Our ancestors are the ancient Slavs. Ancient Greeks. Hellenes

15.04.2019

3D technologies have made it possible to recreate the appearance of people who lived a long time ago based on their remains. Scientists have recently reconstructed the appearances of a Peruvian queen from the forgotten Moche kingdom, an ancient Greek “griffin” warrior, medieval Scottish highlanders, an ancient Egyptian aristocrat and another ancient Egyptian woman, as well as a victim of Vesuvius. The publication “My Planet” talked about these reconstructions.

Señora de Cao is the ruler of the Moche people.

Scientists in Peru have used 3D printing to reconstruct the face of a powerful ancient ruler known as Señora de Cao. The woman was found to have an oval face with high cheekbones, a look characteristic of many modern Peruvians.

She was a member of the Moche nobility who lived in northern Peru 1,700 years ago. The tattooed mummy of the “Señora” was discovered in 2006 in the ruins of the Huaca Cao Vieja pyramid near the city of Trujillo. Her legs and face were tattooed magical symbols snakes and spiders.

Researchers had previously established that the woman died at the age of 20, possibly in childbirth or as a result of complications during pregnancy. The rich decoration of the grave suggested that Senora de Cao was a powerful priestess or even a political leader.

"Griffin Warrior" who died 3500 years ago.

Scientists from the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg (South Africa) using computer modeling have reconstructed the appearance of the “griffin warrior” who died in 1500 BC. e.

1. Woman aged 13 thousand years

After a complex reconstruction process, scientists were treated to a 13,000-year-old almost elven lady whose remains were discovered in Thailand. In life, her height was 152 cm, and this woman of quite European appearance died at the age of 25-35. Agree, she could easily pass for our contemporary.

2. Victim of the black market

This young woman died in Scotland in the 18th century. Her name and life history are unknown, but the skull can still tell a lot. The remains of a young Scots woman aged around 30 were found in a plot where poor and lonely people were buried. Her front teeth were pulled out and researchers believe they were sold to the market to make dentures.

3. Atypical Brazilian

Some of the oldest human remains have been kept in the museum for decades. They belonged to a woman, provisionally named Luzia, and she traveled through the Brazilian savannah 11.5 thousand years ago. She is believed to have died in her early 20s. When Luzia's skull became a face, scientists were surprised: her features were distinctly similar to those of black people in Africa, Australia and the South Pacific.

4. Senora de Cao

Long before the Incas, the Moche culture flourished in Peru. One of their iconic mummies from that time is the 1600 year old Señora de Cao. Her body was discovered in 2005 in a tomb filled with precious items. To “introduce” the lady to the public, a team of scientists recreated her face and body in 3-D. The result was amazing. Instead of a mummy, museum visitors can now see a young woman with high cheekbones who looks quite alive.

5. The Spitalfields Woman

In 1999, archaeologists excavated a London medieval cemetery where they found a mysterious woman in a huge stone sarcophagus dating back to around 350 AD. The lady was wearing clothes made of silk embroidered with gold. Analysis of her teeth revealed that she was not British, but was most likely born in Rome.

6. Long-headed Korean woman

In 2013, during excavations in Gyeongju, the capital ancient kingdom Silla (57 BC - 935), a coffin was found containing the almost complete skeleton of a woman who died at the age of 40. The main thing that attracted the attention of scientists was its elongated head. A more thorough study and digital reconstruction showed that this skull structure was completely natural and not modified.

7. The Past of the Mysterious Mummy

The elderly woman had no chance in 1704: she was tortured until she “confessed” to witchcraft. Sentenced to death penalty, Lilias Adi died in prison, although some believe that she committed suicide. In the 20th century, her skull was photographed, and in 2017, forensic experts wondered whether it was possible to reconstruct the face from the photo, since the skull was no longer preserved. It turned out that it is possible. Lilias is quite similar to the average modern grandmother.

9. The oldest American woman

Teen times Ice Age, which scientists named Naya, died in Mexico 12-13 thousand years ago and was found in 2007. The researchers really wanted to “look into the eyes” of the oldest American woman, and they were extremely surprised by her reconstructed appearance. It was more specific to the South Pacific or African groups, but why this was so was not answered.

