PDA

View Full Version : peaceful LBK people



anglesqueville
08-18-2015, 01:09 PM
We already knew that they practiced cannibalism (at least on occasion)
https://www.academia.edu/2397827/SACRIFICING_LINEARBANDKERAMIK_A_COMPREHENSIVE_STUD Y_OF_THE_LINEARBANDKERAMIK_MASSACRE_VICTIMS_FROM_T ALHEIM_SCHLETZ-ASPERN_AND_HERXHEIM, that gets worse :
http://eurogenes.blogspot.fr/2015/08/warfare-and-torture-in-last-days-of-lbk.html. peaceful farmers....

anglesqueville
08-18-2015, 04:19 PM
After consideration, this post would have been at its right place in the sub-forum devoted to anthopology. Apologize for this mistake.

Coldmountains
08-18-2015, 05:12 PM
Some just need to accept that the Neolithic was like other ages a time of constant wars between rivaling tribes. Many if not most modern humans are descendants of people which just survived and spread their lineages because they killed other people and destroyed other tribes. No matter if Neolithic farmer, Hunter Gather or Steppe herder all were "brutal" for modern standards and myths about totally peaceful or pacifistic Pre-Indo-Europeans are in most cases ridiculous. The steppe herders were better equipped, had horses/chariots and they were military much better organized so they were military superior and this military advantage was certainly helpful in spreading their lineages and cultures but I doubt that the history of Europe would be more peaceful without them and Farmer cultures can also be very warlike (Near East, ...)

alan
08-18-2015, 05:35 PM
Although the idea that Neolithic people were some kind of hippies is nonsense, most humans have a massive aversion to killing. During WWI they found most people couldnt do it and shot to miss. In later wars they developed psychological methods of dehumanising enemies during training of soldiers etc to make it easier to ill. Apart from sociopaths who lack empathy, I think humans are generally programmed to preserve their own species and save lives. I think murder only really comes to normal balanced people in extreme life or death circumstance where resources are very scarce. if population is well below the threshold where resources would become a source of rivalry then why would people want to fight? Fighting risks your own life as much as your target too so even a low empathy person has selfish reasons for not wanting to get into to many needless fights.There is of course the spiral of violence when one party does an injustice to the other and causes righteous anger and then it gets tit for tat if noone has wisdom. It only takes one psycho or groups of them to draw decent people into a cycle like that. I think that is probably the main sort of cycles of violence in the past, not inherent blood lust.

parasar
08-19-2015, 01:08 AM
Although the idea that Neolithic people were some kind of hippies is nonsense, most humans have a massive aversion to killing. During WWI they found most people couldnt do it and shot to miss. In later wars they developed psychological methods of dehumanising enemies during training of soldiers etc to make it easier to ill. Apart from sociopaths who lack empathy, I think humans are generally programmed to preserve their own species and save lives. I think murder only really comes to normal balanced people in extreme life or death circumstance where resources are very scarce. if population is well below the threshold where resources would become a source of rivalry then why would people want to fight? Fighting risks your own life as much as your target too so even a low empathy person has selfish reasons for not wanting to get into to many needless fights.There is of course the spiral of violence when one party does an injustice to the other and causes righteous anger and then it gets tit for tat if noone has wisdom. It only takes one psycho or groups of them to draw decent people into a cycle like that. I think that is probably the main sort of cycles of violence in the past, not inherent blood lust.

alan,
What is your take on the fact that violence occurs only in the latest stages of LBK?
The hippie like farmers (is that even possible!) turned on each other due to a reduction in resources, perhaps.

tamilgangster
08-19-2015, 08:51 AM
THe whole Idea of Indoeuropean invaders being warlike makes no sense, because brahmins are some of the most docile and least militant groups of people. Caste system was present in south asia before the prescense of Indoeuropeans, with a "kshatriya like" group being on the top. The Indoeuropeans invasion IMO was nonviolent, or atleast more gradual, where they mixed with the elites and gradually established themselves on top

rms2
08-19-2015, 01:39 PM
. . . The British usually faced a predeliction much like the indo iranians and indeed steppe empires of attacking technologically weaker foes or areas that were in disarray and suffered from disunity. Hence their success. The myth about their gallantry is largely a self perpetuated, self glorifying portrayal . . .

I thought this thread was about evidence of violence within the Neolithic LBK culture, not about the public airing of cherished personal resentments.

DMXX
08-19-2015, 02:05 PM
The off-topic regarding Indo-Iranians, the Zagros or what have you are irrelevant as far as a fixed tangent goes.

