When did the first residential building appear? History of human habitation
Man's first house
Today it is simply impossible to imagine people’s lives without buildings and structures. No one can live without housing. Any person, no matter what level of cultural development he is at, has one or another home - from luxury apartments to an abandoned basement. I wonder who was the first to come up with the idea of building houses, and what was the very first house like?
Man Cave
Many are inclined to think that the very first home for man, albeit primitive, was a cave.
Not certainly in that way. The dark and damp caves were unsuitable for life. If people climbed there, it was in some special emergency cases - an attack by some primitive animal or severe cold, wind and rain. Of course, these were far from the most beautiful houses in the world. The caves were also used for religious rituals.
Weatherproof shelters
So the very first houses were not caves. Naturally, these unusual houses have not survived to this day, but it is possible to “reconstruct” their appearance if you get acquainted with the buildings of today’s tribes, whose life is as close as possible to primitive times.
So, living in a warm climate, people built not houses, but so-called wind barriers. The materials for construction were branches, tree bark, and grass. Such a shelter could only provide shelter from bad weather, but did not save from danger.
Lifestyle change
And only when people changed their nomadic lifestyle to a sedentary one, the very first houses appeared. They were huts and huts woven from thin branches. And those who could not sit still, but still liked to roam, learned to build portable dwellings such as tents. Here's how they were built: they built a “frame” from strong and large bones of animals, for example, mammoths. This “frame” was hung with the skins of killed animals in cold weather and tree bark in warm weather. This “house” was, as they would now call it, portable, that is, portable.
Apartment buildings appeared in ancient Rome. The expanding city required to accommodate an increasing number of people in a fairly limited area, so residential buildings began to grow upward. As a rule, one such house occupied an entire block, had a closed shape and a courtyard. They were called insula (island) and reached a height of up to five floors. Each floor was divided into separate apartments that were rented. The higher the floor was, the lower the rent was.
The second coming of high-rise buildings began in Europe in the 17th century. The development of industry required more and more workers and, as a consequence, the availability of cheap housing. 
This trend came to Russia only two centuries later. In Moscow, the first apartment buildings appeared in 1785 - 1790. The first such three-story house was built according to the design of M.F. Kazakova on Ilyinka. An equally famous architect who built apartment buildings in Moscow at that time was Osip Bove. In 1816, on Nikolskaya Street, Beauvais built a large house three floors high. This building was intended to generate income, and its customer was the famous bookseller I.P. Glazunov. On the lower floor of the house there were shops with separate entrances, and on the upper floors there were small apartments. Galleries were made from the courtyard and each apartment had a separate entrance.
Capitalism, slowly but surely developing in Russia, was the main driving force behind the development of cities. Therefore, by the end of the nineteenth century, there was a real boom in apartment buildings, which continued until 1914. Thanks to this trend, the historical center of most large cities was formed. The customers for the construction were all classes: mid-level entrepreneurs, merchants, large industrialists, educational institutions, partnerships, joint-stock companies and even churches and monasteries. This wave of construction of apartment buildings was due to the need for housing for people of liberal professions, engineers, students, workers, and scientists. On the other hand, capital appeared that needed to be invested in something. Thus, in the summer of 1911, approximately 3,000 apartment buildings with a height of 5-7 floors were built. The Moscow authorities were preparing the sites, laying electrical cables, sewerage, and water supply. In addition, they were engaged in landscaping and cleaning up the streets. Further rent of land made it possible to recoup the costs of all of the above. Apartment buildings were very beneficial to the government, owners and tenants, since they satisfied the demand for housing from the population and replenished the city treasury through taxes from the owners of apartment buildings. Thus, in 1913, out of 47,600,000 rubles of city income, taxes paid by owners of apartment buildings and other personal real estate amounted to 7,000,000 rubles. So the apartment buildings fully justified their definition. In Russia before 1917, there were more than 600 apartment buildings. In Moscow during this period, about 40 percent of residential buildings were apartment buildings. Moreover, the larger the apartment building, the lower the cost of apartments in it.
In those days, you could rent the cheapest room for the night for 20 kopecks, and a bed for only 5 kopecks. Renting a room designed for an official with average income cost 10 - 15 rubles per month. People with income could afford to rent an apartment in an apartment building in Moscow for 30 rubles; the most profitable at that time was considered the Afremov apartment building, which was located at 19 Sadovaya Spasskaya Street. The eight-story building was built in 1904, and its could be considered a skyscraper. No less famous was the apartment building of the merchant Solodovnikov, located on Gilyarovsky Street. You could rent rooms in this house for 10 rubles a month. As for the cost of renting luxury apartments in apartment buildings, it could exceed 100 rubles. For example, in the most luxurious apartment building on Sretensky Boulevard, which belonged to an insurance company, room rent was 500 rubles per month.
