The origins of war

[Kevin23]

Over the summer I've am writing a paper on the origins of warfare. I've begun doing the actual writing however I'm still tweaking with my thesis. Though my thesis basically states that warfare evolved out of violent disagreements and archaic raids in pre-historic times although speculated. From which warfare constantly evolved and helped mark advancement in technology, strategy, and tactics. In addition to help mark the the rise of the political state. Like I said I'm still messing with it but I hope it turns out well in the end.

Any opinions or suggestions?

[bnelson44]

At least as it pertains to modern warfare: all wars are political. That is to say, they begin for political reasons. For the most part, they also end for politcal reasons.

[Fuchs]

I recall a video of a hyaena pack and a lion pack. There was a dead zebra or gnu on the ground, and the hyaenas were feasting on it.

The lions approached and both packs began to threaten each other with gesture and voices.
The lead female of the lion pack finally attacked and killed a hyaena, and the hyaenas withdrew.


We're a bit more sophisticated, of course.
Not much different, though.

[George L. Singleton]

War is foreign policy at it's worst.

[Greyhawk]

There are obvious challenges to "pre-historic", but have you found any other works on the topic?

[Fuchs]

About pre-historic; a mummy ("Ötzi") was found in the alps years ago. A thorough investigation found that the man died of a combat wound 5,300 years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oetzi

That's the oldest indication of human vs. human combat known to me (except religious texts).

[Ron Humphrey]

Exactly what the political agendas were for the Hatfields and the Mccoys

Or maybe even what the initial political reason for the mongolian leader to get a group of guys together to go get back his wife

:D:eek::cool:

[jmm99]

in drawing any firm conclusions on "primitive warfare".

Brief SWC thread here (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?p=61957), where 120mm cites the 1995 dissertation "The Origin of War", by Dr. J.M.G. Van Der Dennen, which is still here (http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/faculties/jur/1995/j.m.g.van.der.dennen/). Interesting read; huge bibliography & discusses various theories. You will find a lot of controversy by following the obvious Google leads.

A proof of organized primitive warfare (Neolithic; one of many) is attached -"combate de arquero", from a Spanish cave (Morella la Vella, provincia de Castellón) - punch this (http://books.google.com/books?id=MexgV_gPAAYC&pg=PA110&lpg=PA110&dq=%22Morella+la+Vella%22&source=bl&ots=tquInQa7vb&sig=5QGXH4LUAWXi3Ye-Tl85RfQhyIA&hl=en&ei=gcljSsb9NJHslAeg9-H9BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=13).

[slapout9]

Exactly what the political agendas were for the Hatfields and the Mccoys




It was about land reform....as in you got it.....I want it.... let's fight about it.

[Kiwigrunt]

About pre-historic; a mummy ("Ötzi") was found in the alps years ago. A thorough investigation found that the man died of a combat wound 5,300 years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oetzi


Now that was very interesting. And note the legal dispute over Ötzi's discovery. Greed…..over the ‘value’ of someone who died 5300 years ago, probably as a result of some form of greed……the more things change, the more they stay the same!:eek:
(For what its worth, I can’t really see why the finders should get paid anything at all, other than official recognition, but that would be a different discussion.)

[Ken White]

It was about land reform....as in you got it.....I want it.... let's fight about it.the Hatfields fit for the Union, the McCoys for the Confederacy. That led to the first death of a wounded and home recuperating McCoy before the war was even over and then it later turned on a supposedly stolen pig and went downhill rapidly. No land involved...

[slapout9]

the Hatfields fit for the Union, the McCoys for the Confederacy. That led to the first death of a wounded and home recuperating McCoy before the war was even over and then it later turned on a supposedly stolen pig and went downhill rapidly. No land involved...

Who's land was the Pig on;)

[slapout9]

Timber Land to be more precise.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatfield-McCoy_feud

[Greyhawk]

Actually, it may be helpful for you to present your thesis statement and who you're writing for. Somewhat difficult to point you down the right path without a bit more detail of where you think you want to go.



Brief SWC thread here (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?p=61957), where 120mm cites the 1995 dissertation "The Origin of War", by Dr. J.M.G. Van Der Dennen, which is still here (http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/faculties/jur/1995/j.m.g.van.der.dennen/). Interesting read; huge bibliography & discusses various theories. You will find a lot of controversy by following the obvious Google leads.

