question of any compositions united by a common idea or meaning, except for single exceptions. In images, the vertical-horizontal system of spatial coordinates that we are familiar with may not be present. Most often, animals are drawn in profile, they are extremely rare in the full-face. To this is added the absence of restriction of the pictorial field by any artificial framework. Figures and series of figures can be of various sizes, which only confirms their independence. The concept of symmetry is absent. The very strong emotional fullness of images is underlined. There is no rigid standardization, established canons in images. All that Dmitrieva could summarize on the studies of the Paleolithic caves (Dmitrieva 2014, pp. 312—314, p. 316, p. 318), easily fits into the definition of totemism by Goldenweiser. Before us is a live reflection of “association with objects and symbols of emotional meaning”. On the walls of caves of the Paleolithic man draws by coal rod the Association, which today is absolutely incomprehensible to us, since any closed system like the Ark “eludes all effort at absolute definition” and therefore causes laughter.
Chauvet Cave. Horses, Bison and Rhinos.
Particular cases of PTSD.
3.9. PTSD-2. After the flood the vegetarians of Noah’s family receive a command from God to eating the animals of the Ark. So arising the precedent for a new syndrome (Genesis 9, 2—7).
The consequences of Noah’s treatment of excessive attachment to animals describes the book of Genesis (Genesis 9, 20—27). In the language of psychology such sad events have received the name of substitution, and in the further displacement as an option of psychological protection from the cure which in the form of behest is given to Noah’s family. Nobody does not want to eat flesh of favourite animals and birds. The soul of Noah’s rises against forced treatment. The Patriarch gets drunk and ready to damned God Himself for the unbearable hardships of life.
Drunkenness of Noah, 1515. Author: Giovanni Bellini – Art Renewal Center.
Despite the inhuman conditions of existence, the man of the Wurm era was predominantly vegetarian. This is evidenced by researches (Hockett and Haws 2005, p. 21; Zaatari at al. 2016). They again and again confirm – on earth there was an insignificant number of animals. Neanderthals quite often fell into stomachs of Noah’s descendants, but this topic is being boycotted by historians and archaeologists because of fear of losing their jobs (McKie 2009).
3.10. PTSD-3. Tower of Babel (Genesis 11, 1—9). The first “Babylon” means the place, where Noah’s tribe tried to realize the only possibility in those conditions not to dissipate all over the earth in search of rare then game animals (Kuraev 2009, p. 263). By this time, each family had its own opinion, which animal is better for the tower. This is and have those very same languages mentioned in the Bible (Genesis 11, 7). After the season of hunt all families of the Ark’s tribe gathering together on the plain Shinar. This idea to build a city and a tower was born in the next border state of the psyche of hungry people. Collective response to the planet without animals and birds was the idea of creating a whole agrotechnical complex. For this purpose, the biblical tower and the satellite city were built, which in the smallest details repeated the experience of the first world.
The implementation of this plan would have avoided starvation thanks to the producing economy livestock farm or poultry farm (the author’s reconstruction). As a result, God has activated the “tongues”, or the personal conviction of everyone that it is this or that kind of beast, the birds are the best for the tower. Everyone praised and extolled the hunting qualities of his beast or animal. It is clear that soon the hunters and gatherers, who had not yet lost their memory of agriculture and the cities of the first world, ceased to understand each other. Scattering and gradual savagery became inevitable (Men’ 1992, p. 112).
The Confusion of Tongues by Gustave Doré, a woodcut depicting the Tower of Babel. By Gustave Doré.
The hostility of the phratries in the best way possible explains the plot of “the confusion of tongues” in the Bible. In poultry farming, most often engaged by women. In fur farming by men. It may well be that because of the birds, quarrels between the descendants of Noah began. They could act as the most acceptable option in the conditions of protein starvation. Speed of reproduction of bird’s meat is several times higher, than in livestock production. The conflict between men’s and women’s phratries forms the basis of this biblical episode.
“The Australian concept of what we have here termed opposition is a particular case of using Association through opposition, which is a universal feature of human thinking and that encourages us to think in pairs of contrasts: high and low, strong and weak, black and white. But the Australian notion of opposition combines the idea of a pair of opposites with the idea of a pair of rivals” (Ibid, 118) – grabs from the lecture of analysis of the phratries of Radcliffe-Brown Levi-Strauss (Levi-Strauss [1964] 1991, p. 90).
“This contraposition of primitive ‘collectives’ is reflected in the myths about the struggle between totems (myths about the battle of the wedge-tailed eagle with a crow and the like). It is not by chance that these myths and other traces of the hostility of the groups refer mainly to phratries – the oldest of the social groupings of Australians – and to their totems. The mutual alienation of phratries, each pair of which was a primitive tribe, was, apparently, a very characteristic feature of the life of that era. The traces of this estrangement of phratries have been preserved, as is known, in the customs and folklore of very many peoples of all parts of the world. Totemism in its most ancient form – the totemism of phratries – was, apparently, the most direct expression of the opposition of phratries and the inner isolation of each of them. After the fission of phratries into smaller generic groups and after the loss the value of the main social groupings in phratries, the features of totemism was transferred to ‘clans’ (‘totemic groups’), that is, early-term communities” (Tokarev 1990, pp. 63—64).
“In any case, it is impossible to forget that totems of phratries were the most ancient totems, and them are, as a rule, birds whose communication with any certain territory could never be solid. In a word, the choice of a totem could be defined by the reasons which don’t have for us essential value” (Tokarev 1990, p. 66).
