Ancient Humans and Dinosaurs Lived Side by Side
This is a common joke stereotype, often seen in popular culture, like in the cartoon “The Flintstones.” However, sometimes proponents of alternative history seriously claim this to be true. According to them, humans allegedly lived alongside dinosaurs, which is why legends of many peoples feature dragons and similar creatures.
Some believe humanity existed for hundreds of millions of years and thus witnessed dinosaurs. Others claim that ancient reptiles went extinct quite recently, often supporters of biblical chronology. A third group argues that humans personally eradicated all dinosaurs, turning them into meat patties, which is why they no longer exist in modern nature.
Just keep in mind: dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago, and the first hominids appeared 2-3 million years ago.
So, the idea that these creatures could have crossed paths is absurd.
That said, dinosaurs could have seen our distant ancestor, the small mammal Purgatorius, the earliest known primate. It resembled a mix between a squirrel and a mouse, was no more than 15 cm long, and most likely had no idea its descendants would launch rockets into space and dominate the planet.
As for certain ancient world artifacts where early humans are depicted alongside dinosaurs, these are all fakes, created for cheap sensationalism. For instance, on the famous Ica stones found in South America, even reptiles that never existed there are depicted — yet they’re easily recognizable.
Prehistoric Humans Loved Clubs
Another stereotype about early humans is their fondness for huge clubs. In movies, cartoons, and comics, ancient humans are always seen carrying cone-shaped heavy branches, using them to hunt or defend against predators like saber-toothed tigers (most of which, by the way, went extinct before humans appeared). When not in use, the club is slung over the shoulder or used as a walking stick.
In reality, there is no significant evidence of widespread use of clubs by early humans.
They mostly hunted with spears tipped with stone points or sharpened sticks hardened by fire. Axes could also be used for blows, but spears were the primary weapon.
A spear could inflict far more serious damage to an animal or another human than a stick. Plus, thrusting is easier, and a spear can be thrown if necessary. So, clubs were unlikely to be a common weapon, though hitting small animals with sticks wasn’t out of the question.
The stereotypical image of a hairy man with a huge club probably originated a long time ago, perhaps in the Middle Ages, and persisted to this day.
In European mythology from the 1200s, there were forest-dwelling half-animal barbarians covered in fur who fought with heavy branches. This is how early humans are commonly depicted now, even though it’s inaccurate.
And They Lived in Caves
The very name “caveman” suggests where they supposedly lived. The term comes from the word “troglodyte,” which in Greek means “cave dweller.” Ancient authors like Herodotus and Pliny used this term to describe savages living on the western coast of the Red Sea.
Later, the naturalist Carl Linnaeus used this word to label the supposed wild, ape-like ancestors of humans. Today, laypeople habitually call all fossil human ancestors “cavemen” and “troglodytes.” But this term is essentially incorrect. Early humans rarely lived in caves: they were dark, damp, and drafty.
Our ancestors were nomadic, moving from place to place in search of food and didn’t specifically settle in caves.
If a suitable cave appeared along the way, where they could set up a temporary camp, great, but people could get by without it.
Caves were more often used as storage or for ritual purposes — for example, to pray to spirits.
Archaeological finds in caves are more common not because people lived there more frequently, but because such locations have a higher chance of preserving artifacts. Open-air camps were quickly washed away by rain, while in secluded caves, they remained untouched for thousands of years.
Moreover, caves were often homes to predators like bears and leopards, which dragged their prey there to avoid sharing it with hyenas. So, “cavemen” didn’t always enter caves voluntarily.
Early Humans Were Much Healthier Than Modern Ones
The idea of a club-wielding prehistoric human persists for a reason. For some reason, it’s believed they were much stronger and healthier than modern people: they lived in harmony with nature, ate only healthy, natural food (or were even vegans), and had constant physical activity.
In contrast, modern weaklings sit in their offices all day and only occasionally lift dumbbells.
In reality, you can’t call the life of a early human healthy. Studies of human remains from the Paleolithic, Mesolithic, and Neolithic periods show they suffered from infections, rickets, dental problems, and numerous chronic diseases.
Early humans certainly had plenty of physical activity, and it was strenuous. But due to heavy labor, our ancestors experienced spinal microfractures, spondylolysis, hyperextension, lower back twists, and osteoarthritis.
