PDA

View Full Version : Evidence of the earliest known substantial human conflict



Tomenable
27-02-16, 23:43
There is evidence of brutal prehistoric warfare around 13,000 years ago when Eurasian migrants first entered North Africa.

Battlefields with many skeletons were uncovered by archaeologists, some had Sub-Saharan features, some looked Caucasoid.

"Saharan remains may be evidence of first race war, 13,000 years ago. The skeletons – from the east bank of the Nile in northern Sudan – are from victims of the world’s oldest known relatively large-scale human armed conflict":

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/archaeology/saharan-remains-may-be-evidence-of-first-race-war-13000-years-ago-9603632.html


(...) The discovery of dozens of previously undetected arrow impact marks and flint arrow fragments suggests that the majority of the individuals – men, women and children – in the Jebel Sahaba cemetery were killed by enemy archers, and then buried by their own people. What’s more, the new research demonstrates that the attacks – in effect a prolonged low-level war – took place over many months or years.

(...)

Work carried out at Liverpool John Moores University, the University of Alaska and New Orleans’ Tulane University indicates that they were part of the general sub-Saharan originating population – the ancestors of modern Black Africans. The identity of their killers is however less easy to determine. But it is conceivable that they were people from a totally different racial and ethnic group – part of a North African/ Levantine/European people who lived around much of the Mediterranean Basin.

The two groups – although both part of our species, Homo sapiens – would have looked quite different from each other and were also almost certainly different culturally and linguistically. The sub-Saharan originating group had long limbs, relatively short torsos and projecting upper and lower jaws along with rounded foreheads and broad noses, while the North African/Levantine/European originating group had shorter limbs, longer torsos and flatter faces. Both groups were very muscular and strongly built.

Certainly the northern Sudan area was a major ethnic interface between these two different groups at around this period. Indeed the remains of the North African/Levantine/European originating population group has even been found 200 miles south of Jebel Sahaba, thus suggesting that the arrow victims were slaughtered in an area where both populations operated.

What’s more, the period in which they perished so violently was one of huge competition for resources – for they appear to have been killed during a severe climatic downturn in which many water sources dried up, especially in summer time.

The climatic downturn – known as the Younger Dryas period – had been preceded by much lusher, wetter and warmer conditions which had allowed populations to expand. But when climatic conditions temporarily worsened during the Younger Dryas, water holes dried up, vegetation wilted and animals died or moved to the only major year-round source of water still available – the Nile.

Humans of all ethnic groups in the area were forced to follow suit – and migrated to the banks (especially the eastern bank) of the great river. Competing for finite resources, human groups would have inevitably clashed – and the current investigation is demonstrating the apparent scale of this earliest known substantial human conflict. (...)

http://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/styles/story_medium/public/thumbnails/image/2014/07/13/19/15sahara3.jpg

To get the big picture of how warfare in the Stone Age / Neolithic period could look like - watch the video in my previous thread:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/32030-A-real-life-Stone-Age-battle?p=475983&viewfull=1#post475983

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BzqwOBneC4


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BzqwOBneC4

bicicleur
28-02-16, 00:25
what makes them think this has to do with an Eurasian invasion?
is there any evidence of 2 different populations on the spot?

this is the when and where :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qadan_culture

if I understand correctly, this battle was probably not a unique one-time event

changing climate and water levels of the Nile made this area atractive 15 ka and made it depopulated again by 11 ka
by 13 ka it must have been overpopulated while conditions started to deteriorate
inter-tribal wars is the most logical explanation, there is no evidence pointing to an invasion of newcomers

Fire Haired14
28-02-16, 22:58
https://i.imgflip.com/zzgbn.jpg

Fire Haired14
28-02-16, 23:00
In the Oriental Museum in Chicago is an over 10,000 year old rock that has human blood preserved on it. I believe it's the oldest preserved human blood but not sure. I've seen it plenty of times :).

bicicleur
28-02-16, 23:38
https://i.imgflip.com/zzgbn.jpg

yeah right, this is not science, it is playing the media

what is the purpose of all this?

Angela
29-02-16, 00:09
This has been making the rounds of the anthrofora world forever. There's no scientific basis for any of this whatsoever; it's just pure sensationalistic speculation peddled by people who want it to be true because it plays into their agenda and narrative. It's a way of saying, see, we're not evil, this is natural in human beings; it's been part of us since time immemorial.

