Teenagers who have read books about the life of primitive people are sure that there are no secrets in this hunt. Everything is simple. Bristling with spears, the savages surround the huge mammoth and deal with it. Until recently, many archaeologists were convinced of this. However, new discoveries, as well as an analysis of previous findings, force us to rethink the usual truths. So, archaeologists from the Institute of Primitive and early history at the University of Cologne, they studied 46 Neanderthal sites and hunting grounds in Germany, examined thousands of animal bones found here. Their conclusion is clear. Ancient hunters were very prudent people. They weighed all the consequences of their actions, and therefore were in no hurry to rush to the huge beast. They deliberately chose prey of a certain type, and attacked individuals weighing less than a ton. The list of their trophies includes wild horses, deer, steppe bison. At least, this was the case 40-60 thousand years ago (this is the age of the studied finds). But not only the choice of the victim was important. Primitive people did not wander aimlessly through the forests and dales in the hope that they would be lucky. No, hunting became for them something like a military operation, which had to be carefully prepared. It was necessary, for example, to find a place in the forest or steppe where it would be possible to strike at the enemy with the least losses for themselves. The real find for the “lovitva commanders” was the steep banks of the rivers. Here the earth suddenly left from under the feet of the intended victim. The invisible spirits of the rivers seemed to be ready to help people who came here in everything. It was possible to hide near a watering place and, jumping out of an ambush, finish off the gaping animals. Or wait near the ford. Here, stretching out in a chain, the animals one by one, carefully probing the bottom, move to the other side. Move slowly, cautiously. At these moments, they are very vulnerable, which both the Cro-Magnons and the Neanderthals, who collected their bloody catch, knew well. The cunning and prudence of the ancient hunters can be easily explained by their weakness. Their opponents were animals that sometimes weighed ten times more than they did. And he had to fight in close combat, staying close to the beast, furious with pain and fear. Indeed, before the invention of the bow, primitive man had to get close to the prey. Spear blows were delivered from fifteen meters, no further. They beat the beast with a pike and did it from three meters. So, if the operation “Word” or “Waterhole” was planned, the fighters had to hide somewhere behind the bushes, near the water, in order to reduce the distance separating from the beast to the limit with one jump. Endurance and precision meant life here. Haste and slip - death. Throwing yourself like a bayonet attack with a pointed stick at an adult mammoth is like death. And people hunted to still survive. The myth of the brave men who, with a spear in their hand, blocked the path of ancient elephants, was born immediately after the Second World War. It didn't come out of nowhere. In the spring of 1948 in the town of Lehringen, in Lower Saxony, during construction works the skeleton of a forest elephant was discovered, which died 90 thousand years ago. Between the ribs of the animal lay a spear, assured the amateur archaeologist Alexander Rozenshtok, who was the first to examine the find. This spear, broken into eleven pieces, has since been considered the main argument of those who portrayed the insane courage of primitive people. But did that memorable hunt take place? A recent study disproved the obvious findings. In that remote era, the place where the remains of the elephant were found was the edge of the lake. It was connected by channels with other surrounding lakes. The current rolled objects that fell into the water, for example, the same spear, transferring them from one place to another. It seems that they were not even going to hunt with this spear. They, judging by the blunt end, dug the ground on the shore, and then dropped it into the water, and the current carried it into the lake, where it ran into the carcass of an animal that blocked its path. If there was a hunt that day, there was nothing heroic about it. An old elephant was dying on the shore of the lake. Here his legs buckled, the body sank to the ground. From the crowd of people who were watching from afar the last convulsions of the beast, a young man resolutely stepped out. I took the spear. Approached. Looked around. hit. Nothing dangerous. The elephant didn't even move. What is the strength drove a spear into him. Waved to the others. You can split the loot. This is also a plausible scenario. What about other finds? Torralba in Spain, Gröbern and Neumark Nord in Germany - skeletons of mammoths slain by people have also been found here. However, the first impression was again deceptive. Having re-examined the bones of animals, archaeologists found only characteristic traces of processing them with stone tools - obviously, traces of butchering carcasses, but this does not prove in any way that primitive people personally killed this prey. After all, the thickness of the skin of an adult mammoth, which reached about 4 meters in height, ranged from 2.5 to 4 centimeters. A primitive wooden spear could, at best, inflict a lacerated wound on an animal, but not kill it - especially since the “right of the next blow” remained with the enraged elephant. And was the game worth the candle? In fact, the mammoth was not such a profitable prey. Most of his carcass would simply be rotten. “Neanderthals were smart people. They wanted to get the maximum meat with a minimum of risk to themselves, ”archaeologists unanimously note. Neanderthals lived in small groups, which consisted of 5-7 people. IN warm time years, it took such a tribe half a month to eat 400 kilograms of meat. If the carcass weighed more, the rest would have to be thrown away. Well, what about anatomically modern man settled in Europe 40 thousand years ago? No wonder he is a "reasonable being" by definition. Maybe he knew the secrets of hunting mammoths? Archaeologists from the University of Tübingen have been examining mammoth bones found in caves near Ulm, where the people of the Gravett culture were located (by the time it arose, Neanderthals had already died out). The analysis of the finds gave an unambiguous result. In all cases, carcasses of mammoth cubs aged from two weeks to two months were butchered. Employees of the Paris Museum of Natural History explored another site of people of the Gravette culture, located in the town of Milovich in the Czech Republic. The remains of 21 mammoths were found here. In seventeen cases, these are cubs, and in another four, young animals. The Miloviche site was located on the slope of a small valley, whose bottom was made of loess. In the spring, when mammoth cubs were born, the frozen ground thawed, and the loess turned into a mess in which the young mammoths got stuck. Kindred could not help them. The hunters waited for the herd to leave, and then finished off the victim. Perhaps people deliberately drove the mammoths into this "swamp", scaring them with torches. But what about the brave ones? Really, there were never those who, with a spear at the ready, desperately rushed at the mammoth, not sparing their belly? Probably, there were also such daredevils. Only heroes - they are heroes for that, to die young, for example, under the feet of an angry elephant. We, in all likelihood, are the descendants of those prudent hunters who, from an ambush, could wait for days until a lone mammoth cub dies in the trap where it fell. But we, their descendants, are alive, and usually only a memory remains of the heroes.