Here's a no-fee version (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Story?id=6241250&page=1) of the linked article that began that thread.

One thing you might notice in the course of your research is that you're in an area that isn't without controversy. That said, religious texts and mythologies might also present some quotable material (authoritative only in that "adherents believed X happened").

Here's Wikipedia on the Battle of Megiddo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Megiddo_(15th_century_BC)) ("the first battle to have been recorded in what is accepted as relatively reliable detail.") and same source on the Battle of Kadesh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_kadesh) ("there is more evidence in the form of texts and wall reliefs for this battle than for any other battle in the Ancient Near East") which seem to be a bit too recent for your purposes :) but may be useful, even if only as brief introductory citations. I offer Wiki as a starting point, not definitive.

Off topic: Some will appreciate the irony of this comment re: Kadesh - "There is no consensus about the outcome or what took place, with views ranging from an Egyptian victory, a draw, and an Egyptian defeat (with the Egyptian accounts simply propaganda)."

Hopefully some day someone will figure it out.

[Ken White]

Timber Land to be more precise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatfield-McCoy_feudNo feudin' over land, timber or otherwise that I can see. Where specifically did you see that?

You can also check this book LINK (http://www.amazon.com/Days-Darkness-Feuds-Eastern-Kentucky/dp/0813118743/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1248062414&sr=1-1) It has a little more detail than the wiki and it has no fighting over timber... :confused:

Oh and the pig was on Hatfield land -- but that wasn't the issue, it allegedly had McCoy notches; the issue was the pig, not the land.

[slapout9]

On another thread Surferbeetle links to thread about Harvard graduate Niall Ferguson on the current financial situation. He has PBS video series out (every Wed. Night In Alabama) about how the history of money and war are linked together. The series and the book is called "The Ascent of Money". My only complaint is it essentially a ripoff of John Kenneth Galbraith's "The Age Of Uncertainty" which was the original PBS series done in the 1970's.


Here is a link to the program you can watch for free. You would probably like episode 2 "The Bonds Of War"
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/ascentofmoney/

[Ron Humphrey]

have we perhaps over the last few centuries began to assign cause and effect in inter societal interactions/ conflicts to strictly political machinations when quite often throughout history it may have been due more to needs/requirements for survival or support/security and the political pieces generally tended to determine how those where dealt with or in what manner?

Big question is Is there a major difference?

[Greyhawk]

...and that's that. Thog v Og - Sparta v Athens - Hatfield v McCoy - WWII - something that starts next week.

Throw in tribalism, politics, religion, what have you as an team-organizing factor but without that fundamental element there is no "war".

Given time Thog would probably "get" much of CvC. Might even say "well, duh!" :)

[Ken White]

On another thread Surferbeetle links to thread about Harvard graduate Niall Ferguson on the current financial situation...Harvard and is an Oxford graduate. He's written several other books on economic history and history of the US and of the British Empire that aren't based on anything Galbraith ever did -- Galbraith did copy a fair bit from Keynes, though. Ferguson's almost as Socialistically inclined as those two were... :wry:

[Greyhawk]

If we brought an ancient Egyptian here today he could probably tell us a thing or two about COIN. If he asks why we'd forgotten I say we blame the library fire.

Switching subject: Did you notice in Ötzi story that (theory) someone retrieved an arrow shaft from his corpse (/theory) but left him his own implements? Accepting theory suggests powerful taboo or no value to any of those items.

[tequila]

A very tough book to get through, but a very influential and well-researched: Coercion, Capital, and European States 990-1992 (http://www.amazon.com/Coercion-Capital-European-States-Discontinuity/dp/1557863687).

Tilly argues for the centrality of warmaking in the formation of the European nation-state, and for the nation-state's primacy in warmaking as the reason it became the dominant political organization in the world. Economic, geographic, and political factors set the scene in terms of the relative levels of capital and social structure, but warmaking provides the central drive to state formation.

[marct]

I've been trying to remember a reference (I'm on holiday now without my library...). Ah....

Algaze, Guillermo, The Uruk world system : the dynamics of expansion of early Mesopotamian civilization / Guillermo Algaze. Chicago : University of Chicago Press, c1993.

