"Heritage of drunk gods"
("Fight for a crop: for whom and what for it was necessary...")
"That is great - who is silent being tipsy"
Agriculture - one of basic and major elements of civilization as such. As a matter of fact it is an axiom of a modern view to our history. Formation that we understand as terms "society" and "civilization" exactly is connected to development of agriculture and transition to a settled way of life. Where there was no transition to agriculture, there was no also a civilization. And even our modern industrial and technologically advanced society, whatever one may do, is impossible without an agriculture providing with a feed billions of people.
The question on that as well as why primitive people went from hunting and collecting to ground cultivation is considered solved for a long time and it is rather tedious section of such science as political economy. Any schoolboy in the slightest degree of competent can state to you the version of the given section which simplified variant is included to a course of an ancient history.
It is seem to be clear: primitive hunter and collector very strongly depend on a nature environmental him. The whole of life of the ancient person was struggle for existence in which the lion's share of time was occupied with search of food. And thereof all progress of the people was limited to rather insignificant perfection of instruments of livelihood procuring.
At any stage (according to official point of view) growth of number of people on our planet has resulted to that hunting and collecting could not support all members of a primitive community any more for which there was a unique exit: to master the new form of activity - agriculture for that in particular a settled way of life was required. Transition to agriculture automatically stimulated development of instruments technology, development of construction of stationary habitation, formation of social norms of public relations etc., i.e. it was "a trigger" of fast people promotion on a civilization way.
* * *
The given sketch seems so logical and even obvious, that everything, somehow not arranging, have accepted it for true practically at once... And all would be good, but rough development of a science recently has caused active revision of many "base" and apparently firm before theories and sketchs. And a "classical" view to a problem of people transition from primitive primitive existence to agriculture has begun to go to pieces.
The first and perhaps the most serious "disturbers of calmness" were ethnographers who have found out that primitive communities kept until recently are not blended at all with a harmonous picture drew by political economy. Laws of behaviour and life of these primitive communities not simply appeared "annoying exceptions" but radically contradicted to that sketch accoding to which the primitive society should behave.
First of all, the highest efficiency of collecting was revealed:
"Both ethnography and archeology have accumulated to present time a large amount of the data from which follows that appropriating economy - hunting, collecting and fishery - frequently provide even more stable existence than early forms of agriculture do... Generalization of such facts already in the beginning of our century has resulted Polish ethnographer L.Krishivitsky to the conclusion that "under normal conditions the food at the order of the primitive person is more than it is enough". Researches of last decades not only confirm this position but also concretize it with the help of comparisons, statistics, measurements" (L.Vishnjatsky, "From benefit to profit").
"Balancing on the verge of starvation of those who conducted appropriating economy is not characteristic but contrary rather rare situation. Famine for them is not norm but exception. It first. Second, nutrition quality of members of such groups as a rule meets the requirements of the most strict modern dieticians" (ibidem).
"Efficiency of strong specialized gatherer work is simply amazing. Even when conditions of environment were extremely adverse primitive collector showed surprising abilities in maintenance of foodstuffs" (A.Lobok, "History smack").
Also the fact is important enough, that "appropriating economy is effective not only in the sense that it quite provides primitive people with all necessary for life, but also and that it is achieved thanks to rather modest physical efforts. It is counted up that on the average "the working day" hunters - collectors last from three till five, and it is quite enough, as it appears. Besides as a rule children do not accept direct participation in economic activities, and adults, especially the man, presume to distract from "proses week" at date of another and to be engaged more "raised" business" (L.Vishnjatsky, "From benefit to profit").
Life of the "primitive" hunter and collector in general appeared is rather far from all-consuming and severe struggle for existence.
"...The data of modern ethnographic researches convincingly testify that vital practice of the primitive tribes which have kept the cultural self-identity down to present time has no anything common with daily exhausting work of the agricultural person "all day long"... Process of getting of livelihood itself for the primitive hunter namely is a hunting which in many respects is constructed on game and passion. And what such hunting? Hunting is really that "it would be desirable", that is made "with eagerly" instead of under pressure of external necessity. And "collecting" - the second traditional source of livelihood for primitive person - is original "hunting" too, it is game, hazardous search, but it is not exhausting work in any way" (A.Lobok, "History smack").
[Here is a words play: in Russian "hunting" and "desire" is written equally]
Anyone can understand and experience that: in a modern society to gather mushrooms and berries one go much more often because of passion of search rather than for maintenance of meal. And hunting in general has turned to entertainment of people with a prosperity. Both that and another is considered as rest already for a long time.
"Hunter can not feel weariness even with biggest power consumptions: energy of natural passion gives him force. And on the contrary: the farmer is capable to test satisfaction from a kind of the collected crop, but process of ground cultivation itself is perceived by him as burdensome necessity, as heavy work which sense can be found out only in the future crop for the sake of which "sacrifice of work" is made only" (ibidem).
People were engaged in hunting and collecting during hundred thousand and millions years, therefore in their mentality (in that its part which is inherited) the appropriate structures - arhetypes causing passion and pleasure from the process of hunting and collecting were fixed. Actually the mechanism of work of these structures-arhetypes in many respects is similar to the mechanism of instinct of animal which the given instinct rescues from starvation.
On the contrary, alien to the person and his mentality, "unnatural" for his nature activity will be inevitable to cause displeasure in him. Therefore tiresomeness of onerous agricultural work testifies to certain "unnaturalness" in particular of this work for the person too or, at least, about rather short duration of this sort of activity for a human kind.
* * *
But for the sake of what then it is made "sacrifice of work"?.. Really game does cost candles?..
Accoding official viewpoint the farmer struggles for a crop to provide himself full and stable idle life after ending of gathering up to the following season of works. However when the question on transition from hunting and collecting to agriculture is considered we subconsciously represent the modern advanced agriculture and somehow we overlook that the question is archaic, primitive agriculture...
"...Early agriculture is extremely difficult and its efficiency is rather and rather low. Art of agriculture is too difficult art that the beginner without experience could achieve some serious successes" (ibidem).
"... Cereals become base agricultural culture of the Neolithic person in those cases which have resulted eventually in occurrence of the phenomenon of civilization. They are completely not today's cereals behind which millenia of a history of cultural agriculture, but wild wheat - oneseed or twoseed and also double-row barley, the Neolithic person starts to tame just these wild plants. Food efficiency of these plants is not too high - whether you will receive a lot of grain, even if you will sow them the big field! If the problem would really consist in search of new sources of livelihood, it would be natural to assume that agrotechnical experiments will begin with the plants having large fruits and giving the big crops already in wild forms" (ibidem).
Even in the "not cultivated" condition tuber crops ten and more times surpass cereals and leguminous in productivity, however the ancient person for any reasons suddenly ignores this fact which is taking place in literal sense near by him.
Besides the pathbreaker-farmer for some reason considers that he has not enough difficulties additionally loaded on to himself and he complicates to himself a problem, entering also upon the most difficult processing of a crop what only could be thought up even more.