Do you want to become the greatest stone age hunter? We will open all the secrets of the game, tell you how to complete the quests. Little tricks will save you time and nerves.

Far Cry Primal - passing the quest hunting for a mammoth

In Far Cry Primal, the mammoth is the largest and strongest animal. It is very important to keep your distance from such animals. Be sure to use traps, they will delay the beast and give you the opportunity to regroup or run away. A lot of useful things can be removed from the body of a mammoth.
In Far Cry Primal, hunting a mammoth is an exciting and dangerous activity. This is where the passage of this game begins, where we and a group of hunters will try to kill a mammoth that has strayed from the herd. When hunting for large animal, such as a mammoth, it is important to separate it from the pack.
Tip: It's easier to kill an animal that no one helps.

The developers have diversified hunting for large animals. In Far Cry Primal, mammoth hunters can set traps for mammoths or swoop down and beat him to death. If you are a lone hunter, then in Far Cry Primal how to kill a mammoth yourself? To do this, you will need at least 10 arrows, which are desirable to launch from afar, so that you can quickly hide. It is safer to use a trap and while the animal is stuck in it, beat it with a club or stab it with a spear.

Manual mammoth

The question arises in Far Cry Primal how to tame a mammoth, when it’s not something to feed him, it’s creepy to approach him. To do this, you need to complete quests and tasks given by the villagers during the game, and unlock skills for the points received. You need to start small, gain experience and get to the group of insidious animals, where the mammoth will become available.

Feel like a mammoth

If you have the DLC installed, you will definitely come across the quest - The Legend of the Mammoth. Far Cry Primal The Legend of the Mammoth, the passage of this quest will begin from the moment when the shaman in the village gives you one suspicious potion to drink. Your spirit will be transferred to the carcass of a huge mammoth and a task will appear - to find the killers of animals, your relatives. The torn remains of mammoths will lie around and you must go in hot pursuit in search of the killer. Further, the spirit of the rhinoceros will be revealed, which became the cause of their death. After a short battle, he will start to run away and when you catch up with him, the spirit will call for assistants who will attack you. A couple of blows in response, usually enough for them, and they will crumble into pieces of ice. When you destroy all the rhinos in the area, the spirit will again try to hide. Having caught up with him, you will again have to fight with the rhinos, which he will set against you. There will be more of them and they will attack more aggressively than the previous ones.

Tip: To make it easier to fight the rhinos in the second location, take a position on the top of the hill where you came from. When they respawn and attack in waves, it will be easier for you to fight them off in a narrow passage. You can also roll boulders that lie around on them and thereby kill them.

After the victory, the spirit will start flying away from you again, it will lead you to a clearing with geysers and again a herd of rhinos will attack you.
Tip: Never expose a mammoth's side to a blow, a rhino's side blow is almost death. To make it easier to fight back, stand so that there is a tree in front of you, and a rock closes your back and beat the enemies who will run up to you.

