Violence in the Neolithic Era


Figure 1.--.

Recorded history is a very minor part of man's existence. Thus until very recently we could only speculate about man's inherent propensity for violence and war making. Thus the issue was addressed by religious figures and philosphers. The Bible with Cain and Able story suggests an inherent propensity for violence. The subject was touched on by Roman authors (including Cicero and Lucretius) who were strong supporters of the Roman Republic. They became very popular as classical literature was rediscovered by the Renaissance humanists. English philospher Thomas Hobbes is perhaps the strongest philosophical voice postulating man's violent nature. Hobbes's vission was part of his justification of the doctriune of royal absolutism. [Hobbes] in Leviathan. There he wrote that the state of nature is a "war of all against all" in which men's lives are "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short". Europe at the time was encountering primitive people in Latin America, Africa, and Oceania. Some of these people were little removed from Neolithic man so Europe essentially came into contact with people of the Neolithic era. At the time Hobbes wrote, the religious and philosphical underpinings of absolute divine right monrchies were being undermined by the dreadful religious wars (17th century). And a range of European authors took issue with Hobbes. One of the first important author to speculate that in a state of nature that humans were essentially good was the Earl of Shaftesbury, an important Whig supporter of constitutional monarchy. And only a short time after Hobbes published Leviathan, the a Glorious Revolution transformed England and began the assault on royal absolutism (1688). Shaftesbury wrote a decade later at the onset of the Enlightenment that the moral sense in humans is natural and innate. He insisted that it was based on inate feelings rather than resulting from religious or moral teaching. A popular theme of the Enligtenment was the 'noble savage'. The term was first coined by John Dryden (1672). [Dryden] The term is often associated with Jean-Jacques Rousseau who, along wih other Engligtenment authors, contended that man was born an innocent in a state of nature with the potential for goodness and that it was civilization which promoted greed, envy, and violence, a theme that appeals to the 2011 Wall Street protestors. The debate has been philosphical and most authors assumed that it was an unanswerable issue. Modern technology is, however, beginning to provide some definitive data on war and vilence in the Neolithic era.

The Issue

Recorded history is a very minor part of man's existence. Thus until very recently we could only speculate about man's inherent propensity for violence and war making before the advent of civilization and the states that appeared in the Great River Valleys. And the resulting speculations reflected more a person's phiolosophical bent than an actual research on available evidence that could throw some light on violence and war in the neolithic era.

Violence

Early man undoubtelly resorted to violence including killing to gain access to resources. Food of course much have been vital, hunting grounds and rich gathering areas. Protecting or seizing women must have been important. This is standard for animals and thus seems likely for early man. We know that the first weapons suchs as simple spears and clubs appeard well before modern man even existed--some three million years ago. There is no actual information on how these weapons were used. The surely were used to beat off preditors or hunting. It seems incoceibale, hwever, that thy wre not turned agnst one another. There are a vast range of complications here. Animals vary as to their aggressiveness and territriality. The same true for primates, even inclued closely related primates. Chimps are extremely aggressve. The closely relted binobos much less so. Anthropologists have identified quite a number of early early homomoid spescies, such as Australopithecus and then early species of man (Homo). Often all we have are a few bone fragments. There is little to go on to assess belaviors such as violence. There can be little doubt that there were viloent confrontations, both between and among species. But it is likely that there were also non-violent encounters. The world is a very big place and human populations were very small. And in recent years genenicists have discovered evidence of cross breeding. The first ecidence was Neaderthal genes in modern humans. We now know that there was cross breeding between other Homo species. Te circumsances of te cross breeding we do not know.

