., Rodríguez J., Rosell J., Arsuaga J.L. The fi rst hominin of Europe // Nature. - 2008. - Vol. 452, N 7186. - P. 465 - 470.

Chase P.G., Dibble H.L. Middle Paleolithic symbolism: a review of current evidence and interpretation // J. of Anthropological Archaeology. - 1987. - Vol. 6. - P. 26.

Churchill S.E., Pearson O.M., Grine F.E., Trinkaus E., Holliday T.W. Morphological affinities of the proximal ulna from Klasies River main site: arhaic or modern? // J. of Human Evolution. - 1996. - Vol. 31, Iss. 3. - P. 213 - 237.

Conard N.J. An overview of the patterns of behavioral change in Africa and Eurasia during the Middle and Late Pleistocene // From Tools to Symbols: From Early Hominids to Modern Humans / eds. F. D'Errico, L. Backwell. - Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press, 2005. - P. 294 - 332.

Conard N.J., Bolus M. Radiocarbon dating the appearance of modern humans and the timing of cultural innovations in Europe: new results and new challenges // J. of Human Evolution. - 2003. - Vol. 44, Iss. 3. - P. 331 - 371.

Corretero I.M., Lorenzo C., Arsuaga J.L. Axial and appendicular skeleton of Homo antecessor // J. of Human Evolution. - 1999. - Vol. 37. - P. 459 - 499.

Deacon H.J. Late Pleistocene palaeoecology and archaeology in Southern Cape, South Africa // The human revolution Behavioral and biological perspectives on the origins of modern humans / eds. P. Mellars, C. Stringer. - Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989. - P. 547 - 564.

Deacon H.J. Southern Africa and modern human origins // Philosophical transactions Roy. Soc. - L., 1992. - Vol. 337. - P. 177 - 183.

Deacon H.J. Southern Africa and modern human origins // The origins of modern humans and the impact of chronometric dating / eds. M.J. Aitken, C.B. Stringer, P. Mellars. - Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993. - P. 104 - 117.

Deacon H.J. Two Late Pleistocene-Holocene archaeological depositories from the southern Cape, South Africa // South African Archaeological Bull. - 1995. - Vol. 50. - P. 121 - 131.

Deacon H.J. Modern Human Emergence: an African Archaeological Perspective // Humanity from African Naissance to Coming Millennia-Colloquia in human biology and palaeoanthropology / eds. P. V. Tobias, M.A. Raath, I. MaggiCechi, G.A. Doyle. - Florence: Florence University Press, 2001. - P. 213 - 222.

Deacon H.J., Geleijnse V.B. The stratigraphy and sedimentology of the main site sequence. Klasies River, South Africa // Archaeological Bull. - 1988. - Vol. 43. - P. 5 - 14.

Defleur A. Les sépultures moustériennes. - P.: CNRS Editions, 1993. - 325 p.

Deino A.L., McBrearty S. 40Ar/39Ar dating of the Kapthurin Formation, Baringo, Kenya // J. of Human Evolution. - 2002. - Vol. 42, Iss. 1/2. - P. 185 - 210.

D'Errico F. The invisible frontier: Amultiple species model for the origin of behavioral modernity // Evolutionary Anthropology. - 2003. - Vol. 12, Iss. 4. - P. 188 - 202.

D'Errico F., Henshilwood Ch., Lawson G., Vanhaeren M., Tillier A.M., Soressi M., Bresson F., Maureille B., Nowell A., Lakarra J., Backwell L., Julien M. Archaeological evidence for the emergence of language, symbolism, and music - an alternative multidisciplinary perspective // J. of World Prehistory. - 2003. - Vol. 17, N 1. - P. 1 - 70.

D'Errico F., Zilhao J., Julien M., Baffer D., Pellegrin J. Neanderthal acculturation in Western Europe? A critical review of the evidence and its interpretation // Current Anthropology. - 1998. - Vol. 39 (S1). - P. S1-S44.

