Nations arose. History of the origin of the peoples of the world

The genealogy of Genesis 10 gives us the most important information about the origins of nations. Specialists in the disciplines mentioned above could benefit from these data in their research, rather than relying on deceptive evolutionist philosophy. It happened that the listing of Noah’s descendants was simply mocked, but high-class specialists, having studied the list, were amazed at how accurately it fit into the context of ancient history. For example, Dr. William F. Albright, almost universally recognized as the most eminent of modern archaeologists, gave this assessment of the genealogy:

“It occupies a very special place in ancient literature, and even among the Greeks No nothing even remotely similar... The Genealogy of Nations continues to be a surprisingly accurate document... It presents such an amazingly “modern” understanding of the ethnic and linguistic situation of the current world (for all its complexity) that scientists will never tire of being amazed at how knowledgeable its author was in this issue."

The most obvious conclusion from Genesis 10 is that civilization began in the East, in the region of Mount Ararat (modern Turkey) and Babylon (modern Iraq). The dispersion of nations that occurred after the Babylonian pandemonium can be traced to some extent by the names of the descendants of Noah. The estimated distribution of these first peoples is shown in Figure 32. The Japhetic tribes spread mainly throughout the north and west of Europe. The Hamitic tribes moved mainly to the south and west, to Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean regions. True, one of them, the Hittites, created a great kingdom in Turkey and the western part of Asia, while others could well have gone to the Far East. The Semites were mostly concentrated in the regions of the Middle East.

Figure 32. The first peoples of the world after the flood.

The three sons of Noah, after the Babylonian dispersion, became the progenitors of three branches of the human race. And although there are still ambiguities, in any case, the information given in the genealogy of peoples is quite correct, as is clear from the map placed here.

Here is a list of Japhetic peoples listed in the genealogy (Gen. 10:2-5), which can be relatively reliably identified: Javan (Greece); Magog, Meshech and Tubal (Russia); Homer (Cimmeria, Germany); Firas (Thrace, Etruria); Madai (Mussell); Askenas (Germany); Togarmah (Armenia) and Do-danim (Dardanians). Most of these peoples probably migrated to Europe, and from them came the so-called Caucasian and Aryan “races.” Then, of course, they spread throughout the Americas, South Africa and many sea islands,

The descendants of Shem (Gen. 10:21-31) are primarily Eber (Jews), Elam (Persia), Aram (Syria), Assur (Assyria); and later - through Ishmael, Esau and other descendants of Abraham (as well as Moab and Ammon, the sons of Lot) - and all the Arab nations.

Some of the Hamites (Gen. 10:6-20) are very clearly identified, especially Mizraim (Egypt), Cush (Ethiopia), Canaan (Canaanites, Phoenicians, Hittites) and Puth (Libya). Although the line of kinship of the Negro tribes is not easy to trace, it is possible that they also belong to the Hamites, since, apparently, only the Hamites moved to Africa. The first Babylonians and the Sumerians at the time of Nimrod were also Hamites.

It is more difficult to establish the ancestors of the Mongoloid race. However, some signs seem to indicate that her ancestors were also Hamitic. Firstly, by the method of elimination we can assume that if the descendants of Shem and Japheth are clearly defined, then all the rest are obviously Hamites. Secondly, the Sinites (Gen. 10:17) are mentioned as descendants of Canaan, and this name is ethnologically probably associated with China. Thirdly, the ancient name of China is Cathay, and there is evidence that it came from the name of the Hete tribe, which in turn may have come from the Hittites (children of Heth, the son of Canaan). Fourthly, the language and appearance of the Mongoloids reveal more similarities with the language and appearance of other known Hamites than with the language and appearance of the descendants of Shem and Japheth known to us.

The factual material here is very scarce, and, obviously, scope is open for ethnologists to do fruitful work in researching the origins of these and other ancient peoples. If they had been guided by chapters 10 and 11 of Genesis instead of the evolutionist fabrications of modern anthropologists and archaeologists, then, undoubtedly, many questions could have been clarified. One of the anthropologists who has seriously and substantively dealt with this topic is Dr. Arthur Kastens.

As for the individual qualities of peoples, the famous words of Noah from Genesis 9:25-27 are very interesting in this regard. Knowing that after the flood all the nations of the new world will come from his three sons. Noah was inspired to prophesy about the role they would play in the life of mankind.

Perhaps Noah prophesied, partly based on his own observations of the growth of his sons and knowing that their offspring (by genetic predisposition and upbringing) would manifest to some extent the characteristic traits of their parents. The nature of man is threefold: he has flesh, consciousness and spirit, and it seems that in every person one of these three predominates. In the case of the sons of Noah, it was already obvious that Ham was primarily interested in the physical, Japheth in the intellectual, and Shem in the religious. Thus, it was logical to conclude, on the basis of hereditary and social factors, which characteristic traits would prevail among the respective peoples.

Probably because Shem was deeply spiritual and inwardly focused. Noah said about him: “Blessed is the Lord God of Shem,” undoubtedly predicting that it was through Shem that the knowledge of the true God would be established and spread. Indeed, the great monotheistic religions - Judaism, Islam, Zoroastrianism and Christianity - were spread by Semites (all other world religions were pantheistic and polytheistic). And it is extremely important that it was through the descendants of Shem through the human line that Christ appeared.

According to Noah's prophecy, God will “spread out Japheth,” who will “dwell in the tents of Shem.” This probably referred mainly to the sphere of intellect, so that the descendants of Japheth were destined to spread their culture, philosophy and science throughout the world. Intellectual influence, of course, had to be based, in turn, on political expansion and strength.

However, a long period of world history passed before this prophecy began to be realized. The Hamitic peoples of Sumer and Egypt determined the face of the world for centuries, then they were replaced by the Semitic peoples of Assyria, Babylon and Persia. And then, finally, under Alexander the Great, Greece conquered Persia, and from then on the Japhetic peoples began to dominate world politics.

The ancient Greeks recognized Iapetus (Japheth) as their ancestor, and it was they who created the archetype of Japhetic culture. It is a generally accepted fact that intellectually the West is based on the scientific and philosophical heritage of the Greeks. It was science, theoretical or applied - and not human power or material resources - that led the Greeks to flourish. And the same is true for their successors, Rome, France, Germany, England and America.

Moreover, Japheth was to “dwell in the tents of Shem.” This expression may mean that in some sense Japheth will join the family of Shem, while remaining, however, living in his own house. And such a union will not be a real, organic compound. Obviously, the meaning of the phrase is that Japheth was to share a spiritual life with Shem, despite the fact that his own contribution to human history would be primarily intellectual. This is exactly what happened when the Japhetic peoples accepted the God of Abraham and the Messiah of Israel.

The main characteristics and merits of Shem and Japheth were predominantly spiritual or, accordingly, intellectual. Ham's character and ministry were primarily physical. However, physical does not mean ordinary or slavish, and Ham's contribution is truly impressive. Among his descendants, we believe, were the Sumerians, Egyptians, Phoenicians, Hittites, Dravidians, Chinese, Japanese, Ethiopians, Incas, Aztecs and Mayans, as well as modern Negroes, American Indians, Eskimos and Pacific tribes.

These peoples did not become famous for either spiritual or scientific deeds, but achieved a lot in the field of technology and the “vital benefits” of civilization. For example, they were true pioneers in the exploration and settlement of areas very remote from Ararat and Babylon. Columbus and Leif Erikson did not discover America - the Indians did! It is very likely that many of the Indian tribes came there overland, which was what is now the Bering Strait during the Ice Age after the Flood, and are descendants of the Mongol tribes. There is growing evidence that other peoples arrived in America by sea, perhaps from Phenicia or Egypt. In any case, they all appear to be descendants of Ham.

The descendants of Ham are the first sailors, the first city planners, the creators of the first writing; They probably first developed agriculture, animal husbandry, and metal processing; them belongs to many other achievements in the field of practical activity. The invention of writing, be it Sumerian cuneiform, Egyptian hieroglyphs or Phoenician alphabetic writing, is apparently also a contribution of the Hamites (this is if we take into account only the “new” languages ​​that appeared after the Babylonian sweep; since it is known that Shem did not take part in Nimrod’s pandemonium in Babylon, the one language in which he spoke and could write probably survived from antediluvian times). We owe the art of printing patterns on fabrics, as well as the ability to determine the course of a ship using a magnetic compass, to the Chinese. So, providing all the basic material needs inherent in human society: land development, food, shelter, clothing, movement, communication, making metal tools, etc. - this is the sphere of activity of peoples of Hamitic origin.

Became people, comes from Marxist linear theory of socio-economic formations, in which staging formations was specially emphasized. But we need to understand that there were no steps between the stages, since the category “stage” is a speculative thing. There are no decisive criteria for separating hominids from humans, and in anthropogenesis there can only be a phylogenetic systematics, according to which the probable ancestors of the genus Homo are australopithecines.

1.3. Tell me exactly when it started it is forbidden, if only because people did not invent it themselves - they already had it hominid ancestors of humans in the form of STAI. - this is a long period of biological transformation of hominids into primitive people, since PACK-TRIBE this and hominid species units and, in which over millions of years hominids evolved into humans.