"Grain is extremely toilful product not only from the point of view of cultivation and harvesting but also from the point of view of its culinary processing. First of all it is necessary to solve a problem of seeds peel from a strong and firm shell in which it is. And it needs the special stone industry - the industry stone mortars and pestles with which help the given procedure is carried out " (ibidem).
"...The main difficulties begin after that. Ancient farmers pound to a flour the received integral grains on special stone grain-graters - original manual "millstones", and the degree of labour input of this procedure, perhaps, has not equal. It would seem, it is a riddle again: you see it is more easier to cook porridge and not to be tormented with transformation of grains into flour. As nutritional value does not suffer from it at all. However the fact remains the fact: since X millenia BC "the cereal mankind" creates the whole industry of grain-graters, transforming grains to a flour and the process of grain treatment - to the real torment" (ibidem). (Fig. 1)
[Here is a words play too: in Russian " flour " and " torment " is written equally; the accent differs only]
Fig. 1. Stone grain-grater.
What this hero - grain-grower receives in exchange for shock overcoming difficulties created as though to himself?..
According the official view point of political economy, with transition to agriculture people solve "food problems" and become less dependent from whims of environmental nature. But the objective and unbiassed analysis categorically rejects this statement, - life only becomes complicated. On set of parameters early agriculture worsens conditions of existence of the ancient person. In particular, "adhering" him to the ground and imprisoning his maneuver at adverse conditions, it frequently results in the heavy hunger-strikes practically unfamiliar to hunters and collectors.
"In comparison with early farmers, with people mastering elements of making economy, hunters-collectors in every respect are in much more advantageous position. Farmers depend on whims of a nature as their economy is not so flexible more, as a matter of fact they are adhered to one place and to rather limited circle of resources. The diet of them is more monotonous and poorer as a whole. And certainly in comparison with hunting and collecting the economy of farmers is more toilfully - fields demand continual care and nursing" (L.Vishnjatsky, "From benefit to profit").
"Farmers sharply lose in mobility, in freedom of moving, and the main thing is that agricultural work takes away many time and leaves ever less opportunities to be engaged in hunting and collecting on "parallel" bases. And it is no wonder that at early steps development of agriculture not only did not give any advantages, but also on the contrary resulted in appreciable deterioration of life. Whether is it necessary to be surprised that one of the nearest consequences of transition to agriculture becomes reduction of life expectancy?" (A.Lobok, "History smack").
"Besides in opinion of the majority of scientists, populous and dense agriculture and cattle-breeding settlements were subject to infections in a much more degree than settlements of the hunters living usually small groups on twenty five - fifty person" (L.Vishnjatsky, "From benefit to profit").
Well, how much logical and natural does transition of our ancestors from hunting and collecting to agriculture look now?.. It is thought, it looks so as far as the standard point of view on the given question appears "clear and obvious" to us (in view of set forth above)... No doubt, it suffers crash absolute on all positions!!!
* * *
Ethnographers for a long time were already convinced that the so-called "primitive" person is not so silly at all to plunge itself into so severe tests what arise on "way to civilization".
"It is possible to consider - the fact is quite established that many groups of hunters-collectors living side by side with farmers and cattlemens were well familiar both with agriculture and cattle breeding. However it has not caused at all immediate transition from hunting to cattle breeding, from collecting - to agriculture" (ibidem).
"Borrowing... has especially selective character - only that what is easily blended with traditional way of life, does not break it and does not demand radical reorganization is adopted. Say, the instruments raise efficiency of hunting are borrowed. For example by the archeologic data, in Southern Africa Bushmens adjoined to cattlemen - gottentots already at least from the beginning of our era and, hence, not less than two millenia had near by "the visual aid" on studying making economy. Also what? Only in our century they began to pass from habitual existence due to hunting and collecting to forms of life-support new to them. Also they do it only under pressure of severe necessity - in conditions of quickly growing scanty nature" (ibidem).
In view of the lacks of early agriculture revealed to the present time it becomes absolutely clear, why ethnographers have not found out in hunters-collectors of any aspiration to begin life on an image and similarity of the neighbours of farmers. The payment for "progress" appears too high, and progress is doubtful.
And cause is not laziness at all though "laziness" could bring in the contribution too... The aphorism "the person is lazy on his nature" has a deep basis: as any other alive system the person aspires to desirable result trying to spend as small as possible energy. Therefore for the sake of meal maintenance he simply does not have sense to give up hunting and collecting and to pass to exhausting work of the farmer.
But for what reasons free hunters and collectors at the beginning of our history nevertheless have refused traditional forms of self-maintenance with the foodstuffs and have set up on themselves yoke of hardest work? Can be, by some any force majeure circumstances and under their pressure our far ancestors were compelled to leave kind and quiet life of consumers of natural gifts and to pass to existence of the farmer filled wearisome work?..
* * *
The archeologic data testify that attempt of agriculture development, for example, at Near East (X-XI millenia чу) occured in conditions of consequences of the certain global cataclysm accompanied with sharp change of climatic conditions and mass extinction of fauna representatives. And though directly catastrophic events took place in XI millenium BC them "residual phenomena" are traced by archeologists during several millenia.
"...Mass extinction of animals has really taken place as a result of turmoil of last Glacial age.... In New Light, for example, over 70 kinds large mammal have died out between 15000 and 8000 years BC... These losses meaning really a violent death over 40 million of animals were not in regular intervals allocated on all period; on the contrary their basic part falls to two thousand years between 11000 and 9000 years BC. To feel dynamics we shall note that during the previous 300 thousand years have disappeared all about 20 kinds" (G.Henkok, "Gods Traces").
(In more detail events of the given cataclysm which we correlate to a known Flood in mythology are analyzed in author’s article "Myth about the Flood: calculations and a reality ".)
It is natural that in conditions of reduction of "forage reserve" the situation of sharp deficiency of food resources for our ancestors compelled thereof to master new ways of maintenance of a feed quite could arise. However there are some doubts that events were unwrapped under this scenario.
First, catastrophic consequences of events of XI millenium B.C. had global character and, certainly, have affected not only representatives of flora and fauna but people also. And there are no any bases to consider that the mankind (on its primitive, natural stage of existence) has suffered much less than the alive world environmental. That is the population should sharply was be reduced too thus a little having compensated reduction of "forage reserve".
Actually, description of events reached up to us in myths and legends inform ones: literally at all nations the same idea appears - only the few have survived the Flood.
Second, natural reaction of the primitive tribes engaged in hunting and collecting to reduction of "forage reserve" is search of new places first of all instead of search of new ways of activity that proves to be true numerous ethnographic researches.
Thirdly, "deficiency of a forage reserve" could not proceed long even in view of climate changes occurred. The nature does not suffer emptiness: ecological niche of depopulated animals is occupied with others immediate... But if suddenly for some reason restoration of natural resources did not occur so quickly as it really happens in a nature, in any case it takes much less time than one needed to master and develop the whole system of agriculture engineering (and still to discover it preliminary!).