10. Possible Mary Magdalene?

In the south of France, in one of the basilicas, the skull of a woman is kept, who is called the conventional Mary Magdalene. The relic is quite strange: the skull is embedded in a gold bust, and it has turned black over time, but it still has hair. Just recently, scientists received permission to recreate the face. This is how the appearance of a woman appeared, who quite possibly became one of the most controversial figures in the Bible. She was no longer young, but still a beautiful lady at the age of 50.

Before finding out what the inhabitants looked like Ancient Rome, you need to clearly understand that the population of the Roman Empire - not one people, not two - consisted of hundreds of different ethnic groups who had their own culture and fashion for clothing. It should also be understood that all people in Rome did not belong to the same social class. Roman society was divided into at least free people(citizens of the Roman Empire), and slaves. Among the citizens there were: patricians and plebeians, warriors and merchants and many others. Each of these layers had a different way of life, they had different housing, diet and, of course, appearance- that is, clothes.

People of Ancient Rome: appearance

Outerwear:
Free people of Rome wore a toga; foreigners and slaves did not have the right to wear this robe. Wealthy people, mostly patricians, could afford togas. The toga was often worn for special occasions, such as holidays and political events.
Most citizens are made of wool and flax. There were men's and women's tunics. For men, such attire reached to the very knees, while soldiers, for example, wore shorter tunics, and for women their length reached the ankles.
The paludamentum was worn by soldiers; this robe was a type of cloak, its length reached to the ankles.

Underwear:
In the empire, two tunics were worn, one of which served as underwear. Women also wore breastbands, which served as nothing more than a bra. Men wore loincloths, but more often they also began to use two tunics.
The legs were tied with bandages made of wool and linen. They didn't wear trousers back then; it was a barbaric custom.
Slave clothing:
Slaves also wore a short-sleeved tunic, its quality was significantly worse than that of Roman citizens. Slaves often did not wear shoes, with the exception of the northern regions of the Roman Empire.
Soldier appearance:
The soldiers of the legion were dressed differently than everyone else, they wore plastic armor over their tunics, they also had leather armor lined with steel plates, and the heavily armed wore armor. There was a steel helmet on his head, and strong sandals - kaligi - were worn on his feet.
In addition to armor, soldiers constantly carried weapons: a sword - gladius, a shield - scutum, a dagger - pugio. In total, the weight of the warrior’s equipment reached about 30 kg!
Thus, it can be concluded that people of ancient rome looked different, that's the reason social status resident and his type of activity.

Myth #1: Neanderthals had very big eyes.

This is one of the fresh, but pseudo-scientific myths that have already spread. Look at the Neanderthal skull: he has huge eye sockets! And that means big eyes. Perhaps Neanderthals led a crepuscular or even nocturnal lifestyle? Imagine a squat creature with headlight eyes, like an owl, hiding in caves during the day, but as soon as the sun disappears, it silently creeps out onto the main road, creeping up on a serenely sleeping mammoth. Where did the talk about huge eyes come from? In the spring of 2013, the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences published an article by English anthropologists who put forward an original hypothesis: Neanderthals lived for a long time in the north, where “there is less sun than in the tropics.” Their visual system adapted to the darkness, and their eyes increased in size. Accordingly, the area of the visual cortex of the brain has increased, to the detriment of thinking and the ability to communicate. The researchers decided to test their hypothesis: they calculated medium size the orbits of Neanderthals and ancient sapiens, and among Neanderthals they actually turned out to be larger on average - 6 mm in height and almost 3 mm in width. Then this news gets to the media mass media, and from there - into our heads. But how do you like this fact: among modern races the highest eye sockets... in the Mongoloids! And they also have the smallest eyes. The assumption that northern inhabitants must have large eyes to see better in constant twilight also fails empirical testing. By this logic, the equatorials should have the smallest eyes, and the inhabitants of the Far North should have the largest ones. In fact, it's exactly the opposite. In addition, a number of studies of modern primates have shown that there is no direct relationship between the size of their orbits and the size of their eyes... Therefore, we will continue to trust classical reconstructions, in which Neanderthals are the owners of albeit sad, but completely human eyes.

Summary: Neanderthals did not have large eyes, but large sockets. Studies have not revealed a direct relationship between the sizes of the orbits and eyes in anthropoids. Modern residents of the North - owners of large eye sockets - are not at all distinguished by large eyes.

