"The one is great - the one who is quiet while drunk"
Folk wisdom.
Agriculture is one of the basic and most important elements of civilization as such. This, in fact, is an axiom of the modern view of our history. It is with the development of agriculture and the transition to the accompanying sedentary lifestyle that the formation of what we understand by the terms "society" and "civilization" is connected. Where there was no transition to agriculture, civilization did not arise. And even our modern industrial and technologically advanced society, whatever one may say, is unthinkable without agriculture, which provides food for billions of people.
The question of how and why primitive people switched from hunting and gathering to cultivating the land is considered a long time ago and is included in such a science as political economy as a rather boring section. Any more or less literate student will be able to present to you his version of this section, included in a simplified version in the course of ancient history.
Everything seems to be clear: the primitive hunter and gatherer was very dependent on the nature around him. The whole life of ancient man was a struggle for existence, in which the lion's share of the time was occupied by the search for food. And as a result of this, all human progress was limited to a rather insignificant improvement in the means of obtaining food.
At some stage (according to the official point of view), the growth in the number of people on our planet led to the fact that hunting and gathering could no longer feed all members of the primitive community, which had only one way out: to master a new form of activity - agriculture, for which it was required, in particular, a sedentary lifestyle. The transition to agriculture automatically stimulated the development of the technology of tools of labor, the development of the construction of stationary housing, the formation of social norms of social relations, etc. and so on, i.e. was the "trigger" of the rapid advancement of man along the path of civilization.
* * *
This scheme seems so logical and even obvious that everyone, somehow without saying a word, almost immediately took it for the true … And everything would be fine, but the rapid development of science recently caused an active revision of many "basic" and, it would seem, previously unshakable theories and schemes. The "classical" view of the problem of man's transition from primitive primitive existence to agriculture began to burst at the seams.
Promotional video:
The first and, perhaps, the most serious "troublemakers" were ethnographers, who discovered that the primitive communities that had survived until recently did not at all fit into the coherent picture drawn by political economy. The patterns of behavior and life of these primitive communities not only turned out to be "annoying exceptions", but fundamentally contradicted the scheme according to which primitive society should have behaved.
First of all, the highest efficiency of gathering was revealed:
The life of a "primitive" hunter and gatherer in general turned out to be very far from the all-consuming and severe struggle for existence.
Anyone can understand and feel this: in modern society, hiking in the forest for mushrooms and berries is much more often due to the excitement of searching, rather than to provide oneself with food. And hunting in general has turned into entertainment for people with wealth. Both have long been viewed as recreation.
A person for hundreds of thousands and millions of years has been engaged in hunting and gathering, as a result of which the corresponding structures - archetypes - have been fixed in his psyche (in that part of it that is inherited), causing excitement and pleasure from the very process of hunting and gathering. Actually, the mechanism of operation of these structures-archetypes is in many respects analogous to the mechanism of the instinct of an animal, which this instinct saves from starvation.
On the contrary, an activity alien to a person and his psyche, "unnatural" for his nature, will inevitably cause him displeasure. Therefore, the burdensome and exhausting agricultural labor testifies, in particular, to a certain "unnaturalness" of this work for humans, or, at least, to the very short nature of this kind of activity for the human species.
* * *
But for what, then, is this "sacrifice of labor" being performed?.. Is the game really worth the candle?..
According to the official point of view, the farmer fights for the harvest in order to ensure a well-fed and stable idle life at the end of its harvest until the next season of work. However, when the question of the transition from hunting and gathering to agriculture is considered, we subconsciously imagine modern developed agriculture and somehow forget that we are talking about archaic, primitive agriculture …
Even in the "uncultivated" state, tubers are ten or more times higher than cereals and legumes in yield, but for some reason ancient man suddenly ignores this fact, which is literally under his nose.
At the same time, the pioneer-cultivator for some reason believes that the additional difficulties he has taken on are not enough for him, and further complicates his task, introducing the most difficult harvest processing that could be imagined.
What does this hero-cultivator receive in exchange for overcoming a shock, as it were for himself, the difficulties he has built?..
According to the official point of view of political economy, with the transition to agriculture, a person solves his "food problems" and becomes less dependent on the vagaries of the surrounding nature. But an objective and unbiased analysis categorically rejects this statement - life only gets more complicated. In terms of many parameters, early agriculture worsens the living conditions of ancient people. In particular, by “tying” it to the ground and depriving it of the freedom to maneuver in adverse conditions, it often leads to severe hunger strikes, practically unknown to hunters and gatherers.
Well, how logical and natural does the transition of our ancestors from hunting and gathering to agriculture look now?.. I think, just as “clear and obvious” appears before us (in the light of the above) the generally accepted point of view on this issue … Without a doubt, it crashes in absolutely all positions !!!