It's also on a par with all this nonsense about babies preferring faces like their own. I'm aware of the research, but the deductions from it are totally overblown. If you put babies of different races in a sandbox, in a couple of hours they're all playing perfectly happily together. I've seen it, so this isn't a hypothetical. This was true in the slave era in the American south as well. The slave children and the white children were friends; at adolescence they had to be taught that this kind of semi-equality and intimacy was over. Some reading of Faulkner, Carson McCullers, Flannery O'Connor, William Styron, etc. is in order.

Tomenable
29-02-16, 00:26
https://i.imgflip.com/zzgbn.jpg

The "White men" ??? They were not white in terms of skin colour.

Modern Ethiopians have only one mutation for light skin, and its frequency is not fixed.

The White men = people with both major mutations for light skin:

http://www.snpedia.com/index.php/Skin_pigmentation


Skin color is determined genetically (...)

SNPs in two genes are known to be involved:

in the SLC24A5 gene: rs1426654

in the SLC45A2 gene: rs16891982

Whoever came there from Eurasia, carried only one of these two.

Edit:

Or maybe they carried both, but later selection removed one from gene pool due to high solar insolation.

Tomenable
29-02-16, 00:29
It's also on a par with all this nonsense about babies preferring faces like their own. I'm aware of the research, but the deductions from it are totally overblown. If you put babies of different races in a sandbox, in a couple of hours they're all playing perfectly happily together. I've seen it, so this isn't a hypothetical. This was true in the slave era in the American south as well. The slave children and the white children were friends

I'm not sure if you are right - watch this video, please: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRvVFW85IcU#t=6m38s

And also this study is very interesting, it shows that ethnocentrism has a genetic basis (also in plants and animals):

https://www.google.pl/search?client=opera&q=Evolutionary+advantage+of+ethnocentrism&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html

"(...) It is widely believed in social science that ethnocentrism involves extensive social learning and considerable social and cognitive abilities (Hewstone, Rubin, & Willis 2002; LeVine & Campbell 1972; Sherif 1966). However, there is also evidence that ethnocentrism is common throughout a diverse range of animal (Chase 1980) and even plant (Dudley & File 2007; Runyon, Mescher & De Moraes 2006) species. Such evidence suggests that ethnocentrism may be rooted in biological evolution, and that its essential cognitive component is quite simple: the ability to distinguish in- vs. out-group members and select different behaviors based on that distinction. A striking example from red fire ants is that queens without a particular gene are detected and killed at birth by worker ants (Keller & Ross 1998). Recent computer simulations with simple abstract agents demonstrate that ethnocentrism can indeed originate through evolutionary processes (Hammond & Axelrod 2006a, 2006b). (...)"

bicicleur
29-02-16, 10:42
This has been making the rounds of the anthrofora world forever. There's no scientific basis for any of this whatsoever; it's just pure sensationalistic speculation peddled by people who want it to be true because it plays into their agenda and narrative. It's a way of saying, see, we're not evil, this is natural in human beings; it's been part of us since time immemorial.

It's also on a par with all this nonsense about babies preferring faces like their own. I'm aware of the research, but the deductions from it are totally overblown. If you put babies of different races in a sandbox, in a couple of hours they're all playing perfectly happily together. I've seen it, so this isn't a hypothetical. This was true in the slave era in the American south as well. The slave children and the white children were friends; at adolescence they had to be taught that this kind of semi-equality and intimacy was over. Some reading of Faulkner, Carson McCullers, Flannery O'Connor, William Styron, etc. is in order.

if that is the purpose, why do they claim then that the victims were unarmed ?

and this isn't an anthrforum, it is CNN broadcasting
and who is this publisher calling itself 'The Independent' ?
http://www.independent.co.uk/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Independent
it doesn't look like an anthroforum either

who got this in the media? and why?

the only conclusion so far : don't trust the media
which I know since long

Angela
29-02-16, 15:42
if that is the purpose, why do they claim then that the victims were unarmed ?

and this isn't an anthrforum, it is CNN broadcasting
and who is this publisher calling itself 'The Independent' ?
http://www.independent.co.uk/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Independent
it doesn't look like an anthroforum either

who got this in the media? and why?

the only conclusion so far : don't trust the media
which I know since long

I totally agree with your conclusion. The original article is bad science journalism. This is their grand conclusion :

"The identity of their killers is however less easy to determine. But it is conceivable that they were people from a totally different racial and ethnic group – part of a North African/ Levantine/European people who lived around much of the Mediterranean Basin."

