We know no more about the origin of art than about the origin of language. If we mean by art such activities as the construction of temples and residential buildings, the creation of paintings, sculptures or woven patterns, then there will not be a people all over the world who are unfamiliar with art. If, however, only elegant luxury items, creations intended for museums and exhibition halls, for decorating salons, are attributed to art, then we have to admit that the greatest architects, painters and sculptors of the past had no idea about art. This can best be explained with an example of architecture. We all know that there are beautiful buildings that can be called truly works of art. But there are hardly any buildings in the world that are not designed for a specific purpose. People who use them for worship, entertainment or living, judge them primarily from the point of view of usefulness. But beyond that, they may or may not like general outline, the proportions of the building, and then the work of the architect is evaluated not only from the practical side, but also according to the criteria of the "correct" form. In the distant past, the attitude towards painting and sculpture was the same - they were endowed with a certain function. Without knowing the requirements for buildings, it is impossible to appreciate them. In the same way, we are unlikely to understand the art of the past unless we are aware of the purposes it served. And the further we move into the depths of history, the more concrete and at the same time unusual these goals seem to us. The same thing happens when we move from the city to the countryside, or, even better, leaving the civilized countries, we go to the tribes, whose way of life approaches the living conditions of our distant ancestors. Such peoples are called "primitive", not because their thought processes are primitive - in fact they are often more complex than ours - but because they are closer to the original state of mankind. Primitive or primitive peoples do not know the difference between a building and an image with regard to their usefulness: huts should shelter from rain, wind, sunlight, and images should protect people from other forces, in their minds no less real than the forces of nature. In other words, sculpture and painting are used for magical purposes.
In order to understand these original, far from us artistic phenomena, one must try to penetrate into the consciousness primitive man, to understand the features of the experience that prompts you to see in fine arts not a pleasure for the eye, but a purposeful force. This will not require much work. You just need to look at yourself and with absolute honesty answer the question: are there not in ourselves some remnants of “primitive” thinking? Before turning to the ice age, let's look into our own soul. Let's say we have a newspaper photo of our favorite champion. Shall we take pleasure in taking a needle and piercing his eyes? Will we treat it with the same indifference as if we had torn a newspaper in any other place? Hardly. And although with my enlightened mind I understand that I will not cause the slightest harm to my hero or friend by such actions, still something in me resists. Somewhere there is a ridiculous feeling that what happens to the picture can happen to the person depicted in it. Now, if I am right, if these unreasonable superstitions are really alive in us in the age of atomic energy, then it should not be surprising that they are widespread among primitive tribes. Everywhere healers and sorcerers resorted to such a magical rite: having made a miniature image of the enemy, they pierced the chest of a hated doll or burned it, intending to harm the enemy. The English custom of burning an effigy of Guy Fawkes on the anniversary of the Gunpowder Plot shows traces of such superstitions. Primitive peoples sometimes do not see the difference between reality and the image. When a European artist painted a herd in an African village, its inhabitants were dejected: "If you take away our animals, how will we live?"
All these ideas must be kept in mind when getting acquainted with the extant ancient painting. Its origin dates back to the earliest manifestations of human activity. When, in the 19th century, paintings were first discovered on the walls of caves in Spain (ill. 19) and in southern France (ill. 20), archaeologists could not believe that a person ice age was able to create such living vivid images animals. Only gradually, as crude stone and bone tools were found in the same places, it became clear that the scratched and colored figures of bison, mammoths, and deer were created by the hands of hunters who knew them well. When you descend into such caves, passing along long narrow corridors, going deeper and deeper into darkness, and suddenly a figure of a bull snatched by a flashlight beam emerges from the darkness, you plunge into the atmosphere of mystery. One thing is clear - it would never occur to anyone to climb into creepy, inaccessible underground depths.
19
Buffalo
Around 15000-10000 BC
Rock art Spain, Altamira cave
20
Horse
Around 15000-10000 BC
Rock painting France, Lascaux cave
View of the Lascaux cave, France. Around 15000-10000 BC
just to paint the walls. In addition, only a few of these images, for example in the Lascaux cave (ill. 21), clearly visible on the walls and vaults. Most often they overlap each other in no apparent order. Most plausible
the explanation for these finds is that they are the oldest relics of the universal belief in the magical power of the created image. In other words - primitive hunters believed that if they made images of their prey - and even pierced them with spears and stone axes - real animals would also submit to their power.
Of course, this is only an assumption, but it is confirmed by the attitude towards art in the current primitive tribes preserving ancient customs. Although their magical rites differ from those of the ancients, artistic creation is associated with similar ideas about the effective power of images. There are still tribes that have only stone tools and carve images of animals on the rocks for magical purposes. Other peoples have festivities at which people dress up as animals and ritual dances imitate their movements, believing that this will help them master the prey. Among the natives, there are also widespread ideas about some miraculous connections with animals, when the tribe considers itself to be the descendants of a wolf, a crow or a frog. No matter how strange these beliefs may seem, they are not so far from our times. Even the Romans said that Romulus and Remus were fed by a she-wolf, and a bronze statue of a she-wolf stood on the sacred Capitoline Hill. Until recently, a live she-wolf was kept in a cage at the stairs leading to the Capitol. There are no live lions in Trafalgar Square in London, but
the British lion found life in political cartoons. Undoubtedly, there is a big difference between this kind of heraldry, political symbolism and deep seriousness in relation to the people of the tribal society to their totem (as they call their animal relatives). At times, they seem to be immersed in a dream world, where you can be both a man and a beast at the same time. Many natives have rituals in which the participants, wearing animal masks, experience a sense of reincarnation, as if they had really become crows or bears. This is reminiscent of children absorbed in the game of pirates and detectives, for whom the line between the game and reality is blurred. But children are always surrounded by adults who will say, "Don't make that noise" or "It's time for bed." The "primitive" peoples do not have such an environment that can destroy the illusion, since all members of the tribe participate in rituals and ceremonial dances with their fantastic games of transformation. The meaning of such rituals is taken from previous generations, and their power is so great that people are not able to get out of the role and evaluate their actions critically. We all have prejudices that we accept without reason (as primitive peoples accept their beliefs) and do not even realize them until someone starts asking questions.
