Ancient massacre suggests war predated settlements

Gisteron wrote: If by being greater or more effective you mean spraying more blood per unit of land, I suppose you do have a point. I have no standard of greatness to go by, so that's fine. My standard of effectiveness is another one though, but alright, I'm willing to adopt yours to grant that the Mongols were indeed highly effective and - arguably - great.

It's not my definition....

Okey.. lets talk about words.. You all know I have a passion for books and words, so where to begin?

Dutch words ''groot'' means big, or huge.. similar to English. But it is not used like in the phrase ''feeling great''.. We have other words for that.. even have words like my favorite the Dutch word ''gezellig'', could be close to ''feeling great'' and the word ''apartheid''. Both words do not have a equal in English. Other way it can also be.. Language is so beautiful.. :blush:

,,Definition depends on usage of the word, not on origin.''

Force be with you all,

~ Aqua

Alright, so the Mongols then at one point had the greatest, i.e. the most notably large in size empire or a notably largest one in size. Fair enough. They were also the greatest warriors of all time, so they were themselves also notably large warriors, so it stands to reason they were either the tallest or the fattest or both. There are of course other metrics to go by, but I think when we speak of "size", it is fair to narrow it down to these two. Now, I didn't ask for what you meant by great, rather what you meant by effective, but that's on you now. This is what happens when you don't read the things you go on quoting. You've just made me think of this here intimidating sight:

Aaaah. So that's why they call it "the great war". All those guys in the trenches were obese. It makes so much sense now.

I talked of great warriors, not of great corpulence.

Yes, and great by the definition you chose to use means notably large in size. You brought it up. I was explicitly fine with not pursuing the greatness thing any further. You even quoted me being fine with it. And then went on saying what you mean by great. And by that meaning, corpulent is the kind of great you say those warriors were. I wash my hands in innocence. This chuckle worthy image is on you.

Are you splitting hairs so you don't have to be seen as agreeing with ren?

certainly there was (what we can classify as) war prior to "civiization"

civilization happened as a result of agriculture (and is not necessarily better imo)

unless you consider the trees we lived in as primates to be "civilization", 99% of our history we were nomadic

from: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/world-history/state-of-nature-how-modern-humans-lived-as-nomads-for-99-per-cent-of-our-history-1604967.html

"People lived in this state of nature from the time of their first appearance as Homo habilis, or even as far back as the Australopithecus – Lucy's people – dating back at least 3 million years. "

also, this vid is about ten minutes, summarizes our nomadic history and the "agricultural revolution"

https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-content/crash-course1/crash-course-world-history/what-happens-when-you-stay-put/v/crash-course-world-history-01

also

CHIMPS AND WAR

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/06/does-chimp-warfare-explain-our-sense-of-good-and-evil/58643/

"The chimp warfare described by this study, and previously by famed primatologist Jane Goodall, includes all the behaviors that we as humans consider to be the very worst: killing, torture, cannibalism, rape, and perhaps even genocide.[and also infanticide]
.......
The idea of chimp genocide may sound strange, but they are one of only three animals that has been observed wiping out entire social groups. The other two are wolves and humans. Given that humans and chimps are so closely related, and our genocidal records so pronounced, it stands to reason that this common behavior may be more than just coincidental."

COMPARISON TO BONOBOS

http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2012/05/07/152197388/do-bonobos-and-chimpanzees-offer-a-path-to-understanding-human-behavior

"Often mistaken for chimpanzees, bonobos are slightly smaller, with longer black hair atop their heads and pink lips. Unlike male-dominated chimp culture, it's the female bonobos that rule their communities. In these matriarchal societies, alliances are strong and females gang up together on males who step out of line.
..............
Though bonobos can get feisty at times, on the whole their culture is markedly different. When conflicts arise, tensions are more often eased through sex than aggression.
............
In their controlled experiments, Hare and Woods have noted marked differences in the way chimpanzees and bonobos react to strangers of their own species. A chimp treats the other as an outsider or rival. If food is available, he will hoard it for himself. However, under the same circumstances, a bonobo will treat the stranger as if he is already part of the same group. If his new companion is locked out of his enclosure containing food, the bonobo finds a way to open the door in order to share his meal. And in case you're wondering, there might be some sex involved between them as well."

Desolous wrote: There's not much I can add to the NPR article. Except that I found it astonishing to note that war seems to predate settlements, human civilization itself. My son and I heard this article on the radio this afternoon and had a great conversation about it. How it seems there has been warfare as long as there have been humans.

Is it just in our nature? Will we ever be free of it? I don't know. This old soldier hopes so.

Link to article

Warfare, as far as I understand it, evolved with humans. Many animals show an inclination toward warfare. I feel it comes from the need to better a given species. In the crucible of battle adaptations could be tested. I don't know if we'll ever evolve beyond this.

Thank you for sharing, Des.