Slashdot Mirror


An Ancient, Brutal Massacre May Be the Earliest Evidence of War

HughPickens.com writes: Violence has always been part of human behavior, but the origins of war are hotly debated. Some experts see it as deeply rooted in evolution, pointing to violent confrontations among groups of chimpanzees as clues to an ancestral predilection while others emphasize the influence of complex and hierarchical human societies, and agricultural surpluses to be raided. Now James Gorman writes in the NY Times that scientists have discovered a site in Africa dated about 10,000 years ago where a group of hunter-gatherers attacked and slaughtered another, leaving the dead with crushed skulls, embedded arrow or spear points, and other devastating wound. It's not clear that anyone was spared at the Nataruk massacre. Of the 27 individuals found, eight were male and eight female, with five adults of unknown gender. The site also contained the partial remains of six children. Twelve of the skeletons were in a relatively complete state, and ten of those showed very clear evidence that they had met a violent end. In the paper, the researchers describe "extreme blunt-force trauma to crania and cheekbones, broken hands, knees and ribs, arrow lesions to the neck, and stone projectile tips lodged in the skull and thorax of two men." Four of them, including a late-term pregnant woman, appear to have had their hands bound. "These human remains record the intentional killing of a small band of foragers with no deliberate burial, and provide unique evidence that warfare was part of the repertoire of inter-group relations among some prehistoric hunter-gatherers," says Dr Marta Mirazon.

The killers carried weapons they wouldn't have used for hunting and fishing, including clubs of various sizes and a combination of close-proximity weapons like knives and distance weapons, including the arrow projectiles she calls a hallmark of inter-group conflict. " This suggests premeditation and planning," says Mirazon Lahr. Other, isolated examples of period violence have previously been found in the area, and those featured projectiles crafted of obsidian, which is rare in the area but also seen in the Nataruk wounds. This suggests that the attackers may have been from another area, and that multiple attacks were likely a feature of life at the time. "This implies that the resources the people of Nataruk had at the time were valuable and worth fighting for, whether it was water, dried meat or fish, gathered nuts or indeed women and children. This shows that two of the conditions associated with warfare among settled societies—control of territory and resources—were probably the same for these hunter-gatherers, and that we have underestimated their role in prehistory."

32 of 151 comments (clear)

  1. Not at all by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There were wars long before humans. Even termites and ants exhibit such behavior. We are not special snowflakes who invented the idea.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    1. Re:Not at all by dadelbunts · · Score: 2

      I saw some crows beat the shit out of some brown birds the other day

    2. Re:Not at all by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But we're as far as I know the only species that hunts and kills each other for no other reason than for fun. With every other species you can point to a logical reason to kill another member of your own species, be it competition for food, mating rights, territory or even to eat the competitor.

      We need no such petty reasons. We just do it.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Not at all by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, and nor are we some enlightened animal so far removed from barbarism that it's unthinkable.

      What people fail to understand is this kind of stuff has always been with humanity, and 'civilization' is a relatively new and thin veneer over humanity.

      Why people think this was an invention which came much later is beyond me, we started as animals, and in all the important ways, we still are animals.

      But then people act all surprised and think war and violence was a modern invention ... our limbic system says we directly evolved from things with not much more advanced impulses than a lizard ... eat, survive, fuck.

      It's an intrinsic property, and when push comes to shove, we'll revert back to it pretty quickly. Having higher brain functions doesn't mean those other things have gone away.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    4. Re:Not at all by JazzLad · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Cats do too. Yes, that is a silly piece, not to be taken too seriously, but Google cats kill for fun and see 7M results, not all humour.

      --
      "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
    5. Re: Not at all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's called a pecking order for a reason. Chickens have a complex hierarchical social structure. If a chicken doesn't respect the existing structure it either becomes the boss or is killed trying.

