Did Pre-Historic Humans Fight Wars? How Often and Why?

[Sommerswerd]

This is an impressive derail from the SCOTUS thread... In honor of Gori saving a thread from unrelated Star Wars derailment, thought I make an attempt at the same. Here is the backstory. The argument is essentially over whether Pre-historic humans fought "Wars" and how we would be able to prove this:

We didn't become the top predators on the planet by reasoning with the canids and felines, or by setting a "good example."

No, we got that way by cooperating with each other...

Really? Maybe if by "cooperating" you mean "subjugating." We subjugated the prey and put them in pens. Then we subjugated the rival predators to protect "our" prey. And if the rival predators had two legs and were in fact just like us we made up or exaggerated differences so they could be treated as "other" and subjugated, rather than as people to be cooperated with. And here we are, with a few centuries of veneer over millennia of evolution, pretending to be "better than that."

No, by cooperating I mean cooperating.



There is not really any evidence of humans engaging in warfare prior to about 13,000 years ago: far from long enough for warfare to have influenced human evolution.

Dimorphism doesn't usually seem to be a quality generally attributable to cooperation when competition is an available explaination, is it? Intelligence and its resultant technologies improved the capacity for and duration available to non-cooperation, yesh?

I'm not really sure what you mean. As far as I can tell technology has only increased our mutual dependence as a species.

Taking from the neighbors doesn't qualify as warfare until technology produces weapons of war...but it is still taking from the neighbors.

To do what?

As to, "what do I mean?" I mean lots of stuff, but a simple disgusting way of putting it is that a stick is an improvement over my hands and manacles are a further improvement upon the stick. That alone can increase duration of noncooperation from 30 impactful seconds to generations.

Chimpanzees wage war on each other. I'd be very surprised if our distant ancestors didn't do the same, long before 'history' begins. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

We're as closely related to Bonobos, which don't engage in war.



https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...s-claim-that-war-has-deep-evolutionary-roots/

Warfare is technological and sociological innovation applied to homicide. You have to free up calories before specialization away from hunting tools and implements even becomes a possible let along pertinent development. I'd guess for most of our history, noncooperation simply involved not sharing food and mate selection.

It's my position, which I believe is best substantiated by the evidence, that war is a meme like cooking or clothing - though arguably more viral than either, because of the fact that when one group in an area starts warring, the others must follow suit or be destroyed.

I'm not limiting noncooperation to "warfare."

Yeah, subjugation works like that...whether it is "war" or just rustling and pillaging. But the point remains that it is what humans do.

Sure, it is one of many things humans do.

I will cite a David Graeber quote that really sums up my attitude towards most of these debates:

"We have all sorts of propensities. In any real-life situation, we have propensities that drive us in several different contradictory directions simultaneously. No one is more real than any other. The real question is which we take as the foundation of our humanity, and therefore, make the basis of our civilization.”

Yeah, I don't see much choice about the foundation. The real question is what we take as the civilized veneer, and how committed to it we are.

War is the destruction of opposition by available means. Homicide is not necessary. Destruction of tools is often more effective.

J

If I burn your year's worth of grains then quibbling that I killed you in the cold 2 months from now instead of with a rock now seems a bit... immaterial to the point debated, being cooperation/competition and the great ape.

Most examples I'm coming up with are also kind of besides the point. Something greater in here re "subjugation" not being either 100% adversarial or cooperative?

I like Lexicus' quote that it's hard to probe to some most fundamental propensity; they're all in there.

To the cooperation/contention puzzler, I'd add Hesiod's observation that there are actually two kinds of contention (his word is usually rendered in English as strife): violence and competition, and that that the second is a kind of strife that is good for humans (i.e. advances us as a species).

This is true, but forgets that we don't have a lot of evidence for anything before about 15,000 years ago. People left smaller traces on the landscape: archaeological sites older than the Neolithic tend to be very small. When people find remains that are older than that, they come in tiny bursts. I'd like to see the data that those people looked at, but 2,900 skeletons for millions of years would be tiny anyway, and my bet is that they overwhelmingly concentrate on the near side of that 10,000 year mark.

