The Dot of Noah’s-Darwin’s: the Ark, evolution, totemism and interspecific wars. Correspondence with anthropological journals

After tens of thousands of years, these two constructions “Man ↔ Beast” and “Group of people ↔ Group of objects” are still alive and reliably serves for the only goal – playback of the closed system. “We observe at the outset that totemism has two notes or characteristics: it has to do with a group not an individual, and that group is in a peculiar relation to another group of natural and occasionally of artificial objects” (Harrison 1912 (https://archive.org/details/themisstudyofsoc00harr), p. 119).

3.7. That this fragile sequence has been kept and fixed at the level of primitive mentality, there was a need of existence of certain scenarios. The whole series of post-traumatic syndromes became them, through which people have passed after the Ark’s.

By Cpl. Andrew Johnston. Art therapy project created by a U.S. Marine with posttraumatic stress disorder.

3.8. PTSD-1 has arisen because of a difference of diets of several types of people on the Ark. The basis of the contradictions was the vegetarianism of the of Noah’s family and the meat-eating of the Neanderthal’s family on the ship.

The sense of paternalism Noah’s family towards the animals struggled with the feeling of hatred towards the “brotherly” kind of the Neanderthals. The ark was rapidly becoming a zone of conflict between the two types of people. Mental traumas in extreme situations carry very much a hard character. Many authors pay attention to the collective nature of a trauma in a natural disaster, defining it as “massive collective stress” (Kinston and Rosser 1974 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/002239997490035X), p. 437). The authors found that a natural disaster, affecting the fabric of social life, destroys people’s connections and reduces the sense of community.

This trauma intensified and deepened amid the gluttony of the Neanderthal family, which could well have left the planet without fauna. Following such traumatic events, posttraumatic stress disorder may develop. The first to draw attention to the role of neuroses in the emergence of totemism the father of psychoanalysis Freud. He felt that the nature of this phenomenon was intertwined with a string of stresses and a whole series of conflicts. But, unfortunately, the right premise led to depressing conclusions about the role of the libido. In the final analysis, he interpreted it as the hatred of sons to their father (Freud [1913] 2005 (http://www.booksgid.com/psihologija/25833-zigmund-frejjd.-totem-i-tabu..html), pp. 225—228).

Evidence of this “unexplained” hatred has become very strange intentional burials of Neanderthals. They have seven main differences from burials Cro-Magnons.

I. Burials of Neanderthals are found in caves, grottoes or canopies of caves. Cro-Magnons was buried anywhere. The correlation of 120 to 2 (Alekshin 1995b, p. 26).

II. Depth of burial from 20 to 40 centimeters. From above the corpse was covered with limestone slabs.

III. Most often, Neanderthals corpses are found in the position of an embryo. To achieve such an effect, the corpses was tied up.

IV. It was established that the bone skeletons underwent deliberate dismemberment. “At the end of article the author draws the attention of the reader and to the works of H. Ullrih’s who is fixedly studying everything to him available debris and splinters of bones including from Krapina (Ullrich, 2004), and in particular the child’s bones from Teshik-Tash (Ullrich, 1954). Somehow in a private conversation with the author H. Ullrich told the following: on bones of this child there are also traces of teeth of a small predator, there are also traces of tools of archeologists, but the main traces, are traces of deliberate partition of a body before his burial” (Smirnov 2012 (http://www.archaeolog.ru/media/ksia/ksia-227.pdf), p. 68).

V. Deepening for the skeleton always settle down in the same cultural layer where fragments of flint and bones of animals find. Where they butchered food, there and dug shallow pits. The zone of “Kitchen”, if you can say so. Incisions, bone fractures, cleaning them from muscle tissue speak in favor of cannibalism (Rozzi at al. 2009 (http://www.isita-org.com/jass/Contents/2009%20vol87/PDF/On-Line_bassa/JASs2009_06_RamirezRozzi.pdf), p. 153; Krause at al. 2016 (https://www.nature.com/articles/srep29005); Garralda at al. 2014 (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ajpa.22557), p. 99). “Anthropological studies of the last twenty years have revealed on the bones of Neanderthals traces of silicon implements, indicating the posthumous manipulations with their corpses: dismemberment and removal of soft tissues from bones (Czarnetzki 1977; Le Mort 1988, 1989; Russel 1987; Ullrich 1986). According to G. Ulrich, the oldest funeral rite evolved from the dismembered graves of the early Mousterian to undivided burials that appeared at the end of the Middle Paleolithic (Ullrich 1986). In this way, the discoveries of anthropologists emphasized the originality of the Mousterian funeral rite”(Alekshin 1995a (https://www.twirpx.com/file/1381907/), p. 188).