Fourthly, also there are no bases to believe that sharp burst of birth rate will be observed in conditions of reduction of "forage reserve". Primitive tribes are similar to environmental fauna and therefore natural mechanisms of number self-control affect more strongly to them: the increase of birth rate in conditions of natural resources diminution results in increase of death rate also...
And consequently though the idea of determining role of population growth in development of agriculture and in development of culture is not new, ethnographers do not accept it till now: they have enough actual reasones for serious doubts...
Thus the theory of "population explosion" as the reason of transition to agriculture also does not maintain any criticism. And its unique argument there is a fact of a combination of agriculture with the big population density.
"On all globe these mountain areas of Asia and Africa [where agriculture has arisen] represent the most populated places till now. Even more it was noticeable in recent times... If we shall except the fruitless deserted and waterless mountain areas inaccessible to culture of a rock, stone taluses, area of eternal snows in Persia, Afghanistan, Bukhara, if we shall take into account population density here in relation to the grounds accessible to culture, we shall receive the density exceeded one of most cultural areas of Europe" (N.Vavilov, "Origin Centres of Cultural Plants").
But... can be, it is not necessary to put all from legs on a head and to change cause and consequence?.. It is much more probable that just transition to a settled way of life based on agriculture has resulted in "population explosion" rather the reverse. Since hunters and collectors aspire to avoid the big density complicating their existence...
The geography of ancient agriculture forces even more to doubt that sharp and sudden reduction of "forage reserve" roused transition of our ancestors to agriculture.
At his time Soviet scientist N.Vavilov has developed and has proved a method thanks to which it is appeared possible to determine centres of an origin of vegetative cultures. According to his researches it was found out that overwhelming majority of known cultural plants has its origin from only eight basic centers very much limited on the area (see. Fig. 2).
Fig. 2. Centers of ancient agriculture (according to N.Vavilov)
1 - South-Mexican; 2 - Peruvian; 3 - Mediterranean; 4 - Abissian;
5 - Front-Asian; 6 - Middle-Asian; 7 - Indian; 8 - Chinese
"As it is possible to see, the zone of initial development of the mainest cultural plants is attached basically for the strip between 20o and 45П of north latitude, where greatest hills of Gimalai, Hindu Kush, Forward Asia, Balkan and of Apennines are concentrated. At the Old World this strip is parallel to equator, at the New World it is parallel to meridian according to the general direction of main mountain ridges" (N.Vavilov, "World Centers (Origin Centres) Of Major Cultural Plants").
"Geographical localization of agriculture initial centers is very original. All seven centers are drawn mainly towards mountain tropical and subtropical areas. Centers of New World are drawn towards tropical Andes, centers of Old World are drawn towards Gimalai, Hindu Kush, mountain Africa, mountain areas of the Mediterranean countries and towards mountain China, occupying mainly foothill areas. In effect, only a narrow stripe of globe dry has played the basic role in history of world agriculture" (N.Vavilov, "The Problem Of Agriculture Origin In Wiew Of Modern Researches").
All these seats being as a matter of fact the centres of ancient agriculture have rather similar climatic conditions of tropics and subtropics.
But "tropics and subtropics represent an optimum of conditions for expansion of species formation process. The maximum of a specific variety of wild vegetation and fauna obviously are drawn towards tropics. Especially it can be seen in Northern America where southern Mexico and Central America, occupying rather insignificant area, include more kinds of plants, than all immense open space of Canada, Alaska and the United States taken together (including California) do" (ibidem).
It definitely contradicts the theory of "deficiency of forage reserve" as the reason of agriculture development since at these conditions not only plurality of kinds, potentially suitable for agriculture and cultivating, but also abundance the edible kinds, capable quite to provide collectors and hunters, takes place... By the way, N.Vavilov has noticed this also:
"In Central America and Mexico, also in mountain tropical Asia, the person uses set of wild plants till now. Here it is not always easy to differentiate cultural plants from appropriate wild ones" (ibidem).
Thus we receive rather strange and even paradoxical law: agriculture has arisen for some reason in the richest areas of the Earth, - where preconditions for famine was least. And on the contrary: any agriculture has not arisen in regions where reduction of "forage reserve" could be the most appreciable and should (from all logic) to be the essential factor influencing human life!!!
* * *
Further... Restored to the present time details and nuances of transition from hunting and collecting to agriculture are literally overflown with non-authorized riddles.
Let's tell, South-Mexico center of ancient agriculture occupies only about 1/40 of all territories of extensive continent Northern America. Peruvian center occupies about the same area in relation to all South America. The same can be told about the majority of the centers of Old World. Process of agriculture occurrence appears directly "unnatural", since except for this narrow strip anywhere (!!!) in the hole of world there were no attempts of transition to agriculture!!!
Other "detail" is: according to official version the narrow strip rounding Mesopotamia lowland is considered now as conventional birthplace of wheat (one of the basic grain crops) on our planet. And therefrom already as it is considered wheat has dispersed on hole of Earth. However in such point of view there is certain "card-sharping" or manipulation with the data (as it will be convenient for you). (Fig. 3)
Fig. 3. birthplace of wheat according to official version.
The matter is that the given region (under N.Vavilov's researches) really is the birthplace of that wheats group which refers to "wild". Except for it on the Earth there are two more basic groups: firm wheat and soft wheat. But it appears that "wild" at all does not mean "primogenitor".
"Contrary to usual assumptions fundamental bases of the nearest wild kinds of sorts... do not adjoin directly to the centers of genes potentials concentration of cultural wheats, but are on significant distance from them. Wild wheat kinds... are mainly in southern Syria and northern Palestine, where cultural wheats structure is especially poor. As researches show, these kinds are detached from cultural wheats by difficulty of interbreeding. Undoubtedly these are special... kinds " (N.Vavilov, "Geographical Localization Of Wheats Genes On Globe").
"How cultural wheats have arisen... how this amazing variety of cultural wheats existing kinds happened - on these questions the fact of wild wheats presence in Palestine, Syria and Armenia is not answered. Anyway it was completely clearly found out nowadays, that the basic potentials of attributes and genes of cultural wheats are contained in the areas far from Syria and North Palestine, videlicet - in Abyssinia and at bottom of Western Gimalai" (N.Vavilov, "Some Remarks To Wheats Origin Problem").
As a result of global research of various kinds of wheats N.Vavilov has established the whole three independent from each other distribution centers (read - origin places) of this culture. Syria and Palestine appeared the birthplace of "wild" wheat and of one-seed-wheat; Abyssinia (Ethiopia) - the birthplace of firm wheat; and Western Gimalai foothills - the birthplace of soft sorts wheats (see Fig. 4).
Fig. 4. Origin regions of wheat according to N.Vavilov
1 - firm sorts; 2 - "wild" wheat and of one-seed-wheat; 3 - soft sorts
"Instead of confirming assumption Solms-Laubah of unity of wheat kinds from Abyssinia with wheats from East Asia where Solms-Laubah was declined to search for the wheats birthplace, comparison of kinds, versions and races of wheats from two continents ascertained the opposite fact of sharp distinction of the Asian and African groups of wheats" (N.Vavilov, "Origin Centres of Cultural Plants").