1.4. I believe that any story about origin of tribes must begin, at least, with a cooling of the climate on our planet, which led to a decrease in the area of ​​tropical forests, in which monkeys occupied the niche of inhabitants of the upper tiers.

1.6. With the cooling that began about 50-40 million years ago, latitudinal zonation began to form, and the seasonality of climate that we have today began to take shape. Therefore, on both sides of the equatorial strip of tropical forest, zones of subtropical forests appear, turning into savannas.

1.7. Periodically, glacier caps creep up from the poles, but it is thanks to the glacier that the great steppe appears across all of Eurasia. On the mainland, at the edge of the glaciers, a tundra zone appears, and between the steppe and the tundra, deciduous forests begin to appear, which are unproductive due to glaciations. And what the reader should pay attention to is that the Mediterranean Sea dried up more than once during the Ice Ages, so that there were no barriers for animals to migrate on a virtually single continent - Africa-Europe-Asia. But hominid migrations from Africa to Eurasia were still a long way off when, about 9 million years ago primates ancestors of humans separated from the ancestors of modern chimpanzees.

1.7. Most likely this separation occurred when hominids ancestors of humans came out to the savannas in eastern and southern Africa. So far, this version is confirmed by the remains of the most ancient australopithecus (Latin Australopithecus, from Latin australis - “southern” and other Greek πίθηκος - “monkey”), which were found mostly in South and East Africa.

1.8. Why did savannahs become the homeland of australopithecines? - can be explained by the fact that the savannas of Africa are not bare steppe, but rather sparse forest-steppe with solitary trees. Probably, tall trees nearby played a huge role during the period when the higher primates mastered the terrestrial lifestyle in the savannas, where there were many large predators.

Chimpanzee troop structure

2.1. Lifestyle of great apes, ancestors of humans - above ground, but under trees- we can imagine using the example of our closest relatives, which are two species of chimpanzees. The choice of chimpanzees is explained not so much by kinship, but by the fact that chimpanzees lead way of life on the ground, but under the canopy of trees, while gorillas and orangutans chose the path of narrow specialization. (After all, the path chosen by gorillas is rather the path of transformation into purely herbivorous Gigantopithecus, and the return of orangutans to an exclusive life on tree branches is a consequence of the characteristics of the forests of Southeast Asia, which became the habitat of this species of apes.)

2.2. The basis of the chimpanzee group is made up of males, who are in varying degrees of relatedness to each other, but the females are aliens. Among males, the strictest linear hierarchy reigns, which is called ordinal, since every male knows who is higher and who is lower than him on the ladder of privileges. Status is very important for any male, since the queue, and sometimes the volume of consumption, depends on it. Therefore, there is a constant struggle for a higher place, because the higher the male’s place, the more females there can be in his clientele. A special place in the hierarchy of consumption belongs to the leader and several of his associates (), whose place is usually taken by the leader’s half-brothers, who helped him in the struggle for the place of leader.

2.3. Female individuals, upon reaching sexual maturity, usually move to neighboring flocks. The place in the female hierarchy of envy depends on the status of a male who has shown interest in a young female and accepted her into his clientele. At the same time, the clientele of a high-ranking male itself has a hierarchical structure; it represents an embryo, since the hierarch-male satisfies his sexual instinct among his clients. However, there are no strict mating relationships, so the male does not know whether he is the father of a particular child. The fact is that low-ranking males can also get sex with a female, but, as a rule, they achieve favor through a gift to the female. Therefore, the initial position of a young male in the STAI hierarchy is determined by the status of his mother.

2.4. The structure of the STAI is important not so much for defense from predators (here it is easier to jump into trees), but for the protection of the territorial-natural complex from other chimpanzees. If groups of chimpanzees had the structure of a HERD, as it should have been according to Marxists, it would be difficult to expect the HERD to organize at least some kind of defense. And chimpanzees already have a distribution of roles and everyone is confident in the support of other members, because each member of the STAI has something to lose, since outside the pack and the consumption and security of even a low-ranking member will be less. The beginnings of the division of labor - at least in the form of division of responsibilities in defense - increase both the security of all members and, indirectly, the volume of per capita consumption.

2.5. It is not so much their origin from a common ancestor that allows us to consider chimpanzees as an example of the behavior of extinct species of primitive people, but rather the fact that today’s chimpanzees are at the stage of mastering terrestrial life under the canopy of trees. Were there any attempts by other monkeys to master a terrestrial lifestyle? - obviously they were and, even today, baboons should be distinguished from the marmoset family, which can be considered full-fledged inhabitants of savannas. But when we take modern baboons as a prototype of the lifestyle of those first human hominids who took a step from the lifestyle of chimpanzees on the ground, but under the canopy of trees to full life on open plains without any shelter, we must remember that baboons rarely use tools. While chimpanzees “follow” a humanoid path of development, since they solve their problems not so much through changing the structure of their bodies, but by inventing and improving tools, baboons have already acquired some predatory aromorphoses.

2.6. Of course, the question of the possibility of modern primates to evolve into a new species of people is purely rhetorical, but the study of baboons shows that it is impossible to acquire intelligence without the stage of apes, which is a “school” for handling tools. Intelligence is an evolutionary adaptation on the “human” path, when problems are solved through the invention of a new tool, while baboons have the opportunity to become only a new predator of the savannas.

How hominids mastered the steppes

3.1. If the question is - WHY did hominids come out to the steppe?- the answer is simple: - the monkeys could not help but try to master the new habitat that replaced the tropical forests, then to answer the question - WHY did hominids come out to the steppe?- we need to look at the differences between savannas and forests. The first difference between the steppes is the herbaceous vegetation, and this immediately created a problem for hominids. After all, primates could not eat herbaceous plants, since over millions of years of evolution they specialized in eating leaves and fruits of trees. But in the steppe, grass is precisely the richest resource. Even then, countless herds of herbivores migrated to the steppes, which flourished thanks to the ability to eat this very grass.

3.2. Of course, primates are capable of consuming succulent roots and seeds of cereals, but in dry steppes this resource would clearly not be enough to survive. Here, the traditional method for monkeys - COLLECTING, as the appropriation of all easily accessible resources, the effectiveness of which apes enhanced through tools, could not ensure the existence of hominids that were larger than baboons. If GATHERING could still feed hominids somewhere in the floodplains, then it is difficult to imagine how hominids could survive in the real steppes. But we know that the first representatives of the genus Homo became the most prosperous species precisely in the vast expanses of the steppes.

3.3. The task looked almost impossible, and so the hominids chose a completely unique way to solve it. Since they could not repeat the success of ungulates, which were the first to acquire the ability to digest grass, and therefore succeeded so much that countless herds migrated to the savannas of Africa and the steppes of Eurasia, the only way left for hominids to develop the steppes was - transformation into predators. After all the only resource that could attract hominids to the steppe was the meat of herbivores, fortunately, hominids, like primates, were omnivorous. But the entire previous evolution of hominids blocked the path for them to acquire predatory aromorphoses in their bodies. Their straight back did not allow them to run quickly on all fours; small sizes not only did not allow killing a large animal, but in tall grass even the hominids themselves did not provide safety from predators. Against the background of these problems - the absence of fangs and claws - looked like a completely solvable problem, as the dog-headed baboons, which acquired huge fangs, confirm to us.

Baboon troop structure

4.1. The apes have their northernmost range, but I am interested in the baboons' lifestyle, which can be explored as a possible hominid lifestyle during the period of their development of life in the savannahs. “Baboons are quite slow and live in savannas where there are no natural refuges from predators. Under these conditions, they created a complex flock structure that enabled collective defense.” This structure turns a FLOCK of baboons into a fighting force, making its way through savannas full of predators that are deadly to baboons. Only a single individual straying from the flock can become the object of a predator’s attack. Even for humans, an encounter with a group of baboons is the most dangerous situation you can find yourself in on the savannas.

4.2. Baboons live in warm regions where there are enough resources on the surface of the earth for food, and it is the feeding of baboons that shows what the same COLLECTING (as a type of appropriating economy) that is attributed to the ancestors of people could look like.

4.3. A flock of baboons during feeding stretches into an echelon line of females and young animals. Children are close to their mothers and thus learn that edible things can be found or caught in the grass. Adult males are located on the sides, forming a protective belt, as they rush at any approaching predator without hesitation. Such an organization of gathering turns the line into catch net, because if a small animal gets in the way of combing, then it has no chance of escaping. At the same time, gathering by baboons is a way for each individual to provide food for itself INDEPENDENTLY.

4.4. In Marxist anthropology, the thesis about COLLECTION was popular as the main method by which primitive people ensured their existence. But baboons show us that in savannas full of predators, GATHERING is not free grazing one by one, but there is a clearly organized coordinated behavior the whole group.

4.5. Of course, among baboons, the STAI structure primarily serves to ensure safety. Redistribution of resources is carried out only from the mother to her children, or during hunting, which baboons organize quite regularly, especially during the dry season.