In the same way, you can easily deal with the boss - the spirit of the rhinoceros.

As the oldest religious scripture informs us, "The earth was formless and empty, and darkness was over the deep, and the Spirit of God hovered over the waters." However, let us leave consideration religious texts theologians and approach the matter as ordinary atheists, because it is difficult for a deeply religious person to remain absolutely impartial in science.

The most common misconception

The most common misconception: an atheist is a person who denies the existence of God.

Theism is the doctrine of God, and it is opposed by another doctrine - atheism, it is not based on the denial of God, but simply excludes him from its explanation of the world. Atheism is alien to the spirit of antitheism, it does not proclaim the struggle with God as its task.

But the concept of God exists, just as there are concepts of logic, dialectics, conscience, and the like, so it would be wrong to say that there is no God. But this concept is not part of the worldview of an atheist. He is not guided by this concept in Everyday life, does not compare his actions, thoughts, feelings against him; his spiritual experiences proceed outside the idea of ​​God ...

Personally, I can neither confidently deny nor confirm the existence of unknown forces that give us a reason for mystical fantasies. In religious matters, I am closest to the position of one great physicist who said: "There is no God, but there is something much more serious." Therefore, let us approach the matter moderately atheistically, because it is difficult for a person who believes deeply, as well as who completely denies God, to remain absolutely impartial in science.

In the book, I do not state anything unconditionally, but if I assume something, it means that I have sufficient grounds for that. I always try to express myself precisely, so in the narrative you will find quite a few words expressing varying degrees of certainty: it seems, probably, perhaps, apparently convinced ...

The book is devoid of "scientific" in the academic sense of the term, but this does not mean at all that it is based on the bare imagination of the author. No, it contains a lot of factual material, to which the author gives his interpretation. For a better understanding of the author's idea, I immediately want to make two very important warnings.

First. The sequence outlined in the book historical events in time coordinates is different, not the one that is generally accepted in historical science! The text must be read assuming that humanity has developed consistently, without leaps and regressive failures, because such a course of historical events is dictated by the logic of the development of human society. Therefore, do not try to immediately link the events described to famous years, to look for their place in the generally accepted system of chronological coordinates. You can do this later, but through the prism of my version.

And the second. THE AUTHOR DOES NOT PURSUIT ANY POLITICAL OR RELIGIOUS OBJECTIVES BY PUBLICATION OF THE BOOK! THE TALK GOES ONLY FOR THE GOOD OF TRUTH AND HUMANITY. QUOTATIONS FROM RELIGIOUS BOOKS OR ORAL LEGEND OF DIFFERENT TIMES AND PEOPLES ARE USED ONLY AS A SOURCE OF HISTORICAL INFORMATION.

Logically, common sense and knowledge of human nature, I want to outline my vision of the development of our civilization. By “our civilization” I mean the earthly classical, primarily European history, from which Russian culture stems, from the Ancient World to the present day. The history of prehistoric man does not interest us.

In working on the book, I proceeded from the assumption that the reader is familiar with the traditional history, and he is able to calmly and soberly analyze even the most unexpected hypotheses. But no mysticism, quackery, "flying saucers" or reflections on the "other world" can be found in the book, this is a purely historical study. Although some evidence real history more breathtaking than the tales of the underworld!

It is probably better for a person who is prejudiced or with an affected psyche (Russophobe, anti-Semite, etc.) not to read the book at all, so as not to be upset once again. And the rest I will try to tell as interesting as possible, if possible without stretching the story.

The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine!

How long ago did our planet appear? How many years has man been on earth? Is it possible to solve historical riddles that are now considered unsolvable? There is a whole army of people who have devoted their entire lives to answering these and similar questions, and it would be dishonorable for me to take away a piece of bread from them. But, on the other hand, I can't help but notice that this "army" gave so many answers that, if you wish, you can defend the correctness of one or completely opposite judgments, and even obvious absurdity can be easily defended by references to authoritative sources. In general, as Byron wrote in Manfred, "Science is the exchange of some ignorance for others." Therefore, with a light heart, I offer my reflections without fear of being challenged. Who is indisputable? Only God, who in the beginning created the firmament of the earth, from which everything began.