The resettlement of several families in one living space was considered as a forced and temporary measure. However, at the beginning of the twentieth century, after a series of revolutions, the country completely changed its political and economic course. The civil war, unrest, later active industrialization and the deterioration of the situation in the countryside led to a more intensive growth of the urban population. Essentially the same principle of apartment buildings evolved into communal apartments. The densification of representatives of the former privileged classes was accompanied by the transformation of their large apartments into communal apartments. At the beginning of the first five-year plan, the need to preserve communal apartments unexpectedly received ideological justification. During these years, the idea of a socialist restructuring of everyday life was actively promoted in the RSFSR. The program of its collectivization, i.e., the abandonment of the family economy as the main form of organizing the private life of people, was widely discussed. In this regard, it was assumed that the individual housing of an urban family, as a legacy of capitalism, should be replaced by collective housing, in which joint consumption and collective leisure would be organized.
The front door to a communal apartment is difficult not to recognize. The number of calls, randomly scattered in the best traditions of the avant-garde, are signed with the names of the residents and the number of clicks. And God forbid you call three times if under your last name it says call twice. Of course, they will open it for you, but they will be very unhappy. So, you enter the apartment, and the first thing you see is a long corridor with a large number of electricity meters on the walls, a common telephone and wallpaper written on next to it, bicycles, sleds, a duty schedule and cleaning the floors . We go further and go into the kitchen, the space of which is divided by tables, stoves, cabinets and other kitchen utensils. The kitchen is the central hub of a communal apartment. Here, global problems of everyday life are solved, primus stoves hum and kerosene stoves smoke. To protect against thieving cats, irons are placed on pots or lids are tightly tied.
However, after fierce discussions and the resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks adopted on May 16, 1930, which condemned the leftists for restructuring life, ordinary apartment buildings nevertheless became the main type of urban development. In conditions of an acute shortage of financial and other resources, they were built, saving on everything; in particular, low ceilings and cramped kitchens had already become fashionable. Such houses were occupied, as a rule, according to the communal principle: 1 family, 1 room. Separate apartments in the 1920s and 30s. had no more than a quarter of urban families. buildings with cramped and uncomfortable apartments. After criticism of such development projects at the 17th Congress of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) in 1934, the situation improved slightly: spacious apartments with high ceilings began to be built, embodying the working class’s dream of a wonderful life under socialism.
However, in practice, the lack of housing forced the city authorities to move several families into new apartments, turning them back into communal apartments. Thus, the utopian projects for creating a new way of life and communal houses, which received official registration in 1919 in the 2nd Program of the RCP (b), in practice were embodied in the same communal apartments.
Nomenklatura houses represented a special category of housing. They had a good layout with halls and two to four large apartments per floor. Many apartments included offices and children's rooms, libraries and rooms for servants, spacious kitchens, separate bathrooms, initially large rooms - from 15 to 25, and in some places even up to 30 m², utility rooms in some houses (Verkhnyaya Maslovka, 1, d.3) - workshop for sculptors and artists.
The tradition of several families occupying one apartment continued during the war years and the first post-war decade. Only in the second half of the 1950s. In connection with the increase in the scale of housing, a qualitatively new approach to the distribution of living space has emerged. At a number of Ural, Siberian and Far Eastern enterprises, new residents began to be provided primarily with separate apartments. In September 1959 in Novosibirsk, 38.8% of workers and employees living in state houses already had them. The remaining 61.2% of workers and employees were housed in communal apartments, each of which housed an average of 3 families with 8 people. There were 4.9 square meters per resident. m of living space.
Large housing construction programs carried out in the 1960s and 70s led to improved living conditions for large sections of the urban population. A great social achievement was not only the mass relocation of citizens from dilapidated and poorly maintained housing, but also the resettlement of families living in communal apartments. In the early 1980s. About 80% of the residents of the Ural, Siberian and Far Eastern cities had separate apartments in comfortable brick and panel houses. During the period of “perestroika,” the goal was to provide each family with a separate apartment by 2000, which was rather a slogan than a real prospect. According to the decree of the CPSU Central Committee “On the development of housing construction in the USSR,” a course was set for family-by-family settlement of comfortable apartments, which was supported by such ideological and scientific points that stated that the communal apartment was not a project of the Soviet government, but was a forced measure to save money during industrialization.
An appropriate production base and infrastructure was created: house-building plants and concrete factories. This made it possible to introduce millions of square meters of housing annually. The first house-building plants were created in the Glavleningradstroy system, and in 1962 they were organized in Moscow and other cities. In particular, during the 1970s in Leningrad, 942 thousand people received living space, with 809 thousand moving into new houses and 133 thousand receiving space in old houses. However, when moving into new apartments, the “shareholder” principle was often applied (one neighbor for each family). By the middle, the number of communal apartments in the central districts of Leningrad amounted to 40% of their total number. In addition, until the mid-1980s, there was a system of service (departmental) space, which made it difficult to resettle communal apartments.
With the beginning of mass housing construction, architecture finally lost its former uniqueness. Standard boxes were erected everywhere, mostly five and nine storeys high. White brick or concrete panels were used as building materials.
At the end of the last century, a new coup d'etat took place. Socialism gave way to a market economy, which radically changed the attitude and status of apartment buildings; now the treasured square meters have become private property.
