How did ancient mammoth hunters live? Educational program from the head of the archeology department of the Kunstkamera

Niramin - Jun 6th, 2016

The main occupation of primitive people was getting their own food. They wandered after large animals, collecting nuts, berries and various roots. And when they succeeded, they went hunting.

Prehistoric people were very good hunters. They learned to drive animals into traps. Watery swamps or deep ditches served as traps. A group of hunters, with noise, shouts and fire, drove the animal straight into the pit. When an animal fell into a ditch, the hunters could only finish it off and celebrate their catch.

Mammoths are huge animals; they were larger and heavier than modern elephants. Mammoth tusks could reach a length of 4 m and a weight of 100 kg. Scientists believe that mammoths used their tusks as snow plows to dig grass out from under the snow for food.

Killing one mammoth could feed hunters for two months. Moreover, not a single part of the animal carcass was wasted. The meat was used for food, and what people could not eat right away was dried and stored in storerooms. They made warm clothes from the skin and built huts. Bones were used as tools and weapons, as well as in the construction of huts.

The process of hunting a mammoth was often depicted in primitive rock paintings of tribes of that time. There is an opinion that people depicted in the drawings those animals that they worshiped or hunted. Thus, painting served as a kind of magical ritual, as if the image would attract a real animal during a hunt.

The hunt of primitive people for mammoths - in the pictures and photos below:

Photo: Rock painting of a mammoth.

Photo: Hut made of mammoth bones in the Paleontological Museum of Kyiv.

Video: 10,000 BC (1/10) Movie CLIP — The Mammoth Hunt (2008) HD

Video: 10,000 BC (2/10) Movie CLIP – Killing the Mammoth (2008) HD

The life of ancient man was very difficult and dangerous. Primitive tools, constant struggle for survival in a world of predators, and even ignorance of the laws of nature, inability to explain natural phenomena- all this made their existence difficult, full of fear.

First of all, a person needed to survive, and, therefore, get food for himself. They hunted mainly large animals, most often mammoths. How did ancient people hunt with simple tools?

How the hunt took place:

• Ancient people hunted only together, in large groups.
• First, they prepared so-called pit traps, at the bottom of which they placed stakes and poles so that the animal that fell there could not get out, and people could finish it off to the end. People studied well the habits of mammoths, who went approximately the same way to a watering hole to a river or lake. Therefore, holes were dug at the places where mammoths moved.
• Having discovered the beast, people screamed and drove it from all sides into this hole, once in which the beast could no longer escape.
• A captured animal became food for a long time for a group of people, a means of survival in these terrible conditions.

Imagining the picture of how primitive people hunted, one can understand how dangerous hunting was for them; many died in battles with animals. After all, the animals were huge and strong. Thus, a mammoth could only kill a person with a blow from its trunk and trample him with its massive feet if it caught up with him. Therefore, one can only wonder how they hunted mammoths with only sharpened sticks and stones in their hands.