    6. Re:Not at all by rtb61 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There is more of a logical twist in the growth of human conflict. In more social minded era, the desire to not kill fellow humans resulted in the most server punishment being permanent exile from the tribe and the individual being left eventual die alone exposed to the wilderness without any support. This tended to work fine until population densities became high enough so that exiles could find each. So the inevitably psychopathic plotting a scheming kicked it and results in the obvious, the take over of a normal tribe and killing off many males, enslaving the rest and raping of the females and a new psychopathic tribe was created (the penultimate example being spartans and the helots, warrior and slave culture). Cant have to many psychopaths otherwise they of course tear themselves apart and of course the lazy fuckers don't want to do any real work, just beat people up until they do the work for them and of course rape women as a leisure activity.

      Inevitably as psychopath numbers grew by rape, so those psychopathic tribes either attacked and took over other tribes or self destructed. Something that still be can be seen to this day. The psychopaths grow in percentage and either continue to expand the range of the society they control or those societies collapse due to excessive predation on the environment or on the non psychopaths who do all the work (they continually need to bring in more non psychopaths to do the work as they are bred out, for being less competitive in psychopathic societies, so increased territory or immigration). The greater the proportion of psychopaths the quicker the collapse, unless growth is maintained, the greater the number the worse and far more violent the outcome, it is just their inherent genetic nature (those same genetic anti-social defects can and do occur in other species and those individual are similarly ostracised but lack the ability to collude togethor to take over via murder and reproduce via rape).

      The most awful glaring modern example of this, American Republicans refusing abortions for victims of rape, an inherent requirement of the psychopathic reproduction cycle (in modern terms either direct rape or economic rape, using economic dominance to force unwilling reproduction partners to breed with psychopaths).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    7. Re:Not at all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If anything, I think we're _less_ violent in present times than in past history. The terrorist bombings we see, historically speaking, are a joke. Try living under the constant fear of your neighbour state sending in tens of thousands or more to kill/enslave/torture/rape/etc the population. Or on a smaller scale the superstitious religions burning people at the stake. People walking around with daggers and swords as a matter of common practice.

    8. Re:Not at all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Utter bullshit. "We're told our ancestors are all vegan" - you say, linking to a Scientific American article that says, in short, "most human ancestors ate more vegetables than meat".

      And the idea that violence is bad actually underpins both Christianity and capitalism. They're both, by intent, designed as ways to reduce conflict. And to an extent, they've both been successful in that aim - at some levels, at some times, and within some scopes - but not without unintended side effects.

      If you've been hearing too many simplistic arguments, then maybe you need to stop hanging out with simpletons. Because it's rubbing off on you.

    9. Re:Not at all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Why people think this was an invention which came much later is beyond me, we started as animals, and in all the important ways, we still are animals.

      I'll explain why people think that given that I've taken the trouble of reading some books, rather than just ranting on Slashdot about other people's stupidity.

      The accepted idea, which this paper tries to overthrow, is that until the beginning of agriculture there wasn't much of a reason to fight. Human densities were quite low and food was available. As such, if one group tried, for whatever reason, to take the territory of another, it was easier just to flee than to risk confrontation. That is the reason this comes as a surprise and merits an article in such an important scientific journal as Nature.

      It is known that people that moved from hunter-gathering to agriculture had poorer diets, were smaller, and had more diet/hunger -related diseases than the hunter-gatherers. Even today, (close to) hunter-gatherer societies have little trouble finding food. As such, there seems to be no problem with the reasoning that food was abundant. Perhaps scientists have been wrong all along thinking people wouldn't be willing to fight for it, and this case seems to bring some credit to that theory. However, it makes more sense to me (Occam's Razor and all) that his was just some sort of an isolated incident. There are assholes everywhere. Or maybe there was indeed something worth fighting for over there and these people were ambushed.

      But then people act all surprised and think war and violence was a modern invention ... our limbic system says we directly evolved from things with not much more advanced impulses than a lizard ... eat, survive, fuck.

      It's an intrinsic property, and when push comes to shove, we'll revert back to it pretty quickly. Having higher brain functions doesn't mean those other things have gone away.

