Neolithic Violence

Ancient Modern Art

There is an idea that the days of yore were somehow idyllic. I'm not talking about the Middle Ages or two thousand years ago. Any attentive student of history would be aware that such times were far from wonderful for 95% of the population. I'm talking about the proverbial 'Cave Man'. Those endowed with a wild imagination depict Neolithic humans as subsisting on berries and embracing others in an all-encompassing commune of love and peace. This quirky ancient depiction was once popular with the hippy, ultra-left-leaning types. It is as if they want the ancients to be a reflection of themselves. However, scholars have known for quite some time that this utopian depiction is complete fiction/utter bollocks.

Conveniently, we have no written records from the Neolithic period of our ancestors' existence. That said, we have images left on cave walls exquisitely rendered in ochre and charcoal, documenting everyday life. Some depict hunting scenarios, while others show obvious armed conflict between distinct groups. Humans have always had a great propensity for violence, even more so in the 'Dawn' of our existence. Aggressive behaviour is etched in our genes. In our remote past, natural selection favoured those males who were able and willing to inflict bloodshed on others. Violence is a successful life strategy. This is particularly so when resources become limited or difficult to obtain. Natural selection is not interested in what is morally or ethically sound or fair. It is just concerned with the reproductive fitness of an individual. 

Archaeology has uncovered graves from the Neolithic period, where it is clear that a significant number of the deceased were the recipients of violence inflicted by others. A recent study in the journal PNAS published in 2023 (https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2209481119) examined 180 sites in northwest Europe, dated 8,000 to 4,000 years ago. Analysis of 2,300 skeletons found that 10% exhibited signs of violence inflicted by weapons. Some of the sites showed mass burials indicative of whole communities being destroyed. In certain instances, there was evidence of torture before death. Many of the graves showed a dearth of young females. The likely reason will not sit well with ardent feminists. The victors were likely sparing the young women for their own carnal purposes.  

Can we obtain wisdom from primate behaviour, especially from those species with which we have a close genetic affinity? Our closest relative, the chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes), is the only known animal species to exhibit warlike tendencies (wot about ants?). Chimpanzee troops, which range from 20 to 150 individuals, control a territory and jealously guard the resources therein. They actively patrol perimeters, and incursions are met with gleeful violence. They are known to dismember intruders and will continue to violate their corpses over time. Groups of males are known to raid their neighbours' territory, selectively attacking lone males, females or juveniles. An instance recorded by biologists (1974-78 see Gombe Chimpanzee War) documented a conflict between neighbouring troops. Over 4 years, the larger group systematically targeted and ambushed lone males from the second group. Eventually, the smaller troop was vanquished, as all its members were killed or migrated elsewhere. The victorious troop then incorporated the now vacant territory into their own. Chimpanzees ape (sorry) our warfare behaviour in many regards, such as employing tactics and setting ambuscades. They differ in not hefting weaponry (yet).

Back to Neolithic Homo Sapiens...

Interestingly, this era of intergroup human conflict coincided with the advent of farming and crop cultivation in these regions. Is the change in lifestyle from hunter-gatherer to a cultivation/farming existence significant somehow? The settled existence based on crops and domesticated animals undoubtedly offered advantages unknown to the hunter. The hunter-gatherer life was precarious at best. The settled life involving crop cultivation and the art of animal husbandry offered a reasonable degree of resource 'certainty', allowing for the accumulation of excess foodstuffs. With excess comes population growth. However, there are disadvantages to the sedentary circumstance. The new way of living ensured that the people were tied to their patch of land, and the excess generated had to be protected from avaricious hunters who covetously watched from the periphery. This new way of living, based on land cultivation, resulted in accrued generational wealth. For the first time in prehistory, we see social stratification based on accumulated commodities such as land and livestock. And thus, this not only contributed to intergroup violence but also intragroup violence. 

