No, it actually really doesn't go back any further than that. The Smithsonian says the first war was 10k ago in Kenya, but that was more of a small-scale massacre than anything we think of as warfare today. War demonstrably only became common in the past 5-6k years, and the same goes for other manifestations of a dominance-hierarchy system.
There are innumerable examples of settlements, cities, and even kingdoms from around the world where there was little to no top-down hierarchy or centralized political administration until the past few thousand years. From 300-hectare settlements in China’s Shandong Province that predate the earliest royal dynasties by 1000 years, to enormous ceremonial centers of the Maya which also predate the rise of the kings by 1000 years, we have evidence of many large communities with no evidence of central government or top-down hierarchy (and you can’t wage large-scale war without centralized government and hierarchy).People balanced the common good with the right to live pretty much as they wished, something that is still the ethos of modern-day foragers.
Nearly all researchers who write about hunter-gatherer bands emphasize the extraordinarily high value they place on individual autonomy. Hunter-gatherers’ sense of autonomy is different from the individualism of modern Western capitalist cultures.Intimately tied to hunter-gatherers’ sense of autonomy is what Richard Lee (1988) has called their “fierce egalitarianism.” Egalitarianism, among hunter-gatherers, goes far beyond the western notion of equal opportunity. It means that nobody has more material goods than anyone else, that everyone’s needs are equally important, and that nobody considers himself or herself superior to others. Such equality is part and parcel of hunter-gatherers’ autonomy, as inequalities could lead those who have more to dominate those who have less. Hunter-gatherers, of course, recognize that some people are better hunters or gatherers than others, some are wiser than others, and so on, and they value such abilities. However, they react strongly against any flaunting of abilities or overt expressions of pride. ~Scholarpedia
By contrast, one of the core elements of patriarchies is a fundamental belief in only two genders — envisioning women and men largely as polar opposites of each other — each with a very specific role to play in society.
If you've read Eisler, you know how well documented everything that she says is, and I'm not really sure what you are referencing about human remains and weapons. Really, everything points to her being exactly correct.
A story in New Scientist entitled Why Egalitarian Societies Died Out, has this to say:
“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.”
Many social arrangements impede war, such as cross-group ties of kinship and marriage; cooperation in hunting, agriculture or food sharing; flexibility in social arrangements that allow individuals to move to other groups; norms that value peace and stigmatize killing; and recognized means for conflict resolution. These mechanisms do not eliminate serious conflict, but they do channel it in ways that either prevent killing or keep it confined among a limited number of individuals.People are people. They fight and sometimes kill. Humans have always had a capacity to make war, if conditions and culture so dictate.But those conditions and the warlike cultures they generate became common only over the past 10,000 years — and, in most places, much more recently than that. The high level of killing often reported in history, ethnography or later archaeology is contradicted in the earliest archaeological findings around the globe. (emphasis mine). ~Scientific American
Early cultures didn’t have a lack of war because they were noble savages; they didn’t have war because they had little reason to fight, and many reasons to actively guard against unnecessary violence for reasons of their own survival. Their most valuable strategy for staying alive at that time was social cooperation — something that humans are hardwired for in ways that far surpass other primates. Anthropologist and primatologist Christopher Boehm and many others believe that this is a central element of our evolutionary success.
There is really no actual scientific support for warfare in the Paleolithic era, and there is an overwhelming indication that pervasive violence and mass conflict only becoming prevalent in the past 8,000 years or so. R. Brian Ferguson, an anthropologist who studies war says that after studying the published work of dozens of other researchers he finds no evidence of war in the Stone Age. His findings were published in 2013 as a chapter in the book, War, Peace and Human Nature. “Views of human nature as inherently warlike stem not from the facts but from cultural views embedded in Western thinking.”
