The Origins of War (500,000 BC-3,000 BC)
In a part of the Nile Valley that was soon going to be flooded by the construction of the Aswan Dam, the archaeologist Fred Wendorf made a groundbreaking discovery. In 1964 he found a prehistoric burial site which contained 61 skeletons near the border between Egypt and Sudan. This burial site, called Jebel Sahaba, was constructed by members of the Qadan culture about 14,000 years ago. Because almost all these skeletons showed clear signs of physical trauma, Wendorf and his colleagues thought they had found the oldest battlefield in history. But were these skeletons really the victims of the first battle? And did organized warfare even exist at all at that time? If so, what did it look like? In this video we address these questions and search for the origins of war.
Patreon (thank you): / sandrhomanhistory
Paypal (thank you: www.paypal.com/paypalme/SandR...
Twitter: / sandrhoman
Some must read mlitary history books:
Ambrose, S. E., Band of Brothers: E Company, 2001. amzn.to/438ltvZ
Baime, A. J., The Accidental President: Harry S. Truman, 2017. amzn.to/3TcDGUj
Beard, M., Emperor of Rome: Ruling the Ancient Roman World, 2023. amzn.to/49L2olR
Bevoor, A., Stalingrad: The Fateful Siege: 1942-1943, 1999. amzn.to/4a4rqwe
Beevor, A., The Second World War, 2013. amzn.to/3wNFITu
Brennan, P+D., Gettysburg in Color, 2022. amzn.to/48LGldG
Clausewitz, C., On War, 2010. amzn.to/3Vblf5
Kaushik, R., A Global History of Pre-Modern Warfare: 10,000 BCE-1500 CE, 2021. amzn.to/49Mtqt7
McPherson, J., Battle Cry of Freedom, The Civil War Era, 2021. amzn.to/3TseYAW
Tsu, S., The Art of War, 2007, amzn.to/3TuknHA
Sledge. E. B., With the Old Breed: At Peleliu and Okinawa, 2008. amzn.to/439olIK
Pomerantsev, P., How to Win an Information War, 2024. amzn.to/3Ts0YqQ
00:00-00:58 Intro: First Battle in History?
00:58-07:15 Chapter 1: What is War?
07:15-10:25 Chapter 2: The Beginning of Organized Violence
10:25-13:17 Chapter 3: First Traces of War
13:17-17:00 Chapter 4: Organized Warfare
17:00-21:14 Chapter 4: An Age of War?
21:14-23:20 Epilogue
Bibliography:
Archer, Christon I./Ferris, John R./Herwig, Holger H./Travers, Timothy H. E., World History of Warfare, Lincoln 2002.
Churchill, S. E., Franciscus, R., McKean-Peraza, H. A., Daniel, J. & Warren, B. R. Shanidar 3 Neandertal rib puncture wound and paleolithic weaponry. J. Hum. Evol. 57, p 163-178 (2009).
Crevecoeur, Isabelle et. Al., New insights on interpersonal violence in the Late Pleistocene based on the Nile valley cemetery of Jebel Sahaba, in: Scientific Reports vol. 11 (2021), www.nature.com/articles/s4159....
Ferril, Arther, The Origins of War. From the Stone Age to Alexander the Great, London 1997.
Harari, Yuval N., Sapiens. A Brief History of Humankind, New York 2011.
Keeley, Lawrence H., War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage, Oxford 1996.
LeBlanc, Steven, The Origins of Warfare and Violence, in: The Cambridge World History of Violence vol. 1: The Prehistoric and Ancient World, pp 39-57.
Scherer, Andrew K., Recent Research on the Archaeology of War and Violence, in Annual Review of Anthropology 50 (2021), pp 403-421.
Waal, Frans de, The Age of Empathy, New York 2009.
Zeng, T.C., Aw, A.J. & Feldman, M.W. Cultural hitchhiking and competition between patrilineal kin groups explain the post-Neolithic Y-chromosome bottleneck. Nat Commun 9, 2077 (2018). doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-04...