      Yes, our limbic system tells us to eat, survive and mate. Gratuitous fighting over food that has no special intrinsic value over any other food source violates the second rule of our limbic system. So, there's no good reason to fight over food which you haven't planted and tended for, and is growing freely in trees... hence the idea that actual warring started with agriculture. After all, you don't see any other animals actually engaging in long term conflicts either. And if your comment is "well, maybe there was no food available!" the generally accepted answer is that hunter-gatherers have such little possessions that they can just move to another area to look for food. And having higher brain functions tells you, once again, that in a normal situation that is preferable to confrontation. As before, surviving to eat more and eventually mate. So what was the problem in this specific case? I have no idea, but maybe there were external factors. Maybe there were going through an extreme drought and food was indeed too scarce, which sets a different background to this whole story. Maybe this area had the best fruits ever! I guess we'll never know. But this is just one small bit of information, it doesn't make us a bunch of assholes that have to kill each other because of our limbic systems.

    10. Re:Not at all by MaxSmoke · · Score: 2

      But we're as far as I know the only species that hunts and kills each other for no other reason than for fun.

      Chimpanzees do the same and are actually more violent than humans.

    11. Re:Not at all by RabidReindeer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Capitalism is a means of acquiring power. By pooling resources, it becomes possible to do things that an individual could not do on his/her own.

      One of the most common applications of power is to control, suppress, or exterminate those whose presence or existence are inconvenient.

      I don't see anything in there that could imply reduced conflict unless you mean the "reduced conflict" you get from slaves and the dead.

      Or are you one of those who think that Capitalism = Free Market?

      A truly free market discourages conflict because conflict disrupts trading. But capitalism itself often destroys a free market, because commonly the end result of a capital-leveraged concern is monopoly as the process feeds back into itself, with the successful gaining more and more assets (power), which, in turn facilitates gaining even more power.

    12. Re:Not at all by Reziac · · Score: 2

      Consider that wherever there are now domestic cats, there used to be a host of other predators -- weasels, mink, bobcats, skunks, raccoons, foxes, etc, etc. If anything, there is now less predation than before, because cats are not as efficient at arboreal predation, are rather more size-limited (unlike a mink or weasel, cats are not good at predating larger animals) and don't do underground predation at all.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    13. Re:Not at all by JustSomeProgrammer · · Score: 2
      I'll just leave this here: http://www.bbc.com/news/scienc...

      Felines accompanying their human companions have gone on to prey on the local wildlife, and they have been blamed for the global extinction of 33 species.

      Cats don't just replace the local predators. They are better at killing than most other small predators. And they are also sadistic bastards who will torture prey before they kill them. They may not bring down moose, but everything smaller than them is just a toy to be killed.

      I have two cats. The male is definitely a murderer. Nothing smaller than him can come into the apartment without being killed. And as I bought him to be a mouse catcher, I'm pretty much OK with this. But I wouldn't let him outside.

    14. Re:Not at all by Reziac · · Score: 2

      Ya know, it's not fair to lay it on the cats when they're brought into a closed environment, like an island, that previously lacked efficient predators (and where lack of evolution to support predator pressure makes for an easily-killed prey population), as is often the cited case -- that's just not comparable to a larger environment, like, say, North America, with a broad spectrum of native predators and where the only real displacement has been in urban areas.

      And cats are sure as hell not better at killing stuff than weasels, mink, and fox.

      And having experienced both urban Los Angeles where there are lots of feral cats, and remote wilderness where there are NO cats -- the urban area has FAR more songbirds and small vermin, because there the ONLY significant predator is cats. But out in the wilderness, you get the whole range of predators.

      So tell me ... how many creatures would be killed by other predators, vs how many are killed by cats? shall we do away with all the cats and bring back other predators, and find out?? cuz every time I see this "cats are the problem" thing, NEVER do we see comparisons against the wild predators that no longer exist in urban environments. Nor does it account for that feline populations are pretty much limited to where man has already changed the environment. Which is really responsible for previous species going away??