Teenagers who have read books about the life of primitive people are sure that there are no secrets in this hunt. It's simple. Bristling with spears, the savages surround the huge mammoth and deal with it. Until recently, many archaeologists were convinced of this. However, new discoveries, as well as analysis of previously made findings, force us to rethink the usual truths. Thus, archaeologists from the Institute of Primitive and early history at the University of Cologne, they studied 46 sites and hunting sites of Neanderthals in Germany, and examined thousands of animal bones found here. Their conclusion is clear. Ancient hunters were very prudent people. They weighed all the consequences of their actions, and therefore were in no hurry to rush at the huge beast. They deliberately selected prey of a certain type, and attacked individuals that weighed less than a ton. The list of their trophies includes wild horses, deer, and steppe bison. At least, this was the case 40–60 thousand years ago (this is the age of the studied finds). But it was not only the choice of victim that was important. Primitive people did not wander aimlessly through forests and valleys in the hope that they would get lucky. No, hunting became for them something like a military operation that had to be carefully prepared. It was necessary, for example, to find a place in the forest or steppe where it would be possible to strike the enemy with the least losses. The steep banks of the rivers were a real find for the “Lovitva commanders.” Here the ground suddenly disappeared from under the feet of the intended victim. The invisible spirits of the rivers seemed to be ready to help the people who came here in everything. It was possible to hide near a watering hole and, jumping out from an ambush, finish off the unwary animals. Or wait near the ford. Here, stretched out in a chain, the animals, one after another, carefully probing the bottom, move to the other side. They move slowly, cautiously. At these moments they are very vulnerable, which both Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals knew well when they collected their bloody catch. The cunning and prudence of the ancient hunters is easily explained by their weakness. Their opponents were animals that sometimes weighed ten times more than they did. And they had to fight in close combat, staying close to the beast, enraged with pain and fear. After all, before the invention of the onion to primitive man it was necessary to get close to the prey. The spears struck from about fifteen meters away, no further. They used a pike to beat the beast from about three meters away. So, if an operation “Ford” or “Waterhole” was planned, the fighters had to hide somewhere behind the bushes, close to the water, in order to reduce the distance separating them from the beast to the limit with one jump. Composure and precision meant life here. Haste and failure are death. To rush, as if in a bayonet attack, with a sharpened stick at an adult mammoth is like death. But people hunted in order to survive. The myth about the brave men who, with a spear in their hand, blocked the path of ancient elephants, was born immediately after the Second World War. It did not arise out of nowhere. In the spring of 1948, in the town of Lehringen, in Lower Saxony, during construction work, the skeleton of a forest elephant that died 90 thousand years ago was discovered. A spear lay between the animal’s ribs, said amateur archaeologist Alexander Rosenstock, who was the first to examine the find. This spear, which broke into eleven pieces, has since been considered the main argument of those who depicted the insane courage of primitive people. But did that memorable hunt take place? A recent study has refuted the obvious findings. In that distant era, at the place where the remains of the elephant were discovered, there was the edge of a lake. It was connected by channels with other surrounding lakes. The current rolled objects that fell into the water, for example the same spear, transferring them from one place to another. It looks like they weren't even going to hunt with this spear. Judging by the blunt end, they dug the ground on the shore, and then dropped it into the water, and the current carried it into the lake, where it rested on the carcass of an animal that blocked its path. If there was a hunt that day, there was nothing heroic about it. Dying on the shore of the lake old elephant. His legs gave way and his body sank to the ground. A young man resolutely emerged from the crowd of people watching from afar the last convulsions of the beast. I took the spear. Got closer. I looked around. Hit. Nothing dangerous. The elephant didn't even move. With all his strength he drove a spear into him. He waved to the others. You can cut up the prey. This is also a plausible scenario. What about the other finds? Torralba in Spain, Gröbern and Neumark Nord in Germany - skeletons of mammoths killed by people were also found here. However, the first impression was again deceptive. Having re-examined the animal bones, archaeologists discovered only characteristic traces of their processing stone tools- obviously, traces of cutting up carcasses, but this in no way proves that primitive people personally killed this prey. After all, the thickness of the skin of an adult mammoth, which reached approximately 4 meters in height, ranged from 2.5 to 4 centimeters. With a primitive wooden spear it was possible, at best, to inflict laceration the animal, but not to kill it - especially since the “right of the next blow” remained with the enraged elephant. And was the game worth the candle? In fact, the mammoth was not such a profitable prey. Most of his carcass would simply rot. “Neanderthals were smart people. They wanted to get the maximum amount of meat with a minimum risk for themselves,” archaeologists unanimously note. Neanderthals lived in small groups of 5–7 people. In the warm season, such a tribe needed half a month to eat 400 kilograms of meat. If the carcass weighed more, the rest would have to be thrown away. Well, what about anatomically? modern man, settled in Europe 40 thousand years ago? It is not for nothing that he is a “reasonable being” by definition. Maybe he knew the secrets of hunting mammoths? Archaeologists from the University of Tübingen examined the bones of mammoths found in caves near Ulm, where the sites of the people of the Gravette culture were located (by the time it arose, the Neanderthals had already become extinct). Analysis of the findings gave an unambiguous result. In all cases, carcasses of baby mammoths aged from two weeks to two months were cut up. Employees of the Paris Museum of Natural History explored another site of people of the Gravette culture, located in the town of Milovic in the Czech Republic. The remains of 21 mammoths were discovered here. In seventeen cases these are cubs, and in another four they are young animals. The Miloviche site was located on the slope of a small valley, the bottom of which was made of loess. In the spring, when baby mammoths were born, the frozen ground thawed, and the loess turned into a mess in which the young mammoths got stuck. Their relatives could not help them. The hunters waited for the herd to leave and then finished off the prey. Perhaps people deliberately drove mammoths into this “swamp”, frightening them with torches. But what about the brave men? Was there really no one who, with a spear at the ready, desperately rushed at the mammoth, not sparing his belly? There must have been some brave souls too. Only heroes - they are heroes to die young, for example, under the feet of an angry elephant. We, in all likelihood, are the descendants of those prudent hunters who could wait in ambush for days until a lone mammoth calf died in the trap where it fell. But we, their descendants, are alive, and what remains of the heroes is usually only a memory.