It may seem that these circumstances are far from art, but in fact they largely determine artistic creativity. Tribal artists create things for rituals, and in this case, the main criterion is not beauty, as is customary with us, but the ability of the work to “work”, that is, the ability to play the role intended for it in magical rite. Moreover: artists work for their fellow tribesmen, who know exactly what this or that form, this or that color means. No one assumes that they will bring their “vision” to them, they are only required to complete the task with the greatest skill and knowledge of the matter.
Again, one does not have to go far for illustrative examples. We do not consider National flag like a beautifully dyed piece of fabric, the design of which any manufacturer can change at his whim. In the same way, one cannot arbitrarily change the shape of a wedding ring or wear it as one pleases. And yet, within established customs, there is always a certain space of choice, allowing the manifestation of one's own taste and skill. Let's think about the Christmas tree. She is dressed up as custom requires. Every family has own traditions and preferences that should not be violated. And yet, when the solemn moment of decorating the Christmas tree comes, much remains unresolved. On which branch should the candle be placed? Is there enough tinsel on top? Doesn't the star here seem too heavy and is the other side overloaded? Probably, to a person of a different culture, this whole ceremony will seem strange. He considers
22
The lintel of the house of the chief of the Maori tribe Early 19th century
wood carving
32 x 82 cm
London,
Museum of Humanity
for example, that trees without tinsel are much more pleasant to look at. But for us, initiated into the significance of the ritual, decorating the Christmas tree is an important matter. primitive art is also created according to pre-established rules, but leaves the artist the opportunity to express his individuality. At the same time, the technical skill of some artisans is simply amazing. The concept of "primitive" does not imply the primitiveness of the performing level. On the contrary, many distant civilized world the tribes achieved a truly incomparable perfection in carving, weaving, leather and even metal processing. Considering the simplicity of the tools used, one cannot help but admire the painstaking work and the confidence of the hand acquired in the course of centuries of specialization. The Maori people of New Zealand, for example, have achieved true wonders in woodcarving. (ill. 22). Of course, the complexity of performance does not yet determine the artistic quality. Otherwise, people who make models of sailboats in glass bottles, would be among the greatest artists. However, the undoubted skill of the masters forces us to abandon the widespread opinion that the unusual features of their work are due to a lack of skill. The difference from our culture here is not in the level of skill, but in the nature of the ideological attitudes. It is important to understand this starting position: the entire history of art is not a history of progressive accumulation of technical skills, but a history of changing ideas and criteria. There is a growing body of evidence showing that the artist of a tribal society, under certain conditions, is able to reproduce nature with the same accuracy as well-trained Western masters. A few decades ago, bronze heads of impeccable verisimilitude were discovered in Nigeria. (ill. 23). They were made several centuries ago, and there is no reason to assume that the natives who created them borrowed skill from outside.
Why, then, does the art of the natives, for the most part, seem so remote to us? Let's turn back to ourselves and do a simple experiment.
23
Negro's head,
presumably
ruler (Chni)
from Ife, Nigeria
XII-XIV centuries
Bronze. Height 36 cm
London,
Museum of Humanity
Let's take a sheet of paper and draw a face: a circle and two sticks in it, denoting the mouth and nose. Look at the eyeless face. Doesn't it seem unbearably sad to you? The poor man does not see. We feel the need to "give him eyes." And when the two dots stare at us, we breathe a sigh of relief. For us it's a joke, for an aboriginal - no. In his mind, the pillar, if facial features are marked on it, undergoes a transformation. There is an impression that a magical force has revealed itself. There is no need to make the figure more lifelike, because it already has eyes, it sees. On ill. 24 The Polynesian god of war, Oro, is introduced. The Polynesians are excellent carvers, but apparently they did not consider it necessary to give the idol a greater resemblance to a person. Before us is just a piece of wood covered with wickerwork. Only the eyes and hands are outlined with coils of fibers, but this is enough to visibly appear in a block of wood. supernatural power. We have not yet entered the realm of art, but the experience with the face can teach us something else. Let's try to change our doodles. Let's replace the dots of the eyes with crosses or any other icons that do not have the slightest resemblance to real eyes. It turns out that any options are equivalent provided that their relative position remains the same. For an aboriginal artist, such a discovery is worth a lot. He learns from it that it is possible to build figures and faces from any forms, and above all from those that follow from the peculiarities of his craft. As a result, its creation will not be very lifelike, but it will retain a certain unity and consistency of outlines, which our scribbles certainly lack. On ill. 25 a mask from New Guinea is shown. This is not the epitome of beauty, but the mask should not be: it is intended for a ritual in which the youths of the village, dressed up as ghosts, frighten women and children. And no matter how bizarre and repulsive this “ghost” may seem to us, there is a certain proportionality that satisfies the eye in the way of constructing a face from the same type geometric elements.
In different regions of the world, primitive artists developed coherent ornamental systems in the depiction of totems and mythological characters. In the art of the Indians of North America, for example, sharp
24
God of War Oro from Tahiti 18th century
Wood, weaving
Height 66 cm
London,
Museum of Humanity
25
Ritual mask from the Gulf region of Papua. Island of New Guinea. Around 1880
tree, bast,
vegetable fibers
Height 152 cm
London,
Museum of Humanity
26
Model of the house of the head of the head of the Haida. Northwest coast of North America 19th century
NY, American Museum natural history
observation is combined with indifference to what is called the real appearance of things. Being hunters, they are much more familiar with the actual shape of an eagle's beak or beaver's ears than we are. And one such detail is quite enough for them - a mask with an eagle's beak is the eagle itself. On ill. 26 shows a model of the dwelling of the leader of the northwestern Haida tribe, with three so-called totem poles. To us, they may seem to be just a chaotic heap of ugly masks, but the Indian sees in them an illustration of an old legend of his tribe. The legend itself will probably amaze us with the same incoherence and bizarre fiction as its pictorial arrangement. However, we should no longer be surprised that Aboriginal thinking is different from ours.
“In the city of Gwais Kun, there lived a young man who used to be lazy
yes, he lay in bed all day, until his mother-in-law reprimanded him for it.
He felt ashamed, he left and decided to kill the monster that lived in the lake,
eating humans and whales. With the help of a magic bird he made
a tree trunk trap and lured two children into it for bait.
The monster was caught, the young man dressed up in his skin and began to catch fish
and toss them to the threshold of an angry mother-in-law. She was so flattered
unexpected offerings that she imagines herself to be an omnipotent sorceress.
But when the young man finally told her everything, she died of shame."
