August 8, 2004

THE ORIGIN OF WAR

Table 1: Archaeological Evidence of Warfare

Time Period/Date

Evidence of Warfare

Paleolithic Period

Lower Paleolithic

2,900,000-100,000 B.C.

(Stone tools)

Middle Paleolithic

100,000-35,000 B.C.

(Hunting & gathering)

Upper Paleolithic

35,000-10,000 B.C.

(Art)

Date: 12,000-10,000

None

One burial site

The ANubian site 117" (near Jebel Sahaba, Sudan)

Mesolithic Period

10,000-7,500 B.C.

(Settled communities)

None

Neolithic Period

7,500-1,500 B.C.

(Domestication of plants & animals)

Date: 7,500-7,000 (Agriculture)

Date: 5,000-4,300 (Population increase, growth of trade, efforts to control strategic sites along trade routes, the evolution of hierarchical and centralized forms of political organization)

Date: 3,000 (The earliest historical records)

Yes

The second generally accepted evidence of warfare, at first in the Near East and then throughout the world.

Fortifications, garrisons and destroyed sites at a number of locations in the Near East, indicate a more general prevalence of warfare.

These records document (1) Frequent warfare between neighboring Sumerian polities over land and water rights, and (2) The unification by conquest of Upper and Lower Egypt.

THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD

Archaeological data provide very little clear-cut evidence of warfare among the hunting and gathering populations which existed prior to the development of agriculture. From the point of view of archaeology, war seems to have originated over a 4,500 year time period, from around 7,500 B.C., when agriculture was first developed, to 3,000 B.C., by which time war was generalized and documented in writing (see Table 1) (pp. 1-2; and pp. 147-148).

THE ETHNOGRAPHIC RECORD

1. Present-day Hunter-gatherers are not Peaceful: The ethnographic record of hunter-gatherer societies does not seem to support the archaeological view. A 1978 worldwide sample of 31 hunter-gatherer societies shows that two-thirds of them experience war at least every two years (Ember 1978, cited p. 2). This is illustrated in Table 2.

Table 2: Present-day Hunter-gatherer Societies B Frequency of Warfare

Frequency of Warfare

Percent of Societies (n=31)

Rare or no warfare

Somewhat less often than once every two years

At least once every two years

2. No Correlation between War and other Forms of Violence: Ethnographic data also fail to find a correlation between war and interpersonal physical violence, such as homicide, adult fighting and child-rearing practices. There is no evidence for a cumulative relationship between one form of violence and another. Thus, at the societal level at least, violence does not necessarily beget more violence in a lockstep manner.

Analysis of the characteristics of war shows that war is not simply more violence, but rather that it entails the deployment violence in accordance with a distinctive logic, contingent upon concepts rooted in the socio-cultural system. Thus, while completely non-violent (that is, entirely peaceful) societies are rare, societies which are specifically warless are not rare. These societies may, and often do, have a high rate of altercations, brawls, and/or homicide (pp. 21, 37).

VIOLENCE

Violence can be likened to a pathogen which precipitates a variety symptoms under various conditions B in the case of war, conditions which are socially created or socially reproduced by human agency. The study of the origin of war consists in delineating the conditions under which war is initiated in a socio-cultural context which was previously free of warfare (pp. 3 and 36).

Forms of Violence:

Conflicts which may provide the antecedents of war include the following:

1. Disputes and Altercations: In disputes and altercations, deadly weapons and deadly force are generally not used (pp. 3-4).

2. Brawls and Riots: In brawls and riots, the intentionality centers on expressing anger rather than causing previously envisioned deaths to fulfill a purpose (p. 4).

1. Murder (Homicide): Lethal Violence, such as homicide, contrasts with war in that the killing is negatively valued by the social collectivity that constitutes the killer=s (or killers=) reference group. Characteristically, homicide is regarded as a criminal act which warrants retribution, and this retribution often takes the form of the death penalty (capital punishment). In contrast to war, the death penalty is applicable to a specific individual only B the perpetrator of a prior criminal homicide (p. 5).