VI. Most often Neanderthals put a skeleton or a body of one person in the dug hole.

VII. In the graves of Neanderthals there are no things, stone and bone tools, as well as ornaments. Bodies are often mixed with or placed in the debris of the cultural layer. In the Cro-Magnons burials can meet different options of things from the funeral ritual. The Neanderthal doesn’t have those things. On the contrary, the occasional forgotten tool for separating the meat from the bones. Three scraper in the grave of an infant La Ferrassie V.

Conclusion. Such burials were forced and arose as a result of extreme situations. For example, because of the long siege of the cave could come a severe famine, hence the peeled skeletons. Cro-Magnons could purposefully starve one to death the Neanderthal’s neighbors, forcing them to eat the corpses of their tribesmen.

Gough’s Cave, 14700 years before our time. Representatives of the Madeleine culture have leaded to cannibalism to perfection. From the skulls eaten people made ritual bowls, the bones were covered with ornaments and used as tools of labor. There are practically no burials (Bello at al. 2015 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047248415000494?via%3Dihub), p. 170).

The theme of cave painting Cro-Magnons – a joyful messages about the liberation of animals from the Neanderthal man’s devourer, a hymn to the ark, on which the ideology of the new world arose. Today, the walls and ceilings of 170 caves of France and 120 in Spain testify only to this, the brightest of which is Chauvet-Pont-d’Arc Cave – the age of 38 thousand years. The grand extermination of the whole living by a flood forced the person to paint animals tens of thousands of years after the disaster. And if they are few in nature, then a lot on the walls. This feature of primitive painting – to exaggerate the number of animals no one notes, not even understanding, why only animals were portrayed, and not man.

Cave complexes are not accidentally chosen for similar images – the walls of the halls are filled with characters, which in meaning are in the same spatial and temporal connections as animals from the Ark decks. Therefore, critics note that in these drawings there is no graphic unity. There is no connection between the individual figures or it is insignificant. Often there are incomplete images or extra pairs of eyes, legs. There is no question of any compositions united by a common idea or meaning, except for single exceptions. In images, the vertical-horizontal system of spatial coordinates that we are familiar with may not be present. Most often, animals are drawn in profile, they are extremely rare in the full-face. To this is added the absence of restriction of the pictorial field by any artificial framework. Figures and series of figures can be of various sizes, which only confirms their independence. The concept of symmetry is absent. The very strong emotional fullness of images is underlined. There is no rigid standardization, established canons in images. All that Dmitrieva could summarize on the studies of the Paleolithic caves (Dmitrieva 2014 (http://www.kunstkamera.ru/files/lib/978-5-88431-275-3_flip/index.html), pp. 312—314, p. 316, p. 318), easily fits into the definition of totemism by Goldenweiser. Before us is a live reflection of “association with objects and symbols of emotional meaning”. On the walls of caves of the Paleolithic man draws by coal rod the Association, which today is absolutely incomprehensible to us, since any closed system like the Ark “eludes all effort at absolute definition” and therefore causes laughter.

Chauvet Cave. Horses, Bison and Rhinos.

Particular cases of PTSD.

3.9. PTSD-2. After the flood the vegetarians of Noah’s family receive a command from God to eating the animals of the Ark. So arising the precedent for a new syndrome (Genesis 9 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+9%2C+2%E2%80%937&version=NIV), 2—7).

The consequences of Noah’s treatment of excessive attachment to animals describes the book of Genesis (Genesis 9 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+9%2C+2%E2%80%937&version=NIV), 20—27). In the language of psychology such sad events have received the name of substitution, and in the further displacement as an option of psychological protection from the cure which in the form of behest is given to Noah’s family. Nobody does not want to eat flesh of favourite animals and birds. The soul of Noah’s rises against forced treatment. The Patriarch gets drunk and ready to damned God Himself for the unbearable hardships of life.

Drunkenness of Noah, 1515. Author: Giovanni Bellini – Art Renewal Center.