Eswaran V. A diffusion wave out of Africa: The mechanism of the modern Human revolution? // Current Anthropology. - 2002. - Vol. 43, N 5. - P. 748 - 774.

page 28
Eswaran V., Harpending H., Rogers A.R. Genomics refutes an exclusively African origin of humans // J. of Human Evolution. - 2005. - Vol. 49, Iss. 1. - P. 1 - 18.

Evolution of African Mammals. - Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978. - 585 p.

Field J., Dodson J., Prosser I. A late Pleistocene vegetation history from the Australian and zone // Quaternary Science Reviews. - 2002. - Vol. 21, N 8/9. - P. 1023 - 1037.

Flannery T.F. Pleistocene faunal loss: implications of the aftershock for Australia's past and future // Archaeology in Oceania. - 1990. - Vol. 25. - P. 45 - 67.

Foley R., Lahr N.N. Mode 3 technologies and the evolution of modern humans // Cambridge Archaeological J. - 1997. - Vol. 7. - P. 3 - 36.

Fullagar R., Field J. Pleistocene seed-grinding implements from the Australian arid zone // Antiquity. - 1997. - Vol. 71, N 272. - P. 300 - 307.

Gargett R.H. Middle Palaeolithic burial is not a dead issue: The view from Qafzeh, Saint-Césaire, Kebara, Amud, and Dederiyeh // J. of Human Evolution. - 1999. - Vol. 37, Iss. 1. - P. 27 - 90.

Garrod D.A.E., Bate D.M.A. The Stone Age of Mount Carmel: excavations at the Wady el-Mughara. - Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1937. - Vol. 1. - 240 p.

Goren-Inbar N. The Lithic assemblages of Berekhat Ram Acheulian site, Golan Heights // Paleorient. - 1985. - Vol. 11 (1). - P. 7 - 28.

Goren-Inbar N. The Acheulian site of Gesher Benot Ya'aqov: An African or Asian entity? // The Evolution and Dispersal of Modern Humans in Asia / eds. T. Akazawa, K. Aoki, T. Kimura. - Tokyo: Hokusen-Sha, 1992. - P. 67 - 82.

Green R.E., Krause J., Briggs A.W., Maricic T., Stenzel U., Kircher M., Patterson N., Heng Li, Weiwei Zhai, Fritz M. H.-Y., Hansen N.F., Durand E.Y., Malaspinas A.-S., Jensen J.D., Marques-Bonet T., Can Alkan, Prüfer K., Meyer M., Burbano H.A., Good J.M., Schultz R., Aximu-Petri A., Butthof A., Höber B., Höffner B., Siegemund M., Weihmann A., Nusbaum C., Lander E.S., Russ C., Novod N., Affourtit J., Egholm M., Verna C., Rudan P., Brajkovic D., Kucan Ž., Gušic I., Doronichev V.B., Golovanova L.V., Lalueza-Fox C., Rasilla M., de la, Fortea J., Rosas A., Schmitz R.W., Johnson P.L.F., Eichler E.E., Falush D., Birney E., Mullikin J.C., Slatkin M., Nielsen R., Kelso J., Lachmann M., Reich D., Pääbo S. A Draft Sequence Neanderthal Genome // Science. - 2010. - Vol. 328, N 5979. - P. 710 - 722.

Habgood Ph.J., Franklin N.R. The revolution that diar't arrive: A review of Pleistocene Sahul // J. of Human Evolution. - 2008. - Vol. 55, Iss. 2. - P. 187 - 222.

Henshilwood Ch., D'Errico F., Marean C.W., Milo R.G., Yates R. An early bone tool industry from the Middle Stone Age at Blombos Cave, South Africa: implications for the origins of modern human behaviour, symbolism and language // J. of Human Evolution. - 2001. - Vol. 41, Iss. 6. - P. 631 - 678.