4. War: The transition from capital punishment (with its applicability only to the individual whose criminality has been well-established) and war (in which any member of a group may be targeted for revenge), arose between 7,500 and 3,000 B.C. It involved the conceptualization of a new socio-cultural logic B the logic of substitutability, that is, the replacement of one member of a group by another for the purpose of killing. This transition initiated war and constitutes, therefore, a major turning point in human history (pp. 5-6).

THE CHARACTERISTICS OF WAR

War:

5. War is an armed conflict that is collectively carried out.

6. Participants use deadly weapons with deadly force.

7. Participants envision the death of other persons in advance. This envisioning is encoded in the purposeful act of taking up lethal weapons.

8. War is an organized activity that requires advance planning.

9. The use of deadly force is seen as legitimate by the collectivity resorting to arms.

10. The planning for other persons= death is believed to be both morally appropriate and justified by circumstances or prior events.

11. War requires a division of labor that goes beyond that based on age and gender. Participants are assigned specialized roles, such as scouting, acting as point men, and covering the rear.

12. War is instrumental. It is waged to achieve a purpose and as such, requires rational calculation, planning, and organization.

13. War is not an immediate and spontaneous expression of anger. It is a considered decision to elect this course of action after emotions have cooled down.

14. Substitutability B the Hallmark of War: War (including feud), is governed by the application of the principle of social substitutability B which is absent from murder, duel and capital punishment. In war (and feud), the killing of an individual is perceived by the victim=s group as an injury to the whole group and, by the same token, the group then holds all of the killer=s collectivity responsible for the deed, any one of its members then becoming a legitimate target for retaliatory blood vengeance.

War is thus conceptually, as well as behaviorally, between groups and is underwritten by the principle that one group member is substitutable for another. An injured group holds a perpetrator group responsible for inflicting the injury and hence any of the latter=s members liable for retribution. This is a radical emotional displacement which is absent from capital punishment (pp. 5-6).

The Raid B The most Elementary Form of War: The raid, the most elementary form of warfare, illustrates the concept of substitutability. A group enters enemy territory to ambush and kill an unsuspecting, isolated individual, then withdraws rapidly. The victim is so peripheral to the matter at hand as to be Aunsuspecting@ (pp. 4 and 6).

From Capital Punishment to War: The differentiation between phenomena which may behaviorally look like war B such as a collective execution B and war (including feud), can be precisely specified in terms of the presence or absence of a calculus of social substitutability (pp. 6-7). This is illustrated in Table 3.

Table 3: Capital Punishment and War Compared

Attributes

Capital

Punishment

War

(including Feud)

A collective armed conflict.

Variable

Yes

Collectively sanctioned by the community of the participants.

Yes

Morally justified (at least from the point of view of the participants= collectivity).

Yes

High esteem is bestowed to the participants by their collectivity.

Yes

Organization, planning and premeditation are required.

Yes

Identifiable instrumental objectives are served B such as defense, revenge, excision, and appropriation.

Yes

Social substitution governs the targeting of individuals for lethal violence.

Yes

Group Identity B The Pre-requisite for War

The movement from the death penalty to war constitutes a jump in the elaboration of the concept of the group, an elaboration based on internalization of a group identity. Such a group identity is illustrated by the statement, AI am an American@ B as opposed to AI live in America A or even, AI am a citizen of the United States of America.@

The emergence of the calculus of social substitutability created the pre-conditions for a general deployment of lethal violence as an instrument of the social group and a legitimate means for the attainment of group objectives and interests. Henceforth, war and society would co-evolve (pp. 3-7).

THE STRUCTURE OF SOCIETIES

Societies are designed on the basis of two structural designs:

1. Lack of Segmentation: The society is organized solely on the local level.

2. Segmentation: The society is organized in a hierarchy of units, each of which is equivalent to the others in terms of structure and function. A familiar example of a segmental type of organization in modern American society is the combination of a set of townships to form a county and a set of counties to form a state.