Ethnographers have long since become convinced that the so-called "primitive" man is not at all so stupid as to plunge himself into such severe trials that arise on the "path to civilization."
In the light of the shortcomings of early agriculture revealed to date, it becomes absolutely clear why ethnographers did not find any desire in hunter-gatherers to start life in the image and likeness of their agricultural neighbors. The price to pay for "progress" is too high, and progress itself is questionable.
And the point is not at all laziness, although "laziness" could have contributed … The aphorism "man by nature is lazy" has a deep foundation: a man, like any other living system, strives for the desired result, trying to use up as little energy as possible. Therefore, for the sake of providing himself with food, it simply does not make sense for him to give up hunting and gathering and go on to the exhausting labor of a farmer.
But why on earth did free hunters and gatherers, at the dawn of our history, still abandon traditional forms of self-sufficiency in food and put on the yoke of hard work? Perhaps, due to some extraordinary circumstances and under their pressure, our distant ancestors were forced to leave the blissful and calm life of consumers of natural gifts and go on to the complete exhausting labor of the existence of a farmer?..
* * *
Archaeological data indicate that an attempt to develop agriculture, for example, in the Middle East (X-XI millennia BC) took place under the conditions of the consequences of a certain cataclysm of a global scale, accompanied by a sharp change in climatic conditions and mass extinction of representatives of the animal world. And although directly catastrophic events took place in the 11th millennium BC, their "residual phenomena" have been traced by archaeologists for several millennia.
(In more detail the events of this cataclysm, which we correlate with the World Flood known in mythology, are analyzed in the author's work "The Myth of the Flood: Calculations and Reality".)
Naturally, in the conditions of a reduction in the "fodder base", a situation of an acute shortage of food resources for our ancestors could well have arisen, who were forced to master new ways of providing themselves with food. However, there are some doubts that events unfolded precisely according to this scenario.
First, the catastrophic consequences of the events of the 11th millennium BC were of a global nature and, of course, affected not only representatives of flora and fauna, but also man himself. There is no reason to believe that humanity (in its primitive, natural stage of existence) has suffered much less than the living world around it - there are none. That is, the population should have also sharply decreased, thereby somewhat compensating for the reduction in the "food base".
This, in fact, is reported by the descriptions of events that have come down to us in myths and legends: literally all peoples have one thought - only a few survived the Flood.
Secondly, the natural reaction of primitive tribes engaged in hunting and gathering to the reduction of the "food base" is primarily the search for new places, and not new ways of activity, which is confirmed by numerous ethnographic studies.
Thirdly, even taking into account the climate changes that have taken place, the “deficit of the fodder base” could not last long. Nature does not tolerate emptiness: the ecological niche of endangered animals is immediately occupied by others … But if for some reason the restoration of natural resources did not happen as quickly as it really happens in nature, it still takes much less time than mastering and developing a whole the system of farming techniques (and also open it first!).
Fourthly, there is also no reason to believe that in the context of a reduction in the "fodder base" there will be a sharp surge in the birth rate. Primitive tribes are close to the surrounding animal world, and therefore the natural mechanisms of self-regulation of numbers are more strongly affected in them: an increase in the birth rate under conditions of depletion of natural resources leads, among other things, to an increase in mortality …
And therefore, although the idea of the decisive role of population growth in the development of agriculture and the development of culture is far from new, ethnographers still do not accept it: they have enough factual grounds for serious doubts …
Thus, the theory of "population explosion" as a reason for the transition to agriculture also does not stand up to criticism. And its only argument is the fact of a combination of agriculture with a high population density.
But … maybe you shouldn't turn everything upside down and confuse cause with effect? .. It is much more likely that it was the transition to a sedentary lifestyle based on agriculture that led to the “population explosion”, and not vice versa. After all, hunters and gatherers tend to avoid the great crowding that makes their existence difficult …
The geography of ancient agriculture makes us even more doubtful that the transition to it of our ancestors was prompted by a sharp and sudden reduction of the "fodder base".
The Soviet scientist N. Vavilov at one time developed and substantiated a method by which it turned out to be possible to determine the centers of origin of plant crops. According to his studies, it turned out that the overwhelming majority of known cultivated plants originate from only eight very limited in area main foci (see Fig. 2).
Figure: 2 The centers of ancient agriculture (according to N. Vavilov): 1 - South Mexican hearth; 2 - Peruvian hearth; 3 - Mediterranean hearth; 4 - Abyssinian hearth; 5 & mdash; Near East focus; 6 - Central Asian hearth; 7 - Indian hearth; 8 - Chinese hearth.
All these foci, which are, in fact, the centers of ancient agriculture, have very similar climatic conditions of the tropics and subtropics.
