The apogee of the development of the appropriating economy of the early clan community was the achievement of a relative provision with natural products. This created the conditions for the birth of two of the greatest achievements of the primitive economy - agriculture and cattle breeding, the appearance of which, following G. Child, many researchers call the "Neolithic revolution". The term was proposed by Child by analogy with the term "industrial revolution" introduced by Engels. Although agriculture and animal husbandry did not become the main economic sectors for most of humanity in the Neolithic, and many tribes remained hunting and fishing, not knowing agriculture even as an auxiliary branch of production, nevertheless, these new phenomena in industrial life played a huge role in the further development of society.
Ceramics making:
1 - spiral-rope technique, New Guinea; 2 - molding, Africa
Eskimo sleigh and leather boat - kayak
For the emergence of a productive economy, two prerequisites were required - biological and cultural. The transition to domestication was possible only where there were plants or animals suitable for this, and only when this was prepared by the previous cultural development of mankind.
Agriculture arose from highly organized gathering, in the process of development of which man learned to take care of wild plants and obtain their new harvest. Already the aborigines of Australia sometimes weeded the thickets of cereals, and digging yams, buried its heads in the ground. At the Semangs of Malacca, in the 19th century. standing at approximately the same stage of development as the Bushmen, the collection of wild fruits was accompanied by the beginnings of their cultivation - pruning the tops of trees, cutting down the shrubs that hindered the growth of trees, etc. Some tribes of North American Indians who collected wild rice. Societies at such a stage of economic development were even designated by the German ethnographer J. Lips with a special term: "peoples - harvest gatherers."
It was not far from here to real agriculture, the transition to which was facilitated both by the emergence of food supplies and the associated gradual development of a sedentary life.
At some sites of the Mesolithic era, archaeological signs of highly organized gathering or, perhaps, even emerging agriculture are traced. Such, for example, is the Natufian culture, widespread in Palestine and Jordan, and named after finds in the Wadi en-Natuf area, 30 km north-west of Jerusalem. It dates back to the 9th millennium BC. e. The main occupation of the Natufians, like other Mesolithic tribes, was hunting, fishing and gathering. Among the Natufian tools were found stone inserts, which together with the bone handle formed sickles, peculiar hoes made of bone, as well as stone basalt mortars and pestles, which apparently served for crushing grain. The same are those dating back to 11-9 millennia BC. e. cultures of the Near East, represented by the upper layer of the Shanidar cave, the settlement of Zawi-Chemi (Iraq), etc. The inventor of agriculture was undoubtedly a woman: having arisen from gathering, this specific sphere of female labor, agriculture for a long time remained a predominantly female branch of the economy.
On the question of the place of origin of agriculture, there are two points of view - monocentric and polycentric. Monocentrists believe that the primary focus of agriculture was Asia Minor, from where this most important innovation gradually spread to Northeast Africa, Southeast Europe, Central, Southeast and South Asia, Oceania, to Central and South America. The main argument of the monocentrists is the consistent emergence of an agricultural economy in these areas; they also indicate that it was not so much different agricultural cultures that spread, but the very idea of \u200b\u200bagriculture. However, the paleobotanical and archaeological material accumulated to date makes it possible to consider the theory of polycentrism developed by N.I. Vavilov and his students more justified, according to which the cultivation of cultivated plants independently arose in several independent centers of the subtropical zone. There are different opinions about the number of such foci, but the main of them, the so-called primary, apparently, can be considered four: Asia Minor, where no later than 7 millennium BC. e. barley and single-grain wheat were cultivated; the Yellow River basin and adjacent areas of the Far East, where millet-chumiza was cultivated in the 4th millennium; Southern China and Southeast Asia, where by the 5th millennium BC. e. rice and some tubers were cultivated; Mesoamerica, where no later than 5-4 millennia there were cultures of beans, pepper and agave, and then maize; Peru, where beans have been grown since the 6th millennium, and pumpkin, peppers, maize, potatoes, etc.