“The earth was chaotic and empty, darkness stretched over the abyss, and the Spirit of the Almighty hovered over the water…”
(Bereshit, Genesis)

According to generally accepted ideas, the Earth is the fruit of internal cosmic processes, the result of the "work" of the cosmos. A bright red clot of hot cosmic gases absorbs streams of flying stones, dust ... Getting into this clot, the stones melt, hiss, and evaporate gases. The basalt, then the granite base - the firmament of the earth (cast) - has already appeared, and the liquid component has appeared; the young planet is covered with a kind of fog - the future air. The active phase of formation is replaced by a gradual attenuation and cooling of the surface. This was the period of biological life. Then - according to the same ideas officially accepted in science - primitive organisms appeared in the water, they crawled out onto land and developed into different creatures, and two sexes at once: something became a dinosaur with a dinosaur, something developed into a mammoth with a mammoth, which -something has become a creeping reptile with ... in general, with a female creature of the same species; and some cunning gastropod managed to turn into a monkey on land. She lived for herself carefree for millions of years, but suddenly she wanted to work “in the sweat of her brow” - to plow the land, to harvest crops ... And a person came from her ... Everyone knows this version from school, and I will not analyze it in detail.

Recently, the following information was published on the Internet: an international group of scientists, as a result of many years of work, came to the conclusion that the Earth was habitable immediately after its formation. They argue that our planet arose in its current form and since then it has practically not changed its original appearance. According to the researchers, the planet immediately after its origin was ready to shelter living beings, and all statements that at first the Earth was completely covered by the oceans, and then the continental crust melted on it, where the inhabitants of the waters then got out, are erroneous.

In the rocks of the Western Australian mountain range Jack Hills (it is considered the oldest on Earth, its age is 4.4 billion years), the rare earth metal hafnium was found in combination with zirconium crystals. According to the analysis, scientists have established that the continental crust differs from the structure and thickness located under the oceans and was formed already 4.4–4.5 billion years ago, that is, almost immediately after the birth of the planet. Before that, it was believed that it gradually melted out of the ocean.

"It looks like the Earth formed in one moment," says one of the researchers, Steven Moyzis from the University of Colorado. Under his leadership, a study was conducted proving that water immediately appeared on the surface of the planet about 4.3 billion years ago, and did not condense from the atmosphere for 3.8 billion years, as previously thought.

“The new data suggests that the Earth's crust, oceans and atmosphere existed from the very beginning, and the planet was already habitable then,” Moizis said.

I absolutely do not want to consider the question of the origin of man.

There are many conjectures on this score, up to the spontaneous appearance of protein in the exosphere (the uppermost, near-cosmic layer of the atmosphere) and its settling on the surface of the planet. There are also hypotheses of the coming of man to Earth from other planets, for example, from Sirius, Mars, Phaeton, and even suggest that from the satellites of Jupiter. But the question of the origin of man on Earth is in no way related to our topic, and therefore I immediately turn to the given: once upon a time, man arose.

Numerous ancient documents testify that initially the existence of man on our planet was truly heavenly: he did not know hunger, cold, disease ... But it is also quite obvious that a period came when our ancestor suddenly began to fight for survival, for his existence and with many efforts to get out of the state of animal relations with the outside world.

I leave out of my story the hard way that I had to go through ancient man. I can only note in passing that the official picture of the life of an ancient person does not satisfy me at all. Moreover, it is largely illogical, unproven and harmful to the construction of a correct idea of ancient world. For example, from the school bench we know that the ancient man hunted mammoths. And even the modern Big Encyclopedic Dictionary confirms this:

The mammoth is an extinct mammal of the elephant family. Lived in the 2nd half of the Pleistocene in Eurasia and North America. He was a contemporary of the Stone Age man. Height 2.5–3.5 m. Weight 3–5 tons. Extinct at the end of the Pleistocene as a result of:
a) CLIMATE CHANGE and
b) HUNTING ON HIM MAN.
In the north of Siberia, in the Kolyma basin, in Alaska and elsewhere on the planet, mammoths have been found with soft tissues, skin and wool preserved in permafrost layers.

But let's think. The remains of mammoths are found all over the world: both in warm latitudes and in cold ones. What kind of “climate change” caused all mammoths to become extinct overnight, within, as paleontologists put it, “one cosmic minute”?

Let's answer another question: "What was the need for an ancient man to hunt mammoths?" It is difficult to imagine a more senseless occupation! Firstly, even the skin of a modern elephant is up to 7 cm thick, and the mammoth still had a thick layer of subcutaneous fat. Try yourself with a stick with a stone to break through the skin, which does not burst even from the tusks of five-ton males when they fight among themselves.

Secondly, even if you removed such a skin from a dead mammoth, sew a “suit” out of it and run around in it, and I'll see how long you last.

Thirdly, mammoth meat is rough, sinewy, low-nutrient. Why did ancient man need to eat very tough mammoth meat, if there are a lot of fruits, vegetables, roots, fish in the rivers, as well as animals and birds with more tender meat around?

