Talk:Prehistoric warfare

message: I know many of you might not think the Bible is all-out true, but it is still a historical document. The very first "battle" or "war" recorded in It is Genesis 14. I posted this same thing in "Ancient Warfare" as the story, I think, fits better over there. Colonel Marksman 17:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it the first war recorded though? Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 05:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: the Hebrew Bible is a historical document to be sure, documenting Canaanite history from ca. the 7th to 4th century BC. That's more than a millennium after our first reliable sources concerning warfare of the Assyrian Empire. dab (ᛏ) 07:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bible Times

message: "One half of the people found in a Nubian cemetery dating to as early as 12,000 years ago had died of violence. The Yellowknives tribe in Canada was effectively obliterated by massacres committed by Dogrib Indians, and disappeared from history shortly thereafter. Similar massacres occurred among the Eskimos, the Crow Indians, and countless others."
ONE: The indians didn't even know north america existed back then.
TWO: Eskimo is an old, offensive term (much like calling a native american an indian)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.58.166 (talk) 23:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ignorance

message: Specific to your comments:
*txt refers to a sub-set of citation info
**Saying 'hunter gatherer' would be inaccurate because the citation does not refer to hunter gatherers at all. This would be being more specific than citations allow. You can not refer to a sub-set of citation info if there is no basis for it in the citation.
*citation supports text not vice-versa
**I have no idea of the text supporting the citation. If you change the content from the citation to the text, then citation no longer supports the text.
Also, substituting hunter gatherer for 90% of tribal societies would make it seem as though all the societies taken into account were hunter gatherers. As far as we know from this, it could have been that none of them were hunter gatherers. Another possible occurence is that the hunter gatherers surveyed were only part of the 10%. Looking at the societies he describes here, examples given are 'the Chippewa Indians, Fiji islanders, the Dinka of West Africa, and certain New Guinean tribes', 'Tahitians, Zulus, and some New Guinean tribes' and 'The Iroquois', all of which are farming societies.
Being 'not total strangers to violent conflict' is no major thing anyway. Even if there was only on average one fight once every 20 years, that would still mean everyone except wee kids would be 'not total strangers to violent conflict'.
Munci (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Endemic Warfare Citation

message: Here are some articles claiming extensive warfare in the Neolithic or earlier. Bvanevery (talk) 06:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neolithic warfare 

message: If someone wants references, http://books.google.com/books?id=Qxr5v9r0vYcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=steven+leblanc+conflict&source=bl&ots=CCGwL_FsVc&sig=sQMwfa9JNw2qIel0UY3ayownKyo&hl=en&ei=csnkS-LKKpf4tAPCvcXRCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
Also see Azar Gat  Keith Henson (talk) 02:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Azar Gat 

message: Changed the date of "at least 7000 years old" to "determined to be around 13,140 to 14,340 years old." which has the virtue of being factual.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.244.44 (talk) 02:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cemetery 117 

message: I have difficulty what to make of this edit. The summary sounds as if this happened in good faith, Revert logical, but unsourced material, but seeing that the blanked content was a coherent and careful summary of the source quoted, I must assume there is some other rationale for the edit. Please explain. In the meantime, I have restored the blanked content. 
Next time you go ahead and remove referenced content, do us the minimal courtesy of consulting the source cited and present some sort of judgement of how the content deviates from that found in the source. The reference in this case is Kelly 2005 (citing Kelly 2000), and I have even gone as far as putting Kelly's term of "Paleolithic warlessness" in quotes to indicate the term is taken from the source, not an interpretation of the source. 
The only unreferenced claim in the section is the one to the effect that the interpretation of Cemetery 117 is "disputed". I left this in as I found it out of courtesy, even though Kelly is unambiguous on the evidence being certain, not "disputed". Since nobody seems very eager to provide evidence that this is, after all, disputed, I suppose we can remove this point. --dab (𒁳) 13:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: content blanking