The original animal husbandry dates back to about the same time. We saw the beginnings of it already in the Late Paleolithic - Mesolithic, but in relation to this time we can only speak with confidence about the domestication of the dog. The taming and domestication of other species of animals was hindered by the constant movement of hunting tribes. With the transition to settled life, this barrier disappeared: the osteological materials of the early Neolithic reflect the domestication of pigs, sheep, goats, and possibly cattle. How this process went can be judged by the example of the Andamans: they did not kill the pigs caught during the round-up hunt, but fattened them up in special pens. Hunting was the sphere of male labor, therefore, cattle breeding genetically related to it became a predominantly male branch of the economy.
The question of the place of origin of cattle breeding also remains a subject of controversy between monocentrists and polycentrists. According to the first, this innovation spread from Asia Minor, where, according to modern paleozoological and archaeological data, cattle, a pig, a donkey and, probably, a one-humped camel were first domesticated. According to the latter, cattle breeding convergently arose among various groups of primitive mankind, and at least some species of animals were domesticated completely independently of the influences of the Central Asian focus: a bactrian camel in Central Asia, a deer in Siberia, a horse in the European steppes, guanacos and a guinea pig in the Andes. ...
As a rule, the formation of a productive economy took place in a complex form, and the emergence of agriculture was somewhat ahead of the emergence of cattle breeding. This is understandable: for the domestication of animals, a solid food base was needed. Only in some cases could highly specialized hunters domesticate animals, and, as ethnographic data show, in these cases, some kind of cultural influence of sedentary farmers-pastoralists usually affected. Even the domestication of the reindeer was not an exception: although there are still disputes about the time and centers of its domestication, the most reasoned point of view is that the peoples of Southern Siberia, already familiar with horse breeding, who had moved to northern regions unfavorable for horses, took up reindeer husbandry.
With the emergence of agriculture and animal husbandry, a transition was made from the appropriation of finished products of nature to their production (reproduction) with the help of human activity. Of course, at first, the producing (reproducing) economy was in one way or another combined with the appropriating one, and in many areas of the ecumene highly organized hunting and fishing remained the main or even the only type of economy for a long time. In general, the invention of agriculture and cattle breeding, associated with certain environmental conditions, increased the unevenness in the historical development of mankind. But the results of this became apparent later and mainly beyond the framework of the era of the primitive tribal community.
On this day:
Birthdays 1916 Born Vasily Filippovich Kakhovsky - Soviet and Russian historian and archaeologist, researcher of Chuvashia. 1924 Born Christian Eppessen - Danish archaeologist and historian of architecture, researcher of the ruins of the Halicarnassus mausoleum.About 10 thousand years ago in the history of mankind, the greatest event took place, which received the worthy name of the revolution. This "gray-haired" revolution had two major features. First, a person has turned from a simple consumer into a producer (see the article ““). Second, the duration of the revolution itself is unusual. It has been going on for several thousand years!
The transition to a manufacturing economy became possible due to the formation of important prerequisites:
- By this time, quite sophisticated tools appeared. Man has already accumulated a lot of knowledge about the environment.
- Plants and animals for domestication turned out to be “at hand” in humans.
One of the strongest stimuli for the development of the productive economy was the change and impoverishment of the environment, which became less and less favorable for traditional hunting (see article ““). By this time, a real "hunting crisis" had come.
Thus, the productive economy provided man with reliable and rich food sources that he himself could control. Instead of hunting luck, his efforts and knowledge came to serve the man. For the first time in history, man got the opportunity to provide himself with guaranteed food, which in turn contributed to an increase in the population and its further resettlement around the globe.
With all the huge positive significance of crop production, it also had negative features. Cultural crop production provided fairly high yields, but plant products, compared to animals, had much less protein and vitamins.
Where did the first centers of agriculture originate? It would seem that there are the best natural conditions! But in reality it turns out that this is not at all the case. See a map of the world's oldest growing hotspots. It is clearly seen that these are all exclusively mountainous areas! Of course, the conditions in the mountains are not better, but much worse, but this was precisely the most important incentive for the development of crop production. Where everything is safe, everything is in abundance, there is no need to invent something new. According to the apt expression of Karl Marx, "too wasteful nature" guides a person, like a child, on the help. " It does not make his own development a natural necessity. "
Most cultivated plants come from species that grew in the mountains, where in a small area there are very large differences in natural conditions (including climatic). Far from the most favorable conditions prevail, but this turns out to be the most important, since the species growing here are distinguished by extraordinary stability ("vitality"), great diversity. In addition, the mountains, as a rule, were reliable protection from aggressive neighbors, which "made it possible for long-term agricultural experiments."