#history #documentary #education
We put a lot of effort and poured substantial resources into this video. For example, we licensed a lot more footage and artwork, put much more effort into research, storytelling and editing. All in all, this resulted in much more work but also in a much better video and viewing experience, at least that’s what we think. This only became possible because we finally have more time to focus on KZhead. We recently finished most of our other projects. Roman has finally handed in his master thesis this summer (he received the best possible mark!) and Sandro has finished his diploma as a history teacher (also the best possible mark for his final test lesson). We also finally published our article in an academic collective volume edited by Dr. Kilian Baur and Robert Trautmannsberger. It’s about our experience as content creators here on KZhead. It covers some of the difficulties we faced as content creators (trying to be accurate vs. limited time and resources). The article also explains the methods we developed (or tried) to bring a deeper understanding of history and historiography to KZhead while keeping the content entertaining. The article is open access, so you should be able to read it for free, but it is only available in German. www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110792898-005/html ) We’re going to teach a part of this in a course at the university of Zurich next semester (2024). In the future we plan to put the same effort in our videos, although some projects might still be a bit less complex. If you want to support us, feel free to buy one of the books that we list below or consider becoming a Patron ( www.patreon.com/sandrhomanhistory ). By becoming a Patron, you get access to previews, artwork, content polls and BTC-updates. We really do rely on these income streams. For us, 2023 was one of the worst years, financially speaking, because many sponsors have refused to work with us (partly because of the overall market situation, partly because our clicks were not that great). While we’re not exactly starving or anything like that, we would be grateful for a bit more financial security. We’re also still trying to cover the cost of the artwork that we use in our videos, which would be about $600 / video (at the moment we’re at about $550 / video (about 10% goes to Patreon for their service)). This is important for us because the artwork and licensing of videos and music puts quite a dent in our finances. There’s a more extensive bibliography in the description of this video but if you’re interested in some of the more accessible books mentioned in this video, have a look here (affiliated links): Arther Ferrill, The Origins Of War: From The Stone Age To Alexander The Great amzn.to/46yjZf4 Lawrence H. Keeley, War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage amzn.to/46r4pl2 Yuval Noah Harari, Homo Sapiens: amzn.to/3ta5e3n Frans de Waal, the Age of Empathy. Nature's Lessons for a Kinder Society: amzn.to/3PW8BnF The two papers on Jebel Sahaba and the Y-chromosome bottleneck can be found here: Crevecoeur, Isabelle et. Al., New insights on interpersonal violence in the Late Pleistocene based on the Nile valley cemetery of Jebel Sahaba, in: Scientific Reports vol. 11 (2021), www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-89386-y Zeng, T.C., Aw, A.J. & Feldman, M.W. Cultural hitchhiking and competition between patrilineal kin groups explain the post-Neolithic Y-chromosome bottleneck. Nat Commun 9, 2077 (2018). www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04375-6
@@Gibson7Clans Jezzzus
@@Gibson7Clans Learn to spell first (and fix your grammar) before you start arguing over nothingness
congratulations!
@@Gibson7Clans Oh look a troll with a new account Joined 28 Sept 2023. 🤣
Astonishing work, Sandro and Roman! You are a credit to history content on KZhead. I hope things continue to improve for you, and congratulations for your excellent achievements so far!
Given that organized groups of Apes have gone to war, I feel it's safe to say modern human species have likely always had war.
And always will
Yeah we also seen baboons f**king the living crap out of each other, can we assume humans are all bi-hyper-sexual since the beginning?
Considering all herd animals do that to an extent it’s not surprising
@@robertferguson533 no
@@lolasdm6959chimpanzees are significantly more related to humans than baboons though
It wasn't a war - it was just a special raiding operation...
Lmfao
Slava Ukraine 🇺🇦
Mostly peaceful
"As long as there's two people left on the planet, someone is gonna want someone dead" -TF2 Sniper
As a Hobbesian; "Men are not fallen angels but mere animals seeking to ascend to heaven."
“War is father of all, and king of all. He renders some gods, others men; he makes some slaves, others free.” ― Heraclitus, Fragments
"What is War? Maybe you'll hurt me... You hurt me ... No more..." Then the soldiers start wiggling their heads, following the melody of unknown lands, played with bizarre instruments, and sung by a bard with clothes that they have never ever seen before. -Time Traveller Troll
I would add that Guns, Germs, and Steel is worth reading. The sections where Diamond talks about inter-tribal warfare in Papua New Guinea (in the 1960's, and as close as we get to neolithic warfare outside of say, the Amazon) is an eye-opener. You don't think of one or two or five guys getting killed in little scuffles is much ado of anything, until you realize it's happening year after year, and - proportional to their population - is casualties at WW2 levels for these groups.
Guns, Germs, and Steel was debunked long ago lol
@@youlemur How so? I disagree with Diamond on several points of theory (like agricultural advantages as the driving force of success), but he WAS there, and his basic data was sound.
Yeah, Diamond is neither a historian nor a sociologist, he´s a journalist. Good writer, but have a look at BadEmpanada´s video on the book, its a brutal teardown. And not some opinon-BS either, he just shows the bad science of most central theses Diamond bases the book on. I was a Diamond fan before that too, but that was a really eye-opening citique after which I felt hard pressed to see anything more than an entertaining storyteller in him.
@@user-un8tv1pp8m thank you
Okay, I will do so.@@user-un8tv1pp8m
"The most persistent sound which reverberates through man's history is the beating of war drums." Arthur Koestler
Looking at our near relatives in the animal kingdom, I think it's safe to assume that war predates humanity itself.
No, animals do not form large numbers and fight one another for political prowess. Animals kill one another for 2 purposes, to obtain resources &/or to ensure the future of their species. For some, they kill to obtain the carcass as a resource for others they kill because of competition for resources or suitable mates. It’s naive to think we didn’t invent warfare. It’s also naive to think nature is peaceful. We are especially heinous beasts. Nukes, bio-attacks, genocide.