NON-SEGMENTED SOCIETIES

Non-segmented societies are characterized by the minimum degree of elaboration of social groups, manifesting only, and nothing more than, those social groups which are culturally universally present in every society.

Non-segmented societies have no level of organization beyond the local community. Within the local group, families are generally identifiable as detachable constituent sub-units. While the form families may take varies greatly, the independent nuclear family is always a phase in the developmental cycle, typically the most protracted phase. No specific set of families constitutes a local group, and a local group is not a sub-unit of any larger organizational entity. The families identified as constituting a local group are simply those families co-residing at the time.

Non-segmented societies lack descent groups B whether patrilineal, matrilineal or ancestor-based restricted cognatic. Instead, they are characterized by the egocentric bilateral kin networks of kindred which are found in every society. Individuals usually maintain some level of social relationship with relatives in their family of origin and their family of orientation.

The kin network of each individual is unique, and hence there is no structural basis for the social identification of same sex siblings as either forming a distinct relative-linking unit, or for imputing to them a common social fate or social position. Bilateral kin networks or kindred accommodate the shared interests that link individuals but do not contain the idea of social substitutability which is inherent in the concept of the descent group.

Marriage is contracted by individuals and their families and is not also formulated as a transaction between more encompassing social groups, such as their communities. This is so even though inter-marriage engenders relationships that span social groups. Marriage is not conceptualized as an exchange between groups and characteristically involves no significant transfer of valuables.

The lack of higher levels of organization in non-segmented societies conditions individuals to perceive a homicide as an individual loss which kin share, rather than as an injury to a larger group. The de facto Agroup@ of mourners is contextually generated by the event and lacks and any independent existence apart from context (pp. 44-48).

SEGMENTED SOCIETIES

A segmented organization is the combination of like units into progressively more inclusive groups within a hierarchy. For instance, specified families comprise the constituents of a descent group, certain designated descent groups make up a sub-clan, sub-clans make up a clan, etc....

Segmentation in a society conditions individuals to conceptualize the idea of substitutability. Descent groups are nearly always delineated as made up of component sub-groups and hence are culturally formulated within the framework of a segmental design.

Descent groups also embody the identity and social substitutability of same-sex siblings. One brother in an antecedent generation is equivalent to another as a link between an individual member of a patrilineal group and an ancestor. The concept of social substitutability is thus intrinsic to kinship classifications which treat same sex siblings as a unit, each sibling being equivalent in tracing the lineage between relatives.

In addition, of course, descent groups are amenable to the formulation of group or collective interests.

Marriage, as an exchange between groups, expresses a number of group-level concepts common to segmental societies. It entails both collective interests and the notion that a person is a representative of a collectivity. One female group member is the substitutable equivalent of another for purposes of reciprocation. Marriage is formulated as a group project which links the participating kin groups, rather than simply as a family concern (pp. 44-48).

RE-VISITING THE ETHNOGRAPHIC DATA B A WORLD SAMPLE

The Archaeological Record and the Ethnographic Record are at Variance: Archaeologic and ethnographic data seem to lead to opposite conclusions as to when war originated.

Except for one isolated instance (ANubian site 117"), archaeology presents no evidence of warfare during the Paleolithic Period and seems to impute the development of agriculture as the culprit for widespread war (Table 1).

Ethnography, on the other hand, shows that present-day foraging societies have a high frequency of warfare (Table 2). Yet today=s foraging societies are deemed comparable to the societies that existed during the Upper Paleolithic Period.

A Representative Sample of the World= s Cultures: The ethnographic data can be re-visited using the representative half-sample of 93 societies drawn by Ross, in 1983, from a representative sample of 186 societies drawn by Murdock and White, in 1969 out of the universe of the 1,250 societies which had been ethnographically described at the time. (Murdock and White=s sample is known as the AStandard Cross-cultural Sample@) [Murdock and White, cited p. 50; Ross, cited p. 50; See also Note (a)].