Algaze, along with several others whose names I'm blanking on, argues that there was a major war spanning from southern Iraq into eastern Turkey about 3500 bce or so. On earlier conflicts, there is quite a bit in the archaeological record of Europe: check out references to the Bell Beaker People.

Kadesh, as a battle, is fairly late (Egyptian New Kingdom), but if you are looking for the origins of war, you need to step back and ask yourself about origin points. How are you defining "war"? Did war start with a single group or in multiple places? What specific indicators in the archaeological and/or oral historic record are you using as indicators of warfare?

[William F. Owen]

How are you defining "war"? Did war start with a single group or in multiple places? What specific indicators in the archaeological and/or oral historic record are you using as indicators of warfare?

Well IF ...and I submit it is.... war is the setting forth of policy with an admixture of other means, then it would seem likely that war begins when humans first organise as groups. "This is my Cave" and/or "Only we, the Tribe of the Black Hamster, may hunt here."

Nothing much has changed.

[Backwards Observer]

Just started Azar Gat's, War In Human Civilization. Justin Kelly mentions it in his recent Quandrant article. Gat's scholarly tome is a bit of a challenge thus far, but seems quite thorough.

Azar Gat: War In Human Civilization (Amazon) (http://www.amazon.com/War-Human-Civilization-Azar-Gat/dp/0199262136)

This short article by Richard Wrangham may be of interest, but could be seen as unnecessarily provocative:

Wrangham article (http://www.webster.edu/religion-violence/Readings/Wrangham_Richard.pdf)

[goesh]

I was thinking there was a woman that complicated things, after the pig, in the Hatfield v McCoy dustup - a man can't go wrong with a hillbilly woman but they won't abide any messing around and likely will get quite violent, even kill, if that happens. I think women can be factored in somewhat when it comes to war especially in pre-historic times - a big tribe experiences a shortage of women and the men start getting to violent in the competition for a mate and the only thing can be done is go raiding for some brides.

[Ken White]

I was thinking there was a woman that complicated things, after the pig, in the Hatfield v McCoy dustup - a man can't go wrong with a hillbilly woman but they won't abide any messing around and likely will get quite violent, even kill, if that happens...Yep, the feud would have likely died after the Pig got settled in Court had it not been for Roseanna McCoy taking up with one a them Hatfields. Went downhill from there. :wry:

Still true around the world. Part of the Islamic fundamentalist effort today is fueled to an extent by the defining the desired role and attire of women...

[marct]

Hi Wilf,


Well IF ...and I submit it is.... war is the setting forth of policy with an admixture of other means, then it would seem likely that war begins when humans first organise as groups. "This is my Cave" and/or "Only we, the Tribe of the Black Hamster, may hunt here."

Well, if we take that as the definition, we only move the problem of definition back a step: What defines "policy"? It further assumes a split between actions we might call "warfare" and actions that we might call "policy". If we take the operational definition of "This is MY cave", then we are de facto defining policy as whim (okay, that might be apropos in some cases....;)).

From what I have looked at in pre-historic warfare, it doesn't appear as if we have societies that are segmented to the point of "professional" warriors. We have some social types (e.g. pastoralists) where pretty much everyone uses tools that may also be used as weapons (e.g. slings, bows, spears) and others where the tools are agricultural (actually, horticultural, but let's not be too technical :p), say the Egyptian Kopesh sword (from a sicle).

We don't really see social segmentation into warrior castes or professions until moderately later on (e.g. the Epic of Gilgamesh, Egyptian middle kingdom [maybe; could be earlier]), the invasions of the 19th century bce by the M'aryanni, etc. At the same time, most of the "political" decision makers were also priesthoods of one form or another (including the so-called God Kings), at least pre-2500 bce or so.

[IntelTrooper]

We have some social types (e.g. pastoralists) where pretty much everyone uses tools that may also be used as weapons (e.g. slings, bows, spears) and others where the tools are agricultural (actually, horticultural, but let's not be too technical :p), say the Egyptian Kopesh sword (from a sicle).

Reminds me of something about plowshares and swords...

Beat your plowshares into swords, and your pruning hooks into spears: let the weak say "I am strong."

[marct]

Reminds me of something about plowshares and swords...
http://www.kultofathena.com/images%5CAH4317_l.jpg

Evil little beasties.....