@@user-qt3br1wq2fAmong apes, different packs do fight other packs over resources like food and territory. I'm not sure if these fights are organized enough to be considered warfare though...
Baboons are your near relatives bro, all they do is fx each other.
@@user-qt3br1wq2fapes form into groups in the jungle and go to war against each other for territory and female mates. This is a well documented fact. Organized violence for ressources is an ageless act
I think that the fact that Chimps (our closest living relatives) are pretty much in a constant state of war with one another says a lot about how early humans engaged in war.
Well they fight but it is not what he means with war.
"I think that the fact that Chimps (our closest living relatives).." That's not true though... bonobos are - Pan paniscus - and they have a totally different culture to chimpanzees. But it's all pretty much irrelevant any way, because Hominds are NOT evolved from them; we just have a common ancestor, that is long extinct.
Baboons are just as close and all they do is endless f**king with each other
@@alicelund147to say that they just "fight" would be an understatement. They completely brutalize each other, eat the corpses of their enemies, etc.
@@balonkita185 And is that the definition of war? Then we don't have war anymore?
Me and my buddy Ooga Booga gonna pull up on some Neanderthals with that Pointy.
“If I die in Uruk, there ain’t nothing to it. Cave music made me do it. Paleontologists want to label me a criminal, there ain’t nothing to it cave music made me do it” - Rock Cube
This is art ^
Now that's what I call music with rocks in.
"War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner."
Blood Meridian quotation detected.
''Before man was, war had to make do with ants.'' 😁
@@daniel-zh9nj6yn6y war: "Is man here yet?" Evolution: No! I swear to god, if you ask one more time...
@@volunteer4awesome 😁
Poetic, but bull shit. Maybe if it rhymed it would be more true? War requires civilization. Look it up. and get away from the Anime.
The idea of using houses as a primitive wall features prominently in competitive Age of Empires 2 gameplay strategy. It’s fascinating how actual history mirrors modern gameplay strategy.
It's the other way around, modern war strategy games are inspired by history, and maybe the source of inspiration for those games wasn't Cathal Huyuk, but Pueblo communities from America.
@@theOrionsarmshouse walling in AoE is not an inherent feature. It's an exploit.
@@ayushmaangoswami5152 it's doesn't matter, from the point of wiew of what I said that's irrelevant , whoever used this idea in this game was inspired by historical reality, this is a case of art imitating life, not one of life mirroring artistic activities.
Discussions of Subject versus Subject Complement apart, an astute observation. Logic _does_ tend to win out.
SandRhoman posts. I click.
That’s my style sir!
And Allen Linnen Jr. looked upon SandRhoman’s creation, and it was good.
Same.
I love when a random history video that I find interesting pops up in my recommended
“War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner.” The Judge was right about it, it seems...
Really enjoy the quality of your job. Thanks. The narrative properly like a criminal investigation. Love to see more of this format. Congrats
Will there be a second part? The Assyrian period is my favorite period of warfare!!!
Yes. First we will cover the Bronze Age. Then at some point the (Neo)Assyrian and Persian Empires.
"War... War never changes."
This early period of human history is so interesting to think about.
"Before man was man, war waited for him."
Öetzi's pose suggests he was caught during a wild rave, busting out sick dance moves.
"Napoleon was the greatest general of all tim-" The stone age general who invented tactics :
The caveman who had a moment of spontaneous brilliance is more intelligent than any of the “greats” who stood on the shoulders of giants
That shall be the og god of war, the first human to invented strat and tactic.
All hail general Ooga booga the man who realised fighting in a group is more effective than alone
Even ants have wars.
Its nature to go into war, when your ant nation is threathened by another ant nation, that wants to expand their decendants with their own ant queens.
@@jout738”muh queen!” what a bunch of micro ass simps
They are all female. Colony only produces males for breeding and those die right after mating.@@meme-vw1vi
Those are by definition not wars. Journalists and rag writers often use words inaccurately and loosely.
You should read about the Gombe chimp war where Jane Goodall (the anthropologist and primatologist) witnessed a war between chimp groups. The groups of chimps formed patrols and raiding parties and organized themselves for battle. Considering that even ants go to war, I would say that humanity and its earlier ancestors have always fought each other.
Oh my lord I love this channel. Hadn't popped up on my feed and life got busy, but then this video came up and WHOOO like coming up for air. Keep up the great work. I love history and you keep finding these niches that nobody satisfyingly cover.
I bet prehistoric people got more food from trapping than hunting with spears or bows and arrows. No mammoth will try to kill you while trapping, no wolf packs come wondering in to scavenge the dead mammoth. Trapping is safe and generally provides consistent food source. Hunting big game would have been extremely dangerous and a less consistent food source.
There's hunting myths dating back to 40,000 years ago. They definitely hunted big game One of the first depictions of a supernatural being, about 20,000 years ago is of a Lion headed man in Europe. Lions back then being the apex predators, it is more than likely the people of the time wished to claim its power as a predator while on the hunt
@@meduseld6610 The myths you speak of are interesting. Seperate from trapping. Also a separate fact, trapping in 19th century N. America provided more meat for settlers than firearms. Trapping allows you to catch meat and still be able to farm.