All the characters in this story are represented on the central pillar. Under the entrance is a mask of whales that were eaten by the monster. Above them - the monster itself, even higher - the humanoid figure of an unlucky mother-in-law. Above it hangs a mask with the beak of a bird, the hero's accomplice, and he himself is depicted at the top in the skin of a monster and with fish in his hands. The vertical is completed by the figures of children used by the hero for bait.
It is difficult to resist the temptation to see in this work only the fruit of a masterful whim, but its creators took the matter seriously. It took years to carve large pillars with primitive tools, and sometimes the entire male population of the village was involved in the work. They solved an important task - to honor the house of a powerful leader.
Without explanation, we would never have been able to understand the content of the carved composition, in which so much work and love has been invested. This is often the case with Aboriginal art. mask on ill. 28 may attract us with its wit, but its meaning is far from humorous. The blood-splattered face belongs to a cannibal mountain demon. But even without knowing this, we will be able to appreciate the methodical sequence with which nature is transformed into an organized form. From deep roots artistic creativity we got a lot outstanding works, exact meaning
27
Death god head
from the altar 6 Copane,
Honduras.
About 500-600
Mayan culture
37 x 104 cm
London,
Museum of Humanity
lost, perhaps forever. And yet they arouse our admiration. All that is left of the great civilizations of ancient America is their "art." I enclose the word in quotation marks, not because the mysterious structures and images lack beauty - they give us deep impressions - but only to remind them that their creators did not strive for ornate "decorations". terrifying the head of a dead man, carved on the altar of the now destroyed building in Copan (modern Honduras, ill. 27), brings to mind the cruel human sacrifices that were part of the religious rituals of these peoples. Although very little is known about the semantic meaning of the reliefs, nevertheless, with the great efforts of scientists who discovered and studied ancient monuments, enough information was obtained for comparison with other primitive cultures. The natives of America were not primitive in the ordinary sense of the word. When the Spanish and Portuguese conquerors arrived in the 16th century, they met with the mighty Aztecs in Mexico and the Incas in Peru. Even earlier, the Maya in Central America built big cities, developed a system of writing and calendar timekeeping, which can not be called primitive. Like the Negroes of Nigeria, the Indians of pre-Columbian America were perfectly able to portray the human face believably. The ancient Peruvians, for example, made vessels in the form of human heads, amazingly close to nature. (ill. 29). And if the creations of these civilizations seem to us incomprehensible and unnatural, the reason for this should be sought in the originality of the ideological problems they solve.
On ill. thirty shows an Aztec statue from Mexico, presumably predating the Spanish conquest. Scientists believe that this is the rain god Tlaloc. In the tropics from rain often
28
Spirit Mask
Alaska. Around 1880
painted tree
37x25.5 cm
Berlin,
Museum of Ethnography
29
Vessel in the shape of the head of a one-eyed man from the Chicama Valley, Peru. About 250-550
Clay. Height 29 cm Chicago,
30
Tlaloc
Aztec god of rain XIV-XV centuries
Stone. Height 40 cm
Berlin,
Museum of Ethnography
people's lives depend: without rain, crops die and famine sets in. It is not surprising that the deity of rains and thunderstorms is endowed with the appearance of a terrible omnipotent demon. Lightning in the sky was imagined by the Indians as a huge snake, and many peoples of America revered the rattlesnake as a sacred and powerful creature. Looking closely at Tlaloc, we notice that his mouth is formed by the heads of rattlesnakes facing each other with poisonous teeth protruding from the jaws, and the shape of the nose also arises from coiled snake bodies. Even the eyes are marked with snake rings. We see how far the idea of "constructing" a face from given forms is from our ideas of a plausible sculpture. It is not difficult to guess the reasons for such a method. It is quite logical to intend to form the face of the lord of rain from sacred snakes, which embodied the energy of lightning. Attempts to penetrate into the consciousness that invented these supernatural idols are rewarded with the understanding that image-creation early civilizations not only was it closely connected with magic and religion, but also contained the beginnings of writing. In art ancient mexico the image of the sacred snake - the embodiment of a real rattlesnake - was thought at the same time as a hieroglyph, symbol lightning, which served for the cult veneration of a thunderstorm or, perhaps, its magic spell. We know little about these mysterious origins, but if we want to understand something in the history of art, we must firmly grasp once and for all that pictorial forms and writing are blood relatives.
australian aborigine draws a possum totemic sign on a rock
REFERENCE "FOMA": Andrey Borisovich ZUBOV - was born in 1952 in Moscow. Graduated from Moscow state institute international relations(MGIMO) USSR Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Doctor historical sciences, Leading Researcher, Institute of Oriental Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences. Professor of MGIMO, Russian Orthodox University ap. John the Evangelist. Head of the MGIMO Educational and Research Center "Church and International Relations".
Author of five monographs and more than 180 scientific and journalistic articles.
In Soviet textbooks, they wrote that religion arose because of the fear of primitive people before formidable natural phenomena. That, hoping to protect themselves from a forest fire or a flood, our distant ancestors invented spirits and gods. That out of ignorance they left food for the dead in the graves - what if they get hungry? Gradually, people moved from worshiping the spirits of nature (shamanism) to singing the host of gods (Egypt, Ancient Greece), then came up with monotheism (belief in the One God). And, finally, religion has gone out of fashion: life has become civilized, man has become scientifically and technically progressive.
Such views are still very popular today. But how fair are they? How do modern scientists see our prehistoric ancestors?
What is spirituality written on?
Many still believe that religion has evolved since ancient times as man himself has evolved. There was, in other words, a linear process of development: from primitive forms- to complex cults. In science too for a long time This approach dominated, but since the middle of the last century, scientists have abandoned these schemes, firstly, because of their internal inconsistency, and secondly, because of their inconsistency with the new array of facts. However, these schemes, long abandoned by science (but still living in Russia), continue to exist in popular culture. In literature, journalism, cinema, there are many stories about ancient savages who have not yet invented gods, or have just done so. Despite the fact that the discoveries of the last century left less and less space for such ideas and even gave a number of scientists a reason to assume that the most ancient person had knowledge about the One Creator God, there was both faith and a religious cult.
the main problem here lies in the fact that historians, culturologists and religious scholars often have almost nothing to rely on. After all, it is more convenient to study religion from texts than from archeological data. This is the spiritual sphere of life, and it is not so easy to restore it from the material remains of bones and tools. There is a relatively small segment ancient history in which writing existed *. (FOOTNOTE: The first written monument is dated to the very end of the 4th millennium BC. Writing appears almost simultaneously with statehood and about six thousand years after the domestication of plants and animals.) And there is a huge time layer - the most ancient, prehistoric times, the dawn of mankind, when not only writing, but also rock art was not there yet.
