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."

[blam]

"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."

I agree.

Anthropologist Marvin Harris (Bless his soul, he died this year at age 74), said that government began with agriculture, surplus food. The strongest got to distribute the surplus during a crisis/famine and they were also responsible for defending those who produced the surplus....original taxes.

[Redcloak]

My anthropology teacher said that warfare is something agricultural people do. It makes sense. A hunter-gatherer, while he may have a few favorite spots, can hunt or gather anywhere. If he's chased out of a particular area by others, he can still feed himself. A farmer, on the other hand, is tied to a piece of ground until his crops are in. If the farmer is chased off of his land, he'll starve. He has to defend a stationary asset in order to survive. This, understandably, makes the agriculturalist and his neighbors more prone to violence. They learn quickly that they may have to fight if they want to eat. And they eventually learn that warfare not only defends a field, it can get new ones.

[Noachian]

A hunter-gatherer, while he may have a few favorite spots, can hunt or gather anywhere. If he's chased out of a particular area by others, he can still feed himself.

What you're saying is: There's always another hunting ground around the corner so why defend this one? That doesn't wash. Ancient hunting grounds weren't like McDonalds.

Most likely ancient hunting grounds were fiercely defended precisely because good ones were scarce and when hunters found one they fought to keep it.

Fighting over hunting grounds the way American Indians did, before the advent of the white man, is a more likely scenario, and probably the source of warfare itself. By the time agriculture came along warfare was most likely a well developed skill that farmers used to defend their land.

[Redcloak]

As evidence, my teacher pointed to the Indians of California. Even in pre-Columbian times California was (relatively speaking) densely populated; however, the tribes didn't fight over who got to hunt or gather in a particular area. California Indians, as a rule, rarely fought one another despite the crowded conditions.

There is, however, one notable exception to this peaceful picture: The Mojaves. They were one of the most aggressive and warlike tribes in North America. (They actually liked the Spanish since killing an armored man shooting a gun from horseback was more of a challenge. Much more fun that going after other Mojaves!) The Mojaves, in addition to being California's only warlike tribe, were the area's only agriculturalists. They fought to protect farmland along the Colorado River.

[r9etb]

In other words, the collective, not the individual, causes wars.

Actually, if these scientists are correct it would appear more likely that the recognition and defense of property rights causes wars.