Many believe that it was in these foothill areas that the environment suffered the greatest blow; it was severely depleted, that is, the person was forced to take up production, since natural possibilities were already exhausted.
S. A. Semenov describes the reasons for the emergence of a manufacturing economy in South-West Asia: “The combination of steppe valleys, oak forests and pistachio forests of South-West Iran with wild wheat, barley, goats and sheep was the prerequisite that led ancient hunters and gatherers to gradual transition to a new type of economy ... The era of such a semi-agricultural, semi-shepherd economy with a significant role of hunting and gathering lasted for 3-4 millennia. "
It was from here that agriculture began to spread in Europe. Figure 10 shows its directions and periods of "coverage" of individual territories.
In the III-II millennium BC. e. in Eurasia and Africa there was a division of the emerging "agriculture" into agriculture and animal husbandry.
A sedentary lifestyle brought a person not only relief from everyday worries, but also new and unexpected difficulties. A person was flooded with massive diseases associated with vitamin deficiency, infections. Settlement has led to a sharp acceleration in deforestation and, in general, environmental pollution.
Despite the difficulties, the sedentary way of life spread rapidly and the settlements became more and more. Of course, I would like to know which settlement was the first. The first agricultural settlement is usually called the Jarmo site, which arose in the 7th millennium BC. e. in the foothills of the northwestern Zagros mountain range (in the northeast of modern Iraq). Of course, this is still the same Southwest Asia!
Agriculture and animal husbandry continued to develop, all new species of plants and animals were "tamed" by man. The formation of early "agricultural production" took several thousand years, and domestication took place throughout its course. Figure 12 shows the periods of domestication of certain species of plants and animals, the regions of their origin are indicated. Note that almost most of the plants are mountainous.
The next few thousand years have brought about great changes in agricultural production. The truly revolutionary moments were the invention of the plow, which replaced the manual hoe, and the use of draft animals.
The entire history of the primary economic activity of man can be conditionally divided into four stages. The first of them was the origin of the future agricultural production, the formation of prerequisites for its development. The second stage is the period of the formation of an archaic economy, when there were no special tools of labor, that is, technology. There was an extensive development of the economy through the use of more and more new territories. This was followed by a flourishing stage, when an agricultural and livestock economy was formed, which took leading positions in the economy of the world at that time. Agriculture is gradually becoming diversified, its different types are being formed: slash-and-burn, interchangeable and irrigated agriculture, distant-pasture (nomadic) and "near-house" (ie, livestock breeding) animal husbandry. The flourishing stage lasted for a long time, until the onset of the industrial era (that is, until the end of the 18th century). The fourth stage in the development of a person's primary economic activity can be called the stage of “stabilization”. In the XVII-XVIII centuries. the role of commodity production increased sharply. The “non-food sector” in the economy developed rapidly. The cities grew rapidly.
Gradually, by the Middle Ages, the manufacturing economy spread throughout the globe (except Australia). Slowly, step by step, as if along a chain, there was a transfer of "new technologies" from more economically civilized groups of people to less developed ones.
The chronology of the emergence of the first centers of agriculture and their territorial location makes it possible to see many geographical patterns.
It is clearly seen that all the first foci were located in the foothills and mountains, and only a few millennia later the "agricultural civilization" embraced the river valleys. Further, also with an interval of several thousand years, agriculture "stepped" on the coast of the inland seas, and even later on the oceans.
A particularly large role in the history of human culture belongs to the so-called great river civilizations that arose several thousand years BC. e.
What factors contributed to the development of the economy in these territories? A higher level of human development brought into play new factors, which were determined by the presence of:
- fertile soils (alluvial);
- natural boundaries that protected new economic centers (mountains, seas);
- a single relatively compact territory, convenient for internal communications;
- on the other hand, the same territory made it possible to provide food for a significant population.
In each of these territories, large rivers played a special role, being their economic "pivot", a powerful uniting force. Specific natural conditions demanded from a person huge labor costs (typical labor-intensive economy), pooling of efforts and division of labor (to increase its efficiency).
Despite some geographical differences between the great river civilizations, the type of economy formed in them was very close.
In agriculture, field cultivation, horticulture and horticulture were most developed, and in livestock breeding, breeding of pedigree and draft animals.