In Ross= sample of 93 societies, there were 25 foraging societies. (Ross defined a foraging society as one whose subsistence economy entailed a 75 percent or greater combined dependence on the collection of wild plants and small animals, hunting, trapping and fishing; and a 25 percent or less combined dependence on agriculture, horticulture, shifting cultivation, and/or domestic animals).

Of the 25 foraging societies in Ross= sample, 8 were non-segmented and 17 were segmented. Ross coded all 25 of these foraging societies for frequency of warfare as well as for other variables, such as homicide and exogamous marriages (p. 51). The results are presented in Tables 4, 5 and 6.

SOCIETAL NON-SEGMENTATION AND WARLESSNESS

Among the 25 foraging societies in Ross= sample, the association between a non-segmented societal organization and a low frequency of warfare is very strong. Table 4 presents the data. Of eight non-segmented societies, six (75 percent) had infrequent or non-existent warfare. Of seventeen segmented societies, sixteen (94 percent) had warfare once every five years or more often.

Table 4: Foraging Societies B Organizational Type and Frequency of Warfare

Societal

Organization

Frequency

of Warfare

Infrequent or Non-existent

At least Once every Five Years

Non-segmented:

Copper Eskimo

Ingalik

!Kung

Mbuti

Semang

Yahgan

Andamanese *

Slave**

Segmented:

Warrau

Abipon

Ainu

Aweikoma

Bellacoola

Chiricahua

Comanche

Eyak

Gilyak

Gros Ventre

Klamath

Nambicuara

Saulteaux

Tiwi

Shavante

Yokuts

Yurok

Yes

Table 4, Footnotes:

* Andamanese: The Andaman Islanders are appropriately coded as a society in which warfare occurs with frequency. Analysis of their circumstances shows that even in a non-segmented foraging society (and hence in the absence of the concept of social substitution which underwrites taking vengeance against any member of a perpetrator=s social group), armed conflict between groups (war) can arise. In the case of the Andamanese, the specific circumstances in which they find themselves, include (1) Resource competition between territorial local groups which have attained a maximum population density, as evidenced by period food shortages, and (2) A circumscribed environment (an island). While the character of warfare is behaviorally similar to that which occurs in segmental societies, in that it involves raid and counter-raid between communities, women and children are not targeted, and peace is relatively easily established because of the absence of vengeance obligations (pp. 81 and 105).

** Slave: A check of the original sources reveals that the annual warfare reported for the Slave consisted of attacks by the Cree, in large part a product of disruption of the Cree society by the Canadian fur trade west of Hudson Bay. The Slave did not counter-raid or offer any defense other than flight. Raids by members of one Slave band against another are not reported. The Slave case is thus consistent with the proposition that non-segmented foraging societies are comparatively warless (pp. 51-53).

HOMICIDE AND THE TRANSITION TO GROUP RESPONSIBILITY

Warless societies uniformly lack the concept of social substitution. The application of group concepts to situations of homicide is absent. The response to homicide is devoid of the concept of social substitution (pp. 21 and 41-42).

The beginning of war emerged from the concepts of injury to the group, group responsibility for counteraction, and group member liability for retribution (pp. 6-7).

The transition that encapsulates the origin of war, that is, which transforms a society from being warless to being warlike, entails the critical change from a view of homicide as an individual responsibility to a view of it as a group responsibility. The shift may be characterized as follows:

3. The Warless Society B Capital Punishment: In a warless society, an individual homicide is usually followed by the execution of the killer, carried out by the victim=s aggrieved next of kin and his or her supporters.