[IntelTrooper]

Evil little beasties.....
Something about those makes my skin crawl...

[Larry Dunbar]

I recall a video of a hyaena pack and a lion pack. There was a dead zebra or gnu on the ground, and the hyaenas were feasting on it.

The lions approached and both packs began to threaten each other with gesture and voices.
The lead female of the lion pack finally attacked and killed a hyaena, and the hyaenas withdrew.


We're a bit more sophisticated, of course.
Not much different, though.

Fuchs is correct. War began from observations.

1. One tribe observed what the other tribe was doing, and observed a weakness within the other tribe. From that point war is one of interest.

2. One tribe observed what the other tribe was doing and grew fearful. The future was not apparent and the weaker tribe attacked the stronger tribe.

3. One tribe observed what the other tribe was doing and revolted out of honor.

Of course these are the three domains (interest, fear, and honor) that war is most-likely to happen in.

One tribe observes the other through brother's or sister's eyes. That includes, uncles, cousins, brother-inlaw, sister-inlaw, ect....

I kind of talk about it here (http://larrydunbar.wordpress.com/2009/06/27/via-cousin-or-father/). Of course it is just a thought.

[marct]

Something about those makes my skin crawl...

Yeah, they're interesting to play with and try to figure out how they were used. Nasty beasts aimed at arms and legs :(....

[IntelTrooper]

Yeah, they're interesting to play with and try to figure out how they were used. Nasty beasts aimed at arms and legs :(....
Since we're on the topic, I would be remiss if I missed this opportunity to put in a plug for an acquaintance's book:

Warfare in the Ancient Near East to 1600 BC by William J. Hamblin (http://www.amazon.com/Warfare-Ancient-Near-East-History/dp/0415255899/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1248210235&sr=8-1#)

I haven't read it yet and the current review is pretty lame, so take it for what it's worth. :)

[jenniferro10]

I would also add a totally different (less arcane?) thread: *Collapse* by Diamond. I know it's about societal collapse, but I think the idea of war over natural resources (water access, etc.) deserves attention directly- as a topic on its own- and not a subtopic under "gettin stuff from other tribes". I know there must be many, many other books on this, that people smarter than me will add below.

[Rex Brynen]

"Only we, the Tribe of the Black Hamster, may hunt here." .

I had no idea you were one of those thieving Black Hamster bastards, Wilf!

See if I have coffee with YOU again...

[Greyhawk]

Something about those makes my skin crawl...

Sickle-like object on red background?

"a woman that complicated things" - procreation, survival of the species the foundation upon which the struggle for resources is based - though some cultures see "woman" as "resource".

"War began from observations" - concur with the statements that follow as post-organizing (or grouping) rationales for behavior. I maintain that unless "the other" was perceived as a threat to survival-level resource acquisition "war" (or "conflict resulting in death") would not result. ("Survival-level resource" changes with time.)

I recognize that pig-stealing McCoys might disagree. ;) :rolleyes:

[Greyhawk]

"What can we learn from an unfrozen caveman warrior?"

There's a Saturday Night Live reference in that, but I think it would work.

[marct]

I would also add a totally different (less arcane?) thread: *Collapse* by Diamond.

I always preffered Tainter's original The Collapse of Complex Societies (http://www.amazon.com/Collapse-Complex-Societies-Studies-Archaeology/dp/052138673X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1248222416&sr=8-1). As an anthropologist / archaeologist, Diamond is an excellent biologist....

[Ken White]

I thought he was a GEE-ologisit. :wry: No wonder he confused me...

[jenniferro10]

"a woman that complicated things" - procreation, survival of the species the foundation upon which the struggle for resources is based - though some cultures see "woman" as "resource".

"War began from observations" - concur with the statements that follow as post-organizing (or grouping) rationales for behavior. I maintain that unless "the other" was perceived as a threat to survival-level resource acquisition "war" (or "conflict resulting in death") would not result. ("Survival-level resource" changes with time.)




"a woman that complicated things" - procreation, survival of the species the foundation upon which the struggle for resources is based - though some cultures see "woman" as "resource".


It's easy to consider the beginning of warfare this way. Without a whole lot of support, we've been teaching it like fact for a long time. We all know men are violent and women helpless in these situations, right? There are a lot of things about this idea that work for a lot of very sound reasons.