The development of irrigation required tremendous collective efforts (usually of the entire community) and even the state.
As in the long period that followed, the trade was mainly external, and it was conducted with the Mediterranean territories. In the countries of the East, the first metal money appeared in the form of various coins and ingots.
At the turn of the past and our era, a higher type of civilization developed in the Mediterranean basin, which received the name Mediterranean (it gradually transformed into a European one). The greatness and dominance of Mediterranean civilization lasted for about 35 centuries - from the XX century. BC e. and up to the XV century. n. e., up to the era of the great geographical discoveries. A typical Mediterranean civilization developed in Ancient Greece and Rome, although during this large period of history there were upsides of Crete, Byzantium and the city-republics of Northern Italy - Genoa, Florence.
Unlike previous civilizations (mountainous and river), this was a typical maritime civilization that formed on the coast of the inland sea. Its formation became possible only when progress was made in navigation (technology, navigation). It is no coincidence that the Mediterranean Sea is called the "cradle of navigation", since in this inland sea, in "greenhouse" conditions, the development of maritime affairs took place. The very name of the sea suggests that it is surrounded by land on all sides. The coastline is very indented, which made it possible for ships to not lose sight of the coast while sailing. The sea itself was a good natural barrier from outside raids. There are practically no ebb and flow in the Mediterranean Sea, which allowed even small ships to land at any time.
The nature of the main economic ties within the Mediterranean has become much more complicated in comparison with earlier river civilizations. Man has become a powerful productive force, actively participating in all processes that took place in this territory.
Thus, the first marine civilization in the history of mankind developed. Indians, Africans and Australian aborigines were rather weakly associated with the sea (except, of course, Oceania). The Arabs, Indians, Chinese and even the Japanese (inhabitants of the islands!) Did not have such a developed seafaring as the Europeans. However, Europeans did not succeed only in the seas. During the existence of the Roman Empire, a network of land roads with inns and other transport "infrastructure" was created.
During the Roman Empire (see article ""), the manufacturing economy reached a high level. Various fertilizers were widely used, crop rotations were introduced into practice. In animal husbandry, poultry farming was established, and extensive pastures were settled for livestock, fodder grasses were sown. Much attention was paid to the economic justification of agricultural production. So, in the II century. BC e. the Roman scientist Varro made calculations of the profitability and profitability of the "agricultural sector". He also spoke a lot about "the spiritual merits of agriculture, which brings man closer to nature."
20.05.2012
In South Africa, in Wonderwerk Cave, a group of archaeologists discovered a hearth of ancient people, which is about a million years old. The expedition was in one of the most inhabited caves, the first visit of people in which dates back to two million years. In order to find traces of fire, the researchers had to study the samples not only under a microscope, but also using infrared spectroscopy.
This method is needed in order to determine the effect of high temperatures on a given sample. So, if the bone was exposed to a temperature of over 500 degrees, then the salts in its composition pass through recrystallization, which is found in the infrared spectra. Thus, when analyzing samples, scientists were able to find parts of bones and plants up to a million years old. In these caves there were original kitchens (http://ampir-mebel.ru) of ancient people. And although it turned out to be extremely difficult to find ash and ash, since, unlike bones, they are very easily destroyed by ash and water, scientists still managed to do it. Thus, the anthropogenic origin of the fire was established, since experts claim that the structure of the found hall, namely its jagged edges, cannot belong to natural ash, but only brought from outside. Approximately the same materials were previously found in Africa and Israel, where their discovery in open areas was an even more laborious process.
However, some scholars argue that the use of the bonfire in the caves was irregular as no remains of the bonfire were found. The members of the expedition emphasize that confirmation of the use of fire in the Wonderwerk Cave could only be obtained by working with sediments at the micro level, therefore, the detection of the same traces in other caves is still very difficult due to the lack of suitable equipment. The species of the person who inhabited these caves was identified as Homo Erectus, but scientists do not undertake to speak about this with absolute certainty.
Secrets of Ancient Empires - First Civilizations
The famous scientist, professor from Oxford Peter Donnelly put forward a hypothesis about the Welsh, as about the ancient inhabitants of Foggy Albion. After analyzing ...