4.6. Although the hunt is organized by adult males, often the entire flock participates in the hunt as a beater. Since baboon hunting objects are small animals, then consumption of prey meat is a privilege of males with high status in the hierarchies of the pack. Comparing gathering and hunting, we can conclude that it is in hunting that it manifests itself, which is a consequence of the entire hierarchical structure of the STAI. If among baboons the redistribution of prey meat is limited to high-status males, then among steppe hominids the redistribution of meat reached the very last members in the hierarchy of the human pack, because the victims of hunting among primitive people were large animals.

4.7. The similarity in the behavior of chimpanzees and marmosets in packs allows us to imagine the lifestyle of australopithecines, like the lifestyle of a baboon, but with the amendment that fangs and claws were replaced by sticks and stones (tools of labor) in their hands. It would seem that this is such a trifle - a stone or a stick in the hands of an australopithecus, but it was the tools that took these anthropoids beyond the scope of natural evolutionary development. No, the ancestor hominids did not escape the influence of the evolutionary law that the natural way of adapting to a new environment is to change the shape of the body, including the acquisition of progressive aromorphoses. The bodies of people's ancestors did not stop transforming, but not for the sake of adaptation to a specific environment, but for the sake of turning the body into a manipulator tools. And since any object could become a human tool, the whole body (and especially the hand) in the role of a manipulator had to be universal. As a result of such an indirect - through tools - approach to adapting to the environment, australopithecines did not need to grow fangs, like baboons; rather, on the contrary, the size of the fangs they inherited from monkeys noticeably decreased.

Transition to upright walking

5.1. And here the thought involuntarily comes about the notorious upright walking, which is popularly considered the most important difference between humans and monkeys. However, people did not invent locomotion on two hind limbs, since upright walking - in the sense of walking on 2 limbs - is an ability that many animals, and almost all primates, possess.

5.2. In Marxist anthropology, upright walking was explained by the need to raise the head above the grass in order to have a sufficiently large overview, on which the safety of hominids in the steppe depended. Marxists consider this explanation sufficient for the average person, and for themselves, since the consequence is more important to them - after all the transition to upright posture freed up my hands. Why explain if such a rational consequence explains everything, as if by itself - the ancestors of people initially had the goal of freeing their hands for tools.

5.4. Upright walking in the narrow sense - only like walking- would hardly have ensured survival for hominids on the plains of the steppes if it were not itself a special case of RUNNING (running upright). It was in RUNNING that the advantage of upright walking manifested itself, as constantly falling, since movement is carried out due to the force of gravity of the Earth.

5.5. A body leaning forward falls spontaneously - a person only needs to constantly substitute his legs to prevent the fall. Human running did not provide hominids with an advantage in speed in hunting, but its low energy consumption (due to the flight phase) made hominids hardy stayers. If the objects of the hunt were animal sprinters, capable of only a short run, then a running person could pursue a victim, especially a wounded one, for hours. Australopithecus, which was quite small in size, did not have the strength for a decisive blow, so that with one blow of even the sharpest weapon, it could kill a large ungulate on the spot. The straight position of the body intensified the blow, but in any case, a series of blows was required, for which the hominids simply followed the tracks of the wounded animal.

5.6. By the way, the loss of hair is confirmation that people did not strive for upright walking, but rather for RUNNING. After all, during a long run, the muscles generated a lot of heat, and a person needed to quickly remove heat from the body to the external environment. With the body in an upright position while RUNNING, the best cooling radiator could only be the skin, which, to increase efficiency, also began to be moistened with sweat. Of course, with this air cooling method - through the surface of the skin - the hair only got in the way. In addition, the need for effective heat removal has led to the elongation of the legs in body proportions, since in humans the surface of the skin of the thigh + thigh has the largest area.

5.7. The reader probably understands that if I do not provide periodization, I forgot about it. I must admit that I was hoping for a coherent presentation, but the article is divided into chapters devoted to individual problems. It turned out that to present sequentially emergence of TRIBES- in the form of a story - it doesn’t work, because we simply don’t know much, for example, when a person lost his hair. Most likely, the late australopithecines were already hairless, but it seems that the hair on the head, which no one had cut since childhood, covered the body from the sun’s rays like a cloak. However, the loss of hair raises the question of clothing and the time of mastering fire, since even in the savannas the nights can be cold, especially for people who can sweat a lot. However, clothing and the taming of fire were milestones in the development of high latitudes, while emergence of redistribution was a milestone for the emergence of humanity as such.

The emergence of redistribution

6.1. I have already substantiated the position that gathering using the baboon method, even in warm savannahs, could not ensure the livelihoods of australopithecines, so they could only become a thriving species on the plains as predators. But strangely, the bodies of australopithecines, as they moved to the top of the food chain, lost any predatory characteristics. The reason was that the superpredator of the shroud was not an individual, but a group of hunters. This collective predator had fangs and claws replaced by sharpened sticks and stones in the hands of hunters. But we are interested redistribution process products between members of the PACK-TRIBE, and I mention hunting only for the sake of redistribution of meat in a troop of baboons, which occurs through the leader to status males.

6.2. Actually, moving on to Australopithecines, if you don’t come up with some other redistribution mechanism meat, then only understandable remains. But, if everything is more or less clear with meat, then another question arises: - How did redistribution come about? other products from one member to all the others, and related to this - the division of the entire PACK-TRIBE into groups of producers of one product. The POSSIBILITY of separation can be explained by an increase in the body size of Australopithecus and the improvement of their weapons, so that from some point during the day they stopped being afraid of predators. But the question remains - why and how did the product pass from one member to another?

6.3. Here it is necessary to point out the methodological helplessness of orthodox anthropology, which cannot, in principle, explain the redistribution, since it accepts as an axiom the position that the community of primitive people, respectively, and australopithecines, was a HERD, and not a Flock with a hierarchical structure.

6.4. But explain emergence of redistribution we can only recognize the main organizing force of the PACK-TRIBE of primitive people. After all, the main hierarch of the STAI could simply take away any product from any member, and he himself would happily - in the hope of praise from the leader - be glad to present him with part of the product remaining after personal consumption. If we admit that the hierarchical instinct had such strength that every member he himself strove give the leader the surplus of his consumption, then the leader of the STAI-TRIBE constantly had an excess amount of various products, which, after personal consumption, he could distribute among his associates - high-ranking males and females from his personal clientele. Distribution scheme from the leader in other respects it was similar to the distribution of meat, but the main secret of the redistribution system was the appearance of an excess of food among the leader himself, which could only be formed thanks to the hierarchical instinct that each breadwinner had.

Tribal site as a site of redistribution

7.1. The transition from combing to the use of point sources of resources was a revolutionary breakthrough, as there was a transition to a new level of division of labor, because now the TRIBE was daily divided into groups of producers of only ONE product. After all, the entire Flock simply physically could not run around all the sources of vital products during the day. After the transition to separation, the PARKING PLANT became a place for the redistribution of products. If for monkeys, the parking lot is only a place to spend the night, which the Flock leaves in the morning full staff, since predators did not allow dividing the Flock into small groups, then in Australopithecus the camp turns into a permanent body, where part of the tribe remained for the day: - young animals under the supervision of old people, lactating and pregnant females.

7.2. Actually, there is nothing unusual in the parking lot, since many animals have dens, but among the Australopithecines the STANDING began to acquire the features of an economic cell. Each detachment brought one product to the PARKING, but after redistribution- members received all other vital products. allowed each hominid to obtain the entire range of products by engaging in only one type of activity - the extraction of one product. An increase in consumption will appear later, as a consequence of specialization, i.e. assigning the same hominids to the production of one product.

7.3. There is something similar in a beehive or anthill, where the specialization of insects HAS REACHED adaptation of body shape to type of work, so that different classes of individuals of the same species appeared. People avoided this, but in any case, specialization created a certain caste, since a descendant could only obtain labor skills from his parent, as a result of which specialization was passed on from generation to generation. In the narrow circle of a small tribe, the specialization of each member only increased consumption, but in doing so we destroyed myths about the succession of leaders or some kind of riots against leaders, which appeared under the influence of the theory of class struggle.

7.4. Most likely from some point the place of leader generally became hereditary, since the bearer of knowledge about managing the economy of the TRIBE could only be a descendant of the leader. There could be no talk of any change of leader, even more so - with the death of the leader, who did not have a trained successor, the TRIBE disintegrated, and the members transferred to other tribes where there were leaders.

7.5. However, the emergence of PARKING as an economic category raises the question - what then is the territory that the TRIBE owned. In terminology, there is a name for such a territory.

Territorial natural-economic complex

8.1. Earlier I already spoke about the important role of the hierarchical structure of the STAI for defense against the claims of other packs, but now let's fight - what is a natural-economic complex. Equally - a Flock of baboons or a TRIBE of hominids - daily uses a certain territory that can be called daily a territorial natural-economic complex, which is only part of the territory owned and controlled by a SPECIES UNIT (at least for an annual period). We cannot study the specific territory of a specific UNIT, but with the advent of the Australopithecus SITE, it becomes possible to imagine MODEL of the territorial natural-economic complex. In theory - territorial natural-economic complex A hominid Flock is a circle, the radius of which is equal to the path that a hominid can cover in the morning to the border of the complex and return back to the camp by night. After all, even a group of armed hunters could not stay overnight outside the fortified camp, since its small number did not ensure its safety, and the main camp without defenders was in danger of being attacked by predators. As a result of reasoning, we come to the conclusion that the ideal territorial natural-economic complex of the TRIBE is a circle of land, the center of which is the PARKING PLANT.