Myth No. 2: Ancient people walked around wrapped in skins and carrying a club in their hand.

A shaggy savage in skin and with a heavy club clutched in his paw - classic look popular culture, which may never have existed in nature. Apes use sticks - which means, most likely, Australopithecus had enough brains to wave a stick for intimidation and protection. However, finds of prehistoric “clubs” are unknown to archaeologists. And even if something similar were discovered, how would one distinguish a club from an ordinary fragment of a branch or trunk? The oldest undisputed wooden weapon is the spear. The wooden tools that the tribes of Africa or Australia now use are not at all similar to those spectacular gnarled monsters with which our ancestors were invariably armed in the classic illustrations. Of course, there are no finds of “skin capes” in which our ancestors wrapped themselves, although the ancient people probably wore something similar. Something else is important here. Apparently, the source from which the authors of popular pictures and descriptions of prehistoric life drew their inspiration is not archaeological finds or scientific facts, and popular publications and cinema. The popularized “caveman” became a kind of brand, the hero of commercials and even comedy cartoon series (“The Flintstones”, 1960).

Alexander Sokolov. "Myths about Human Evolution"

Artists depicted Stone Age people, guided by their ideas of what a real savage should be: powerful, shaggy and ruthless. However, the roots of the “club-wielding caveman” image can be found much further back. It turns out that the wildman was a popular character back in the Middle Ages. His image appears in European literature And decorative arts, on tapestries, bas-reliefs and even on coins, decorates coats of arms. " Wild man"was depicted completely covered with hair, and in his hands, as you may have guessed, he was clutching a club. From the depths of centuries, from the depths of the human subconscious, the image of the “wild man” has come to us in all its primitive glory.

Summary: " Caveman"is a very stable archetype living in human culture more than 2 thousand years. In the last quarter of the XIX century, the image of the “wild man” fit perfectly into the newfangled idea of the origin of man from animals. And - under the mask of either a Neanderthal or a Cro-Magnon - our updated hero returned to popular culture. Thus, natural history and folklore were imperceptibly mixed. “Wild Man” is a product not of scientific research, but of folklore and popular culture.

Myth #3: Ancient people were very hairy

Ask anyone you know to describe primitive man. Most likely, the word “hairy” will be in the top three epithets. Shaggy, covered with fur - this is how we remember them from illustrations in popular books, where the emphasis was on the animal essence, the ape-likeness of the ancestor. But what do we really know about their hair, and at what point did it disappear? Did this happen gradually, or did the fur fall out immediately and completely? Even if so, then the loss of hair should have been accompanied by a parallel restructuring of many systems: the number of sweat glands increased, the fat layer thickened, and the entire mechanism of thermoregulation changed. The growth of hair on the head, on the contrary, increased, and men also grew an impressive beard. Paleontology will not help us: bones are preserved in fossil form, but not hair. Yes, sometimes mammoth carcasses are removed from permafrost, but no one has found Neanderthal mummies. And yet, Neanderthals were not fundamentally different from us in their skeletal structure and way of life: they did not live in forests, but in open areas, used fire and tools, and went hunting. We are unlikely to be mistaken if we assume that there was no radical difference between us and them in terms of the degree of hairiness. In 2004, experts studied variations in the gene responsible for skin color in Africans and came to the conclusion that human skin became dark at least 1.2 million years ago. Apes have light skin under their fur, as it is protected from ultraviolet radiation by the hair. It should have darkened after our ancestors lost their fur. This means that more than a million years ago people were not “shaggy troglodytes.” Why is our fur thinning? Here's a possible explanation. After our ancestors climbed down from the trees and went out into the savannah, under the scorching sun, they needed more efficient system thermoregulation. The number of glands that secrete sweat has increased, which, when evaporated, lowers body temperature. In such a situation, hair was more of a hindrance: evaporation occurs more efficiently from the exposed surface of the skin. Therefore the fur disappeared. Please note that on the head exposed to the sun's rays, a cap of hair has been preserved, which serves as thermal protection. You may ask: why didn’t ancient people grow hair again when they went north into the cold? One can answer this way: instead of waiting for the mercy of evolution, man invented clothing and a hearth. The missing wool was replaced by warm skin taken from a killed animal. The walls of a cave or hut protected from rain and wind, and fire allowed them to survive the harsh winter.