US scientists have suggested that the "domestication" of fire by a rational person first happened in South Africa. It was here that the first traces were found ...-
The ancient city of Jericho, located on the territory of Palestine in 7-2 millennia BC, was located next to Jerusalem. Excavation of the ancients ... 
Archaeologists are still researching the 3,000-year-old mummies found during excavations on one of the Scottish islands. By...
The world community is amazed at the new discovery of Australian and Chinese scientists. The discovery is unique, because we are talking about a new kind of Homo. Uniqueness...
According to archeology, the domestication of animals and plants took place at different times independently in 7-8 regions. The earliest center of the Neolithic revolution is the Middle East, where domestication began no later than 10 thousand. years ago. In the central regions of the World-System, the transformation or replacement of hunting-gatherer societies by agrarian ones dates back to a wide time range from the 13th to the 3rd millennium BC; in most peripheral areas, the transition to a production economy was completed much later.
Child considered the transition to agriculture on the example of only one, Near-Asian, focus, but considered it within wide boundaries - from Egypt to southern Turkmenistan. Following him, many contemporary authors consider the area designated by Child as a benchmark for studying the "Neolithic Revolution". Until recently, this had some justification. The fact is that in other regions of the world these processes remained unexplored, although it was assumed that there could have been their old, early agricultural centers.
In the twenties and thirties of the XX century, the outstanding Soviet botanist N.I. Vavilov and his colleagues managed to outline the boundaries of a number of primary centers of world agriculture. But this was only the first step towards knowledge. It was necessary to clarify their boundaries, to identify cultural and historical specifics. A lot has been done in recent decades. Now the places of most of the primary and secondary early agricultural centers are already known, their boundaries have been outlined, and the chronology has been developed - it is known how in time agriculture spread across the globe. Of course, discussions on all these issues are still under way, and much will gradually be more and more refined.
I think it is worthwhile to clarify the concepts of primary and secondary foci. Primary agricultural centers are rather large areas, areas where a whole complex of cultivated plants has gradually developed. This is very important, because it was this complex that served as the basis for the transition to an agricultural way of life. Typically, these foci had a noticeable impact on the surrounding areas. For neighboring tribes, ready to accept such forms of management, this was an excellent example and incentive. Of course, such powerful foci did not appear immediately. This was probably the result of a rather long communication between several primary micro-foci, where the cultivation of individual wild plants took place. In other words, the emergence of only individual cultivated plants was associated with micro-foci, and whole complexes of such plants were associated with foci. And then it is clear that micro-foci should have arisen at that time, which we called stage B, and foci - at the third, final stage C.
Probably, there were micro-foci that did not become the basis for the formation of large foci, or, at least, did not play a big role in this. Some could, for one reason or another, die out, others - merge into larger, already secondary centers that arose under the strong influence of neighboring more powerful agricultural centers.
With secondary foci, everything is also ambiguous. Of course, these are the areas where agriculture was finally formed after the penetration of cultivated plants from other areas. But it is quite likely that there were important prerequisites here that contributed to the success of borrowing, that is, a situation was developing typical for stage A. But there could also be a micro focus of early agriculture (stage B), as, for example, in some eastern regions of the present territory of the United States ... In addition, in the new natural conditions, the primary complex of cultivated plants could change greatly, it is quite natural to assume that the number of cultivated plants introduced new species that were not known in the primary focus. Finally, under favorable conditions, the secondary foci became even more significant than the primary ones, and, obviously, had the opposite effect on those who gave birth to them. It is known that the first civilizations were often formed on the basis of precisely secondary agricultural centers - Sumer, Egypt, ancient Indian civilization, and the Mayan city-states.
Now it is possible to distinguish seven primary and about twenty secondary early agricultural centers. And yet it is absolutely necessary to say about the main features. These features were the reason for a completely ambiguous, multivariate transition to an agricultural way of life. In terms of yield, tubers are about ten times higher than cereals and legumes. And this means that in order to obtain equally high yields of cereals and legumes, it was necessary to cultivate an area ten times larger, which, of course, required much more labor costs. Growing cereals and legumes depleted the land faster than growing tubers, and this also exacerbated the difficulties. And tuberous was easier to work with, for example, they did not need to be as carefully protected as cereals and legumes. And it was easier to remove them - less people and their efforts were required: ripe tubers could be stored in the ground for months, and cereals and legumes had to be harvested in a short time.