It is most convenient to say: the faith of the most ancient man was primitive, or maybe it did not exist at all, since there is no direct evidence. But to say so is to ignore the very unequivocal evidence of material monuments, it means to close one's eyes to the facts.
Since the beginning of the 20th century, scientists have been trying to reconstruct the worldview ideas of the most ancient people on the basis of archaeological finds. Moreover, this is done simultaneously with the study of living tribes in Central Africa and Australia, leading an archaic way of life. All this makes it possible to reasonably talk about the religion and faith of our ancestors.
Why bury the dead?
In the Olduvai Gorge in East Africa, at the site of the site of primitive people, many pieces of the skull were found - the upper parts and lower jaws. Why are they an ancient man? Scientists have observed modern tribes and saw that these people wear bones on their chests - the lower jaw or other parts of the skull of their ancestors, as Christians wear a cross. Just a coincidence? No, it looks much more like an ancestor cult than cannibalism. Apparently, the personality of the deceased, stored in a particle of his body, was very important to the most ancient person. Perhaps these bones were revered as sacred relics.
Secondly, it turns out that the most ancient people buried their dead relatives! They didn't leave the body somewhere in secluded place(unlike animal remains), but in a special way buried in the ground. It can be assumed that the grave itself - the mound was conceived as pregnant belly earth, who must give birth to the deceased outside the earth. The posture of the deceased, the remains of some items found in the graves by archaeologists, indicate that this was precisely the burial. But this is a whole revolution in the idea of an era.
It is natural for us now: a person has died - it is necessary to bury him. We reproduce a custom that has existed for thousands of years. But how and when did it appear? When a custom is created, quite specific motivations and ideas are invested in each of its elements. So what made ancient people bury their ancestors? What were their graves like?
In the Neanderthal burial, much indicates that, in the then view, the earth is a temporary refuge for man. Very often, ancient graves, especially in the Near East, resembled a uterus in shape. The deceased was placed in them in the fetal position - as the baby lies in the mother's womb. Another well-known position is on the side, in the sleeping position, it is more typical for Western Europe. What sense did the burying people see in this, what logic? The sleeper must wake up, the baby must be born. What else can be seen in both traditions, if not a transparent hope for a future rebirth, the resurrection of the deceased?
Until now, sometimes there is a naive opinion that burial in the ground is nothing more than a measure of primitive sanitation. However, the burials were shallow, about 40-60 centimeters - such a thin layer of earth will not hide the smell of decay. And the invariable giving of a special posture to the deceased and a special ritual clearly indicate that his fellow tribesmen perceived him not just as a piece of decaying and foul-smelling meat.
For a single purpose...
Let's look at what during the Neolithic period people spend their spiritual and physical strength. We see huge megalithic structures of the VI-III millennium BC. - tombs, sanctuaries, ancient observatories, the construction of which requires enormous expenditures of human energy. It is interesting that the researchers could not find the settlements where the builders of these hulks lived for a long time. When they found it, they were very surprised: they were miserable huts with the simplest, even primitive way of life - practically only what is necessary for the preservation and reproduction of life. According to scientists, 80-90% of the labor force was spent on religious buildings. All this did not give a person any additional comforts or wealth, was built over many generations and required not only rough physical strength but also a certain skill, experience, knowledge. This means that there was a certain way of transferring this knowledge, i.e. intellectual, or rather, spiritual tradition (the most ancient man did not share these concepts).
STONEHENGE: stone puzzle
In England, in the county of Wiltshire, there is a mysterious monument of ancient "architecture" - the Stonehenge megalith ("hanging stone"), consisting of concentric stone circles.
Most scholars agreed that this place is associated with religious worship. In the 19th century, the point of view became generally accepted, according to which the stone circle is nothing but a temple of the Druids, where they worshiped the sun and sacrificed people. Majority modern archaeologists It is believed that Stonehenge was a ceremonial cemetery, because it is in this area that the highest concentration of burial mounds in Britain is.
Scientists have established that this monument, which connected the end of the stone and the beginning Bronze Age, was built in three or even four stages over a period of approximately 1500 years. However, the main work was carried out between 1800 and 1400 BC. But what remains of Stonehenge today is just a pale shadow of its former splendor. More than half of the stones either fell, or went underground, or disappeared in some other way.
Construction began about 2800 BC. (some experts believe that over 3800), when a wide ring ditch was dug and 56 cuts were made in the resulting earthen embankment. These holes were then filled with mortar. The only tool the builders had at their disposal was a hoe made from deer antlers.
Some researchers believe that Stonehenge is an observatory for determining the days of the spring and autumn equinoxes, as well as the winter and summer solstices. According to scientists, the location of the stones is directly related to the movement of the Sun, Moon and planets.
A more recent example is Ancient Egypt. What has come down to us from this great civilization? Pyramids, temples, tombs - that is connected with the religious sphere, and not with the productive one. At the same time, the Egyptians lived in simple dwellings, not as primitive as in the Neolithic era, but not in palaces either. Compared with the Neolithic, the ratio has changed, but the attraction to the spiritual realm is obvious.
Historians who study ancient kingdoms China, they are amazed that the entire material surplus product of society went not into the expansion of production, but into the sphere of the funeral cult. All the surplus went to the construction in one way or another, to feed the people who built it, to the treasures that were put in the tombs.
This does not speak of human stupidity, but that people saw the main core of their existence in the religious sphere. Remember the words of Christ: "What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses his soul?" (Mk. 8:36) or "Be careful not about the food of perishability, but about the food that remains for eternal life" (John 6:27).
What did early man believe?
Excavations show that both food and tools were placed in the grave next to the deceased. For what? Ancient man, of course, knew as well as we do that dead body decays and does not need food. In addition, archaeologists have reason to believe that feasts were performed for the dead. This custom has endured for thousands of years. Even now, after the death of a person, many people, together with relatives and friends, come to the cemetery to leave a symbolic treat on the grave and eat something themselves * (FOOTNOTE: In general Orthodox Church does not approve of such a tradition, seeing in it remnants of paganism. It is necessary to remember the deceased prayerfully - both in the temple and at home. - Ed.). The meaning of the funeral feast is that, bodily leaving the living, leaving for the earth, a person spiritually remains with his loved ones. And when they come to his grave, they seem to sit down at the table with him again... And it turns out that the most ancient man did the same thing.
