Briefly, the long succession of wars, invasions, and destruction which
characterized the Eastern Mediterranean region during the second millennium
bce include: the destruction of the Babylonian empire by the Kassites and
Hittites; raids carried out by the Kingdom of Hatti across the whole of the
Anatolian periphery; nomad invasions which shook the Assyrian empire;
successful invasions by the pharaohs as far afield as Nubia and Syria; and
wars directed by the Ramessides against the Hittites and Sea Peoples.
Greek history seems to have been equally violent. In the third millennium
bce, eyries were built in the Cyclades islands and in Kastri (Syros) and concealed
behind fortified walls in order to prevent piracy in the surrounding
area. In Asia Minor, the second city of Troy erected fortified walls, flanked by
towers, on a hilltop; other cities in Anatolia, Syria, and Palestine had similar
defenses in place. In the second millennium bce, the Mycenean cities of
Mycenae, Tiryns, and Pylos barricaded themselves in behind heavily fortified
city walls and set about going to war.
Homer, the earliest of the Greek poets, set the tone in praising the virtues
of warfare. In the Iliad, he describes how the Greeks and Trojans became
enraged, thirsting for blood. Even the gods took sides, supporting their
heroes. Homer refers repeatedly to the heroes’ relentless efforts and describes
scenes of horrific fatal injuries and decapitated bodies as the war continued
to rage. Such sickeningly morbid details frequently form the focus of his
descriptions. The Odyssey is just as violent: upon his return to Ithaca, Ulysses
massacres Penelope’s suitors in cold blood, leading to all-out carnage. So it
seems that the Greeks, experts in the writings of Homer, were also schooled
in violence and severity.
The works of the three great ancient Greek historians – Herodotus,
Thucydides, and Xenophon – are largely devoted to warfare. Herodotus, the
“father of history” renowned for having documented many well-known events,
describes the battles that took place in the Aegean, Persia, Egypt, and the
land of the Scythians. Thucydides devoted himself entirely to his one work,
The History of the Peloponnesian War, which recounts the bloody confrontations
that occurred between Sparta and Athens during the fifth century bce.
Xenophon picks up where this narrative left off in 411 bce, describing the
final stages of this encounter. Later, in Anabasis, he describes the fate of those
Greek mercenaries who were in the pay of Cyrus, king of Persia, in the battle
which brought Cyrus head to head with his brother and tells of their retreat
through Anatolia back toward their motherland.
The Tragedians (Aeschylus, Euripides) alternate between accounts of war
and family dispute. The works of the Sophists (Protagoras, Hippias, Prodicus)
all refer to the advantages and disadvantages of war, some references being
more obvious than others. Philosophers often discuss combat in an attempt
to assign an ethical and existential value to the individual, enabling him
to fight against fate. Even Plato’s philosophical writings are scattered with
accounts of warfare as, for example, in the Symposium in which the troublemaker,
Alcibiades (himself a defeated war leader), describes Socrates’s exploits
at the battle of Potidaea.
The sacred texts of the great monotheistic religions are no more peaceoriented.
The Bible is a collection of military exploits: its exegesis reveals that
retaliation, war, revenge, deportations, and the capturing of prisoners were
common events. If we recognize that a large proportion of the verses are
derived from even older legends, as in the case of the Epic of Gilgamesh, then
the same glorification of violence can also be identified. Established in the
seventh century of the common era (ce), the Qur’an makes no attempts to
conceal its tendencies toward holy war or jihad as a way of subjugating or
destroying infidels, although the majority of its suras do preach tolerance.
Violent warfare also forms an integral part of India’s oldest religions.
The most ancient sacred texts, such as the Bhagavad-Gita, declare war to be
essential for any would-be hero. The Mahabharata, a Sanskrit epic of more
than 200,000 verses, is devoted entirely to the never-ending confrontations
between the Kaurava and the Pandava.
But what of ancient China, home of Confucianism and Taoism? Even
here, it is said that the king of Qin (from which the European name for
China is derived) had 240,000 people decapitated in 293 bce in an attempt to
end the war between Han and Wei. The reign of Huang Di, who brought
unity to China in the third century bce, followed a period of extensive
bloodshed.4 In around 500 bce, Chinese polemics expert Sun Tzu wrote The
Art of War, which was apparently considered to be an authoritative work
by Japanese military institutions right up to the attack on Pearl Harbor on
December 7, 1941.
In Central America, Cortez’s conquistadors were appalled by the human
sacrifices made during Aztec religious ceremonies, in which thousands of
people were put to death in just one day. However, under the protection of
the Cross, these very same Catholic conquistadors in turn slaughtered the
Mexican populations.
How should we interpret this global barbarity which has infiltrated history
from the very beginning? Has violent behavior been glorified and exaggerated
over time in the interests of a few omnipotent leaders? Was history written
primarily by the victorious and then manipulated for their own gain? Although
exaggerations may have been made at times, war is nevertheless present
throughout the earliest written works, both literary and religious. However,
rather than looking at such written evidence, this study will focus primarily
upon prehistoric archeology, exploring civilization before the advent of
writing systems. The main objective is to define the behavior of humans
before the emergence of the first states – this is essentially an archeological
enterprise. ...
