Chapter 1: The Shift to Agriculture and Its Impact on Violence

The evidence clearly illustrates that significant violence among humans only became prevalent with the advent of agriculture.

Often, I receive comments from various men who assert that I lack understanding in my anthropological discussions. Despite extensive archaeological and sociological evidence showing that large-scale violence emerged alongside the Agricultural Revolution, these individuals remain convinced that violence has always been an integral part of human nature. Their insistence on this belief is puzzling, especially when they dismiss my findings as mere feminist fantasies.

Interestingly, my arguments are grounded in research and quotations from male anthropologists published in scientific journals, which depict a narrative starkly different from the one these men seem to cling to. It raises the question of why any dissenting opinion from women is automatically labeled as feminist. Is it that they perceive any woman’s public discourse as a challenge to their views?

Regardless, the actual evidence is compelling. Prior to the Agricultural Revolution, humans lived in small tribal groups where cooperation and egalitarianism were crucial for survival. There is no archaeological record of widespread violence before approximately 13,000 years ago; most evidence of such behavior is dated to around 8,000 years ago and later. These early communities were structured to promote harmony and social cohesion.

A common rebuttal I encounter is the claim that limited natural resources lead to conflict. While this phenomenon is well-documented, it’s essential to recognize that our Paleolithic and early Neolithic ancestors likely did not experience significant resource scarcity. Population densities were low, and resources were abundant during this period.

For instance, around 7000 B.C.E., the population in Europe may have been close to 400,000, comparable to modern-day Tucson, Arizona. At this time, the population density would have been even lower.

Cultural anthropologist Raymond C. Kelly suggests that early Homo erectus hunter-gatherer societies had population densities that minimized armed conflict. The development of throwing spears and ambush hunting techniques made violence costly, fostering cooperation and necessitating low population densities to prevent resource competition. This behavior may have facilitated H. erectus’s migration out of Africa roughly 1.8 million years ago as a means of conflict avoidance.

Kelly and other anthropologists argue that it was only with the rise of sedentary agriculture that raids on neighboring settlements began. This shift makes sense for various reasons. Agriculture is inherently more vulnerable; poor weather or crop failure could devastate food supplies. In contrast, hunter-gatherers typically consumed over 50 different food sources, allowing them to adapt when certain resources were scarce. They could also relocate to areas with more abundant resources as needed.

Hunter-gatherer groups are thought to have consisted of around 20 to 50 individuals, including children, similar to many modern tribes. These groups maintained reciprocal relationships with neighboring tribes, often comprising family members.

“Small family bands likely interconnected with larger networks, facilitating the exchange of people to maintain genetic diversity,” states Professor Martin Sikora from the Centre for GeoGenetics at the University of Copenhagen. This process appears to have been intentional, recognizing the value of genetic diversity as a cooperative strategy among a highly social species. Research indicates that cooperation is not only essential for survival but also psychologically rewarding, akin to physical pleasure.

The existence of social pain reinforces this concept. The things that evoke feelings of pain are recognized by evolution as threats to survival, suggesting that social connections are vital for our wellbeing. This understanding shifts our perspective on human behavior; rather than viewing it as purely self-serving, we see that social connections hold intrinsic value.

Paleolithic communities had little reason to engage in warfare or large-scale violence, favoring peace through social structures that prioritized order and cohesion. Evidence of dominance hierarchies or widespread violence only appears around 6,000 to 9,000 years ago.

As highlighted by extensive anthropological research, long before the formation of wealth hierarchies, these groups enforced norms to prevent any individual from gaining excessive status or resources. The crux of the matter is not whether humans can be violent; indeed, they can. However, before the Agricultural Revolution—approximately 10,000 years ago—cultures had developed effective systems to manage and mitigate violent tendencies, a phenomenon observable in modern hunter-gatherer societies.

When anthropologist Richard Lee inquired about a practice within a hunter-gatherer group that involved downplaying the value of meat from a successful hunt, he received a telling response: “When a young man kills much meat, he comes to think of himself as a big man. We can't accept this. We refuse one who boasts, for someday his pride will make him kill somebody. So we always speak of his meat as worthless. In this way we cool his heart and make him gentle.”