We have enough evidence to make the lack of evidence for warfare clear.

I understand that it is considered "common sense" by most people that we must have been fighting wars for tens of thousands of years but the evidence just doesn't bear that out. We can discuss reasons for it - personally I think it's likely to be more due to low population density than anything else - but to characterize this as you've done is already an argument rejected by archaeologists.

I'm not trying to argue this point, but what sort of "evidence of war" would you expect? As you point out, with the low population density a "war" between neighboring clans, to extinction of the losers, would leave what evidence that would be available today?

I already posted this, but...

"...warfare clearly appears in this historical record of specific societies and is marked by skeletal markers of violence, weapons of war, defensive sites and architecture, etc."

Now that I think about it... there's really no reason for "war" until people start settling down. Sure, two guys in one nomadic group might get into a fight over the girl they both want, but that's not a "war" right? If population density is virtually non-existent, and everyone is just in small nomadic, hunter-gatherer groups, then the most likely result of a large scale disagreement, between two large families in the group for example, is just that one group splits off... Until you make the leap to "This whole area is our hunting/gathering land to the exclusion of anyone else" and a group of someone elses comes along that is big enough and well established enough in the are to say the same thing... there isn't going to be much cause for war.

Skeletal markers of violence - in a pre technology society where everyone lives at the edge of starvation anyway the objective of "war" would be to just push the neighbors over that edge. That would leave no skeletal markers since by and large the casualties would just starve to death.

Weapons of war - my tribe shows up with a half dozen more hunters than you have at your tribes' kill. All we have is the same basic hunting tools that we always use. Your tribe starves. That was war, to extermination, and we won.

Defensive sites and architecture - for nomadic peoples there are no fixed sites to defend.

Etc - etc.

Again, I'm not arguing that there was certainly "warfare," at least in any modern sense of the word. But to argue that there certainly wasn't "warfare" in the sense of basic mammalian competition for food, territory, and mates based on a lack of concentrated radioactive fallout is a big leap.

The purpose of war is to possess the wealth of the other group. This is measured in animals, shelter, slaves and women. It tends to be almost exclusively raid and run. Nomadic people had a good concept of defensive position, wood and dirt fortifications, recon, surprise and intimidation. War to extinction was typically not possible because of the time constraints of seasons and movement. Total war required permanent structures.

J

In a nomadic society where group starvation is one failed hunt away one successful "raid and run" is a war to extinction.

OK, but indulge me - what are you using as the 'historical record' of societies from before (say) 20,000 BC? If there's a near-negligible amount of data (as I think there is), you can't set much in store by the absence of anything in that record. The oldest known settlements are about 10,000 years old. That doesn't mean that people didn't have homes before then: it only means that they didn't build them in places and ways that are visible today.

This is a tremendous assumption that has been demonstrated in many cases to be untrue. The anthropological consensus is actually that most of the food came from gathering, with hunting more of a bonus/prestige activity that supplemented this.



Not being an archaeologist, I can't really give a detailed answer to this question. But I do know enough to tell you that it just simply isn't true that there is no evidence of anything from 20,000 years or even longer ago. Even nomadic settlements without permanent dwellings leave archaeological evidence.

In any case, the point here is not to say that violence never occurred prior to ten or thirteen thousand years ago, but simply to say that war (as distinct from individual acts of violence) appears to have been rare or non-existent before then.

I think in virtually any other setting your argument that we have no evidence of anything therefore we must have been waging war would be seen by everyone (including you) as ridiculous. It is only otherwise here because the assumptions about "human nature" that lead people to believe war must have been ubiquitous are so deep-seated.