Mammoths and bipeds

Winter. For a long time bygone times glaciations in the highlands of North-East Yakutia. The flat, sometimes slightly hilly plain is covered with white snow. The dazzlingly bright rays of the sun play with multi-colored sparkles on this snowy white silence. In the weak wind, the yellow heads of rare cereals, protruding from under the snow, quietly sway. An arched outline is noticeable in the distance long lake- old women. A herd of mammoths calmly grazes on its bend. Each of them resembles in size a huge cart or haystack, placed on four thick logs. But among them there are also very playful, active young animals of much smaller size. Not inferior in size to modern large bulls, the “kids” start amusing offensive-retreat games and run around their majestic relatives.

It's quiet and peaceful around. The giants of these expanses, deftly wielding their huge tusks, rake away the snow, and with their powerful jaws chew the withered grass and coarse shrubby vegetation extracted from under the snow.

But the silence on the snowy plain and the undisturbed peace of the mighty mammoths turned out to be deceptive. Patiently and quietly behind them Wise and treacherous two-legged creatures - people - closely watched. Hunters dressed in animal skins suddenly jumped out from behind the hills with deafening screams. The leader of the mammoths let out an alarming roar and led his herd away from the people - to the lake. The hunters' cunning trick worked: the animals ran towards their certain death. As soon as they began to cross the lake covered with ice and snow, terrible cracks appeared under their feet. The maddened animals instinctively gathered into a dense crowd. The half-meter ice could not withstand the weight of the animals accumulated in one place, and the entire herd of mammoths ended up in deep water. ice water. The mighty animals, in mortal horror, began to crush each other, floundering in the water, turning over multi-ton blocks of ice like light toys. The weak animals found themselves under water, and the strong ones furiously beat the edge of the ice with flexible trunks and strong tusks. But soon their strength ran out. An entire herd of mammoths perished and became the prey of savvy Stone Age hunters. The latter began to perform an unimaginably energetic ritual dance of good luck...

According to competent experts, the life of Stone Age tribes largely depended on the production of large animals. By hunting only small game they could not provide all the needs of their existence. People of the Stone Age, without having tools for hunting large animals, still knew the “Achilles heel” of such gregarious and heavy animals as mammoths. They were excellent at hunting mammoths and their companions (woolly rhinoceroses, bison, wild horses) by driving them through the ice.

Modern people The huge accumulations of bones are surprising - cemeteries of mammoths of different ages. Scientists put forward different versions the solution to this mystery. Very valuable finds often appear on the table of specialists - scraps of red, dark gray or black wool, bones with dried tendons. Occasionally, scientists get entire skeletons and remains of the corpses of mammoths, rhinoceroses, fossil bison and horses. Researchers study stone or bone arrowheads and spears of Stone Age hunters, argue about the methods and techniques of hunting, and are surprised at the ability of primitive people to survive in extreme conditions icing.

Starting from the Stone Age, humanity passed through the Bronze and Iron Ages.

In human history, the Stone Age is approximately two million years old or a little more. Then people coexisted first with ancient elephants, then with mammoths and other giants who lived during the Quaternary glaciation.