Henshilwood Ch.S., D'Errico F., Yates R., Jacobs Z., Tribola C., Duller G.A.T., Mercier N., Sealy J.C., Valladas H., Watts I., Wintle A.G. Emergence of modern human behaviour: Middle Stone Age engravings from South Africa // Science. - 2002. - Vol. 295, N 5558. - P. 1278 - 1280.

Henshilwood Ch.S., Marean C.W. The Origin of Modern Human Behavior: Critique of the Models and Their Test Implications // Current Anthropology. - 2003. - Vol. 44, N 5. - P. 627 - 651.

Hershkovitz I., Smith P., Sarig R., Quam R., Rodriguez L., Garcia R., Arsuaga J.L., Barkai R., Gopher A.

Middle Pleistocene dental remains from Qesem Cave (Israel) // American J. of Physical Anthropology. - 2011. - Vol. 144, Iss. 4. - P. 575 - 592.

Holliday T.W. Species Concepts, Reticulation, and Human Evolution // Current Anthropology. - 2003. - Vol. 44, N 5. - P. 653 - 673.

Hovers E., Belfer-Cohen A. "Now you see it, now you don't " - modern human behavior in the Middle Paleolithic / eds. E. Hovers, S.L. Kuhn // Transitions before the Transition: Evolution and Stability in the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age. - N.Y.: Springer, 2006. - P. 293 - 304.

Hovers E., Ilani Sh., Bar-Yosef O., Vandermeersch B. An Early Case of Color Symbolism. Ochre Use by Modern Humans in Qafzeh Cave // Current Anthropology. - 2003. - Vol. 44, N 4. - P. 491 - 522.

Howell F.C. Upper Pleistocene men of the Southwest Asian Mousterian // Hundert Jahre Neanderthaler / ed. by von G.H.R. Koenigswald. - Utrecht: Utrecht kemink en zoon, 1958. - P. 185 - 198.

Howell F.C. Paleo-Demes, Species Clades, and Extinctions in the Pleistocene Hominin Record // J. of Anthropological Research. - 1999. - Vol. 55, N 2. - P. 191 - 243.

Jelinek A.J. Problems in the chronology of the Middle Paleolithis and the first appearance of early modern Homo sapiens in Southwest Asia // The Evolution and Dispersal of Modern Humans in Asia / eds. T. Akazawa, K. Aoki, T. Kimura. - Tokyo: Hokusen-Sha, 1992. - P. 253 - 275.

Johnson C.R., McBrearty S.C. 500 000 year old blades from the Kapthurin Formation, Kenya // J. of Human Evolution. - 2010. - Vol. 58, Iss. 2. - P. 193 - 200.

Klein R.G. Anatomy, behavior and modern human origins // J. of World Prehistory. - 1995. - Vol. 9, N 2. - P. 167 - 198.

Klein R.G. Archaeology and the evolution of human behavior // Evolutionary Anthropology. - 2000. - Vol. 9, Iss. 1. - P. 17 - 36.

Klein R.G. Southern Africa and modern human origins // J. of Anthropological Research. - 2001. - Vol. 57, N 1. - P. 1 - 16.

Klein R.G. Commets // Current Anthropology. - 2003. - Vol. 44, N 5. - P. 640 - 641.

Kramer A., Crummett T.L., Wolpoff M.H. Out of Africa and into the Levant: Replacement in Western Asia? // Quaternary Intern. - 2001. - Vol. 75, Iss. 1. - P. 51 - 63.

Krause J., Fu Q., Good J., Viola B., Shunkov M.V., Derevianko A.P., Pääbo S. The complete mitochondrial DNA genome of an unknown hominin from southern Siberia // Nature. - 2010. - Vol. 464, N 7290. - P. 894 - 897.

Krause J., Orlando L., Serre D., Viola B., Prüfer K., Richards M.P., Hublin J.J., Hänni C., Derevianko A.P., Pääbo S. Neanderthals in Central Asia and Siberia // Nature. - 2007. - Vol. 449, N 7164. - P. 902 - 904.