Yes, but they leave very little of it. The sort of chimpanzee warfare I was talking about would leave almost no archaeological evidence. We have evidence for warfare from the Neolithic onwards because that's when human populations started to grow dramatically, and people started living in communities that leave strong traces (mostly by being denser and more permanent), and they started doing things that leave greater traces, such as building monumental tombs and using metal in place of wood. There isn't any evidence for war, but there are plenty of plausible scenarios by which war happened and hasn't left a trace visible today. Pretty much the only evidence for anything to do with Neanderthals boils down to a couple of hundred skeletons (between 100 and 400, depending on where you look on the internet). To use a skeleton as evidence for violence, you really need to find traces of weaponry (usually, an arrowhead still in it). If we're separating violence and warfare as you are, you need to find lots of them with the same evidence. Yet if fewer than 1 in 400 (or 1 in 100, again depending on your choice of numbers) Neanderthals died violently, you wouldn't expect to find a single trace of violence in the skeletons. You need to make the expected death rate a lot higher to find unequivocal evidence of war.

This isn't to say that warfare definitely happened, but it's worth thinking about what the evidence actually looks like before you lean too heavily on the assumption that the first evidence of something marks the first time that it happened.

"War" in any meaningful sense requires a sense of territory. Ultimately, isn't that the defining aspect of "war?" Group B has territory which group A wants, so group A attacks group B in order to claim that territory. Nomadic peoples would have no use for a territorial dispute unless perhaps there was a shortage of water in a given location. Our bodies evolved to store excess energy, so it is unlikely that nomadic groups had much food lying about unless there was a successful hunt.

"War" almost seems an absurdity to me, at least until humans numbered enough such that land in proximity to fresh water was in short supply.

Yeah, but chimpanzees, unlike humans, haven't been using stone tools for millions of years.



Any number of things are plausible.



I have very little doubt that the first evidence of war lags the first occurrence of war. What the evidence looks like is not just skeletons but tools, art, even settlements. And we would expect to see some evidence of war in these things, if it were a significant pursuit in prehistory.
But we just don't see it. Again, I'd argue that part of the reason for this is that prehistoric population densities were low enough to prevent intergroup encounters (whether violent or otherwise) from occurring very often.



This sort of thing seems plausible but is undermined by the fact that we do have unambiguous evidence of nomadic cultures engaging in warfare for reasons apparently unconnected to the possession of territory or fresh water.
This book (on my reading list) has conclusions directly bearing on this issue:

I'm only going by the Wikipedia entry, but I'm not sure those conclusions apply to the nomadic hunter-gatherers of prehistory.

It's possible that nomadic groups may have fought one another out of simple evolutionary fear of unknown people, perhaps even entire groups of humans were wiped out by other groups. I'm still not quite sure that you can classify that as war. To me, "war" implies planning, battle engaged in to some strategic end, usually but perhaps not always tied to territory.

There just plain isn't a reason to think that prehistoric hunter gatherer humans didn't fight and kill one another on a regular basis.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/...ssacre-ancient-humans-lake-turkana-kenya.html

http://www.academia.edu/2968804/War_and_Violence_among_Prehistoric_Hunter-gatherers

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?...ved=0ahUKEwi58J-NpZPSAhXKKCYKHZxuCNsQgQMIGjAA

 

[Lexicus]

My answer to Cutlass would be there is reason to think they didn't kill each other on a regular basis, and that reason is we just don't have the evidence that would lead us to think they did.

It is pretty remarkable that apparently on this issue the burden of proof is essentially

no evidence --> humans must have been bloodthirsty warmongers

 

[Kozmos]

Well if we are arguing about regularity it seems to be on par with civilization.

 

[Lohrenswald]

Well sure I assume tribes or whatever fought eachother, but that isn't (necessarily) "war"

 

[EgonSpengler]

My answer to Cutlass would be there is reason to think they didn't kill each other on a regular basis, and that reason is we just don't have the evidence that would lead us to think they did.

It is pretty remarkable that apparently on this issue the burden of proof is essentially

no evidence --> humans must have been bloodthirsty warmongers

Yes, but we have lots of evidence of human behavior. Do we have reason to believe that humans became fundamentally different beings when the historical record began? I don't know if it needs pointing out here, but I'll say it anyway: Cooperation and competition aren't mutually-exclusive. In fact, if we're trying to separate warfare (group-on-group) from mere fighting (individual-on-individual), then I suppose almost any conditions that allow for a stable group to organize are the same conditions that eventually lead to warfare. Any time one group contacts another group and there's a shortage of a resource, or there's an unusual event such as a drought or a famine in an area that normally supports the two groups, it would seem counter-intuitive to me that there wouldn't be warfare.