Fourth, in pictures ancient hunting in the history books, a poor mammoth sits dejectedly in a pit, and people throw stones at his head. Stupidity without comment. But here's the pit... Who dug the yamish? Even for an average individual, a pit of at least five to seven cubic meters was needed. Try to dig a hole for at least a baby elephant. Do not take an iron shovel, it did not exist then.

Fifthly, it is also necessary to direct the mammoth into the pit, drive it. Mammoths, like elephants, are herd animals. For the sake of experiment, gather all your friends and try to approach with sticks in your hands and recapture the herd of wild African elephants(still, by the way, not tamed!) any of its members.

And also sixth, seventh, and eighth... Why is frank absurdity repeated from generation to generation?

There is a lot of evidence that the traditional picture of the life of the most ancient person, to put it mildly, does not correspond to reality. An article was published in the Alfavit magazine (No. 1, 2002), which states that “... European archaeologists have made a sensational discovery, and now we know how Paleolithic women dressed. Contrary to popular belief, the ancestors wore more than just foul-smelling skins and skins. Prehistoric women had hats and hair nets, belts and skirts, panties and bras, as well as bracelets and necklaces made of plant fibers in their "wardrobe".

There were real fabrics, in the manufacture of which quite weaving technologies were used. And although there was no single fashion in the expanses of Eurasia, the best examples of weaving from the Paleolithic era can compete with the products of the Neolithic, Bronze and Iron Ages. Yes, there is a Neolithic! Modern thin cotton - and that almost does not exceed the dressing of the Paleolithic.

Until now, our distant past has been presented to us in the form of compositions in historical museums: monkey-like men in skins with clubs drive mammoths, the same animal-like women with sagging breasts nurse children and roast meat on fires. Looks like it's time to revisit this picture. New evidence strongly suggests that the role of women in prehistoric society was far greater than we have thought so far. If the ancient ladies already knew how to sew and wear precious woven clothes with grace, one must think that their position in society was far from slavish, but rather equal in rights. And their husbands had to have some kind of artistic taste. Otherwise, for whom would primitive women of fashion dress up?

Here is the text. Now let's give ourselves the trouble to think. I quote an article from the most modern electronic encyclopedic dictionary Cyril and Methodius:

“Paleolithic - from Paleo ... and ... Lith, the ancient Stone Age, the first period of the Stone Age, the time of the existence of fossil man (paleoanthropes, etc.), who used upholstered stone, wooden, bone tools, was engaged in hunting and gathering. The Paleolithic lasted from the appearance of man (over 2 million years ago) until about the 10th millennium BC.”

If an inexperienced reader wants to know when a person appeared on Earth, then he will find a variety of numbers: from 10 thousand to two million years ago.

Moreover, due to age, I can trace how this figure has changed. When I was in school, it was known that man originated 35-40 thousand years ago, then this figure slowly increased to 70, 100, 140, 200 thousand. Then the American film “Million years BC” appeared on the screens of cinemas, and there people were already running on the ground and, inarticulately lowing, fought off annoying dinosaurs; the film's consultants are America's most respected historians. Now the figure has reached two million. Who is bigger?

The reader must understand that the figures of chronology are the holy of holies for the historian. If I change the number of the alleged appearance of man on Earth, then with the change in the figure, the whole picture of earthly life changes from the very first day to the present day. And if in the most modern definition I am offered to find out that two million years ago paleoanthropes ran around our planet - great apes(so primitive that they had only stone scrapers and bones of dead animals as tools of labor), and at the same time, it turns out that they wore panties and bras that were not inferior to modern linen in the fineness of weaving, then I understand that in the officially accepted picture of prehistoric The world is in complete chaos.

Usually, archaeologists and paleontologists proceed from the fact that the original man was carnivorous, with rough features: animal hands, a massive jaw, a forehead hanging over his eyes. There is a feeling that there was no man as such in essence (thinking), there was a beast; it turns out that evolution had to work hard, "correcting" the mistakes of the Creator.

I vividly imagine how the ancestor of the gentlemen who affirm the above, tears raw meat with his teeth - but this is by no means a man! Then it digestive system for some reason suddenly becomes delicate (probably raw meat contributes to the transformation of an animal into a person), and he begins to bake meat on fire (he naturally does not have iron boilers for cooking food), and his young child eats the same thing ... Find a person , whose stomach is capable of digesting the coarsest food, feed him in this way, and he will die in a maximum of a year from such food. And they want to assure us that this is how a person ate for hundreds of thousands of years and acquired the appearance of modern people.

