From Stone Darts to Dismembered Bodies, New Study Reveals 5,000 Years of Violence in Central CA

a reply to: Hanslune
Yes and yes,
We didn't enter the cave because of the drop, but I was told that there are remnants of ladders and ropes in the cave, as well as a fair amount of "offerings" that were dropped into the cave ,during the historic period.

originally posted by: Logarock

Its not a lie. Primitive societies were a bloody mess and so was the world long before Western culture became the poster boy for violence. Listen to folks whine about the Aztecs, not primitive but storied, and their great and wonderful world before the Spanish but in truth a nasty bloody mess long before the Europeans joined in.

Aztecs were most definitely not hunter-gatherers which, after all, are who we are talking about. It is this kind of misdirection through false association that helps perpetuate errant myths about pre-domesticated human life.

Hunter-gatherers do not build massive temples with slave labor and commit blood sacrifices to appease deity.

Only "civil"izations do that.

a reply to: NthOther

I would agree with what you said but would add the caveat that we don't know exactly what they were up to at Gobekli Tepe and Catalhuyuck

originally posted by: Shiloh7

I get dubious when archaeologists come up with the whys and wherefor's because they are only guesses based on often very limited information.

That's why I can't take these studies seriously. What exactly are they studying? 5,000-year-old bones that they are assuming met their grisly fate at the hands of other human beings?

They don't know that. They have no clue. It's 100% speculation (and reads like it). The sample sizes are small and unequally distributed by geography. How they can tell the difference between spear damage to a human bone and bear-tooth damage to a human bone after 5,000 years of decomposition, exposure, and a host of other unaccounted-for variables.

They can't. They're making it up to justify their worldview to themselves.

a reply to: NthOther


Yes to be sure the "civilizers" down through history are a source for large scale violence and oppression. However having studied american native tribal relationships was rather eye opening for the amount of bloody conflict. Most of these could be classified as hunter gatherers/nomadic while others were more agricultural based. It was not uncommon for them to genocide each other, enslave ect.

a reply to: NthOther

I agree insomuch that the Aztecs, in my own estimation, were not the savage, murderous, cult driven freaks that seems popular.

I wouldn't think the any more or less violent than the classical Greek city states were.

I have spent some time in study of Nahuatl mysticism. There is a very deep, dark side to Aztec spirituality. No doubt. And I dont doubt some of the deaths being related to sacrifice. But there are other viewpoints that, in my viewpoint, make more sense than massive murder-fests at the Temple of the Sun.

originally posted by: Logarock

Yes to be sure the "civilizers" down through history are a source for large scale violence and oppression. However having studied american native tribal relationships was rather eye opening for the amount of bloody conflict. Most of these could be classified as hunter gatherers/nomadic while others were more agricultural based. It was not uncommon for them to genocide each other, enslave ect.

It's not uncommon for us, either. That's the main thrust of my argument--we're no better (our lives are no better), as much as modernity apologists would have us believe we are.

Of course, I wasn't there 5,000 years ago (that I'm conscious of) so I have no way of knowing what it was truly like either. I just see shoddy pop science and automatically suspect nefarious motivation... which leads me to further suspect that the very opposite of their claims is really closer to the truth.

originally posted by: NthOther

originally posted by: Shiloh7

I get dubious when archaeologists come up with the whys and wherefor's because they are only guesses based on often very limited information.

That's why I can't take these studies seriously. What exactly are they studying? 5,000-year-old bones that they are assuming met their grisly fate at the hands of other human beings?

They don't know that. They have no clue. It's 100% speculation (and reads like it). The sample sizes are small and unequally distributed by geography. How they can tell the difference between spear damage to a human bone and bear-tooth damage to a human bone after 5,000 years of decomposition, exposure, and a host of other unaccounted-for variables.

They can't. They're making it up to justify their worldview to themselves.

Actually your statement shows you didn't read the article. It's quite easy to tell the difference between damage from a bear bite and the thrust of a stone tipped spear to bone.

They can tell the difference, what expertise do you have to support your contention.....or are making the common mistake of presuming your personal incredulity has value? Are you making up unjustifiable and unsupportable comments to justified your own world view to yourself.

Pardon me if I don't take you seriously

a reply to: NthOther

Try studying the live's of HG and other groups in the 19th & 20th century when they were observed, studied and lived with.

You are making statements based on ignorance of the subject-unless you'd like to point out the specific errors in the paper?

...or do you hold to the belief that personal incredulity is sufficient to dismiss evidence on subjects you have no expertise in?

originally posted by: Hanslune

Actually your statement shows you didn't read the article. It's quite easy to tell the difference between damage from a bear bite and the thrust of a stone tipped spear to bone.

I read it, I just don't buy it.