8.2. Even if we believe some studies that ancient people moved faster than modern people, we still must admit the existence of a physical limit to the distance of a hominid from the STANDING POINT during daylight hours. It seems that the radius of the circle of the territorial complex did not exceed 20-30 km, because from such a distance it is quite problematic to bring any amount of resource to the PARKING PLANT. But if the size of the territorial natural-economic complex is a fixed thing, then how is it related to the number of people in the tribe?

Tribe size

9.1. Up to a certain point population growth members of the PACK-TRIBE led to an increase in consumption, since it is clear that the more getters, the more product. But the size of the complex cannot be increased, therefore, over time - more often from the influence of the people themselves or for other reasons, resources began to decrease, which led to a drop in the volume of per capita consumption. Then - either the whole flock had to change the PARKING POINT, since it was moving to a new natural complex, or THE FACK has budded if the reason was overpopulation.

9.2. It must be understood that Australopithecus had a consumption level much higher than those hominids who decided to conquer the savannas. Otherwise, they could not develop into people (Homo), but even modern people for a short time can maintain their physical existence at the level of hominid consumption. Therefore, the number of members in the PARKING could vary, but within strict limits, and under normal conditions it directly depended on the wealth of available resources of the natural complex. However model of territorial natural-economic complex shows that people's limited speed of movement does not allow increasing its size. Therefore, we must admit that there were objective LIMITATIONS FROM ABOVE on the number of TRIBE members who could live in one STAND, in the sense of having the level of consumption that corresponded to the level of their development.

9.3. The upward trend in numbers was maintained, so that more and more people could live in one site. However, starting from a certain critical number - about a thousand individuals in accordance with Parkinson's Law of a THOUSAND - the community of people loses controllability. The leader can no longer recognize ALL the members by sight, so he involves assistants (tribal nobility) in the management and, as a result, finally loses the idea of ​​the real state of affairs.

9.4. On the other hand, if we imagine that the list of vital benefits of human ancestors was limited to a dozen products, then to produce this dozen, a minimum of ten capable members is required. Of course, the TRIBE had more links, but even so - we understand that the TRIBE as a UNIT OF HUMANITY - could exist if its number was on the order of several dozen members (if less, then the TRIBE turned into a UNIT OF THE SPECIES OF HOMINIDS - A PACK). From the point of view of the division of labor system, a large number was a condition for the production not so much of the volume of the product as of the assortment. Hominid development required constant growth in the number of products, and therefore the number of units of their type tended to increase. As Australopithecus and the first Homo developed, the number of their units also grew steadily, which is confirmed by archaeological discoveries of Neolithic sites, where about 250 people already lived. So, the number of the STAI-TRIBE had LIMITATIONS and BOTTOM, so if for some reason the number fell below a certain minimum, then the entire Flock-TRIBE simply died out if it did not meet another TRIBE in time, capable of accepting members of the starving tribe into its composition.

9.5. My reasoning refute the popular ones fantasies of wars of extermination, which were fought between packs and tribes of people during the period. Clashes between pack-tribes occurred only due to the division of natural complexes, but single individuals quite easily passed from one unit of humanity to another. A special need for members of other units, as carriers of other genes, will come after nomadic hunters go out into the steppes, where many tribes will find themselves isolated (at great distances from other tribes). After all, only this need can explain the fact that the Cro-Magnons who entered Eurasia will pick up the remnants of the population of Neanderthals and Denisovan man, because otherwise it is difficult to explain the presence of a significant percentage of their genes in the genome of Europeans and Asians.

Changing the criterion for choosing a leader

10.1. I have already spoken about the place of the LEADER as the top of the linear hierarchy in the TRIBE. Actually, it is strange that it would seem that “class” orthodox anthropology believes the role of the LEADER so much insignificant in the structure of the TRIBE (perhaps Morgan is to blame, who, as an ethnographer, studied more of the TRIBE among the Indians and did not study the role of the leader at all). At the same time, it is surprising how many books and films there are in which the tribal leader is portrayed as a despot. Therefore, most people do not even realize how contradictory the generally accepted ideas about a tribal leader. After all, it is believed that tribal leader it's still the same leader of the pack, which the tribe re-elects at almost every general meeting, but is also full of myths about rebellions of tribe members against the despotism of the leader. All these myths about vibrant political democracy crept into the idea of ​​“primitive communism”, which Marx established in anthropology as the everyday life of tribes. As a result, in modern anthropology everyone avoids the topic of LEADER and leadership, even description of the leader easier to find in children's literature.

10.2. The reader may have already noticed that I constantly criticize the classics of Marxism for their mistake in defining the structure of the first human communities as a HERD. Of course, I am doing this for the sake of enhancing the drama of the crisis in which anthropology finds itself, but in reality Max and Engels could not have known about such a characteristic as controllability, which distinguishes the concepts of PACK and HERD. After all, a Flock, unlike a HERD, necessarily has a certain activity division system(if not labor), in which there is a SUBJECT of managerial labor who has the power to make management decisions.

• 10.3. Management decision- 1)... 2) creative, volitional action of the subject of management,... This action consists in choosing a goal, program and methods of action of the team in the field of solving a problem or in changing the goal.

10.3. Unfortunately, in modern political anthropology there is no intelligible text on the topic TRIBAL LEADER, which could be criticized. Well, perhaps the chapter Leadership in the book of the recognized authority N.N. Kradin. , from which we learn only that “Unfortunately, archeology has little to say about specific forms of leadership.”

• 10.4. Leadership in tribes, as in local groups, is personal. It is based solely on individual abilities and does not imply any formalized positions. However, in tribes there is a certain mechanism for resolving conflicts through mediation and limiting the aggressiveness of the opposing parties. These functions can be assigned both to tribal segments and to their representatives or the most authoritative persons.

10.5. Actually, we again return to the fact that no one in anthropology has really studied the concept of TRIBE, so the unscientific concepts of “tribal segments” and “authoritative persons” are invented, which does not clarify anything, but only creates terminological leapfrog. It is clear that the reason for power, the role and functions of the LEADER must be considered in, but orthodox anthropology has not yet reached this point.

10.6. It is believed that leader roles and the leader are equivalent, which is partly true in terms of their position in the hierarchy, but orthodox anthropology still recognizes that leader selection criteria PACK and TRIBE leader are rather opposite. When “selecting” a leader, the main criterion is physical strength contender, which is typical for schooling mammals. After all, a certain male, in a personal struggle with the current leader, simply achieves victory and takes a place at the top of the hierarchy, but among monkeys we can call this “election” only by the freedom of each member to vote “FOR” with his feet if he remains, or “NO” if he moves to another pack. And when choosing a leader (in the understanding of orthodox anthropology), the main criterion is experience, less strong-willed qualities, and the role of physical strength comes to almost zero. However, we will not find explanations in social anthropology, since it does not even see this change in the criteria for choosing a leader.

10.7. To explain, we will have to remember the hierarchical structure of STAI, in which it sets . Since redistribution occurs through the leader to high-ranking males, then they have a clientele. The volume of consumption of clients depends on the ability of the hierarch male to acquire a SHARE that exceeds that of rivals (redistribution). It seems that the share depends on luck male in the hunt, which allows him, bypassing the leader, to distribute meat among his clients. Better consumption makes other members of the pack want to join the clientele of the successful male, so the successful candidate for the position of leader already has a positive attitude from the majority of members of the pack. But the main role in winning the place of leader is the transformation of the clientele into a CLAN-ROD, when a support group of close males is formed around the clientele hierarch.

10.5. We understand that the contender for the position of leader could only be a high-ranking male, whom the instinct of dominance forces him to compete for a higher status in the hierarchy. After the emergence of the beginnings of a CLINA-CLAN, the applicant in the struggle for the place of leader begins to be supported by males from his clientele, the number of which is greater for the successful applicant. The change of leader, even among modern monkeys, does not end with murder, since each individual is very important in the system of division of labor of the STAI, therefore the fights take on the character of a psychic attack in the form of a demonstration of the seriousness of intentions. If the applicant does not accept defeat, then he can split the Flock by trying to branch off with his CLAN-KIND. Then the result depends on the number of members who will defect to the new STAI. It is this “voting with one’s feet” that is the reason for the change in the criterion for choosing a leader - even if a stronger, but less intelligent and experienced leader could have won over the previous leader, then everything was decided by the result of the “election” - which side the majority of the flock would take. The unlucky leader remained with a smaller part of the pack, in which consumption fell much compared to the consumption of a more numerous pack, so that soon even members initially devoted to the new leader left for the more successful one. Examples of the emergence of politics in the form of bribery and the formation of temporary groups to achieve a goal can be seen in schools of chimpanzees, especially the bonobo species.

10.6. It should be noted that a change in the criterion for choosing a leader occurs during time of appearance of the tribe, but if there is no explanation, then it will be difficult to explain why the position of leader became hereditary. The structure of the TRIBE of primitive people developed, so that new forms appeared - TRIBES of nomads, then TRIBES of farmers, but the economic role of the leader, as the main distributor, was constantly preserved. In the system of division of labor, the place of the leader was allocated to the management level, without which it is impossible to imagine the functioning of the tribal economy.