But...I also urge us to consider the sum of the following factors:
- the simplest explanation is most likely to be correct
- in a crisis, warfare may require more resources and people than a stressed society would have
- our early groups weren't all that big to begin with, and women probably outnumbered men pretty significantly (anyone with numbers support on this? I forgot Anthro101)

Then consider Diamond's theory (my rough paraphrase, so forgive me) as to how isolated societies are absorbed into one another or survive as subgroups:
A starving woman looks over hill and sees another group, and how much fatter they are. A few days later, she's at the fire, thinking about it. She puts down her mixing stick, and says something about going out to get some more berries. She washes her hair in the nearest creek (making herself a "resource"?), goes to pay the guys in fatter tribe a visit, and stays.

I'd never make it through a feminist theory course with this mess, but I'm pretty sure I'm safe in the current company. :)

So we're back to resources, one way or the other, but I am more likely to consider factors like water, grazing, and arable land as the sort of resources over which groups would go to war. Use of resources for the purposes of the continuation of your group, as Greyhawk suggests, is secondary or tertiary, I think. A better guess: the use of resources for survival now...right now...of myself and people immediately connected to me. I imagine what looks like a gangfight over a rotten carcass, between two starving family groups.

What if the conflict happens between groups of women who discover another group in their blackberry patch- their last reliable food source? Do they go get the men? This just occured to me, thought I throw it out there...

The visceral, id-level reason a soldier gives for fighting (anybody heard "for me and the guy next to me" before?) is probably a better indication of the origin of war as anything else. So we are really probably dealing with a direct, immediately preceeding, insult to survival of a small extended family group...?

Thread-starter, are we helping or hurting?

[Greyhawk]

"We all know men are violent and women helpless in these situations, right?"

Okay - I'll take that bait. I posit that "Men are more or less violent and women a controlling influence on actions to various ends" is more universally true.

Simple example: Witness two high school guys about to "duke it out" over a girl - her response/actions prior to the first blow can't be declared unimportant.

And while we tend to view some cultures as "male dominated" I would further say (hypothetical situation follows) an invader in such a society would probably find less resistance over the long run if his actions increased the level of contentment (and perception of future improvement) among that "non-dominant" sector of society. (Though doing so in an overt manner might have an opposite effect.)

Seems to be off topic, but hard to say how far without the original requester weighing back in...

[William F. Owen]

I had no idea you were one of those thieving Black Hamster bastards, Wilf!

See if I have coffee with YOU again...

Hey! The Black Hamsters were here first!
And the Great Hamster in the Sky, gave this land to his chosen Hamster followers...

No coffee? How about Schwarma?

[marct]

Hi jenniferro,


It's easy to consider the beginning of warfare this way. Without a whole lot of support, we've been teaching it like fact for a long time. We all know men are violent and women helpless in these situations, right? There are a lot of things about this idea that work for a lot of very sound reasons.

The old Man the Hunter hypothesis. Not much evidence for it and a fair bit against it :wry:.


But...I also urge us to consider the sum of the following factors:
- the simplest explanation is most likely to be correct

Personally, I prefer Carlo Ginzburg to William of Occam - the most plausible explanation rather than the correct one....


- in a crisis, warfare may require more resources and people than a stressed society would have

Possible, but warfare also reduces the population down to the technological carrying capacity of the environment... at least in pre-industrial wars.


- our early groups weren't all that big to begin with, and women probably outnumbered men pretty significantly (anyone with numbers support on this? I forgot Anthro101)

Generally H&G groups had slightly more men than women, with a fairly high birth spacing (I think the rough average was about 4.5 years). Horticultural groups tended to have slightly more men as well, but with a birth spacing of ~1 year. Pastoralists usually had way more women than men, also with a fairly low birth spacing (can't remember the number, but I think it was in the range of 2 years or so).

Most of the populations were pretty small, at least if you go back 10-12,000 years or so. At the same time, you also have to remember that the mobilization capacity was much higher, with some groups having nearly 70% (pastoralists).


Then consider Diamond's theory (my rough paraphrase, so forgive me) as to how isolated societies are absorbed into one another or survive as subgroups:
A starving woman looks over hill and sees another group, and how much fatter they are. A few days later, she's at the fire, thinking about it. She puts down her mixing stick, and says something about going out to get some more berries. She washes her hair in the nearest creek (making herself a "resource"?), goes to pay the guys in fatter tribe a visit, and stays.