In the whole N.Vavilov firmly comes to the conclusion that the statement about wheats birthplace in Mesopotamia or the assumption of wheats birthplace in Central Asia have no any bases.
But also his research were not limited this major result!.. In their process it was revealed that distinction of wheat kinds is at the deepest level: one-seed-wheat has 14 chromosomes; "wild" and firm wheat has 28 chromosomes; soft wheat has 42 chromosomes. But even between "wild" wheat and firm sorts with identical amount of chromosomes there was a whole precipice.
"Our experiences on interbreeding of wild wheats with various kinds of cultural wheats, including even morphologically faithful ones, ...have shown that wild wheat... represents special... kind. As known, it is characterized by 28 chromosomes, thus sharply differing from all group of soft wheats kinds, but, that it is especially essential, it represents a special kind, differing and from wheats with 28 chromosomes" (N.Vavilov, "World Centres Of Sort Riches (Genes) Of Cultural Plants").
"The fact is rather significant that in Abyssinia where there is the maximum of an initial sort variety of 28-chromosomal cultural wheats absolutely... there are no all basic wild relatives of wheat. This fact results in necessity of audit of our representations about process of cultural plants origin... Not less essential fact is the established break in localization... 42-and 28-chromosomal wheats (southeast Afghanistan and Punjab for 42-chromosomal wheats and Abyssinia for 28-chromosomal wheats)" (N.Vavilov, "Some Remarks To Wheats Origin Problem").
As it is known and as the professional N.Vavilov confirms it, achievement of similar change of chromosomes number by "simple" selection is not so simply (if not to tell - it is practically impossible). Such methods and ways are necessary for doubling and trebling of a chromosomal complement that are not always provided even by a modern science (up to intervention at a genic level). However all character of wheats sorts distribution on globe testifies that distinction between them existed already at earliest stages of agriculture! Speaking in other words, complicated selection works (and during the shortest period!!!) shoud be realized by people with wooden mattocks and primitive stone cutting tooths sickles. Are you imagine all absurdity of such picture?..
N.Vavilov comes to a conclusion, that theoretically (we shall emphasize - only theoretically!!!) it is impossible to deny probable relationship of, say, firm and soft wheats, but for this purpose the period of cultural agriculture and purposeful selection must be moved back in time to tens millenia!!! And for this there are absolutely no archeologic preconditions as even the earliest finds do not exceed on age of 15 thousand years but already demonstrate a "ready" variety of wheat kinds...
"Scientists who have proved that development of agricultural technologies began from cultivating wild barley and wheat nevertheless till now are beaten above a riddle how early grain crops could already be subdivide into sorts and kinds in those times. For improvement of some or another kind, the nature needs not one generation of natural selection. However, it was not revealed any attributes of the previous development of the given grain crops till now. It is possible to explain this botanical miracle only from positions artificial, instead of natural, selection" (Z.Sitchin, "Twelfth Planet ").
But if the problem would be limited only one wheat, that would be half-troubles...
"However our researches by a differential botanical-geographical method have shown that the area of wild barley gives still more very few directions about a presence of the valid centres cultural barley formation. In Abyssinia the maximum of a congestion of a variety of forms and consequently probably of barleys group genes is observed... An exclusive variety of forms is concentrated here... Thus here there is a number of... attributes unknown in Europe and Asia... It is curious that in Abyssinia and Eritrea, so rich a variety of versions and races of cultural barley, completely there is no wild barley" (N.Vavilov, "World Centres Of Sort Riches (Genes) Of Cultural Plants").
And moreover, the similar picture of "isolation" of cultural kinds from regions of distribution of their "wild" forms is observed for a lot of plants (peas, flax, carrots etc.)!!!
Impressive paradox is found out: at the birthplace of "wild" sorts there are no traces of their cultivating which is carried out in any other place where "wild" forms already are not present!!!
One of popular theories is the version of only one nation which "has opened" agriculture and then from him the given craftsmanship has spread to all Earth. And imagine such picture: on all globe some nation runs throwing already cultivated plants on previous place, on a way it takes new "wild" plants, and having stopped (already in the third place) it cultivates these new plants somehow having contrived incidentally (without any intermediate stages) to cultivate them. It is delirium only...
But then only one variant remains: to agree with N.Vavilov's conclusion about origin of cultures absolutely independent from each other in the different centers of agriculture.
"It is completely clear that these cultures based on different sorts and kinds of plants have arisen independently, simultaneously or at different time... They are characterized by rather various ethnic and linguistic groups of peoples. They are characterized by different types of agricultural instruments and pets" (N.Vavilov, "The Problem Of Agriculture Origin In Wiew Of Modern Researches").
So what is in a result?..
The first. From the point of view of maintenance with food resources, transition of ancient hunters and collectors to agriculture is extremely unprofitable, but nevertheless they do it.
The second. Agriculture arises in the richest regions where completely there are no natural preconditions for refusal of hunting and collecting.
The third. Transition to agriculture is carried out in grain, its most toilful variant.
The fourth. The centers of ancient agriculture are territorially divided and strongly limited. Distinction of plants cultivated in them specifies full independence of these centers from each other.
The fifth. A high-quality variety of some of basic grain crops is found out at the earliest stages of agriculture at absence of any traces of "intermediate" selection.
The sixth. The ancient cultivation centers of a lot of cultural vegetative forms for some reason appeared are geographically removed from localization places of their "wild" relatives.
The detailed analysis completely destroys "logical and clear" official point of view, and the question of agriculture occurrence on our planet passes from boring unit of political economy to category of the most mysterious pages of our history. And though a few submergence into its details is enough to understand all incredibility of that happened.
This conclusion about incredibility of such cardinal change of all way of people life indeed connected to transition from existence appropriating to making way radically contradicts intention to search certain it "natural reasons". From the point of view of the author for this reason attempts of updating of a "classical" sight of political economy are doomed for a failure: any new attempts of a "natural" explanation of agriculture occurrence appear frequently even worse the old version.
But in that case, why there was what happened? Since nevertheless it has taken place despite of all incredibility... It is obvious enough that there should be weighty reasons for this event. And these reasons have no any relation to a problem of creation of new feed resources.
* * *
Let's go in paradoxical way: we shall try to explain improbable event through the reasons which can seem even more improbable. And for this purpose we shall interrogate witnesses who carried out actually transition to agriculture. Especially we have no any another way, as in a present situation unique (!!!) other the point of view which is distinct from the official version is that one what our ancient ancestors adhered and which is traced in myths and the legends reached us from those far times.
Our ancestors were absolutely sure that all has taken place under the initiative and under the control of the gods who were gone down from heavens. Just they (these gods) have begun in general to civilizations as such, they have given agricultural crops to people and have trained in receptions of agriculture.
That fact is rather remarkable that the given point of view on an origin of agriculture dominates absolutely in all known areas of origin of ancient civilizations.