A severely overlooked topic, thank you for this.
before man was, war waited for him
I got this channel proposed in my feed. It’s been a while since I came across a channel like this. Historical correct, to the point and well made. You even added the latest findings about Ötzi in the video. I already subscribed and I will now watch some of your other videos.
I really like the sound design in this video. There's much to like besides, but the music and narration are well balanced, and the sound effects add a lot of punch and help set tone. Great work!
this subject was completely unexpected but extremely interesting. you continue to surpass expectations. thank you for all your hard work
Great video! But i think it is important to mention also , that even chimpanzees engage in conflicts that can be interpreted as war. Most famous case: The Chimpanzee war in Gombe en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War
Yeah, true and a very interesting case. There are also reports of ant wars btw. In the end we cut this from our script. I guess with our definition the Gombe war would only be considered a partial war due to the lack of organisation. While there were hierarchies among the chimpanzees, they only used tactics to a certain degree. One thing that seems clear is that it was a group effort and after the they had split there were two autonomous groups, so that would fit with our definition. However, while researching this, it was not entirely clear to us in how far chimpanzees experience psychological trauma (this is far outside our area of competence). And then, there seem to be some critics of the Gombe war, arguing it only happened because of human interference (which itself was later also critiqued). All in all, it was difficult to find military historians who talked about this and it seemed to us that this is more discussed among anthropologist and biologist. So in the end we decided to play it safe and stick to the more conventional military history narratives. This is not to say that the Gombe war was not a war but we really wanted to focus on humans, so we're okay with having excluded it.
I still and always will love your channel so much. I hope you get 10 million subs and get to educate the entire world about history.
I would have also mentioned the fighting which took place in the Tollense valley in Nothern Germany. It is one of our earliest findings of battles/war in Europe.
What coincidence. I just finished reading Dawn of Empire by Sam Barone yesterday. Basically it's about how the first big village, Orak (later renamed to Akkad), built big walls for the first time in history to try to stop the invasion of the biggest barbarian horde of that time, the Alur Meriki. They're led by an ex-barbarian and the villagers have to build the wall and train enough archers in time before the Alur Meriki begins. It's in Bronze Age Mesopotamia. It's a really good read and I highly recommend it to all history nerds.
"before man, war waited"
SandRoman History: "What is war?" "War is politics by other means." -- Carl von Clausewitz, Prussian General
Yeah sometimes it is
@@Saber23 It ALWAYS is.
@@sunnyjim1355 Politics is war by less violent means.
@@sunnyjim1355no not really. The Vikings had no political reasons for attacking. They were suffering from change in their homes climate. Not to say what they did was right but it wasn't for political reasons.
An absolutely incredible video! Well produced and well sourced, thank you.
The tribal “wars” of Papua New Guinea will give you clues about the first wars, especially from the 1950’s and before.
Neanderthal DNA making up only 1-4% of our DNA does not indicate the interbreeding theory is incorrect (that some people are 96% human, 4% Neanderthal 40,000 years later means the interbreeding that occurred was not insignificant). Just as likely, if not more so, is a large population difference between the two sub-species. Neanderthals lived in small groups of 8 or so individuals. Humans lived in groups of 40 or more. If a large population moves into a sparsely populated area and interbreeds with it, the smaller population will be swallowed up, and its genes diluted. Moreover, there was no technology difference between humans and neanderthals for the first 3/4th of our coexistence. (humans having been around since 200,000 BCE). It wasn't until 50,000 BCE that a technological difference began to occur. Before then, Neanderthals were every bit our equal; but fewer in number. The most likely scenario is interbreeding and displacement, with only minimal direct violence. Large groups of humans move into an area and begin consuming resources there. Neanderthals move out of the region, unable to compete. Rinse repeat a few thousand years, until the Neanderthals are pushed all the way to the edges of Iberia, in response to the westward migrations of humans. It should also be pointed out we only have Neanderthal mDNA, no yDNA. Meaning only human men and neanderthal women produced fertile offspring. Neanderthal men and human women either couldn't produce fertile offspring (most likely), or refused to.
Plausible. But lack of yDNA could also be an indication of Human culture at the time, namely wife stealing. Just as many human bloodlines could have been wiped out due to both conflict and competition, but a smaller population meant extinction for the Neanderthal.
Something extremely odd happened with the Neanderthal Y chromosome over 100,000 years ago. It disappeared. Male Neanderthals after that carried the Homo Sapien Y. Scientists are still working out what happened but male Neanderthal and female Homo Sapien unions would not be traceable after that.
@@davidkeely43 almost. It’s true that Neanderthal yDNA is more similar to humans than it is to Denisovans, which the opposite is true for all other kinds of DNA tested, but it’s isn’t 100% identical. We can still test for Neanderthal yDNA, which is remarkably absent for all modern humans.
Just proves that men will screw anything that moves, and if it doesn't move they'll push it.