Despite the inhuman conditions of existence, the man of the Wurm era was predominantly vegetarian. This is evidenced by researches (Hockett and Haws 2005 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040618204002332?via%3Dihub), p. 21; Zaatari at al. 2016 (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0153277)). They again and again confirm – on earth there was an insignificant number of animals. Neanderthals quite often fell into stomachs of Noah’s descendants, but this topic is being boycotted by historians and archaeologists because of fear of losing their jobs (McKie 2009 (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2009/may/17/neanderthals-cannibalism-anthropological-sciences-journal)).

3.10. PTSD-3. Tower of Babel (Genesis 11 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+11%2C+7&version=NIV), 1—9). The first “Babylon” means the place, where Noah’s tribe tried to realize the only possibility in those conditions not to dissipate all over the earth in search of rare then game animals (Kuraev 2009 (https://royallib.com/book/kuraev_andrey/shkolnoe_bogoslovie.html), p. 263). By this time, each family had its own opinion, which animal is better for the tower. This is and have those very same languages mentioned in the Bible (Genesis 11 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+11%2C+7&version=NIV), 7). After the season of hunt all families of the Ark’s tribe gathering together on the plain Shinar. This idea to build a city and a tower was born in the next borderstate of the psyche of hungry people. Collective response to the planet without animals and birds was the idea of creating a whole agrotechnical complex. For this purpose, the biblical tower and the satellite city were built, which in the smallest details repeated the experience of the first world.

The implementation of this plan would have avoided starvation thanks to the producing economy livestock farm or poultry farm (the author’s reconstruction). As a result, God has activated the “tongues”, or the personal conviction of everyone that it is this or that kind of beast, the birds are the best for the tower. Everyone praised and extolled the hunting qualities of his beast or animal. It is clear that soon the hunters and gatherers, who had not yet lost their memory of agriculture and the cities of the first world, ceased to understand each other. Scattering and gradual savagery became inevitable (Men’ 1992 (http://benjy.electromake.ru/erotika/books-3149.html), p. 112).

The Confusion of Tongues by Gustave Doré, a woodcut depicting the Tower of Babel. By Gustave Doré.

The hostility of the phratries in the best way possible explains the plot of “the confusion of tongues” in the Bible. In poultry farming, most often engaged by women. In fur farming by men. It may well be that because of the birds, quarrels between the descendants of Noah began. They could act as the most acceptable option in the conditions of protein starvation. Speed of reproduction of bird’s meat is several times higher, than in livestock production. The conflict between men’s and women’s phratries forms the basis of this biblical episode.

“The Australian concept of what we have here termed opposition is a particular case of using Association through opposition, which is a universal feature of human thinking and that encourages us to think in pairs of contrasts: high and low, strong and weak, black and white. But the Australian notion of opposition combines the idea of a pair of opposites with the idea of a pair of rivals” (Ibid, 118) – grabs from the lecture of analysis of the phratries of Radcliffe-Brown Levi-Strauss (Levi-Strauss [1964] 1991 (https://monoskop.org/images/c/c6/Levi-Strauss_Claude_Totemism_1991.pdf), p. 90).

“This contraposition of primitive ‘collectives’ is reflected in the myths about the struggle between totems (myths about the battle of the wedge-tailed eagle with a crow and the like). It is not by chance that these myths and other traces of the hostility of the groups refer mainly to phratries – the oldest of the social groupings of Australians – and to their totems. The mutual alienation of phratries, each pair of which was a primitive tribe, was, apparently, a very characteristic feature of the life of that era. The traces of this estrangement of phratries have been preserved, as is known, in the customs and folklore of very many peoples of all parts of the world. Totemism in its most ancient form – the totemism of phratries – was, apparently, the most direct expression of the opposition of phratries and the inner isolation of each of them. After the fission of phratries into smaller generic groups and after the loss the value of the main social groupings in phratries, the features of totemism was transferred to ‘clans’ (‘totemic groups’), that is, early-term communities” (Tokarev 1990 (http://www.rulit.me/books/rannie-formy-religii-read-452297-14.html), pp. 63—64).

“In any case, it is impossible to forget that totems of phratries were the most ancient totems, and them are, as a rule, birds whose communication with any certain territory could never be solid. In a word, the choice of a totem could be defined by the reasons which don’t have for us essential value” (Tokarev 1990 (http://www.rulit.me/books/rannie-formy-religii-read-452297-15.html), p. 66).