To Mexico the corn was brought by great god Ketsal'koatl'. God Virakocha trained in agriculture of people in the Peruvian Andes. Osiris has given a standard of farming to peoples of Ethiopia (i.e. Abyssinia) and Egypt. Enki and Enlil attached Shumerians to agriculture - gods who gone down from heavens and have brought to Shumerians seeds of wheats and of barley. "Heavenly Geniuses" helped to Chinese in development of agriculture, and "Lords of Wisdom" have brought to Tibet fruit and cereals, unknown up to that on the Earth.
The second remarkable fact is that: anywhere, in any myths and legends, man at all does not try to put to itself or the ancestors in a merit development of an agriculture!!!
We shall not go into details here who exactly was meant with our ancestors under the name "gods" and whence these "gods" were. We shall note only that on the myths as much as possible approached to the beginning of agriculture development (i.e. on most ancient legends and traditions which have reached us) "gods" on appearance (and in many respects on behaviour) a little differed from usual people, only opportunities and abilities of them were incomparably above human.
We shall be limited only to the analysis of as far as it is probable that there could be such course of events in a reality: i.e. whether really the mankind could receive art of agriculture "from the outside", from some other more advanced civilization.
First of all: all above-stated comparative analysis of agriculture convincingly enough testifies that the mankind did not have any "natural" reasons and preconditions for transition from hunting and collecting to agriculture.
Second, the mythology perfectly explains the fact which is revealed by biologists and mentioned above - the fact of "strange" plurality of unrelated cultural kinds of the basic grain in the ancient centers of agriculture and remoteness of cultural forms from their "wild" relatives: gods gave people already cultivated plants.
Thirdly, the version of "gift of the advanced civilization" is capable also to explain some "strange" archeological finds which are not entered in the general official theory of agriculture origin.
In particular, in America: "...researches have shown that in this region in a far antiquity someone carried out amazingly complex analysises of a chemical compound of many poisonous high-mountainous plants and its tubers. And these analyses were combined with development of detoxication technology of potentially edible vegetables to make their harmless. Till now "satisfactory explanation of what way went developers of this technology are not present", - the senior lecturer of anthropology of the Washington university David Broumen admits" (G.Henkok, "Traces of gods").
"In a similar way, at the same period somebody who yet have been not established by a science has far promoted in creation of the lifted fields on recently naked from left water of lake the grounds; result of that were characteristic alternating strips of a raising and omission of ground... These "varu-vaaru" seen today appeared a part of the agrotechnical complex created in prehistoric times but "exceeded modern systems of land tenure"... Last years some of these fields were cultivated by joint efforts of archeologists and agriculturists" (ibidem).
The result of experiments has exceeded all expectations: the crop of a potato is three times more; the strong frost "almost has not harmed plants on experimental sites"; the crop has not suffered during a drought and flooding! This simple but effective agrotechnical system has caused wide interest the government of Bolivia and is tested now in other regions of the world.
In the other region of a planet not smaller "miracles" are found out: for example, there is certificate of surprisingly early period of agricultural progress and experiments in valley of Nile. Once, between 13000 and 10000 years BC, Egypt has gone through the period so-called "premature agricultural development".
"Soon after 13000 BC stone millstones and sickles appear among finds of paleolithic instruments... In many settlements on rivers coast at the same time the fish has passed from the category of the main food stuffs in minor if one judges on absence of finds of the fish bones. Falling of a role of fishery as source of livelihood is directly connected to occurrence of new foodstuff - a ground grain. Samples of pollen give the basis to assume that barley was the appropriate cereal..." (Hofman, "Egypt up to pharaons"; Vendorf, "Pre-history of Nile valley").
"So impressing as rise of ancient agriculture in a valley of Nile in epoch of late paleolith is its sharp falling. Nobody knows precisely why but soon after 10500 BC early edges of sickles and millstones disappear; their place over all Egypt is borrowed with stone instruments of hunters, fishers and collectors of the top paleolith" (ibidem).
We date this time cataclysm under the name "Flood"... Deterioration of conditions and reduction of "forage reserve" as its result has stimulated not development of agriculture but return to a "primitive" way of life, has resulted not in progress but in recourse of a society!!!
But even if not the Flood was the reason of turn of development of a society in the opposite direction the fact remains the fact: the Egyptian experiment has really stopped, and nobody did not try to return to it during at least five thousand years. And its details seriously suggest about artificial "introducing from the outside" of agriculture to Egypt in XIII millenium BC.
"... Any explanation can not be based on the assumption that "green revolution" in paleolithic Egypt has grown out of local initiative. On the contrary, most of all it looks like transplantation. Transplant suddenly appears but also so suddenly can be will tear away at change of conditions..." (G.Henkok, "Traces of gods"). (Fig. 10)
The third region of our planet looks as full contrast to two previous ones.
"Australia did not know cultural plants up to newest time, only in XIX c. such Australian plants, as eucalyptus, acacias, casuarins start to be involved from structure of its wild flora" (N.Vavilov, "World Centers (Origin Centres) Of Major Cultural Plants").
But and in Australia there are areas, in which conditions are lightly worse than ones are in the known ancient centers of agriculture. And in the considered period of time (XIII-X millenium BC) a climate on a planet was more damp, and deserts in Australia did not occupy so much a place. And if agriculture occurrence would be process natural and naturally determined even attempts of agriculture should were inevitably be observed at this gods forgotten (in direct and figurative sense) continent. But there all is sterile... There is such impression that Australia was left by gods as the certain reserve or "control copy" for cleanliness of experiment...
Now we shall pay attention to one more remarkable fact - the fact of the strongest connection of agriculture with religion in all (!!!) ancient centers of a civilization.
"...Not casually any agricultural settlement appears to be centred by religious complex, by religious sanctuary. Since epoch of an early neolith cereals cultivating is namely cult process, and it is undoubtedly that cult dimension of agriculture was one of the deep reasons of its initial development" (A.Lobok, "History smack").
This connection of ancient agriculture and religion so is evident to researchers that it should be reflected in the official version of transition of primitive hunters and collectors to ground cultivation. In view of this official version it was considered that the base of deification of agriculture attributes was its major role as the way providing the decision of problems of a feed. However as we saw this corner stone of all construction of the official version has appeared entire fiction...
The author of just given citation is certainly right, marking that connection with religion considerably stimulated agriculture and was one of the major deep reasons of its development at the initial stage. But whence such connection arised, it does not explain.
And now we shall imagine the ancient person worshipping not abstract forces but really tangible gods. Also we shall recollect that for this person worship to gods was more concretized and was not that other as implicit submission to these gods and their requirements. And gods "present" with agriculture and induce the person to it. How in this conditions it is possible to regard to attributes of this "present" considered "sacred"? Certainly it is in the same manner that we mean under word "cult". It is quite natural...
Thus, comparing all advantages and lacks of such cardinal change of a way of life, all pro Й contra, also analyzing its details, it is easily possible to come to the conclusion that transition from hunting and collecting to agriculture was necessary not for people but for gods. But in that case there is open other question: with what purpose more highly advanced civilization of "gods", knowing about all negative moments of this transition, could "present" people not simply agriculture but also in its most "difficult" variant - grain variant, moreover and in "stone" primitive variant of its industry?