Summary: It is believed that ancient people were very hairy. Unlike bones, hair decomposes quickly, so the degree of hairiness of our ancestors can only be guessed at. However, it is very likely that hair disappeared already in the early stages of human evolution.

Myth No. 4: Ancient people had arms up to their knees, their legs were short and crooked, and they walked hunched over.

Short, awkward, monkey-like long arms, a Neanderthal cowardly clings to the entrance to the cave... An important role in the creation of such a repulsive image was played by the French anthropologist Marcelin Boule. In 1911, in a book dedicated to the skeleton of a Neanderthal old man from La Chapelle-aux-Saints, Boulle described the Neanderthal as a stooped subhuman, with an extended neck, walking on bent legs. And the artist Frantisek Kupka, under the direction of Buhl, embodied the image created by the anthropologist on paper. The result was an extremely unattractive creature, something like a character from a horror film. Decades later, it turned out that the signs that Buhl took as characteristic of Neanderthals were actually a consequence of old age: the old man was crippled by arthritis. In his youth, he could well have been a handsome handsome man with his head held high. However, the standard has been set. And off we go. Hairy and scary, with a large mask-like face, massive eyebrows and without the slightest hint of a forehead, clutching a huge stone and moving like a baboon. So ancient man and entered mass consciousness. As you can imagine, finding a complete skeleton that included both upper and lower limbs so that proportions and posture could be assessed is a rare success. For a long time, anthropologists had to be content with fragments and guess the rest. They reasoned like this: since evolution is a smooth and uniform process, then all parts of the human body “humanized” gradually and synchronously. The primitive head must correspond to an ape-like body (although the first finds of Pithecanthropus contradicted this: an almost modern femur was attached to the archaic skull). It seemed logical that Neanderthals, and even more so Pithecanthropus, climbed out of the trees just yesterday and did not have time to really master walking on two legs. The stereotype turned out to be tenacious. It is now known that our ancestors became upright several million years before the appearance of Pithecanthropus: this time was more than enough to achieve high skill in walking and running on their own two feet. Judging by the structure of the legs, pelvis and spine, australopithecines already walked easily and naturally, and they had absolutely no need to slouch.

Summary: The image of hunched, crooked and awkward ancient people arose at the beginning of the last century on the basis of early ideas about the stages of human evolution. The formation of the stereotype was facilitated by the study of the skeleton of an old Neanderthal man: scientists incorrectly interpreted age-related changes as inherent to the entire species. Now we know that almost modern proportions and body structure (except for the skull) developed among ancient people 1.5 million years ago. We can well be proud of the posture of our ancestors.

Myth No. 5: In ancient times, people were giants

What epic could do without giants, titans, giants or cyclops? Of course, it is tempting to think that mythical characters had real prototype- some ancient race, builders of gigantic stone structures that are impossible to erect to an ordinary person. What do supporters of the reality of ancient giants cite as evidence? Firstly, spectacular photographs of skeletons of enormous size and perfect preservation, and secondly, eyewitness accounts - for example, peasants who once found huge bones right in their garden. True, then these bones usually disappeared somewhere. Thirdly, megalithic buildings - for example, the famous Stonehenge. People of our build with the technology of that time were not capable of dragging multi-ton stones for tens or even hundreds of kilometers; only giants are capable of this! Fourthly, quotes from chronicles and diaries of medieval travelers who described encounters with giants on an exotic island, in Patagonia, in the snowy Himalayas or somewhere else at the end of the world. And finally, stories about the remains of Gigantopithecus and Meganthropus found already in the 20th century. Well, competently packaged, such a set of arguments makes a strong impression on the unprepared reader. But speaking seriously, it is easy to see that the photographs of “huge skeletons” are a banal photomontage, and in some cases even the author of the fakes is known. Eyewitness accounts are, alas, not evidence. The honest eyes of an eyewitness cannot replace the main thing - the finds themselves. Meganthropes and Gigantopithecus have long found their place on the evolutionary tree, but they have nothing to do with the legendary “giants” and certainly did not build Stonehenge (Gigantopithecus are relatives of orangutans, and Meganthropes are now classified as Javan Homo erectus). The builders of megaliths have also long been known, described, and in some cases technologies have been experimentally tested that make it possible to build Stonehenge without the help of giants or aliens. In addition, when familiar with biomechanics and the laws of physics, it becomes obvious that a person who mysteriously grew to several meters would not be able to move normally. His legs would break, crushed by the weight of his own body. Take a look at real giant animals - elephants or at least gorillas, at the shape of their bodies, at the thickness of their limbs. A primate that grew to the size of an elephant, and even walked upright, would have completely inhuman proportions. What does paleoanthropology say about the growth of our ancestors? Despite the difficulties associated with reconstructing a fossil creature, modern science Considerable statistics on the body sizes of ancient people have been accumulated. And we can say with confidence that in the process of evolution the growth of our ancestors did not decrease, but increased.