Men lived slightly better than women, as hunters received more nutritious food and didn’t risk dying in childbirth. But they more often died in encounters with wild animals. On average, people lived between 30 and 40 years, and such a life can hardly be called healthy. Although there might have been some long-livers, they were likely very few.
Medicine was rudimentary. Diseases were treated by eating clay, applying it to the body, and using various herbs — you can imagine the effectiveness of such therapy. In severe cases, they turned to a shaman, who would perform trepanation to release evil spirits, which not everyone survived.
…Because They Led a Sober Lifestyle and Followed a Paleo Diet
No, early people were certainly not fans of a healthy lifestyle because they had no idea what that was. Their diet had nothing in common with the modern paleo diet.
Ancient humans could not eat as much meat and fish as modern enthusiasts of these foods do, but they consumed roots, flowers, and herbs that no present-day vegan would touch: thistles, water lilies, and reeds. They also didn’t shy away from less exotic foods like wild olives and water chestnuts.
But no matter how much you try, you won’t be able to replicate their diet.
The fact is that not only humans but the world around them has changed over millennia. All the fruits, vegetables, and roots you have access to are the result of long-term selection, and their wild forms are long gone.
For instance, corn was once a small weedy grass called teosinte, with only 12 kernels in its ears. Tomatoes were tiny berries, and wild ancestors of bananas had seeds.
Take a look at this painting, made between 1645 and 1672. This is what watermelons used to look like. And even earlier, 6,000 years ago, they were berries no bigger than 5 centimeters, as hard as walnuts, and so bitter they would give a modern person heartburn.
The food of early people, coarse and poorly prepared (or completely raw), pales in comparison in taste and nutrition to modern food.
And even in the Stone Age, people were not fans of a sober lifestyle. There is evidence that as early as 8,600 BCE, humans were using mind-altering substances: hallucinogenic mushrooms, cacti, opium poppies, and coca leaves. The very first alcoholic beverage—a fermented mixture of rice, honey, wild grapes, and hawthorn fruit—was consumed in China during the Neolithic era, about 9,000 years ago.
This desire for such indulgences likely came from our primate ancestors, who intentionally consumed overripe, fermented fruits to get tipsy. So don’t think that people in the past were more responsible about their health than you. Considering the harsh living conditions back then, it’s hard to blame them.
The Earth Used to Be Populated by Giants
Another common pseudo-scientific hypothesis suggests that in the past, there were extraordinarily tall human ancestors—three meters (10 feet) or more in height. Sometimes, this is used to explain the existence of the Egyptian pyramids and Stonehenge, as regular people supposedly could not have lifted the massive stones during construction, but giants could have.
Then, the giants left behind monuments of ancient architecture and a few skeletons before either disappearing, going extinct, flying back to Nibiru, or degenerating into people of our height.
However, from a scientific perspective, giant human ancestors can be lumped together with massive trolls and one-eyed ogre cannibals—there’s simply no reason to believe in any of these characters.
For example, the famous photograph of a giant skeleton supposedly found in India is a photomontage. The Canadian illustrator, known by the pseudonym IronKite, admits he created the image for a photo manipulation contest on Worth1000. He didn’t expect that his work would be widely circulated and that thousands of alternative history enthusiasts would use the image as evidence of ancient titans.
The origin story of this skeleton varies from version to version. Some claim it was found in India, while others say it was discovered in Saudi Arabia, confirming the existence of giants mentioned in the Quran.
But this image, like many others, is simply a fake, created for a contest and then unexpectedly going viral.
Sometimes, the remains of gigantic humans are mistakenly identified as the skeletons of Gigantopithecus—massive ancient orangutans. These creatures, which could grow up to 3 meters (10 feet) tall, did indeed exist, but they are no more related to humans than modern apes are.
And yes, if you compare the sizes of the remains of human ancestors with today’s population, you’ll notice a trend toward increasing, not decreasing, height over time. So, we are the giants compared to the people of the past, not the other way around.
The “Missing Link” Has Never Been Found
When Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, science had not yet discovered the intermediate forms that illustrate the possibility of one species evolving into another. Darwin considered this a weak point in his theory, but he believed that such organisms would eventually be found. And they were: a few years later, the skeleton of Archaeopteryx—a transitional form between reptiles and birds—was discovered.