Would you convict someone of murder based on the autopsy report on a 5,000-year-old corpse that's been exposed to the elements (and who knows what else) the whole time? Would you believe it with total surety?

No.

Are you making up unjustifiable and unsupportable comments to justified your own world view to yourself.

Good for the goose, good for the gander.

originally posted by: Hanslune

...or do you hold to the belief that personal incredulity is sufficient to dismiss evidence on subjects you have no expertise in?

What, you want my credentials? Am I being carded?

Let me reiterate my point (again). I'm not saying that hunter-gatherer life was all wine and roses. I'm simply saying I see no evidence (all I've read thus far stinks of speculation and generalization) to suggest that HG life was any less-preferable to the train wreck we have now.

But making it seem that way serves the interests of the guardians of the status quo.

originally posted by: [post=17908197]NthOther


I read it, I just don't buy it.

Based on what?

Would you convict someone of murder based on the autopsy report on a 5,000-year-old corpse that's been exposed to the elements (and who knows what else) the whole time? Would you believe it with total surety?

Yes, because I have knowledge of the science and the criterial they use, I did a great deal of skeletal 'damage assessment' - you appear to have no basis for your dismissal of evidence you have no demonstrable expertise in

a reply to: Hanslune

We're talking past each other. If we have to have anthropology or forensic science degrees to offer alternative perspectives on the matter then I guess I'm in the wrong thread.

a reply to: Hanslune

Didn't have to talk down to your fellow man as he was merely placing his worldview on this thread.

As have you, and I don't read any negativity from him towards you, rather the opposite.

Calm down, smile, and think of a nice way to make yourself happy and others along with you. You'd feel so much better, and I (and others ofc.) would have so much more pleasure at reading your words.

Be nice man

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for the thread.

I'm of the opinion that we have been this savage race we are for a long time. We did learn it at one point and has been in our genome ever since.

We're no different from other human beings across vastness of time, we just do things a little differently. But we're still on the blood lust path, and it never is pretty.

I'm with Hans on this one ,
If you have no idea what the state of the art is , then you really have no place making disparaging comments on the state of the art.
Being able to tell the differnece between predation or scavenging by animals , and human caused injury is paramount in this field.
When the body has a spear point imbedded in bone or a stone atl atl dart still in place , it's pretty solid that humans did it.
Also scalping and other forms of trophy taking leave tell tale marks on the bones.
The poster in question has summarily dismissed nearly a century of work, because it doesn't fit his "world view" or offends his sensibilites concerning primitive people

originally posted by: Shiloh7
a reply to: kevinp2300

I get dubious when archaeologists come up with the whys and wherefor's because they are only guesses based on often very limited information.

Look at a body where someone accidentally fell into the path of an oncoming vehicle. It is smashed and perhaps in x hundreds/thousands years if exhumed, archaelogists may decide ours was a violent and dangerous time to live. Life has always had its wars I suspect, but can anyone be sure that CA was a violent place between cherry-picked dated. Perhaps other bodies if found in the future that corresponde to these dates, would contradict these findings.

I suspect when a group went out hunting and their prey ran amok arrows, darts or stones flew in all directions, it doesn't mean people were deliberately targeted - although we know in the wars that occasionally feuds were settled.

With all of our digital data, were a catastrophe to happen, people in the far future would have to guess at an awful lot of things, as most of our information would have gone with the wind.

Idk why you jump to discrediting archaeologists. All they did was gather thousands of bodies and probably had forensics experts determine the cause death to each person. Then you take that # and create a % of ppl who were murdered. 5-7% is much higher than any % murdered today in any country throughout the world. There is a science to determining these causes of death and i dont understand your vehicle analogy considering there were none, maybe a horse stepping on a head mistaken for a hammer blow could probably account for .x% error. These ppl were living with animals and acting like them as well. Once we developed cities/laws/morals/agriculture, there became less competition and less reason to spear thy neighbor. Cherry picked dating? I would guess carbon dating and other credible methods were used to date these ppl. i think books solve the problem of this "digital data wipe". How would this occur? U mean like a solar flare?

a reply to: NthOther

Interesting.

I'm curious? What would say a village of Hunter/Gatherers would do when confronted with a second group encroaching on their area and overtaxing their food supply?

I'm also not qualified in this topic, but it seems to me that they would kill the interlopers rather than starving or letting their children starve to accommodate. I highly doubt it was all peace and love and in fact imagine the response would be quite brutal.

a reply to: Blaine91555

The Indians, outside of the Algonquin tribes, were kind of a teeming mess of wars, combining and splitting of tribes, and massive moves from region to region. I think that the tribes south of the Delaware, and west of the Mississipi tended to be both hunter gatherers, and always fighting.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Thanks. That is how I would imagine it not knowing about the topic. Survival of the fittest would be the order of the day I suppose.