I often suspected that was his wish fulfillment speaking!

One of the things that needs to be remembered is that most H&G groups, along with many horticulturalist groups, were matrilineal and matrifocal. In other words, you were a member of your mothers' clan and when guys got married, they would move in with their mother in laws family. The patrilineages start much later, although they do tend to dominate in pastoralist groups (check out Gerda Lerner's The Creation of Patriarchy (http://www.amazon.com/Creation-Patriarchy-Women-History/dp/0195051858/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1248265764&sr=1-1)).


I'd never make it through a feminist theory course with this mess, but I'm pretty sure I'm safe in the current company.

:D


So we're back to resources, one way or the other, but I am more likely to consider factors like water, grazing, and arable land as the sort of resources over which groups would go to war.

This is why I was saying that Wilf was just moving the First Cause backwards with his reference to "policy" as a definition. Resources, in the sense of grazing lands and water were certainly major factors for pastoralist groups. Pastoralists and, later, maritime cultures also used a "Trade & Raid" style of interaction.

"Resources" in the sense of access rights to a given tract of land at a particular time of year also sparked conflicts amongst sedentary H&G groups (e.g. North-West Coast BC; whether they were "wars" is another matter). A lack of resources was, IMHO, the probably root cause of the Flower Wars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flower_war).

Arable land, water access, access to trade roots and raw materials all sparked some of the earliest recorded wars in Sumeria and the rest of the Fertile Crescent (cf. The Epic of Gilgamesh (http://www.amazon.com/Epic-Gilgamesh-Penguin-Classics/dp/0140449191/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1248266212&sr=1-1)). There is also some decent evidence that volkeswanderungs (sp?) were responsible for the pre-dynastic conquest of Egypt, and they were definitely responsible for the wars after the m'aryanni spread (21st-18th century bce).


Use of resources for the purposes of the continuation of your group, as Greyhawk suggests, is secondary or tertiary, I think. A better guess: the use of resources for survival now...right now...of myself and people immediately connected to me. I imagine what looks like a gangfight over a rotten carcass, between two starving family groups.

Hmmm, not the image I would use - that probably led our earlier, Homo Erectus ancestors out of Africa 1.7 million years ago, but I doubt it was a dominant scenario, say, 12ky. Check out the Natufian Culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natufian) for a more probable scenario.


What if the conflict happens between groups of women who discover another group in their blackberry patch- their last reliable food source? Do they go get the men? This just occured to me, thought I throw it out there...

Well, if they are like the Cree women, they would grab their bows and whack the intruders.... the boys were probably off in the bush anyway chasing deer and drinking beer :D.


The visceral, id-level reason a soldier gives for fighting (anybody heard "for me and the guy next to me" before?) is probably a better indication of the origin of war as anything else. So we are really probably dealing with a direct, immediately preceeding, insult to survival of a small extended family group...?

I think that's pretty late in some ways, and spot on in others. My gut guess (only 'cause I'm on vacation and don't have access to my home library ;)) is that the initial form was based totally on kinship, while the latter form is based much more on para-kinship ("You guys are just like brothers" quoth the drunken legionary to his cohort buddies).


Thread-starter, are we helping or hurting?

*Very* good question!

[slapout9]

MarcT, I have another question. What about the development of language and the effect of people talking to each other instead of trying to poke each other full of holes with stuff?

[marct]

MarcT, I have another question. What about the development of language and the effect of people talking to each other instead of trying to poke each other full of holes with stuff?

Weeeellllll, depends on when language developed :wry:. There's a modicum of evidence that good ol' HSS (aka us) wiped out Neaderthals (okay, kept a few of their women... my ex-room-mate was descended from one). There is some pretty good evidence that we had language then, while the Neanderthals may not have (personally, I think they did, but that's another story having to do with the curious case of 2 hyoid bones...).

[jenniferro10]

"We all know men are violent and women helpless in these situations, right?"

Okay - I'll take that bait.

No bait. It was only a "okay, let's say this is absolutely true, if so, then..." kind of statement.

marct- We'll keep you :)

So much good reading to be done here...but I distinctly remember being told, more than once, that there were more women than men in our early family groups (you know, "cave man days"...I love how anthropologists wince when you say that!).