4. The Warlike Society B War: In a warlike society, an individual homicide is usually followed by war (including feud) during which an Aunsuspecting relative@ or co-resident of the perpetrator is killed in blood vengeance by the victim=s aggrieved next of kin, and his or her supporters or co-residents. This blood vengeance triggers a like desire for vengeance by the new victim=s kin and thus underwrites reciprocating episodes of lethal armed conflict between two social groups or collectivities (p. 43).

Table 5 illustrates the reaction to homicide in non-segmented and segmented societies within Ross= sample. Of the eight non-segmented societies, six (75 percent) declared no group responsibility for either redress or liability. Of the fourteen segmented societies, eight (57 percent) declared group responsibility for both redress and liability (p. 55).

Table 5: Homicide in Foraging Societies B

Group Responsibility for Redress and Liability to Retaliation*

Societal

Organization/

Society

Group

Responsibility

For Redress

For Liability

Non-segmented:

Andamanese

Ingalik

!Kung

Mbuti

Semang

Slave

Copper Eskimo

Yahgan

Segmented:

Bellacoola

Nambicuara

Saulteaux

Tiwi

Warrau

Yokuts

Eyak

Gros Ventre

Yurok

Aweikoma

Comanche

Gilyak

Klamath

Shavante

Yes (malefactor only)

Yes (malefactor, if possible)

Yes (any of the malefactor=s group)

Yes

Table 5, Footnote

* In Ross= sample of 25 foraging societies, the view of two societies (the Abipon and the Chiricahua) could not be ascertained; and the view of one society (the Ainu) could not be coded. These data, therefore, include only 22 societies.

EXOGAMOUS MARRIAGES AS AN AMPLIFYING FACTOR

Table 6 shows the correlation between rates of exogamous marriages and frequency of warfare in non-segmented and segmented societies.

In non-segmented societies, the relatively high rate of exogamous marriage may amplify positive feelings between groups and hence contribute to a low frequency of warfare. Of the eight non-segmented societies in Ross= sample, six (75 percent) have both a high rate of exogamous marriages (61 percent or more) and a low frequency of warfare (rare or non-existent).

In segmented societies, the rate of exogamous marriages is relatively low. The positive feelings between groups engendered by exogamous marriages may be counteracted by negative feedback loops, such as when two groups form a military alliance to attack another group, or conversely, when long-sustained enmities between groups preclude exogamous marriages. Of the seventeen segmented societies in Ross= sample, thirteen (76 percent) have both a low rate of exogamous marriages (60 percent of less) and a high frequency of warfare (every five years or more) (pp. 51-52 and 62-64).

Table 6: Foraging Societies B Exogamous Marriages and Warfare

Societal Organization/

Percent Exogamous Marriages

Frequency of

Warfare

Infrequent or Non-existent

At least every Five Years

Non-segmented:

61-100% Exog. Marriages

!Kung

Mbuti

Semang

Yahgan

40-60%

Andamanese

Copper Eskimo

Ingalik

Slave

0-39 %

Yes

Segmented:

61-100% Exog. Marriages

Gros Ventre

Yokuts

Yurok

40-60%

Abipon

Eyak

Gilyak

Klamath

Shavante

Tiwi

0-39%

Ainu

Aweikoma

Bellacoola

Chiricahua

Comanche

Nambicuara

Saulteaux

Warrau

Yes

FACTORS WITHOUT INDEPENDENT CORRELATION WITH WARFARE

Ross= sample of 25 foraging societies gives no substantiation to explanatory factors for warfare previously advanced by anthropologists.

1. Sedentarism: The 25 foraging societies have various degrees of sedentarism (reliance on relatively fixed subsistence resources or productive sites, such as, for instance, agriculture). There is no independent correlation between degree of sedentarism and frequency of warfare (pp. 64-67).