Spencer and Gillen (Spencer and Gillen 1899 (https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/s/spencer/baldwin/s74n/complete.html), pp. 179—183) have opened at Australians the ceremony of Intichiuma – multiplication of the totem, which, however is not used natives during usual time for food. The vegetarianism is identical tabooing concerning the totem’s of clan. Caregiving behavior in relation to animals of the Ark is identical to ceremonies of the multiplication of everything living. G. Roheim intuitively notes, that the totemic repositories Churinga’s of the tribe Arunta are nothing but the symbols of the mother’s womb, and Churingas themselves are symbols of the human embryo (Roheim 1925 (https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/8415602?q&versionId=40647386), p. 355).

Awareness of the reality of the annihilation of all living things on the planet is the main reason for the practice of Intichiuma, which at first was universal in the multiplication of all living things. “Which of the elements of the totemic complex existed in the era of totemism? On the basis of archaeological data, it should be recognized that in this complex, along with the belief in the origin of the totemic ancestors, only Intichiuma, for, as we recall, a significant part of the images can only be interpreted in this sense. It should be noted that the rites of reproduction, like hunting magic, concerned not one species of animals, but many. This shows that communication with one species of animals has not yet been established” (Khaitun 1958 (https://www.twirpx.com/file/2019034/), p. 106). The rite of Intichiuma in Australia. To its execution start hungry, completely naked and at first one or more young people shedding their blood on the ground. Because “so established by the ancestors”. And the duration of this period is said by the rite of Intichiuma, the staging of which could last several months in a row. And sometimes only a few hours.

“At the same time, all Australian tribes of the Intichiuma are associated with myths about the ‘ancestors’ of the times of Alcheringa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcheringa_Gallery#_blank), the adventures of which are staged, dramatized or glorified. The presence of these ‘ancestors’ is considered necessary for the effectiveness of the ceremony” (Khaitun 1958 (https://www.twirpx.com/file/2019034/), p. 44). Noah and his descendants it and there are those selfsame “ancestors”. Their presence is necessary, because they were the first to pray for the multiplication of all living things and their prayer was heard. They survived and became the beginning of a new civilization. Recollection of these “ancestors” bear a characteristic detail: they all violate exogamous prohibitions. The absence of exogamy in the marital relations of the distant past explains why exogamy is disturbed during the rendition of the Corroboree in Australians (Spencer and Gillen 1899 (https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/s/spencer/baldwin/s74n/complete.html), pp. 418—419) It is not difficult to understand, why. There are four pairs of people left on Earth. Of them are reproductive – three.

Aboriginal Bora ceremony (early 20th century).

4. Groups of animals

Inasmuch as in these groups the biological prevails over the social, let’s consider them from the point of view of the synthetic theory.

4.1. If you look at the ship Noah with the view of an evolutionist, the supporter of the modern synthesis, he will say this: “In relation to all living things, the method of artificial selection was used, on the gap. Changes in nutrition (forages), waters, violation of biorhythms, restriction to a minimum of a locomotion, manipulation of objects, inactivity, the hypodynamia, sensorial starvation, a chronic stress, neighborhood animals antagonists could lead to a surge of mutations among pairs of individuals that represented all the former species diversity”.

The disruptive selection after a year in the Ark has only intensified. The ship has not delivered to a place of former settlement of animals and birds, and threw them in mountains, where these animals were once again awaited by a drastic change in the conditions of life, water, climate, fodders, the absence of relatives (absence of the gene material for exchange).

The disaster made many survival skills unnecessary. As a consequence, many organs of surviving birds and animals, as well as humans, have undergone atrophy. This is situation is well known to any biologist – atavisms and rudiments are present in all species of animals and birds (thevestige). All the inhabitants of the ark had to developed the unfamiliar territories, remote from their former habitats for tens of thousands of kilometers. Their descendants promptly formed all new and new biogeocenoses, the conditions of which were completely unfamiliar to the ancestral forms. Therefore, with the release of the surviving representatives of species, an unprecedented parade of rudiments and atavisms has begun.

In the materials of the synthetic theory it is described as follows. “In the structure of almost any organism, it is possible to find organs or structures that are relatively underdeveloped (devoid of any important parts compared to homologous structures of similar forms) and have lost their main importance in the process of phylogenesis: such organs or structures are called rudimentary”.