Kuzmin Y.V., Kosintsev P.A., Razhev D.I., Hodgins G.W.L. The oldest directly-dated human remains in Siberia: AMS 14C age of talus bone from the Baigara Locality, West Siberian Plain // J. of Human Evolution. - 2009. - Vol. 57, Iss. 1. - P. 91 - 95.

Lahr M.M. The multiregional model of modern human origins: A reassessment of its morphological basis // J. of Human Evolution. - 1994. - Vol. 26, Iss. 1. - P. 23 - 56.

page 29
Lahr M., Foley R.A. Towards a theory of modern human origins: geography, demography, and diversity in recent human evolution // Yearbook of Physical Anthropology. - 1998. - Vol. 41. - P. 137 - 176.

Lindly J.M., Clark G.A. Symbolism and modern human origins // Current Anthropology. - 1990. - Vol. 31, N 3. - P. 233 - 261.

Lorenzo C., Arsuaga J.L., Corretero J.M. Hand and foot remains from the Gran Dolina Early Pleistocene site (Sierra de Atapuerca, Spain) // J. of Human Evolution. - 1999. - Vol. 37, Iss. 3/4. - P. 501 - 522.

Mayr E. This is biology: The Science of the Living World. - Cambridge, L.: Harvard University Press, 1998. - 352 p.

McBrearty S. The archaeology of the Kapthurin Formation / eds. P. Andrews, P. Banham // Late Cenozoic Environments and Hominid Evolution: a Tribute to Bill Bishop. - L.: Geological Society, 1999. - P. 143 - 156.

McBrearty S., Brooks A. The revolution that wasn't: a new interpretation of the origin of modern human behavior // J. of Human Evolution. - 2000. - Vol. 39, Iss. 5. - P. 453 - 563.

McCown T.D. The oldest complete skeletons of man // Bull. of the American School of Prehistoric Research. - 1934. - Vol. 10. - P. 12 - 19.

McCown T.D., Keith A. The Stone Age Man of Mount Carmel: The Fossil Human Remains from the Levalloiso-Mousterian. - Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1939. - Vol. 2. - 390 p.

Meignen L. Early Middle Palaeolithic Blade Technology in Southwestern Asia // Acta Anthropologica Sinica (suppl.). - 2000. - Vol. 19. - P. 158 - 168.

Mellars P.A. Cognitive changes and the emergence of modern humans // Cambridge Archaeological J. - 1991. - Vol. 1. - P. 63 - 76.

Mellars P.A. Symbolism, language, and the Neanderthal mind // Modeling the human mind / eds. P. Mellars, K. Gibson. - Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 1995. - P. 15 - 32.

Mellars P.A. Neanderthals and the modern human colonization of Europe // Nature. - 2004. - Vol. 432, N 7016. - P. 461 - 465.

Mellars P. Going East: New genetic and archaeological perspectives on the modern human colonization of Eurasia // Science. - 2006. - Vol. 313. - P. 796 - 800.

Mercier N., Valladas H., Valladas G. Flint Thermoluminescence Dates from the CFR Laboratory at GIF: contributions to the study of the chronology of the Middle Palaeolithic // Quaternary Science Reviews (Quaternary Geochronology). - 1995. - Vol. 14, Iss. 4. - P. 351 - 364.

Mercier N., Valladas H., Valladas G., Reyss J. -L., Jelinek A., Meignen L., Joron J. -L. TL-dates of burnt fl ints from Jelinek's excavations at Tabun and their implications // J. of Archaeological Science. - 1995. - Vol. 22, Iss. 4. - P. 495 - 509.

Miller G.H., Beaumont P.B., Jull A.J.T., Johnson B. Pleistocene geochronology and palaeothermometry from protein diagenesis in ostrich eggshells: implications for the evolutions modern humans // Philosophical Transactions Roy. Soc. - 1992. - Vol. 337. - P. 149 - 157.