Among predatory animals (carnivores such as felines and canines), confrontations
between individuals within the same social group frequently
erupt when prey is being shared out, particularly when such food is scarce.
Squabbles and fights break out as individuals chase each other around the
prey, awaiting their share. Intimidation tactics often result in biting and
serious injuries.
It has been known for aggressiveness to be taken one step further among
the big cats, most notably lions; females, sometimes accompanied by a dominant
male, have been observed killing and devouring the cubs of another
female. This behavior is far from common and seems to occur most notably
during severe food shortages. Chimpanzees have also been observed exhibiting
this extreme behavior, though again very rarely. In this case, however,
there is no evidence of omophagy, i.e., animal cannibalism, occurring.
Another level of violence (if one can apply the term to animal behavior)
can arise as a result of confrontation between two social groups, usually
carnivores such as felines, lycaons, and hyenas. Such confrontations are
almost always prompted by attempts to seize or defend territories valued for
hunting or predation. Anthropoid apes (chimpanzees and gorillas) also carry
out such attacks. Identifying the reasons for such behavior in predatory
carnivores and apes is far from easy. Whilst the instinctive urge to gain
control over territories rich in prey may well lead to fighting, other less
specific reasons have also been suggested by ethologists following research
carried out by Morris. It is claimed, for example, that modifications of an
ecological niche and specific pathological traits can trigger abnormal behavior.
The problem becomes all the more complex in the case of apes, which are
known to throw projectiles and even use branches as clubs when carrying out
assaults on other groups. Could this be how the use of weapons in prehuman
species first came about?
New research has also revealed a tendency to expel certain members of a
social group among certain species of ape. Whilst this generally prevents a
female from mating with her offspring, it also leads to aggressive behavior
within the group. This “biological” attempt to prevent incest (which the
authors in question claim to be Darwinian behavior) is highly significant: it
indicates that more complex social relations may have evolved in pre-human
primates, a complexity which is not exhibited by the other species of carnivorous
mammal discussed here. This behavior is accompanied by changes in the
cerebral capabilities of these apes which may have been responsible for the
emergence of new behavioral patterns in early humans and their descendants
with violence becoming a kind of “cerebral” behavior, at the center of new
urges and desires.11
Aggressiveness between different species, on the other hand, is related
primarily to predation. Whereas felines and canines hunt for prey, prehominid
apes were omnivorous. The Australopithecines, by contrast, are
often compared to vultures since they frequently devoured the remains of
herbivorous mammals left behind by predators. It is even possible that
Australopithecines may have exhibited a kind of “proto-fighting” behavior
prior to actual hunting, a behavior that would have continued to evolve
throughout the Paleolithic.
It is likely that predatory strategies and techniques became more complex
and “human-like” as cerebral capabilities evolved, as outlined above. As well
as leading to the development of hunting, this evolutionary process may also
have triggered more violent behavior with the same weapons being used both
in hunting and in fighting.
Thus it seems that a certain amount of biologically driven aggressive
behavior is directed at animals of the same species and becomes particularly
fierce when motivated by competition for sexual partners or food, though it
is very rare for any individual to be killed during such conflicts. By contrast,
playful interaction, rest, and “civility” all play an important part in feline
behavior.
When confrontation between different social groups within the same
species does occur, intimidation seems to be preferable to inflicting injury;
violent behavior is reserved for crisis situations when competition for hunting
territories is rife. Deaths often occur when individuals become isolated from
the group (due to immaturity, old age, or illness), thus losing the protection
offered by the group setting.
Murder is particularly rare among the apes and most notably among our
closest relatives, the anthropoid apes. Confrontations tend to involve the use
of projectiles. Incest is also prevented by aggressive, though not fatal, moves
to exclude certain individuals from the group.
If carrying out such research into our closest ancestors does indeed play an
essential part in identifying the beginnings of human violence, both on an
individual and a group level, then it seems that, as human beings, we cannot
resort to the excuse that our violence is a product of our pre-hominid evolution;
it is the human brain alone which has made us the most dangerous of
all animals. ....
Violence and conflict are frequently discussed as though they are specific
to the period from the Neolithic onwards. This perspective is based upon a
more “materialistic” view of human behavior – it is only since the emergence
of the first agricultural civilizations that humans have accumulated wealth
and surpluses which have, in turn, led to greed and competition. Capitalization
and signs of prosperity are certain to trigger feelings of greed in the less
well off.
It is, however, of greater interest to turn our attention to hunter-gatherer
populations which tend not to amass supplies long term (except perhaps for
the more civilized hunter-gatherer societies) and thus envy is less common.
In view of this, it is useful to investigate whether or not they, too, are faced
with conflict in times of crisis and suffer from this apparent necessity to
initiate confrontation at regular intervals. Two different perspectives may be
adopted here, one based upon archeological evidence and the other upon
anthropological fact. Although material evidence relating to battle is often
lacking, many prehistorians consider it likely that violent clashes have taken
place between different groups since the Paleolithic.