      There have been studies that noted that if it weren't for feral cats keeping the rat population in check, rats would quickly exterminate urban birds, because rats climb into nests and feed on eggs and hatchlings. (This was also my observation in an area where the cats got eaten by owls and the rats got out of hand... pretty soon there were no birds left. Not even starlings.)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  2. I'm not saying it was aliens...... by Major+Blud · · Score: 4, Funny

    But it was aliens using obsidian tipped arrows and clubs to cover up the fallout from a failed genetic experiment....

    --
    If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
  3. War was not invented 10k years ago by Lluc · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The title is pretty honest: this is early evidence of war. I agree that we likely cannot observe too many battlegrounds 10,000 years later. The annoying thing about these reporting on this article is that it makes it sound like humans invented war 10,000 years ago! A human 10,000 years ago is virtually identical to us today, so why would we expect them any less capable or motivated to commit mass murder than someone today?

    1. Re:War was not invented 10k years ago by alvinrod · · Score: 5, Informative

      We've observed war-like behavior in other primates, so it's likely that it predates homo sapiens entirely and is something carried over from our genetic past. A lot of other animals are territorial as well. If other species were capable of developing complex tools, they would probably use them for fighting as well.

    2. Re:War was not invented 10k years ago by tomhath · · Score: 3, Interesting

      why would we expect them any less capable or motivated to commit mass murder than someone today?

      My guess is that this was neither war nor mass murder. More like an armed gang plundering a village, same as the Vikings raiding England.

    3. Re:War was not invented 10k years ago by T.E.D. · · Score: 2

      Moreoever, as the intro alluded to, chimpanzees have also been observed going to war with neighboring troupes. Since both species do it, and we are closer related to each other than to any other species on earth, its a pretty good bet that our common ancestor was engaging in warfare 5 to 12 million years ago. Finding it a mere 10,000 years ago is an interesting data point, but really neither particularly impressive nor exicting.

    4. Re:War was not invented 10k years ago by Feral+Nerd · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The title is pretty honest: this is early evidence of war. I agree that we likely cannot observe too many battlegrounds 10,000 years later. The annoying thing about these reporting on this article is that it makes it sound like humans invented war 10,000 years ago! A human 10,000 years ago is virtually identical to us today, so why would we expect them any less capable or motivated to commit mass murder than someone today?

      War seems to be a consequence of population density. The bigger populations get and the scarcer the resources are, the more you are likely to get war. That makes sense since long as there is plenty of land to hunt in and humans are thin on the ground like they were in Europe up to ~25.000 years ago why would I go to war with the first group of people I have run into in six months when I can settle in the uninhabited valley across the ridge be friends with the neighbours and swap single men/women with them (i.e. arrange marriages)? This is one reason why the theory that Modern Humans and Neanderthals lived in Europe side by side for 15.000 to (possibly up to) 25.000 years, never interacted in a significant way and that two teenagers from either group never did what horny teenagers do with the resulting pregnancies, pair-bonding and hybrid offspring. There is hardly a shred of evidence for warfare in Europe, for example, until the Neolithic and the Copper/Bronze-age when warfare (well mostly raiding) really starts to become fairly common. This is not to say that war is unknown in low density populations. there is always some witchdoctor with a claim that is conjuring up evil spirits and sending them over to make your tribe's kids sick (or something) resulting in a massacre but that seems to be quite rare as long as population density is small. There are some examples of Neanderthal, Heidelbergensis and proto-modern human skeletons with cut marks on them that are quite old but that could just as easily be evidence of ritual cannibalism or ritual de-fleshing of the dead as it is evidence of warfare/predatory-cannibalism.

      P.S. This is not that much older than the previous oldest example (that I can remember off hand) which is Kennewick Man who died in 8.9k to 9k BP and had a spear point embedded in his hip (a would he survived by many years): https://img.washingtonpost.com... Just a reminder that these people were tougher than nails.

    5. Re:War was not invented 10k years ago by mikael · · Score: 2

      If cows sense a threat to their calves they will approach the threat, knock it over and jump on it until that threat has gone.

      http://www.independent.co.uk/n...

