I didn’t see your comment where you supposedly refute what I’ve said. Can you link it again? But, without even seeing it I can say with certainty that none of that took place before about 10k years ago — because it’s widely agreed that this is the case. It’s what the Smithsonian says, FFS! For 97% of human history, there was no systemic violence and little interpersonal violence because it wasn't tolerated and it wasn't necessary. The population of the entire earth was less than 1 million people, natural resources were ample, and people had lots of kin in neighboring tribes. They were constantly on the move, and couldn't really acquire much - and besides, sharing and making sure everyone had what they needed was a deeply held cultural value (because it’s a primary survival strategy). What exactly would anyone be fighting over? It doesn't make sense. Plus, we literally survived because we were the friendliest hominin species.
This is mainstream ancient anthropology, supported by archeology. It's not actually in any serious debate and the people who claim it is are making stuff up to support their patriarchal mindset. It's bad science.
Based then on two depictions in rock art and six cases of projectile points in bones, Otterbein concludes, ‘What has been found suggests widespread killing in the Upper Paleolithic.’ He makes a huge presumptive leap from killing to warfare. While negative evidence is not by itself proof of an absence of warfare, it nevertheless bears directly on the relative density of humans on the continent during this very long period {200,000 BCE to 10,000 BCE}. There is nothing at all to indicate any kind of population pressure or possible scarcity of resources. There is also a complete lack of concrete social units above the level of family or immediate family group for this same period. Who then, would have been fighting whom and for what possible reason?
The Prehistory of Warfare Misled By Ethnography
FOR 5000 years, humans have grown accustomed to living in societies dominated by the privileged few. But it wasn’t always this way. For tens of thousands of years, egalitarian hunter-gatherer societies were widespread. And as a large body of anthropological research shows, long before we organized ourselves into hierarchies of wealth, social status and power, these groups rigorously enforced norms that prevented any individual or group from acquiring more status, authority or resources than others. Decision-making was decentralized and leadership ad hoc; there weren’t any chiefs. There were sporadic hot-blooded fights between individuals, of course, but there was no organized conflict between groups. Nor were there strong notions of private property and therefore any need for territorial defense ~.New Scientist
Edit: And how is it that you presume I am misrepresenting what is in the books I linked you (and what The Smithsonian and UNESCO say) when you are not familiar with nor have read any of them? You say you can link just as many scientists and experts who say that there was systemic violence before The Smithsonian says there was any. Let’s see ’em. So far, you’ve yet to support your cultural fairytales with anything but your own opinion.
“Our image of the wild and warlike prehistoric human, which persists even today, is actually a myth, devised in the second half of the nineteenth century. Archaeological research shows that, in fact, collective violence emerged with the sedentarization of communities and the transition from a predation economy to a production economy.
Excluding this particular context, just under a dozen cases of violence — projectile impacts, blows to the head — have been identified on several hundred human bones dating back more than 12,000 years. But are these injuries the result of an accident, or of an act of violence during an interpersonal, intragroup or intergroup conflict? For these early periods, the distinction is difficult to make. However, in many cases, injuries, such as those caused by a shock or a blow to the head, had healed. These persons were therefore not killed, which would tend to prove that their wounds were the result of an accident, or a quarrel between two people.
Among these small groups of nomadic hunter-gatherers, collaboration and mutual support among all members of the clan were necessary for their survival. In addition, a good understanding between them was essential to ensure reproduction, and therefore progeny. The so-called “savagery” of prehistoric humans is thus only a myth — devised in the second half of the nineteenth century and the early twentieth century, to reinforce the discourse on the progress accomplished since the birth of humanity and the concept of “civilization”. This image of “violent and warlike” prehistoric humans is the result of a scholarly construction popularized by artists and writers.”