This definitely contradicts the theory of “lack of fodder base” as a reason for the development of agriculture, since under these conditions there is not only a plurality of species potentially suitable for agriculture and domestication, but also an abundance of generally edible species that can fully provide gatherers and hunters … By the way, N. Vavilov noticed this:
Thus, a very strange and even paradoxical pattern is obtained: for some reason, agriculture arose precisely in the most abundant regions of the Earth, where there were the least prerequisites for hunger. And vice versa: in the regions where the reduction of the "fodder base" could be the most noticeable and should (according to all logic) be a significant factor influencing human life, no farming has emerged !!!
More … Details and details of the transition from hunting and gathering to agriculture, restored to date, are literally full of unsolved mysteries.
For example, in all of North America, the southern Mexican center of ancient agriculture occupies only about 1/40 of the entire territory of the vast continent. Approximately the same area is occupied by the Peruvian hearth in relation to the whole of South America. The same can be said about most of the centers of the Old World. The process of the emergence of agriculture turns out to be downright "unnatural", since with the exception of this narrow strip, nowhere (!!!) in the world there have even been attempts to switch to agriculture !!!
Another "detail": now, according to the official version, a narrow strip around the Mesopotamian lowland appears on our planet as the recognized homeland of wheat (as one of the main grain crops) (see Fig. 3). And from there, the wheat is believed to have spread throughout the entire Earth. However, in this point of view, there is a kind of "cheating" or data manipulation (as you see fit).
Figure: 3. Homeland of wheat according to the official version.
The fact is that this region (according to N. Vavilov's research) is indeed the homeland of that group of wheat, which is called “wild”. In addition to it, there are two more main groups on Earth: durum wheat and soft wheat. But it turns out that "wild" does not mean "progenitor" at all.
As a result of a global study of various types of wheat, N. Vavilov established as many as three independent centers of distribution (read - places of origin) of this crop. Syria and Palestine were the homelands of "wild" wheat and einkorn wheat; Abyssinia (Ethiopia) - home to hard wheat; and the foothills of the Western Himalayas are the center of origin of soft wheat varieties (see Fig. 4).
Figure: 4. Regions of origin of various types of wheat according to N. Vavilov: 1 - hard varieties; 2 - "Wild" and single-grain wheat; 3 - soft varieties.
In general, N. Vavilov firmly concludes that the statement about the homeland of wheat in Mesopotamia or the assumption about the homeland of wheat in Central Asia have no grounds.
But his research was not limited to this most important result!.. In their process, it was discovered that the difference between the types of wheat lies at the deepest level: one-grain wheat has 14 chromosomes; "Wild" and durum wheat - 28 chromosomes; soft wheat has 42 chromosomes. But even between "wild" wheat and hard varieties with the same number of chromosomes, there was a whole gap.
As is known, and as the professional N. Vavilov confirms, it is not so easy to achieve such a change in the number of chromosomes by "simple" selection (if not to say - practically impossible). To double and triple the chromosome set, methods and methods are needed that even modern science is not always able to provide (up to intervention at the gene level). However, the whole nature of the distribution of wheat varieties on the globe indicates that the difference between them existed already at the earliest stages of agriculture! In other words, the most complex breeding work (and in the shortest possible time !!!) had to be carried out by people with wooden hoes and primitive sickles with stone cutting teeth. Can you imagine the absurdity of such a picture?..
N. Vavilov comes to the conclusion that theoretically (we emphasize - only theoretically !!!) it is impossible to deny the possible relationship of, say, durum and soft wheat, but for this it is necessary to postpone the dates of cultivated agriculture and purposeful selection for tens of millennia !!! And there are absolutely no archaeological prerequisites for this, since even the earliest finds do not exceed 15 thousand years in age, but already reveal a "ready" variety of wheat species …
But if the business was limited to wheat alone, and that would be half the trouble …
Moreover, a similar picture of the "isolation" of cultivated species from the regions of distribution of their "wild" forms is observed in a number of plants (peas, chickpeas, flax, carrots, etc.) !!!
Wow, the paradox becomes clear: in the homeland of "wild" varieties there are no traces of their domestication, which is carried out in some other place, where "wild" forms are gone !!!
One of the popular theories is the version of one people who "discovered" agriculture, and then from him this art spread throughout the Earth. So imagine this picture: a certain people running around the globe, throwing already cultivated plants in the old place, along the way picks up new "wild" plants, and stopping (already in the third place) cultivates these new plants, somehow contriving on the way (without any intermediate stages) to cultivate them. Nonsense, and only …
But then only one thing remains: to agree with N. Vavilov's conclusion about the absolutely independent origin of cultures in different centers of agriculture.
So, what's the bottom line?
