Did warfare increase when hunter gatherers went tribal.

[drdave514]

Originally Posted by joshuaream

The common factors here were horses and guns, which came from Europeans or from other natives who got them from Europeans (or Mexicans.) If you look at groups like the Comanche, they weren't really the group we identify as Comanche until the 1700's or so... Before then they were probably just a normal plains indian group that grew squash and ate buffalo. They had been trading with other natives who traded with the Spanish for 150 years or more before they saw their first whiteman and went on the war path...

I see what you're saying. The Spanish being the Europeans rather than the French or English.

I suspect that is correct in so much as Horses and Guns are related but I think Native American groups were in constant periods of conflict and peace prior to that but the introduction of those things likely ramped it up a large number of notches.

[comanche]

War is Human Nature,,,always has been ,,always will be///jmo

[Cluton]

They fought way before the Spaniards came to Texas!! Sites that are cataloged here in Texas have native buried bodies with points embedded in them! No doubt it was fighting way before "white man"!! It had to have gone down, people fight, like Comanche said!!! And there are facts to back it up!!!!

[joshuaream]

Cluton,

Obviously people fought, Kenniwick man from 7500 bc had a Cascade point buried in his hip that probably wasn't put there out of love... but that isn't the same as organized warfare.

Warfare implies massed armies, and is sustained fighting for some period of time. Romans did it, Mayans did it, Germany did it, Spain did it, we do it, but not many native american groups did it in prehistoric times (pre-1942.) Fight occasionally? Absolutely (but probably among themselves more than with other groups.) Kill other human beings frequently? Probably, again probably other members of their group more often than outsiders (just like today.) Mass an army and wage sustained war on an enemy or outside group? Probably not. They just didn't have the resources, the population base, the mode of travel, or the real need to do so or benefit from doing so. If a stronger group like the one of the Caddo city/states wanted to dominate a fringe group, it was probably easier to impress them with trade items and copper goods. They might have used a common knowledge of astronomy to wow another group (seeing 60 foot canoe filled with people decked out in copper plates, earspools, tatoos the day after an eclipse of the sun was probably a life changing event for common farmers.) And when in doubt, they probably did go and decapitate some people, drink their blood, cook and eat a few farmers, etc. but for the most part, that would have been more than enough to scare a small group into submission.

At Cahokia Mounds there was a mass grave (charnel house) with almost 300 skeletons. About 30 skeletons with arrowpoints buried in them, many of which were female skeletons, and about 20 males that had been beheaded (combined to 50 total in one pit that probably died a violent death.)

In the same deposit as the arrowhead caches that are so often pictured, were the remains of someone important from early Cahokia. He was buried with 50 or so females that appear to have been strangled (many had their hyoid bone in their thoat broken), along 4 or 5 males that had their heads and hands removed.

The current thinking is that most of these people were locals, including probably some family members of the important dude. Some were probably from other cities in the Cahokia area who may or may not been given over for sacrifice, and the four beheaded guys were probably captured people. Two of the four had broken arms that had started to heal, and those types of wounds were common in later europeans who got whacked by wooden clubs used by many eastern groups. (Guy running at you with a club, and you raise your arm to block.)

It's a fascinating topic but unfortunately one that is kind of hindered because archaeologists can't do very much research on because remains aren't really tested anymore...

Joshua

[Cluton]

Very interesting!! J that was nice info and pretty sad!!! Dang that Cat must have been the Man!!! Wow!!! Yes big warfare was probably later, but I believe from literature I've studied, Natives were fighting very early in Texas and North America!! I've mainly studied Texas, but I believe in Florida in the bog burials that natives were found with points embedded and signs of warfare!! And they were dated pretty early, if I recall!!! I get your point fo sho, I do think it escalated after horses were presented and the Euros came and then all hell broke loose!!! I'm not a historian and not very smart, but I do believe warfare was a way of life well before most people think!!!JMo and dont hold me to it!!!

[blue]

I am enjoying the thoughtful responses to this thread. I am starting a position paper on this subject, wherein I have to try to prove my Biology II professor wrong on any position he has taken in class. His statement was that paleo type hunter gatherer individuals were involved in just as much violence as individuals in the later tribal groups. My thoughts are similar to those that have been shared, but I need to do further research. I know that there were hunter gatherer tribal groups, but his statement was brought up in the context of paleo indians vs tribes after cultivars had been introduced,

Are there any reference materials that anyone knows of that might deal with this question.

Btw... I have really enjoyed the imaginative scenarios, they add to my knowledge of what the life and times were like for the people who left us their beautiful relics to ponder.

[drdave514]

Increased populations, increasing weapon technology, increasing transportation have led to increased warfare and more death in every population throughout the world. WWI couldn't have happened 100 years earlier. Comparing the changes in different societies and how they relate to changes in Native Americans will help you make your case. The crossbow, gunpowder, catapault, cannon and machine gun are some of the things I can think of that created a jump in warfare technology and led to new levels of death.

[jackcrafty]

Warfare implies massed armies, and is sustained fighting for some period of time.

Is that what warfare implies? Wow.

I'm sure you are a smart guy and you've studied military history but your take on this is surprising to me. Do you really believe what you are saying? I've heard this reasoning (about warfare) from others and also in the Native American community and, quite frankly, I don't know why it persists.

Warfare is difficult to define but does it have to happen on a large scale in order to be called "warfare"? Large populations wage war on a large scale, it's true. But is that where we draw the line in our definition? What about small populations? What do you call it when they fight? Or do you call that something else? Is it skirmishing? Gang fighting?

IMO war is war whether it is on a large scale or small scale. If you know your military history, you understand that armies were organized and supplied in many different ways. And then there is siege warfare. And biological warfare. "Scorched earth" campaigns. Slave gathering campaigns. Violent migrations and invasions. The list goes on. All of these are forms of warfare.

I'm glad this topic is being discussed. Thanks for listening to my two cents worth.