[marct]

So much good reading to be done here...but I distinctly remember being told, more than once, that there were more women than men in our early family groups (you know, "cave man days"...I love how anthropologists wince when you say that!).

All I can say is

http://mocoloco.com/art/upload/2007/10/wince/greenberg_wince_oct07.jpg

Honestly, you may have been told that, but the latest research I've seen (about 8 years old) says different.

[slapout9]

Weeeellllll, depends on when language developed :wry:.

Your supposed to know that stuff;)

[jmm99]

an interesting article, The Mysterious Downfall of the Neandertals (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-mysterious-downfall), which concludes:


As for the last known Neandertals, the ones who lived in Gibraltar’s seaside caves some 28,000 years ago, Finlayson is certain that they did not spend their days competing with moderns, because moderns seem not to have settled there until thousands of years after the Neandertals were gone. The rest of their story, however, remains to be discovered.

So, the demise of this this particular group of Neanderthals cannot be placed at Cro-Magnon feet.

Two 2009 reports dealing with the Neanderthal genome suggest that the capacity for speech goes back to before the Neanderthal-Modern Human split in their "family tree" - here (http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/40819/title/First_rough_draft_of_Neandertal_genome_released) and here (http://www.sciencenews.org/index/generic/activity/view/id/38616/title/Neandertals%2C_gut_microbes_and_mail-order_ancestry_tests):


Analysis of the genome reveals that humans and Neandertals share genetic roots stretching back at least 830,000 years. Neandertals, the species Homo neanderthalensis, were humans’ closest relatives, appearing about 300,000 years ago and living in Europe and parts of Asia until going extinct about 30,000 years ago.

Anatomically modern humans, the species known as Homo sapiens, first appeared in Africa about 250,000 to 200,000 years ago.

and


Talk like a Neandertal

Neandertals may have had the genetic gift for gab, new research shows.

Analyses of the Neandertal genome reveals that the extinct human relatives had the same version of a gene linked to speech as humans do, says Svante Pääbo of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany. Mutations that reduce activity of the gene, called FOXP2, also disable speech in humans.

Humans have a version of FOXP2 that differs by two amino acids from the chimpanzee version of the gene. Neandertals share the version of the gene found in humans, Pääbo reported at the human genetics meeting.

Many other genes may be required for speech but, in humans at least, no other genes have shown such a dramatic effect. The result could mean that Neandertals could speak, Pääbo says.

“From what little we know, there’s no reason they couldn’t talk,” he says.

I'll pass on opposite sex interactions - although it is mentioned in the articles.

Regards to all from the resident biochemist.

[Backwards Observer]

Never having served in the military or practiced anthropology, my interpretation may be well far of the mark, but this is what I find interesting about the Levant rock-painting of neolithic warfare image in JMM's post (#8).

It seems to depict a sweep with flank security (the four-man group), against an opponent skilled at ambush and concealment (the three-man group). The ambushing group also appears to understand fire discipline, suggested by the position of the sweeping group's point element squarely within the kill-zone. The ambush also seems to be roughly L or U-shaped.

The sweeping group's flank elements appear to be maintaining intervals in relation to the main body, and the point element is leading by a short distance. The sweeping group also suggests a proficiency in stealthy movement, as the uppermost flanker is opening fire on the ambushing group without having been noticed.

In contrast to other rock-paintings depicting battles where larger groups are gathered in loose order, the figures in this particular image seem cognizant of disciplined and organized small unit tactics, possibly a logical extension of their hunting skills.

I guess it could also show a hammer and anvil maneuver gone terribly wrong, either way it's an interesting picture. Thanks for posting it.

Related:

Assessing Rank and warfare-strategy in prehistoric hunter-gatherer society (http://www.archaeology-safaris.co.uk/gn/pdf/Nash%20Levenat%20warfare.pdf)

Zenpundit: The First Genocide? (http://zenpundit.com/?p=3165)

[jmm99]

The Zenpundit link establishes that violence goes back a long ways (there ca. 50K years ago). The archaeology article, "Assessing rank and warfare-strategy in prehistoric hunter-gatherer society", takes us into the evidence for organized violence between distinct groups (armed conflict or war).