2. Population Density:

a. Foraging Societies: The 25 foraging societies, including both those non-segmented and segmented, give no evidence of correlation between population density and frequency of warfare (pp. 71-72).

b. Non-segmented Foraging Societies: If the eight non-segmented societies in the sample are analyzed separately, however, they do provide evidence of a correlation between population density and frequency of warfare. Seven of these eight have a low population density (fewer than one person per square mile) B the exception being the Andamanese with a population density of two persons per square miles. Six of these seven societies with a low population density, have infrequent warfare B the exception being the Slave who were constantly attacked by the Cree and did not retaliate (see Table 4, Footnote).

A relatively high population density, therefore, may play a role in the initial evolution of warfare within a regional system of non-segmented foraging societies (pp. 71-73).

3. Food Storage: None of the eight non-segmented foraging societies stored food. Food storage, therefore, is highly correlated with segmental organization (p. 71).

THE CO-EVOLUTION OF SOCIETY AND WAR

Food storage, a pivotal point in evolution, illustrates the co-evolution of society and warfare.

1. Food Storage and Society: Food storage limits the mobility of foragers, renders full nomadism unnecessary, encourages the development of agriculture, stimulates population growth, and lays the groundwork for the development of wealth accumulation and economic inequality. Societal re-organization ensues.

2. Food Storage and Warfare: Food storage induces co-residents to have a common economic interest in defense, thus raising homicide from a matter of kin vengeance to the concern of the whole residential or territorial group. The recourse to defensive fortifications, such as palisades, in turn transforms the character of warfare (68-71).

WARLESSNESS IN THE UPPER PALEOLITHIC PERIOD

1. The Warlessness of Non-segmented Societies: Today, non-segmented foraging societies with a low population density (fewer than 0.2 persons per square mile), and living in an environment which is unpredictable, scare in resources and low in diversity, typically have rare to non-existent warfare. It is reasonable to assume that this was also the case at the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic Period (35,000 B.C.). The absence (or near absence) of war under these conditions is a product of the critical importance of cooperation rather than an absence of resource competition (pp. 125 and 133).

Circumstances may over-ride the Warlessness of Non-segmented Societies: Spontaneous conflicts over access to resources do occur in non-segmented foraging societies with a high population density (0.2 persons per square mile or more), and living in an environment which is predictable, plentiful in resources and high in diversity. The incidence and severity of conflict are amplified by higher population densities and/or environment circumscription. The Andaman Islanders represent an example of this type of conflict.

AThe Nubian Site 117": The cemetery at Jebel Sahaba, Sudan (ANubian site 117"), which dates from 12,000 to 10,000 B.C., is the earliest conclusive archaeological evidence of war. The site has all the characteristics instrumental to the origin of war:

A collective armed conflict (raids upon encampments), as evidenced by the age and sex distribution within the various burial sites.

Groups responsibility for vengeance, as evidenced by Apin-cushioning@ of the victims. APin-cushioning@ refers to lancing the victim=s body with multiple arrows. More generally, it refers to Aover-killing,@ meaning inflicting multiple wounds to an enemy already dead or fatally wounded. Usually, many participants each inflict a wound (pp. 150 and 154-155; and Keeley, p. 69c)

Group liability for retribution, as evidenced by the killing of children (Wendorf, cited p. 148; and pp. 148 and 151).

WAR IN THE NEOLITHIC PERIOD

Agriculture: The development of agriculture, around 7,500 B.C., with its inducement to a higher population density subsequent to a relative predictability, abundance and variety of food, transformed the frequency, character and distribution of warfare (pp. 1 and 135).

RECONCILIATION OF THE ARCHAEOLOGIC AND ETHNOGRAPHIC RECORDS

If the variable of societal segmentation is taken into account, today=s ethnographic data support the conclusion of the archaeological record.

Among foraging societies, those which are non-segmented tend to be warless while those which are segmented tend to be warlike. Non-segmented societies of today are indeed probably comparable to those during the Upper Paleolithic period. The crucial concept of substitutability which is the bridge from capital punishment to war, is intrinsic to a segmentation design of society, and this design is a step in the evolution of society induced by the relative abundance of food offered by agriculture.

