Scientists Say Warfare Began After People Formed Villages

Seattle Times ^ | 9-16-2003 | Dan Vergano

[blam]

Scientists say warfare began after people formed villages

By Dan Vergano
Gannett News Service

From ancient Troy to today's Iraq, warfare forms the backdrop of human history. But anthropologists, archaeologists and other scholars tend to disagree on war's origins: Some see it as an ailment of civilization and others say it has deeper roots.

Two anthropologists from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, suggest that although people could have come into conflict before civilization, archaeological remains of burning homes, fleeing refugees and slain captives show simple raids steadily maturing into full-scale warfare as humans settled into villages and society became more stratified.

Their report appears in today's Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

In their study, Kent Flannery and Joyce Marcus examined the past 10,000 years of Mexico's Oaxaca (wah-HA-ka) Valley. Until Native American village life began there, even with corn's domestication around 5,400 years ago, no evidence of warfare emerges from the region.

But researchers find signs of dwellings burned in raids from 3,500 years ago, when settled life began.

Defensive palisades in the valley were rapidly followed by hieroglyphics depicting slain captives, fortresses and "the first skull rack," the researchers write. Dating of artifacts shows temples burned and captives taken in hieroglyphic descriptions, and a warrior elite was widespread throughout villages in the valley by 2,500 years ago.

"What is important is that the work has put radiocarbon dates on every stage in the evolution of war in Mexico from early village to empire," said Marcus.

Fighting did occur among simpler foraging societies before the settlement of villages, but it was sporadic and seldom led to full-scale warfare, said archaeologist Richard Blanton of Purdue University. "They could solve problems by simply getting up and leaving," he said.

But once they had invested the effort in constructing dwellings and other buildings, he added, "It was worth it to stand and fight."

[TruthConquers]

Just what kind of archaeological evidence would you need for Cain killing Abel?

There isn't going to be much evidence for warfare before buildings were built.

[Tench_Coxe]

In Mexico? That's impossible! EVERYONE knows that the people of the New World lived in peace and in harmony with the environment until the white man came.

I guess the arrival of whitey will now have to be re-dated for an arrival to match with the data.

Maybe this will allow the study of Kennewick Man.

[blam]

"Maybe this will allow the study of Kennewick Man."

LOL, Kennewick Man has a spear point stuck in his hip bone. They say it must have oozed painfully for years.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

White people invented the Village in order to lure sweet, nature loving, innocent minorities and women (and their cats)into living in the village, so that they could be enslaved, repressed and degraded.

[Will_Zurmacht]

The tragedy of paelolithic warfare is that the village women and minorities were hardest hit.

[Paul Atreides]

Thank you! I knew there'd be a way to bring it back around to The Man.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

One might well argue that the village was created for a defensive purpose first and foremost.

Why put up with the annoyance of close neighbors except for the safety of a group and the strong defense of advantageous terrain and walls?

If you were a generally peaceful band of agriculturalists, being overrun by hordes of agressive migrant hunters, banding together in a strong place would make sense.

Liberals consider aquiring and protecting assets and property to be the same as waging war.

[Paul Atreides]

Don't forget about the irreparable harm to Mother Earth.

[swilhelm73]

It is laughable just how bad our public education system is in regards to the history of the colonization of the New World.

The local indians in Mexico were the primary reason for the downfall of the Aztecs to the Spanish. Tired of being *eaten* by the Aztecs their neighbors banded together with the Spaniards under Cortez. So, everyone knows about the evvvvvvil handful of Spaniards that destroyed the Aztecs - but almost no one knows about the thousands of native allies that fought with them.

As for the Incas, being a brutal pagan, communist dictatorship - yep you heard that right - when the Spaniards under Pizarro destroyed their leadership in a quick strike, their whole society fell apart quickly, as other subjugated indians saw the Spaniards as a lesser threat. Of course, the Incas were just finishing a brutal civil war of their own.

[norton]

One wonders if it might ever occur to the leaned scholors who put this piece together that finding

"archaeological remains of burning homes, fleeing refugees and slain captives [that] show simple raids steadily maturing into full-scale warfare as humans settled into villages and society became more stratified."

Might be in large part due to the obscure theory that all those things are much easier to FIND in a village?

Clashes between roving bands who slept on different ground every couple of days might leave behind a bone or two, some wrought weaponry (a rock that fits) and maybe a defilade showing three hunters and their dog made a stand. I really doubt anyone built a hut in order to memorialize having theie bison carcass stolen.

[Revolting cat!]

[Rome2000]

Tribal warfare is still going on in Africa, no need to speculate on what made villiages go to war when you can observe it first hand.

[Siegfried]

Now all is left is to find a way to blame it on white people.

Are you kidding? They're already halfway to blaming it all on George W. Bush!

[PISANO]

But wait... I thought.... IT TAKES A VILLIAGE!

[Revolting cat!]

[Revolting cat!]

The Villagers

[Sender]

Scientists Say Traffic Began After People Formed Cars

Billion-dollar study says research pays off but is underfunded

[blam]

"The local indians in Mexico were the primary reason for the downfall of the Aztecs to the Spanish. Tired of being *eaten* by the Aztecs their neighbors banded together with the Spaniards under Cortez. "

Correct. That's what all the sacrifical killing was about...protein. There were no large mammals. The victims were thrown down those steps and were cut up and divided (by rank) amoungst the population to eat. The only domesticated animals they had were the turkey and the dog...and both those ate the same things that humans eat.
The large land animals of Africa, Europe and Asia can digest cellouse (we can't) so, we ate the animals without any loss of food to us. Now, the pig is a different story, they eat the same thing we do and that is why in some cultures/religions the pig is taboo.

Our word BBQ is really a Carib Indian word meaning: roasted human arm.

[Eternal_Bear]

I heard chimps also indulge in warfare but they don't have villages. Nomadic people also fight from time to time. You don't need villagers for a good rumble.

[The Toad]

Two anthropologists from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, suggest that although people could have come into conflict before civilization, archaeological remains of burning homes, fleeing refugees and slain captives show simple raids steadily maturing into full-scale warfare as humans settled into villages and society became more stratified.

Or maybe it has something to do with the fact that it's sort of difficult to burn down a cave. Lord save us from the intellectuals.....