I'll be splitting this into another area shortly. Any more tangents regarding historic imperialism or personalising of the discussion will also be deleted. [Edit]: Here (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5201-Split-The-Nature-of-Prehistoric-Indo-Iranian-Interactions/page2).

Returning to the LBK findings; I'm not entirely surprised. I remember watching an excellent BBC documentary last year regarding the first farming communities to reach western continental Europe, where the archaeological finds (e.g. weapons, skeletal injuries) indicated conflict was a part of regular life. There's also some evidence of this around Sintashta.

This certainly wasn't an LBK-specific phenomenon, nor is it in line with Gimbutas' simplified narrative between the nature of the settled and the sown in Europe.

alan
08-19-2015, 02:06 PM
I mean no offense, but isn't judging the early Indo-Europeans by modern Brahmins a little like judging the Vikings by modern Swedes? What sort of impression of the Vikings would that create?

A fhew Swedes (https://youtu.be/c6kVLAn-MsM)

hahaha - yes it is hard to imagine modern Swedes as Vikings. The Scandis in general seem such even tempered and peaceful people and have a very very low crime rate. They also dont seem to have the kind of social problems that Britain has - seems to be much much less anti-social behavour. Just shows this kind of thing isnt in the genes really. It just circumstances etc

ADW_1981
08-19-2015, 02:17 PM
I have not actually read the paper but how do we know the perpetrators were another LBK group and not a group of newcomers? I only ready the blurb on Eurogenes, but he indicated that it was the late stages of LBK right before the fall... Also, it should be telling that most of the victims were men, and apparently the women were carried off or spared....

alan
08-19-2015, 02:19 PM
I think the fact it is later LBK may be related to problems - i.e their model designed in warmer climes was hitting the skids. They had impressive villages with no major signs of individual hierachy in the village or in their burials. They must have generally behaved like mini civic units and generally peaceful internally. I wonder if they married within-village or had some sort of marriage fairs with the next villages down the road? You would think it would be unhealthy to marry within villages for centuries. There is however no reason to think their wouldnt be inter-village rivallry if interest clashed or some sort of tit for tat thing started. These tit for tat cycles are probably the stupidest of all human conflicts which is why the west despises honour societies/killings so much.

The key thing to remember is there came a point in the Neolithic of central Europe when the village system started to go. I think in some areas the village continued to some extent after LBK but as the post-LBK further spread of farmers entered the north facing coastal area of Europe they didnt bring the village template with them. That must be an ecological thing. They seem to have been pretty dispersed or small hamlets at best and the houses smaller usually.

However as the long term village died out as the mental centre point in the landscape so the building of impressive burial monuments to the ancestors started to take off - these could be either earthen or stone and perhaps initially wooden. Also causewayed enclosures sprung up probably as some sort of assembly/ritual central places for dispersed small tribal groups who still had some sort of common identity.

alan
08-19-2015, 02:38 PM
It is noteworthy that in the late LBK period (5000 BC onwards) there was a proliferation of ditched enclosures throughout the geographic spread of the LBK. So, I imagine this had something to do with trouble in their system - possibly climate changes etc. The LBK spread in a warmer dryer phase than today and they also were fussy about the soil they settled on - usually free draining light Loess soils or a substitute with similar characteristics. It could be that things started to get ugly once they had fully filled the continuous belt of soils of this type that stretched from eastern Europe to north-central France and there was no more near at hand. It could also be that the warm dry phase came to an end and their farming and settlement model meant they didnt adjust in time and crop failure and conflict set in. I dont have the details at hand but I think a wetter phase occurred in late LBK before there was another turn to nicer warmer drier conditions (for north-central Europe=bad news for the steppe and other dry places) a little before 4000BC when the farmers expanded into northern Europe proper.

Like I said, it only takes a few people to overstep common rules of decency during a crisis for a never ending cycle of tit for tat inter-village violence to break out.

parasar
08-19-2015, 02:38 PM
... that comparing the ancient Indo-Europeans to modern Brahmins is analogous to comparing medieval Vikings to modern Swedes.
...
Again I do not know how the ancient Indo-Europeans were like, but the impression one gets from the Vedas is of martial society. Zarathustras reforms were against the martial society of the Kavis - who were poets-priests-rulers.
Some doubt the historicity of the Kavis. https://books.google.com/books?id=K-poAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA85

Even as recently as a couple of hundred years back most Brahmans were agriculturists and soldiers. The priestly class was a small element among Brahmans.
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?2347-New-R1a-paper-by-Underhill-et-al&p=35689&viewfull=1#post35689
http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-features/tp-sundaymagazine/vignettes-from-an-age-of-war/article2039159.ece

J Man
08-19-2015, 02:40 PM
A very interesting find and read.