Joint eating of food is, first of all, connection, consent, reconciliation. The idea of the unity of our world and the afterlife can be traced from the earliest times. The ultimate goal is a union with God (which became possible in full measure only after the coming of Christ).
In the era of the Neanderthal, sacrifices are already known that have, in principle, the same goal. The most ancient man did not master the external world enough to be as good as, for example, in Ancient Egypt display your religious feelings. He couldn't write, he couldn't draw. But it does not follow from this that the world of his ideas was primitive.
Let's look at the first monuments of two cultures that have come down to us in written or verbal form (i.e., in the form of an epic): the ancient Egyptian (about 3-2.5 thousand years BC) and the Vedic (Vedas) of the ancient Aryans (approximately the same time). Both sources constantly emphasize the uniqueness and oneness of God the Creator. He is the Father (in the Rigveda He is repeatedly called Dyauspitar, that is, the Heavenly Father, hence, by the way, the name Jupiter). "What is this One, in the form of the Unborn, who set apart these six spaces?" - asks one of the hymns of the Rigveda, and others answer him - "This One breathes by Himself, not breathing; there was nothing else besides This"; "He Who is One is God above the gods". The ancient Egyptians spoke no less definitely, perhaps even more theologically clearly: “There are three gods: Amon, Ra and Ptah, and there is no second among them. With His Body He is Ptah."
It must be remembered that these ancient monuments did not create some new tradition, but only recorded much more ancient ideas.
Rigveda about One God
"Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Agni are called ... One. The sages call him differently - Agni, Yama, Matarishvan they call Him."
Egyptian monuments about the One God:
In the ancient Egyptian teaching of the end III millennium the king addresses his son: “Generations after generations pass, but God is hidden, who knows the sacred writings. cast in bronze... God remembers the one who works for Him" [Merikara, 123-125; 129-130]
The Eternal Drama of Adam
I think if we consider the history of mankind not as a process of changing economic formations, not as a struggle for a place in the sun or the best piece of the pie, but look into the very depths, we will see all the drama of its development. The most important thing for a person is the search for the truth of God. And on this path, both ups and downs are possible - when, turning away from faith in the One God, people began to worship spirits.
This gives us the key to understanding the whole dynamics historical process. Before a person begins to explore the world, create cultural monuments, develop technically, he is already fighting to preserve his divine image. After all, man is the image of God, and the ancients knew this very well. But the struggle for the human heart is the hardest.
The ideas about our most ancient ancestors, which we continue to reproduce by inertia, are extremely primitive and false. They testify first of all to our own spiritual level. And I call on cultured and educated people, before broadcasting the "generally accepted opinion" further, to stop and think: am I speaking correctly?
Recorded by Alla MITROFANOVA
Burials in the Near East, dating from the Middle Neolithic, were rather simple and poor, and with great difficulty we distinguish the graves of rich people from poor, noble from ignoble - except for fragments of clothing. But in any burial, no matter how poor it may be, there is always one item - this is a small ceramic cup, which can be in different places: at the head, at chest level, near the shoulder of the deceased ... This cup is exactly the same as a vessel for oils that were used for ointments. In the Psalms we can read: "Wine that gladdens a man's heart, and oil that makes his face shine, and bread that strengthens a man's heart." (Ps. 103:15). Oil was a common means of human hygiene. In the Near East, agricultural work was carried out under the scorching summer sun by almost naked people, and the sun would burn them to the ground if the person did not rub himself vegetable oil, which softened the fury of the rays, protected from burns.
That is, for Neolithic man, the fury of the sun and the fury of God are connected. Accordingly, oil has become an image of divine mercy, which covers human sin, forgives. That is, a cup of oil in the grave is a kind of prayer for God's mercy, for forgiveness for sins. This means that people deeply felt their sin, felt that they were unworthy to stand before God. Hence the division of the cemetery, temples and dwellings, hence the funeral rite associated with oil.
ZUBOV Andrey Borisovich-- was born in 1952 in Moscow. Graduated from the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO) of the USSR Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Doctor of Historical Sciences, Leading Researcher at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Professor of MGIMO, Russian Orthodox University ap. John the Evangelist. Head of the MGIMO Educational and Research Center "Church and International Relations".
What is spirituality written on?
Many still believe that religion has evolved since ancient times as man himself has evolved. There was, in other words, a linear process of development: from primitive forms to complex cults. This approach also dominated science for a long time, but since the middle of the last century, scientists have abandoned these schemes, firstly, because of their internal inconsistency, and secondly, because of their inconsistency with the new array of facts. However, these schemes, long abandoned by science (but still living in Russia), continue to exist in popular culture. In literature, journalism, cinema, there are many stories about ancient savages who have not yet invented gods, or have just done so. Despite the fact that the discoveries of the last century left less and less space for such ideas and even gave a number of scientists a reason to assume that the most ancient person had knowledge about the One Creator God, there was both faith and a religious cult.
The main problem here is that historians, culturologists and religious scholars often have almost nothing to rely on. After all, it is more convenient to study religion from texts than from archeological data. This is the spiritual sphere of life, and it is not so easy to restore it from the material remains of bones and tools. There is a relatively small segment of ancient history in which writing existed *. ( FOOTNOTE: The first written monument is dated to the very end of the 4th millennium BC. Writing appears almost simultaneously with statehood and about six thousand years after the domestication of plants and animals.) And there is a huge time layer - ancient, prehistoric times, the dawn of mankind, when not only writing, but also rock art did not yet exist.
It's best to say: the faith of the most ancient man was primitive, or perhaps it did not exist at all, since there is no direct evidence. But to say so is to ignore the very unequivocal evidence of material monuments, it means to close one's eyes to the facts.
Since the beginning of the 20th century, scientists have been trying to reconstruct the worldview of the most ancient people on the basis of archaeological finds. Moreover, this is done simultaneously with the study of living tribes in Central Africa and Australia, leading an archaic way of life. All this makes it possible to reasonably talk about the religion and faith of our ancestors.