* * *
If to be on a position of adherents of the version of that the civilization is more advanced the "it is more humane" its aspirations, the first answer suggest itself: gods have attached people to agriculture to stimulate their development and progress of mankind as a whole.
You see that efficiency of agriculture needs, at first, a settled way of life which sets the person thinking of stationary habitation and warm clothes on a cold season. And it results finally in stimulation of development of construction engineering, of weaver's industry and of animal industries (not only as a source of food stuffs). Second, agriculture employment demands the whole industry of specific instruments of work, in which manufacturing (even due to farmers are being busy) separate "experts" are engaged. As a whole, necessity of the whole "armies of assistants" causes the high number of agricultural community stimulating development of public relations. And so on, and so on... Agriculture really appears "a trigger hook" of progress.
Actions of great gods-civilizers (if they so can be named) - Viracocha and Ketsal'koatl' in America, Osiras in Egypt - are stacked in frameworks of this version...
But and other variant of the answer can be:
"All shumerian texts unanimously inform that gods have created the Person to assign to him they own works. "Epos about World creation" puts this decision in lips of Marduk: "I shall create primitive creature; and the name to him will be - "Person". I shall create the primitive Worker, and he will work as servant of gods for simplification of terrestrial cares"" (Z.Sitchin, "Twelfth planet").
"The fact that the person was created by gods as the the servant, did not seem at all to ancient people strange or especial. At pre-biblical times the esteemed deity was called as "Mister", "Sovereign", "Tsar", "Governor", "Owner". The word which is traditionally translated as "worship" - "avod", - actually matters "work", "job". The ancient person did not at all "worship" to the gods - he worked on them" (ibidem).
Certainly, it is not so flatter to feel like actually descendants of slaves...
Some consolation could serve that so "frankly and cynically" the purposes of gods are formulated in mythology only of Mesopotamia. However and in other regions, practically everywhere, gods demanded offerings from people, - and though it is already more veiled formulation but it has, in essence, the same sense. Only instead of "slave labour" on gods it is provided the certain sort "tribute" that associates with replacement of slaveholding relations by feudal-serf ones.
We shall not stop in detail on a question of offerings. In general it is a separate question.... Here it can be interesting to us that at the list of offerings to gods there are also products of agriculture. But more often drinks mading from these products and causing alcoholic or easy narcotic intoxication appear in this list (and they are allocated with "separate line").
According to the Egyptian mythology as Osiris had special interest in good wines (myths were not inform where he has got this taste), "he has specially trained mankind in viniculture and winemaking, including gathering of clusters and storage fault".
In America: ""Popol-Vuh" specifies that the first kind of the foodstuffs prepared from a maize took the form of a spirits drink - nine alcoholic drinks of Shmukane (Grandmother)... Nine alcoholic drinks of Shmukane on advantage become the sacred food intended only for gifts to agrarian gods..." (U.Sallivan, "Incas Secrets").
In India people "fed gods with vegetarian food. Only in special cases they brought animals in a victim him. More often the food of gods was made with analogues of modern flat cakes, pancakes, klotskas from wheaten or rice flour. They give gods to drink milk and a Soma-drink which as experts believe had narcotic action" (J.V.Mizun, J.G.Mizun, "Secrets of gods and religions").
In Veda’s sacrifice ritual the Soma-drink takes the central place being simultaneously and as the god. In quantity of the hymns devoted to him he surpass only two gods - Indra and Agni which and were closely connected to this divine drink.
Accepting gifts and presents from people, gods did not throw out them and consumed in extreme amount. Predilection of gods for spirits and intoxicated drinks is traced in myths of all ancient civilizations.
Shumerian gods generously treat each other with beer and alcoholic drinks. It was not only means to get someone's arrangement but also a way to lower vigilance of other god that having given him to drink up to loss of consciousness, to steal at him sometimes "the divine weapon", sometimes attributes of imperial authority, sometimes some powerful Tables of Destinies... In "extreme" cases gods accustomed the enemies to drinking to kill them. In particular, the idea properly to give dragon to drink wine and then, having finished him up to a helpless condition, to kill him has managed to pass from Heittus mythology up to coast of the Japanese islands.
In texts of Sumer myths it is rather unequivocally underlined that gods created the person in intoxication condition. Thus reception of alcoholic drinks by them was carried out also directly during creation. As it is known, people frequently do so too...
Also gods required alcohol at the decision of questions of extreme importance. For example, the course of decision making about transfer of the Supreme authority to god Marduk before the person of frightening threat from goddess Tiamat is described in that manner:
"They [heavenly gods] talked sitting on a feast. They ate celebratory bread, tasted a wine, humidified the tubes for drink by sweet hop. Their body have inflated from strong drink. They got stronger in spirit while their bodies drooped" ("Enuma Elish").
In general, gods in mythology make a little amount of great acts, not having preliminary as follows got drunk... This is typical, for example, for India. "Indra is drunk, Agni is drunk, all gods were drunk", - it is spoken in one of hymns. And god Indra always was glorified by insatiable predilection for intoxicating drink - Soma which relieves people of illnesses and makes gods immortal.
"...In Vedas it is opened the secret of that main property which distinguishes gods from people - secret of immortality. It appears, it is primary "immortal" were mortal; they began not subject to a course of time using Amrita - sacred nectar [the same Soma] - and saying special mantras" (V.Pimenov, "Returning to Dharma").
From these positions it is easily explaine fact of cultivating, say, a dried fig in Forward Asia or coca bush in America. As well as a grapes - culture which on the one hand demands simply extreme efforts on a care of it and on another hand - serves basically for winemaking (use of a grapes for satisfy famine in "a wet kind" as juice or raisins makes so insignificant part that quite can be considered only as "collateral exception").
* * *
But it would be strange if people only would serve gods... Man naturally could not resist against temptation to try "a divine drink"...
By the way, the interesting moment of the certain psychological stimulation to heavy agricultural work is covered here. Passion of the hunter can be quite somewhat replaced with an opportunity to test euphoria after use of alcoholic drinks. It also raises the importance and appeal of achievement of an end result of agricultural activity.
Also it is impossible to dismiss that under influence of alcoholic drinks the person is released from restrictions of consciousness, thus an opportunity of subconsciousness are opened in the certain degree that in many respects facilitates realization so-called "magic actions". Say, for achievement of magic or religious ecstasy, a condition of a trance the substances causing slight narcotic or alcoholic intoxication are used till now in set of ritual ceremonies and actions.
"To achieve necessary moral liberty, adherents of vamacharja [tantrizm] are not at all limited to especially intellectual means. There are not only wines, a honey or flowers with their aromatic properties but also drugs in use. Shaktists drink bharig - a drink prepared from leaves of a hemp, smoke gandga and rub a body with soot" (ibidem).
In such condition people not without reason feel themselves as approached to the gods, attached to their sacrament and power. Even if to carry similar effect only to illusion it also gives powerful additional stimulus to the activity allowing to achieve at a final stage of participation to divine, let even and illusory.