Origin of peoples

How people, nations and races appeared.

There are a great many hypotheses about the appearance of people on earth. Some say that God created us, others suggest that we were brought by aliens. Every nation, every religion has its own point of view on the origin of man. There is no point in proving the correctness of any theories, nor in refuting them. The fact that without understanding history, without knowing one’s ancestry, it is impossible to foresee our near and distant future does not require proof.

Speaking about genealogy, we assume not only a store of information about our immediate ancestors, but also knowledge of the history of our people, our language. Speaking about history, you often come across the idea that peoples appear out of nowhere, carry out a mission prescribed by no one knows who, and disappear without a trace. This circumstance is especially noticeable in the history of the Indo-European peoples.

The origin of races is nowhere and never linked either to the appearance of Homo sapiens or to the development of ethnic groups. It is assumed that somewhere in distant Africa, in time immemorial, Homo sapiens, undoubtedly white, appeared, populated all continents, and then, for some unknown reason, divided into three main races. Ethnic groups have formed quite recently. Slavs in the 5th century, Germans a little earlier. The oldest in Europe, the Greeks and Romanesque peoples, appeared a thousand years earlier.
Everything seems to be fine and wonderful. It is not clear how the ancestors of the same Slavs and Germans communicated with each other. The answer is something like this: “...in a proto-language or Indo-European language!” Then the question arises, why first the Germans, and then the Slavs, suddenly forgot their speech? Literally, in one or two centuries they switched: some to Germanic, some to Slavic.

Then they lived side by side for a couple of thousand years and each spoke their own language. Despite the pressure of information technology, having survived the horrors of Nazism, already in the era of post-industrial society, many residents of Lusatia speak their native Slavic language. For several centuries, the Volga Germans lived in complete isolation from Germany and spoke their native language. For almost a millennium, Tatars, Chuvash, Mordovians, Mordovians, Mari, and Udmurts lived together with the Russians. They kept their speech.

What global processes occurred at the beginning of our era that forced some ethnic groups to die instantly, by historical standards, and gave birth to others. Wars? The Great Migration of Peoples? But weren't there wars earlier or later? There were, and some more. The horrors of the world wars of the twentieth century could not be dreamed of by the ancient inhabitants of Europe even in nightmares. The campaigns of Caesar and Attila were child's play compared to a continuous front, carpet bombing, volleys of hundreds of artillery pieces at every kilometer or crematoria in concentration camps.

Migration of peoples - a myth?

Or maybe there were no sharp transitions? Ethnic groups and languages ​​originated much earlier. And the relocations are somehow not very good. It’s one thing when healthy and strong men travel. With weapons in their hands and on war horses, they make long journeys. Having plundered a foreign country, turned local residents against themselves, and received trophies, the heroes return to the arms of their loved ones to lick their wounds.

It is another thing to invade a hostile country, dragging behind you infants, helpless old people, the sick and disabled. One has to very much doubt the combat effectiveness of such an army, and even more so the advisability of such campaigns. The resettlement of the Goths looks especially funny. From Sweden they moved to the Vistula. Then they moved to the Dnieper and Don. Having plundered the Greek cities of the Black Sea, the Goths took up arms against the Romans. Having defeated Rome, the wanderers finally settled on the territory of the empire. The most interesting thing is that absolutely the entire population moved from one place to another, leaving behind neither cities, nor villages, nor descendants capable of preserving the language and glory of their ancestors.

Really, at the call of their leaders, people abandoned their land, houses, acquired property, put old people and children in carts or on their shoulders and rushed to unknown countries to gain glory for kings and gold for royal wives? In every nation there is a category of people who are ready for adventures at the call of their hearts. Part of the population can be attracted by easy prey and tempting prospects.
On the other hand, there will always be sensible people. There are pathological conservatives who, under no circumstances, are able to change their place of residence or change their usual way of life. In the end, there must be opposition to the leaders. Where is all this? Why should leaders carry a burden with them? What's common sense? There are more questions than answers.

What happens? Relocation is a myth, fairy tales and fiction. There was no sign of him. What happened? There was a collapsing Roman Empire, which had more and more new opponents. There was a written history of Rome. Competent and inquisitive scientists grew up who tried to understand where tribes came from that were capable of fighting on equal terms with the great empire, and sometimes even winning.

Rome and the barbarians

During its heyday, Rome was not strong in the arts or sciences. The strength of Rome is the army. The advantage of the Romans is their ability to fight. They were deeply indifferent to what language their enemy spoke; they were of little interest in the chronicles of the defeated peoples. At the initial stage of their history, the Romans called all their opponents Gauls. The Greeks brought science to Rome. Together with the Greek teachers, the term “barbarians” came to Rome.

The Roman and Greek understandings of the word barbarians were very different from each other. The Greeks called all non-Greeks barbarians. The Romans shortened the meaning of this word, excluding from it the peoples who at that time were part of the empire. In practice, by the beginning of the new era, the Romans called the peoples living in the north or northeast of the empire barbarians.

Conquests and the defense of vast territories constantly required replenishment of manpower. The Roman army was replenished by residents of the border regions. Some legions consisted exclusively of representatives of one tribe. Often the “barbarians” became major military leaders and emperors of Rome. The new nobility needed a pedigree comparable to the chronicles of patrician families. It was at this time that the need arose for descriptions of the exploits of barbarian tribes.

Rome received the histories of neighboring peoples, the peoples were given Roman historians. Historical science acquired written sources. There is no need to talk about the reliability of such sources. They mixed everything: real facts, customer requirements, fairy tales, legends, myths and the outright imagination of the authors. It was in such sources that the first mentions of the Germans and Slavs appeared.

There are no written sources of the existence of the Slavs before the 5th century. One has to very much doubt the objectivity of the existing ones. What is the result of the reasoning? Is the history of our ancestors lost forever and without a trace? There is no need to rush to conclusions. We already have enough information that the history of the Slavs does not begin and end with the 5th century. Every year more and more facts about their existence are collected.

Ancient artifacts appear with writings in which Slavic words are easily guessed. Archaeologists are excavating household items of the inhabitants of ancient cities, in which continuous continuity with the later life of the Slavic peoples can be traced. And finally, the history of a people is deeply intertwined with the history of language. Slavic languages ​​are alive, they contain enough information to learn about the origin, lifestyle, way of life, culture and even religion of the Slavs.

History in Russian

The Russian language is no exception. In order for history in the Russian language to reveal its deepest secrets, it is necessary to understand the code of the language, or, more simply, to calculate the key words or sounds with which the language began. Despite the apparent complexity of the task, figuring out these mysterious building blocks of word formation turned out to be not so difficult.

There are several reasons for this.

1. Primitive languages ​​are quite primitive and laconic. The language of our distant ancestors was no exception. With all the diversity and richness of the modern Russian language, only a few words-sounds lie at its foundation. You can count them on the fingers of your hands, but from them a core or skeleton is built, on which a huge trunk with many twigs, branches and leaves of a mighty tree is supported.

2. All key words-sounds have their roots in omanotopy, i.e. natural onomatopoeia. Initially, this sound denoted an object or phenomenon with which this sound was associated. For the most part, primitive people associated sounds with the animals that made them. An example from modern language. “Koo-Koo” - the cuckoo cuckoos.

3. Some keywords are present in other languages, albeit in a modified form, but denoting meanings that are close in meaning. One of them is the sound “MA”, as options “MI”, “ME”, “MO”, “MU”, “WE”. In Russian: “Cute”, “Melky”, “SMALLER”, “SMALL”, “BABY”, “MOM”, “Well done”, “MIGHTY”, “Husband”, “WE”. All these words denote either one of the hypostases of a person or denote a qualitative sign of the same person. Similar words meaning “person” are found in Finnish, Turkic, and Germanic languages.

Speaking about the qualitative attribute, it was not by chance that I arranged the words in a certain sequence. The sound “MA” occupies a neutral position. This sound was one of the first words to enter human use. This is what they called the crying child and the mother he called. If they wanted to say about something smaller, then the vowel “A” was replaced with “E” or “I”, and vice versa, “O”, “U”, “Y” went in increasing order. This technique is applicable not only to the sound “MA”, but also to other words of the Russian language.

Stages of Russian history

Knowing the key words and the basic rules by which our ancestors created the language, you need to mentally transport yourself to the historical era when these words were born. Like many developed ethnic groups of the world, the Russian people have experienced several main stages of their development. Here it should still be clarified that each ethnic group had its own history

1. Primitive hunting and gathering. (First people, mom)
2. Taming and domestication of animals. (Indo-Europeans, human)
3. Plowing. (Slavs, mob)
4. Commercial hunting and trade. (Rus, Russia)

The first stage is common to almost all Eurasian peoples. Not many words from it have been preserved in our language. But the same phoneme “MA”, and with it the words “mother”, “small”, “peace”, “darkness” and some others.

During the second stage, the “Caucasian race” or the “Nordic race” appeared, as you like. The Indo-European language family traces its ancestry back to this time. This period gave the Russian language the following words: “aries”, “faith”, “age”, “evening”, “city”, “genus”. The meanings of some of the above words differ from modern ones.