But grains and legumes gave people a more balanced, if I may say so, nutrition. With such a diet, as a rule, people are more likely to abandon the lifestyle dictated by hunting and gathering. Rather than those who grew root crops.
The sociocultural environment in which the transition to agriculture took place was different in different centers. And this also influenced both the pace and the specifics of the transition. In the mountains of Mexico and South America, agriculture originated among roving hunters and gatherers, in Syria and Palestine it arose among highly developed semi-sedentary hunters and gatherers, and in Southeast Asia and the Sugar-Sudanese region - among highly developed fishing tribes. In many Asian centers, the development of agriculture was accompanied by the domestication of animals, and in many regions of the New World (except for the Central Andean), with the exception of dogs and birds, there were no domestic animals at all. Obviously, the introduction of cereals and legumes into the economy, the emergence of cattle breeding reduced the time of stage B.
These processes went faster even when agriculture was gaining strength among the highly developed tribes of hunters, fishermen and gatherers. That is why agriculture was especially rapidly gaining dominance in Western Asia, and more slowly in the mountains of Mexico. In the first case, this process took place in the VIII-VII millennia BC, and in the second, it lasted from the VIII-VI until the III-II millennia BC.
And one more important feature. If the formation of agriculture took place among the population with a highly efficient appropriating economy, its introduction did not lead to a radical change in the already existing social relations, but only strengthened the previously outlined trends.
In the pre-agricultural period, as well as in the early agricultural, such societies had a developed clan structure, there was an early social differentiation. Such an appropriating economy, which in terms of labor productivity was only slightly inferior to early agriculture, contributed to this. For sago gatherers and Papuan farmers, for example, it took 80-600 man-hours to get one million calories (for the former, 80-180), and for roving hunters and gatherers, more than one thousand. At the same time, in terms of the complexity of their social structure, sago collectors sometimes even outstripped their neighbors, farmers, and in New Guinea there are cases when they switched from predominantly farming to sago mining, and at the same time the social organization became more complicated. Something similar can be noticed between developed hunters, fishermen and gatherers, on the one hand, and early farmers, on the other, for a number of demographic parameters - population growth and density, its age and sex structure, and so on.
The formation of a producing economy turned out to be more complex, more diverse. In different foci, this process took place at different speeds and with ambiguous socio-economic consequences - in some cases, the social organization did not change significantly, in others it changed quite radically. Something similar happened in the demographic sphere: on the one hand, conditions for population growth appeared, and on the other, the epidemiological situation worsened, and this, of course, adversely affected the health of ancient people, leading to greater mortality. The complexity, ambiguity also lies in the fact that in highly developed societies of sedentary or semi-sedentary hunters, fishermen and gatherers, processes took place that largely resembled those that we record among early farmers.
neolithic civilization agriculture
The version of agriculture as a gift of 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.
“… Even in the last century, linguists drew attention to the fact that in the languages \u200b\u200bof many peoples… there are a number of common features - in vocabulary, morphology and grammar. From this, a conclusion was drawn, which no one has yet been able to refute, that the peoples who spoke or spoke such kindred languages, and today separated from each other by thousands of kilometers, once constituted a single whole, or rather, had common ancestors. It was proposed to call them Indo-Europeans (since the descendants settled most of Europe and a significant part of Asia, including India) "(I. Danilevsky," Where did the Russian land come from ... ").
“The development of the glottochronology method, which made it possible to determine the approximate time of separation of these languages \u200b\u200bby the percentage of coinciding roots in related languages, as well as the correlation of common words denoting technical achievements with archaeological finds made it possible to establish the time when the Indo-European community began to disintegrate. This happened approximately at the turn of the IV-III millennia BC. From this time on, the Indo-Europeans began to leave their “historical homeland”, gradually mastering more and more new territories ”(ibid.).
The idea of \u200b\u200bhaving 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 \u200b\u200bof 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 certain single community that spoke a common proto-language, from which (according to the conclusions of linguists) practically all other known languages \u200b\u200bof the peoples inhabiting the entire The Old World in that part of it, which belongs to the northern hemisphere (wow, the scale !!!).
“The proto-language, which in its fundamental structure was no different from any modern or historically attested language, was spoken by a certain community that lived at a certain time in a certain place” (A. Militarev, “How young we were twelve thousand years ago? ! ”).