message: I'm coming late to this discussion, but I want to make a few points that are in agreement with user Muncie, who wrote his comments over two years ago. Sorry, not trying to stir up old arguments, but I feel there are a few points that should be made.
First, I agree with Muncie and others that the section on warfare prior to the Neolithic makes the past seem much more pacifistic than the most recent evidence supports. The sections cite Keeley, but totally ignore his points or take things out of context. 
However (point two), I think a great deal of this stems from the definition of "warfare," a point made in the introduction but then not touched upon. A section right after the introduction on what exactly is meant by "warfare," and perhaps on how the definition of warfare versus low-scale inter-group violence differs according to some, could help this. There is extensive evidence of violence in the archaeological record prior to the Neolithic, but some argue that this is not really "warfare" so much as just the occasional inter-group killing. Fair enough, but this is basically ignored in this article.
Third, there are several recorded incidences, including a very recent one that was recorded, of chimpanzee warfare (or, if you prefer, "warfare"). A possible section discussing how some primatologists and anthropologists view these incidences as a possible reflection of our own violent past would be useful.
Finally, a point is made that Paleolithic people lived in low enough densities that they could simply move away instead of engage in acts of violence makes this sound like it's a proven fact. However, evidence, such as cannibalized Neanderthal bones and skeletons bearing marks of violence, doesn't support this interpretation. This evidence doesn't support the idea of constant low-level warfare entirely, but a discussion of the arguments on both side would be useful here.
Raulpascal (talk) 13:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure what point you are agreeing with me on. Is it the quotation of Kelly at the end of my last comment on this talk page? Personally, I believe Keeley is overcited on this and related articles. He is surely not the only recent author to have written about this topic. Most importantly, we should look for sources, and a variety of them, and make sure to soruce them correctly. Munci (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some points to stir up old arguments 

message: Paleolithic
The first conclusive archaeological record of a prehistoric battle is about 12,000–14,000 years old, and is located on the Nile in Sudan, in an area known as Cemetery 117. A large number of bodies, many with arrowheads embedded in their skeletons, indicates that they may have been the casualties of a battle. Warfare originated independently in other parts of the world as late as 4,000 years ago
Neolithic
The first archaeological record of what could be a prehistoric battle is on the Nile near the Egypt-Sudan border. Known as Cemetery 117 it was determined to be around 13,140 to 14,340 years old. It contains a large number of bodies, many with arrowheads embedded in their skeletons, which indicates that they may have been the casualties of a battle.
I would edit one of these out in order to fix the repetition of information in this article. However, as I am new, I currently prefer to use the talk page before any I make any major edits of an article. Werefaw (talk) 08:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what other would say but, considering Cemetery 117 is in the category 'mesolithic' and Mesolithic is in between Palaeolithic and Neolithic, I think a new section should be made entitled Mesolithic and it can have info about Cemetery 117. Munci (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Site 117 belongs to the Upper Egyptian Qadan culture, which was Mesolithic.1Halpo1 (talk) 17:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that, 1Halpo1.  However, the most recent work on the site of which I'm aware, by Antoine, Zazza and Friedman on the radiocarbon dates for the site, describe it as Palaeolithic and belonging to the Epipalaeolithic Qadan Culture, so there doesn't seem to be a consensus that Mesolithic is the right term to use.  In the context of the article, it is potentially confusing to have evidence from 10,000 BC in the Palaeolithic section, then earlier evidence in the Mesolithic, without an explanation of how this can be the case. European Prehistorian (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cemetery 117 

message: Article is here for prehistoric warfare knowledge, not modern day warfare. If someone has relevant info for the article referring to prehistoric endemic warfare, it should be documented here. Werefaw (talk) 06:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that this is our "best shot" and so does Douglas Fry, who writes extensively about this very issue, starting with the new heading on page 171 of his 2013 book: http://books.google.com/books?id=YtwSz2A12e8C&q=170 Fry argues that warfare in modern tribal societies originates from the state societies around them (influencing them), rather than from any Paleolithic origins. The only unambiguous type of endemic warfare we refer to in this article is endemic warfare in modern societies--whether tribal or non-tribal. Wolfdog (talk) 01:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Endemic Warfare (Remove?) 

message: The paleolithic section in the article begins with "This part of the article is simply a matter of opinion. It cannot be proven in any way, shape, or form." I thought opinions had no place on wikipedia, this is supposed to be factual information. Should this section be either removed, or edited to make it more scientifically factual.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dk2852 (talk • contribs) 03:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paleolithic section 

message: There is an unabashed bais towards the religion of evolution in the article. If Wikipedia is unbiased, then all evolutionary indications need to be removed. Evolution is not fact- you silly evolutionists still haven't proven your theory!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.186.13 (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Evolution is not a religion.  Removing references to mainstream scientific understanding would be the opposite of "unbiased".  Evolution is a fact.  Personal attacks are nto allowed here.  The theory ("explanation of how it occurs") of evolution is "proven" as well as any scientific theory can be.  Please sign your posts.  I think you may feel more at home at Conservapedia. Wardog (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious bias 

message: https://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/world/middleeast/archaeologists-unearth-a-war-zone-5500-years-old.html
Sorry for not doing it myself, still a Wikipedia noob Evan2030 (talk) 02:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation 32 is a dead link, heres a NYT link