The third stage is the Slavic stage. Most of the words in modern Russian appeared at this time. At the same time, the everyday culture of the people was formed, which remained intact almost until the beginning of the twentieth century.

Actually, the last fourth stage is Russian. At this time, the terms “Rus”, “Russia”, “Russian language” appeared. A culture of oral speech was formed. Modern writing appeared.

Based on all of the above, I tried to present my version of events in a series of short articles under the general title “History in the Russian Language.” They do not contain a detailed description of the events. This is a kind of contour map. It will take a lot of time and effort to paint it.

In the widely known phenomenon of the Great Migration of Peoples, the Germans played a significant, if not decisive, role. The Germans are tribes of the Indo-European language group who occupied by the 1st century. AD lands between the North and Baltic seas, the Rhine, Danube, Vistula and in southern Scandinavia. The problem of the origin of the Germanic tribes is extremely complex. As you know, the Germans did not have their own Homer, nor Titus Livius, nor Procopius. Everything that we know about them belongs mainly to the pen of Greco-Roman historians, the language of whose writings is not always adequate to the phenomena of German reality.

The ancestral home of the Germans was Northern Europe, where their movement to the south began. This migration pitted the Germanic tribes against the Celts, which led to conflicts in some areas, and to an alliance and ethnic mutual influence in others.
The ethnonym “Germans” itself is of Celtic origin. At first the Celts called the Tungrian tribe this way, then all the tribes living on the left bank of the Rhine. Roman authors borrowed this ethnonym from the Celts, but Greek writers did not distinguish the Germans from the Celts for a long time.

Germanic tribes are usually divided into three groups: North Germanic, West Germanic and East Germanic. The south of Scandinavia and the Jutland peninsula were the common homeland, the “workshop of the tribes” of the northern, eastern and western Germans. From here, some of them moved along the ocean coast to the north of Scandinavia. The bulk of the tribes from the 4th century. BC. maintained a tendency to move south into the continent and west. The North Germans are the tribes of Scandinavia who did not go south: the ancestors of modern Danes, Swedes, Norwegians and Icelanders. East Germans are tribes that migrated from Scandinavia to Central Europe and settled between the Oder and Vistula rivers. Among them are the Goths, Gepids, Vandals, Burgundians, Heruli, and Rugians. The question of when they settled in these areas remains controversial. However, by the beginning of AD. they were already located in this region. The most significant group is the West Germans. They were divided into three branches. One is the tribes that lived in the Rhine and Weser regions, the so-called. Rheinskweser Germans or the cult association of Istevons. These included the Batavians, Mattiacians, Chatti, Tencteri, Bructeri, Hamavians, Hasuarii, Hattuarii, Ubii, Usipeti and Cherusci. The second branch of the Germans included the tribes of the North Sea coast (the cult union of the Ingevons). These are the Cimbri, Teutons, Frisians, Chauci, Ampsivarii, Saxons, Angles and Varni. The third branch of the West German tribes was the cult union of the Germinons, which included the Suevi, Lombards, Marcomanni, Quadi, Semnones and Hermunduri.

The total number of Germanic tribes in the 1st century. AD was about 3-4 million people. But this modest figure decreased by the beginning of the Resettlement, because the German tribal world suffered human losses as a result of wars and inter-tribal conflicts. It was hit by epidemics and shocks due to periodic fluctuations in climatic conditions, natural changes in the resources of fauna and flora, and the transformation of landscapes as a result of the use of fire, new tools or labor methods.

Already in early times the Germans were engaged in agriculture. It was an auxiliary type of farming. In some areas, significant areas were occupied by wheat. However, barley predominated among the crops, from which, in addition to bread, beer was made. They also sown rye, oats, millet, beans, and peas. The Germans grew cabbage, lettuce, and root vegetables. The need for sugar was compensated by honey. For some tribes, hunting and fishing played an important role. It should be noted that using a plow and a wheeled plow, the German tribes could only cultivate light soils. Therefore, there was a constant shortage of arable land. The economic way of the Germans was primitive; “they expect only a grain harvest from the land.” The primitive farming system required large areas to feed a relatively small population. The search for such lands set entire tribes in motion. There was a seizure of the possessions of fellow tribesmen, and later of convenient lands on the territory of the Roman state.

Before the start of the Migration, the dominant role in the economic life of the German tribes belonged to cattle breeding. Cattle is “their only and most beloved property.” Cattle breeding was especially developed in areas rich in meadows (Northern Germany, Jutland, Scandinavia). Mostly men were employed in this sector of the economy. They raised cattle, horses, pigs, sheep, goats, and poultry. Livestock was valued, seeing in it not only labor, but also a means of payment. Dairy products and meat of domestic and wild animals played an important role in the food of the Germans.

Already at this time, the Germanic tribes were developing a craft, the products of which were not very diverse: weapons, clothing, utensils, tools. The technology and artistic style of handicrafts have undergone significant Celtic influences. The Germans knew how to mine iron and make weapons. Mining of gold, silver, copper, and lead was also carried out. The jewelry business developed. German women excelled at weaving and pottery, although the pottery was not of high quality. Leather dressing and wood processing were developed.
The Germanic tribes were very active in trade. Within the Germanic tribal world, natural exchange prevailed. Livestock was often used as a means of payment. Only in the areas bordering the Roman state were Roman coins used during trade operations. By the way, they were also valued as decoration. The centers of internal trade were the fortified settlements of the growing German rulers. The centers of German-Roman trade were Cologne, Trier, Augsburg, Regensburg, etc. Trade routes passed along the Danube, Rhine, Elbe, and Oder. The zone of trade contacts included the Northern Black Sea region. Merchants sailed the North and Baltic seas. Trade with Rome played a significant role. Rome supplied the Germanic tribes with large quantities of ceramics, glass, enamel, bronze vessels, gold and silver jewelry, weapons, tools, wine, and expensive fabrics. Agricultural and livestock products, livestock, leather and skins, furs, as well as amber, which was in special demand, were imported into the Roman state. Many tribes had the special privilege of freedom of intermediary trade. Thus, the Hermunduri conducted trade operations on both sides of the upper Danube and even penetrated deep into the Roman provinces. The Batavians transported livestock to the Rhine region. Trade was one of the powerful incentives for the readiness of the Germanic tribes to move. Contacts with Roman merchants gave them not only information about new lands and routes to these lands, but also contributed to the formation of “attractive goals” for their future migrations.

The Germanic tribes lived in a tribal system, which in the first centuries AD. was in a state of decomposition. The main production unit of German society was the family (large or small). The processes of transition from a tribal community to an agricultural community were actively underway. But the clan continued to play a significant role in the life of the Germanic tribes. Members of the clan were united by the common territory in which they lived, their own name, religious customs, a common system of government (national assembly, council of elders), and unwritten law. The clan was the support of any member of this clan, because the very fact of belonging to it gave a certain security. Constant contacts between separated relatives determined the preservation of clan ties and sacred unity. However, in everyday economic practice, the clan gave up its position to the large family. It consisted, as a rule, of three or four generations who lived in a large (up to 200 m2) oblong stone or wooden house, surrounded by fields and pastures. Several houses formed a farm. Similar settlements were located at a considerable distance from each other. Probably the farm psychology of the Germanic tribes was reflected in their reluctance to build cities. Neighborhood ties prevailed between the residents of the settlements. The interests of community members were taken into account not only in economic activities. The Germanic tribes did not have private land ownership. Common ownership of land united community members when attacked by enemies. They jointly built wooden or earthen fortifications that helped withstand enemy attacks. Residents of the settlements participated in worship and in ensuring the established rules of life for the community.

By the beginning of the Resettlement, the German community was no longer homogeneous, although social stratification was still quite weakly expressed. Most German burials do not have grave goods. The material culture of the Germanic tribes of this time was not distinguished by diversity, technical perfection and was closely related to its functional purpose. Only a few finds stood out for their wealth and craftsmanship, but in such cases we are dealing not with local production, but with Celtic imports, which fully satisfied the needs of the still small German nobility. By the beginning of the Migration, the tendency towards the rise of the German nobility became noticeable. It is formed from representatives of the old tribal nobility and the newly emerging elite of the tribe, the so-called. “new nobility”, which gains weight in the tribe as the warriors and their leaders capture various booty and vast lands during military campaigns.