The process of settling and dividing these descendants into separate peoples speaking languages \u200b\u200boriginating from a single root, in the minds of linguists, forms a kind of "language tree", one of the variants of which is presented in Figure: five.
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 that 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? .. What, were they exterminated without exception? ..
And if the "aborigines" were absorbed (not in the literal sense of the word!) "Aliens", then how, in the process of assimilation, the basic 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. Figure: 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; B - Western Asia At the same time, we recall that N. Vavilov unequivocally and categorically comes to the conclusion about the independence of various foci of agriculture from each other at their early stages.
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, 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 \u200b\u200b(including those that have long been extinct) of different peoples, researchers based on the similarity of these languages \u200b\u200bhave 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 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 \u200b\u200bin terminology related to the sphere of religious worldview is noteworthy. There is a commonality of the words "sacrifice", "cry out, pray", "expiatory sacrifice" ...
But most importantly: 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 of the words “fermentation” and “fermentation drink” in the proto-language is noteworthy ...
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”: a there was no kinship of all peoples, as there was no single ancestor with his proto-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:
“… According to linguistic data, material culture, social and property relations, even the conceptual apparatus of the Mesolithic and early Neolithic human community, are drawn as more complex and developed than could be expected. And quite unexpectedly - not so different from the much better studied early literary society at the end of the 4th - the first half of the 3rd millennium BC, as is commonly believed ”(A. Militarev,“ How young we were twelve thousand years ago ?! ”).
The conclusion about the high level of development of the culture of human society in the Mesolithic is based on the provision on the natural and gradual maturation of culture. There are absolutely no archaeological confirmations of this conclusion ... If the culture is brought at the same time by the gods (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 weak difference in the conceptual apparatus in two completely different historical eras, 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 “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:
“To date, more or less reliably restored large arrays of vocabulary of the proto-languages \u200b\u200bof three large language families - macrofamilies: Nostratic, Afrasian and Sino-Caucasian. They all have approximately the same depth of antiquity: according to preliminary calculations, the Nostratic and Afrasian languages \u200b\u200bdate back to the 11th-10th, the Sino-Caucasian - the 9th millennium BC ... Apparently, they are related to each other and form a kind of “Afro-Eurasian” genetic unity ... ”(ibid.).
“At the same time, the lexical situation in the three macrofamilies is not the same. So, in the Nostratic languages \u200b\u200b- Indo-European, Uralic, Altai, Dravidian, Kartvelian - so far no or almost no agricultural or pastoral terms have been found, which were common to different branches and could claim to be common stratic antiquity. There are no or almost no such terms in the later proto-languages \u200b\u200bof separate branches - Uralic, Altai ”(ibid.).
But the Urals and Altai are very far from the centers of ancient agriculture, i.e. from regions of "gift of the gods". So where do the terms associated with this gift come from ...
“In the Sino-Caucasian languages, at the current stage of research, several general words are being typed that could be attributed to agricultural and cattle-breeding vocabulary at the proto-linguistic level; in the proto-languages \u200b\u200bof individual branches of this macrofamily - North Caucasian, Sino-Tibetan, Yenisei - whole complexes of such words are already reconstructed, but most of them have no deeper ... connections ”(ibid.).
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 so 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.
“Not so in Afrasian languages, where there are quite a few similar terms, genetically related, common to the different branches that make up the family; at the same time, each of the branches also has a developed agricultural and cattle-breeding terminology ”(ibid.).
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 \u200b\u200bwith the studied languages \u200b\u200bof the Old World. If the version of the “gift of the gods” is correct, then a certain similarity of languages \u200b\u200bshould 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 the 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 cardinal revision of cause-and-effect relationships in our ancient history requires a radical revision of this ancient history itself (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 just forces us to do conclusion about the artificial creation of our civilization under some external influence.
It requires such a decrease in self-esteem in terms of the possibilities for the independent development of mankind, which causes, of course, a rather strong internal discomfort of 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 in their reserved zone of “civilization” in the 19th century ...
But it is absolutely not known which of its inclinations and talents humanity could have lost on the long path of civilization development 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 !!!
Caption photo: Bacchus and Ariadna by Antoine Coypel, approx. 1720
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.