Why do humans go to war? It has long been
believed that warfare began once early humans abandoned the carefree lifestyle
of hunting and gathering in favor of building a home, farming, and establishing
villages. People in the next village or the next valley, it was theorized, grew
envious of their neighbor’s ‘luxury’, and decided to take it from them.
A single archaeological dig in Kenya may
up-end that theory.
The dig site is Nataruk, which is currently
dry scrub brush territory some distance from the southwest shore of Lake
Turkana in northern Kenya. Human skeletons found at the Nataruk site have been
dated to about 10,000 years ago, when Lake Turkana was much larger and the area
of the site would have been fertile, perhaps even a marshland. Lots of animals
would have used this area to drink, so hunting and gathering would have
provided plenty.
What was found at Nataruk are the remains of
27 people, which included 12 skeletons that were relatively complete. When
alive, they ranged in age from Old (back then, that meant over 45) to the very young,
including one who either had not yet been born, or was an infant being held by
one of the women. The archeological team who discovered them believe they died
violently or were left to die, and were left unburied. They point to
blunt-force trauma to some of the skulls, arrowheads and spear points found
embedded in other skeletons, various other broken bones, and indications that
some had their hands tied together. Other archeologists debate that these
skeletal injuries might have happened after the people were dead.
These 27 people - who all appear to have died
at the same time - included 8 men, 8 women and 6 children, with 5 others whose
age and gender could not be determined.
Part of the reason why warfare has been
assumed to have started after people settled into villages was because - before
this - evidence of violence between nomadic groups has been sparse and hard to
identify. Researchers mention the Jebel Sahaba graveyard (located in modern
Sudan), which is dated to 13,000 years ago and contains the remains of some people
obviously killed in violent skirmishes. That this is a cemetery indicates a
settled community.
But, my mind says, the entire global
population did not start farming and settling into villages at the same time.
If food from plants, hunting and fishing were enough to sustain your tribe, and
all you had to do was move a few miles every so often, why bother settling
down? (Especially if you’ve never heard of such a thing.) Or maybe Nataruk was
somewhat more of a settlement than a temporary camp, because the hunting,
fishing and gathering was so good.
Whichever way it was, there might have been
several ‘nomadic’ groups in the general area. Perhaps some were greedier than others.
Or perhaps good eating led to more mouths to feed, and then the climate ‘shifted’
(the wetter late Pleistocene era slid into the
drier early Holocene). It wouldn’t take much for the hunting, fishing
and gathering to become less bountiful.
I’m not sure I believe that warfare came
along only when people settled down, grew crops and started communities. They
have found plenty of evidence of violence between nomadic individuals, so I’m
not sure why they think warfare (between groups instead of individuals) wouldn’t
have happened. They say the earliest group skirmishes happened because one
group wanted something the other group had. Why would it be any different if
neither group was settled? If a group of nomads were moving, desperately
looking for food, and they stumbled across another group’s campfire while they
were roasting a few nuts and cutting up a couple rabbits, why would the first
group NOT want what the 2nd group had?
It’s something to remember if you are writing
about other times and other cultures. We probably have to start by looking
humans and their reactions to various circumstances, but I can’t imagine if 2
groups of nomads ran into each other, and neither had enough food to feel their
own group, that they’d be very friendly with each other. If you want your alien
species to always be friendly, no matter what the circumstances, you’d better
figure out how that worked during their prehistory days. Why would sharing
resources that really wouldn’t have been enough for 1 group be of benefit to
them?
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/01/21/463835225/discovery-of-ancient-massacre-suggests-war-predated-settlements
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/ancient-brutal-massacre-may-be-earliest-evidence-war-180957884/
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-35370374
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nataruk