"... True purpose of real Soma [drink] was (and is) to make "the new person" from Devoted after he "is born again", when he starts to live in the Astral body..." (E.Blavatskaja, "Secret doctrine").
However people (contrary gods) had no skills and culture of consumption of alcohol that obviously resulted in abusings... It was possible to become quickly an inveterate drunkard, that happened, say, frequently after introducing by Europeans of strong alcoholic drinks both to America and to the north Asia.
Thereof gods were compelled to struggle with negative by-effects of "present". For example, Viracocha named Tunupa (in area of Titi-Kaka) "opposed drunkennesses"; and in other myths abusing of people alcohol is not approved by gods.
It is natural that gods had to solve not only these problems. As it was already spoken productive agriculture demanded a settled way of life and more significant (in comparison with community of hunters and collectors) population density, that, on the one hand, simplified process management for gods but demanded also introduction of the certain rules of people behaviour in unusual for them conditions of life. One inevitably entails another...
It is clearly that "natural" elaboration of these norms and rules by people could be delayed on rather long time, that would at all not stimulate agriculture. Process could not be neglected obviously... Therefore gods had to solve personally the given question.
By the way it also inform ancient myths: literally in all regions of "occurrence" of agriculture and civilization legends of our ancestors unanimously assert that same "gods" have established among people norms and rules of life, laws and orders of joint settled existence. And the archeologic data about directly "sudden" occurrence of some the advanced ancient civilizations (for example, in Egypt or India) without everyones "preliminary steps" indirectly testify to this. This fact does not find any "natural" explanation...
Thus, more or less detailed analysis of a problem of transition from hunting and collecting to work on the ground clearly enough reveals that the version of agriculture introducing from outside (from "gods" or representatives some advanced civilization) appears in a much more degree appropriate to facts and laws revealed in various spheres of scientific knowledge, rather than an official view of political economy on the given question.
* * *
The version of agriculture as gift of gods allows to offer (in quality of "collateral" consequence) the decision of one more riddle of the past which is directly connected to early stages of becoming of a human civilization.
"...Last century linguists have paid attention that in languages of many nations... there is a lot of common features - in lexicon, morphology and grammar. From this they made the conclusion to deny which yet it was not possible to anybody, - that peoples speaking or heving spoken on such related languages and separated today from each other in thousand kilometers once made a single whole, to be exact - they had common ancestors. They were offered for naming Indo-Europeans (as descendants have occupied the most part of Europe and significant part of Asia including India)" (I.Danilevsky, "Whence is there was a Russian ground...").
"Development of glotto-chronology method allowed from interest of conterminous roots in related languages to establish approximate time of division of these languages and also correlation of common words designating technical achievements with archeological finds have allowed to establish time when Indo-European community began to disintegrate. It has taken place approximately on boundary IV-III of millenia BC. Since this time Indo-Europeans began to leave them "historical native land" gradually coping with new and new territories" (ibidem).
The idea about presence of common ancestors appeared so fascinating that archeologists have at once rushed to dig over all mentioned region from Atlantic up to Indian ocean in searches of the native land of these common ancestors. In result, last decades our knowledge of historical past were enriched with the most valuable material. But it is a trouble: the more they dug, the more versions about the native land of these Indo-Europeans bred.
But also linguists "did not stand on a place"... Inspired with success and popularity of the hypothesis they have begun "to dig" too, - only not ground but other languages. And here similarity of languages some more a lot of nations suddenly began to come to light, and the region of search of their common ancestral home has extended up to Pacific ocean in Asia and up to equatorial zones of Africa.
In a result, for today there was convincing enough version about that Indo-Europeans themselves along with set of other nations were descendants of the certain uniform community speaking in common parent language from which (on conclusions of linguists) have taken place practically all other known languages of peoples occupying all Old World in that its part which concerns to northern hemisphere (improbable scales!!!).
"Any certain community living in certain time in a certain place spoke in a parent language which on the basic structure nothing differed from any modern or historically certified language" (A.Militarev, "What young we were twelve thousand years back?!").
In representation of linguists process of moving and division of these descendants into separate nations speaking in descended from uniform root languages forms certain "language tree" one of which variants is submitted on Fig. 5.
Fig. 5. Related connections of languages (according to A.Militarev)
To present time there are two basic versions of linguists about the birthplace of these common ancestors: I.D'jakonov counts that their ancestral home was East Africa, and A.Militarev believes that "it is those ethnic groups which have created so-called Natufius mesolithic and early-neolithic culture of Palestine and Syria XI-IX of millenia BC".
The given conclusions of linguists seem again very logical and harmonous so that recently already practically nobody doubts of them. A little who thinks of "annoying" questions which something are similar to fine splinters - and irritate, and in general do not play special a role...
And where those peoples which occupied all enormous space of Eurasia and northern part of Africa before arrival of descendants of mentioned community actually have got to?.. Did they be exterminated without exception?..
And if "natives" were absorbed (not in a literal sense!) "newcomers" how during assimilation without any rest the basic conceptual apparatus of "natives" somewhere was gone?.. Why the basic roots of common words have remained only in variant of "newcomers"?.. As far as possible such universal replacement of one language by another?..
Well, and if we shall try to imagine a picture of moving more in detail... What should be crowd which has left initial point of route (from ancestral home) that it has sufficed on settling of all crossed and mastered regions?.. Or is it necessary to allow that on road they bred as rabbits?.. As it was necessary not simply to settle for any one clan or a tribe but also to suppress (!!!) language traditions of local population (or to destroy him physically)...
It is possible to think up tens variants of answer to these questions. However "splinter" inevitably remains...
But there is one very remarkable fact: site variants of "uniform family - primogenitor of languages" in accuracy are crossed with places allocated by N.Vavilov in Old World as centers of the most ancient agriculture: Abyssinia and Palestine (see. Fig. 6). Among these agriculture centers also are: Afghanistan (being one of variants of Indo-Europeans native land) and mountain China (an ancestral home of peoples of Cino-Tibetan language group).
Fig. 6. Variants of uniform family - primogenitor of languages
"Birthplace of common ancestors": 1 - I.Djakonov; 2 - A.Militarev
Centers of ancient agriculture: A - Abissian; B -Front-Asian
Except for that we shall remind that N.Vavilov unequivocally and categorically comes to conclusion about independence of various agriculture centers from each other at their early stages.
Two sciences come to conclusions contradicting each other! (Can be, in particular, and consequently overwhelming part of conclusions of the ingenious biologist is simply "forgotten" and ignored.)
The contradiction seems unsoluble... But again it take place until we are content only with conclusions. And if we shall address to details the picture seriously will change.
* * *
Let's look in more detail on what conclusions of linguists are constructed... Comparing languages (including for a long time already dyed out) of different nations, researchers on the basis of similarity of these languages have restored the basic conceptual apparatus of parent language of "common ancestors ". This apparatus obviously concerns to a settled way of life in rather large settlements (rich terminology is connected to dwelling; the term "city" is widely distributed) with enough advanced social relations. On similar common words confidently it is possible to establish presence of family relations, of property and social stratification, of certain hierarchy of authority.