The central figure among the ancient Germans was a free member of the community. It combined economic activities, the performance of military duties and participation in public affairs (national assembly, religious ceremonies). The social importance of such a free member of the community was determined primarily by belonging to a family with a certain status. On the eve of the Migration, the status of the family of each German depended not so much on wealth, but on the number, origin, authority of his ancestors, and the general opinion about the family and clan as a whole. The nobility of the clan, although it did not stem from wealth, did provide certain material advantages, for example, when dividing up land.
Although the central figure in the economic life of the Germanic tribes, as noted earlier, was a free member of the German community, sources suggest that there was a layer of people economically dependent on free community members. They were either fellow tribesmen or prisoners. Tacitus calls them slaves, based on the fact that such people were obliged to give the owner part of the production and work for him. In addition, they had a lower social status. Thus, a slave by birth was considered a foreigner. The Germans had domestic slaves who grew up and were raised together with their owners. They differed from them only in their personal lack of rights, for they were not allowed to carry weapons or participate in public meetings. Another category of slaves is those placed on the ground. However, here we can only speak conditionally about primitive patriarchal slavery. Such a slave could have a family, a household, and all dependence was expressed only in the alienation of part of his labor, or the products of labor. Among the Germanic tribes in everyday life there was not much difference between a slave and a master. Slave status was not for life. A person captured in battle could be released or even adopted after some time. The volume of slave labor was a small part of the life of the Germans. Not every rich family had slaves. Primitive German slavery fully corresponded to the needs of the primitive economy of the Germans.
The basis of the political structure of the ancient Germans was the tribe. As in economic life, the central figure was a free member of the German community. The People's Assembly, in which all armed free members of the tribe participated, was the highest authority. It met from time to time and resolved the most significant issues: the election of a tribal leader, the analysis of complex intra-tribal conflicts, initiation into warriors, the declaration of war and the conclusion of peace. The issue of relocating the tribe to new places was also decided at the tribe meeting. One of the authorities of ancient Germanic society was the council of elders. However, on the eve of the Resettlement, its functions and tradition of formation changed. Along with the wise patriarchs of the tribe, representatives of the new tribal nobility, represented by the leaders and the most influential persons of the tribe, took part in the council. The power of the elders gradually became hereditary. The Council of Elders discussed all the affairs of the tribe and only then submitted the most important of them to the approval of the people's assembly, at which representatives of the old and new nobility played the most active role.

The representative of the highest executive and administrative power was the leader of the tribe elected by the people's assembly, as well as the leader of the tribe who was removed by it. Among ancient authors it was designated by various terms: principes, dux, rex, which, according to researchers, in its semantic meaning is close to the common German term konung. The king's sphere of activity was very limited and his position looked very modest. “Their kings do not have unlimited and undivided power.” The king was in charge of the current affairs of the tribe, including judicial affairs. On behalf of the tribe, he conducted international negotiations. When dividing the spoils of war, he had the right to a larger share. The power of the king among the Germanic tribes also had a sacred character. He was the keeper of tribal traditions and customs of his ancestors. His power was based and supported by personal authority, example and ability to persuade. The kings “act more by persuasion than by having the power to command.”

Military squads occupied a special place in the political structure of ancient German society. Unlike the tribal militia, they were formed not on the basis of clan affiliation, but on the basis of voluntary loyalty to the leader. The squads were created for the purpose of predatory raids, robberies and military raids into neighboring lands. Any free German who had a penchant for risk and adventure (or profit), or the abilities of a military leader, could create a squad. The law of life of the squad was unquestioning submission and devotion to the leader (“to come out alive from the battle in which the leader fell is dishonor and shame for life”). As a rule, representatives of two polar social categories of ancient Germanic society became warriors. These could be young people from noble families, proud of their origin, the antiquity of the family, striving to increase its glory. Those who did not have strong family ties, did not particularly value ancestral traditions, neglected and even opposed them, joined the squad no less actively. The squad caused considerable concern to the tribe, because sometimes with its raids it violated the concluded peace treaties. At the same time, as an experienced military force and a well-organized force, the squad in critical situations formed the core of the tribal army, ensuring its military success. Later, during the Resettlement, the squad turned into the basis of the king’s military power. However, since she served not the king, but her leader, the latter often became a rival to the head of the tribe. Leaders of individual squads often became leaders of entire tribes, and some of them became kings. However, the authority of such kings was fragile and was determined primarily by their nobility of origin. The power of the king, which grew out of the power of the military leader, was extremely unstable, and as long as the Germans were dominated by norms based on the principles of kinship, the “new nobility” could not claim monopoly control over the “public field.”

Thus, by the beginning of the Migration, the Germanic tribes already represented a fairly serious and mobile force, capable of both occasional penetration into Roman territory through the participation of squads in military raids, and of advancing to new territories by the entire tribe or a significant part of the tribe in order to conquer new lands .
The first major clash of the Germanic tribes with Rome was associated with the invasion of the Cimbri and Teutons. The Teutons were a group of Germanic tribes who lived along the western coast of Jutland and in the areas of the lower Elbe. In 120 BC. they, together with the Cimbri, Ambrones and other tribes, moved south. In 113 BC. The Teutons defeated the Romans at Norea in Noricum and, devastating everything in their path, invaded Gaul. Their advance into Spain was stopped by the Celtiberians. In 102-101. BC. The Teutons suffer a crushing defeat from the troops of the Roman commander Gaius Marius at Aqua Sextiae (now Aix in Provence). The same fate befell in 101 BC. Cimbri at the Battle of Vercellae.
The second migration push from the Germanic tribal world, preceding the Great Migration of Peoples, occurred in the 60s. I century BC. and is associated with the Suebi tribes. Some researchers consider the Sueves to be a union of tribes, others believe that they are some kind of large tribe, from which daughter tribes gradually separated. By the middle of the 1st century. BC. The Suevi became so strong that it became possible to unite several Germanic tribes under their rule and jointly set out to conquer Gaul. The military migration movement of this union to Gaul had its pauses during which means of subsistence were obtained. And although these pauses were short-lived, the process of conquest of Gaul dragged on. Under the leadership of the Areovist king, the Suevi tried to gain a foothold in Eastern Gaul, but in 58 BC. were defeated by Julius Caesar. It was after this raid by the Ariovists that the Romans began to call the entire collection of tribes beyond the Rhine and Danube Suevi. In addition to the Marcomanni and Quadi, which will be discussed below, the Suevi included the Vangios, Garudas, Triboci, Nemetae, Sedusii, Lugia, and Sabines.

Caesar's struggle with Ariovistus ended with Caesar's victory and the expulsion of Ariovistus from Gaul. As a result of defeat in the war with Rome, the alliance of tribes under the leadership of Ariovistus disintegrated.
Some of the Suevian tribes went to Moravia and were later known in history as the Quadi tribe. Other Suevian tribes played a significant role in the tribal alliance led by Marcomanni Marobodus (8 BC - 17 AD).

Thus, the migration impulse associated with the Suevi revealed the desire of the Germanic tribes for consolidation and was actually the first experience of such consolidation. It was after the defeat of the Sueves by Caesar that a massive process of formation of various alliances began among the Germanic tribes. The unification movement was caused by the desire of individual tribes to protect themselves from the Roman state and maintain their independence. After Caesar's triumph, the Romans repeatedly invade and conduct military operations in German territory. An increasing number of tribes find themselves in the zone of military conflicts with Rome. At the same time, the daily life of the Germans, even without losing their independence, is deprived of internal stability, but not all Germanic tribes, after forceful contacts with Rome, lose the desire to maintain autonomy and independence. Only the strong support of their neighbors could guarantee the independence of the tribe and provide the ordinary German and his family members with a peaceful and calm life. The tribe had a better chance of maintaining stability and reliable protection from external threats, being part of a large tribal association. During this period, a type of tribe also emerged that strives for leadership and is capable of leading. The Marcomanni managed to lead the Germanic tribal world for a short time. These tribes originally lived in the Middle Elbe, but then moved to the Main region and during the 1st century. BC. took part in various intertribal clashes. So, in 58 BC. they fought in the forces of a tribal alliance led by Ariovistus, but already in 9 BC. Roman troops under the command of Drusus defeated the Marcomanni, after which they moved to the present territory. Bohemia, which had previously been abandoned by the Boian tribes. Here the Marcomanni became the core of an alliance of related (Quads, Semnones, Lombards, Hermundurs) tribes led by Marobod. However, the war with the Cherusci by Arminius in 17, and then the overthrow of Marobodus in 19, led to the end of the Marcomanni hegemony and their transformation into clients of the Roman state. It is difficult to judge what reasons, other than the desire of Maroboda for sole power, prevented the Marcomanni at this time from maintaining strong control over the Suevian group of tribes - lack of strength, foreign policy difficulties or something else, but the fact remains: the Marcomanni temporarily lost the palm to the Cherusci, one from significant tribes living between the Weser and Elbe north of the Harz. At the end of the 1st century. BC. they were conquered by Drusus and Tiberius. However, already in 9 AD. The alliance of tribes led by Arminius dealt a crushing blow to the Romans in the Teutoburg Forest: three legions with legates and all auxiliary troops were killed.