Agamemnon
08-19-2015, 04:52 PM
I'm not surprised quite frankly, the Neolithic was an era of widespread violence. The Papuans, the Maoris or even countless Mesoamerican empires - yes, even the Aztecs - led a Neolithic lifestyle technically-speaking and none of these groups are even remotely thought of as peace-loving hippies. They all have many traits in common, such as the tendency to live in fortified settlements, endless/low-intensity warfare, ritual cannibalism (and/or endocannibalism) and so on. In fact, the neolithic communities' propensity to engage in endless conflict with one another is quite likely to have created a vacuum which eased the spread of semi-nomadic pastoralists and their languages (and the resurgence of earlier forager ancestry before them AKA "The Revenge of the Hunter-Gatherers™").

Coldmountains
08-19-2015, 05:06 PM
I'm not surprised quite frankly, the Neolithic was an era of widespread violence. The Papuans, the Maoris or even countless Mesoamerican empires - yes, even the Aztecs - led a Neolithic lifestyle technically-speaking and none of these groups are even remotely thought of as peace-loving hippies. They all have many traits in common, such as the tendency to live in fortified settlements, endless/low-intensity warfare, ritual cannibalism (and/or endocannibalism) and so on. In fact, the neolithic communities' propensity to engage in engage in endless conflict with one another is quite likely to have created a vacuum which eased the spread of semi-nomadic pastoralists and their languages (and the resurgence of earlier forager ancestry before them AKA "The Revenge of the Hunter-Gatherers™").

I got exact the same impression. Often it was not even about resource conflicts or because of hunger/poverty/etc. In many cases it was just for prestige or part of religious rituals. Aztecs often just fought wars for getting human sacrifices (Flower wars) and not for any other reasons. We will never know what was the reason for LBKs to slaughter each other but from what I read about them they had not that much dramatic starvations and Central Europe was so extremely sparsely populated during this period that it is hard for me to believe that they run out of resources. They humiliated their enemies in this case and I guess this was the brutal end of a tribal rivalry.

avalon
08-19-2015, 05:16 PM
hahaha - yes it is hard to imagine modern Swedes as Vikings. The Scandis in general seem such even tempered and peaceful people and have a very very low crime rate. They also dont seem to have the kind of social problems that Britain has - seems to be much much less anti-social behavour. Just shows this kind of thing isnt in the genes really. It just circumstances etc

Those peace loving Scandis obviously sent their most violent people and best warriors over to the British Isles.... and they stayed!:)

Illyro-Vlach
08-19-2015, 05:30 PM
I remember watching an excellent BBC documentary last year regarding the first farming communities to reach western continental Europe, where the archaeological finds (e.g. weapons, skeletal injuries) indicated conflict was a part of regular life.

Can you provide the name of this documentary? I'd like to check it out. Thanks.

alan
08-19-2015, 05:36 PM
Those peace loving Scandis obviously sent their most violent people and best warriors over to the British Isles.... and they stayed!:)

hahaha - not sure I see the head cases of Jeremy Kyle show as Vikings. More like Denisovians

Agamemnon
08-19-2015, 05:43 PM
I got exact the same impression. Often it was not even about resource conflicts or because of hunger/poverty/etc. In many cases it was just for prestige or part of religious rituals. Aztecs often just fought wars for getting human sacrifices (Flower wars) and not for any other reasons. We will never know what was the reason for LBKs to slaughter each other but from what I read about them they had not that much dramatic starvations and Central Europe was so extremely sparsely populated during this period that it is hard for me to believe that they run out of resources. They humiliated their enemies in this case and I guess this was the brutal end of a tribal rivalry.

Indeed, a "Flower war" (Xochiyaoyotl) is just a highly-organised (not to say civilised) form of low-intensity warfare, in fact these were so important that they shaped the Aztec empire, literally... That's why you see all these seemingly semi-independent kingdoms at the heart of the Anahuac on every map (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/Aztecexpansion.png) of the Aztec empire you can find, places like Tlaxcala were part of a complex network of city-states artificially maintained alive so as to provide a steady flow of sacrificial victims (in other words, they were human farms).
I'll go even further and add that the intensely superstitious environment of the Aztecs - and several Mesoamerican cultures before them - is quite similar to the role of magic in traditional Papuan culture (both systematically attributed illnesses and other disasters to spells, magic or manifestations of their mytholigical cycles after all). Much has been said about the origins of human sacrifice in Mesoamerica and its role, some came up with semi-plausible explanations (theocratic terror), others came up with nonsensical ones (lack of animal protein), but in the end it seems to me that it just comes down to ancestral beliefs which managed to survive until Mesoamerican priestly classes decided to turn them into organised cults.

avalon
08-19-2015, 06:10 PM
hahaha - not sure I see the head cases of Jeremy Kyle show as Vikings. More like Denisovians

:biggrin1:

Arbogan
08-19-2015, 06:11 PM
A very interesting find and read.


