Did warfare increase when hunter gatherers went tribal.

[blue]

Did a hunter gatherer have to deal with less warfare than a member of later tribal generations in pre-horse N. America?

It is my understand that the introduction of the horse,as well as modern weapons did conribute to an increase in warfare. Is that a true statement?

I am also wondering if the inroduction of cultivars and or lack of megafauna, made prehistoric peoples in N. America more territorial.

Thoughts?

[tomclark]

I know that here in FL, the paleo coastline was over 100 miles furthur out. During Archaic times the water level rose dramatically in the Gulf and all coastal and many paleo sites were unundated. Peoples gravitated inland and at some critical point groups that were isolated hunter gatherers came into increasing contact with other groups for resources, with a lot more warfare. None of this had anything to do with the introduction of non native horses after the Pleistocene horses in N. America became extinct, thouth whick probably did live at the same time as Paleo Man. There are certain points that we believe in Florida to be Man killers, of course would kill any deer.

[paleo_joe]

Interesting thing to think about. Tom makes a good point that environmental changes are likely to cause conflict. New technologies might not be as linked.

There is a book called The Rites of War (I think) that talks about our human need/ability/tendency to organize ourselves into groups and go to war. It is a societal phenomena when people turn entire nations toward war, different than individual aggression like two men getting drunk and fighting. We surrender ourselves to our group and we are willing to die for it.

The author ties it back to when we were primates on the savannah (sp) and were prey, not predator. Catfood. We had to band ourselves together into an 'army' and behave as one. Individuals who didn't evolve that tendency got eaten.

But more interestingly, sometimes you might have to leave someone behind for the predators so the rest of the band could escape. From this comes the concept of human sacrifice, killing one person for the greater good. Which then finds its way into religions (it's all over the Old Testament), and the military (like soldiers charging machine gun nests).

[Cluton]

As the Archaic peoples started moving in Texas, population increase and resources were the main factor! More people, more they would see each other, then as humans are, warfare and competition increased! Society gets crowded, people have problems!
An ancient campsite that was on a perfect flat hill, has 2
fresh springs, and a hill with Colorado River gravels only
200 yds away with endless material that is desired! The old man has camped here for years, learned from his father, then his father! His clan plans on camping here for awhile and making multiple blanks and tools out of the quality flint, getting good water, and killing the abundant game! He peaks a hill and sees another clan already exhausting his desired camp! He gets swolled up(mad), and plans to get his camp no matter what!! The fight goes down and they capture two women from the clan but drive the opposing clan off! More women, more babies!! 2 weeks later, he sees the other clan picking pecans from his bottom, he grabs his men and weapons and another fight takes place! ..... Just some scenarios that could have happened, I have a big imagination and to much time!!. Lol

[joshuaream]

I certainly don't think ancient peoples were the tree-hugging green peace activists that some people think they were, but I don't think actual warfare between two different groups existed until the Europeans showed up... In Central and South America it was certainly more common, mostly because you had a degree of civilization/technology that allowed for fewer farmers to produce enough food to support an urban structure. And you had different groups much closer together. The Cahokia/Spiro/Etowah groups were probably getting there, but they weren't there yet just because they were so far apart, food production wasn’t efficient enough to support having hundreds of warriors off conquering other kingdoms, and repeated, mutual trade flow shows they probably got more benefit from being friends vs being enemies…

As an example: Let’s say the Spiro Chief decided to wage war on the Cahokia group (we all know Okies are a violent bunch.) He would have to gather at least a couple hundred people (taking them away from whatever they normally did like farming, hunting, build mounds, etc.) pack them in some big canoes along with lots of supplies and go down the Arkansas and up the Mississippi for a good 20 to 30 days. He might start at an outlying village and kill some farmers, take some cool artifacts (assuming his own local artisans couldn’t make them), and then keep heading north. Sooner or later, he’s going to face a much larger group of Cahokians who would slaughter his guys. If not, he takes a couple of villages, maybe takes some slaves, and boats back down the Mississippi for 15 days or so and goes home. He’s been gone 2 months, he’s lost a lot of guys, maybe has some hot Cahokia babes and some cool new artifacts, but there really isn’t a lot of upside. The worst case scenario is that someone local usurps his position and he comes back to less than what he had.