 

[Lexicus]

Do we have reason to believe that humans became fundamentally different beings when the historical record began?

Fundamentally different beings? No. Started doing a whole hell of a lot of stuff they'd never done before? Yes, obviously, so why even ask the question?

Any time one group contacts another group and there's a shortage of a resource, or there's an unusual event such as a drought or a famine in an area that normally supports the two groups, it would seem counter-intuitive to me that there wouldn't be warfare.

But see, this is problematic because there is actually no real correlation between resource scarcity/population density and warfare.

The conclusion is that war doesn't spring naturally from these sorts of circumstances.

I like Margaret Mead's theory that war is essentially a meme; it seems to do the best job of explaining the evidence.

By the way, if you're under the impression that I'm arguing prehistoric existence was some sort of idyllic utopia largely free from violence, that isn't what I'm saying at all.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

I was going to bring up chimp warfare. Yes, we're related to Bonobos too, but humans are fighting wars right now and there's no reasons prehistoric humans were that much different. Cooperation within the tribe and competition over territoty with other groups. The frquency and intensity are anybody's guess. That probably dependet on the character of whoever was most influential and powerful within the the tribe at the time.

 

[Samson]

Cities have had walls since at least 8,000 BC . I think that is good evidence they needed them, and I would call that need a war.

 

[Zkribbler]

When Captain Cook arrived in Hawaii, he found the primitive kingdoms of the various islands at war with each other, with the victors making off with women and food.

Native American tribe fought each other, taking slaves.

 

[Lexicus]

there's no reasons prehistoric humans were that much different.

Except that we literally do thousands of things now that prehistoric humans didn't do. Like writing, farming, living in permanent dwellings, and so on.

Cities have had walls since at least 8,000 BC . I think that is good evidence they needed them, and I would call that need a war.

This is, in fact, false. "Cities" have not had walls since 8,000 BC; rather, the earliest evidence of city walls comes from around then. In fact, IIRC Jericho had walls before Uruk. But this doesn't imply that every city in the world started having walls around the same time.

As my argument is that the earliest evidence of war is from around 13,000 years ago, city walls 10,000 years ago do not contradict anything I'm saying.

 

[Kyriakos]

A war taking place at 8.000 BC wouldn't really involve many troops. I doubt they would have any kind of metal (eg copper) coated weapons either- not sure, but i think war-scale copper smelting started a lot later. I can see wars with actual weapons (ie not just sticks and stones and basic arrows) happening already at 4.000 BC, and never stopping from then on
That said, most pre-classical era armies apparently had no strategy or serious organization, and were large groups barbarically going at each other with no plan.

 

[Cutlass]

My answer to Cutlass would be there is reason to think they didn't kill each other on a regular basis, and that reason is we just don't have the evidence that would lead us to think they did.

It is pretty remarkable that apparently on this issue the burden of proof is essentially

no evidence --> humans must have been bloodthirsty warmongers

This is not accurate. What may be true is that the, extremely sparse, archeological evidence from prehistory does not solve the question. But we know from later time periods that warfare among hunter-gatherers is absolutely common. And so the argument against warfare in prehistory is that prehistoric people were fundamentally different than all the people descended from them.

And that is an extraordinary claim, which by convention requires extraordinary evidence.

 

[EgonSpengler]

A quick Google search on resource scarcity and warfare. I haven't had time yet to read them all in detail.
Smithsonian magazine, 19 Oct 2016: Can resource scarcity really explain a history of human violence?
The Santa Fe Institute, 9 Feb 2012: Revisiting resource scarcity, warfare, and violence.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 6 Sept 2016: Resource scarcity drives lethal aggression among prehistoric hunter-gatherers in central California. (Darn, looks like you need to pay or be a member to read the full text of this one. The abstract is free, though.)

The conclusion is that war doesn't spring naturally from these sorts of circumstances.

I'm not sure what the term "naturally" means here. If it means "always" then, right, it doesn't always spring from these circumstances.

