Discovery channel to the rescue!
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.
MMMM Could anyone tell me
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:
1 Attachment(s)
Heed Greyhawk's advice re: challenges ...
in drawing any firm conclusions on "primitive warfare".
Brief SWC thread here, where 120mm cites the 1995 dissertation "The Origin of War", by Dr. J.M.G. Van Der Dennen, which is still here. 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.
Actually, it started about Civil War politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by
slapout9
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...
Surfing on an otherwise dull Sunday Afternoon
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jmm99
Brief SWC thread
here, where 120mm cites the 1995 dissertation "The Origin of War", by Dr. J.M.G. Van Der Dennen, which is still
here. 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 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 ("the first battle to have been recorded in what is accepted as relatively reliable detail.") and same source on the 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.
Okay, read it. What timber land was involved?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
slapout9
No feudin' over land, timber or otherwise that I can see. Where specifically did you see that?
You can also check this book LINK 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.
I guess what I was trying to get at is
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?
Actually he teaches History at
Quote:
Originally Posted by
slapout9
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:
jmm99, Greyhawk, marct, all added great reading
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.
Can't we all just get along?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IntelTrooper
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:
Title reccomendation for your paper
"What can we learn from an unfrozen caveman warrior?"
There's a Saturday Night Live reference in that, but I think it would work.
BI-ologist? All this time
I thought he was a GEE-ologisit. :wry: No wonder he confused me...
I too tread lightly on "feminist" grounds, but...
"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...
August 2009 Scientific American has ...
an interesting article, The Mysterious Downfall of the Neandertals, which concludes:
Quote:
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 and here:
Quote:
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
Quote:
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.