Indeed, a "Flower war" (Xochiyaoyotl) is just a highly-organised (not to say civilised) form of low-intensity warfare, in fact these were so important that they shaped the Aztec empire, literally... That's why you see all these seemingly semi-independent kingdoms at the heart of the Anahuac on every map (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/Aztecexpansion.png) of the Aztec empire you can find, places like Tlaxcala were part of a complex network of city-states artificially maintained alive so as to provide a steady flow of sacrificial victims (in other words, they were human farms).
I'll go even further and add that the intensely superstitious environment of the Aztecs - and several Mesoamerican cultures before them - is quite similar to the role of magic in traditional Papuan culture (both systematically attributed illnesses and other disasters to spells, magic or manifestations of their mytholigical cycles after all). Much has been said about the origins of human sacrifice in Mesoamerica and its role, some came up with semi-plausible explanations (theocratic terror), others came up with nonsensical ones (lack of animal protein), but in the end it seems to me that it just comes down to ancestral beliefs which managed to survive until Mesoamerican priestly classes decided to turn them into organised cults.
Among Aztecs war was a cultural institution. It was a part of their frame work of society. This is uniquely one of their features which wasnt limited to a class or a group within society. It was a way of life rather than a neccesity or conquest lead by elites or tribal leaders. One of their coming of age rites was killing an enemy of the tribe. An Aztecs who did not kill an enemy wasn't considered a full member of society and didn't enjoy the same rights as a fully fledged "citizen". Their stratification of society placed warriors above any domestic workers. Few Aztecs were involved in domestic tasks. But delegated them to slaves and subjugated nations. Even non-professional soldiers and children would participate in a conflict .The Aztecs empire itself was a huge extortion racket rather than an organic empire or kingdom. It was a huge network of vassals all answering to the Aztec emperor. Anyone who did not contribute warriors or the alloted tribute, was swiftly attacked and swarmed. Even the infamous human sacrifices were dedicated to fortune in war rather than any other aspect of society Its unfair to compare them to neolithics. Not because neolithics weren't violent. But I highly doubt they were as violent and organized as the Aztecs as theyre described here. As much as I'd like to believe a conan E Howard version of history were everyone is killing everyone and races/ethnic groups constantly compete. It doesnt make much sense considering to the cooperative social cohesion which lead to city states.

Ebizur
08-19-2015, 08:29 PM
Among Aztecs war was a cultural institution. It was a part of their frame work of society. This is uniquely one of their features which wasnt limited to a class or a group within society. It was a way of life rather than a neccesity or conquest lead by elites or tribal leaders. One of their coming of age rites was killing an enemy of the tribe. An Aztecs who did not kill an enemy wasn't considered a full member of society and didn't enjoy the same rights as a fully fledged "citizen". Their stratification of society placed warriors above any domestic workers.I recognize some similarity with the aborigines of Taiwan, or at least pre-WWII Japanese portrayals of them. Japanese researchers also remarked that the aboriginal inhabitants of that island exhibited blood type O with very high frequency (which is a biological trait shared with the indigenes of the American continent IIRC).

paulgill
08-19-2015, 11:34 PM
Again I do not know how the ancient Indo-Europeans were like, but the impression one gets from the Vedas is of martial society. Zarathustras reforms were against the martial society of the Kavis - who were poets-priests-rulers.
Some doubt the historicity of the Kavis. https://books.google.com/books?id=K-poAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA85

Even as recently as a couple of hundred years back most Brahmans were agriculturists and soldiers. The priestly class was a small element among Brahmans.
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?2347-New-R1a-paper-by-Underhill-et-al&p=35689&viewfull=1#post35689
http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-features/tp-sundaymagazine/vignettes-from-an-age-of-war/article2039159.ece


Didn't they already practised four varna system? In the varna system priests couldn't be the ruler, no?

pegasus
08-20-2015, 06:20 AM
The remains found indicate a very brutal massacre. I was always of the notion the LBK culture were like Neolithic smurfs. I do not get the motive for the brutal mutilations. A lot of the victims were children it seems. Were there WHG people living in close proximity to this area?
Seems the violence was done by other LBK farmers.

jesus
08-20-2015, 06:59 AM
Not surprising IMO. Chimpanzees, lions, wolves and ants participate in some form of warfare. Early humans probably had some kind of " organized violence ".