The picture of the 4 vs 3 archers will be viewed differently as to the tactics being employed. To me, it looks like a loose 1 up, 2 back attack (the left group) on a more concentrated 2 up, 1 back defense (the right group), with the added element of a flank attack by the left group. In any event, the guy forward in the left group is the "tip of the spear" (my "mind title" for the pic).

That is really self-selection to some extent because (to me) the pic resembles the attack by a US battalion in WWII, which was the tip of the spear for 30ID and 2AD in cracking a pillbox concentration and thereby the Siegfried Line, which is diagrammed here (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=71741&postcount=48). Instead of individuals, there were 3 rifle companies (A, B, C) and a heavy weapons company (D) which was primarily in support of A & C. C was the tip of the spear and got clobbered.

So, my thought was that combat hasn't changed much since the Neolithic. How seriously we should take all of this Neolithic stuff is another question.

[Backwards Observer]

That is really self-selection to some extent

I had the same thought about my take on it. I've seen the image a couple times before and thought, primitive warfare...yup. Then it showed up on this thread and also in the Azar Gat book. Looking at it again, there suddenly seemed to be a narrative behind it. Strangely, or perhaps predictably, the narrative appeared to be formed through the prism of my readings on warfare, mainly Vietnam as opposed to WW2. So as far as a painting of stick-figures from thousands of years ago, did I gain an insight into its meaning or unconsciously manage to fit into my perceptual framework...in this case, probably the latter.

[jmm99]

in analyzing tactics, are operating beyond our SWC paygrade. :D

[Ken White]

who would never do as well as either of you. Tactical acumen is common sense, knowing a little about people, an ability to use the ground (or cityscape...) and do simple math while thinking rapidly and attempting to initiate action instead of responding to it.

On that last item, the US has fallen into considerable disarray due to risk aversion...

[Kevin23]

Just started Azar Gat's, War In Human Civilization. Justin Kelly mentions it in his recent Quandrant article. Gat's scholarly tome is a bit of a challenge thus far, but seems quite thorough.

Azar Gat: War In Human Civilization (Amazon) (http://www.amazon.com/War-Human-Civilization-Azar-Gat/dp/0199262136)

This short article by Richard Wrangham may be of interest, but could be seen as unnecessarily provocative:

Wrangham article (http://www.webster.edu/religion-violence/Readings/Wrangham_Richard.pdf)

I've actually been using Azar Gat's book as my main literary source. However I have also been looking and trying to get ahold of Lawrence Keeley's Myth of the Peaceful Savage. Along with some of the books written by Martin Van Cleveld.

Overall though I find Anzar Gat's War in Human Civilzation to be an excellent overview on the subject from the beginning of time all the way up to the present and covering everything in between also.

[William F. Owen]

Overall though I find Anzar Gat's War in Human Civilzation to be an excellent overview on the subject from the beginning of time all the way up to the present and covering everything in between also.

I know Azar from his "History of Military Thought", and was unaware of his other book. - until he told me, when I had lunch with him a few months back - but it is extremely highly regarded, as is he, in these parts. I'd be very interested in your opinion of it.

[Backwards Observer]

I know Azar from his "History of Military Thought", and was unaware of his other book. - until he told me, when I had lunch with him a few months back - but it is extremely highly regarded, as is he, in these parts. I'd be very interested in your opinion of it.

I'll chime in, if I may. Only halfway into Ch.4, but it's possibly the most serious treatment of the subject I've read thus far. Although practically every page is a dizzying multi-disciplinary overload, the writing is clear and concise with a focussed thrust. The sheer intellectual mass of it is making me feel both smarter and dumber at the same time. Should probably be on a reading list or something. Mr. Gat is quite likely a genius, what did he have for lunch? (j/k)

[William F. Owen]

Although practically every page is a dizzying multi-disciplinary overload, the writing is clear and concise with a focussed thrust. The sheer intellectual mass of it is making me feel both smarter and dumber at the same time. Should probably be on a reading list or something. Mr. Gat is quite likely a genius, what did he have for lunch? (j/k)

Yep, he is scary smart. Very nice guy, and very approachable, but it's a bit like talking to Yoda. He is probably working on a whole different level.

[Backwards Observer]

Mr. Gat is quite likely a genius,

I do beg your pardon, that should have read Professor Gat.

Professor Gat's Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azar_Gat)