According to research by P. Wood, L. Vachek et al. (1972), 400-500 thousand years ago in the European part of the world people hunted ancient elephants. On the territory of Yakutia (including the primitive people of Diring-Yuryakh), hunting tribes appeared about 35 thousand years ago. Before the complete disappearance of mammoths from the face of the earth, they at least hunted them for at least 250 centuries. IN glacial period in search of prey, these tribes spread to North America.

Did people kill mammoths?

Scientists have long ago agreed by default that modern man is the main enemy of all life on Earth. As it turned out, this is hereditary for him. According to American archaeologist Todd Sorovil, it was people who made a decisive contribution to the disappearance of mammoths from our planet.

Until now, it was believed that ancient mammals became extinct as a result of sudden climate change that occurred between 50 and 100 thousand years ago. Then two thirds of the animals died. Meanwhile, according to Sorovil, natural disasters played only a minor role in this. The scientist made his shocking conclusions based on a study of 41 areas in which the bones of elephant ancestors were found. Having compared these places, he discovered an interesting pattern: mammoths died out much faster where there were sites of ancient people nearby. In those areas where people did not have time to settle, the natural death of mammoths occurred much later.

Despite the absence in those time immemorial greenhouse effect and ozone holes, people, it turns out, coped well and without costs National economy. Although there was no global fur market then, mammoth skins were in great demand - apparently, this was the main attire of our prehistoric ancestors. And mammoth meat was perhaps the main delicacy. Moreover, they had to get it all on their own - active hunting ultimately led to the complete destruction of the “hairy elephants.”

http://www.utro.ru/articles/2005/04/12/427979.shtml

American scientists have dealt a crushing defeat to scientific opponents studying the reasons for the disappearance of mammoths from the face of the Earth, pointing out the absurdity of the assumption that they fell victim to the gastronomic intemperance of our ancestors. IN last years the unfortunate fact of the discovery of an extremely small number of complete skeletons of these fossil animals was explained by the fact that most of them fell under the primitive cutting knife. Other hypotheses, such as: ecological catastrophy or a deadly epidemic - were rejected as untenable.

But the Americans rehabilitated their ancestors. On international conference In Hot Springs, a researcher with the strikingly appropriate surname Firestone declared that it was not animal disease or human gluttony that killed the mammoths. They ceased to exist as a result of the activity of a supernova, which brought down a hail of radioactive meteorites on the Earth.

Until now, speaking about the disappearance of mammoths, scientists agreed on one thing - they completely died out 11-13 thousand years ago; everything else was just speculation. Richard Firestone voiced his. About 41 thousand years ago, a supernova appeared at a distance of 250 light years from Earth. First it reached our planet cosmic radiation, followed by a stream of ice particles that began to bombard the mammoth's habitat.

The Americans even found traces of this radiation, for which they had to go to Iceland and delve into marine sediments. Having dug to the right layers, they discovered an unusually high concentration of C-14 carbon, which was explained by the influence of radiation from that same ill-fated supernova. And in the layers corresponding to the period of the untimely death of mammoths, radioactive pieces of ice were discovered.

It should be noted that Mr. Firestone was so kind that he did not completely destroy all other hypotheses about the causes of the death of mammoths. With full confidence, he declared that only the inhabitants of North America fell from cosmic influence. However geographical position Iceland, namely: its equidistance from the North American continent and Eurasia, still leaves no reason to blame excessively voracious primitive people for the death of mammoths.

As the most ancient religious scripture tells us, “The earth was formless and empty, and darkness was over the deep, and the Spirit of God hovered over the waters.” But, however, let’s leave the consideration of religious texts to theologians and approach the matter as ordinary atheists, because it is difficult for a deeply religious person to be absolutely impartial in science.

The most common misconception

The most common misconception: an atheist is a person who denies the existence of God.

Theism is a doctrine about God, and it is opposed by another doctrine - atheism; it is not based on the denial of God, but simply excludes him from its explanation of the world. The spirit of antitheism is alien to atheism; it does not proclaim the struggle with God as its task.