At this time of societal change, we observe a concomitant loss in male genetic diversity throughout the late Neolithic. Analysis of Y-specific chromosome sequences has shown that over a 2,000-year period, there was a downturn in male genetic diversity, indicating a cumulative loss of 95% of the male population. Analysis of mitochondrial DNA did not mirror this loss, suggesting that female diversity was unaffected. Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain this selective population loss. However, the most compelling proposal cites violence between patrilineal 'War Bands'. (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04375-6). According to this analysis, individual groups would be expected to exhibit a high degree of intragroup genetic homogeneity amongst the males, suggesting a 'founder effect' whereby the genes from a relatively small number of males subsequently dominate the group over generations. This model refutes the notion that distinct groups were composed of unrelated males during the late Neolithic. Computer simulations involving several different initial starting parameters support this hypothesis. This does not mean that intense and widespread warfare was continuous. The important point is that change occurred over a relatively long period. The trend would involve large patrilineal groups progressively dominating (annihilating) smaller groups over time. This tendency would aggregate, resulting in a pernicious decline in male genetic diversity. My explanation is a gross oversimplification of complex processes operating over time. For edification, please refer to the Nature article in the link. Admittedly, this paper is highly complex, long and technical- good luck.

The 17th-century savant Thomas Hobbes described life before the development of civil society as "nasty, brutish and short", and he seems right. The average lifespan was calculated to be 35 years, and clearly, intergroup conflict was a significant factor influencing lifespan. The transition from the hunter-gatherer lifestyle to a settled agrarian existence did not happen overnight. There was a period in prehistory where both lifestyles coexisted, but not peaceably. Eventually, the settled lifestyle prevailed, possibly due to the increase in population size it could support. At this time, farmers started to dig defensive ditches and raise earthbanks to thwart raiders. It was a tough life, and the loss of male diversity is a testament to our vicious past. We are the survivors of this crucial period in prehistory. It cannot be denied that Homo sapiens has an inordinate capacity for great violence. Studies concerning our latest shared ancestor, the chimpanzee, illustrate that intraspecies violence is ingrained in our genetic makeup stretching over aeons- but not all researchers would agree.   

I'll finish with an illustration of a somewhat controversial theory proposed by Dr David Carrier in 2015. The biologist conducted numerous studies on cadaver arms and boxers (whole live bodies in this instance). He noted that of all the animal species, Homo sapiens appears to be the only one capable of the 'balled fist' characteristic of the typical pugilist stance. His research determined that the balled fist with the overlapping thumb was optimal for preventing damage to the fist during strikes. Also, the fist is optimal for delivering blows reminiscent of wooden ball-ended clubs. Dr Carrier argued that selective evolutionary pressure might be responsible for this unique anatomical finding in man. Furthermore, he contends that humans have evolved “a suite of distinguishing characteristics that are consistent with the idea that we’re specialized, at some level, for aggressive behaviour.” Critics point out that teleological explanations* often fall short in science as they ignore the randomness and complexities inherent in natural systems. A goal-oriented model tends to oversimplify, assuming intent or design where none exists.           

The debate about whether we are innately genetically programmed for violence or whether cultural and environmental factors prevail can get rather heated. Clearly, the question has political and sociological implications. Some feel that to accept that we are genetically predestined for violence is a rather bleak analysis and prognosis for our species. Regardless of the underlying mechanisms involved, whether nurture or nature predominants, it cannot be denied that Homo sapiens, based on circumstances, have an inordinate capacity for violent and even cruel behaviour. On that depressing note, I'll end.   

*Teleology definition: Explanations are based on the idea that systems are working toward a final form. The use of design or purpose as an explanation of natural phenomena. Teleological concepts were first considered by ancient Greek philosophers and are particularly associated with Aristotle. Teleological explanations are much beloved by religious apologists as evidence for an overarching causal entity they call god. For instance, we live in a highly complex natural world. This end could only have been achieved by god working toward this goal. This explanation directly contradicts a solution based on naturalistic selective processes, culminating in change and complexity. An example of teleology in biology: Grass species exhibit continual growth to provide herbivores with a predictable and constant food resource. To my eternal intellectual discredit, I used a similar argument in an essay concerning the coevolution of herbivores and plants. To compound my shame, at the time, I was not a 'green as grass' first-year undergrad but a postgraduate working towards a Master's degree; the shame burns hot even today.