I’ve been asking myself this : what is the earliest, scientifically authenticated instance of organized violence in human history ?
I’m not talking about foundation myths like Troy or Biblical stuff (which may or may not have happened but haven’t left much in the way of actual evidence), or stuff like cavemen graves found with the skulls caved in which, while they do indicate violence, do not necessarily exemplify what I think of a war - something that involves the whole of a nation/tribe/ethnic group ; is organized ; involves large-ish contingents ; isn’t restricted to gathering raids but has a political objective (even if that objective is, in essence, about resource taking, namely land)… That kind of stuff.
Whether the Homeric accounts are of a specific, real battle is doubtful, but the reality of wars between the Greeks and the Trojans is certain. Even so, they were 1500 years later than the Mesopotamian battles. Oodles of wars are known before Troy. Old Kingdom Egypt has military records that probably date as far back as Sumer.
True, but then again it gets dicey trying to ascertain facts without at least a written legend to go by. I suppose a given mass grave would be a hint towards a battle, but it could also be a hint to mass sacrifice, or a plague of some kind somebody decided to do something about, or an uprising gone wrong (or right, depending on the POV :))…
I did know about the Uruk/Sumer/Elam thing (if only because that was what half a semester was about), but I wondered whether Asia or Africa had more to offer. The middle east does have the good combo of clay tablets and a weather that’s perfect for preserving it, but then again the same climate exists in the southern hemisphere, and further out east.
I don’t think you actually need to find records in writing to prove war existed. Digging up a fortified city is evidence enough. You don’t need fortifications if there are no wars. There is archaeological evidence that the city of Jericho had a wall built around it as early as the 8th millenium BC. I’d say that’s the earliest indication we have of wars.
To stretch the OP’s definition of “warfare” all the way down to “inter-group violence”, there was a spectacular find from earlier this year. Basically, it appears that a few dozen people were massacred and dumped unceremoniously in a lake, around 10,000 years ago. Some were tied up, and others had pieces of stone weapons embedded in their bones.
The NYT has a good overview of the find. The original paper is worth a read if you have access, it’s fairly short and even if you’re not familiar with all the technical details (like I am) even just the images and diagrams tell a vivid story.
Since the OP was careful to ask “what is the earliest, scientifically authenticated instance of organized violence in human history” the question has to be answerable. Reading closely is part of science.
The Narmer Palette in the Cairo Museum dates to about the 31st century BC, and depicts Narmer smiting his enemies as he allegedly united upper and lower Egypt, and was most likely made at the time of the conquest. That’s about as specific and directly documented as you’re going to get. On one side Narmer is about to smite his enemy, on the other side there’s a pile of decapitated corpses… plus other details.
Whether it documents the events of a single year, or is meant to depict the entire campaign to unite Upper and Lower Eygpt, or even is just metaphorical, it still indicates a war of some kind took place around that time.
I’m not enough of a expert to agree or disagree. All I can note is that some of the scholars quoted do not interpret the Palette as indicating an actual war. Davis certainly and Baines possibly.
The Ancient History Enycyclopedia, cited by engineer_comp_geek, has a page on Early Dynastic Egypt which says:
and also:
It’s hard to believe that nothing resembling war took place over this time. But if these interpretations are correct, then the Palette provides no evidence for war.
Not true. The Op asked " what is the earliest, scientifically authenticated instance of organized violence in human history ?"
Even if we dont know when the first “war” was (and what defines a "war’ as opposed to a battle as opposed to a raid as opposed to just two families duking it out?) we can know when the first documented war was. engineer_comp_geek’s cite is a good one, as are others.
That’s not good enough - could be a ritual sacrifice (especially if they were killed while tied up), or outlaws/criminals being dealt with, or a particularly bad winter…
[QUOTE=aldiboronti]
I don’t think you actually need to find records in writing to prove war existed. Digging up a fortified city is evidence enough. You don’t need fortifications if there are no wars. There is archaeological evidence that the city of Jericho had a wall built around it as early as the 8th millenium BC. I’d say that’s the earliest indication we have of wars.
[/QUOTE]
Depends. Walls were also good against wild animals, a symbol of power and a way to mark the symbolic border between “bad dangerous Nature” and “good, safe civilization”. Most early art in fact puts a very strong symbolical emphasis on man being the subject, or victim, of the dangers of nature ; it’s only after a good long while of living with cities & with agriculture and such that art started representing man in a more dominant position wrt nature instead.
[QUOTE=md2000]
The Narmer Palette in the Cairo Museum dates to about the 31st century BC, and depicts Narmer smiting his enemies as he allegedly united upper and lower Egypt, and was most likely made at the time of the conquest. That’s about as specific and directly documented as you’re going to get. On one side Narmer is about to smite his enemy, on the other side there’s a pile of decapitated corpses… plus other details.
[/QUOTE]
That’s pretty good - even if it’s not a representation of a specific war, it still indicates that the *concept *of war existed and was understood as such. Notably, the palette not only represents the dead losers, but also standard bearers who appear to lead a prisoner (those do look like manacles above that character, don’t they ?). Standards are/were necessary for battlefield comms, so their presence would be indicative of a grasp of large scale tactics.
Yes, plus - the pose, big guy grabbing the prisoner/opponent by the hair on top of his head, about to strike him - that is how many other later pharaohs were depicted to commemorate their great wins. Plus, pile of dead bodies with severed heads is pretty standard.
(There is however, a temple where one much later victory is celebrated in a wall carving, about 1700BC - the pharaoh is shown in front of a pile of hands. He paid his warriors a bounty for each right hand removed from a dead opponent. He then found some of his minions were double-dipping by tossing in a few left hands too. The next panel in the sequence shows him sitting in front of large pile of severed genitalia - to get the bounty, bring the opponent’s full package. )
As Wiki mentions, he is shown wearing the crowns of both upper and lower Egypt, and the general traditional history of Egypt says he was the one who united them - despite, one presumes, military opposition.
On the front pylon of the Edfu temple, one of the pharaohs is depicted as a serious badass, grabbing the hair and about to smite a plethora of enemies in one shot.