"Is it natural for humans to make war? Is organised violence between rival political groups an inevitable outcome of the human condition? Some scholars believe the answer is yes, but new research suggests not. A study of tribal societies that live by hunting and foraging has found that war is an alien concept and not, as some academics have suggested, an innate feature of so-called “primitive people”. The findings have re-opened a bitter academic dispute over whether war is a relatively recent phenomenon invented by “civilised” societies over the past few thousand years, or a much older part of human nature. In other words, is war an ancient and chronic condition that helped to shape humanity over many hundreds of thousands of years? The idea is that war is the result of an evolutionary ancient predisposition that humans may have inherited in their genetic makeup as long ago as about 7 million years, when we last shared a common ancestor with chimpanzees – who also wage a kind of war between themselves. However, two anthropologists believe this is a myth and have now produced evidence to show it. Douglas Fry and Patrik Soderberg [umlaut over o] of Abo Akademi University in Vasa, Finland, studied 148 violently lethal incidents documented by anthropologists working among 21 mobile bands of hunter-gatherer societies, which some scholars have suggested as a template for studying how humans lived for more than 99.9 per cent of human history, before the invention of agriculture about 10,000 years ago." http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/is-it-natural-for-humans-to-make-war-new-study-of-tribal-societies-reveals-conflict-is-an-alien-concept-8718069.html
Well, hunter-gatherers don't accumulate much materiel wealth that others may try to steal...... and they don't make very good "subjects" or "peasants". Until you have something to fight over, wars are unlikely, though even in hunter-gatherer society, hunting grounds may be fought for. I'm not impressed with this "study".
I think human nature is what leads to any war...bc or ad...I'll have him...is the cause of fights, skirmishes, battles and wars since we started building tanks....well the wheel first... Food, land, money, oil...are a useful plunder afterwards of course...but the urge of human on human conflict in history anyway is my own idea on what leads to war. Granted today...our leaders..who don't actually unleash the sword themselves will get the tip of the spear folk to do their bidding for other reasons such as land, minerals etc... Which is why the day princes hung up their swords was a bad day and the lawyers got to be primeministers and presidents and despots...with others to do their fighting.
You usually find that Stone Age burials were communal affairs until after agriculture arrived, then it's very much individual burials as people stamped their authority on a certain bit of territory. Same with technology; hunting tools can also be weapons. Here's another take- "War is not an inevitable feature of society, according to two scientists who analyzed acts of aggression in 21 hunter-gatherer societies. Among people who live today most like our ancestors did long ago, most acts of murder occur as a result of individual conflicts rather than as part of major battle-style events, the researchers report in the journal Science. That would suggests that war is an artifice of society, and not an intrinsic feature of human nature. It’s a hopeful message, but one that has met with strong criticisms from a community of anthropologists who have long debated whether warfare has an extensive evolutionary history with roots embedded in the structure of our brains, or whether war is a response to more recent developments in how societies are structured." http://www.nbcnews.com/science/war-inevitable-debate-rages-among-anthropologists-6C10680040?
I think they've missed something basic....and quite obvious. Or at least they're not saying it in these terms... When humans settled down and began to farm - they got themselves something to loose. Something that had to be protected. Something that needed time and effort invested in it to nuture it. In turn....early "wealth" became measured in terms of agriculture and stock. Not only did it become something to protect...communally...it became something that you could take from others - ALSO by communal action. And in turn....they had to protect it at an equivalent level... An "escalation", if you like! But also, a defining change in social and economic values When a primitive human had something just in his hands that was his...another individual could take it off him But when "property" became something bigger than a single human could hold in the gasp of his OWN hands...to hold OR take from another...protecting it or taking it MEANT cooperation with one or more others. And that stops being "theft" and starts being "war".