By the way, if you're under the impression that I'm arguing prehistoric existence was some sort of idyllic utopia largely free from violence, that isn't what I'm saying at all.

No, I didn't think you were. That's why I'm thinking about how to define "warfare" from other kinds of violence. Group-on-group, as opposed to individuals, is one stab at it (pardon the pun). In the January 2016 NY Times article, Prehistoric massacre hints at war among hunter-gatherers, a U of Alabama anthropology professor questions the use of the term "war" to describe the ancient grave site. He isn't given a lot of space in the article to explain himself - "He said he would like to see 'fortifications, villages built in defensible locations, specialized weapons of war, artistic or symbol depictions of war,' and more than one site before calling it warfare." I can't help wondering if he's picking a nit, but I do think that there are useful differences to be drawn between forms of organized violence in modern contexts (warfare, terrorism, genocide, and enslavement all have different, important connotations to me, for example), so maybe the same is true for ancient eras.

 

[Glassfan]

We should probably define "War".

 

[Lexicus]

This is not accurate. What may be true is that the, extremely sparse, archeological evidence from prehistory does not solve the question. But we know from later time periods that warfare among hunter-gatherers is absolutely common.

We know that hunter-gatherers fought wars in prehistory because there is evidence of it starting to happen around 13,000 years ago. There is no evidence of it happening before then.
By the way, ethnography from the 19th and 20th centuries doesn't really work as evidence because hunter-gatherers in these times are not accurate anaologues of prehistoric hunter-gatherers. Too many of the conditions are different.

And so the argument against warfare in prehistory is that prehistoric people were fundamentally different than all the people descended from them.

It is like claiming that humans 40,000 years ago were fundamentally different from humans today because the former didn't write anything down or live in permanent stone dwellings and the latter do. Certainly not the claim I'm making. The claim I'm making is that there are cultural/environmental factors that lead people to write things and build permanent buildings and fight wars, not that people who do these things are 'fundamentally different' from people who don't.

I'm not sure what the term "naturally" means here. If it means "always" then, right, it doesn't always spring from these circumstances.

For lack of a better way to put it, yes. Naturally means, basically, that we would do it without the influence of any cultural or environmental factors. That is falsified by the fact that we know of cultures that not only don't fight wars but lack the concept.

That's why I'm thinking about how to define "warfare" from other kinds of violence. Group-on-group, as opposed to individuals, is one stab at it (pardon the pun).

Organized group violence is the definition I'm using.

 

[Kyriakos]

There was also that war taking place at roughly 9500 BC, between Athens and Atlantis

 

[Glassfan]

There was also that war taking place at roughly 9500 BC, between Athens and Atlantis

Oh yeah, where the Greeks invented that island-sinking thingy!

 

[warpus]

Well sure I assume tribes or whatever fought eachother, but that isn't (necessarily) "war"

Why not? If there were battles, then it would make sense to group related battles and call them a "war".

 

[Cheetah]

Organized group violence is the definition I'm using.

Which is a good definition. And one which events we do have evidence for.

Let's start with wild Chimp packs waging war. They organize skirmishes, sneak up to their enemies without making sounds, use sticks, rocks, fists and teeth to harm and kill, and generally fight over territory. We have documented occurrences of this happening, and considering how few of the worlds Chimp packs we do observe, it seems likely that it isn't a very uncommon thing.

Since we're so similar to Chimps, it's fully reasonable to speculate that prehistoric humans also waged wars whenever two hostile packs came too close to each other.

We also have actual mass graves from around the world which can be dated to pre-agrarian times (e.g. Kenya, 10kya). They're pretty clearly signs of warfare. I did notice you put a date limit of "no wars before 13,000 years ago", but unless you can make a hypothesis for why hunter-gatherers would have not waged war for tens/hundreds of thousands of years, but suddenly started to do so 13,000 years ago, I would think that there were wars before then too.

It should be added however, that because of the low population density, wars were unlikely to be a very common thing, of course.

 

[Lohrenswald]

Why not? If there were battles, then it would make sense to group related battles and call them a "war".

no

wars need countries