First. From the point of view of providing food resources, the transition of ancient hunters and gatherers to agriculture is extremely unprofitable, but they still make it.
Second. Agriculture originates precisely in the most abundant regions, where there are no natural prerequisites for giving up hunting and gathering.
Third. The transition to agriculture is carried out in grain, its most labor-consuming version.
Fourth. The centers of ancient agriculture are territorially divided and highly limited. The difference in the plants cultivated in them indicates the complete independence of these foci from each other.
Fifth. The varietal diversity of some of the main grain crops is found in the earliest stages of agriculture, in the absence of any traces of "intermediate" selection.
Sixth. For some reason, the ancient centers of cultivation of a number of cultivated plant forms were geographically remote from the places of localization of their "wild" relatives.
A detailed analysis of stone after stone does not leave a "logical and clear" official point of view, and the question of the emergence of agriculture on our planet from a boring section of political economy is moving into the category of the most mysterious pages of our history. And it is enough to plunge at least a little into its details to understand the incredibleness of what happened.
This conclusion about the improbability of such a radical change in the entire way of life of people associated with the transition, in fact, from appropriating to producing mode of existence, fundamentally contradicts the installation to search for some of its "natural causes." From the author's point of view, this is precisely why attempts to modify the "classical" view of political economy are doomed to failure: any new attempts to "natural" explain the emergence of agriculture are often even worse than the old version.
But in that case, why did what happened? After all, it did happen, despite all the improbability … It is quite obvious that there must have been good reasons for this. And these reasons have nothing to do with the problem of creating new food resources.
Let's go in a paradoxical way: let's try to explain an incredible event through reasons that may seem even more incredible. And for this we will interrogate the witnesses who actually carried out the transition to agriculture. Moreover, we have nowhere to go, since the only (!!!) different point of view at the moment, different from the official version, is only the one that our ancient ancestors adhered to and which can be traced in the myths and legends that have come down to us from those distant times.
Our ancestors were absolutely sure that everything happened on the initiative and under the control of the gods who came down from heaven. It was they (these gods) who laid the foundation for civilizations as such, provided man with agricultural crops and taught the techniques of agriculture.
It is quite remarkable that this point of view on the origin of agriculture dominates absolutely in all known regions of the origin of ancient civilizations.
The great god Quetzalcoatl brought corn to Mexico. The god Viracocha taught agriculture to people in the Peruvian Andes. Osiris gave the culture of agriculture to the peoples of Ethiopia (i.e. Abyssinia) and Egypt. The Sumerians were introduced to agriculture by Enki and Enlil, the gods who descended from heaven and brought them seeds of wheat and barley. The "Heavenly Geniuses" helped the Chinese in the development of agriculture, and the "Lords of Wisdom" brought fruits and cereals to Tibet, unknown before on Earth.
The second remarkable fact: nowhere, in any myths and legends, a person does not even try to credit himself or his ancestors with the development of agriculture !!!
We will not go into details here who exactly our ancestors had in mind under the name "gods" and where these "gods" came from. We only note that according to myths as close as possible to the beginning of the development of agriculture (that is, according to the most ancient legends and legends that have come down to us), the "gods" in appearance (and in many respects in behavior) differed little from ordinary people, only their capabilities and abilities were incomparably higher than human ones.
We will confine ourselves to analyzing how likely it is that in reality there could be just such a course of events: whether humanity could really get the art of agriculture "from the outside", from some other more advanced civilization.
First of all: all the above comparative analysis of agriculture is quite convincing evidence that humanity did not have any "natural" reasons and prerequisites for the transition from hunting and gathering to agriculture.
Secondly, mythology perfectly explains the fact, revealed by biologists and mentioned above, about the "strange" multiplicity of unrelated cultivated types of main cereals in ancient foci of agriculture and the remoteness of cultivated forms from their "wild" relatives: the gods gave people already cultivated plants.
Thirdly, the version of the "gift of a developed civilization" is able to explain some "strange" archaeological finds that do not fit into the general official theory of the origin of agriculture.
The result of the experiments met all expectations: the potato crop was three times more; severe frost "almost did not harm the plants in the experimental plots"; the crop was not damaged during the drought and flood! This simple but effective agricultural system has generated widespread interest from the Bolivian government and is currently being tested in other regions of the world.
In another region of the planet, no less "miracles" are found: for example, there is evidence of a surprisingly early period of agricultural progress and experimentation in the Nile Valley. Once, between 13000 and 10000 BC, Egypt went through a period of the so-called "premature agricultural development".
It is by this time that we date the cataclysm called "The Flood" … The deterioration of conditions and the reduction of the "fodder base" as a result stimulated not the development of agriculture, but a return to a "primitive" way of life, which led not to progress, but to the regression of society !!!