      The next time you see them grazing peacefully in a sunny green field, just remember they are probably plotting to take over the world.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  4. Surprise! We're a young, violent race by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful
    ..and we haven't changed much at all in ten thousand years, either, now have we? The weapons and methods may have changed, but when it comes right down to it, the attitudes aren't all that different. We delude ourselves that this thin patina of 'civilization' means we've made it, we're not just 'intellgent' but sentient, and if E.T. came calling, we'd be ready to enter Galactic Civilization as full participating members -- but none of that is true.

    But look at the leaps and bounds we've made! What you're saying can't be true, look at the wonderful things X Y and Z have done and contributed to Humanity!

    An individual can act more evolved than the average, and entire populations of people can be just wonderful -- so long as everything is going well for them, there's no problems, and everyone has everything they want or need. But you put populations under stress? The animals that we are inside our skins comes out and you find out what we're really like.

    Nice try, Humanity. Come back in another 10000 years and we'll see if you've made any real progress.

    1. Re:Surprise! We're a young, violent race by almitydave · · Score: 4, Insightful

      An individual can act more evolved than the average, and entire populations of people can be just wonderful -- so long as everything is going well for them, there's no problems, and everyone has everything they want or need. But you put populations under stress? The animals that we are inside our skins comes out and you find out what we're really like.

      Or to put it another way: "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals, and you know it."

      --
      my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
      I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
    2. Re:Surprise! We're a young, violent race by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      If you want to determine the IQ of a group, take the biggest idiot and divide his IQ by the number of feet.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Surprise! We're a young, violent race by Rinikusu · · Score: 2

      And then you have people that are just assholes. I was more than content to be left to my own devices in school, for example, but there were some fucking jocks who just couldn't let me have my peace. Macho bullshit has been around for a very long time. I don't see any reason to believe that ancient humans also had their fair share of jocked out fuckwads.

      --
      If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
  5. Re:If only.... by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    Quite the opposite! They would have needed a National Club Association, where members can hold meetings and teach each other about club wielding, club maintenance and of course club safety.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  6. Huge Pickings by edittard · · Score: 2

    and other devastating wound.

    Way to go, shitdot.

    --
    At the bottom of the /. main page it says 'Yesterday's News'. Well they got that right.
  7. What I want to know is by Rinikusu · · Score: 4, Funny

    Did they see their enemies driven before them? Did they hear the lamentations of their women?

    --
    If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
    1. Re:What I want to know is by bazorg · · Score: 2

      That's why I never go to South London...

  8. Re:got what they deserved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    According to the dominant themes of the gnostic heresies, God didn't put the tree there...He was just not powerful enough to remove it. He didn't actually create life, just matter, and uses it as a prison to keep us trapped and suffering in his insanity. But since he isn't all-powerful (that's just a lie he uses to convince us to worship him), he couldn't prevent an embodiment of wisdom from giving us a way out: knowledge.

    The serpent was a messenger of wisdom, the woman was the first to attain gnosis (knowledge of her true nature as a spiritual being that is not a slave to matter), and she acted as the guide to help man along.

    The degree to which any of this was interpreted as metaphor varied from gnostic sect to gnostic sect. The Quakers were pretty literal about it, to the point of refusing to breed because doing so was an indulgence in the corruption of matter. That's why they aren't around any more.

    As crazy as that is....it makes more sense than the fundamentalist explanation, which amounts to (after the long-winded conversation) the claim that God is so mysterious that his justice, which is perfect, seems like injustice to us mere mortals, so we should worship and adore him even though everything he does seems like sadism and sociopathy to us. (Same is true of God's love and mercy, perfect and hence not in contradiction with his plan to keep the vast majority of us in agonizing torture for ever with no way out, even though it seems blatantly contradictory).

  9. Re:got what they deserved by JillElf · · Score: 3, Informative

    The degree to which any of this was interpreted as metaphor varied from gnostic sect to gnostic sect. The Quakers were pretty literal about it, to the point of refusing to breed because doing so was an indulgence in the corruption of matter. That's why they aren't around any more.

    >

    The Shakers, not Quakers, practiced abstinence. Not a good long-term plan if you want to keep your sect going.