This is not science.

I have no idea if CNN actually covered the story. However, the picture that was posted is obviously some lame photo shop done by someone who has too much time on his hands, and was meant sarcastically.

The uses to which a story is put can be different from what is intended by the original reporter.

My response to the narrative to which I referred above is that it's bunk. People don't need differences in race to kill each other. Husband kills wife because of sexual jealousy, child kills father for the inheritance, or because the father is too strict, likewise brother kills brother over a woman or money. Teen-agers from the same ethnic group will kill each other over an expensive pair of sneakers, or over drugs. In times of hardship, people will kill for a loaf of bread, even if it's a family member.

All this simplistic arm chair philosophizing could be cured by the dose of reality provided by a good month in the criminal courts.

As for group violence, what then to make of the conflict in northern Ireland? The Protestants and the Catholics happily tried to kill each other off for hundreds of years and there isn't a hair's width of difference between them genetically.

That isn't to say, of course, that racial differences might not make it easier to see someone else as "the other", to "de-humanize" him and thus make the killing easier.

@Tomenable:

I saw the video the first time you posted it. It is one small study. My recollection is that all of the children were Caucasian? I'm not sure what controls were in place. Did they factor in dominant hand versus non dominant hand? Were the dolls chosen dressed in different, brighter colors? Were there sex differences? Were the children alone when they were choosing the dolls, or were there other children present? One big problem with all social science studies is that it's difficult to control for other factors.

I wouldn't base a whole theory of human behavior on this one study.

That said, since we're doing some arm chair philosophizing, this is my take on all of this:

Most people are born selfish, wanting only their own gain and gratification and with little to no concern for others. It used to be called "original sin". :)

The more similarity to themselves they see, the more natural it is for them to give that person consideration. In terms of evolution, it may have something to do with group survival. (It's like the fact that babies seem to have a preference for high pitched voices, a voice that a mother might have...it's a survival instinct.) Some people don't ever move very far beyond it. That's why there are people who really can't widen their circle of concern much beyond their own biological children.

The fact remains that most people are capable of moving beyond that, and defining their "group" in a different way, and it goes for very young children as well, if not for babies. I'm not sure that the change with time is all because of teaching; I also think that brain maturation may have something to do with it. At any rate, in my experience, no heavy indoctrination is needed. It happens naturally with propinquity. People who live in a multi-cultural really integrated society know that.

Of course, as well as that minority of people who seem to have more than an average amount of compassion and kindness for others and an ingrained sense of fair play (also found in your study), there are always the "damaged" ones who don't have and can't even be taught concern for anyone beyond themselves.That's one way of defining a sociopath; the lack of a "conscience", caused, one could hypothesize, by the inability to imagine being "the other". Not all of them become serial killers; they just spend their lives leaving a trail of misery in their wake. We used to have a child like that in our neighborhood and community club. My friend used to call her "the devil child". The most beautiful little girl you can imagine, dark wavy hair, fair skin, sapphire blue eyes, perfect features. She looked like an angel. Within ten minutes of her arrival every other child in the playgroup would be crying. She's the same as an adult; she just hides it better.

bicicleur
29-02-16, 19:49
the 'original sin'
it should be taught in class again
todays models and views don't take into acount any more

Angela
29-02-16, 20:42
the 'original sin'
it should be taught in class again
todays models and views don't take into acount any more

If you're interested in the topic, see:

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1143634.Original_Selfishness

"Original Selfishness: Original Sin and Evil in the Light of Evolution"I should sue him in court; he obviously stole my idea. :)

holderlin
01-03-16, 16:28
It was strange to see this kind of race bating in mainstream sources. Saw it awhile back, noted it, and dismissed all but that it could have been Caucasoids clashing with SSAs. Could have.

Fire Haired14
02-03-16, 00:21
The "White men" ??? They were not white in terms of skin colour.

Yeah, but the author is clearly so into making this a "Caucasoid" vs Black thing, because of the history of racism in America. So, in the mind of the author they're somehow white.

Fire Haired14
02-03-16, 00:37
I have no idea if CNN actually covered the story. However, the picture that was posted is obviously some lame photo shop done by someone who has too much time on his hands, and was meant sarcastically.

https://i.imgflip.com/103uzr.jpg

Greying Wanderer
04-03-16, 21:47
yeah right, this is not science, it is playing the media

what is the purpose of all this?

i took it as a joke (made me laugh or at least chuckle a little)