But even if the Flood was not the reason for the turn in the development of society in the opposite direction, the fact remains: the Egyptian experiment really stopped, and no one tried to return to it for at least five thousand years. And its details seriously suggest the artificial "introduction from the outside" of agriculture to Egypt in the XIII millennium BC.
The third region of our planet looks like a complete contrast to the previous two.
But there are also areas in Australia where conditions are not much worse than those in the known ancient centers of agriculture. But in the period under consideration (XIII-X millennium BC), the climate on the planet was more humid, and the deserts in Australia did not take up so much space. And if the emergence of agriculture were a natural and logical process, then on this godforsaken (literally and figuratively) continent, at least attempts at agriculture would inevitably be observed. But everything is sterile there … It seems that Australia was left by the gods as a kind of reserve or "control specimen" for the purity of the experiment …
Now let's pay attention to another remarkable fact - the fact of the strongest connection between agriculture and religion in all (!!!) ancient centers of civilization.
This connection between ancient agriculture and religion is so conspicuous to researchers that it could not but be reflected in the official version of the transition of primitive hunters and gatherers to the cultivation of land. In line with this official version, it was believed that the deification of the attributes of agriculture was based on its most important role as a way to provide a solution to nutritional problems. However, as we have seen, this cornerstone of the entire construction of the official version turned out to be a complete fiction …
The author of the quotation just cited is certainly right, noting that the connection with religion significantly stimulated agriculture and was one of the most important deep reasons for its development at the initial stage. But where this connection comes from, it does not explain.
Now let's imagine an ancient man who worships not abstract forces, but really tangible gods. And let us remember that for this person the worship of the gods was more concretized and was nothing more than an unquestioning obedience to these gods and their requirements. And the gods "give" agriculture and encourage people to do it. How, then, can you relate to the attributes of this "gift", which is considered "sacred"? Of course, just as we mean by the word "cult". This is quite natural …
Thus, weighing all the advantages and disadvantages of such a cardinal change in lifestyle, all the pros and cons, and analyzing its details, one can easily come to the conclusion that the transition from hunting and gathering to agriculture was needed not by people, but by the gods. But in this case, another question remains open: for what purpose, a more highly developed civilization of "gods", knowing all the negative aspects of this transition, could "give" people not just agriculture, but also in its most "difficult" version - grain, yes also in the "stone" primitive version of his industry?
If we are in the position of adherents of the version that the more developed a civilization is, the more “humane” its aspirations are, then the first answer that asks is: the gods introduced people to agriculture in order to stimulate their development and the progress of humanity as a whole.
Indeed, for the efficiency of agriculture, firstly, a sedentary lifestyle is required, which makes a person think about stationary housing and warm clothes for the cold season. And this ultimately leads to the stimulation of the development of construction techniques, the weaving industry and animal husbandry (not only as a source of food). Secondly, farming requires a whole industry of specific instruments of labor, the manufacture of which (at least due to the employment of the farmers themselves) is done by individual "specialists". In general, the need for a whole "army of auxiliary workers" determines the high size of the agricultural community, which stimulates the development of social relations. And so on, and so on … Agriculture is indeed the "trigger" of progress.
The actions of the great civilizing gods (if you can call them that) - Viracocha and Quetzalcoatl in America, Osiris in Egypt …
But there may be another answer:
It is not very flattering, of course, to actually feel like descendants of slaves …
Some consolation could be the fact that so "frankly and cynically" the goals of the gods are formulated only in the mythology of Mesopotamia. However, in other regions, almost everywhere, the gods demanded sacrifices from people - and although this is a more veiled formulation, it has, in fact, the same meaning. Only instead of "slave labor" a certain kind of "tribute" is envisaged for the gods, which is associated with the replacement of slave relations with feudal-serfs.
We will not dwell on the issue of sacrifices in detail. This is generally a separate issue…. Here we may be interested in the fact that in the list of sacrifices to the gods there are also agricultural products. But most often this list includes (and is highlighted in a "separate line") drinks made from these products and causing alcoholic or light drug intoxication.
According to Egyptian mythology, since Osiris had a special interest in good wines (myths do not tell where he acquired this taste), "he specially trained humanity in viticulture and winemaking, including the collection of grapes and the storage of wine."
In America:
In India people
In the Vedic ritual of sacrifice, the drink of soma occupies a central place, being at the same time a god. In terms of the number of hymns dedicated to him, he is surpassed only by two gods - Indra and Agni, who themselves were closely associated with this divine drink.
Accepting gifts and offerings from people, the gods did not throw them away, but consumed them in incredible quantities. The addiction of the gods to alcoholic and intoxicated drinks can be traced in the myths of all ancient civilizations.