Why bury the dead?
In the Olduvai Gorge in East Africa, at the site of the site of primitive people, many pieces of the skull were found - the upper parts and lower jaws. Why are they an ancient man? Scientists have observed modern tribes and have seen that these people wear bones on their chests - the lower jaw or other parts of the skull of their ancestors, as Christians wear a cross. Just a coincidence? No, it looks much more like an ancestor cult than cannibalism. Apparently, the personality of the deceased, stored in a particle of his body, was very important to the most ancient person. Perhaps these bones were revered as sacred relics.
Secondly, it turns out that the most ancient people buried their dead relatives! They did not leave the body somewhere in a secluded place (unlike the remains of animals), but they buried it in the ground in a special way. It can be assumed that the grave itself - the mound was conceived as a pregnant belly of the earth, which should give birth to the deceased outside the earth. The posture of the deceased, the remains of some items found in the graves by archaeologists, indicate that this was precisely the burial. But this is a whole revolution in the idea of an era.
It is natural for us now: a person has died - we must bury him. We reproduce a custom that has existed for thousands of years. But how and when did it appear? When a custom is created, quite specific motivations and ideas are invested in each of its elements. So what made ancient people bury their ancestors? What were their graves like?
In the Neanderthal burial, much indicates that, in the then view, the earth is a temporary refuge for man. Very often, ancient graves, especially in the Near East, resembled a uterus in shape. The deceased was placed in them in the fetal position - as the baby lies in the mother's womb. Another well-known position is on the side, in the sleeping position, it is more typical for Western Europe. What sense did the burying people see in this, what logic? The sleeper must wake up, the baby must be born. What else can be seen in both traditions, if not a transparent hope for a future rebirth, the resurrection of the deceased?
Until now, sometimes there is a naive opinion that burial in the ground is nothing more than a measure of primitive sanitation. However, the burials were shallow, about 40-60 centimeters - such a thin layer of earth will not hide the smell of decay. And the invariable giving of a special posture to the deceased and a special ritual clearly indicate that his fellow tribesmen perceived him not just as a piece of decaying and foul-smelling meat.
For a single purpose...
Let's look at what during the Neolithic period people spend their spiritual and physical strength. We see huge megalithic structures of the VI-III millennium BC. - tombs, sanctuaries, ancient observatories, the construction of which requires a colossal expenditure of human energy. It is interesting that the researchers could not find the settlements where the builders of these hulks lived for a long time. When they found it, they were very surprised: they were miserable huts with the simplest, even primitive way of life - practically only what is necessary for the preservation and reproduction of life. According to scientists, 80-90% of the labor force was spent on religious buildings. All this did not give a person any additional conveniences or wealth, was built over many generations and required not only brute physical strength, but also a certain skill, experience, knowledge. This means that there was a certain way of transferring this knowledge, i.e. intellectual, or rather, spiritual tradition (the most ancient man did not share these concepts).
In England, in the county of Wiltshire, there is a mysterious monument of ancient "architecture" - the Stonehenge megalith ("hanging stone"), consisting of concentric stone circles.
Most scholars agreed that this place is associated with religious worship. In the 19th century, the point of view became generally accepted, according to which the stone circle is nothing but a temple of the Druids, where they worshiped the sun and sacrificed people. Most modern archaeologists believe that Stonehenge was a ceremonial cemetery, because this area has the highest concentration of burial mounds in Britain.
Scientists have established that this monument, which linked the end of the Stone Age and the beginning of the Bronze Age, was erected in three or even four stages over a period of approximately 1500 years. However, the main work was carried out between 1800 and 1400 BC. But what remains of Stonehenge today is just a pale shadow of its former splendor. More than half of the stones either fell, or went underground, or disappeared in some other way.
Construction began about 2800 BC. (some experts believe that over 3800), when a wide ring ditch was dug and 56 cuts were made in the resulting earthen embankment. These holes were then filled with mortar. The only tool the builders had at their disposal was a hoe made from deer antlers.
Some researchers believe that Stonehenge is an observatory for determining the days of the spring and autumn equinoxes, as well as the winter and summer solstices. According to scientists, the location of the stones is directly related to the movement of the Sun, Moon and planets.
A more recent example is Ancient Egypt. What has come down to us from this great civilization? Pyramids, temples, tombs - something that is connected with the religious sphere, and not with the productive one. At the same time, the Egyptians lived in simple dwellings, not as primitive as in the Neolithic era, but not in palaces either. Compared with the Neolithic, the ratio has changed, but the attraction to the spiritual realm is obvious.
Historians who study the ancient kingdoms of China are amazed that the entire material surplus product of society went not into the expansion of production, but into the sphere of the funeral cult. All the surplus went to the construction in one way or another, to feed the people who built it, to the treasures that were put in the tombs.
This does not speak of human stupidity, but that people saw the main core of their existence in the religious sphere. Remember the words of Christ: "What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses his soul?" (Mk. 8:36) or "Be careful not about the food of perishability, but about the food that remains for eternal life" (John 6:27).
What did early man believe?
Excavations show that both food and tools were placed in the grave next to the deceased. For what? Ancient man, of course, knew as well as we do that a dead body will decay and it does not need food. In addition, archaeologists have reason to believe that feasts were performed for the dead. This custom has endured for thousands of years. Even now, after the death of a person, many people, together with relatives and friends, come to the cemetery to leave a symbolic treat on the grave and eat something themselves * ( FOOTNOTE: In general, the Orthodox Church does not approve of such a tradition, seeing in it the remnants of paganism. It is necessary to remember the deceased prayerfully - both in the church and at home. -- Ed.). The meaning of the funeral feast is that, bodily leaving the living, leaving for the earth, a person spiritually remains with his loved ones. And when they come to his grave, they seem to sit down at the table with him again... And it turns out that the most ancient man did the same thing.
The joint eating of food is, first of all, connection, consent, reconciliation. The idea of the unity of our world and the afterlife can be traced from the earliest times. The ultimate goal is union with God (which became fully possible only after the coming of Christ).
In the era of the Neanderthal, sacrifices are already known that have, in principle, the same goal. The most ancient man did not master the external world enough to display his religious feelings as well as, for example, in ancient Egypt. He couldn't write, he couldn't draw. But it does not follow from this that the world of his ideas was primitive.