6:05 wow, club guy suddenly switched sides and joined the spearman who tried to kill him in the previous pic. What a turncoat!
I like a true opportunist.
Hey man, really well put together mini-doc. Good research, visuals, and stories. Keep going
Keep it up SandRhoman! Always love your videos. They should pay you more for how well you educate all of us! Best wishes and woof!
Superb work! I'm always eager to watch your videos, but this time you've really outdone yourselves
How would you determine if a group was organization? Quite possible they were long before these sources, isn‘t it?
That is always a possibility in history and archeology. The oldest proof of something happening is unlikely to be the earliest instance, but it's the only thing we can use to determine anything.
Big hat guy looks like leader, simple as that.
In general this is the big issue in this topic but also just in general when talking about pre-history. It is hard to infer social culture from material culture and two different people might interpret the same evidence in different ways. Sometimes it might be obvious that someone was a leader because they had way more material wealth but other times it isn't and that material wealth could be evidence of some burial offering.
When there is hierarchy, where more stronger or wealthier person exist above the other and could influenced them. How you determined that? Archeology.
Exceptionally well made video! I especially loved the drawings and quick flood of evidence pictures!
The production value for your videos only continue to improve! The extra effort and resources definitely paid off
War. War never changes.
War...., war has changed.
@@arcticwulf5796 that was a reference to the intros from the fallout games
Noggin nocking vs total nuclear destruction. Noggin nocking was simpler times.
@@mad0131 never played mgs
@@raclark2730still dead either way.
Hello, Reenactor and slinger here, would like to point out that with rocks hitting anything beyond 60-70 meters is quite impossible on a regular basis, maybe one or two out of 10 attempts would result in a hit, naturally the skill of the slinger comes into play, but once the stone is released from the sling, same forces act on the stone akin to that of a musket ball, and it will eventually start spinning off to a random side after 60ish meters. now should be said this is with natural rocks of roughly same size/weight and shape. Now if you use Lead shot or material of higher density, the shot will go much further as the density of the projectile kinda scales with the range you get. reason for this is that you can really only spin the sling so fast before releasing the projectile.
well hitting a formation of men is pretty different I imagine, hence why we used muskets for quite some time.
Hitting a single objective is indeed hard, but that doesn’t matter, in battle you don’t need to hit a specific objective, you just need to hit one of many objectives
@@lolasdm6959 naturaly hitting a formation is easier, tho if were talking formations ca 10 000 bc its more a scattering of up to a dozen or two men who covers each others flanks, musketry has been used in quite a few different formations. but even tho a musketball might fly as far as 200-300 meters+++ doesnt mean you will actually hit anywhere near the enemy formations, it might hit the dirt infront of the enemy line or wizz past over their heads.
@@Leo-ok3uj if you look up the baleric slingers mentioned here they were often employed by the romans as skirmishers, basicly to harass the approaching enemey formations, the roman medicus even had a sling shot extractor tong as a fairly standard part of their kit, akin to modern instruments used to pull out bullets. tho by this time i would recon lead shot would have been used not rocks, but if you do use lead you might double or triple your effective range up to maybe 150 meters compared to stone. this doesnt mean you cant get the projectile futher. An acquaintance of me currently holds the world record in range shooting with a historical bow with 500andsomething absurd meters, but he says himself that he cant hit the broad side of a barn at that range.
@@trolletdraugheim7722 true Although musketeers do skirmish at extreme range of 300m at times, usually just wounding the enemy at most.
war... war never changes
Started from chimps!
@@pugilist102 Ants are even older.
its all fun and games, until its a nuclear war
way before that
There is a video from 1963 of west Papau tribal warfare. I think this is probably the most literal sense of what warfare at this time might has looked like. The video shows combat between two tribes that have only had recent contact with the western world.
Every organized species go to war, from wolves to ants, going through apes and whales. Only solitary animals "can't war".
War....war never changes
You must know nothing about war. You in high school?
@@hkschubert9938someone has never played fallout
@@mathiasmueller9693 only the Japanese know fallout. High school right?
@hkschubert9938 I was in high school when the first fallout game came out in the 90s. Considering the number of games and cultural references this series has had, i must assume you are in elementary school. Right?
Thank you for the video! It is nice to see a variation of subjects, and I hope you will be able to attract a larger audience!
17:43 The increased budget is apparent in these animations. Well done. Great video for real though, love me some "pre-history."
There never existed a "noble savage," that is one of the great falsehoods.
What happens to groups that refused to practice war? They get taken over by those that do.
@@anathardayaldar Exactly, the genes of such a people wouldn't be passed on and the culture would disappear.
I believe explorers were finding island tribes who were remarkably peaceful, so it was a feasible theory
Great work. There's also a lot of ethnographic evidence that can help us understand how prehistoric hunter-gatherers might have waged war or committed violence. I had not heard of that paper on patrilineal kin group competition in the neolithic, it's very cool!
Fascinating topic. Excellent work, thank you.