Sumerian gods generously treat each other with beer and alcoholic beverages. It was not only a means to win someone's favor, but also a way to lower the vigilance of another god, so that, having drunk him to insensibility, steal from him that "divine weapon", then the attributes of royal power, then some powerful Tables of Destinies … In the "extreme" In some cases, the gods soldered their enemies in order to kill them. In particular, the idea to thoroughly drink the dragon with wine and even then, having brought him to a helpless state, to kill, managed to travel from Hittite mythology to the shores of the Japanese islands.
In the texts of Sumer's myths, it is very unequivocally indicated that the gods created man in a state of drinking. At the same time, their intake of alcoholic beverages was carried out directly in the process of creation. As you know, people do this too often …
Also, when dealing with issues of extreme importance, the gods needed alcohol. For example, here is how the process of deciding to transfer supreme power to the god Marduk is described in the face of a terrifying threat from the goddess Tiamat:
In general, the gods in mythology do little great without first having properly typed … This is typical, for example, for India. “Indra is drunk, Agni is drunk, all the gods are drunk,” says one of the hymns. And the god Indra was generally famous for his insatiable addiction to an intoxicating drink - soma, which relieves people from diseases, and makes the gods immortal.
From these positions, the fact of domestication of, say, a wine berry in Western Asia or a coca bush in America becomes easily explainable. As well as grapes - a culture that, on the one hand, requires just the same incredible efforts to care for it, and on the other hand, it serves mainly for winemaking (the use of grapes to satisfy hunger in "raw form", in the form of juice or raisins make up such an insignificant part that it may well be considered only a "collateral exception").
* * *
But it would be strange if people only served the gods … Man, naturally, could not resist the temptation to try the "divine drink" …
Here, by the way, lies an interesting moment of a certain psychological stimulation to hard agricultural work. The excitement of the hunter may well be replaced to some extent by the opportunity to experience euphoria when drinking alcohol. It also increases the value and attractiveness of achieving the end result of agricultural activities.
It should also not be disregarded that under the influence of alcoholic beverages a person is freed from the limitations of consciousness, while the possibilities of the subconscious are revealed to a certain extent, which greatly facilitates the implementation of the so-called “magical actions”. For example, in order to achieve magical or religious ecstasy, a state of trance, substances that cause mild drug or alcohol intoxication are still used in many ritual rituals and actions.
In such a state, people do not feel for nothing that they are close to the gods, attached to their mystery and power. Even if such an effect is attributed only to an illusion, it still provides a powerful additional stimulus to activities that allow one to achieve at the final stage of involvement with the divine, even if only illusory.
However, people (unlike the gods) did not possess the skills and culture of alcohol consumption, which clearly led to abuse … It was possible to quickly sleep, which, say, often manifested itself when Europeans brought strong alcoholic drinks both to America and to northern Asia.
As a result, the gods were forced to deal with the negative side effects of their "gift". For example, Viracochi, under the name Tunupa (in the Titicaca region) "opposed drunkenness"; and in other myths, the abuse of alcohol by people is not approved by the gods.
Naturally, the gods had to solve not only these problems. Any kind of productive farming, as already mentioned, required a sedentary lifestyle and a higher (compared to the community of hunters and gatherers) population density, which, on the one hand, simplified the control of the process by the gods, but also required the introduction of certain rules of human behavior in unusual living conditions for them. One thing inevitably entails another …
It is clear that the "natural" development of these norms and rules by people could drag on for a very long time, which would not stimulate agriculture at all. The process obviously could not be left to chance … Therefore, the gods had to solve this issue on their own.
By the way, this is also reported by ancient myths: literally in all regions of the "emergence" of agriculture and civilization, the traditions of our ancestors unanimously assert that the same "gods" established norms and rules of life among people, laws and orders of joint settled existence. And this is indirectly evidenced by archaeological data on the downright “sudden” emergence of a number of advanced ancient civilizations (for example, in Egypt or India) without any “preliminary steps”. This fact does not find any "natural" explanation at all …
Thus, a more or less detailed analysis of the problem of the transition from hunting and gathering to labor on the ground quite clearly reveals that the version of the introduction of agriculture from the outside (from the “gods” or representatives of a certain developed civilization) turns out to be much more consistent with the facts and laws. identified in various fields of scientific knowledge, rather than the official view of political economy on this issue.
The version of agriculture as a gift from the gods allows, as a "side" consequence, to offer a solution to another riddle of the past, which is directly related to the early stages of the formation of human civilization.
The idea of having common ancestors turned out to be so fascinating that archaeologists immediately rushed to dig up the entire mentioned region from the Atlantic Ocean to the Indian Ocean in search of the homeland of these common ancestors. As a result, in recent decades, our knowledge of the historical past has been enriched with the most valuable material. But here's the trouble: the more they dug, the more versions of the homeland of these Indo-Europeans multiplied.