Let's look at the first monuments of two cultures that have come down to us in written or verbal form (i.e., in the form of an epic): the ancient Egyptian (about 3-2.5 thousand years BC) and the Vedic (Vedas) of the ancient Aryans (approximately the same time). Both sources constantly emphasize the uniqueness and oneness of God the Creator. He is the Father (in the Rigveda He is repeatedly called Dyauspitar, that is, the Heavenly Father, hence, by the way, the name Jupiter). "What is this One, in the form of the Unborn, who set apart these six spaces?" - asks one of the hymns of the Rig Veda, and others answer him - "This One breathes by Himself, not breathing; there was nothing else besides This"; "He Who is One is God above the gods". The ancient Egyptians spoke no less definitely, perhaps even more theologically clearly: "All the gods are three: Amon, Ra and Ptah, and there is no second among them." "Hidden" - His name is Amon in His name, He is Ra with His face, and with His Body He is Ptah."
It must be remembered that these ancient monuments did not create some new tradition, but only recorded much more ancient ideas.
Rigveda about One God
"Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Agni are called ... One. The sages call him differently - Agni, Yama, Matarishvan they call Him."
Egyptian monuments about the One God:
In the most ancient Egyptian teaching of the end of the third millennium, the king addresses his son: “Generations after generations pass, but God is hidden, knowing the sacred writings. (images) of Him from precious stones, cast from bronze... God remembers the one who works for Him" [Merikara, 123-125; 129-130]
The Eternal Drama of Adam
I think if we consider the history of mankind not as a process of changing economic formations, not as a struggle for a place in the sun or the best piece of the pie, but look into the very depths, we will see all the drama of its development. The most important thing for a person is the search for the truth of God. And on this path, both ups and downs are possible - when, turning away from faith in the One God, people began to worship spirits.
This gives us the key to understanding the whole dynamics of the historical process. Before a person begins to explore the world, create cultural monuments, develop technically, he is already struggling to preserve his divine image. After all, man is the image of God, and the ancients knew this very well. But the struggle for the human heart is the hardest.
The ideas about our most ancient ancestors, which we continue to reproduce by inertia, are extremely primitive and false. They testify first of all to our own spiritual level. And I call on cultured and educated people, before broadcasting the "generally accepted opinion" further, to stop and think: am I speaking correctly?
Recorded by Alla MITROFANOVA
Burials in the Near East, dating from the Middle Neolithic, were rather simple and poor, and with great difficulty we distinguish the graves of rich people from poor, noble from humble - except for fragments of clothing. But in any burial, no matter how poor it may be, one object is always present - this is a small ceramic cup, which can be located in different places: at the head of the head, at chest level, near the shoulder of the deceased ... This cup is exactly the same as a vessel for oils that were used for ointments. In the Psalms we can read: "Wine that gladdens a man's heart, and oil that makes his face shine, and bread that strengthens a man's heart." (Ps. 103:15). Oil was a common means of human hygiene. In the Near East, agricultural work was carried out under the scorching summer sun by almost naked people, and the sun would have burned them to the ground if the person had not rubbed himself with vegetable oil, which softened the fury of the rays and protected from burns.
That is, for Neolithic man, the fury of the sun and the fury of God are connected. Accordingly, oil has become an image of divine mercy, which covers human sin, forgives. That is, a cup of oil in the grave is a kind of prayer for God's mercy, for forgiveness for sins. This means that people deeply felt their sin, felt that they were unworthy to stand before God. Hence the separation of the cemetery, temples and dwellings, hence the funeral rite associated with oil.
Lectures by Professor Zubov on the torrent:
Here and about the Aryans and about Egypt and many, many interesting things. Real science is much more interesting than the faded fantasy (often according to Freud) of quasi-science swindlers. I'm silent about the in fact clinical fantasies of all kinds of neo-pagans.
Hunting forums often raise the issue of hunting with ancient (primitive) weapons. Disputes in the network about the appropriateness and effectiveness of such a hunt are carried out to bloody calluses on the fingertips. But those who advocate such experiments make their own arguments. After all, it is one thing with a rifled gun to shoot deer hunted down from a helicopter, and another to get close to the game at 10 meters and accurately launch a dart or stone. As experienced people say, hunting is good when the game has a chance, otherwise it is meat harvesting. And the use of spears, blowguns, etc. this chance for an animal or a bird is increased.
In addition, the process becomes much more interesting, brings completely different sensations. Many peoples who have preserved their primitive way of life still use various types of traditional hunting weapons to this day. Consider the most discussed of them and simple to manufacture.
Hunting weapons before the invention of gunpowder were more often throwing. Perhaps the first thing we'll talk about is a boomerang. There is a misconception that only Australian indigenous tribes can call themselves the full-fledged inventors of this projectile. But it is not so. Images of various curved sticks in the hands of a person are in the ancient tombs of Egypt and among rock paintings Asia. Used on every continent different nations. There is a conjecture that, like many inventions of mankind, it occurred to the inhabitants of different parts of the planet to make returning sticks almost simultaneously. Their use disappeared with the invention of the bow and arrow.
But the Australians did not think of this and continued, until the very meeting with the pale-faced colonialists, to throw boomerangs at the birds. Therefore, "authorship" was assigned to them. The first advantage of the boomerang is that it is not so difficult to manufacture. If we talk about the classic, non-returning form. In fact, it can be any curved stick that rotates in flight, thereby increasing the force of impact when it collides with game. They hunt with a boomerang, usually for birds.
Consider the cons. An open area is needed, since trees are a huge obstacle to such weapons, if not they can completely reduce the chances of prey to zero. And there should be a lot of birds. Actually, the natives hunt like this, watching for flocks of birds in their places of accumulation. It takes years of practice to hit a lone bird with a boomerang. And even in this case, luck may not smile. But if you already hit, the euphoria will be incomparable with a successful shot with a shot.
Type of weapon - bola (bolas)
Used by residents South America, and not only for hunting ungulates, for example, elk, and birds, but also as a combat one. It consists of several (2 or more) round stones tied into leather bags, each of which is attached to a leather belt or rope about 1.5 meters long. All ropes with free ends are connected (woven) or tied to the ring. They spun the bolas over their heads and threw them at the target. When hitting an animal, the balls forcefully entangle it with ropes (or straps) and strike. The Indians used it to knock down a running guanaco (camel family). Chukchi and Koryaks caught birds in a similar way. The maximum throwing range is about 100 m. The Pampas Indians could throw bolas accurately up to 150 m. Try to practice by choosing bushes or small trees as a target and see with what force they twist the branches.