Summary: Science knows neither the finds of the remains of giant people, nor any indirect evidence of their existence in the past. Judging by the data of paleoanthropologists, during the process of evolution the growth of our ancestors did not decrease, but increased. Compared to Australopithecines, you and I are real giants.

You don’t choose your homeland and ancestors. But to truly love them, you need to delve into their past. Our ancestors are Slavs. Therefore, we will talk about them.

Distant ancestors of the Slavs. Who were the ancestors of the Slavs?

At dawn new era was formed Slavic tribe, separated from the Indo-European community. We remind you that the Indo-Europeans are the ancient ancestors of the Slavs (their heyday occurred in the second millennium BC). And after their isolation, the Slavs began their journey in the literal sense of the word. They developed new territories in all four directions. Of course, they encountered many difficulties along the way. But they were able to endure it. And as a result, our ancestors - the ancient Slavs, became the source for many modern peoples, now living in Europe and the Russian Federation.

Who were the ancestors of the Slavs? It is very difficult to answer this question unambiguously. Yes, they descended from Indo-Europeans. It is interesting that today new versions and hypotheses on this matter are appearing. For example, that the ancestors of the Slavs are Finns.

The great ancestors of the Slavs gave rise to many large tribes: the Germans, the Balts and others. From these, even smaller peoples subsequently emerged.

What did our Slavic ancestors look like?

Of course, their appearance differed depending on the territory in which they lived. But still, the common gene pool gives us the opportunity to imagine the picture in general. The men had a very warlike appearance. This is above average height, powerful shoulders. Almost everything Slavic men wore a beard. And the women were unusually feminine. This was also expressed in perfect posture, and with a soft gait. Women's hair was long and strong. But they were more often not visible to others, because a covered head is a sign of chastity. And women were just like that. They also wore long skirts, sundresses. Not showing off their beauty was very typical for them.

In general, the Slavs were characterized by many features. For example, light color skin and eyes, hair was also light (brown), straight nose, kind smile. There are exceptions. For example, Ukrainians often had black hair. Such “deviations” took place as a result of mixing with other peoples.

The internal "appearance" of the Slavs

We are also interested in what our Slavic ancestors were like in character and disposition? Let's start with the fact that initially the Slavs were scattered. First, into three large branches (eastern, southern, western). Each of the branches was further subdivided. All this left its mark and made the Slavs sometimes very different from each other.

Scientists spent a long time and painstakingly figuring out what kind of character the Slavs had? It turned out the following. First of all, they were incredibly welcoming and friendly. Secondly, hardworking, diligent. Thirdly, for many centuries the Slavs honored the traditions of their ancestors and their family. And they raised their children in the same way.

Even in war, the Slavs behaved humanly. Although they took prisoners, they treated them well. And they were very suitable military men: brave, persistent, firm, impregnable and unrelenting.

In conclusion

Those who recognize themselves in the descriptions can firmly and confidently say that he is a Slav. Of course, we all have Slavic blood in us. It’s just that some have more of it, and some have less. After all, the ancestors of Russian people are Slavs. And the Russians, as you know, are the most numerous nation, who came from a Slavic environment. Therefore, we should be proud of this, we should know and remember our roots.

Today there is a tendency towards revival Slavic culture. They create special communities where they try to reproduce the holidays and customs of their ancestors. Slavic trends are even coming into fashion. And girls having Slavic appearance, are rightfully considered one of the most beautiful in the world. In addition, they are more economical and in the future will become good wives and mothers.