Thank God, not a single modern encyclopedia any longer claims that Pithecanthropus, Sinanthropus, Neanderthal, Cro-Magnon and the like were an intermediate link between ape and man. Moreover, a team of European scientists led by Svent Paabo conducted a study at Stanford University, which proved with a high probability that the mixing of early man and Neanderthals did not occur. After isolating mitochondrial DNA from four Neanderthals and five contemporary European humans, the scientists found no evidence of a significant genetic transition. It is quite possible that man could have been created in various natural "performances" (in the canine family: a dog, a wolf, a jackal, a coyote, a dingo, a fox, and an arctic fox), and on the other cardiovascular system(the air pressure and density were once different, the Earth's magnetic field was many times stronger), and on the other respiratory system, (not always the Earth's atmosphere consisted of a nitrogen-oxygen mixture familiar to us, the oxygen content in air bubbles in ancient amber is 28%), but de facto the weakest species, the most unsuitable for life on this planet, managed to survive and adapt - homo delicatus - graceful man. When you start listing all the "unsuitability" of a person for life in these earthly conditions, you want to exclaim: "How could a person appear here and survive at all!" And suddenly, with amazing clarity, you begin to understand that a person in all respects was not created for this planet ... Or it should be recognized that when he appeared, the conditions on Earth were different!

But the main thing for me is not disputes with pundits, God bless him: they hunted, and even if you really want to believe in it. The existence of the original man is not the subject of this book, and if necessary I will confine myself to remarks of a purely informative and puzzling nature.

There are theories coming from J. Cuvier, according to them, the life of mankind proceeds in cycles: it reaches the peak of its development and then, either due to geological reasons, or due to a bad character, destroys itself, descending to a primitive state, and then passes again historical path. As for the bad character - this is true, the rest is doubtful.

In the statements of biologists, the idea hidden in the subconscious is always read that the genetic code of living beings is in the process of constant change (oh, those evolutionists), and all species are in constant mixing. No, gentlemen, on Earth each species has its own independent path. Hyenas don't turn into wolves, and jackals don't turn into foxes. And not a single monkey during the millennia known to mankind has come even half a step closer to man outward signs not at the genetic level.

It would be more correct to say that only those living beings exist on earth that CAN exist under given physical conditions. Those who are not adapted for life on this planet cannot appear at all or will inevitably disappear IF THE TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT, THAT IS THE CONDITIONS OF THEIR EXISTENCE CHANGES.

The truth is obvious: each species existed on Earth on its own and did not turn into anyone. And a very good reason made many species of living beings disappear in an instant. Namely: a very strong geocosmic catastrophe.

I BELIEVE THAT TWO UNIVERSAL SCALE CATASTROPHES BROKEN THE WAY OF EARTH CIVILIZATION.

Over the past twenty years, I have read, probably, everything that is written about catastrophes, and I know that many cataclysms have occurred on earth. But it is unlikely that they were destructive to humanity in nature.

I MEAN CATASTROPHES THAT RADIOUSLY CHANGED NOT ONLY THE PHYSICS, GEOGRAPHY, HISTORY OF THE EARTH, BUT ALSO THE ESSENCE OF EVERYTHING LIFE ON THIS PLANET, INCLUDING HUMANS.

For convenience, I will call each of them in the future - "catastrophe". Or sometimes - "cataclysm".

Where did mammoths come from? What kind of life did you lead? Why did they die out? Over these riddles for several centuries beats science community. And each new study refutes the previous one.

Yakut treasures

The beginning of everything was laid by the Amsterdam burgomaster Witsen, when in 1692 he first described the untouched carcass of a mammoth found in Yakutia. He did not know what he would new life an extinct species of animal. Modern scientists are increasingly calling Yakutia the birthplace of mammoths. It may not be the historical homeland, but at least the place with the highest concentration of the mammoth population in the past.

Behind last years most animal remains were found here (according to statistics, about 80%), including well-preserved ones. Particularly struck scientific world the latest find is a 60-year-old female mammoth. But its uniqueness is not so much in the preservation of tissues, but in the liquid blood contained in them. This find can give scientists new knowledge about the genetic and molecular composition of primitive animals.

Mammoths began to die out due to warming

For such a version Lately more and more scientists are leaning. Dr. Dale Guthrie from the University of Alaska, who made radiocarbon dating of the remains of animals and people who lived more than 10 thousand years ago, agrees with her. According to Guthrie, climate change transformed a dry and cold area into a more humid and warm one, which in turn led to a change in vegetation that mammoths simply did not have time to adapt to.
Other scientific evidence confirms the decline of tundra forests, the main habitat of mammoths. Like reindeer mammoths, depending on the time of year, wandered in search of their usual food - in summer they moved north, and in winter southern regions. And then one day they faced a shortage of tundra vegetation.

