The Earliest Evidence for Warfare?: A Comment on Carbonell et al.

The recent report by Carbonell et al. (2010) on cultural cannibalism as a paleoeconomic system at 800,000 years ago raises the question of whether this cannibalism is evidence of raiding and warfare. The conclusions reached by the authors strongly suggest that it is. “In conclusion, about 1 million years ago, the hominids [Homo antecessor] of level TD6 [of Gran Dolina, Burgos, Spain] added cannibalism to their set of survival strategies as a way of competing with other human groups for available resources” (Carbonell et al. 2010:548). The authors contend that “this type of cannibalism would have reaped a double benefit. On the one hand it served a dietary purpose, while on the other it would have proved useful in defending the group’s territory from other human groups” (Carbonell et al. 2010:547–548). The authors inferred “group cohesion” as necessary for the “survival of the group” (Carbonell et al. 2010:545). A minimum of 11 individuals of different ages were found, eight of them under the age of 14 years. The bones were processed in the same manner as faunal remains. Photographs show incisions related to defleshing of the corpses. The picture presented is that of hunter-gatherers raiding each others’ camp sites over a long period of time, although the term “raid” is not used in the report. The purpose of the raids was to obtain human flesh. The victims of such an attack might have been captured and taken to the butchering site and there killed, or killed and transported back to the site. The preponderance of children among the victims suggests attacks upon settlements, attacks that occurred when the males were hunting or the adults fled and were not able to take their children with them. If adult males had been in the majority in the fossil finds, this would suggest the ambushing of a lone hunter. The article is silent as to what weapons might have been used. I speculate that clubs were used, and possibly stabbing spears and even throwing spears. Since lithic tools were used in butchering, it is possible that flakes were embedded in the clubs and the ends of spears. The hunting bands may have consisted of related males, what I have called “fraternal interest groups” (Otterbein 2004:60–62). I prefer a broad, general definition of war: “armed combat between political communities” (Otterbein 2009:117). Although the authors present no direct evidence of separate hunter-gatherer bands that acted as polities, the term “group cohesion” suggests they viewed the bands in this fashion. They also speak of a band as “defending the group’s territory.” If the attacked group defended its camp site or territory with weapons, my definition of war is met. Although the hominids that fought each other are classified as Homo antecessor, the authors are clear that what they call a “new species” is the “last common ancestor between the African lineage that gave rise to our species, H. sapiens, and the lineage leading to the European Neanderthals” (Carbonell et al. 2010:543); hence, the above definition of war is applicable. The question of whether cultural cannibalism is the earliest evidence for warfare is, thus, answered in the affirmative. The above conclusion has caused me to reconsider what I have said elsewhere about cannibalism destroying the evidence for war. “If those eaten were war captives or individuals killed in ambushes, the evidence for war no longer exists—the evidence of war has been destroyed by the crushing of long bones and skulls” (Otterbein 2004:77). But in Spain, the evidence from long, long ago appears to have survived. Assuming that the analysis of Carbonell et al. (2010) is correct, and my further rendition is warranted, I believe we can conclude that the earliest known evidence for warfare has been found. I further believe that we must now consider the possibility that the origin of war lies in cannibalism, a conjecture that must go back to the earliest speculations about war’s origin.