O'Connell J.E., Allen J. Dating the colonization of Sahue (Pleistocene Australia - New Guinea) a review of recent research // J. of Archaeological Science. - 2004. - Vol. 31, Iss. 6. - P. 835 - 853.

O'Connor S., Chappell J. Colonization and coastal subsistence in Australia and Papua New Guinea: different timing, different modes? // Pacifi c Archaeology: Assessment and Prospects / ed. by C. Sand. - Nouméa: Departement Archéologie; Service des Musées et du Patrimoine de Nouvelle-Calédonie, 2003. - P. 17 - 32.

O'Connor S., Fankhauser B. Art at 40 000 BP? Kimberly region. Western Australia / eds. A. Anderson, I. Lilley, S. O'Connor // Histories of Old Ages: Essaye in Honour of Rhys Jones. Pandanus Books, Research School of Pacifi c and Asian Studies. - Canberra: Australian National University, 2001. - P. 287 - 300.

Parkington J.E. Millstones: the impact of systematic exploitation of marine foods on human evolution / eds. P.V. Tobias, M.A. Raath, J. Moggi-Cechi, G.A. Doyle // Humanity from African Naissance to Coming Millenia. - Florence: Florence University Press, 2001. - P. 327 - 336.

Powell A., Shennan St., Thomas M.G. Late Pleistocene demography and the appearance of modern human behavior // Science. - 2009. - Vol. 324. - P. 1298 - 1301.

Quam R.M., Smith F.H. A reassessment of the Tabun C 2 mandible / eds. A. Takeru, K. Aoki, O. Bar-Yosef // Neanderthals and Modern Human in Western Asia. - N.Y.: Plenum Press, 1998. - P. 405 - 421.

Rak Y. Does any Mousterian cave present evidence of two hominid species? / eds. T. Akazawa, K. Aoki, O. Bar-Yosef // Neanderthals and Modern Humans in Western Asia. - N.Y.: Plenum Press, 1998. - P. 353 - 366.

Reich D., Green R.E., Kircher M., Krause J., Patterson N., Durand E.Y., Viola B., Briggs A.W., Stenzel U., Johnson P.L.F., Maricic T., Good J.M., Marques-Bonet T., Alkan C., Fu Q., Mallick S., Li H., Meyer M., Eichler E.E., Stoneking M., Richards M., Talamo S., Shunkov M.V., Derevianko A.P., Hublin J.-J., Kelso J., Slatkin M., Pääbo S. Genetic history of an archaic hominin group from Denisova cave in Siberia // Nature. - 2010. - Vol. 468, N 7327. - P. 1053 - 1060.

Rightmire G.Ph. The human cranium from Bodo, Ethiopia: Evidence for speciation in the Middle Pleistocene? // J. of Human Evoluiton. - 1996. - Vol. 31, Iss. 1. - P. 21 - 39.

Rightmire G.Ph. Diversity in the Earliest "modern" populations from South Africa, Northern Africa and Southwest Africa / eds. P.V. Tobias, M.A. Raath, J. Moggi-Cechi, G.A. Doyle // Humanity from African Naissance to Coming Millenia. - Florence: Florenze University Press, 2001. - P. 231 - 236.

Rightmire G.Ph., Deacon H.J. Comparative studies of Late Pleistocene human remains from Klasies River, South Africa // J. of Human Evolution. - 1991. - Vol. 20, Iss. 2. - P. 131 - 156.

Rightmire G.Ph., Deacon H.J., Schwartz J.H., Tattersall I. Human foot bones from Klasies River main Site, South Africa // J. of Human Evolution. - 2006. - Vol. 50, Iss. 1. - P. 96 - 103.

Roberts R.G., Flannery T.F., Ayliffe L.A., Yoshida H., Olley J.M., Prideaux G.J., Laslett G.M., Baynes A., Smith M.A., Jones R., Smith B.L. New ages for the last Australian megafauna: continent-wide extinction about 46 000 years ago // Science. - 2001. - Vol. 292, N 5523. - P. 1888 - 1892.