Just found your channel. Love your content man. History is like my fav thing haha subscribed! ❤❤❤
You haven’t solved any philosophical dilemma, but these comments did prove that those who can’t comprehend warfare also can’t comprehend many other things.
😯
war... war changed a lot apparently
Fantastic video as always. I find prehistory endlessly fascinating.
why are all the comments on this video so crazy lol
lmao right, wtf
The KZheadr (who is not a scientist or anthropologist) is quite racist.
Agreed - so much to solicit positive response, and yet people are prepared to make their first and only comment a negative one.
@@conciousjh14 Says the guy who offers no proof to refute him.
KZhead doesn't allow links so I wrote down the articles and their origins. Learn to read and Google.@@addisonwelsh
There may be even game theory reasons why war always existed as a peaceful people would be exterminated by warlike neighbors. This happened to Moriori, the peaceful polynesians inhabiting Chatham islands, who were in invaded by their warlike Māori cousins from New Zeeland who killed, ate, tortured, r*p*d and enslaved them in an almost complete genocide.
And then white NZ had to reparations. The insanity never ends.
Absolutely amazing video you guys don’t miss!
this is a good and interesting topic, i love your chanel
Learning about prehistoric mankind and his evolution really helps me put things in perspective on why some modern cultures evolved technologically and others didn't. Isolation vs contact. A hotbed of early technological advancement was found in the Mediterranean region- a major trade center for 3 continents. This is why American Indigenous, Sub-Saharan Africans, and Pacific Islanders remained behind the times for so long- no contact with outside cultures for thousands of years and once there was, the interactions were negative. It's very sad that's the way it went down. It could easily have been the other way around had geography been different, but we're so egotistical our ancestors and some modern people never saw it that way.
Ethiopia, Mali, Great Zimbabwe, Aztecs. Incans enter the chat.
Big surprise, 60 dudes on some island didn't discover scientific method.
@@jasonhaven7170 I don't know anything about Zimbabwe or Mali, but Ethiopia and the Horn DID have contact with the Middle East, Rome, and Asia. They were not insular. Now the Aztecs/Incas of Central/South America were completely insular. They did well for a self-contained group, but nowhere near the levels of the Eastern Hemisphere. If there were other civilizations on the Western Hemisphere that were developing for them to collaborate with and share ideas with, they would've been way more advanced. They were on their way, but that all stopped with Spaniard contact (disease, firearms, transportation)
@@lolasdm6959 😆😆😆🤣🤣🤣 absolutely true. An amazing movie about the topic of "cavemen" (early humans) advancing through sharing with other groups is Quest For Fire. Of course it's a made up story, but it accurately guesses what sharing might have looked like and how one advancement leads to another. Advancement happens within one single group, but the rate multiplies more quickly when there's various groups with their own achievements interacting and showing the others what they do.
Actually, the Incans had the best agricultural technology in the world at the time, and the Spanish Conquistadors said Tenochtitlan was only comparable to Constantinople. So they were both very advanced. @@sharonpopolow6874
You could have asked me. The first war happened between two tribes over who gets to hunt for food in a certain area.
What area? Don't keep your secrets now after you've revealed you know them! Don't fucking blueball the entire historical field by keeping your wisdom for yourself!
@@starcraft2ownthe one next to that River
... and who gets the women.
@@dccantbuild424nice
War...War never changes.
actually it does
@@OneOkRockSamurai Not according to Bethesda.
@@Bob.Robertsthey gave us Fallout 74 too, entertaining but....
@@urianerreerre5005 I believe 'Fallout 76' is the title you're referring to, but it was just an expression. Why so serious?
I think what I appreciate the most...a great informational video...the commentary avoiding commenting on the actual video. Did a Research Paper way back in 1982. Evolution of Technology Through Warfare, (How being better at killing each other drove technology.) To have the research now available would be a Grade changer. Excellent presentation.
Thanks for the video & an interesting topic.
Nice graphics @17:40 I laughed a little too hard, I think.
Great video! Highly enjoyed it :)
If even Modern Man is savage in so many ways, what are the odds that prehistoric man was peaceful? Unfortunately, war (violence) is indeed the nature of mankind.
Violence is in all of nature
It is not a matter of odds. Civilization gave birth to war.
"It makes no difference what men think of war, said the judge. War endures. As well ask men what they think of stone. War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner. That is the way it was and will be. That way and not some other way." -Judge Holden from Blood Meridian
This is a really dumbass quote and I feel dumb for reading it.
Fascinating as always!
Thank you for making this video
One needs only to look at children to realise how foolish the Noble Savage argument is.
Hobbes vs. Rousseau is an area where I have strong opinions: the empirical evidence backs Hobbes, Rousseau wins the argument because his view flatters us.
Very succinctly put. Problem is that the reality of nature doesn't care about flattering arguements.
i'm rather irritated that they make up arbitrary definitions for war by adding "organization" literally all human activity that is in groups is organization so any kind of collective inter-group violence is war.