We are an animal and therefore we (males) fight each other...Tribal wars absolutely DID occur...just ask native Americans and Australian Aboriginals...they didnt have "braves" or "warriors" for nothing. Interesting comment about resources and...correct in my opinion. Early wars would have been over resources in scarce areas and maybe during winter or a drought. Otherwise, ambushes and camp attacks occured usually (in my opinion) to gather new females...to maintain genetic health. The concept of "official" and large scale mobilisations would be alien to ancient man...theres were more small scale and more ad hoc. The wipeing out of Neanderthals (and other human species...and then the thousands of extincted animals is testimony to our ability for genocide...this takes organised "war".) - These anthropologists knowledge is too specific and doesnt cover human psycology, warfare, genetics, environmental issues and archaeology...there study is scewed by an overall ignorance...i would trust and archaeologist or psychiatrist to make more sense of the available evidence, they have a broader knowledge base. (all my opinion of course.) : )
Well, good point Phylo. If you think about Celtic societies, they revolved around cattle raids. What else would a rival clan have that was valuable?
Historian..more than you may think. The rival clan could have control of a lake or the side that has the food...they could have a particular species that could bring them something (musk, ivory, antler, amber...or even copper.) they could have a disproportionate amount of females compared to the other clan...A water source where there is no other large one near...even young children as slaves or consciipts to the new group. One has to think as a hunter gatherer or early farmer to "see" the possibilities...I think though farming was a singular or family thing in the beggining...didnt involve large groups...this is not when war started..this is when modern laws and thoughts of ownership and a policing force was established...probably the greatest change period in our history...there were wars (skirmishes) before and after this event (which took hold at different times in differerent locations). A group of 200 might have 20 "warriors" or the younger men whos clan task is to protect the group from predators and especially other males groups. Today we live in groups of 200 million the skirmish cannot help but be upscaled...
Women..in all seriousness...can't ignore that little titbit....It was a rescourse as much as any other...but in all lightness....that's the reasons the Vikings never went to America....shhhh got to ..go....am on holiday...not here...you aint seen me right....
Could not agree more - I always wanted Blair to send his sons (bit under aged I know) to Iraq - we sure as hell would not be committed there then. or that fatuous ex-Commie, Dr Reid or redoubtable Foreign Secretary who claimed that UK Forces would probably be returning from Afghanistan without firing a shot - Oh Yeh Bob - if you believe that then send your son first.
Aye, fair points CAC. I suppose in times of climate stress resources like those would become literally life or death. Another viewpoint- "My last two posts discuss two new studies that contradict the Deep Roots Theory of War, which holds that war is ancient and innate. One study concludes that modern-day mobile foragers (also called nomadic hunter gatherers) are far less warlike than Deep Rooters contend. According to the other study, there is vanishingly little archaeological evidence of lethal group violence prior to 10,000 years ago. Both of these reports support the view of anthropologist Margaret Mead that war, rather than being a “biological necessity,” is a recent cultural innovation, or “invention.” Now I’d like to present results from a new archaeological survey that further corroborates Mead’s view of warfare. The survey is by Rutgers anthropologist Brian Ferguson, an authority on the origins of warfare. In a 2003 Natural History article, “The Birth of War,” Ferguson presented preliminary results of his examination of early human settlements. He argued that “the global archaeological record contradicts the idea that war was always a feature of human existence; instead, the record shows that warfare is largely a development of the last 10,000 years.” That conclusion has been corroborated by Ferguson’s new, in-depth survey, which he discusses in “The Prehistory of War and Peace in Europe and the Near East,” a chapter in War, Peace, and Human Nature, a 2013 collection edited by Douglas Fry and published by Oxford University Press. (See also a chapter in which Ferguson critiques an interpretation of archaeological data by Deep Rooter Steven Pinker." http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2013/08/02/survey-of-earliest-human-settlements-undermines-claim-that-war-has-deep-evolutionary-roots/ I'm not buying the "we-all-lived-together-happily-until-5000-years-ago" bit. There might not be much evidence of group violence prior to that, but that doesn't prove there wasn't any. Might be a case of finding evidence they want to find.