But the linguists "did not stand still" … Inspired by the success and popularity of their hypothesis, they also began to "dig" - only not the earth, but other languages. And then suddenly the similarity of the languages of an even greater number of peoples began to emerge, and the search region for their common ancestral home expanded to the Pacific Ocean in Asia and to the equatorial zones of Africa.
As a result, today a fairly stable version has already developed that the Indo-Europeans, along with many other peoples, were the descendants of a single community that spoke a common proto-language, from which (according to the conclusions of linguists) practically all other known languages of the peoples inhabiting the entire The Old World in that part of it, which belongs to the northern hemisphere (wow, the scale !!!).
The process of settling and dividing these descendants into separate peoples speaking languages descended from a single root, in the minds of linguists, forms a kind of "language tree", one of the variants of which is shown in Fig. five.
Figure: 5. Relationship of languages (according to A. Militarev).
To date, there are two main versions of linguists about the birthplace of these common ancestors: I. Dyakonov considers them the ancestral home of East Africa, and A. Militarev believes that “these are the ethnic groups that created the so-called Natufian Mesolithic and Early Neolithic culture of Palestine and Syria XI -IX millennia BC."
These conclusions of linguists seem, again, very logical and harmonious, and so much so that lately almost no one doubts them. Few people think about "annoying" questions, which are somewhat similar to small splinters - and annoying, and, in general, do not play a special role …
And where, in fact, went to those peoples who inhabited the entire vast space of Eurasia and the northern part of Africa before the arrival of the descendants of the said community?
And if the "aborigines" were absorbed (not in the literal sense of the word!) "Aliens", then how, in the process of assimilation, the main conceptual apparatus of the "aborigines" disappeared without any remnants?.. Why the main roots of common words remained only in the variant "Aliens"?.. How possible is such a comprehensive displacement of one language by another?..
Well, and if you try to imagine the picture of settlement in more detail … What kind of crowd should be that left the starting point of the route (from the ancestral home) so that it was enough to populate all the traversed and developed regions?.. Or should we assume that they multiplied along the way as rabbits?.. After all, it was necessary not only to settle down in some one clan or tribe, but also to suppress (!!!) the linguistic traditions of the local population (or destroy it physically) …
You can think of dozens of answers to these questions. However, the "splinter" still remains …
But there is one very remarkable fact: the variants of the location of the "single family-progenitor of languages" exactly intersect with the places identified by N. Vavilov in the Old World as the centers of the most ancient agriculture: Abyssinia and Palestine (see Fig. 6). These centers of agriculture also include: Afghanistan (which is one of the variants of the homeland of the Indo-Europeans) and mountainous China (the ancestral home of the peoples of the Sino-Tibetan language group).
Figure: 6. Variants of the ancestral home of common ancestors of a single linguistic macrofamily. "The ancestral home of common ancestors": 1 - according to I. Dyakonov; 2 - according to A. Militarev. The centers of ancient agriculture: A - Abyssinian; In - Western Asia.
At the same time, we recall that N. Vavilov unequivocally and categorically comes to the conclusion about the independence of the various centers of agriculture from each other at their early stages.
The two sciences come to contradictory conclusions! (Maybe, in particular, and therefore the overwhelming part of the conclusions of the brilliant biologist is simply "forgotten" and ignored.)
The contradiction seems insoluble … But this is again as long as we are content with only conclusions. And if you look at the details, the picture changes dramatically.
* * *
Let's see in more detail what the conclusions of linguists are based on … Comparing languages (including those that have long been extinct) of different peoples, researchers, based on the similarity of these languages, have restored the basic conceptual apparatus of the proto-language of “common ancestors”. This apparatus clearly refers to a sedentary lifestyle in fairly large settlements (rich terminology is associated with housing; the term “city” is widely used) with rather developed social relations. By similar general words, one can confidently establish the presence of family relations, property and social stratification, a certain hierarchy of power.
The similarity of the languages in terminology related to the sphere of religious worldview is noteworthy. There is a commonality of the words "sacrifice", "cry out, pray", "atoning sacrifice" …
But the most important thing: a huge number of similar terms refer directly to agriculture !!! Experts even designate entire "sections" by the similarity of such words: tillage; cultivated plants; terms related to harvesting; tools and material for their manufacture …
At the same time (in the light of the topic under consideration), the presence in the proto-language of the words "fermentation" and "fermentation drink" draws attention …
It is also interesting to note the conclusion of linguists that there is no direct and reliable evidence of fishing in the language. This conclusion is in full agreement with the conclusion of N. Vavilov about the initial development of agriculture in the mountainous regions (where, naturally, the natural base for fishing was weak) …
All this provides quite extensive material for reconstructing the life of an ancient people who lived at the dawn of civilization … But what linguists did not notice: the overwhelming majority of terms that are similar among different peoples refer to exactly those spheres of activity that (according to mythology) people were taught by the gods !!!
