Will we ever exist without war ?

[chem1st]

Not without land reform.

[Cavegirl]

There wouldn't be because humans hadn't started to build them, but that doesn't alter the fact that groups of humans would have fought over land and recourses, food being the main one or the fact they just didn’t like each other.

 

The date of the site of Hamoukar falls within the Early Bronze Age of the Near East.

 

Dr. Algaze said it was not entirely clear from the excavations whether Hamoukar had collapsed or had been taken over as a result of war. "I cannot tell," he said, "but it seems to stand to reason that it's the latter."

 

http://www-news.uchicago.edu/citations/05/051216.hamoukar-nyt.html

 

Ah well, that proves it then...

 

Cemetery 117 could just as easily represent multiple cases of interpersonal violence over an extended period, it's not evidence of warfare. It even says that in the quote you provided, the bit you chose not to highlight as if I wouldn't read it.

 

Believe me, I'm a scientist, if I'm shown clear proof of Stone Age warfare I'll accept it and change my thinking, but there are thousands of sites out there and none of them contain proof that a warlike society existed in the period we're discussing.

 

Think about it, we're talking about small family groups of people here they needed to interact occasionally to swap members because if they didn't they'd become genetically inbred. Why would they wipe out their neighbours over a hunting territory that would make their own area too large to take advantage of? Why would they risk their own destruction when their own territories, because they were only hunted seasonally, were always abundant?

[Hillpig]

I regret that I believe war and conflict is the natural state of man, it may well be true that 12,000 years ago this was not the case. In that time it may well be that there was sufficient space and resources for us to live together cooperatively and peacefully. Surely the point is where do we go from here?

 

In the 20th century I believe there was not a year where there wasnt an armed conflict going on somewhere. Immediately the cold war ended the Muslim "threat" became our number one seurity and conflict priority. We are not at war with China but everyday cyber attacks take place trying to inflict damage on each others economy.

 

North Africa is in turmoil with a civil war in Libya and a simmering conflict in Egypt and elsewhere.

 

But consider the animal world, there is little cooperation there, all animals fight for mates, territory and resources. It is the natural state of things.

[megalithic]

Believe me, I'm a scientist, if I'm shown clear proof of Stone Age warfare I'll accept it and change my thinking, but there are thousands of sites out there and none of them contain proof that a warlike society existed in the period we're discussing.

 

Talheim death pit CG ?

 

Btw, let's not split hairs here, i know i mentioned the Neolithic but i did so generally, i've no problem swapping Neolithic to Bronze age as it was only mentioned loosely really, for a reference point.

[Total Chaos]

I guess since war became a necessary evil back in the neolithic there's no real way of avoiding conflict due to a compoetition for resources, so can we ever exist without it ? till we eventually bomb ourselves back into some type of stone age, and start the cycle again that is ?

 

 

Apologies to those who've done this a thousand times btw, never come across this during my tenure here, and never discussed it elsewhere.

 

Nope,as war makes money.

[ronthenekred]

 

But consider the animal world, there is little cooperation there, all animals fight for mates, territory and resources. It is the natural state of things.

 

Since when did a Penguin tool-up and strike a blow to an oilfield rich nation?

 

I've never understood this comparison with humans and the rest of the animal kingdom as a consideration of a natural state.

[MrSmith]

The date of the site of Hamoukar falls within the Early Bronze Age of the Near East.

 

 

 

http://www-news.uchicago.edu/citations/05/051216.hamoukar-nyt.html

 

Ah well, that proves it then...

 

Cemetery 117 could just as easily represent multiple cases of interpersonal violence over an extended period, it's not evidence of warfare. It even says that in the quote you provided, the bit you chose not to highlight as if I wouldn't read it.

 

Believe me, I'm a scientist, if I'm shown clear proof of Stone Age warfare I'll accept it and change my thinking, but there are thousands of sites out there and none of them contain proof that a warlike society existed in the period we're discussing.

 

Think about it, we're talking about small family groups of people here they needed to interact occasionally to swap members because if they didn't they'd become genetically inbred. Why would they wipe out their neighbours over a hunting territory that would make their own area too large to take advantage of? Why would they risk their own destruction when their own territories, because they were only hunted seasonally, were always abundant?

