The origins of war

[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...

[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



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

[jmm99]

an interesting article, The Mysterious Downfall of the Neandertals, 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 and here:

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

Zenpundit: The First Genocide?

[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. 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.

[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 .

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).

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.

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.

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). 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 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 .

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 . 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...).

[slapout9]

Weeeellllll, depends on when language developed .

Your supposed to know that stuff