@@MrChickennugget360 It does nothing except exclude solitary people commiting murder from the definition of war
@@BoxStudioExecutive Is mass looting war then? I think there's a line somewhere. 3 frat boys shooting at another 3 frat boys in a drunken argument is not war, but 3 US Marines engaging 3 Taliban is... A curious, and distinct difference... And one I don't have a solid opinion on at the moment... More research is needed.
You two are great together. It's great to see you off cable news.
Sharing very little DNA with Neanderthals doesn't preclude interbreeding that led to the merging of the species. If modern human genes were significantly more fit, then they would tend to dominate the present genome. Modern human body structure and social behavior are both hugely advantageous. It's also worth noting that many of the genes that *do* come from Neanderthals are things like resistance to various European diseases. They were selected, whereas the other features weren't. It doesn't mean that we merged, but it can't be written off on the basis of very little shared DNA.
"It's also worth noting that many of the genes that do come from Neanderthals are things like resistance to various European diseases." But how do we know we inherited those disease resistant genes from Neanderthals and didn't just independantly evolve them ourselves... just the time-scales involved?
" *Modern human body structure and social behavior are both hugely advantageous.* " Neanderthals were native to Europe. One would imagine they developed both their bodies and their societies more or less in accordance with the demands of their own environment. For example, nowadays we know that Neanderthals replaced Modern Humans on Crete. It's like they were well adapted species, not? Personally, I think Neanderthals were already almost extinct when Modern Humans started colonizing Europe on a large scale. They might have been wiped out by a supervolcano eruption near Napoli. Then, when Europe recovered from this disaster, Modern Humans could have walked into an empty continent. Surely, there was some conflict too, but possibly later on, when Modern Humans were already well adapted to this new environment. Just a hypothesis, obviously.
I think only homo sapien women and neanderthal men had reproduce because sons have more genetic impact from the mother than from the father which would explain the neanderthal genom and its scarity in our DNA.
@@sunnyjim1355 For sure -- often the same feature develops multiple times in different species. But if it's the same sequence in the same place on the genome, the likeliest explanation is one came from the other or they both came from a common ancestor. In this case, most modern humans don't have them, but they're common among Europeans -- suggesting they didn't come from a common ancestor.
@@bakters Sure -- nothing is certain, of course. But the video is right -- modern human technology and hunting ability (partially related to body structure) would have allowed them to more reliably acquire food with less danger to themselves. The idea that the organisms out-competed the others is not a foregone conclusion. One set of genes may have out-competed the others, even if the two groups were regularly breeding. But, yeah, as you say -- who knows for sure? I just wanted to point out that we can't write off the latter scenario because we'd expect a similar genetic outcome.
War is likely far far older than we give it credit for. If chimpanzee groups war with each other, our ancestors did, too.
but chimpanzees are incapable of war. ivilization is required for war and apes aint got it.
Imagine living in Europe in prehistoric times, when there were less than half a million Europeans. Then you find a neighbouring tribe encroaching on your territory. This continent ain't big enough for both of us
Look at North American tribes before contact, so many Battles and Tribes completely destroyed - Men slaves and Women to breed with and in large the Clan .
@@mrkus-nc7od So why mention North American tribes? To say, 'good thing we wiped them out?'
@@AudieHolland no ! How dit you get that ? Out of what I said ! We were talking about war fare and humans 🤔 how dit you get that Racist message from what I said -? Are you Native American? I go to there gas station and store almost daily .🤔 🤣
Tucamseh. ! The last warrior 🤔
Or, you find out there's another tribe. Do you hope that they won't attack you? Do you expose your position and risk your friends and family? Or do you launch an attack preemptively?
Great video! really informative
Otzi wasn't a victim of war, there were no other victims at the site, he was just robbed, avenged or something.
Great movie called ice man that speculates his story like that
He could have been the survivor of a battle running away.
what is war? baby please hurt me, please hurt me some more what is war?
Was war invented when Ugg the Caveman bonked Lugg the Caveman from the neighbouring cave with his new, cutting-edge club after Lugg chased a deer over to Ugg's patch of the wilderness?
Ugg bang lugg's side piece
@@hoze1235 Ugg break friendship with Lugg. Lugg muster the clubmen. No skull un-bonked.