But the concept of God exists, just as the concepts of logic, dialectics, conscience and the like exist, therefore to say that there is no God would be incorrect. But this concept is not part of the atheist's worldview. He is not guided by this concept in Everyday life, does not compare his actions, thoughts, feelings against it; his spiritual experiences take place outside the concept of God...

Personally, I can neither confidently deny nor confirm the existence of unknown forces that give us reason for mystical fantasies. In religious matters, the closest thing to me is the position of one great physicist, who said: “There is no God, but there is something much more serious.” Therefore, let us approach the matter somewhat atheistically, because it is difficult for a deeply religious person, as well as one who completely denies God, to be absolutely impartial in science.

In the book I do not affirm anything unconditionally, but if I assume something, it means that I have sufficient grounds for it. I always try to express myself precisely, so in the story you will find quite a lot of words expressing varying degrees of confidence: it seems, probably, perhaps, apparently, convinced...

The book is devoid of “scientific” in the academic understanding of the term, but this does not mean at all that it is based on the author’s naked imagination. No, it contains a lot of factual material, to which the author gives his own interpretation. For a better understanding of the author’s idea, I would like to immediately make two very important warnings.

First. The sequence presented in the book historical events in time coordinates is different, not the one generally accepted in historical science! The text must be read assuming that humanity has developed consistently, without leaps and regressive failures, because such a course of historical events is dictated by the logic of the development of human society. Therefore, do not try to immediately link the events presented to famous years, look for their place in the generally accepted system of chronological coordinates. You can do this later, but through the prism of my version.

And second. BY PUBLISHING THE BOOK THE AUTHOR DOES NOT PURSUIT ANY POLITICAL OR RELIGIOUS GOALS! THE CONVERSATION IS ONLY FOR THE GOOD OF TRUTH AND HUMANITY. QUOTES FROM RELIGIOUS BOOKS OR ORAL TRADES OF DIFFERENT TIMES AND PEOPLES ARE USED ONLY AS A SOURCE OF HISTORICAL INFORMATION.

Based on logic, common sense and knowledge of human nature, I want to outline my vision of the development of our civilization. By “our civilization” I mean the earthly classical one, first of all European history, from which Russian culture stems, from the Ancient World to the present day. The history of prehistoric man does not interest us.

While working on the book, I proceeded from the assumption that traditional history is familiar to the reader, and he is able to calmly and soberly analyze even the most unexpected hypotheses. But no mysticism, charlatanism, “flying saucers” or thoughts about the “other world” can be found in the book, this is purely historical research. Although some evidence real story more breathtaking than tales of the underworld!

For a person who is prejudiced or has a damaged psyche (Russophobe, anti-Semite, etc.), it is probably better not to read the book at all, so as not to get upset again. And I will try to tell the rest as interesting as possible, without lengthening the story as much as possible.

The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine!

How long ago did our planet appear? How many years has man existed on Earth? Is it possible to resolve historical mysteries, now considered unsolvable? Eat a whole army people who have devoted their entire lives to answering these and similar questions, and it would be dishonest on my part to take a piece of bread from them. But, on the other hand, I can’t help but notice that this “army” has given so many answers that, if desired, one can defend the correctness of one or a completely contrary judgment, and even obvious absurdity can be easily defended with references to authoritative sources. In general, as Byron wrote in Manfred, “Science is the exchange of some ignorance for another.” Therefore, I offer my thoughts with a light heart, without fear of being challenged. And who is undeniable? Only God, who in the beginning created the firmament of the earth, from which everything began.

“The earth was chaotic and empty, darkness spread over the abyss, and the Spirit of the Almighty hovered over the waters...”

(Beresheet, "Book of Genesis")

According to generally accepted ideas, the Earth is the fruit of internal space processes, the result of the “work” of the cosmos. A bright red clot of hot cosmic gases absorbs streams of flying stones and dust... Getting into this clot, the stones melt, hiss, and evaporate gases. Now the basalt, then the granite base appeared - the earth's solid (cast) - and the liquid component appeared; the young planet is covered with a kind of fog - the future air. The active phase of formation is replaced by gradual attenuation and cooling of the surface. This was the period of the emergence of biological life. Then - according to the same officially accepted ideas in science - primitive organisms appeared in the water, they crawled onto land and developed into different creatures, of two sexes at once: something became a dinosaur with a female dinosaur, something developed into a mammoth with a female mammoth, which -it became a creeping reptile with... well, with a female creature of the same species; and some cunning " gastropod“managed to turn into a monkey on land. She lived carefree for millions of years, but suddenly she wanted to work “by the sweat of her brow” - to plow the land, to get the harvest... And it was from her that man came... Everyone knows this version from school, and I will not analyze it in detail.