War

Authors strenously debate when man first moved from scattered, disorganized violence to organized military action. Historians relying on wrtten sources of course can not help us here. We have to turn to the work of anthrologists and archeologists. The question of when man first organized military units and began wagingwar is a question that cannot be answered with any certainty. We can set rough parametrs based on archeological work. Humans of the genus Home appeard about 2.5 million years ago, this meant Homo erectus and then Homo habalis (the tool maker) and we see simple weapons. Archaic Homom sapies appeared (about 0.5 million years BP). Interestingly soon after, in evolutinary terms, we begin to see a quickening of technological advances. Men began making complex spears (about 0.4 million years BP). The next great leap in military technology was the bow (about 60,000 years bp). And at last we have evudence beyond fossils and stone tools found by archeologists. Thereis no writing, but we have cave paintings and petroglypohs. Some of the cave paintings are real master works. The most notable theme of these early images are game and man and weaponry ae shown. What is not shown is combat among humans. Does this mean that extensive violence amog humns was absent? There is no ways to answer this with any certainty, but we notice that subsequntly, war and combat was a primary focus of monumental art. If it was important, surely itwould have nen represented in pre-historic art. Another factor strongly suggesting that war as opposed to disorganized violence did not yet occur was basic economics. Huntergathers had to expend so much effort producing food that it was just not economically possible to support a professiomnal military force, especially one of any sze. We do begin to see the first suggestions of warfare just before the Neolitiyhic grarian Revolution. Cave paintings in Spain depict battles scenes (20,000 12,000 year BP). There is considerable differences concerning the dating. The depictions, however, are clear. There are groups of archers formed up in organized rows with distictively uniformed commanders shown in front. We have no idea about actual number, but there is a clear representation of military organization. We do not know if a specitic battle was commemorated here or just endemic warfare. This is the earliest repreentation we know of depicting an organized military force. Another site to the east at about the same time may depict an actual battle near what is now the Egypt-Sudan border, Scholars have, however, different assessments on the site. The site is identified as Cemetery 117 (13,140-14,340 years BP). Archeologists have found 59 skeletons as well as a difficult to number partial skeletons. Many show the signs of battle, with arrowheads or spear points embedded in them. The clear indication is that they were battle casualties. We do not know, however, what thesize of the forces involved were. A more recent site is the Talheim Death Pit in Germany (7,500 BP). Archaeologists believe that this was a tribal massacre, perhaps after a battle or raid. The site contains 34 people bound and predominantly killed by a blow to the left temple. The site is the earliest archeological find we know od with evidence of warfare in Neolithic Europe. It dates to afterthe neolithic agricultural revolution in the Middle East, but before cities had begun to develop and probably before intensive agriculture reached Europe. The neolithic revolution developed to the point thatwe see small cities forming in Sumeria (mesopotamia) (4,000 BP). This meant that civilization and substantial agricultural surplusse were accumulated. This meant rulers and city states could build a professioal military force. Early city states wee widely separate, but as the city states grew and boundary disputes began, military engagements followed. This can be followed both by the appearance od city walls and for the first time written records, oftem clay tablets. Inevitably empires appeared. The frst empire builder was Sargon I (2200s BC). Sargon through military conquest amassed the world's first empire -- the Akkadian Empire. He did this with pioneered military tactics, an early example of combinedd arms, using archers, donkey chariots and spear armed infantry units. The humble donkey was essental to ancient warfare, because it was the primary beast of burden. The donkey limited how fast and how far ancent armies ould move. Similar developments occurred in Egypt. Pharaoh Senusret I marched south and conquered Nubia, and added it to his realm (1900s BC). Its at this time that chariots first appeared on the Euraian Steppe where horses had been domsticted (about 2000 BC). The horse significatly change ancient warfare, expanding both the range an spee with which military power culd be extended. Using chariots, the Steppe people began to remake ancient warfare. The first chariots looked more like carts, but developed into stunningly effective war engines. Chariots of varying design became central to warfare in the Near East. The chariot came to dominate anbcient battlefields (1700 -500 BC). Massive invasions of Steppe people with ecnomies based on hearding assaulted the settled agtricultural river valley civilizations. The Aryan (Kassite and Hyksos) people conquered and for a time ruled the once dominant river valley civilizations (1650 BC). The Hyksos even seized the Nile Delta, ruling for several centuries until the a the Egyptian dynasty who still ruled the middle Nile Valley frm Thebes adopted the new military technology and drove out the Hyksos with innovative, highly mobile light chariots (1500s BC). The Hittite Empire ruled much of Anatolia and moved south, coming into conflict with the Pharaohs, extending their rule beyond the Nile Valley. The result was the super chariot battle of Kadesh (1274 BC). Babylonia and later the brutally efficent Assyrians built empires extendng beyond Mesopotamia (1250-614 BC). They were eventually overcome by a new generation of teppe people.

Religious Views

The issue of the inherent nature of man arose as civilization developed. It was addressed by religious figures and philosphers. The Bible with the Genesis Cain and Able story suggests an early view as to man's inherent propensity for violence.

Classical Views

The subject was touched on by clasical philosophers including Roman authors (such as Cicero and Lucretius) who were strong supporters of the Roman Republic. They became very popular as classical literature was rediscovered by the Renaissance humanists.