Study of the Yanomamo by Chagnon offers a fascinating look how conflicts are started and fought by very primitive societies. And backed up by the biography of Helena Valero who was abducted by the Yanomamo a few decades before Chagnon. The Yanomamo are fascinating because they are one of the last major undiscovered tribes that were extensively studied, and were basically living in the stone age pretty much completely separated from modern civilization. Most conflicts among them were started because of women, who are often married out, or promised to other tribes at very young ages. And sometimes even before birth. Especially Chagnon got into a lot of trouble with some of his collagues because his work showed that primitive societies can be quite warlike and violent. Because the Yanomamo get part of their diet from plantains, which take about a year to start throwing off fruit after planted, it is difficult for them to move away as a group. Because one area in the jungle cannot provide nutrition to a large group from hunting alone. And continuously moving around can be quite risky. And every village (usually averaging about 70-80 people) often has women married out to other villages. Which are often treated quite badly by the other villages, so the men want to stay nearby as well to look out for their daughters and sisters. Plus if you are very isolated it is harder to pair up men and women without having a high degree of inbreeding. So besides being dangerous, living nearby other villages can have its advantages as well. They have various escalations of conflict, or ways to resolve conflict. Chest bashing (where you take turns to bash the other guy on the chest as hard as possible with the palm of one's hand), using a long stick to try and hit the other guy on top of the head, and finally straight up warfare where raiding parties are organized to try and pick off men of the enemy village(s) with bow and arrow. And interestingly a not insignificant amount of conflicts were also started because of perceived magic attacks from other village. Where sickness of one member of a village would be attributed to the shaman of another village that they were already somewhat hostile with. Another interesting finding of Chagnon was that villages would usually fission when they reached 100-150 people. The amount of conflict would increase until it escalated into violence so that the only way forward was a split. Which could be quite painful as it would take about a year for the weaker part of the conflict, who would be forced out, to get regular plantain harvests in a new location. So they would often have to go to a nearby village that they were friendly with and trade some of their women into marriage in exchange for a regular food supply. The only way a village could stay together at 150+ people was if it had a particularly fierce and feared headman who could resolve conflicts through intimidation. Both Valero's and Chagnon's books are highly recommended if you find this interesting. Valero's book can be quite gruesome though, she describes early on in the book how she witnessed one village executing male babies and children of an enemy village. Not for the faint of heart.
Chagnons experiences of the Yanomami are very biased. Also, in the last half of the 19th century and first half of the 20th, many Yanomami and other peoples in the Amazon region were literally genocided/enslaved in the rubber craze. We know the causes of endemic violence at the time, and the causes of Yanomami violence are things that only could happen in a much more industrialized world. There certainly was endemic violence in the past (no laws? No government?) Killing was easier to get away and had more opportunity with so it would happen more, but the Yanomami aren’t the best example to look at.
@@seanbeadles7421 You are showing your Marxist bias. This is not how science works: "and the causes of Yanomami violence are things that only could happen in a much more industrialized world." You don't start from a conclusion and then assume everything that does not agree with that conclusion is wrong. What does not help your argument as well is that in the 30's Helena Valero was captured by Yanomamo, and she described pretty violent behavior and filicide.
@@SJ23982398 how is this related to Marxism? Also, Valero and Chagnon weren’t doing science either lmaooo
@@seanbeadles7421 It is a common Marxist view that when people lived in a more communal way before capitalism and feudalism it was mostly roses and sunshine with little to no violence and war. And that if we eliminate the concept of private property, there will be no violence. That is why a lot of rather far left leaning people within cultural anthropology got so upset when Chagnon claimed most conflicts were started because of disputes over marriages (so women). As it goes against their narrative that conflicts and wars are started only because of private property.
@@SJ23982398 I never said any of that. I even said violence was endemic, not nonexistent. Like, reading comprehension. By the way, Napoleon Chagnon was 100% influenced by marxist anthropology. I was merely saying that while violence was endemic, we shouldn’t take the drastically higher rates of the Yanomami at face value for representing past Neolithic societies. Other similar societies have lower rates of violence despite having similar environmental conditions. And in the past, there was less competition for resources due to a lower population.
your videos are the best! danke so viel
Mother nature really dropped the ball when creating primates.
Read Blood Meridian
Earth Demons didn’t create us. We evolved through warfare and are we’re in the cusps of bringing life to the universe.
As long as someone has wanted someone else's stuff there has been war.
Another excellent video. Thank you.
I wonder if spears and clubs were truly the most important hunting weapons. The use of ropes, nets and nooses should not be overlooked.
I mean if you were able to catch something larger with a net, rope, a pit, injure it with a spear/atlatl or whatever it would make sense to finish it off, either with dagger to the throat or a club to the skull. I don't think people were picky, whatever worked.
It's a bit more subtle than "war is a part of human nature" in the sense that "the need to kill someone else and take their food when driven to desperation by hunger" can also be seen as part of human nature. A group of unlucky and (therefore) starving hunters will organize, attack and plunder the food of the successful farmer. Without the overwhelming motivation of starvation, there is no compelling desire to impose organized violence against others in general. Shared fear of an unfamiliar group that is a perceived danger to your own clan can also result in hostility and if the victims fight back rather than fleeing because of limited options, the hostility becomes organized violence. However, as war evolves from direct personal violence to more remote, indirect and anonymous actions at a distance (proximal or relational) against a dehumanized "other" group, then the motivations get much more complicated than starvation or threat or revenge.
Great work, keep it up pls
Thanks for the lesson, bro. ❤
As soon as there was a second village there was war. 100%.
I would go to the second village
Humans have been capable of organised violence since before we were even human. We see organised violence even in chimps/monkeys of which we share a common ancestor.
Two packs of wolves with a packleader fighting for a territory is a war.
amazing content! thanks