Recently, the following information circulated on the Internet: an international group of scientists, as a result of many years of work, came to the conclusion that the Earth was suitable for life immediately after its origin. They claim that our planet arose in its current form and since then has practically not changed its original appearance. According to researchers, the planet, immediately after its origin, was ready to shelter living beings, and all statements that at first the Earth was completely covered by oceans, and then the continental crust melted on it, where the inhabitants of the waters then got out, are erroneous.

In the rocks of the Western Australian Jack Hills mountain range (it is considered the oldest on Earth, its age is 4.4 billion years), the rare earth metal hafnium was discovered in combination with zirconium crystals. According to the analysis, scientists have established that the continental crust differs from that located under the oceans in structure and thickness and was formed 4.4–4.5 billion years ago, that is, almost immediately after the birth of the planet. Before this, it was believed that it gradually melted out of the oceanic one.

"It looks like the Earth formed in one moment," said one of the researchers, Stephen Moizis of the University of Colorado. Under his leadership, a study was conducted proving that water immediately appeared on the surface of the planet approximately 4.3 billion years ago, and did not condense from the atmosphere over 3.8 billion years, as previously thought.

“New data suggests that the Earth’s crust, oceans and atmosphere existed from the very beginning, and the planet was already suitable for life,” Moizis is convinced.

I don’t want to consider the question of human origins at all.

There are many conjectures on this score, up to the spontaneous appearance of the protein in the exosphere (the uppermost, near-cosmic layer of the atmosphere) and its settling on the surface of the planet. There are also hypotheses about the coming of man to Earth from other planets, for example from Sirius, Mars, Phaethon, and even suggest that from the satellites of Jupiter. But the question of the origin of man on Earth in no way concerns our topic, and therefore I immediately go to the given: once upon a time man arose.

Numerous ancient documents testify that initially the existence of man on our planet was truly heavenly: he did not know hunger, cold, disease... But it is also quite obvious that a period came when our ancestor suddenly became forced to fight for survival, for his existence and with many through efforts to get out of the state of animal relations with the outside world.

I leave outside the scope of my story the difficult path that ancient man had to go through. I can only note in passing that the official picture of the life of ancient man does not satisfy me at all. Moreover, it is largely illogical, unsubstantiated and harmful to building a correct idea of ancient world. For example, we know from school that ancient man hunted mammoths. And even the modern Big Encyclopedic Dictionary confirms this:

“MAMOTH is an extinct mammal of the elephant family. Lived in the 2nd half of the Pleistocene in Eurasia and North America. He was a contemporary of Stone Age man. Height 2.5–3.5 m. Weight 3–5 tons. Extinct at the end of the Pleistocene as a result of:

a) CLIMATE CHANGE and

b) HUNTING HIM MAN.

In northern Siberia, in the Kolyma basin, in Alaska and other places on the planet, mammoths with soft tissues, skin and wool preserved in permafrost layers were found.”

But let's think about it. The remains of mammoths are found all over the world: both in warm latitudes and in cold ones. What kind of “climate change” caused all the mammoths to become extinct overnight, during, as paleontologists say, “one cosmic minute”?

Let’s answer another question: “For what reason did ancient man need to hunt mammoths?” It’s hard to imagine a more meaningless activity! Firstly, even the skin of a modern elephant is up to 7 cm thick, and the mammoth also had a thick layer of subcutaneous fat. Try to use a stick and a stone to pierce the skin, which does not burst even from the tusks of five-ton males when they fight among themselves.

Secondly, even if you took such a skin from a dead mammoth, sew yourself a “suit” from it and run around in it, and I’ll see how long you can last.