DMXX
08-20-2015, 02:51 PM
Can you provide the name of this documentary? I'd like to check it out. Thanks.

Hi Illyro. Coincidentally, I think it's been re-aired the other day on BBC2 in the United Kingdom (thread relating to possibly the same documentary here (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5205-BBC-Horizon-The-First-Britons&p=103643#post103643)). If you're not living in Britain, I'm not sure how you'll be able to view it (the BBC iPlayer doesn't work for viewers abroad).

Christina
08-22-2015, 09:14 PM
hahaha - yes it is hard to imagine modern Swedes as Vikings. The Scandis in general seem such even tempered and peaceful people and have a very very low crime rate. They also dont seem to have the kind of social problems that Britain has - seems to be much much less anti-social behavour. Just shows this kind of thing isnt in the genes really. It just circumstances etc

I would underscore the validity of this point.

1. Cultures change a lot over time. I have read Roman texts that describe Germans as irresponsible, late, carefree, and casual -- and Italians as serious, prompt, precise, etc. Which is the opposite of the modern stereotype.

2. On the Vikings point, there is an additional point, which should never be forgotten. Those in Scandinavia (like the Swedes you mentioned) are not the descendants of Vikings (i.e. those with the adventurer "gene.") On the contrary, the modern Scandinavians are the descendants of those who stayed home. :P

3. On the overall LBK point. I am a big believer in the concept that "humans today are pretty much the same as humans always." In other words, there have always been warlike cultures and warlike people; and peaceful cultures and peaceful people. It's not necessarily genetic, and neighboring "tribes" can be very different. Contrast North versus South Korea, for example. Certainly in the LBK there were humans of all sorts, and their humanity wasn't much different from ours.

Anabasis
08-22-2015, 09:26 PM
Why nobody does not argue that, that massacre may be done by newcommers probbaly came from steppe or some huntergatherers?

Chad Rohlfsen
08-22-2015, 11:29 PM
Why nobody does not argue that, that massacre may be done by newcommers probbaly came from steppe or some huntergatherers?

This massacre will be close to 5000 BCE. It has nothing to do with steppe folks and hunter-gatherers likely lack the numbers to pull off something like this. WHG's were pretty well swarmed over and didn't contribute much to modern European ancestry.

vettor
08-22-2015, 11:42 PM
This massacre will be close to 5000 BCE. It has nothing to do with steppe folks and hunter-gatherers likely lack the numbers to pull off something like this. WHG's were pretty well swarmed over and didn't contribute much to modern European ancestry.

Is it part of this ?
The LBK settlement of Karsdorf (Burgenlandkreis, Saxony-Anhalt) is located approximately 100km south of Derenburg and Halberstadt, on the river Unstrut, and was occupied between 5240 and 5000 BC (Behnke, 2007). The Neolithic buildings(n=24) of three settlement stages are dated to the early and middle LBK (after Meier-Arendt 1966). Except for four graves, all of the 30 burials are associated in groups next to houses in the centre of the settlement, similar to the site of Halberstadt. The individuals are buried in house-flanking pit graves at the western side of the houses and mostly arranged in north-east or north-west orientation.

2012 paper , of which haak and brotherton analysed 5 of the 30 burials ( 4 x G2a and 1 x T1a ydna ) and used them in haak Feb. 2015 paper .............I assume the other 25 bodies will also be given a ydna/mtdna marker in the future.

Chad Rohlfsen
08-23-2015, 12:24 AM
Is it part of this ?
The LBK settlement of Karsdorf (Burgenlandkreis, Saxony-Anhalt) is located approximately 100km south of Derenburg and Halberstadt, on the river Unstrut, and was occupied between 5240 and 5000 BC (Behnke, 2007). The Neolithic buildings(n=24) of three settlement stages are dated to the early and middle LBK (after Meier-Arendt 1966). Except for four graves, all of the 30 burials are associated in groups next to houses in the centre of the settlement, similar to the site of Halberstadt. The individuals are buried in house-flanking pit graves at the western side of the houses and mostly arranged in north-east or north-west orientation.

2012 paper , of which haak and brotherton analysed 5 of the 30 burials ( 4 x G2a and 1 x T1a ydna ) and used them in haak Feb. 2015 paper .............I assume the other 25 bodies will also be given a ydna/mtdna marker in the future.

No, these are to the west of there. There is also the Talheim death pit. That looks interesting too. Almost half of the dead are children, and most of the dead were killed by blows from adzes. Certainly, intra-cultural.