In 1900, on the banks of the Berezovka River, a mammoth carcass, almost untouched by time and predators, was discovered. Later, other similar remains were found. Some details, including unchewed grass, suggested that the animals died suddenly. The version of the murder disappeared immediately - there were no signs of damage. Scientists puzzled over this mystery for a long time and finally came to an unexpected conclusion - the animals died after falling into the melted wormwood. Over time, researchers were able to find more and more animals that ended up in the place of the old river bed. The rise in temperature played a cruel joke on them.

And here is another fact in favor of the version of the extinction of animals due to global warming. The researchers found that in the process of climate change, mammoths also changed their size. During the Ice Ages (Zyryansk and Sartan times), they became larger, and during periods of global warming (Kazantsev and Kargin times), they became smaller. From this it follows that it was cold that was more preferable for mammoths than heat.

People did not hunt mammoths

According to one hypothesis, mammoths were exterminated by hunters, at least the British naturalist Alfred Wallace was inclined to this version. Indeed, at the sites of ancient man's sites, many products made from the skin and tusks of a mammoth are found. We know about the hunting of people for mammoths from school textbooks. However modern researchers they say that a man did not hunt mammoths, but only finished off sick and weak animals. The fact is that during warming, the groundwater that rose up washed out the minerals that were part of the soil from the soil. plant food mammoths. The fragility of the bones, which appeared as a result of a depleted diet, made the giants vulnerable to humans.

A. V. Bogdanov in his book “Secrets of the Lost Civilization” convincingly proves the impossibility of people hunting for mammoths. A modern elephant has a skin of about 7 centimeters, and a mammoth, due to a layer of subcutaneous fat, it was even thicker. “Try it yourself with a stick with a stone to break through the skin, which does not burst even from the tusks of five-ton males,” the writer says.
But further on, Bogdanov is even more convincing. Among the reasons, he names the very tough and sinewy mammoth meat, which was almost impossible to eat, as well as the actions necessary for a successful hunt that are too much even for a large group of people. To catch even a medium-sized individual, you need to dig a hole of at least 7 cubic meters, which is not realistic with primitive tools. It is even more difficult to drive a mammoth into a hole. These are herd animals and when trying to recapture at least a cub from the herd, the hunters risked being trampled by multi-ton carcasses.

Contemporaries of the Egyptian pyramids

Until recently, it was believed that mammoths disappeared from the face of the earth 10,000 years ago. But at the end of the 20th century, the remains found on Wrangel Island significantly corrected the dating. Based on the data obtained, scientists found that these individuals died about 3,700 years ago. “Mammoths inhabited this island when the Egyptian pyramids were already standing and the Mycenaean civilization flourished,” says Frederik Paulsen to explore. The mammoths of Wrangel Island lived when most of these animals on the planet had long since disappeared. What made them move to the island? This remains a mystery for now.

holy tooth

In the Middle Ages, people who unearthed the bones of mammoths had no idea who they belonged to and often mistook them for the remains of cynocephals who lived in legendary times - huge creatures with a dog's head and a human body. For example, in Valencia, the molar tooth of a mammoth was a sacred relic, which, according to legend, belonged to the "dog-headed" Christopher, a holy martyr, revered by the Catholic and Orthodox Church. It has been recorded that during processions as far back as 1789 canons also carried a mammoth femur along with a tooth, passing it off as a fragment of a saint's hand.

Relatives

Mammoths are close relatives of elephants. This is evidenced by their scientific name Elefasprimigenius (translated from Latin as "first-born elephant"). According to one version, the elephant is the result of the evolution of the mammoth, which has adapted to more warm climate. Perhaps this is not so far from reality, because the mammoths of the late time corresponded in their parameters to the Asian elephant.

But German scientists compared the DNA of an elephant and a mammoth, and came to a paradoxical conclusion: a mammoth and Indian elephant these are the two branches that originated from African elephant approximately 6 million years ago. Indeed, recent studies have shown that the ancestor of the African elephant lived on earth more than 7 million years ago, and therefore this version does not seem fantastic.

"Resurrect" the giant!