Opponents of evolutionary theory argue that there are no transitional forms between ape-like creatures and modern humans. Therefore, humans did not share a common ancestor with present-day primates and must have emerged through some other means. But this isn’t true: since Darwin’s time, so many transitional forms have been found that it’s impossible to remember them all.
Cave People Had a Matriarchal Society
The theory that women ruled in primitive societies was popular in the 19th century. It was promoted by ethnographer Johann Jakob Bachofen.
In his book Mother Right, he built the following logical chain: those who possess property hold power. Since sexual relations in the Stone Age were random, determining the father of children was impossible, and they were raised solely by their mothers. Therefore, long-term intergenerational relationships were only possible between women. Mothers passed on their property to daughters, exclusively through the female line, and fathers did not participate in inheritance.
Thus, women held more power in the past.
This sounds quite reasonable, but Bachofen based his ideas not on precise data, but on… ancient myths. He saw echoes of matriarchy in the tales of Homer—in the stories of Queen Arete of the Phaeacians and the warrior Amazons. Thus, Bachofen’s theory was purely speculative. Nevertheless, his works were highly regarded by Friedrich Engels, which is why Soviet science avoided disputing the theory of matriarchy in primitive societies.
However, modern studies of archaic societies show that matriarchy was extremely rare. Among the Tasmanians, Pygmies, Bushmen, Native Americans, Inuit, and other similar tribes, it was not typical. Sometimes women could hold high positions and even hunt alongside men, but there was no talk of them ruling.
So, purely matriarchal societies were rare and were unlikely to have been widespread among early humans.
Moreover, female dominance is not observed among closely related great apes.
Some scholars, like anthropologist Marija Gimbutas, consider the widespread presence of so-called Paleolithic Venuses—stone and bone figurines of very full-figured women—as evidence of matriarchy among early human. These figures are associated with fertility and abundance cults.
However, the fact that early humans made figurines of women doesn’t necessarily mean that they ruled society. Future anthropologists could just as easily argue that there was matriarchy in our time, given the number of curvaceous women posted daily on Instagram.
Human Development Stopped Since the Stone Age
Some people ask: if the theory of evolution is true, why don’t we observe the development of life forms? It seems as if changes have frozen in place—people today are no different from their great-grandparents. Even animals, birds, and plants around us are the same as centuries ago.
However, living organisms (including us, humans) continue to evolve. For example, over the past 20 years, evolution has been observed in beetles, mosquitoes, bedbugs, and other pests, as well as various species of fish, among others. The most noticeable changes occur in bacteria, viruses, and unicellular organisms since they reproduce faster than all others.
Humans also evolve, though not as rapidly, making these changes harder to observe.
Research in molecular genetics supports this. For instance, evolution has helped Tibetans adapt to life at high altitudes—a process that took 100 generations.
In short, if you want to witness human development as a biological species, you would need to live for a hundred thousand years or so. Only over such a long period will external changes become visible to the naked eye.
Darwin Renounced the Theory of Evolution at the End of His Life
The idea that Charles Darwin was the first to propose the animal origin of humans is deeply ingrained in popular consciousness. There’s also a belief that, in old age, Darwin supposedly rejected this heretical idea, but by then it was too late—his theory of evolution had already spread worldwide.
But this is completely untrue. Firstly, various theories about the evolution of living organisms existed before Darwin, proposed by figures such as Buffon, Lamarck, Haeckel, Huxley, and others. Even Leonardo da Vinci and Aristotle had hinted at such explanations for the origin of species.
Secondly, Darwin did not disavow his theory or convert to religious faith on his deathbed, as some claim. This myth was invented by Baptist preacher Elizabeth Hope three decades after Darwin’s death.
She fabricated a story about Darwin’s renunciation during a church service, and many believed it.
Later, Hope published her fictional account in the national Baptist magazine The Watchman-Examiner, from where it spread worldwide.
But Darwin never recanted his theory, and while he was not a militant atheist, he wasn’t particularly religious either. This was confirmed by his children, son Francis Darwin and daughter Henrietta Litchfield.