Thirdly, mammoth meat is rough, stringy, and low in nutrition. Why did ancient man need to eat very tough mammoth meat, if there were plenty of fruits, vegetables, roots, fish in the rivers, as well as animals and birds with more tender meat?

Fourthly, in the paintings ancient hunt in history books, a poor mammoth sits dejectedly in a hole, and people throw stones at his head. Stupidity without comment. But here’s a hole... Who dug the hole? Even an average individual needed a hole of at least five to seven cubic meters. Try to dig a hole for at least a baby elephant. Don’t take an iron shovel; it didn’t exist then.

Fifthly, the mammoth must also be directed and driven into the pit. Mammoths, like elephants, are herd animals. For the sake of an experiment, gather all your friends and try, with sticks in your hands, to approach and recapture the herd of wild African elephants(still, by the way, not tamed!) of some of his members.

And also sixthly, seventhly and eighthly... Why is this outright absurdity repeated from generation to generation?

There is quite a lot of evidence that the traditional picture of the life of ancient man, to put it mildly, does not correspond to reality. An article was published in the Alphabet magazine (No. 1, 2002), which states that “... European archaeologists made a sensational discovery, and now we know how women of the Paleolithic dressed. Contrary to popular belief, the ancestors wore not only fetid leather and skins. Prehistoric women had in their “wardrobe” hats and hair nets, belts and skirts, panties and bras, as well as bracelets and necklaces made from plant fibers.

There were real fabrics, in the production of which quite weaving technologies were used. And although there was no single fashion in the vastness of Eurasia, the best examples of weaving from the Paleolithic times can compete with products of the Neolithic, Bronze and Iron Ages. What a Neolithic! Modern thin cotton is almost no better than Paleolithic cotton.

Until now, our distant past was presented to us in the form of compositions in historical museums: monkey-like men in skins with clubs driving mammoths, the same beast-like women with saggy breasts nursing children and roasting meat on fires. Looks like it's time to reconsider this picture. New data convincingly proves that the role of women in prehistoric society was much more significant than we previously thought. If the ancient ladies knew how to sew and wear precious woven clothes with grace, one must think that their position in society was far from slavish, but rather equal. And their husbands must have had some artistic taste. Otherwise, for whom would primitive fashionistas dress up?”

Here is the text. Now let’s give ourselves the trouble to think. I quote an article from the most modern electronic encyclopedic dictionary Cyril and Methodius:

“Paleolithic - from Paleo... and... Lithuania, the ancient Stone Age, the first period of the Stone Age, the time of the existence of fossil man (paleoanthropes, etc.), who used beaten stone, wooden, bone tools, was engaged in hunting and gathering. The Paleolithic lasted from the emergence of man (over 2 million years ago) until approximately the 10th millennium BC.”

If an inexperienced reader wants to know when man appeared on Earth, he will find a variety of figures: from 10 thousand to two million years ago.

Moreover, due to age, I can trace how this figure has changed. When I was studying at school, it was known that man originated 35–40 thousand years ago, then this figure slowly increased to 70, 100, 140, 200 thousand. Then the American film “One Million Years BC” appeared on cinema screens, and there people were already running around the earth and, mooing inarticulately, fighting off annoying dinosaurs; The film's consultants are America's most respected historians. Now the figure has reached two million. Who is bigger?

The reader must understand that chronological figures are the holy of holies for the historian. If I change the number of the supposed appearance of man on Earth, then with the change in number the whole picture of earthly life changes from the very first day to the present day. And if in the most modern definition they ask me to find out that two million years ago paleoanthropes ran around our planet - apes(so primitive that the only tools they had were stone scrapers and the bones of killed animals), and at the same time, it turns out, they wore panties and bras, which in terms of the fineness of weaving are not inferior to modern underwear, then I understand that in the officially accepted picture of prehistoric The world is in complete confusion.

Typically, archaeologists and paleontologists proceed from the fact that the original man was a carnivore, with rough features: animal hands, a massive jaw, a forehead hanging over the eyes. There is a feeling that there was no man as such (thinking) in essence, there was a beast; It turns out that evolution had to work hard, “correcting” the mistakes of the Creator.