Divine Right Monarchy

European monarchies contended that man was not capable of governing himself. And thus monarchs annoited by God were necessary to constrain the inherent violent impulses of man. English philospher Thomas Hobbes is perhaps the strongest philosophical voice postulating man's violent nature. Hobbes's vission was part of his justification of the doctriune of royal divine right absolutism. [Hobbes] He wrote in Leviathan that the state of nature is a "war of all against all" in which men's lives are "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short".

Europen Maritime Outreach

Europe at the time was encountering primitive people in Latin America, Africa, and Oceania. Some of these people were little removed from Neolithic man so Europe essentially came into contact with people of the Neolithic era. They also came in contact with some very sophisticated cukltures, especilly China.

The Engligtenment

At the time Hobbes wrote, the religious and philosophical underpinings of absolute divine right monrchies were being undermined by the dreadful religious wars (17th century). And a range of European authors took issue with Hobbes. One of the first important author to speculate that in a state of nature that humans were essentially good was the Earl of Shaftesbury, an important Whig supporter of constitutional monarchy. And only a short time after Hobbes published Leviathan, the a Glorious Revolution transformed England and began the assault on royal absolutism (1688). Shaftesbury wrote a decade later at the onset of the Enlightenment that the moral sense in humans is natural and innate. He insisted that it was based on inate feelings rather than resulting from religious or moral teaching. A popular theme of the Enligtenment was the 'noble savage'. The term was first coined by John Dryden (1672). [Dryden] The term is often associated with Jean-Jacques Rousseau who, along wih other Engligtenment authors, contended that man was born an innocent in a state of nature with the potential for goodness and that it was civilization which promoted greed, envy, and violence, a theme that appeals to the 2011 Wall Street protestors.

Modern Sience

The debate on the inherent nature of man has been philosphical and most authors assumed that it was an unanswerable issue. Modern technology is, however, beginning to provide some definitive data on war and vilence in the Neolithic era. Archeologists have provided a great deal of evidebnce about clssical and medieval history. They are increasingly providing fascinating informstion about the Neolthic era. And a new discipline, Forensic Archeology has been able offer some fascinating data suggesting the answer to this age old question--the nature of man. Forensic Arcgeologists have begun to calculate the number of deaths from various periods, including the Neolithic, thar had violennt causes. It is often difficult to determine the causes of natural deaths because the bodt tissue is gone. Violent deaths are esier to detect, because most vilent deaths afected the skeleton and thus have lft evidence in the skeletal remains. This the archeologists can find bashed in skulls, decapitations, embedded spear and arrowheads, and other evidence of violence. Ethnologists can testify theie work by looking at more modern tribal people living outside of modern state control, including people in the interior of Aftica and South America as well as New Guinea and other isolated areas of Oceania. Published studies are finding that about 15 percent of deaths in the pre-state era were due to violent causes. This was before the Neolithic Revolution (invention of agriculture) and the appearance of the first states in the Great River Valleys. Violent deaths plumetted to something like 3 percent once the earlist states appeared. [Pinker] The precise numbers are somewhat speculative, but the huge disparity is striking. And the rate of violent death was particularly low during periods of strong state control such as the Roman Empire, the Caliphate, and the British Empire.

Literature and Media

Media tends to emphasize violence. As publishers and media moguls will explain, 'violence sells'. This is not a modern concept. There is a good deal of violence in the Old Testament English literature beginning with Bewolf is replete with violence. And Shakespeare included a great deal of violence in his Tragedies. Hollywood has found this formulation very profitable. This can leave a range of false imopressions. Every Hollywood depiction of the Roman Empire has people falling left and right. Gory scenes in the Colosseum are a virtual requirement. Yet the Pax Romana was a remarkabke period of peace in which trade and commerce flourished. The conquests could be bloody affairs, but for the most part were followed by a long period of rule by law and a flourishung of agriculture and commerce. This is never depicted by Hollywood.

Sources

Dryden, John. The Conquest of Granada (1672).

Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan Chapter XIII (1660).

Pinker, Steven. The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined (2011).

Shaftesbury, Earl of. "Inquiry Concerning Virtue" (1699).







CIH







Navigate the Children in History Website:
[Return to The Stone Age]
[Return to Main specific war essay page]
[Introduction] [Biographies] [Chronology] [Climatology] [Clothing] [Disease and Health] [Economics] [Geography] [History] [Human Nature] [Law]
[Nationalism] [Presidents] [Religion] [Royalty] [Science] [Social Class]
[Bibliographies] [Contributions] [FAQs] [Glossaries] [Images] [Links] [Registration] [Tools]
[Children in History Home]





Created: 7:09 AM 10/10/2011
Last updated: 8:40 AM 10/10/2011