Roberts R.G., Jones R., Spooner N.A., Head M.J., Murray A.S., Smith M.A. The human colonization of Australia: optical dates of 53 000 and 60 000 years bracket human arrival at Deaf Adder Gorge, Northern Territory // Quaternary Science Reviews. - 1994. - Vol. 13, Iss. 5/7. - P. 575 - 583.

page 30
Ronen A. The Skhul burials: An archaeological review // Colloque XII: Les Sépultures Néanderthaliennes: IX Congrès. - Nice, 1976. - P. 27 - 40.

Rosas A. Human evolution in the last million years - The Atapuerca evidence // Acta Anthropologica Sinica. - 2000. - Vol. 19. - P. 8 - 17.

Schwarcz H.P., Rink W.J. Progress in ESP and U-Series Chronology of the Levantine Paleolithic / eds. T. Akazawa, K. Aoki, O. Bar-Yosef // Neanderthal and Modern Humans in Western Asia. - N.Y.: Plenum Press, 1998. - P. 57 - 68.

Schwartz J.H., Tattersall I. Fossils attributed to genus Homo: some general notes // The Human Fossil Record: Craniodental Morphology of Genus Homo (Africa and Asia). - 2005. - Vol. 2. - P. 587 - 603.

Shea J.J. The Middle Paleolithic: Early Modern Humans and Neanderthals in the Levant // Near Eastern Archaeology. - 2001. - Vol. 64 (1). - P. 38 - 64.

Shea J.J. Neanderthals, competition and the origin of modern human behaviour in the Levant // Evolutionary Anthropology. - 2003. - Vol. 12, Iss. 4. - P. 173 - 187.

Singer R., Wymer I. The Middle stone Age at Klasies River Mouth in South Africa. - Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1982. - 234 p.

Smith F.H., Jankovic I., Karavanic I. The assimilation model of modern human origins in Europe and the extinction of Neandertals // Quaternary Intern. - 2005. - Vol. 137, Iss. 1. - P. 7 - 19.

Solecki R.S. Shanidar: The First Flower People. - N.Y.: Alfred A. Knopf, 1971. - 290 p.

Stringer C.B. Documenting the origin of modern humans // The Emergence of Modern Humans: Biocultural Adaptations in the Later Pleistocene / ed. by E. Trinkaus. - Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. - P. 67 - 96.

Stringer C.B. Replacement, continuity and the origin of Homo sapiens // Continuity of Replacement: Controversies in Homo sapiens Evolution / eds. G. Brauer, F.H. Smith. - Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema, 1992. - P. 9 - 24.

Stringer C.B. Current issues in modern human origins / eds. W.E. Meikle, F.C. Howell, N.G. Jablonski // Contemporary Issues in Human Evolution. - San Francisco: California Academy of Sciences, 1996. - P. 115 - 134.

Stringer C.B. Chronological and biogeographic perspectives on later human evolution / eds. T. Akazawa, K. Aoki, O. BarYosef // Neanderthals and Modern Humans in Western Asia. - N.Y.: Plenum Press, 1998. - P. 29 - 37.

Stringer C.B., Andrews P. Genetic and fossil evidence for the evidence of modern humans // Science. - 1988. - Vol. 239, N 4845. - P. 1263 - 1268.

Stringer C.B., Howell F.C., Melentis J.K. The signifi cance of the fossil hominid skull from Petralona, Grece // J. Archaeol. Sci. - 1979. - Vol. 6, Iss. 3. - P. 235 - 253.

Thorne A., Grün R., Mortimer B., Spooner N., Simpson J., McCulloch M., Taylor L., Curnoe D. Australia's oldest human remains: age of the Lake Mungo 3 skeleton // J. of Human Evolution. - 1999. - Vol. 36, Iss. 6. - P. 591 - 612.