At the moment, the rules in the real estate market are determined by demand, mortgage lending policies and the policies of development companies.
New technologies and materials make it possible to build higher-rise buildings, although in essence they remain the same faceless boxes in which, like an anthill, most of modern urban society lives. I can’t say that this trend is bad; mass development and cost reduction, of course, leads to the simplification of this or that object or process. But when an old mansion is demolished in the city to erect another faceless apartment tower, it becomes somehow sad.
Like all living beings with the ability to move, a person needs temporary or permanent shelter or housing for sleep, rest, protection from bad weather and attacks from animals or other people. Therefore, concerns about housing, along with concerns about food and clothing, should have, first of all, worried the mind of primitive man. In the essays on primitive culture, we said that already in the Stone Age, man used not only caves, tree hollows, rock crevices, etc. as natural shelters, but also developed various types of buildings that we can see among modern peoples at all levels of culture. Since the time when man gained the ability to mine metals, his construction activities have advanced rapidly, facilitating and providing other cultural achievements.
“When one thinks of the nests of birds, the dams of beavers, the tree platforms made by monkeys, it will hardly be possible to suppose that man has ever been incapable of making a shelter of one kind or another for himself” (E. B. Taylor, Anthropology "). If he was not always satisfied with it, it was because, moving from place to place, he could find a cave, hollow or other natural shelter. South African Bushmen live in mountain caves and make temporary huts for themselves. Unlike animals, which are capable of only one type of building, man creates, depending on local conditions, buildings of various types and gradually improves them.
Since the ancestral home of man was in the tropical region, the first human building appeared there. It was not even a hut, but a canopy or screen made of two stakes stuck into the ground with a crossbar, against which tree branches and huge leaves of tropical palm trees leaned on the windward side. On the leeward side of the canopy there is a fire, on which food is prepared, and around which the family warms itself in cold weather. Such dwellings are built for themselves by the natives of central Brazil and Australians who walk completely naked, and sometimes by modern hunters in the northern forests. The next step in the construction of a dwelling is a round hut made of branches with dense foliage stuck into the ground, tied or intertwined with tops, forming a kind of roof above the head. Our round garden pavilions, covered with branches, bear a strong resemblance to such a savage hut.
Some of the Brazilian Indians put more art into their work, as they make a frame from the tops of young trees tied together or poles stuck into the ground, which they then cover with large palm leaves. Australians also make the same huts in case of a long stay, covering the frame of branches with bark, leaves, grass, sometimes even laying turf or covering the outside of the hut with clay.
Thus, the invention and construction of a round hut is a simple matter and accessible to the most backward peoples. If wandering hunters carry with them the poles and cover of the hut, then it turns into a tent, which more cultured peoples cover with skins, felt or canvas.
The round hut is so small that you can only lie or squat in it. An important improvement was the installation of a hut on pillars or walls made of intertwined branches and earth, that is, the construction of round huts, such as were in ancient times in Europe, and are now found in Africa and other parts of the world. To increase the capacity of the round hut, a hole was dug inside it. This digging of an internal hole inspired the idea of constructing the walls of the hut from the earth, and it turned into a dugout with a conical flat roof made of tree trunks, brushwood, turf and even stones, which were placed on top to protect against gusts of wind.
A major step in the art of construction was the replacement of round huts with quadrangular wooden houses, the walls of which were much stronger than earthen walls, which were easily washed away by rain. But solid wooden walls made of horizontally laid logs did not appear immediately and not everywhere; their construction became possible only with the availability of metal axes and saws. For a long time, their walls were made of vertical pillars, the spaces between which were filled with turf or intertwined rods, sometimes coated with clay. In order to protect against people, animals and river floods, buildings on pillars or on stilts, already familiar to readers, began to appear, which are now found on the islands of the Malay Archipelago and in many other places.
Further, doors and windows were an improvement in human habitation. The door remains for a long time the only opening of the primitive dwelling; later, light holes or windows appear, in which now in many places bull's bubble, mica, even ice, etc. are used instead of glass, and sometimes they are only plugged up at night or in bad weather. A very important improvement was the introduction of a hearth or stove inside the house, since the hearth not only allows one to maintain the desired temperature in the home, but also dries and ventilates, making the home more hygienic.
Types of dwellings of cultural peoples: 1) the house of an ancient German; 2) home of the Franks; 3) Japanese house; 4) Egyptian house; 5) Etruscan house; 6) ancient Greek house; 7) ancient Roman house; 8) old French house; 9) Arabic house; 10) English mansion.
The types of wooden buildings of different times and peoples are extremely diverse. Buildings made of clay and stone are no less diverse and even more widespread. A wooden hut or hut is easier to build than a stone one, and stone architecture probably evolved from the simpler wooden one. The rafters, beams and columns of stone buildings are undoubtedly copied from corresponding wooden forms, but, of course, on this basis one cannot deny the independent development of stone architecture and explain everything in it by imitation.
Primitive man used natural caves for living, and then began to build artificial caves for himself where soft rocks lay. In southern Palestine, entire ancient cave cities, carved into the rocks, have been preserved.
Artificial cave dwellings still serve as shelter for humans in China, northern Africa and other places. But such dwellings have a limited area of distribution and appear in places where people already possessed fairly high technology.
Probably the first stone dwelling was the same as those found among Australians and in some other places. Australians build the walls of their huts from stones picked up from the ground, not connected in any way. Since it is not everywhere possible to find suitable material from uncut stones in the form of slabs of layered rocks, man began to fasten the stones with clay. Round huts made of rough stones held together with clay are still found in northern Syria. Such huts made of rough stones, as well as those made of clay, river silt and mud along with reeds, were the beginning of all subsequent stone buildings.
Over time, the stones began to be hewn so that they could be fitted one to another. A very important and major step in the construction business was the cutting of stones in the form of rectangular stone slabs, which were laid in regular rows. Such cutting of stone blocks reached its highest perfection in ancient Egypt. Cement for fastening stone slabs was not used for a long time, and was not needed, these slabs adhered so well to each other. Cement, however, has long been known to the ancient world. The Romans used not only ordinary cement made from lime and sand, but also waterproof cement, to which volcanic ash was added.
In countries where there was little stone and a dry climate, buildings made of clay or mud mixed with straw were very common, since they were cheaper and even better than wooden ones. Sun-dried bricks made of fatty clay mixed with straw have been known in the East since ancient times. Buildings made from such bricks are now widespread in the dry regions of the Old World and in Mexico. Fired bricks and tiles, necessary for countries with rainy climates, were a later invention, improved by the ancient Romans.
Stone buildings were originally covered with reeds, straw, wood, the roof frame is now made of wood, wooden beams have only recently begun to be replaced with metal ones. But for a long time people have thought of constructing first false and then true vaults. In a false vault, stone slabs or bricks are laid in the form of two staircases until the tops of these staircases meet so much that they can be covered with one brick; Children make such false vaults from wooden cubes. Similar false vaults can be seen in the Egyptian pyramids in the ruins of buildings in Central America and in the temples of India. The time and place of invention of the true code is unknown; The ancient Greeks did not use it. It was introduced into use and perfected by the Romans: all later buildings of this kind originated from Roman bridges, domes and vaulted halls. A person’s home serves as a complement to clothing and, like clothing, depends on the climate and geographic environment. Therefore, in different areas of the globe we find a predominance of different types of housing.
In areas with a hot and damp climate, inhabited by naked, half-naked or lightly dressed people, the dwelling is intended not so much for warmth, it plays the role of protection from tropical downpours. Therefore, the dwellings here are light huts or huts, covered with thatch, bamboo, reeds and palm leaves. In hot and dry areas of deserts and semi-deserts, the settled population lives in clay houses with a flat earthen roof, which provides good protection from the sun's heat, while nomads in Africa and Arabia live in tents or tents.
In more or less humid areas with an average annual temperature of 10° to + 20°C. in Europe and America, thin-walled stone houses, covered with thatch, reeds, tiles and iron, predominate; in Korea, China and Japan, thin-walled wooden houses, covered mostly with bamboo. An interesting variation on the latter area are Japanese houses with movable interior partitions and outer walls of mats and frames that can be moved aside to allow air and light in and allow the occupants to jump outside in the event of an earthquake. In thin-walled houses of the European-American type, the frames are single, stoves are absent or replaced by fireplaces, and in the Chinese-Japanese east - by heating pads and braziers. In the dry areas of this region, the settled population lives in the same stone houses with flat roofs as in dry tropical countries. Huts are used here in spring, summer and autumn. Nomads live here in winter in dugouts, and in summer in felt tents or yurts, the frame of which is made of wood.
In areas with an average annual temperature of 0° to +10° C, maintaining warmth in the home plays a decisive role; Therefore, the brick and wooden houses here are thick-walled, on a foundation, with stoves and double frames, with the ceiling topped with a layer of sand or clay and with a double floor. Roofs are covered with thatch, planks and shingles (shingles), roofing felt, tiles and iron. The area of thick-walled houses with iron roofs is also the area of urban high-rise buildings, the extreme expression of which is the American “skyscrapers” of dozens of floors. Nomads of semi-deserts and deserts live here in dugouts and felt yurts, and wandering hunters of the northern forests live in huts covered with reindeer skins or birch bark.
The zone with lower annual temperatures is characterized in the south by warm winter wooden houses covered with planks, and to the north, in the tundra region, among polar nomads and fishermen - portable tents or tents covered with deer, fish and seal skins. Some polar peoples, for example, the Koryaks, live in winter in pits dug in the ground and lined inside with logs, over which a roof is erected with a hole that serves for the exit of smoke and for entering and exiting the dwelling via a permanent or ladder.
In addition to housing, a person erects various buildings for storing supplies, for housing pets, for his work activities, for various meetings, etc. The types of these structures are extremely diverse, depending on geographical, economic and living conditions.
The dwellings of nomads and wandering hunters are not fenced in anything, but with the transition to settled life, fences appear near the estate, near areas occupied by cultivated plants or intended for corralling or grazing livestock.
The types of these barriers depend on the availability of a particular material. They are made of earth (ramps, ditches and ditches), wicker, poles, planks, stone, thorny bushes and, finally, barbed wire. In mountainous areas, for example, in the Crimea and the Caucasus, stone walls predominate, in the forest-steppe zone - fences; in wooded areas with small plowed spaces, fences are made of poles and stakes, and in some places of boulders. Barriers include not only estate or rural fences, but also wooden and stone walls of ancient cities, as well as long fortifications, which in the old days were erected to protect entire states. These were the Russian “guard lines” (total length 3600 km), which were built in the 16th-17th centuries to protect against Tatar raids, and the famous Chinese Wall (finished in the 5th century AD), 3300 km long, protecting China from Mongolia .
The choice of a place for human habitation is determined, on the one hand, by natural conditions, i.e., relief, soil properties and proximity to sufficient amounts of fresh water, and on the other hand, by the ability to obtain a livelihood in the chosen place.
Settlements (individual houses and groups of houses) are usually located not in lowlands or basins, but on hills with a horizontal surface. So, for example, in mountain villages and cities, individual streets are located, if possible, in the same plane in order to avoid unnecessary ascents and descents; therefore, the lines of the houses have an arcuate shape and correspond to isohypses, that is, lines of equal height. In the same mountain valley there are many more settlements on the slope that is better illuminated by the sun than on the opposite one. On very steep slopes (over 45°), human dwellings, with the exception of caves, are not found at all. Sandy loam or light loamy soil is best for human habitation. When constructing housing, avoid soil that is swampy, clayey or too loose (loose sand, black soil). In populous settlements, soil deficiencies that impede movement are eliminated by means of bridges, sidewalks and various pavement structures.
The main reason determining the emergence and distribution of human settlements is fresh water. River valleys and lake shores are the most populated, and in interfluve spaces, dwellings appear where groundwater is shallow and the construction of wells and reservoirs does not present insurmountable difficulties. Waterless spaces are deserted, but are quickly populated with artificial irrigation. Among other reasons that attract human settlements, mineral deposits and roads, especially railways, play an important role. Any accumulation of human dwellings, a village or a city, arises only where a knot of human relations is tied, where roads converge or where goods are transshipped or transferred.
In human settlements, houses are either scattered without any order, as in Ukrainian villages, or they stick out in rows, forming streets, as we see in Great Russian villages and villages. With an increase in the number of inhabitants, a village or city grows either in width, increasing the number of houses, or in height, i.e., turning one-story houses into multi-story ones; but more often this growth occurs simultaneously in both directions.
Part I
When does the history of human habitation begin? Probably, the roots of the desire to equip one’s “nest” should be sought in the nest-building of our closest relatives. All great apes, settling down for the night, build a nest for themselves. Some are located in nests and for daytime rest. Chimpanzees and orangutans usually build nests in trees, while gorillas often do so directly on the ground.
It is logical to assume that the distant ancestors of humans, the Australopithecines, also spent the night in nests. After all, judging by the structure of their hands, Australopithecines and even the first Homo were not averse to climbing a tree, and could spend the night in the branches, higher up, away from predators.
The desire of chimpanzees to build nests is very strong and, apparently, deeply instinctive. For example, the famous Raphael, a male chimpanzee who lived in the laboratory of I.P. Pavlov in Koltushi in the 30s of the last century, despite attempts to make him a “cultured person,” did not want to use a bed, pillow and blanket. What are these ceremonies for?! Instead, he tore up the mattress, gutted it and made himself a wonderful nest on the floor. As a result, the experimenters were forced to give up trying to teach the monkey good manners, and began to simply give Raphael fresh hay or straw (see: Anthropogenez.ru).
Strictly speaking, the beginning of “house building” could be considered the moment when a certain ancient hominid returned to his nest in the evening and decided to equip it more thoroughly. Why would he do this? There are different hypotheses.
Hypothesis No. 1
According to the hypothesis put forward by the American archaeologist John Clark, the appearance of long-term sites and dwellings is associated with an increase in the duration of childhood. While the training of the younger generation occurs, the mobility of the hominid group is limited... "The young chimpanzee achieves independence between seven and eight years, and the transmission of the more complex skills possessed by the early hominids must have required an even longer time," Clark wrote (see: Clark J. Prehistoric Africa, M., Science, 1977).
Housing provides greater security for the offspring, which is very important for apes, who rarely give birth to more than one offspring. And the problem of predators becomes especially critical when they live not on a tree, but on the ground. It is better to take care of the child in a relatively safe place, where one of the parents looks after the offspring while the other gets food. True, does some kind of “wind barrier” provide protection? Doubtful... A predator can easily find people hiding behind a flimsy fence by smell.
Hypothesis No. 2
The hypothesis according to which the dwelling gradually formed around the hearth and at first performed only the function of protecting the fire from gusts of wind does not look very convincing if we accept the controversial finds of the Lower Paleolithic as dwellings - where no traces of the use of fire were found (see below).
Hypothesis No. 3
Another hypothesis, developed by the Soviet archaeologist V. Ya. Sergin, suggested that long-term dwellings arose in places where large game prey was butchered and eaten. Of course, small prey is literally eaten on the move. But when you manage to get an elephant, you can’t eat it and drag it away in one sitting. The entire community is invited to the place of prey (whether it is killed by a skilled hunter or an animal that has died a natural death) - this is what, for example, modern pygmies do in Central Africa. The meat should not go to waste, it should be consumed whole, simultaneously driving away the scavengers approaching from all sides. A family of ancient hominids would camp around their prey and throw a feast for several days; tools and raw materials for their preparation were brought here; a hearth was being built... However, no, there were no hearths at that time. And around, perhaps, there was some kind of barrier made of branches pressed down by stones - protection either from the wind or from curious people.
It is clear that the above presents a very speculative picture. What gave people the first semblance of a home? Wind protection? From the sun? From predators? From prying eyes? From otherworldly forces? From the rain? From the cold?... An aesthetic feeling of “comfort”? Together?
Be that as it may, modern hunter-gatherers, when stopping for a rest - even for one night - often build themselves simple shelters.
To begin with, it would be nice to find out when they appear - the first dwellings. But it's easy to say! As American anthropologist Jerry Moore writes: “Ideally, each site should be something like the ash-covered ruins of ancient Pompeii: a moment frozen in time.”
But, alas, Pompeii of the Paleolithic is unknown to us. And the most ancient dwellings were obviously short-lived. A settled life is not for ancient hunters. If the analogy with modern hunting groups is correct, their shelters were nothing more than fences of branches and, possibly, skins, at best, weighed down with stones. After a few days, people moved from the place and abandoned the remains of their homes, which fell apart, rotted and, most likely, disappeared without a trace. All that remained was the rubbish people had thrown in - scraps, bones, broken tools; perhaps depressions in places where supports were dug into the ground. If, as a result of a happy accident, all this was quickly buried under a layer of sediment, a certain “imprint” of the dwelling was obtained, the contours of which, in principle, can be identified by the distribution of cultural remains.
However, such a print still needs to be read. Research in this direction became possible only after the advent of a fairly advanced excavation technique - one in which a significant part of the area of the ancient site was revealed, the ancient “floor” on which people lived was cleared. Any significant finds - bones, tools, etc. - fixed in place and plotted on the plan; then the entire ancient “residential complex” is analyzed. Now, by the way the clusters of artifacts are located, you can try to understand where the booty was cut up, where the tools were made, where the bones were thrown, and where the dwellings were located - if they really were here.
It was as a result of the use of such technology that it was possible to discover residential structures of the Stone Age. Of course, the oldest of them are the most controversial.
Early people
So, the oldest find of this kind was made by Mary Douglas Leakey in 1962. I think the Olduvai Gorge, which gave the world Homo habilis, does not need to be introduced to our readers (see: Anthropogenez.ru). One of the famous sites excavated by Leakey, the DK site, is approximately 1.8 million years old and contains many stone tools: choppers, flakes, etc. Animal remains in DK are extremely diverse, they included ancient giraffes, elephants, zebras, rhinoceroses, turtles, crocodiles...
So, at one of the DK sites, Leakey’s team discovered a row of stones arranged (laid out?) in the shape of a circle. As Mary Leakey wrote, this ring display is “the oldest structure made by man. It consists of individual lava blocks and ranges from three and a half to four meters in diameter. The similarity is striking to the crude stone circles built for temporary shelter by modern nomadic peoples such as the Turkana of Kenya.” So, Mary Leakey believed that she had found the oldest house on Earth. The stones, in her opinion, served to strengthen poles or branches stuck into the ground and forming something like a wind barrier or a simple hut.
In another Olduvai FLK site (famous for the discovery of the skull of “Zinjanthropus” - Paranthropus Beuys), an oval area 6.4 by 4.6 m in diameter was identified, on which more than 1000 highly crushed bones and small stone fragments were concentrated. The oval cluster is surrounded by a relatively artifact-free space 2.5 m wide, outside of which are larger fragments of bones and tools. Mary Leakey suggested that in this place there was once a wind barrier that surrounded the central part of the parking lot.
Later, similar finds were made outside Olduvai. For example, this is site FXJj50 (Koobi Fora, Kenya), where, judging by the accumulation of tools and bones, there may have been some kind of residential structure 1.6-1.5 million years ago.
Is this evidence enough to say that already one and a half million years ago our ancestors could build simple dwellings for themselves?... Alas, not all experts agreed with this interpretation.
In particular, Mary Leakey's findings have been the target of harsh criticism. The anthropogenic nature of the bone accumulations has been questioned. Among them, for example, there are many remains of crocodiles, primarily crocodile teeth. Are crocodiles an object of hunting for the Habilis? Quite the contrary! But most importantly, skeptics said, the circular stone “structure” consists of pieces of rock located below the layer with bones and tools. The circular pattern of the stone blocks most likely happened by accident, as a result of weathering and displacement of the stones by tree roots. There was no hut here!
Yes, when analyzing such vague evidence, questions inevitably arise: does this arrangement of artifacts make any sense, or is it just our imagination? Are the stones, bones, tools lying as they were a million years ago, or have they been moved many times, mixed up, or fallen out of nowhere? And the older the site, the fewer sets of facts archaeologists have to work with. Bacteria destroy all organic matter. Water flows erode the soil. Rodent burrows and tree roots can work “miracles.”
No longer the early people
The next “problematic” and often mentioned monument dates back to a much later time. On the slope of Mount Boron (Nice, France) there is the Terra Amata site, excavations of which were led by Henry de Lumley in the 60s of the last century. 350-450 thousand years ago, the Heidelberg people lived here - the probable ancestors of the Neanderthals. Thousands of stone artifacts and bones of large and small animals were recovered from the ground. Archaeologists cleared ancient work sites containing depressions, small hearths, stone blocks and oval clusters of finds that Lumle interpreted as the remains of ancient huts, from 8 to 15 m in length: the depressions were from supports, and stones supported the walls. According to Lumle, the site was inhabited by ancient hunters periodically over a number of spring seasons; Lumle identified 11 distinct seasonal “living surfaces” in Terra Amata.
Of course, Lumle's conclusions were also disputed. Archaeologist Paola Villa (University of Colorado Boulder) showed that a number of flakes placed on different "living surfaces" of Terra Amata were chipped from the same blank. Thus, Lumle's interpretation is probably erroneous and is based on insufficient study of the monument. Both the dating and the origin of the “structures” were questioned. Criticism, of course, does not negate the presence of depressions, hearths and limestone blocks located in a certain way - possibly used as wind barriers.
Another monument of similar antiquity and, alas, just as controversial. Bilzingsleben in eastern Germany - the remains of three oval “huts” about 350 thousand years old. The same set: “wind barriers” - stone blocks and animal bones; a circular structure made of stones pressed into sediments, 9 meters in diameter; there are hearths associated with each structure. And yet, doubts remain about the man-made nature of the “circular structure.” Hominids lived here - a fact. But did they build it?
So what do we know? About 2 million years ago, our distant ancestors first left Africa. For a very long time, hominids lived in sites that can roughly be called temporary “camps.” One could return to such a camp after hunting; tools were made here and (in later times) food was cooked on fire; In parking lots, simple wind barriers could also be used. In a broad sense, it was a home, that is, a place where cooking, work and relaxation were combined...
Part II
In the first part of the publication, we talked about the “nest-building” of our closest relatives - chimpanzees, discussed several hypotheses about the reasons for the emergence of human dwellings in ancient times, and also became acquainted with the archaeological methods by which these dwellings are identified. Next we talked about the oldest (and most controversial) residential structures of the Stone Age. Now let's talk about what we know about the dwellings of Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons.
Neanderthals
In the Neanderthal era, evidence of the organization of dwellings becomes more clear. That's understandable! Neanderthals formed in Europe in a harsh time, when it was hardly possible to exist without warm shelters. Of course, people actively settled in caves, but you can’t have enough caves and grottoes for everyone - they had to settle in open areas, organize permanent fireplaces and actively insulate themselves.
The dwelling of Neanderthals was first discovered in 1959 by the Soviet archaeologist A.P. Chernysh during excavations of the Molodova 1 monument (on the right bank of the Dniester), more than 44 thousand years old.
Chernysh carried out extensive excavations at Molodov 1 and at a depth of about 12 m found the remains of a residential structure. The find was an oval arrangement of large bones and mammoth tusks - 116 elements in total. Inside a circle with a diameter of about 9 m there was an accumulation of ancient “garbage”, as well as traces of 15 fire pits. The dwelling, according to the authors of the discovery, should have resembled a hut with a frame of large poles covered with animal skins; in the lower part of the skins were pressed down with bones. Perhaps inside the dwelling there was a partition made of vertically standing bones, dividing the room into two. Large mammoth teeth, lying against the walls of the “hut” with the chewing surface up, according to Chernysh, could have served the Neanderthals as seats.
And again, a dispute broke out between supporters of Chernysh’s version and skeptics. Various versions have been put forward regarding the nature of the “structure” on Molodova 1: a natural accumulation of bones, a hunting dump, and even a symbolic circle associated with Neanderthal beliefs.
Not so long ago, in 2011, a group of French researchers conducted a new study of the Molodov 1 materials (which, for a minute, is 40 thousand stone artifacts and 3000 mammal bones).
The age of the mammoths found at the site was studied. It turned out that teenagers and mature animals predominated, but not old animals - a picture uncharacteristic for a group of mammoths that died a natural death. This means that mammoth carcasses were somehow obtained by people, and the version of a natural accumulation of bones can be discarded. Judging by the number of mammoths - at least 15 - the site ensured the stay of a significant number of people.