I can vividly imagine how the ancestor of the gentlemen who claim the above is tearing raw meat with his teeth - but this is not a person! Then he digestive system for some reason suddenly becomes delicate (probably raw meat contributes to the transformation of an animal into a human), and he begins to bake the meat on the fire (naturally, he does not have iron cauldrons for cooking food), and his young child eats the same thing... Find the person , whose stomach is capable of digesting the coarsest food, feed him in this way, and in a maximum of a year he will die from such nutrition. But they want to assure us that man has been eating this way for hundreds of thousands of years and has acquired the appearance of modern people.

Thank God, not one modern encyclopedia no longer claims that Pithecanthropus, Sinanthropus, Neanderthal, Cro-Magnon and the like were an intermediate link between ape and man. Moreover, a team of European scientists led by Svent Pääbo conducted a study at Stanford University, which proved with high probability that there was no mixing of early humans and Neanderthals. By isolating mitochondrial DNA from four Neanderthals and five contemporary ones European people, scientists found no evidence of a significant genetic transition. It is quite possible that man could have been created in a different natural “perform” (in the canine family: a dog, a wolf, a jackal, a coyote, a dingo, a fox, and an arctic fox), and on the other hand cardiovascular system(air pressure and density were once different, the Earth’s magnetic field was many times stronger), and on the other hand respiratory system, (the Earth’s atmosphere did not always consist of the nitrogen-oxygen mixture familiar to us; the oxygen content in air bubbles in ancient amber was 28%), but de facto the weakest, most unadapted species for life on this planet - homo delicatus - managed to survive and adapt. an elegant person. When you begin to list all the “unsuitability” of a person for life in these earthly conditions, you want to exclaim: “How could a person even appear here and survive!” And suddenly, with amazing clarity, you begin to understand that man, in all respects, was not created for this planet... Or it should be admitted that when he appeared, conditions on Earth were different!

But the main thing for me is not arguing with learned men, God be with him: they hunted, and so be it, if you really want to believe in it. The existence of primordial man is not the subject of this book, and if necessary, I will limit myself to remarks of a purely informative and puzzling nature.

There are theories going back to J. Cuvier, according to them, the life of mankind proceeds in cycles: it reaches the peak of its development and then, either due to geological reasons, or due to a bad character, destroys itself, descending to a primitive state, and then passes again historical path. As for the bad character, this is true, the rest is doubtful.

In the statements of biologists, one can always read the idea hidden in the subconscious that the gene code of living beings is in a process of constant change (oh, these evolutionists), and all species are in constant mixing. No, gentlemen, on Earth each species has its own independent path. Hyenas do not turn into wolves, and jackals do not turn into arctic foxes. And not a single monkey within known to mankind millennia has not even come half a step closer to man external signs, nor at the genetic level.

It would be more correct to say that only those living beings exist on earth that CAN exist under given physical conditions. Those who are not adapted for life on this planet cannot appear at all or will inevitably disappear IF THE EARTH'S ENVIRONMENT THAT IS USUAL TO THEM CHANGES, THAT IS THE CONDITIONS OF THEIR EXISTENCE.

The truth is obvious: each species existed on Earth on its own and did not transform into anyone. And many species of living beings were forced to disappear in an instant for a very compelling reason. Namely: a very strong geocosmic catastrophe.

I BELIEVE THAT TWO CATASTROPHES ON A UNIVERSAL SCALE HAVE CHANGED THE PATH OF EARTHLY CIVILIZATION.

Over the past twenty years, I have probably read everything that has been written about disasters, and I know that many disasters have occurred on earth. But it is unlikely that they were destructive for humanity.

I MEAN CATASTROPHES THAT RADICALLY CHANGED NOT ONLY PHYSICS, GEOGRAPHY, HISTORY OF THE EARTH, BUT ALSO THE ESSENCE OF ALL LIFE ON THIS PLANET, AND MAN HIMSELF INCLUDING.

For convenience, I will continue to refer to each of them as “catastrophe”. Or sometimes - “cataclysm”.