And here a paradoxical conclusion arises, which, in fact, is a consequence of the version "agriculture is a gift of the gods": but there was no kinship of all peoples, just as there was no single ancestor with its parent language !!!
Giving something to people, the gods, naturally, called it something by some terms. Since the list of the “gift of the gods” (according to mythology) is practically the same for all the centers of agriculture, it is logical to conclude that the “giving gods” in different places represent a single civilization. Therefore, they use the same terms. Thus, we get a similarity of the conceptual apparatus (associated with the "gift of the gods") in regions that are very distant from each other, and among peoples who did not really communicate with each other.
At the same time, if we accept the version that there really was no kinship, then the question of the incomprehensible mass character of the "resettlement" is removed, as well as the question of where the population that existed before the new "newcomers" went … It has not gone anywhere, and there was no resettlement … just the old population received new words that are similar for different regions …
For all the next "improbability", this version explains many of the riddles discovered by the same linguists. In particular:
The conclusion about the high level of development of the culture of human society in the Mesolithic is based on the position of the natural and gradual maturation of culture. There are absolutely no archaeological confirmations of this conclusion … If the culture is brought by the gods at a time (according to archaeological data, not earlier than the 13th millennium BC), then in the Mesolithic there should be nothing of the listed relations.
And the slight difference in the conceptual apparatus in two completely different historical epochs, separated by an interval of 5-7 millennia (!!!), is precisely determined and explained by the same "external" nature of agriculture and culture. How can a person who worships any gods infringe on the name of "God's gifts"! So we get the "conservation" of a huge number of terms for millennia, regardless of the changes taking place on our planet during this time …
The version of the "gift of the gods" allows you to remove questions not only in the field of general conclusions of linguists, but also in more detailed details of their results:
But the Urals and Altai are very far from the centers of ancient agriculture, i.e. from the regions of the "gift of the gods". So where do the terms associated with this gift come from …
The Sino-Tibetan branch is directly related to the ancient center of agriculture in mountainous China. But this focus (according to N. Vavilov's research) has a very strong specificity in the composition of cultivated crops, most of which do not easily take root in other regions. Taking this into account, the result looks quite logical: the peoples neighboring this center have, to a certain, but very limited extent, a similar conceptual apparatus.
Well, this deep community is generally simple and understandable: we are talking about peoples who lived directly in the main regions of the "gift of the gods" or in the neighborhood …
By the way, in the light of the stated version, it would be possible to suggest linguists to expand their research to the American centers of ancient agriculture in order to search for the "relationship" of local languages with the studied languages of the Old World. If the version of the "gift of the gods" is correct, then a certain similarity of languages should be revealed, although it can be very limited in the manner of the situation with the Sino-Tibetan language branch, since the American centers are also very specific … But will anyone undertake such a study? …
* * *
It is clear that the hypothesis put forward here about agriculture as a "gift of the gods" will cause angry indignation of many modern scientists: political economists, who reject the "unnatural" way of development of ancient mankind; linguists who have defended a bunch of dissertations on the establishment of "kinship" of different peoples; archaeologists trying to find traces of the "ancestral home" of a single "progenitor" of these different peoples, etc. etc. It is unlikely that they will stop their research …
And the point is not at all that such a radical revision of cause-and-effect relationships in our ancient history also requires a radical revision of this very ancient history (which N. Vavilov, in particular, called for). It is much more important that the issue of the emergence of agriculture is inextricably linked with the issue of the birth of our civilization as such.
The version of an artificial "external" source of culture (and agriculture, in particular) directly casts doubt on the ability of our ancestors - hunters and gatherers - to independently and naturally move to a civilized form of existence. This version simply forces us to conclude that our civilization was artificially created under some external influence.
It requires such a decrease in self-esteem in terms of the possibilities for the independent development of mankind, which, of course, causes a rather strong internal discomfort for supporters of the view of man as a "crown of nature." Who knows, we wouldn’t have been in the state that the indigenous Australians were before the arrival of “civilization” in their reserved zone in the 19th century …
But it is absolutely unknown which of its inclinations and talents humanity could have lost on the long path of development of civilization under such external influence …
Well, on the other hand, we do not give, for example, complete freedom of action to our children. Let each in his own way, but we educate them and direct their development in a certain direction. After all, this is the only way a child can become a Human.
It is clear that the end result is very much determined by what the "parents" themselves are … But we have what we have … As they say, what has grown is what has grown …
After all, our world is not so bad at all !!!
ANDREY SKLYAROV