Trinkaus E. Variability in the position of the mandibular mental foramen and the identification of Neanderthal apomorphies // Riv. Anthropol. - 1993. - Vol. 71. - P. 259 - 274.

Trinkaus E. Modern Human versus Neandertal Evolutionary Distinctiveness // Current Anthropology. - 2006. - Vol. 47, N 4. - P. 597 - 614.

Tryon Ch.A., McBrearty S. Tephrostratigraphy of the Bedded Tuff Member (Kapthurin Formation, Kenya) and the nature of archaeological change in the later middle Pleistocene // Quaternary Research. - 2006. - Vol. 65, Iss. 3. - P. 492 - 507.

Vandermeersch B. Les Hommes Fossiles de Qafzeh (Israёl). - P.: CNRS Editions, 1981. - 319 p.

Vandermeersch B. The Near Eastern hominids and the origins of Modern Humans in Eurasia // The Evolution and Dispersal of Modern Humans in Asia / eds. T. Akazawa, K. Aoki, T. Kimura. - Tokyo: Hokusen-Sha, 1992. - P. 29 - 38.

Vandermeersch B. The Near East and Europe: Continuity or discontinuity? // Conceptual Issues in Modern Human Origins Research / eds. G.A. Clark, C.M. Willermet. - N.Y: Aldine de Gruyter, 1997. - P. 107 - 116.

Vosis H.K. Maps of Pleistocene sea levels in Southeast Asia: Shorelines, river systems and time durations // J. of Biogeography. - 2000. - Vol. 27. - P. 1153 - 1167.

Wadley L. What is cultural modernity? A general view and a South African perspective from Rose Cottage Cave // Cambridge Archaeological J. - 2001. - Vol. 11. - P. 201 - 221.

Wadley L. Putting ochre to the test: replication studies of adhesives that may have been used for hafting tools in the Middle Stone Age // J. of Human Evolution. - 2005. - Vol. 49, Iss. 5. - P. 587 - 601.

Wolpoff M.H. Multiregional evolution: the fossil alternative to Edem // The Human Revolution: Behavioral and Biological Perspectives on the Origins of Modern Humans / eds. P. Mellars, C.B. Stringer. - Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1989. - P. 62 - 108.

Wolpoff M.H. Theories of modern human origins // Continuity or Replacement: Controversies in Homo sapiens Evolution / eds. G. Brauer, F.H. Smith. - Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema, 1992. - P. 25 - 63.

Wolpoff M.H. Concocting a divisive theory // Evolutionary Anthropology. - 1998. - Vol. 7. - P. 1 - 3.

Wolpoff M.H., Caspari R. An unparalleled parallelism // Anthropologie (Brno). - 1996. - Vol. 34. - P. 215 - 223.

Wolpoff M.H., Hawks J., Caspari R. Multiregional Not Multiple Origins // Am. J. of Physical Anthropology. - 2000. - Vol. 112. - P. 129 - 136.

Wolpoff M.H., Wu X., Thorne A.G. Modern Homo sapiens origins: A general theory of hominid evolution involving the fossil evidence from East Asia // The origins of modern humans: A world survey of the fossil evidence / eds. F.H. Smith, F. Spencer. - N.Y.: Alan R. Liss, 1984. - P. 411 - 483.

Wood B. Early hominid species and speciation // J. of Human Evolution. - 1992. - Vol. 22, Iss. 4/5. - P. 351 - 365.

Wurz S. The Howisons Poort at backed artefacts from Klasies River: An argument for symbolic behavior // South African Archaeological Bull. - 1999. - Vol. 54. - P. 38 - 40.

Zilhao J. Anatomically Archaic, Behaviorally Modern: the Last Neanderthals and their Destiny. - Amsterdam: Drieentwintigste Kroon-Voordracht, 2001. - 99 p.

The article was submitted to the Editorial Board on 17.03.11.

page 31

Permanent link to this publication: