The evolution of production systems. Evolution of work activity Evolution of production activity

It can hardly be doubted that prehumans used sticks, bones of large animals, horns and stones as tools. It is very possible that the stones were used for protection from predators and in the process of hunting. Most likely, the stones were used for skinning, cutting, butchering meat, crushing bones. It was possible to skin and cut the meat only with the help of stones with sharp edges. And it was not easy to find such stones.

Systematically operating with stone tools, prehumans inevitably had to face cases when some stones hit against others, broke - in general, underwent changes. As a result, fragments could appear that were more suitable for use as tools than the original objects.

If initially this happened purely by chance, then later, with the accumulation of experience, the prehumans began to deliberately break some stones with the help of others, and then choose from among the fragments formed the most suitable for use as tools. As evidenced by experiments conducted by archaeologists, a simple throwing of a stone on a block or blocks on a stone, in addition to shapeless fragments, often produces flakes of the correct form and with a clearly defined sharp edge.

The transition to the manufacture of tools occurred gradually. The proto-tool activity was replaced by a genuine tool activity, which includes two components: (1) the activity of making tools - tool-creative and (2) the activity of appropriating natural objects with the help of manufactured tools - tool-appropriating.

The very first tools with which other tools were made were probably made of stone. With their help, not only stone, but also wooden tools were created. Therefore, stone technology was the main, leading one.

The first creatures that made tools appeared about 2.5 million years ago. The remains of these creatures were first found by L. Leakey and his collaborators in East Africa; artificial stone tools were found with them. The researchers who made this discovery gave these creatures the name Homo habilis, which means "handy man." They considered them human. Reason: These creatures made tools with tools.

The position that the decisive factor in anthropogenesis was labor, which began with the manufacture of tools, was first put forward by F. Engels in his work "The Role of Labor in the Process of Turning Apes into Humans" (written in 1876, published in 1896). To date, almost all anthropologists associate the emergence of man with the emergence of labor.

However, this does not mean that all of them consider any producing creature to be a human being. In particular, many of the anthropologists do not consider the habilis to be human on the grounds that the habilis, in their morphological organization, including the structure brain, do not differ significantly from Australopithecus. If no tools were found with the habilis, no one would doubt that the habilis are animals.

Specific human features in the morphological organization in general, in the structure of the brain, in particular, appeared only in the descendants of the habilis, who are called pithecanthropes (from the Greek pitekos - monkey, anthropos - man), archanthropes (from the Greek archaios - ancient, anthropos - man) or Homo erectus, which means "upright man". The last two terms have a broader meaning than the term "Pithecanthropus". Archanthropes or Homo erectus are called not only pithecanthropes, but other forms similar to them - synanthropes, atlanthropes, etc. No one doubts that the archanthropes were already human. They appeared about 1.6 million years ago.

Thus, the line separating the human morphological organization from the animal one does not pass between Australopithecus and Habilis, but between Habilis and Archanthropes. Only with the transition to the archanthropes began to form such specific human features like thinking, will, language. The brain of the habilis was generally typical of Australopithecus. The existence of the rudiments of thinking and language among archanthropes is confirmed by the peculiarities of the structure of their brain. They recorded the appearance of foci of intensive growth in the areas of the brain associated with the implementation of specific human functions in particular speech.

Thinking is manifested not only in words, but also in actions. And when these actions result in the emergence of new, previously non-existent things, then on the basis of an analysis of the features of these objects, it is possible to judge with a certain degree of probability whether these actions were directed by thinking or not. It can even be established to what extent this thinking is developed.

The most ancient technique for making stone tools was breaking. At the same time, the process of production itself took place without the control of the producing being. The result of the process depended entirely on chance. In other words, this kind of technology did not imply and did not require thinking, will, and thus language.

All the features of the oldest stone tools testify that the tools appeared as a result of an activity that was neither conscious nor volitional. But some progress was possible even under these conditions. Thus, a higher than breaking, stone processing technique arose - splitting. The result of splitting a nodule or pebble could be two smaller nodules. The most important type of splitting was chipping or beating. When the object of activity was a nodule, the result of chipping was, on the one hand, a chipped, chipped flake, and on the other, a chipped nodule. Both the first and the second could serve as a tool.

In some cases, pieces of stone were used immediately after chipping, in others they were subjected to further processing. The nodule was chipped further: new flakes broke off from it. A flake was also processed: it was hewn by beating off smaller fragments.

The forms of tools at this stage were extremely diverse. This does not at all indicate a high level of development of stone technology, the existence of various improved methods of stone processing. On the contrary, the variety of forms of tools was a consequence of the underdevelopment production activities. Due to the fact that it was not strong-willed, conscious, its results largely depended not so much on the manufacturer's own efforts, but on a random combination of circumstances. There were no rules of action that would predetermine the shape of the guns. As a result, among these ancient tools it is difficult to find those that would be similar to each other in everything.

At a certain stage necessary condition further progress of stone technology was the emergence of thinking, will, and thus language, the transformation of the activity of making tools into a conscious and volitional one. This is what happened with the transition from the Habilis to the Pithecanthropes. The shape of the tools now increasingly began to depend not so much on the coincidence of circumstances, but on the actions of the manufacturer. The worker imprinted the imprint of his will on the stone, gave the material the desired shape. As a result, each form of tools is now represented in a set with a large number of standardized specimens. A striking example of the first standardized tool is a hand axe.

If the remains of habilis were found only in Africa, then parts of the skeletons and stone tools of archanthropes are found in a vast territory stretching from Northern China and Java in the east to the African and European coasts of the Atlantic in the west. And wherever there are hand axes, they are distinguished by an extraordinary similarity.

Some archaeologists emphasized that the appearance of standardized tools indicates the emergence not only of thinking, but also of society. “A standardized tool,” wrote the eminent English researcher W. G. Child, “is in itself a fossil concept. It is an archaeological type precisely because it embodies an idea that goes beyond not only each individual moment, but also each specific hominid engaged in the specific reproduction of this tool: in a word, this is a social concept. To reproduce a model means to know it, and this knowledge is preserved and transmitted by society.”

Society begins to emerge when property relations are born. But property is always not only an objective economic relation, but also a volitional relation. Therefore, the formation of society could not begin before the beginning of the formation of thinking, will, language. And this means that the habilis lived in a purely zoological association. They were most likely not humans, even in formation, but animals. Therefore, they, like Australopithecus, are most accurately characterized as prehumans. But if the Australopithecus were early prehumans, then the Habilis were late prehumans. The first people, but still just emerging, were the archanthropes, including the Pithecanthropes.

This does not in the least contradict the labor theory of anthropogenesis, but, on the contrary, fully confirms it. Only occurrence labor activity could lead to the emergence of man and society. Labor, indeed, created man, but not immediately. It took about 1 million years for the development of production activity to lead to the transformation of animals into the first, still emerging people, and their associations into an emerging society. And it took another 1.6 million years for the development of industrial activity to lead to the emergence of mature people and a true society.

Economic and all public relations immaterial, incorporeal. It is possible to reconstruct the process of their formation based only on indirect data. Among such data, first of all, are materials on associations of monkeys.

31. Childe V.G. Archaeological documents on the prehistory of science // Bulletin of the history of world culture.1957. No. 1. S. 30.

The formation of society

Monkey associations

The only association that exists in all species of monkeys is a group consisting of a female and cubs. The life of such a group is determined by the peculiarities of the biology of monkeys, which makes it absolutely necessary for the mother to take care of the cub for a certain period. In some monkeys, in particular, in orangutans, the mother-child group is the only stable association. Adult males usually lead a solitary lifestyle.

In most monkeys, the mother-child unit does not exist independently, but is part of a larger group. Gibbons have groups consisting of an adult male, female and cubs. Such groups are commonly referred to as families or family groups. There are solitary males and females, but this condition is always temporary.

In some monkeys, an adult male is associated not with one, but with several females and their cubs. Such a group is usually referred to as a harem, a harem family, or a harem group. In some species of monkeys, harem groups are completely independent units. Outside of harem groups are bachelor males who live either alone or in groups. In other species of monkeys, harem groups are part of a larger association (usually called a herd), which also included bachelor males.

Some of the monkeys form associations (they are also called herds), which include several adult males, several adult females with cubs. At the same time, there is no division into either family or harem groups. To distinguish these herds from the harem-bachelor herds, I will call them common herds. Among the great apes, a common herd exists in the gorilla.

Observing chimpanzees in natural conditions, researchers initially came to the conclusion that these animals have no other permanent associations, except for mother-child groups: all other groups were extremely unstable, transient and diverse in composition. They continuously appeared, disappeared, split and merged. Animals moved from one group to another, and sometimes did not belong to any of them, and males and females were seen wandering alone.

However, in the process of further research, it was found that all this movement takes place within the framework of a relatively constant population of animals, the members of which know each other and distinguish between those who belong to it and those who do not belong to it. Between the animals that make up this population, various connections are established, including relationships of dominance.

In other words, we have before us not just a collection of animals, but a certain association of them. This population cannot be called a herd, although its composition does not differ from the general herd. The herd as an association assumes that the animals included in it, at least part of the time, stay together, move side by side. The association that we see in chimpanzees can be called association.

As evidenced by ethological data, the forms of groups of monkeys depend primarily on the habitat. In animals belonging to the same species, but living in different conditions, associations can have a different form. Let's say that one part of the langurs of India has isolated harem groups, and the other has common herds.

herd of prehumans

Our distant ancestors - the great apes of the Miocene epoch, being mainly inhabitants of trees, spent a significant part of their time on the ground. This largely precludes the existence of independent mother-child groups, as in orangutans, or family groups, as in gibbons. Gibbons are a specialized tree form. They live in the thicket of the forest, high in the trees, in relative safety from predators, which makes larger groups redundant. The orangutan is also a highly specialized, purely arboreal form.

The existence of harem groups among the Miocene ancestors of humans seems unlikely. They are not found in any of the modern great apes. Given that the Miocene ancestors of humans were closest to chimpanzees both in terms of habitat and way of life, it is most likely that they had associations. But the existence of their common herds cannot be ruled out.

The transformation of large anthropoids of the Miocene into prehumans was associated with a change not only in the morphological organization, but also in the habitat and the whole way of life in general. These anthropoids descended to the ground and at the same time moved from the forest to the open countryside. With a few exceptions, all species of monkeys living in the savannah and savanna woodlands have common herds. The gorilla also has a common herd, although this terrestrial anthropoid ape, distinguished by its powerful physique, is huge physical strength and large fangs, lives in the forest and in case of danger can climb a tree.

All the more so was the need for a common herd for the prehumans, who had moved on to life in the savanna and savanna woodlands. It is important to note that the herds of mountain gorillas in those areas where they spend the night only on the ground, in terms of their average number (17 individuals), are approximately twice the size of their associations in those areas where these animals have the opportunity to spend the night on trees.

In some areas of Africa, chimpanzees live not only in the forest, but also on the verge of forest and savannah. They may spend part of their time in the savanna woodlands and make forays into the savannah. Sometimes, during their movement, they are forced to pass through treeless areas. As all researchers report, the more open the area in which the chimpanzees are located, the more closely their groups are. When moving through treeless space, the chimpanzee association moves as a single whole, like an ordinary common herd.

Whatever the forms of associations among the large anthropoids of the Miocene, it can be argued with a very high degree of probability that their descendants who crossed to the earth had common herds.

The most cohesive and stable of all monkey associations are the common herds of baboons living in the savannah. The composition of the common herds of these primates includes all animals without exception. They do not have single adult males, let alone females and juveniles. All animals that form a herd always stick together. Common herds of savanna baboons are strong, permanent, closed associations. Such, in all probability, were the herds of early prehumans.

As already mentioned, a necessary condition for the existence of a stable and lasting association of animals is the presence in it of a fairly clearly defined system of dominance. Therefore, it is in the savannah baboons that we find the most rigid hierarchical system of all monkeys known in the world. The herd of prehumans was supposed to represent a strong and permanent association. This suggests the existence of a rather rigid hierarchy in it.

Even among chimpanzees, who did not have herds, but amorphous associations, the dominance system affected the distribution of meat obtained as a result of hunting. When reconstructing the picture of the distribution of prey in a herd of prehumans, it must be taken into account that hunting among prehumans was of a different nature and played a different role than that of chimpanzees.

Unlike chimpanzees, prehuman hunting was not an accident, but a necessity. Prehumans hunted not occasionally, but constantly. Regular hunting made the consumption of meat systematic and thus brought to life the need for this most valuable food product. As a result, meat consumption became an important condition for the existence of the species, which in turn made systematic hunting a necessity.

Prehumans used tools, which made it possible not only to successfully hunt small animals, but also to kill large ones, to cope with those that you cannot take with your bare hands. Unlike chimpanzees, prehumans needed meat. This prompted each of them to strive to get a share of the booty. Prehumans got significantly more meat than chimpanzees. Thus, it became possible to provide meat to all members of the association.

Baboons, who also occasionally hunted animals, did so alone. In chimpanzees, contrary to the opinion of some researchers, at best, only the faintest rudiments of cooperation can be found. Among prehumans, hunting for more or less large game inevitably had to acquire a cooperative character, which gave rise to a tendency to distribute meat among all those participating in the hunt. Large animals, unlike small ones, cannot be quickly torn apart. For a period they had to be eaten on the spot, which made the meat available to a much larger number of members of the association.

However, it is hardly correct to assume that in all cases all members of the herd received access to meat. This is not even among predators that feed exclusively on meat. And prehumans continued to eat plants. That is why it is safe to say that it was plants, and not meat, that made up the majority of their diet. As firmly established by ethnographers, plant foods dominated the diet of all modern early primitive hunter-gatherers who lived in areas similar in natural conditions to those in which prehumans lived. But these hunter-gatherers were far superior to the pre-humans in hunting. Even if among predators that eat only meat, not all members of the association necessarily received meat after each hunt, this was all the more possible among prehumans.

A detailed picture of the distribution of meat among prehumans is unlikely to ever be drawn, especially since it could not be the same in all associations and in all situations. Of course, there could be cases when all members of the herd received a share of the prey. But, most likely, in each case, the booty was distributed among a part of the members of the association, although, perhaps, a significant one. Dominant animals always received a share of the prey. As for subordinates, in each specific case they could receive it, or they might not.

Undoubtedly, the existence of inequality in the size of the shares received. Dominant animals got better and bigger pieces, subordinate animals got worse and smaller ones. The distribution of meat among the members of the herd was determined both by the already established hierarchy and by those changes in the balance of forces that each specific situation introduced. But all this applies only to adult animals. As for the young, they seem to have always received meat, as is observed everywhere among predators.

Everything that has been said about the distribution of meat in early prehumans can be applied to later prehumans as well. The association of late prehumans did not differ externally in its features from the herd of the early ones. Nevertheless, it was its development that prepared the emergence of a qualitatively new phenomenon - the emerging human society.

At present, when it finally became clear that the appearance of people was preceded by the emergence of hunting, many researchers see it as the factor that brought to life and determined the main features of the first human associations. Hunting for large animals involves the combined efforts of individuals, joint activities. It is from this cooperation that the collectivism inherent in people of primitive society is usually derived.

However, no matter how obvious this concept may seem at first glance, it cannot be recognized as correct. It was not hunting, taken by itself, that made possible, and in the future inevitable, the transition to society. As you know, joint hunting is a phenomenon widespread in the animal world. However, nowhere did it cause movement in the direction that interests us, it did not lead and does not lead to any collectivism. The presence of hunting does not separate the herd of prehumans from all other associations of animals, but, on the contrary, makes it related to groups of a large number of animals. Separates the herd of late prehumans from all associations of animals, not excluding not only anthropoids, but also early prehumans, the existence in it of activity for the manufacture of tools with the help of tools - that is, production activity in the full sense of the word.

It could be argued that only those enterprises that follow the path of development of the TOYOTA PRODUCTION SYSTEM standards implement and develop the Production System in its true sense. But we want to emphasize that the concept of "Production System" includes all the tools, methods, practices, approaches, philosophies and concepts of development, management and optimization of production that have arisen as a result of the evolution of practices production management(organization of production).

To see this, let's take a short digression into history.

16th century

1500s - Mass production. The Venetian Arsenal* launches an assembly line on the water to build boats that are moved between standard workstations in the process of being finalized. Perhaps this is the first example of a flow in history?

18 CENTURY

1780 - The concept of interchangeable parts. In the armament of the French army, the use of interchangeable parts is introduced - the forerunner of the formation of in-line production in large quantities.

1799 - Automatic production of simple parts. French engineer Marc Brunel invents equipment for the automatic production of the simplest parts (for example, rope blocks, for ships of the Royal Navy of England). Equipment mechanisms are driven by water, there is no need for manual labor.

19TH CENTURY

1822 - Automated production intricate details. Inventor Thomas Blanchard from the Springfield Arms Factory (USA) develops 17 machines for the production of gun stocks without the use of manual labor. During processing, the parts moved around the room from one equipment to another. Probably the first example of production in "cells"?

1860s - Large-scale production of replacement parts. Samuel Colt's armory in Hatford, Connecticut is said to have produced revolvers in large quantities with fully interchangeable parts. A later study by David Hounshell in 1984 indicates that replacement parts were only made for special weapons designed to promote sales. Revolvers produced for the general public still required hand-fitting. The problem of factory production of completely replaceable parts without "fitting" will remain relevant for industrialists for another half century.

1880s - Moving cutting lines. Midwestern American meatpacking plants feature conveyors that smoothly move carcasses from worker to worker to separate the meat from the bones. Not a bad example for future innovators solving the problem of creating moving production lines.

1890s - Scientific Management . American engineer and founder of the scientific organization of labor and management, Frederick Taylor, analyzes work processes in search of the best way to perform any task. He introduces a piecework bonus, "scientifically" assigning the role of an incentive to wages effective work and linking complex production chains through a well-documented path for each part in production. It also offers standard cost accounting for production, including overheads, creating, in fact, the main tools for managing mass production.

20TH CENTURY

1902 - Jidoka(autonomization). Sakichi Toyoda invents a device that stops a loom when it detects a defect in the fabric. With further improvements, the invention allowed the equipment to work autonomously without the control of workers (who were most often children), which opened the way for multi-machine operations.

1908 - Really Replaceable Parts. Henry Ford introduces the modular car, taking a significant leap into the era of interchangeable parts with a standard calibration system used throughout the factory and at the supplier sites. "At my plant, no fitting is required," Ford stated.

1913-1914 - Moving assembly line with the manufacture of parts. The Henry Ford plant in Highland Park, Michigan, is the first to introduce "in-line production" by arranging equipment according to the production process (for example, a stamping press, followed by a paint booth, followed by a final assembly area, etc.). In addition, the speed of movement of all conveyors was guided by the final assembly line.

1920s

1924 - Quick changeover. The Type G loom, introduced by Toyoda Automatic Loom Works, enables automatic shuttle changes without stopping the loom. This idea eventually leads to the modernization of all equipment of the Toyota Motor Company, which spun off from the parent company and subsequently absorbed it.

1926 - Mass production. Launching the factory complex Ford River Rouge Complex, Henry Ford expands the range of products and introduces the term "mass production". While the movement of materials is automated with many kilometers of conveyors, various stages the creation of parts (stamping, welding, painting, etc.) are organized into so-called "process villages" - places where equipment of the same type is grouped or similar processes are performed. Then this type of organization of production was adopted at more than 50 factories, and subsequently received a truly worldwide distribution.

1930s

1930 - Takt Time. For the first time, German aircraft companies introduce the concept of "takt time" to synchronize the movement of aircraft through the shop during assembly operations: each major section or the entire aircraft must move to the next station after a set period of time. To determine the exact takt time, it is necessary to accurately analyze the cycle time that passes from the beginning of the process to its completion. Mitsubishi learned about this system through a technology partnership with German aircraft manufacturers and brought it to Japanese manufacturing, where Toyota also took advantage of it.

1937 - Just- in- Time(Right on time). When Kiichiro Toyoda founded Toyota Motor Company, he had the idea of just-in-time deliveries of parts and accessories. But the lack of stability in production and relationships with suppliers prevented the implementation of his plans.

1941-1945 - Training within the industry. The US Department of Defense provides job briefings, work organization and labor relations training, and programs to educate and train millions of workers in the military-related industries. These methods were also introduced to Japan after the end of the war and eventually adopted by Toyota as a standard of operation.

1950s - Kanban and Supermarkets. Taiichi Ohno designs practical method implementation of Kiichiro Toyoda's vision of just-in-time delivery of components.

1960s -Lean-management. Under the leadership of Agee Toyoda, Toyota Motor Company is gradually developing a production management system with a new approach to solving production problems, leadership, production activities, supplier cooperation, customer support, product development and production processes.

1960 - Deming Prize. The Japanese Union of Scientists and Engineers establishes the Deming Prize to encourage Japanese companies to adopt statistical quality assurance methods and use Deming cycle: Plan-Do-Check-Act (Planning-Execution-Check-Impact).

1965 - Mass production management. Alfred Sloan publishes a book « My years at General Motors» ("My Years with General Motors") for detailed description the principle of management based on scorecards (manage-by-metrics), developed by him while working at General Motors from the 1920s to the 1950s. Just at this time, Toyota entered the world market, becoming a serious rival to GM.

1965 - Quality as a key element of the management system. Toyota receives the Deming Award after a years-long campaign to train each of its managers to solve production problems using the scientific method based on the Deming cycle.

1970s

1973 - SystematizationTPS. Fujio Cho and Y. Sugimori, together with colleagues, create the first manual for the Toyota Production System for internal use.

1977 - Start spreading the basicsTPS. Fujio Cho, Y. Sugimori and others publish the first article in English - in a British engineering magazine - explaining the logic behind the Toyota Production System.

1979 - First academic research. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology launches the Future of the Automotive Program (since 1985, the International Motor Vehicle Research Program) to explore new methods for developing and manufacturing Japanese products.

1980s

1982 - Full descriptionTPS. Yasuhiro Monden's book "Toyota Production System" has been translated into English language and published in the USA by the Institute of Industrial Engineers, which was the first description of the entire Toyota Production System provided to the world community.

1983 - Direct distribution. Toyota and General Motors set up a joint venture near San Francisco, New United Motors Manufacturing (NUMMI), which has become a platform for direct dissemination of TPS ideas outside of Japan.

1987 - EmergenceLean. John Krafchik, a young scientist at MIT's International Automotive Industry Research Program, proposes a new term for a manufacturing system, product development, joint work with suppliers, customer support, quality issues and management methods offered by Toyota - LEAN.

late 1980s - Widespread. Numerous writers (Robert Hall, Richard Schonberger, Norman Bodek) and consultants (former members of the Toyota Autonomous Research Group such as Yoshiki Iwata and Chihiro Nakao) are promoting LEAN far beyond Japan.

1990s - Publications. Numerous articles, books and manuals have been published on production description, product development, supplier collaboration, customer support and global management system, initiated by leading companies in Japan and providing convincing evidence competitive advantage proposed system (“The Machine That Changed the World”, “Lean Thinking”, “Learning to See”, etc.). Described key concepts(value, value stream, in-line production, pull, continuous improvement, etc.), highlights the stories of companies in Europe, Japan and North America, which, like Toyota, have achieved success in introducing a new production concept, develops recommendations applicable to any enterprise .

21 CENTURY

2000s - Global promotion. Dozens of organizations around the world are promoting the new philosophy of production, management and development through publications, seminars and training programs.

2007 - TOYOTA- №1. For the first time in history, Toyota overtakes General Motors to become the world's largest and most successful automaker. commercial organization last 50 years.

The unity of different concepts in their pursuit common purpose- the creation of flexible, efficient, competitive production - history itself confirms. That is why the business portal "Production Management" took the path of unification various concepts under the auspices of the upper concept - "Production System", as does most of the industry and regional alliances, associations, unions in Germany, Japan, and the USA. And therefore, to the enterprises that implement the Production System, we include all those who develop:

Quality management system (not limited to ISO);

production system;

Logistics system (internal and external);

TOYOTA PRODUCTION SYSTEM;

Principles of Lean Manufacturing;

Lean management approaches;

KAIZEN, 5S, TPM, KANBAN, JIT systems;

PPS system (planning and production management);

SCM concept (supply chain management);

Cost optimization and loss minimization system.

Over the years, the concept of Production Systems has already proven itself, and its success in increasing the efficiency of the enterprise does not require proof. It went beyond the automotive industry, finding its application in energy, metallurgy, agriculture, military, chemical, food and many other industries. Over the past decades, the concept has been developing at a rapid pace, and companies in the USA and Germany, whose economy is built on small and medium-sized businesses, have achieved particular success in this direction. It is these enterprises operating in a competitive environment that have now become the driving force for the further evolution of Production Systems into new forms that better meet the changing requirements of the economic environment - Holistic, Flexible or Transformational Production Systems. And this development is unstoppable.

So you should not elevate the Toyota Production System to the rank of a universal one, but learn to choose from a variety of tools, concepts, methods and approaches, combined in a capacious and multifaceted concept of "Production System", what will suit your enterprise - with its unique conditions and tasks, history and strategy, strengths and weaknesses.

Note:

Venetian Arsenal- an integrated enterprise for the construction and equipment of warships, including forges, shipyards, armories and various workshops, founded in Venice in 1104, to equip warships required for the Crusades, in which the Venetian Republic participated.

Text: Natalia Konoshenko

Adapted from Lean Enterprise Institute, "Breakthrough Moments in Lean"

The distant ancestors of man were large apes who lived in the Miocene epoch (22-5 million years ago). These were ordinary animals, in principle no different from living monkeys. And in physical appearance, and in habitat, and in way of life, they were closest to the modern chimpanzee. These ancient anthropoids lived in the forest, lived in the trees. However, being mostly arboreal animals, they spent about half of their time on the ground.

In the future, some of them from a semi-arboreal, semi-terrestrial way of life passed to a purely terrestrial one. Some scientists attribute this transition to climate change, which led to the thinning of forests. Others argue that this transition was most likely associated with the emergence of specialized, purely arboreal forms of apes, with which it was difficult for anthropoids, who remained unspecialized, to compete. This prompted non-specialized anthropoids to move to the ground in search of food, where they had previously spent a significant part of their time.

Ancient large apes were not distinguished by great physical strength, and therefore life on earth was fraught with considerable dangers for them. They could become easy prey for predators. The adaptation of one part of them to a terrestrial way of life went along the line of gigantism - an increase in the size of the body and, accordingly, physical strength, and the improvement of natural weapons. Among the fossil monkeys, examples of this are the giant driopithecus and gigantopithecus, from modern ones - the gorilla.

The development of another part of the large anthropoids acquired a completely different character. As already mentioned, modern chimpanzees use natural objects (stones, sticks) as tools. This activity can be called pre-instrumental. It does not play any significant role in the life of a chimpanzee. It can be assumed that the situation was exactly the same with our Miocene ancestors. But the situation changed when they were forced to begin the transition to land.

That part of them, the development of which did not go along the line of gigantism, more and more began to compensate for physical weakness and insufficiency of natural weapons by using sticks and stones to protect against predators. With the transition of these animals to a completely terrestrial way of life, the importance of proto-tool activity continuously increased. And when they finally descended to earth, they could no longer exist without using - and systematically - various natural objects as tools.

The transition from the random use of tools to the systematic one required and assumed the release of the forelimbs from the function of locomotion. Thus, uprightness arose. In turn, walking on the hind limbs contributed to the increase in the importance and improvement of the proto-tool activity.

As they adapted to life on earth, these creatures gradually left the forest and mastered open areas - savanna woodland and savannah. The systematic use of natural tools seems to have been driven primarily by the need for protection from predators. However, these guns very soon, and perhaps immediately, began to be used for the attack.

As already noted, modern chimpanzees in natural conditions kill animals from time to time. There can hardly be any doubt that the same was true of the anthropoids of the Miocene. As we moved from the forest to the savannah, the conditions for hunting became more and more favorable. An obstacle to the transformation of chimpanzees into predators was the lack of natural weapons. In the Miocene great apes, it was removed by the transition to the systematic use of stones and sticks. From an accident, like a chimpanzee, hunting became the rule, and then turned into a vital necessity.

Thus, mostly herbivorous animals became predators, albeit peculiar ones. Unlike other predators, they hunted with tools. Another feature was that these predators were not only carnivorous creatures: they continued to feed on plants, i.e. were omnivores.

As a result, about 5-6 million years ago, part of the Miocene anthropoids gave rise to creatures that were different from all other animals. They walked on their hind limbs, systematically using sticks and stones for protection and hunting. But these creatures were not human. They were not engaged in the manufacture of tools and did not produce anything. The term prehumans characterizes them most precisely. The remains of prehumans were first found in South Africa. Therefore, they were called Australopithecus (from Latin australis - southern, and Greek pitekos - monkey). Later they were found in East Africa.

2.2.2. The emergence and evolution of industrial activity. Late prehumans (habilises) and early prohumans (archanthropes)

It can hardly be doubted that prehumans used sticks, bones of large animals, horns and stones as tools. It is very possible that the stones were used to protect against predators, in the process of hunting. Most likely, the stones were used for skinning, cutting, butchering meat, crushing bones. It was possible to skin and cut the meat only with the help of stones with sharp edges. And it was not easy to find such stones.

However, this does not mean that all of them consider any producing creature to be a human being. In particular, many anthropologists do not consider the habilis to be human on the grounds that the habilis do not differ significantly from Australopithecus in their morphological organization, including the structure of the brain. If no tools were found with the habilis, no one would doubt that the habilis are animals.

Thus, the line separating the human morphological organization from the animal one does not pass between Australopithecus and Habilis, but between Habilis and Archanthropes. Only with the transition to the archanthropes began to form such specific human characteristics as thinking, will, language. The brain of the habilis was generally typical of Australopithecus. The existence of the rudiments of thinking and language among archanthropes is confirmed by the peculiarities of the structure of their brain. They recorded the appearance of foci of intensive growth in the areas of the brain associated with the implementation of specific human functions, in particular, speech.

The forms of tools at this stage were extremely diverse. This does not at all indicate a high level of development of stone technology, the existence of various improved methods of stone processing. On the contrary, the variety of forms of tools was a consequence of the underdevelopment of production activity. Due to the fact that it was not strong-willed, conscious, its results largely depended not so much on the manufacturer's own efforts, but on a random combination of circumstances. There were no rules of action that would predetermine the shape of the guns. As a result, among these ancient tools it is difficult to find those that would be similar to each other in everything.

At a certain stage, a necessary condition for the further progress of stone technology was the emergence of thinking, will, and thus language, the transformation of the activity of making tools into a conscious and volitional one. This is what happened with the transition from the Habilis to the Pithecanthropes. The shape of the tools now increasingly began to depend not so much on the coincidence of circumstances, but on the actions of the manufacturer. The worker imprinted the imprint of his will on the stone, gave the material the desired shape. As a result, each form of tools is now represented in a set with a large number of standardized specimens.

A striking example of the first standardized tool is a hand axe. If the remains of habilis were found only in Africa, then parts of the skeletons and stone tools of archanthropes are found in a vast territory stretching from Northern China and Java in the east to the African and European coasts of the Atlantic in the west. And wherever there are hand axes, they are distinguished by an extraordinary similarity.

This does not in the least contradict the labor theory of anthropogenesis, but, on the contrary, fully confirms it. Only the emergence of labor activity could lead to the emergence of man and society. Labor, indeed, created man, but not immediately. It took about 1 million years for the development of production activity to lead to the transformation of animals into the first, still emerging people, and their associations into an emerging society. And it took another 1.6 million years for the development of industrial activity to lead to the emergence of mature people and a true society.

Economic, and indeed all social relations are immaterial, incorporeal. It is possible to reconstruct the process of their formation based only on indirect data. Among such data, first of all, are materials on associations of monkeys.

EVOLUTION OF PRODUCTION SYSTEMS

Pustov Alexander
June, 2007

Evolution production systems moved in the direction of cost reduction. The first stage of evolution was the transition to mass production. For the first time, the concepts of component interchangeability and the principle of flow were applied at Ford factories. Mass production allowed for economies of scale, but it was designed to produce a limited number of models. For Ford, this was beneficial, because. it had a huge American and international market at its disposal. However, for small markets this was unacceptable.

The next stage in the evolution of manufacturing comes at a time when Toyota, constrained by resources due to the recently ended World War II, is adapting the idea of mass production to the Japanese market, also weakened after the war. The Just-in-time system appears, which eliminates excess inventory, thereby reducing costs. This system involves the production of small batches, which avoids overproduction and diversifies products.

The third stage of evolution is associated with the emergence of the "production cell". In the production cell, the product is manufactured from start to finish in one place. This results in cost savings. Creation production cells allows to develop high speed updates, because rebuilding a relatively small production cell is easier than rebuilding an entire company.

In the evolution of the production process, the operation of the Law of increasing the consistency of the system, which is included in the Laws of Development, is visible. technical systems.

The law of increasing consistency lies in the fact that in the process of development there is a consistent coordination of the characteristics of the parts of the system among themselves, as well as the system and its parts with the supersystem.

The production process evolves through the mechanism of "coordination of action". The increase in the consistency of an action occurs in different ways depending on the type of action that occurs with the increase in consistency and the type of resource on which the efficiency of the system depends (Fig. 1).

Fig.1. Options for the Law of Increasing Consistency

The evolution of the production system enhances the useful effect of the system, i.e. increase profits, and the efficiency of the system depends on the relative amount of resources involved, i.e. resources spent on the production of a unit of output. Thus, evolution takes place along the path volume - plane - line - point.

According to ZRTS, at the beginning of the existence of a system, the interaction of resources with the action of the system occurs in volume. Interaction in volume is characterized by a change in the system parameter along three axes. As soon as the parameter is fixed along one of the axes, the interaction goes into plane. When the next parameter on the other axis is fixed - in line. When all parameters of the system are fixed along three axes, it has reached the fourth stage and the highest point of its development. In this case, the resource action contact is said to have passed to point.

The axes of the manufacturing process system are shown in Figure 2.

To describe the operation of the law of increasing consistency, it is necessary to choose axes that have a quantitative dimension. The following axes have been chosen:

1. Relocation of resources, which ensures the movement of the flow of resources in production (for example, the movement of parts).

2. Quantity resource reserves, which provides a constant replenishment of the flow of resources (for example, stocks of parts in warehouses).

3. Time spent on changing processes, those. the time needed to introduce innovations and innovations in production processes to improve the efficiency of resource use.

Let us examine in more detail how the coordination took place along each of the axes.

Production is the process of converting stocks of raw materials and materials into stocks. finished products. Initially, the production process was a set of operations assigned to one worker. That is, one worker was involved in several levels of production. The lack of specialization did not allow workers to reduce the time to produce a unit of output and, consequently, increase the efficiency of production as a whole. The use of machines was in second place. Machines in factories were often inconsistent, far apart, and parts moved between them inefficiently. Therefore, the reason for the inefficiency of production was the incorrect planning of the functioning of resources.

In the process of evolution, the main parameter of the system changes - the amount of resources spent on the production of a unit of output. Because the system develops in the direction of increasing ideality; in the process of system development, the value of the main parameter should decrease. Resources include parts and labor. Those. the efficiency of resource use should be improved.

In the process of evolution of the production system, resources are coordinated with fixed assets. Coordination is carried out according to the following parameters:

1. parameters for the resource " work force": professional skills, creativity.

2. parameters for the resource "components": speed of the flow of parts, stock of parts.

3. parameters for fixed assets: - location of machines, productivity of machines.

So, the first axis is the movement of resources within the production process. When the main parameter on this axis was not yet fixed, contact occurred in volume.

Go to a contact in plane, i.e. to fixing the main parameter occurred when Henry Ford introduced the division of labor in his factories and successfully applied conveyor production for the first time. Each worker began to perform only one specific operation. By placing equipment and workers close together in sequence technological operations Specialized product paths have been created in the factory, minimizing manual and transport time and increasing efficiency. The movement of resources in space has become clearly fixed. Thus, at the first stage, professional skills are coordinated with the flow rate, the flow rate - with the location of the machines.

However, there were two major drawbacks to Ford's mass production. The first was immoderate inventory, both at the manufacturing stage and at the assembly stage. In production, the equipment required a long adjustment, and therefore the products were made at once in huge batches, and as a result there was an excessive stock. During assembly, the entire line could stop due to the fact that a breakdown occurred at one workplace, a quality defect was discovered, a lack of components, or other bad luck. To eliminate delays, large reserve or insurance stocks were created along the entire line. Thus, the second axis can be considered the number of stocks of resources (parts).

Go to contact by lines, i.e. fixing the amount of resources occurs with the introduction of the Just-in-time (JIT) method ("just in time") at Toyota's factories. The JIT method reduces costs by supplying the right parts in the right quantity to right time. The creation of a high value-added stream is done in the form of combating seven forms of production losses: overproduction, downtime, unnecessary transportation, excess inventory, excess non-productive operations and scrap. According to the JIT method, only two types of production operations remain: transportation, as an operation that ensures the movement of parts, and production, as the only operation that directly creates added value. That is, it appears line"transport-production". At the second stage, the coordination of professional skills with the flow rate, as well as the flow rate with the location of the machines, remains, the matching of the stock of parts with the productivity of the machines is added.

But the JIT system itself was not perfect. She did not pay enough attention to people and the development of their creative potential. Their connection with production was poorly established. This worsened the permeability of production processes and procedures, increased their resistance to change. We will consider the third axis as the time spent on changing the process.

To increase the speed of communication between processes and workers, workers needed to be given more freedom in choosing actions. This has been implemented through the work cell system, which includes also the principles of JIT.

A group of workers forms a single cell and assembles the product from start to finish, abandoning the system of mass production on the conveyor. The system of production cells allows you to increase labor productivity, using the independence and ingenuity of workers. In fact, there is a connection between processes and people. Contact of resources with the system goes to point, because the product is completely assembled in one place. To the parameters coordinated at the previous stages, the coordination of creativity with the flow rate and productivity of the machines is added.

Thus, the alignment goes the full way volume - plane - line - point. We can conclude that the evolution of production systems is complete.

conclusions

The evolution of production systems is analyzed, starting from "pre-assembly" production to the Toyota production system, which has the lowest costs in the industry.

It is shown that the evolution of production systems can be described by the law of increasing consistency, which is included in the laws of development of TRIZ technical systems. It is suggested that the evolution of production systems has reached its limit.

Bibliographic list

1. A. Lubomirsky, S. Litvin. "Laws of development of technical systems" - Boston, MA: GEN3 Partners, 2003.

2. www.artkis.ru.

3. Jeffy K. Liker, DAO TOYOTA - M.: Alpina Business Books, 2005.

Before human reflex labor, having arisen, in its development, sooner or later, inevitably had to reach such a limit beyond which its further improvement was impossible without the improvement of the tools used, i.e. without a transition to the manufacture of tools. The evolution of pre-human adaptive labor has made this transition not only necessary, but also possible, having prepared all the conditions for it.

In the activities of modern great apes (and not only great apes), one can observe diverse acts of "processing" various items with the help of teeth, hands and other organs of the body (Ladygina-Kote, 1959, pp. 92 pp., 127 pp.). Under experimental conditions, cases of the use by a monkey as means of labor of objects that were adapted to perform this function of this kind of processing were repeatedly observed (Kehler, 1930; G. Roginsky, 1948; Vatsuro, 1948; Ladygina-Kote, 1959). It is quite clear that such actions for processing objects cannot be characterized as labor, because they do not have tools of labor, except for direct processing, i.e. the processing of objects using only the organs of the body, in monkeys there were isolated cases of mediated processing, i.e. processing of some objects with the help of others. So, for example, monkeys used sticks to break glass, electric light bulbs, pick walls, etc. (Khilchenko, 1953, p. 52; Ladygina-Kote, 1959, p. 128 - 130, etc.). These acts also cannot be called labor, because they are not aimed at mastering the objects of needs and are purely playful in nature. To this we can add that as a result of such acts there are no objects that would be used in the future as tools of labor. Other acts of indirect processing of objects noted in monkeys are not actions for the manufacture of means of labor, although some of them, such as breaking nuts with stones by capuchins, can be called acts of reflex labor.

The use by the monkey as a means of labor of an object that would have been adapted to the performance of this function by the previous process of mediated processing has never been recorded by any researcher. All actions noted in monkeys for the "production" of means of labor are not acts of prehuman labor, all acts of reflex labor noted in them are not actions for the "production" of means of labor. Labor acts, which would represent actions for the "production" of tools, are completely absent in monkeys, although the possibility of achieving their implementation under experimental conditions, of course, cannot be ruled out.

The emergence and development of reflex labor firmly attached the functions of the means of labor to certain objects and made these objects necessary conditions for existence. Having become among the pre-humans the most important and necessary means of satisfying needs, the tool of labor itself became an object of need. The prehumans had a need for tools and a desire to have tools and use them. This need could not be satisfied by any object, because not every object can successfully function as a means of labor. From many objects, prehumans chose those that could successfully fulfill the role of a tool. These searches may not always lead to luck. Therefore, pre-humans, along with the search for suitable objects, inevitably had to deal with the adaptation of existing things to the performance of the functions of tools by pre-processing them.

This processing was originally carried out, probably, only by the organs of the body. But such processing could not be developed. Already the tree to a small extent lends itself to processing with the naked hands. As for the stone, its processing without the use of means of labor is practically impossible. The inefficiency of direct processing prompted a transition to indirect processing, to processing with the help of objects, to labor processing. The systematic use of tools, in the course of which the skills of their varied use were developed, made such a transition possible.

It can be assumed that initially only wood was processed, from which such hunting tools as clubs were made. Bones and jaws of large animals could be used as tools for working wood (Dart, 1957). However, the use of bones for wood processing could hardly have been developed. The only tools suitable for woodworking could only be stone ones. It was not only the need for tools suitable for woodworking that pushed the prehumans to use stone. Stone tools, more than any other, were suitable for performing such operations as skinning a dead animal, butchering its carcass, crushing bones (Tolstov, 1931, p. 79).

Most pieces of stone found in nature are of little use as working tools. Finding a stone fit to function as a tool is not always easy. This circumstance made it necessary to process the stone itself, to manufacture from it. tools suitable for processing wood and performing the above operations.

At first, stone processing was extremely primitive. Prehumans, apparently, simply hit one stone against another and picked up randomly obtained pieces of stone convenient for use as tools. The original stone processing technique was most likely the breaking technique. The opinion that breaking and splitting was the oldest method of stone processing is held by many archaeologists (Obermayer, 1913, p. 131; Ravdonikas, 1939.1, p. 194; Zamyatnin, 1951, p. 117; Panichkina, 1953, p. 13, 26; S. Semenov, 1957, p. 56). Having arisen as the initial method of stone processing, breaking was preserved for a long time along with more advanced methods, and among some peoples it has survived almost to our time. So, for example, the Tasmanians made tools by hitting a rock or other stone with a stone and choosing the most suitable ones from the resulting pieces. Throwing one stone at another, lying on the ground, the Tasmanian jumped back, spreading his legs wide so as not to be wounded by fragments (Roth Ling, 1899, p. 151; Piotrovsky, 1933, p. 168). Along with breaking, the Tasmanians also had more advanced techniques (Roth Ling, 1899, p. 150-152; Piotrovsky, 1933, p. 169; Efimenko, 1934a, p. 149-150).

The degree of suitability of the pieces of stone obtained by breaking for functioning as means of labor, the degree of perfection of the tools obtained in this way depended on the case. The results of such acts of making tools could not initially qualitatively differ from the results of the "processing" that stones could undergo under natural conditions, without the intervention of prehumans. Therefore, tools of this kind cannot be distinguished from pieces of stone that have undergone natural processing - eoliths. But although the tools obtained by the method of breaking could not originally differ from the pieces of stone found in nature, nevertheless, the appearance of the technique of breaking was a huge advance, for it could deliver pieces of stone suitable for use as tools in much more than they can be found in nature.

Prehumans, when they needed tools, didn't have to wander around in search of suitable stone shards or boulders. They could satisfy this need of theirs by breaking one stone after another and choosing from a large number of pieces received those that could serve as tools. Although pieces of stone suitable for use as tools constituted an insignificant part of all the stone fragments obtained as a result of this kind of processing, nevertheless, in this way, the need for tools could be satisfied sooner and more easily than by searching for such pieces of stone in nature.

Getting in comparatively in large numbers of stone tools suitable for woodworking, the manufacture of wooden tools, which were primarily hunting tools, became systematic. The use on a large scale of manufactured wooden hunting tools could not but contribute to the success of hunting. The result was an urgent need for manufactured wooden and thereby manufactured stone tools. The progress of hunting activities directly demanded the further development of the production of stone tools. More successful than before, hunting began to bring in an increasing number of carcasses of large animals, the butchering of which could only be successfully carried out with the help of artificial stone tools.

As a result of all this, the production of tools, both wooden and stone, gradually turned from an accident than it was before, into a rule, and then became a necessity. With the transformation of random, sporadic acts of production into necessity, with the beginning of the systematic and mass production of tools, a sharp turning point occurred in the development of reflex prehuman labor. If earlier reflex labor was the activity of appropriating objects of biological needs with the help of ready-made natural tools, now it has turned into a unity of two types of activity: the activity of making tools of labor and the activity of appropriating objects of needs with the help of these manufactured tools.

The activity of appropriating objects of need with the help of tools was animal labor both in form and in content. It was animal labor in content, for it was an adaptation to external environment; it was animal in form, for it was a reflex activity. Tool-making activities were also reflexive. In this sense, it was also reflex labor, animal labor. But, not differing in form from the previous activity in the use of natural tools, it differed from it in its content. In its content, it was not an animal activity, but a human one, it was not an animal labor, but a human one, for it was not the appropriation of ready-made objects of needs existing in nature, but the production of new objects that did not exist in nature, not adaptation to the external environment, but its transformation.

Thus, the original production activity was an extremely controversial phenomenon. In its content it was already human labor, but in its form it still remained animal labor, pre-human. The new content, human in its essence, was clothed in the old, animal in its essence, reflex form. Clothed in the old, animal form, the new content was human only in potential, in possibility, and not in reality. The original activity of making tools was human labor only in potentiality, in possibility, but in reality it was reflexive, pre-human labor. But, remaining pre-human, reflex labor, it represented a new form of it, different from the activity that preceded it in the use of natural tools. Two main stages can be distinguished in the development of prehuman reflex labor. The first stage is the era of the existence of such reflex labor, which is animal both in form and in content, labor is completely animal. The second stage is the epoch of the existence of such reflex labor, which is animal in form, human in content, which, while remaining in reality animal labor, pre-human, in the possibility was already human labor. Unlike purely animal, appropriating, adaptive labor, this form of reflex prehuman labor could be called transformative, productive prehuman labor.

The transition from the stage of adaptive reflex labor to the stage of transformative labor could not but affect those beings whose activity was the pre-human pile. Beings whose activity was transforming reflex labor could not but differ from beings whose activity was adaptive prehuman labor. Unlike the latter, they not only appropriated ready-made means of life, but also produced objects that did not exist in nature, not only adapted to the environment, but also transformed it. In this sense, they were already human. However, they cannot be called people, even developing ones, because their behavior was a reflex activity and, like any reflex activity, was determined by biological and only biological needs, instincts. They were not social beings, even emerging ones, but purely biological. In that sense they were animals. But these were such biological beings, such animals that came close to the line separating them from people, stood on this line. Although in reality they remained animals, biological beings, in potential, in possibility they were already human beings, social beings. Characteristic of these creatures was a sharp contradiction between their content in many respects is already purely human activity and its purely animal mechanism, their animal morphological organization.

To designate these creatures, even more than to designate their predecessors, the term “prehumans” (proanthropes, prehominids) is suitable. They directly, immediately preceded the emerging people. adaptive reflex labor, we will call prehumans of both those and others: some - early prehumans, others - late. A common feature that makes the first and second related and allows us to designate them by one term is that the main activity of both of them was prehuman reflex labor. The difference between them is that early prehumans only appropriated the objects of needs, only adapted to the environment, while later prehumans not only appropriated ready-made natural objects, but also produced new ones, not only adapted to the environment, but also transformed it.

The assumption of the existence of the stage of late prehumans finds its confirmation in the factual material, primarily in that which was delivered by the discoveries of the famous English explorer L. Leakey in the Oldowai Gorge in Tanganyika.

In 1959, an almost complete skull of a creature called the Zinjanthropus was discovered in the Oldowai I layer. Together with the skull, the remains of many small animals (rodents, lizards, etc.), bones of pigs and antelopes, as well as pebble tools belonging to the so-called Oldowan culture were found, which allowed L. Leakey to make the statement that the zinjanthropus was a creature that made tools and hunted animals. The study of the morphological features of the skull led L. Leakey to the conclusion that Zinjanthropus should be included in the Australopithecus subfamily as a special genus, different from both the Australopithecus genus and Paranthropus (Leakey, 1959, 1960a).

However, not all scientists agreed with the opinion of L. Lika. Most of them considered it more correct to classify Zinjanthropus as a Paranthropus (Washburn and Howell. 1960; Oakley, 1962; Robinson, 1962, 1963; Mayr, 1963; Napier, 1964b). In one of the works of J. Robinson, the zinjanthropus is characterized not only as a typical paranthropus, but also as a vegetarian (1962, p. 485), which, of course, does not agree well with the idea of him as a creature that made tools. Some scientists, in particular V.P. Yakimov (1960c), directly stated that the morphological features of Zinjanthropus are extremely contrary to the ability to make tools attributed to him. New discoveries later forced L. Lika himself to reconsider his views on Zinjanthropus.

In subsequent years, in the same layer of Oldowai I, but in a horizon located below where the find described above was made, the remains of a creature were found, which gradually got the name "prezinjan trail" (Leakey, 1960b, 196 la, 1961b) Already in fairly early publications, L. Leakey (1961b. 1963a) suggested that the prezinjanthropus, which differs from the zinjanthropus in both lesser specialization and a larger brain size, is not a representative of Australopithecus, but a hominin, and that it is in him that one should see the true creator pebble tools, not only those that were found with him, but also associated with the remains of Zinjanthropus.As for the Zinjanthropus itself, it was the object of hunting by the early hominins.This explains the connection of the skull with tools and animal bones (1963a , pp. 453-455) Subsequently, the remains of creatures similar, according to L. Lika and a number of other scientists, to the prezinjanthropus, were also found in the horizon lying below the one in which it was discovered prezinjanthropus, and in the one to which the find of zinjanthropus belongs, and finally in the lower horizons of Oldoway II (Leakey and Leakey, 1964). All this gave rise to L. Leakey, F. Tobias and J. Napier (Leakey, Tobias, Napier, 1964;

Tobias, 1964) to make the claim that all these finds form the new kind of the genus Homo, to which they gave the name "Homo habilis".

However, this statement was met with criticism by a number of scientists (Campbell, 1964; Robinson, 1965). Soon, one of the authors of the joint work mentioned above was forced to somewhat reconsider his positions. In an article published in the same year by F. Tobias and G. Koenigswald (Tobias, Koenigswald 1964), it was concluded that the remains from Oldoway I, on the one hand, and from the lower horizons of Oldoway II, on the other hand, belong to more than one type of hominid , but to two that are different from each other. The creatures from the lower horizons of Oldowai II belong to the same stage of human evolution as Pithecanthropus IV and the Thelanthropus, whom most researchers regard as the earliest humans. The creatures from Oldowy I represent a more primitive form. They form a special group of hominins, which have already risen above the Australopithecus stage, but have not yet reached the Pithecanthropus stage. Morphological data allow us to consider them as being on the hominid line, going from Australopithecus Africanus and possibly leading to Pithecanthropus. To the same stage, following the stage of Australopithecus and the preceding stage of Pithecanthropus, should, according to

F.Tobias and G.Koenigswald, the ancient Javanese meganthrope is also attributed. On the issue of the position of this group in the systematics, the opinions of the authors of the article differed. G. Koenigswald considers it as a special genus or at least a sub-genus, F. Tobias - as a species of the genus Homo.

J. Robinson (1965) spoke much more decisively. In his opinion, there are no grounds for singling out the Oldowan finds as a separate species (p. 121). Just like F. Tobias and G. Koenigswald, he distinguishes among them two morphologically distinct groups, one of which is formed by finds in Oldoway I, and the other - finds in the lower horizons of Oldoway II. The remains from Oldowai II show a great affinity for the telanthropus, undoubtedly, according to J. Robinson, being a man, and belong to the same stage as the latter, the earliest stage in human evolution. They represent the earliest forms of Homo erectus. The remains from Oldowai I show closeness not to the Pithecanthropus, but to the African Australopithecus and represent a group of Australopithecus, only a few advanced in their development compared to the rest. In morphological terms, the similarity between Australopithecus africanus and the remains from Oldoway I, on the one hand, and Homo erectus and the remains from Oldoway II, on the other, is much greater than between the finds at Oldoway I and the finds at Oldoway II. Morphological data speak in favor of assigning Oldowai I and Oldoway II to two different genera (p. 123). However, at the same time, there are features that bring together the finds in Oldoway I with the finds in Oldoway II and distinguish them from other Australopithecus. The creatures from Oldowai I made tools, while all other Australopithecus used them only (p. 123). They were at the stage of transition from the use of natural tools, which was essential for Australopithecus, to the manufacture of tools, characteristic of man (p. 123).

Apart from the fact that the creatures from Oldowy I are closer in their phology to australopithecines than to humans, the supporters of the isolation of Homo habilis could not pass by. So, for example, J. Napier (1964a, 1964c) directly admits that the hands of the creatures from Oldowai I have a “strangely inhuman” character (1964b, p. 88) and, considered by themselves, cannot in any way suggest their involvement to the manufacture of tools, even as primitive as the Oldowan ones (1964a, pp. 35-36), that the volume of the brain and many other features of the skull and dental system of these creatures, in principle, do not go beyond the limits of variations possible in Australopithecus (1964b, p. 89 As a result, in an effort to substantiate the allocation of Homo habilis, J. Napier emphasizes not so much the morphological differences between the creatures from Oldoway I and Australopithecus, but the undoubted fact that, unlike Australopithecus, they made tools, and not just used them.

Thus, the materials currently available about the creatures from Oldowai I allow us to draw two main conclusions: first, that they made tools; secondly, that in their morphological appearance they were still australopithecines, although they had already advanced towards man. This is exactly what the later prehumans were supposed to be. The productive activity that had arisen was not yet able at this stage to substantially transform the morphological organization of the prehumans, but it was already bound to leave its imprint on it to some extent. In favor of the assumption that the basis for a certain difference in the morphological organization of the creatures from Oldoway I from the morphological appearances of both Australopithecus and Paranthropus is primarily the difference in the nature of their activity from the nature of the activity of the latter, is also evidenced by the fact that there are no sufficient grounds to attribute to Australopithecus and Paranthropus the ability make tools. The finds of tools at Sterkfontein and Makapansgat belong to layers later than those in which the remains of the plesianthropus and Australopithecus Prometheus were found (Brain, Lowe, Dart, 1955; Dart, 1955b; Robinson, Mason, 1958; Robinson, 1962)1.

The discovery of creatures from Oldowai I, together with other available data on Australopithecus, leads to the conclusion that early prehumans gave rise to two branches of development. The development of one went along the line of abandoning the herd way of life and belittling the role of prehuman labor and ended with the emergence of imaginary prehumans, the most typical representative of which is Gigantopithecus. The development of the second went along the path of transition from adaptive labor to transformative reflex labor and led to the emergence of later prehumans, representatives of which, apparently, were found in Oldowai I.

The labor activity of later prehumans was not limited to reflex production. It represented, as indicated, the unity of two types of activity: the activity of making tools and the activity of appropriating the objects of needs with the help of manufactured tools. The activity of appropriating the objects of needs with the help of artificial tools, like the activity that preceded it of appropriating the objects of needs with the help of natural tools, was not a transformation of the environment, but an adaptation to it, was animal labor not only in form, but also in content. At the same time, it differed from its predecessor. This difference consisted in the fact that it was mediated by activity in the manufacture of tools, production activity. The activity of appropriating objects of biological needs with the help of artificial tools was an adaptation to the external environment, but one that was mediated by production, the transformation of the external environment.

As a result of the emergence of activity in the manufacture of tools and the bifurcation of a single labor activity into production and adaptation to the external environment, which appropriates success, began to increasingly depend on the level of development of production activity. The improvement of production activity has become an important condition for the improvement of activity in adapting to the external environment, in satisfying biological instincts, and has become a necessary condition for the existence of later prehumans. But the development of productive activity differed significantly from the development of adaptive labor activity.