Introduction
It is a fairly common assertion that the level of lethal violence (deaths of people at the hands of other people) in prehistoric times was extremely high and could normally reach as much as 50%. This means that half of the “savages” became victims of murder rather than dying of natural causes or other reasons. Such a claim is used, among other things, to refute the argument that humans possess natural inhibitors of aggression, calling the aversion to violence and non-violent relationships purely sociocultural inventions that have nothing to do with what humans are by nature.
Indeed, archaeological evidence demonstrates cases of an extremely high level of lethal violence. Moreover, even in some primitive societies today, a significant portion of people still die from murder. However, the argument that murder is a natural and widespread phenomenon for humans is greatly exaggerated and based on individual, limited examples rather than general statistics. For instance, a study examining 600 human populations shows that throughout the history of Homo sapiens, the level of lethal violence was only 2%, and this includes cases of war and genocide [1]. Some studies also state that theories about the universality of war in human history lack empirical support, and data on high levels of prehistoric violence (for example, those presented in the work “War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage”) may be unjustifiably inflated [2][3].
Relying on the sample provided by the study of 600 human populations, as well as data from several other studies, let us analyze the level of lethal violence in different eras and in different human societies in more detail to confirm its rather low prevalence throughout human history.
The Old World
During the Paleolithic period in the Old World, the level of lethal violence was 3.97%. In archaeological excavations relating to this period, generally, few human remains were found, at best only a few dozen. However, excavations of the Natufian culture from the Epipaleolithic period in the territory of modern Israel draw attention. Of 400 human remains dating from 11,000 to 15,000 years ago, only 5 indicated a violent nature of death.
This example is taken from a study of prehistoric wars in Europe and the Near East [4]. The claim that wars were the cause of death for 15% of prehistoric people is called absurd in it. It also states that humans have no evolutionary predisposition to attack people from other social groups, and excavations related to the European Paleolithic show no evidence of wars, only extremely rare cases of cannibalism. Of course, this same study mentions the possibility of humans easily entering violent conflicts, based on the fact that wars did eventually arise later. But as we will see further, participation in violent conflicts never became something inherent to the majority of people.
The Neolithic, Mesolithic, and Bronze Age were also not characterized by a high level of lethal violence (3.59%, 3.39%, and 2.33%, respectively). However, the cases of the Iron Age and the Middle Ages require more detailed study, where the level of lethal violence, as claimed in the study of human populations, was 5.82% and 12.08%, respectively.
From the considered sample of Iron Age populations, cases of an extremely high level of lethal violence relate to Britain during the rule of the Roman Empire. For instance, one of the archaeological excavations in London, while demonstrating a large number of men killed by violence, explained this as “headhunting” by the Roman army and/or defeats in gladiatorial combat [5]. And the most “violent” Celtic excavations (though containing the remains of at most a few dozen people) relate to the Maiden Castle fortress.
On the other hand, all other major excavations, both in Britain and in other places such as Spain, Italy, the Near East, and North Africa, show an extremely low level of lethal violence. Many such pieces of evidence relating to the territory of modern Syria showed no cases of murder. The study providing them, covering 25 archaeological Mesopotamian excavations, shows that only 28 out of 1278 (i.e., 2.2%) of the examined remains have traces of healed cranial traumas related to violence. Based on evidence of bloody military conflicts and some level of violence in daily life in this territory, researchers expected to find a much larger number of traumas of this nature [6].
Such a difference between “violent” and “non-violent” Iron Age excavations may suggest that the emergence of organized armies was precisely the cause of the increase in the overall level of lethal violence in this period. But this says nothing about the violent nature of humans in general, since the professional soldiers who attack and kill other people are an overwhelming minority in society. And if we exclude from the sample only the London excavations relating to the actions of soldiers and gladiators of the Roman Empire, we get a lethal violence level of only 2.9%.
Similar results are shown by evidence from the Middle Ages, because in the case of the sample of archaeological excavations we are considering, the statistics of lethal violence are significantly increased by literally two battles: the Battle of Visby and the Battle of Aljubarrota. By excluding only these from the sample, we get a lethal violence level of only 3.3% (and this is without excluding other battles that left behind fewer remains).
Extremely interesting evidence is provided by more modern records of death and its causes for residents of London between 1629 and 1659, as well as in 1665. In the first case, out of 263,440 records, only 470 related to violent death (i.e., 0.18% of all deaths), and in the second, out of 97,306 records, only 30 (i.e., 0.03%) [7][8]. On average, although this is dozens of times higher than the modern global murder rate (and a hundred times higher than the murder rate in modern Britain), we clearly see that murderers in those times (as in any other times) constituted only an overwhelming minority of the population.