Thanks to the Galapagos flightless cormorant (Latin Phalacrocorax harrisi), Darwin was the first to who correctly explained the presence of atavisms and rudiments in animals, deducing out atavisms from ancestral forms, inasmuch as in a norm they do not meet. Atavism so and is translated from the Latin athavis – ancestor.

Flightless cormorant (Phalacrocorax harrisi) with chick, Punta Espinosa, Fernandina, Galapagos Islands.

Rudimentary row of plants, animals, birds of amphibians, reptiles is endless. But more recently (55, 000 years ago or before the flood), most of these organs were fully developed in the predecessors. Therefore, the lion’s share of the rudiments has nothing to do with evolution. Otherwise, these organs would not have developed quite normally during the period of intrauterine development and in the early stages (then atrophy) and were not relatively developed in adults. They simply do not perform their functions because the organisms of their owners have been unnaturally torn out of the motion of evolution. They had to go through the most genetic bottleneck, through which ever passed all terrestrial.

Synthetic theory. “The presence of rudiments, as well as homologous organs, indicates the common origin of living forms”. But peek truth in the eyes and continue: “On the ship of Noah” the scientists can’t. If the organ does not work, then the mechanisms of evolution should turn it off. But for some reason there is no shutdown of reproduction of “unnecessary” organs. Evolutionary “process” tens of thousands of years not can detect such organs and they are submitted one’s self to themselves!

There is only one reason why this is happening. The emergence of rudiments was the reaction of organisms to the disaster – from the populations remained a pairs of animal units who gave offspring in a completely new conditions for them, on new lands and feed and the entire exchange of genetic material revolved between two or three pairs of animal units. Darwin’s theory considers rudiments as one of the proofs of evolution from ancestral forms by divergence of features (divergence) to new species, so biologists collect and study the facts of rudimentary organs. But a question not so much emergence how many preservation of rudiments did not find a coherent explanation yet.

4.2. The elimination of all alive forsake from the former pool of genes only couple of animals and birds from each species. One species was represented by one couple of animal units women’s and male’s. Those left without a couple were burned or eaten. Also arranged Noah an altar to the Lord; also took from any cattle clear and from all birds clear and brought in burned sacrifice on an altar (Genesis 8 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+8%2C+20&version=NIV), 20).

Noah’s sacrifice by Daniel Maclise (between 1847 and 1853).

“Ship’s recessive mutations” of brothers and sisters gave start to sympatric speciation on the basis of kinship crossing or blood-related crossing. Mother with the son, daughter with the father. And again daughter with the father. Brother with the sister, grandson with the grandma, great-grandfather with the great-granddaughter. Only relatives of the surviving couples copulated. The mass incest after a flood will become the main supplier of material for the most important postulate of synthetic evolution: “Mutations are the material of evolution, the single source of heritable variability” (postulates are on; Vorontsov 2004 (http://www.evolbiol.ru/document/653): pp. 293—297).

4.3. Biologists have never considered as a unit of evolution the reality of the Wurm – the pairs of animals and birds from the Ark. This was facilitated by Darwin, whose mentality was thoroughly imbued with theology of the College of Christ of Cambridge University. He just moved the principle of the creation of Paradise Adam to what he saw on a round-the-world journey. The unit’s of speciation becomes is alone an animal or animal unit (Darwin 1859 (https://archive.org/details/onoriginofspec00darw)). But what Darwin researched and systematized his entire life, was neither evolution nor the creation of the world. Hence “Swamping argument” Jenkin’s and the answer of the beaten Darwin (Darwin 1869 (http://darwin-online.org.uk/EditorialIntroductions/Chancellor_Origin5th.html), p. 104). Only after 59 years, the Russian geneticist S. S. Chetverikov was able to find the compromise – the place of the Darwin animal unit will be taken by the effective breeding population (Chetverikov 1926 (http://books.e-heritage.ru/book/10086609)A). Mayr soon open a founder effect (Mayr 1942 (http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674862500); 1954, pp. 157—180), finally having calmed opponents. But why then do all the biology textbooks say in complete consensus? – “The process of speciation is irreversible. The species has many genes that are changed by mutations, and the previous forms are absent”. Maybe because of that (Genesis 6 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+6%2C+6%E2%80%937&version=NIV), 6—7)?