The Evolution of Warfare: From Local Conflicts to Global Wars
Written on
What led humanity to engage in extensive battles? While archaeological remnants hint at the past, they do not provide definitive answers but offer intriguing clues.
Apart from humans, the only other creatures known to wage wars are ants, as noted by American philosopher David Livingston Smith in his work “The Most Dangerous of Animals: Human Nature and the Causes of Wars.” Certain ant species organize into vast “armies” employing strategies like scouting to invade neighboring colonies, eliminate their queens, and enslave their young.
To trigger a conflict that can be classified as war, mere aggression—common in various animal species, including our closest evolutionary relatives, chimpanzees—is insufficient. What both ant colonies and human groups share is a combination of population size and social structure. However, individual inclinations toward violence vary. Throughout history, acts of violence such as raids and murders have been prevalent, but they only escalated into frequent conflicts due to socio-political transformations accompanying humanity’s shift to an industrial economy. Additionally, at some point, culture began to romanticize warfare, viewing it as a phenomenon benefiting the community.
Anthropological studies reveal that not all primitive societies are equally inclined toward collective aggression, and their “wars” often consist of localized confrontations. Most groups tend to avoid conflict, opting for negotiation, trade, or strategic marriages. For instance, the Mbuti Pygmies of central Africa and the Semoi of Malaysia remain largely unarmed due to their existence in small, isolated, egalitarian societies lacking surplus resources. However, this does not imply they are incapable of fighting, as shown by Micronesian islanders, who have demonstrated their prowess as soldiers when enlisted in peacekeeping forces.
Paleolithic: Evidence of Negotiations and Skirmishes
While archaeology provides insights into the origins of warfare, it does not yield clear conclusions. The remnants of past battles may not solely consist of individual burials with fatal weapon wounds; these could also be victims of murders, hunting accidents, executions, duels, or domestic violence. The presence of weapons in graves does not necessarily indicate warfare, as tools like javelins and bows were primarily hunting implements. Furthermore, stone and bronze axes, as well as swords, became symbols of authority rather than indicators of a predisposition for war.
Some scholars seek evidence of warfare in Paleolithic cave art, with the oldest known depiction believed to be of archers engaged in combat from Cueva del Roure in Spain, dating back 7,500 years. By this time, organized armed confrontations were not unprecedented, as demonstrated by ancient settlements in the Middle East that existed 12,000 years ago, fortified with walls to protect inhabitants and belongings from attacks.
In Europe, evidence shows a marked increase in isolated fatalities resulting from small arms around 13,000 years ago. Notably, the grave of 61 individuals who met violent ends was unearthed at Jebel Sahaba on the Nile (northern Sudan) in the 1960s, often cited as the site of the first war. However, a team led by Isabelle Crevecoeur from the Université de Bordeaux has since identified over 100 additional injuries on these bones, suggesting that these individuals were victims of multiple skirmishes likely spurred by severe climate changes that restricted access to resources.
Mesolithic and Neolithic: Traces of Massacres
A discovery from Nataturk, Kenya, dating back approximately 2,000 years later, revealed the remains of 27 individuals with fractured skulls, broken limbs, and embedded arrowheads. Two of these bodies were found intertwined, suggesting they were thrown into a drying lake by th