The New World
The level of lethal violence in the New World was 3.19% in the Archaic period, 3.52% in the Formative period, 5.28% in the Classic period, and 9.94% in the Post-Classic period.
The Archaic and Formative periods do not demonstrate a high level of lethal violence. A slightly higher level is observed in the Classic period, however, I would like to highlight the largest excavations from Central California. Among 2,182 remains, only 11 (i.e., 0.5%) had traces of violent death. Similar excavations from Central California, but relating to the Post-Classic period, also showed an extremely low level of lethal violence (less than 0.3%).
The level of lethal violence in Mexican California, based on evidence from colonial missions sent there, was 10%, which is much higher than the indicators for Central California. However, it should be noted that almost half of the cases relate to actions of a military nature [9]. Furthermore, the total number of registered deaths was dozens of times smaller than the sample provided by Central Californian archaeological excavations.
Among the extremely violent examples, the Crow Creek massacre should be highlighted, in which an entire Indian settlement was destroyed at once by attackers whose identity is not reliably known. Once again, we can see that lethal violence statistics increase precisely due to violent attacks of a military nature by specific groups of people.
The question of the violent nature of some modern tribes
Claims about the extremely violent nature of prehistoric humans very often rely on an analogy with the high violence of some modern hunter-gatherer tribes, especially the Hiwi and Ache of South America, with 55% and 30% lethal violence, respectively. However, such an argument would be fundamentally incorrect, because if these tribes are compared with other similar tribes, the latter turn out to be far less violent [10]. There are also cases of entirely non-violent tribes, a well-known example being the Paliyan people of South India. In general, one cannot determine how inherent violence is to humans based on individual cases of extremely violent isolated tribes. Nor can one lightheartedly draw conclusions about the level of lethal violence in tribes of the past—an error made by some researchers [2].
Conclusions
From the statistics of 600 human populations and other evidence we have examined, we can conclude that lethal violence was not an excessively widespread phenomenon in human history. Also, as mentioned at the very beginning, theories about the universality of war in human history lack empirical support, and data on high levels of prehistoric violence may be unjustifiably inflated. In general, cases of populations with an extremely high level of lethal violence can easily be categorized as statistical outliers.
And most importantly—mass killings are most often associated with violent attacks by organized armies. Therefore, the bulk of all lethal violence is merely the result of the actions of a small percentage of people initiating attacks of a military nature. Against the backdrop of an extremely non-violent daily life throughout human history, this only proves that many people who entered battles and became victims of military attacks died from lethal violence, not that many people in general did. For was participation in battles the norm for the majority of people? Except for isolated cases—no.
Sources
1. Gómez, J. M., Verdú, M., González-Megías, A., & Méndez, M. (2016). The phylogenetic roots of human lethal violence. Nature, 538(7624), 233–237. doi:10.1038/nature19758;
2. Haas, J. & Piscitelli, M. (2013). The Prehistory of Warfare: Misled by Ethnography. Pp. 168-190 In: DP Fry ed. War peace and human nature: the convergence of evolutionary and cultural views. Oxford Univ. Press.;
3. Ferguson, R. B. (1997). War before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage. American Anthropologist, 99(2), 424-425;
4. Ferguson, R. B. (2013). The prehistory of war and peace in Europe and the Near East. Pp. 191-240 In: DP Fry ed. War peace and human nature: the convergence of evolutionary and cultural views. Oxford Univ. Press.;
5. Redfern, R. & Bonney, H. (2014). Headhunting and amphitheatre combat in Roman London England: new evidence from the Walbrook Valley. Journal of Archaeology Science 43: 214-226;
6. Sołtysiak, A. (2015). Antemortem Cranial Trauma in Ancient Mesopotamia. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology, 27(1), 119–128. doi:10.1002/oa.2478;
7. Morabia, A. (2013). Epidemiology’s 350th Anniversary: 1662–2012. Epidemiology 24: 179;
8. Champion, J. (1993). Epidemics and the Built Environment in 1665. Champion. Centre for Metropolitan Hist. Working Papers Ser 1 35-52;
9. Hackel, S. W. (2012). From Ahogado to Zorrillo: external causes of mortality in the California missions. The History of the Family 17: 77-104;
10. Gurven, M., & Kaplan, H. (2007). Longevity Among Hunter- Gatherers: A Cross-Cultural Examination. Population and Development Review, 33(2), 321–365. doi:10.1111/j.1728-4457.2007.00171.x.