That last scenario, groups fighting internally, was probably more common but still was probably limited to a few people vs actual war. As with any group humans, people (families and friends) probably fought each other and in some cases killed each other. There is also evidence of human sacrifice. I don't doubt that they would have killed a stranger on sight if they felt threatened or that a peasant might have been killed for offending a ruler, but I just don't see evidence for warfare.

Archaeologists have looked at closer groups (say Angel Mounds and Cahokia Mounds) and there is no evidence of warfare between them. It seems that there was extensive trade, and shared iconography but no evidence of war.

[Palmwood]

There is some writing I have run across over the years that makes sense to me. The idea is that hunter-gatherers do not have much time for any activity other than survival. They probably had skirmishes over resources, but I don't know if it could be called war. Once agriculture grew so that people could settle and have time for art, religion, politics, and social order then you see warfare begin. So it's them damn farmers that started it all.

[drdave514]

Originally Posted by joshuaream

I certainly don't think ancient peoples were the tree-hugging green peace activists that some people think they were, but I don't think actual warfare between existed until the Europeans showed up...

I couldn't disagree more. There are countless stories of the earliest europeans moving west and being the first white person the natives had seen. During that period there were many bands warring. War parties, horse stealing, skirmishes on common hunting grounds, etc.. Stories of tribes that used to be at peace and intermarrying and then warring, which led to women orignally of one tribe now living with a group that considers her relatives sworn ememies.

I would imagine that the introduction of horses, and the ease of travelling greater distances, contributed. The horse probably meant easier hunting and less starvations which would lead to population increases(before disease) and larger tribes needing more area and therefore more conflict.

The early stories of the first traders, trappers and miners who ventured West are full of events involving dealing with groups who were enemies of each other for as long as the people could remember.

[drdave514]

Originally Posted by Palmwood

There is some writing I have run across over the years that makes sense to me. The idea is that hunter-gatherers do not have much time for any activity other than survival. They probably had skirmishes over resources, but I don't know if it could be called war. Once agriculture grew so that people could settle and have time for art, religion, politics, and social order then you see warfare begin. So it's them damn farmers that started it all.

Everything I have read regarding the plains and southwestern Native Americans has indicated to me that there is a LOT of downtime. A quick look at their formal attire(not day to day), culture, songs, prayers, dance, etc... as well as the information about men going out and doing the hunting or warring and then coming home to lay around for days on end would make me think that it was not a constant struggle for survival. Many tribes would not eat fowl or fish...... which tells me they were doing quite well because when your arse gets hungry enough just about anything starts to taste good.

[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...

Originally Posted by drdave514

I couldn't disagree more. There are countless stories of the earliest europeans moving west and being the first white person the natives had seen. During that period there were many bands warring. War parties, horse stealing, skirmishes on common hunting grounds, etc.. Stories of tribes that used to be at peace and intermarrying and then warring, which led to women orignally of one tribe now living with a group that considers her relatives sworn ememies.

I would imagine that the introduction of horses, and the ease of travelling greater distances, contributed. The horse probably meant easier hunting and less starvations which would lead to population increases(before disease) and larger tribes needing more area and therefore more conflict.

The early stories of the first traders, trappers and miners who ventured West are full of events involving dealing with groups who were enemies of each other for as long as the people could remember.

[paleo_joe]

It is a good point that an organized, agriculture-based society is really more suited for developing technology and going to war than hunter-gatherers.

Whether it takes 2 hours or 10 hours a day to gather food, it still can't be easily stored, you have to hunt again in a day or two, etc. Additionally, agriculture-based societies probably had higher-level organizational structures and that's important for war, too.

Editorially, I doubt either hunter-gatherers or farmers worked as many hours in a week as we do. No telling what mischief we'd get into if we worked fewer hours and had to spend more time with our family and friends