Anthropologists: Early Humans Probably Pretty Peaceful

[Philosophia]

Anthropologists: Early Humans Probably Pretty Peaceful

Depending on which journals you've picked up in recent months, early humans were either peace-loving softies or war-mongering buffoons. Which theory is to be believed?
A little bit of both, says one archaeologist, who warns against making generalizations when it comes to our long and varied prehistory.

From here (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188125,00.html).

[Agaliha]

Interesting Article :)
I took a Anthro 201 class-- Physical Anthro-- that went in depth about all the early humans and living primates. Interesting stuff...yet a hard class (teacher/grading wise).
Anyway, I'll read this one later.

[Garm]

Peaceful?

As long as they had enough food to go around.

"However, the word and concept of war may apply to the chimpanzee to some degree. Goodall once observed a large band of chimps split into two groups after food became scarce. They lived at peace in adjacent territories for some time, but then some of the males from the core group began to make clearly planned forays into the splinter group’s new territory, mercilessly attacking former friends and eventually destroying the new band."

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0605/S00078.htm

I'm surprised Fox News didn't atribute the advent of warfare to Saddam Hussien's regime.

[Protagonist]

I'm surprised Fox News didn't atribute the advent of warfare to Saddam Hussien's regime.
Oh yeah... conversely, I'm surprised no one here has attributed it to the birth of Christ.

[Cain]

I find that hard to believe. Modern data concerning pre-state societies shows that death percentages from warfare are much higher than in Europe and North America, even going back over the last century. Unfortunately, many in the field of anthropology seem to suffer from a desire to prove the "noble savage" theory, even when this flies in the face of established evidence.

[Garm]

I find that hard to believe. Modern data concerning pre-state societies shows that death percentages from warfare are much higher than in Europe and North America, even going back over the last century. Unfortunately, many in the field of anthropology seem to suffer from a desire to prove the "noble savage" theory, even when this flies in the face of established evidence.

"pre-state societies" is a pretty wide brush to draw the picture with. I'm sure most of it happened in the agricultural/metalurgical techne stages.

[Zibblsnrt]

I find that hard to believe. Modern data concerning pre-state societies shows that death percentages from warfare are much higher than in Europe and North America, even going back over the last century. Unfortunately, many in the field of anthropology seem to suffer from a desire to prove the "noble savage" theory, even when this flies in the face of established evidence.

You want to read Gwynne Dyer's War (red cover, not black). Yep, you do. I'm just sayin'.

(A couple chapters of it elaborate on what you just said here.)

[Guas]

There seem to be a good number of people who want to characterize civilization as the ultimate evil and corruptor of human nature (as well as just as many who want to prove the opposite). Personally, I really doubt humanity's fundamental behaviors have changed that much in the last 15,000-odd years. The manner and facets of conflicts have, certainly, but in the end I'd imagine we react much the same way as an early homo sapien would.

[Carla O'Harris]

I find that hard to believe. Modern data concerning pre-state societies shows that death percentages from warfare are much higher than in Europe and North America, even going back over the last century. Unfortunately, many in the field of anthropology seem to suffer from a desire to prove the "noble savage" theory, even when this flies in the face of established evidence.

There is only one problem with these statements : they are 100% complete hogwash, and that is putting it nicely and politely.

Perhaps you wish to invoke the behavior of pre-state societies upon facing tremendous genocidal pressures and colonialism? Not the same thing. Not the same thing at all.

The simple fact of the matter is that civilization and the State do in fact warp human nature. That's not to say that human nature is peaches and cream on its own. But civilization and the State take a corruptible thing and make it even worse.

[Guas]

There is only one problem with these statements : they are 100% complete hogwash, and that is putting it nicely and politely.

Would you like to back this up somehow?


Perhaps you wish to invoke the behavior of pre-state societies upon facing tremendous genocidal pressures and colonialism? Not the same thing. Not the same thing at all.

How do you define "pre-state"?


The simple fact of the matter is that civilization and the State do in fact warp human nature. That's not to say that human nature is peaches and cream on its own. But civilization and the State take a corruptible thing and make it even worse.

Do you think anything positive has come from or because of civilization?

[Zibblsnrt]

But civilization and the State take a corruptible thing and make it even worse.


... She says, while enjoying health, safety, prosperity and freedom unparallelled in the entire evolutionary history of life on this planet ...

[Carla O'Harris]

... She says, while enjoying health, safety, prosperity and freedom unparallelled in the entire evolutionary history of life on this planet ...


Health and safety unparalleled, eh? You might want to debate with others about paleolithic health.

Freedom? Far more freedom in scattered tribes.

Prosperity? I suppose material wealth, yes, but h-g who know their stuff have plenty to eat.

[Guas]

Prosperity? I suppose material wealth, yes, but h-g who know their stuff have plenty to eat.


I kind of enjoy being able to focus my life on pursuits other than finding food, breeding, and not dying.

Jus' sayin'.

[Zibblsnrt]

Health and safety unparalleled, eh? You might want to debate with others about paleolithic health.

I have - and with people qualified to discuss that, not random ecoprimitivists who believe that anything modern is intrinsically evil, as opinion does not have the same worth as evidence in discussion of facts. If paleolithic cultures had germ theory or routinely lived long enough to see menopause, I'd sure like to see the slightest shred of non-forged evidence to back it up.


Freedom? Far more freedom in scattered tribes.

Well, unless you were killed for your uncle's offenses or not at the top of the social structure. (Oh, you think all non-technological cultures are egalitarian, or that even hunter-gatherer cultures didn't suffer a quarter to a third of their deaths through inter-tribal fighting? That's funny.)


Prosperity? I suppose material wealth, yes, but h-g who know their stuff have plenty to eat.

Well, until the environment changes or their population grows, both of which are largely inevitable.