Similarity of languages in a terminology concerning sphere of religious outlook is remarkable. There is likeness of words "sacrifice" "to appeal, to pray", "expiatory victim"...
But the most important: enormous amount of similar terms concerns directly to agriculture!!! Experts even designate whole "sections" on similarity of such words: processing of the ground; cultural plants; terms connected to harvesting; instruments and materials for their manufacturing...
Besides (in view of considered theme) attention pays to presence in a parent language of words "fermentation" and "a fermentive drink"...
Also it is interesting to note a conclusion of linguists that there are no direct and reliable certificates about fishery in language. This conclusion is in full conformity with N.Vavilov's conclusion about initial development of agriculture in mountain areas (where, naturally, the natural base for fishery was rather weak)...
All this gives extensive enough material for reconstruction of life of ancient people living at the beginning of a civilization... But, that was not noticed by linguists: overwhelming majority of terms similar at different nations concerns just to those fields of activity which (according to mythology) people were trained by gods!!!
And the paradoxical conclusion suggests itself here - conclusion which in effect is consequence of the version "agriculture is gift of gods": there was not any relationship of all peoples at all as there was no their uniform ancestor with his parent language!!!
Giving something to people gods naturally named this something any term. As on all centers of agriculture the list of "gift of gods" was (according to mythology) practically the same so far as it is logical to draw a conclusion that "giving gods" in different places represent a uniform civilization. Hence they use the same terms too. Thus we receive similarity of conceptual apparatus (connected with "gift of gods") in the regions rather remote from each other, and at nations which were really not communicating among themselves.
Then if we accept the version that relationship actually was not, we removes question about not clear mass character of "resettlement" as well as question about where the population existing up to new "newcomers" disappeared... It did not disappear anywhere, and resettlement was not... Simply, old population has received new words similar for different regions...
At all next "incredibility" the given version explains many riddles which have been found out by the same linguists. In particular:
"...On the linguistic data, the material culture, public and property relations, even the conceptual apparatus of mesolithic and early-neolithic human community are drawn more complex and advanced than it was possible to expect. And it is completely unexpected - not so distinct from much better investigated early-written societies of the end IV - first half III millenia BC how it is accepted to count" (A.Militarev, "What young we were twelve thousand years back?!").
The conclusion about a high level of development of culture of a human society in mesolithic period is based on regulations about natural and gradual ripening of culture. Any archeologic acknowledgement of this conclusion are not present absolutely... If the culture is lumpsum brought by gods (on the archeologic data not earlier XIII millennium BC) anything from listed relations should not be in mesolithic period.
And weak difference of the conceptual device in two completely different historical epoch divided by interval in 5-7 millenia (!!!) just is determined and explained by the same "external" nature of agriculture and culture. How the person worshipping any gods can to encroach on the name of "charisms"! Then we also receive "preservation" of enormous amount of terms on millennia, not looking on changes occuring for this time on our planet...
The version of "gift of gods" allows to remove questions not only in the field of general conclusions of linguists, but also and in more minute details of results received by them:
"For today big massifs of lexicon of parent languages of three big language families are more or less reliably restored - macro-families: Northratic, Afro-Asiatic and Cino-Caucasian. All of them have approximately the same depth of an antiquity: on preliminary calculations, Northratic and Afro-Asiatic languages are dated XI-X, Cino-Caucasian - IX millennium BC... Most likely, they are related among themselves and form certain "Afric-European-Asiatic" genetic unity..." (Ibidem).
"At the same time lexical situation in three macro-families is not identical. So, in Northratic languages - Indo-European, Ural, Altay, Dravid, Kartvel - it is not yet revealed any or nearly so any agricultural or cattle breeding terms which were common for different branches and could apply on common-Northratic antiquity. There are no or nearly so such terms in more later parent languages of separate branches - Ural, Altay" (ibidem).
But Ural and Altai are rather removed from centers of ancient agriculture, i.e. from regions of "gift of gods". So whence to undertake then to the terms connected to this gift...
"In Cino-Caucasian languages at present investigation phase it is accumulated a few common words which could be related to agriculture-cattle breeding lexicon on parent language level; in parent languages of separate branches of this macro-family - North Caucasian, Cino-Tibetan, Yenisei - the whole complexes of such words are reconstructed already, but the majority of them has no deeper... connections" (ibidem).
The Cino-Tibetan branch directly corresponds with the ancient center of agriculture in mountain China. But the given center (according to N.Vavilov's researches) has rather strong specificity on structure of cultivated cultures, the majority from which not so easily gets accustomed in other regions. In view of it also result looks quite logical: neighbouring to this center nations have certain but rather limited degree similar conceptual apparatus.
"It is not so in Afro-Asiatic languages where there are very many similar terms genetically connected, common for different branches making family; besides each of branches also has advanced agriculture-cattle breeding terminology" (ibidem).
Well, this deep common character in general is simple and clear: the question is nations living directly in the basic regions of "gift of gods" or in neighbourhood...
By the way, in view of the stated version it would be possible to offer for linguists to expand researches also on the American centers of ancient agriculture for search of "relationship" of local languages with investigated languages of Old World. If the version of "gift of gods " is true, certain similarity of languages should be found out, though it could have very much limited character on manners of situation with Cino-Tibetan language branch as American centers also are very specific... But whether somebody will undertake such research?..
* * *
It is clearly that hypothesis stated here about agriculture as "gift of gods" will cause angry indignation of set of modern scientists: political economists rejecting "unnatural" way of development of ancient mankind; linguists who have protected a heap of dissertations on a theme of establishment of "relationship" of different nations; archeologists trying to find traces of "ancestral home" of uniform "primogenitor" of these different nations etc. etc. Hardly they will stop their researches...
And problem is not that so cardinal revision of relationships of cause and effect in our ancient history demands also cardinal revision of ancient history itself (to what and N.Vavilov called, in particular). It is much more important that the question of agriculture occurrence is continuously connected to a question of birth of our civilization itself.
The version of artificial "external" source of culture (and agriculture, in particular) directly puts under doubt ability of our ancestors - hunters and collectors - independently and naturally to pass to civilized form of existence. This version simply induces us drawing conclusion on artificial creation of our civilization under certain external influence.
It demands so to lower a self-estimation by way of opportunities of independent development of mankind that causes certainly rather strong internal discomfort of supporters of view on the person as on "wreath of nature". Who knows, there would be no we now in such condition in that native Australians were before arrival of "civilization" in their reserved zone in XIX century...
But also it is absolutely not known, what from inclinations and talents the mankind could lose on a long way of development of a civilization under similar external influence...
On the other hand for example, we do not give full freedom of actions to children. Though everyone do it in own way but we bring up them and we direct their development in the certain channel. And only on this way the child can become the Person.
It is clearly that the end result very much in many respects is determined by what "parents" are... But we have that we have... As they say, that has grown - that has grown...
Eventually, our world is not so bad!!!
* * * * *