Another weapon that uses stone is the sling, an ancient human invention that takes us back to Neolithic times and earlier. Some consider it an undeservedly forgotten hunting tool. In terms of efficiency, it was not much inferior to the spear. Let's remember what it is: two ropes, between which a piece of skin is attached, where a stone is placed. One end of the rope ends in a loop. Slings throw a stone (or specially made bullets), before that spinning, adding speed to it due to centrifugal force. In addition to all the advantages of this tool (cheapness and simplicity), it has a huge disadvantage: it can take years to learn how to accurately throw a stone, like the biblical David who killed Goliath.
The greatest interest and approval in hunting circles was acquired by various types of wind guns. One of which is the sarbakan. This is a long hollow tube through which an arrow inserted in advance is blown. The length of such a gun is from 1.5 to 3 m. The hole in the tube is 10-12 mm. IN classical form made of wood, bamboo. The Indians of South America still use it today. This is the perfect weapon in the jungle. True, the damage from a small arrow is small, which is often compensated by poisonous tips. Our compatriots in the manufacture of sarbakan use improvised means, up to ski poles, and arrows from long nails with "feathering" from foam. The flight range of a small arrow is about 10 m. It is also important how developed the shooter's lungs are. One American video blogger boasted of rabbits slaughtered with a sarbican. This is probably the maximum possible game size for this type of weapon, if you do not use poison.
Another throwing weapon is a dart. Of course, not the dart used to play darts, but a completely serious hunting weapon, which, like any other, was used in war until the 19th century. A dart is a lightweight version of the oldest hunting weapon - a spear. Although if we take into account the plumage, then we can compare it with an enlarged arrow. It is possible to make a dart from improvised means, from any even branch. To learn how to throw it accurately and far, constant practice is necessary. Let's apply in hunting, as on a small roe deer, and a large bird. Often used for fishing. True, in this case (to this day) the spear (a spear with several small tips) justifies itself more.
Good luck hunting or field training.
Post Views: 2 190
This topic comes up regularly. The inquisitive minds of alternative researchers cannot pass by the mediocre in terms of not only calculations, but also common sense thin-walled guns with redundant elements. I suggest watching the next two videos on this topic and once again familiarize yourself with the version of the purpose of these "guns".
Below is a small list of examples of supposedly ancient cannons, many of which have never fired, or fired once (which led to their destruction).
Bombard of Styria (Pumhart von Steyr). It was made at the beginning of the 15th century. The cannon is made of metal strips held together by hoops like a barrel. Caliber 820, weight 8 tons, length 259 cm, fired 700 kg cannonballs at 600 meters with a charge of 15 kg. gunpowder and an elevation of 10 degrees. Stored in the military museum in Vienna.
The walls are very thin, the core is unreasonably heavy. Has anyone made calculations - could such a bombardier shoot nuclei of such a mass? And not just once or twice.
Mad Greta (Dulle Griet). Named after the Countess of Flanders Margaret the Cruel. Like the previous one, it is made of stripes. Manufactured by the masters of the city of Ghent, caliber 660 mm., Weight 16.4 tons, length 345 cm. In 1452 it was used during the siege of the city of Odenarde, and was captured by the besieged as a trophy. It came back to Ghent in 1578, where it is still kept in the open air.
This instance even has a history, a legend. The walls of iron strips are also thin for this caliber.
Dardannel Cannon. Cast in 1464 by mater Munir Ali. Caliber 650 mm., Weight 18.6 tons, length 518 cm. The surviving cannon is a copy cast somewhat earlier (in 1453) by the Hungarian master Urban. The cannon, cast by Urban, fired only a few shots at the besieged Constantinople, after which it cracked. This, however, was enough to destroy the wall. The surviving copy was kept secret for a long time, until in 1807 it was used against the British fleet in the Dardannel operation. In 1866, Sultan Abdulaziz presented the cannon to Queen Victoria and it is now kept at Fort Nelson in England.
Why do we need a kind of “gear” on the barrel and a collapsible design of the “gun” on a threaded connection? Why half it? And what equipment to disassemble? In the field?
Fat Meg (Mons Meg). Like similar European cannons of that time, made of metal strips by Jehan Combière for Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy. In 1449 it was presented to King James II of Scotland and kept in Edingburgh Castle. In 1489 it was used during the siege of Dumberton Castle. Caliber 520 mm., Weight 6.6 tons, length 406 cm. Range with a projectile weighing 175 kg with a charge of 47.6 kg of gunpowder and an elevation of 45 degrees 1290 meters.
So thin-barreled for this caliber.
There is no need to introduce the most famous cannon in our country. Of all those presented below, it is the largest-caliber (1586, caliber 890 mm., Weight 36.3 tons, length 534 cm.). In the entire history, only 2 larger-caliber guns were made - the American "Little David" (914 mm. 1945) and the English "Mortar Mallet" (in honor of the creator Robert Mallet, 910 mm, 1857). Maybe not everyone knows, but in the Artillery Museum there are 2 more cannons made by Chokhov and 2 more in Stockholm (captured during the defeat of Peter 1 near Narva).
I do not claim that these are not artillery pieces. Yes, some of them shot. But I do not rule out that these are finds, or later items based on found specimens, which began to be used as guns during the seizure, redistribution of territories.
In the videos above, a version was voiced for what these thin-walled "guns" with stone cores could use. I voiced this version in the article
We look at the kilns for firing and grinding rocks in the production of lime, cement and at one of the old cannons
Here and there we see protrusions around the circumference of the "trunk" to support the roller during rotation.
Why not a gun? After the cataclysm, if the descendants find this, they will most likely begin to use it as a weapon, and not as equipment.
In modern furnaces, they are laid inside with refractory bricks. It is possible that it was also used in supposedly "mortars" and "bombers".
The process now looks like this.
With the volume of stone construction of the ancient world, and the brick European civilization, there should be a lot of kilns for firing and grinding lime. Perhaps, in these "guns" they only crushed the rock, placing stone cores there, and burned the charge in the "towers":
Scheme of a modern furnace
But perhaps the very principle of grinding the rock in the ancient "cannons" is also an adaptation of the finds to the needs of that time, perhaps in parallel with the military. And initially their design is something more complicated even for us.