 

There is no reason to assume that early humans were peaceful, we cooperated in ever larger groups, not to protect us from other animals but to protect us from other humans. You are looking for evidence that can’t exist because we didn’t live in large enough groups, but once we started to build cities you can find clear evidence of our violent past.

 

Like humans, chimpanzees can engage in guerrilla warfare with their neighbours. As with humans, the prize is more land.

 

PEOPLE are not alone in waging war. Their closest living cousins, chimpanzees, also slaughter their own kind—in brutal attacks that primatologists increasingly view as strategic, co-ordinated assaults rather than random acts of violence. But however tempting it is to see these battles through the lens of human warfare, the motives for chimp-on-chimp violence are poorly understood. In particular, researchers have long debated whether the apes fight for land, or for females.

[PaliRichard]

Since when did a Penguin tool-up and strike a blow to an oilfield rich nation?

 

I've never understood this comparison with humans and the rest of the animal kingdom as a consideration of a natural state.

 

Erm, may have something to do with humans being a species of animal.

 

Many animals do attack each other in co ordinated groups, you need only watch a couple of wildlife documentaries to see this, our ability and possibly even our motivations (we may want money or oil whereas they may want strategic feeding places) may be different but the essense is the same.

 

I've really never understood those who see our behaviour as anything other than animalistic, we may be technologically advanced animals, but we are animals none the less.

 

I do think (and this may be utopian and thus why realistically I can never see it happening) we have the potential to rise above our animalistic nature on a behavioural level, but despite our cognitive superiority I cannot see a day where our behaviour will advance anywhere near enough. In fact all too often our cognitive superiority is used to enhance our behavioural traits rather than surpass them.

 

---------- Post added 16-04-2013 at 18:23 ----------

 

There is no reason to assume that early humans were peaceful, we cooperated in ever larger groups, not to protect us from other animals but to protect us from other humans. You are looking for evidence that can’t exist because we didn’t live in large enough groups, but once we started to build cities you can find clear evidence of our violent past.

 

Like humans, chimpanzees can engage in guerrilla warfare with their neighbours. As with humans, the prize is more land.

 

PEOPLE are not alone in waging war. Their closest living cousins, chimpanzees, also slaughter their own kind—in brutal attacks that primatologists increasingly view as strategic, co-ordinated assaults rather than random acts of violence. But however tempting it is to see these battles through the lens of human warfare, the motives for chimp-on-chimp violence are poorly understood. In particular, researchers have long debated whether the apes fight for land, or for females.

 

For once, and don't get too excited because it will probably be a tiny blip in the annals of Sheffield Forum, but I think I agree with you.

[Cavegirl]

Talheim death pit CG ?

 

Btw, let's not split hairs here, i know i mentioned the Neolithic but i did so generally, i've no problem swapping Neolithic to Bronze age as it was only mentioned loosely really, for a reference point.

 

It's a really interesting site Megalithic and a much more likely candidate than some of the previous ones mentioned. Especially as it seems to be associated with other similar sites nearby, though distanced from them by time. It seems to be L.H. Keeley again who's responsible for describing it as proof of warfare as he's the main reference on Wiki.

 

I have found just as compelling evidence in the paper linked below that these sites may have formed the hub of an outlying ritualistic subculture of violence. The author states that the similarities of the wounds (mostly consisting of blunt force cranial damage), the high presence of healed wounds and lack of defensive wounds on the remains suggests human sacrifice as a motive rather than warfare where the wounds would be more likely to be varied as people tend to chop at arms and legs during battles.

 

http://www.academia.edu/2397827/SACRIFICING_LINEARBANDKERAMIK_A_COMPREHENSIVE_STUDY_OF_THE_LINEARBANDKERAMIK_MASSACRE_VICTIMS_FROM_TALHEIM_SCHLETZ-ASPERN_AND_HERXHEIM

 

The jury's out for me on this one, I honestly don't know whether it represents organised warfare or human sacrifice. It'll be interesting to see whether any more similar sites are found in the region and what light they shed upon the matter.

[megalithic]

Brings to mind the defleshing debates i've been involved in, ie ritualistic or cannibalistic etc.

Will have a read of your link later, getting myself ready for the footy atm.