In addition, a mark from a penetrating blow from a sharp object was found on the rib of at least one of the adult mammoths, which means that at least one of the mammoths was killed.
The mammoth bones in the ring structure are the largest, intact and well preserved, there are no traces of predator teeth on them; judging by the weathering characteristics, these bones were exposed to the open air for a long time. On the contrary, in the pit located at the same site outside the “ring” the composition of the bones is different, they are fragmented and contain traces of both tools and animal teeth.
Similar structures were found at some other Neanderthal sites. As Leonid Borisovich Vishnyatsky writes in his book about Neanderthals, artificial shelters were built by Neanderthals even inside inhabited caves. A fence of stones laid out in a semicircle was discovered by Henri de Lumlet in the Lazare cave (France). There were several hearths inside the semicircle; The stones probably served as the basis for some kind of building. “It is interesting that in the fenced-off area there were many small sea shells that were absent outside it. They could have gotten into the depths of the cave along with dried seaweed that people brought from the coast to make their beds.” (L. B. Vishnyatsky, “Neanderthals: the history of failed humanity,” p. 138).
Cro-Magnons
In the Upper Paleolithic in Europe - as you remember - our direct ancestors, the Cro-Magnons, appear. Let's rejoice for our ancestors: many Cro-Magnon dwellings have finally been found, and they are more or less indisputable.
The first known dwelling of the Upper Paleolithic was described by J. Bayer in 1920 during excavations at the Langmannersdorf site (Austria): the remains of a round dugout, 2.5 m in diameter and 1.7 m in depth. Three small holes, apparently left from pillars, supporting the roof.
Subsequently, archaeologists managed to discover many Cro-Magnon dwellings in Europe (P.I. Boriskovsky even gives a figure: about 200 buildings. Wow!). The most typical dwelling of this kind is a small hut, round or oval, with one fireplace in the center. Some Cro-Magnon dwellings were above ground, while others were deep dugouts, the floor of which could be significantly lower than the level of the surrounding area.
Apparently, the Cro-Magnons continued the Neanderthal tradition of using mammoth tusks and bones as building materials - in many Upper Paleolithic dwellings such elements were an important part of the structure. In other dwellings, wooden elements were used for the frame, which could be dug into the ground, strengthened with stone slabs or the same bones.
Finds of small huts from the Upper Paleolithic era were made at the sites of Gagarino, Malta, Kostenki (Russia), Mezin, Mezhirich, Dobranichevka (Ukraine), Pavlov (Czech Republic), Elknitz (Germany), Arcy-sur-Cure (France), etc.
In Mezhirich (Ukraine), 4 round or oval structures made of mammoth bones, 3-6 m in diameter, were found. The lower jaws of mammoths were laid along the base of the huts. In one of the buildings there are 95 such jaws! 40 tusks probably supported the roof. The construction required more than 20 tons of bones. According to archaeologists, to build such a house, 10 men needed 4 days of work.
A modern analogue of such structures can be found among the North American Indians or among the peoples of the Far North, for example, the Chukchi. Only Chukchi instead of mammoth bones - where can I get them now? - they used whale bones: they dug a hole, and above it they built a frame from the bones, which was covered with animal skins. The Apache Indians did roughly the same thing at the end of the 19th century. Settled down for a short rest, they built round huts: they cleared the area, made a frame of branches over it - in some cases, not even cutting them, but simply tilting and tying them - and covered it all with canvas or blankets.
Along with small huts, at Upper Paleolithic sites there are dwellings that occupy a significant area - more than 40 m2, mainly due to their length. Such “multi-apartment” structures looked like several huts merged together, with a chain of fireplaces along the axis. In Kostenki 4 (~22 thousand years ago) two similar dwellings were found: one 23 m long, with 9 hearths, and the second 34 m long, including 10 hearths. The second dwelling was probably divided into 3 sections by partitions.
And so that all of the above does not sound too rosy... Yes, yes, exactly! The reality of "longhouses" is disputed by some researchers; Skeptics argue that archaeologists mistook a group of individual huts standing side by side for long dwellings.
In most cases, the floor of Upper Paleolithic dwellings has not been preserved, and what the surface on which ancient people rested was can only be guessed at. A remarkable exception is the Ohalo II site in Israel, 23 thousand years old. The remains of 6 oval huts, built from tamarisk, willow and oak branches, were excavated here. Apparently, one not very wonderful day, the huts burned down, and their interior was buried under a layer of coal. The “happy” coincidence of circumstances did not end there: soon the monument was flooded as a result of the rapid flooding of the lake.
In 2004, during excavations at Ohalo II, it was possible to discover the grass (!) floor of the hut, preserved due to extraordinary conditions. Bunches of stems and leaves, stacked on top of each other, surrounded the central hearth. The plants have no roots - apparently they were cut off by people. There were even tiny charred remains of strings that were probably used to tie the grass into bundles. On such a soft bed, the ancient hunters must have slept very sweetly.
 |