Major defeat of the Roman army in the Teutoburg Forest at the beginning of the 1st century. AD was the logical conclusion of the period of external activity of the Germans, which became, as it were, an overture to the Great Migration. They showed mobility, gained experience in successful military operations, found a form of consolidation such as a military alliance, which increased their strength and was later used by them many times during the Resettlement. The first military alliances (Cimbri, Teutons, Suevi Ariovistus, Cherusci Arminius, Suevo-Marcomanni Marobodus) were fragile and short-lived. They were formed in the original German territories, in the interests of a military organization, with the aim of opposing Rome and did not represent absolute ethnopolitical unity. The merger processes were not without conflict. The need for consolidation was probably fueled not only by the presence of a strong neighbor - the Roman Empire, or other competing neighboring "peoples", but also by the internal evolution of the social traditions of the Germanic tribes. The formation of the first military alliances can be considered as a manifestation of the beginning processes of confrontation and simultaneous rapprochement of the Roman and barbarian worlds.
In turn, the Empire's attitude towards the Germans evolved. Although throughout the 1st century. AD, the Roman campaigns into the lands of the free Germans continued, they even managed to win a number of victories, however, they had to give up the dream of conquering Germany forever. The Roman Empire at this time most of all needed protective measures that could at least somewhat slow down the onslaught of the Germanic tribes. At the end of the 1st century. The border separating the population of the Roman Empire from the ethnically diverse Barbaricum solum was finally determined. The border followed the Rhine, the Danube and the Limes, which connected these two rivers. Limes Romanus was a fortified strip with fortifications along which troops were stationed. This was the border that continued for many hundreds of years to separate two very different and opposing worlds: the world of Roman civilization, which had already entered its acmatic phase, and the world of the Germanic tribes, which were just awakening to active historical life. However, the Empire carried out its policy of containing the Germans not only through military strengthening of its borders.

Another means of deterrence was to be trade. The network of trade roads is expanding, the number of points of permitted trade with Germanic tribes is growing. Many tribes receive the privilege of freedom of intermediary trade. By developing traditional trade and economic ties and creating new ones, the Empire hoped to keep the excessive excitement, thirst for new things and penchant for adventure of the German leaders within the framework necessary for its tranquility.

However, this policy of the Empire gave opposite results. The more Rome drew the Germanic tribes into its sphere of influence, the more dangerous a rival it created for itself. Communication between the Rhine Germans and Roman soldiers and merchants stimulated changes in their tribal system. The influence of the tribal nobility increased, whose representatives served in the Roman army, received Roman citizenship, and mastered the Roman way of life. At the same time, the nobility was dissatisfied with the dominance of the Romans, which led, for example, to the uprising of Arminius. By restraining the Germans from migrating, Rome indirectly stimulated their internal development. Agriculture and crafts improved, the organization and power structure in the tribe became more stable, and population density increased. At the same time, in a number of cases, the Empire managed to successfully combine forceful and non-forceful methods in containing the excessive activity of the Germanic tribes. This can be said about the Batavians, who back in 12 BC. were conquered by the Romans. But the defeated enemy is widely recruited for military service. As a result of the oppression of the Batavians led by Julius Civilis in 69-70. rise up in rebellion. It covered the area from the Sambre, Scheldt, Meuse and Rhine to the Ems. Along with the multi-ethnicity of the Batavian Union, which included: Germanic tribes - Canninefates, Frisians, Bructeri, Tencteri, Kugerni, Celticized Germans - Nervii and Tungrians, Celtic tribes - Treveri and Lingones, the position of its participants in relation to Rome stood out clearly: from active opponents to tribes of faithful and devoted. The uprising of the Batavians of Civilis was suppressed, but the Roman government increasingly needed help from the Germans and was forced to negotiate with their leaders. And even after the suppression of the uprising, the Batavians continued to be recruited for military service. Strongly built, blond Batavian warriors were known as skilled horsemen and sailors. Mostly they consisted of imperial bodyguards.

The humiliating defeat in the Teutoburg Forest and the growing consolidation of the Germanic tribal world increased the concentration of Roman troops on the Rhine, but ended the Empire's trans-Rhine aggression. After the suppression of the Batavian uprising, auxiliary units were no longer stationed in the provinces from which they had been recruited, communications between the Rhine and Danube borders were shortened and improved, the Decumate fields on the right bank of the Rhine were included in the Empire, and new castellas were built. The Germans remained free, but their independence was conditional.

Thus, in the diversity and diversity of historical events and destinies of individual Germanic tribes, in the seeming chaos of inter-tribal alliances and conflicts between them, treaties and clashes between the Germans and Rome, the historical foundation of those subsequent processes that formed the essence of the Great Migration emerges. We have already spoken about the objective prerequisites and motivating reasons that pushed the Germanic tribes towards the historical movement: the need to develop new lands for farming and cattle breeding, climate change and the need to move to regions that are more favorable in this regard, etc. But in order to realize these prerequisites, the tribes themselves had to acquire a certain new historical quality. The tribe had to become quite stable and mobile in socio-economic and military-organizational terms. This was ensured by the development of a system of power and subordination, the independence of military structures (squads) and the level of armament of all free Germans, which made it possible to repel the enemy’s onslaught when the squad was on a campaign, and to supply reserves for armed formations.

What was also important was the predominance of cattle breeding over agriculture, and at the same time a sufficiently high level of agriculture, allowing the tribe to change its location without destructive consequences for the breeding economy. It was also necessary to weaken tribal isolation and develop the skill of a fairly stable and long-term unification, because, as the fate of individual tribes shows, the very existence of a tribe during the Migration sometimes depended on its ability to unite with other tribes in the process of contacts and conflicts with Rome.

Equally important was the “accumulation of knowledge” about Rome. It was they who helped to outline the goals of movement, determined the nature of military and other preparations for advancing into the Roman borders, and formed in the tribal consciousness, which recorded both defeats and victories, ideas about the possibility of success in confrontation or interaction with the Roman state.

So, the need to leave one’s native place could arise when the tribe, having acquired a sufficiently high level of development, realized itself as a single and powerful community, and was very numerous. Many Germanic tribes achieved such “readiness” by the beginning of the Marcomannic Wars, which opened the Great Migration of Peoples.

History of the origin of the peoples of the world

For more than 40 years I have been researching the origins of all the peoples of the world. First, I researched this topic using historical materials that are recognized by modern historical science. And this history can be traced back to ancient historical records, which begin in Ancient Egypt, Sumer, Akkad, Babylon, Assilia, Ancient China, Ancient India, i.e. the oldest written sources date back to the 3rd millennium BC. The largest historical monuments about ancient peoples were left by the ancient Greeks and Romans. In the Middle Ages, written sources about ancient peoples became more numerous. But I have researched this history from ancient times to 1648 (ancient world and middle ages). Based on all these sources, I compiled a table and drew maps of the settlement of the peoples of the world only from the 3rd millennium BC to 1648.
My knowledge about the most ancient peoples can be expressed in the following picture. Beyond the yellow line (this is the time of the 3rd millennium BC) there are no written sources about the history of the peoples of the world.

What happened before? After all, I am interested in the history of the emergence of the peoples of the world from the most ancient times (from the very first people on Earth). I began to explore all the archaeological materials. I began to conditionally accept that tribes of one archaeological culture are one people (or a group of related peoples).
Yes, in those ancient times we cannot call any people by any specific name. (no written sources survive). We know that the ancestors of all the ancient Germans were the tribes of the Jastorf culture, the ancestors of the Celts were the tribes of the La Tène culture, the ancestors of the ancient Slavs were the tribes of the Zarubinets, Dneprodvinsk, and Przeworsk cultures. This way you can trace the history of the origin of all ancient peoples. I began to draw new (more ancient) maps and tables of the origin, merger and disappearance of ancient peoples in a period older than the 3rd millennium BC. I compiled tables and maps up to about 30 thousand years BC. The results of my research can be expressed in this figure, where the blue stripe indicates a period of approximately 30 thousand years BC.

After all, even at that time there was a wide variety of archaeological cultures on Earth (and therefore there were many peoples). Further (ancient) archaeologists basically have no information, as if there were no peoples before 30 thousand years BC. This is consistent with modern historical science that people evolved from monkeys about 40 thousand years ago (I don’t believe in this scientific nonsense; at present there is even a large group of alternative historians who claim that man lived already in more ancient times ).
And what to do with numerous artifacts (archaeological finds, which official historical science does not recognize and hides them from the public. And what to do with ancient legends, which historical science also does not recognize. And all these materials say that man existed on Earth even 300-500 million years ago.
I began to study ancient legends, artifacts and articles by alternative historians (in Russia there are also such scientists - Demin, Chudinov, Gorbovsky and others). As a result, I got a harmonious table of the origin of all the peoples of the world, starting from the most ancient times (it includes the Asuras, Atlanteans, and Muans, whom most modern historians do not recognize).
The result of my research can be expressed in this picture

And if we consider that at the beginning of the 20th century in the east of Zaire (Africa) a small tribe of pygmies with cold blood was found (they could not be found after the 1st World War), then it is necessary to include ancient peoples who had cold blood among the ancient peoples (like dinosaurs), then the human history of ancient peoples can “grow older” for a significant period.
And if we take into account that (according to legends) in ancient times other intelligent creatures lived on Earth (completely different from people, perhaps similar to lizards, dinosaurs, large insects), then the history of civilizations on Earth will have to be even more ancient. And the picture of the origin of the peoples of the world can take the following form.
Modern scientific historians (apparently at the direction of the ruling circles) have simplified human history too much so that we do not know the facts that nuclear weapons have already been used on Earth more than once (for the sake of the profits of the ruling circles, for the sake of the complete domination of one people on Earth over others, more weak). History constantly repeats itself, in ever worse versions. Human civilization, with its ugly ideology of profit, constantly seeks to destroy itself for the sake of the wealth of a handful of ruling elites.
It is much easier to rule illiterate people.