To me, this debate (which is apparently very heated and real in scientific circles) seems ludicrous. Firstly, we have to agree what "war" is, as opposed to "ordinary" homicide or mere "violence", in the context of hunter-gatherers. If 5 braves of one tribe, surprise 2 braves of another with the carcass of a dead giant sloth ( or great purple banana eater), and the 5 kill the 2, because the 5 have 20 mouths to feed, and the drought has reduced game numbers, we can call that "war". How desperate do the 2 have to be to stand their ground? If they back off, or share because they were intimidated, is that then not an act of aggression, a "conflict" if you will? Where would the evidence be of this? The starved remains of the second tribe are not going to bear witness of physical violence. What about if one of the two was known to have kidnapped a daughter of the tribe? Secondly, we have to understand that we really do not have much evidence at all about what these varied groups of people's belief systems were, nor their knowledge, or their culture. By the very requirements of their lifestyle, almost nothing was left: they had to remain mobile. What evidence are they imagining they'd find? Axes imbedded in skulls? What we can contend is that their emotional life was similar; they too had fears, loved, lusted and could feel the green pangs of jealousy, or be intimidated, and want/seek revenge. What we can do, is examine the few remaining similar hunter-gatherer societies in the present time. And to suggest that these people live a life free from conflict is blatantly incorrect. As most people enjoy sex, and are a top predator, population will grow until different groups (who may or may not share a common ancestry) clash over resources. Rats fight when their population exceeds the ability of local resources to support their numbers. As humans are distinctly social, such behaviour will of course be reflected in social groups conflicting over resources (water, game, rights of access, etc). A hunter-gatherer society may in general find it easier to avoid conflict by moving out of the way of a larger group, but this is far from always going to be the case, as there may be natural barriers, or cultural taboos. To suggest that these peoples were free from ideas of justice or retribution is just so blatantly incorrect. Every mythology known has these ideas. The only reason evidence of pre-agrarian conflict is so rare, was because humans themselves were so extremely rare. Most people even today, do not slaughter other people on sight. At the end of the last ice age, there were so few humans in Europe, that they would be declared an endangered species today. How many skeletal remains do we have of pre-agrarian humans from 10,000 BC or earlier?
Gordon, the Celts and their cattle raids...particularly the Irish ones!...are a very interesting aspect of this. They're of course VERY late in humanity's sociological development - they were the last "classical" invasion wave I.E. Pre-Roman...to move from East to West until they literally, in Ireland and Spain, could get no further! They certainly conquered/displaced previous indigenous tribes/races...Irish legend has it IIRC that they were the LAST of three great invasion waves to enter Ireland... But what's interesting is that as a migrating people - even when they had finished their migrating! - the Celts still thought of "wealth" in terms of MOVEABLE wealth! As in - you could drive cattle home with you!!!
Very disputed - many (including myself) believe that the genetic evidence (well over 90% Rb1) points to the Irish population particularly in the North West being the original Ice Age Settlers who migrated with the melting snows from Spain at the end of the last Ice Age as the Ice Sheet covering British Isles retreated northwards. Celts like Romans, Saxons (except eastern England) and Normans did not add much to the genetic make-up just superior technology and language.
Native Americans warred across the continent. Some tribes did farm of course, but even tribes in the plains who were pure hunting societies warred. The Commanche, the Blackfeet, Sioux, Cheyenne, Arapahoe all warred constantly. They did it to steal women or children for slaves, or to claim or protect hunting territories, but mostly they just warred for glory. A man gained status by being a good warrior.
Got to agree that the invasion theory for the Celts is still hotly disputed. To me it seems more of a process of cultural assimilation (like the Vikings in Britain and France adopting local customs and languages over time) than anything else. Look how Americanised British society has become since the Sixties without any invasion. Young people still see American culture as better/more glamorous/exciting than their own, and previous civilizations were no different in aspiring to what they thought of as the latest fashion.
O certainly - which is why I put in the caveat that "Irish legend has it IIRC that they were the LAST of three great invasion waves to enter Ireland..." Even so - while the assimilation took place, the Celts would have overlaid the native population below for a time...and something that is VERY obvious from the canon of Irish legend is that in this early Celtic period in Ireland the Celtic warrior class of events like the Cattle Raid of Cooley was exactly that - a class/caste!
Read Tain Bo Cuailgn a few times, along with some of the other stuff. It's fascinating- http://www.timelessmyths.com/celtic/ulster.html
From what I recall the name "Kentucky" translated from the original Indian language means something like "the dark and bloody ground". Several Indian tribes fought over it for an extended period from well before anyone outside of the Norse (and possibly Irish) colonized the Americas.