Scientists have been trying to "resurrect" the mammoth for quite a long time. So far to no avail. The main obstacle to the successful cloning of an extinct animal, according to Semyon Grigoriev (head of the Museum of the Mammoth named after P. A. Lazarev), is the lack of source material of adequate quality. However, he is convinced good prospects this undertaking. He pins his main hopes on a recently extracted female mammoth with preserved liquid blood.
While Russian scientists are trying to recreate the DNA of an ancient animal, Japanese specialists have abandoned ambitious plans to populate the Russian Far East mammoths in view of the futility of the idea of ​​\u200b\u200btheir "resurrection". Who was right - time will tell.

And suddenly, as in fantasy films Will mutants take over the planet? Many people will die, but you will not, you will know how to hunt dinosaurs!

… mutants or dinosaurs will fill the planet again!

According to the latest, very scientific information, the last living mammoths on planet Earth died out about 6-10 thousand years ago. But there are still elephants, hippos, rhinos. Smaller animals still live in the middle (climatic) zone: elk, bear, wild boar, deer, but real specialist for survival, it is simply necessary to know, just in case, how to get any animal in size, including elephants and hippos.

Let's get back to mammoths. How do you think ancient people hunted mammoths for meat? Films, history books, and paintings in museums provide many graphic answers to this question. The whole tribe first drove the poor animal into the pit, and then threw stones at the mammoth in the pit to death.

Catching large ungulates with the help of trapping pits is still practiced in some places, but personally I have not heard that hunters slaughtered an animal that came across in a pit with stones. Do you know why? Because giant hematomas form at the impact sites. In other words, bruises. And more precisely, a little appetizing, jelly-like mass of black-blue-violet color. It is unlikely that the ancient hunters deliberately spoiled the meat of the hunted animals in this way. In order to kill a mammoth in a pit, it was enough to poke him in the neck with a spear and wait for the mammoth to die from blood loss.

It is also known that ancient people covered the floors in dwellings with mammoth skin. But in a cramped hole, it was not possible to remove the skin from the mammoth. And it is quite difficult to dig a hole in the permafrost. IN glacial period, in the habitats of mammoths, the earth was frozen for sure. It turns out that there were no holes either. How were mammoths killed? Yes, just like modern elephants or elks with the help of primitive weapons. For example, African pygmies with their toy weapons they hunt in such a way that they hit the stomach with a spear and after waiting for an hour after two or three inflammations of the peritoneum of the elephant, they approached and finished off the beast with a spear in the neck. The main thing in such a hunt was not to drive a wounded animal in vain. The beast retreated and not noticing the persecution behind him, he stopped and lay down, feeling the pain from the wound. Having rested, the animal could no longer get up and it was not difficult to find it in the footsteps.

As you can see, the presence of all the warriors of the tribe, including their angry wives and starving children, is not necessary to kill any large beast for meat. One experienced hunter was quite enough.

The same applies to the use of traps on elephants. They don't dig holes for elephants. Trapping holes are dug for smaller animals, where tiny elephants can really get into. Adult elephants (and hippos) use other traps. They hang a spear smeared with a thick layer of clay over the elephant path. So that the total weight of the spear with a lump of clay was over a hundred kilograms. Such a modernized spear can be hung by two adult men on a tree branch and, with the help of a simple trigger, fix the spear over the path. Pygmies smeared clay on an elephant spear already on a tree. An elephant (a hippopotamus, an antelope, a zebra ...) passing under a tree touched the guard and a spear falling down, pierced the elephant (or hippopotamus) through and through. Which led to the rapid death of the animal.

Similar spear-traps were used almost all over the world. In Vietnam, similar traps, lumps of clay with many bamboo stakes, were successfully "hunted" even by American invader soldiers. In addition, such traps are much easier than piling up logs in bear traps. By the way, mouth-type traps are also known all over the world. For example, in Africa, even hippos were caught with traps like a mouth. Hippos out of the water are quite shy and cautious, and the fear of human traps was transmitted to them (hippos), apparently, at the gene level. locals in order to scare away the hippos, they put on their path a kind of trap made of a pumpkin or a small stump of a tree resting one end (pumpkin) on a stick. Such a layout was quite enough for the hippos to stop using this trail for a long time.

On Siberian bears and elks, with a sufficiently urgent need, you can put a powerful crossbow (crossbow) with a spear instead of an arrow. Such crossbows (crossbows) with bows, which were pulled by two or three adult men at once, hunters set up until the middle of the twentieth century. Then the crossbow began to be replaced firearms or loops of steel cable.

The fact that all the above described traps are considered poaching and are prohibited for use everywhere, you yourself have already guessed. Knowing and applying are not the same thing. But just in case, you need to know.

What do you say: “Tyrannosaurus appeared from somewhere and needs to be finished off? I hope you didn't scare him. Then let's get together now and do as you ask."