MY CONCLUSIONS

1. A Powerful Insight: The insight offered by Kelly is thought-provoking. It may well be that the notion of substitutability is at the root of war, a notion which was engendered by the higher levels of societal organization induced by agriculture.

2. A Poorly written Book: The book is poorly written. The prose is thick, obtuse, repetitive and with both spelling and grammatical errors; the organization is sausage-like; and the tables do not even bring out the correlations which they are intended to demonstrate.

3. Intellectuality supercedes Practicality: The book was written to contribute Ato a general liberal arts education@ (p. ix), not particularly, apparently, from a heart-felt revulsion at the fact of warfare and the wish to contribute to its elimination.

4. DeMause=s Data confirm Kelly=s Hypothesis: Kelly makes no reference to Lloyd deMause. Table 7, which I have developed from deMause=s sources, shows the evidence for child murder in early human evolution. The fact that most societies during the Paleolithic Period had child murder and were also warless, substantiates Kelly=s thesis that inter-personal violence does not necessarily translate into war. According to deMause, infanticidal societies lead to a schizoid type of personality. Apparently, when schizoid personalities lack the concept of substitutability, child abuse may lead to other types of violence, but it does not lead to war.

Table 7: Archaeological Evidence of Child Murder

Time Period/Date

Hominid or Site

Evidence of Child Murder

Paleolithic Period

Lower Paleolithic

2,900,000-100,000 B.C.

Date: 1,600,000 -400,000

Date: 400,000-250,000

Middle Paleolithic

100,000-35,000 B.C.

Upper Paleolithic

35,000-10,000 B.C.

Homo erectus (Pithecanthropus)

Homo erectus evolves into Homo sapiens

The sex ratio for Homo erectus and for Homo sapiens to the end of the Paleolithic Period, is, on the average, 148 to100 in favor of men.

Early hominid children are decapitated and eaten by their parents.

Mesolithic Period

10,000-7,500 B.C.

Neolithic Period

7,500-1,500 B.C.

Date: 7,000

Date: 2,000

Date: 1,500 B.C.-900 A.D.

Date: 1,250

Jericho

Stonehenge

The Maya

Ancient Jews, under Egyptian King Ramses II (d. 1225 B.C.)

Children are sealed in walls, bridges and building foundations. Infants are decapitated.

Young children have their skulls split by axes.

Children are killed (Asacrificed@).

Ancient Jews continue to Apass their children through the fire,@ despite the denunciation of the custom by Hebrew prophets.

Note

There are about 5,000 societies worldwide. In 1981, Murdoch drew a representative sample of 563 societies representing distinct cultures. In this sample, 32 (6 percent) were non-segmented. The frequency of warfare in these societies, however, has not been analyzed (pp. 18 and 50; and Murdock, cited p. 49).

References

All page numbers refer to:

Kelly, Raymond, Warless Societies and the Origin of War (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI), 2000.

Except for:

Keeley, Lawrence, War before Civilization B The Myth of the Peaceful Savage (Oxford University, New York, N.Y.), 1996.

Some major references on which Kelly bases his analysis are as follows:

Ember, Carol, AMyths about Hunter-gatherers,@ Ethnology 17:439-448, 1978.

Murdock, George, Atlas of World Cultures (University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA), 1981.

Murdock, George and D. White, AStandard Cross-cultural Sample,@ Ethnology 8, 329-269, 1969.

Ross, Marc, APolitical Decision-making and Conflict B Additional Cross-cultural Codes and Scales,@ Ethnology 22: 169-192, 1983.

Wendorf, F., ASite 117: A Nubian Final Paleolithic Graveyard near Jebel Sahaba, Sudan,@ in Pre-history of Nubia (Vol. 2), F. Wendorf, Ed. (Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX), pp. 954-995, 1968.

References for Table 7:

Homo erectus (Pithecanthropus):

Vallois, Henri, AThe Social Life of Early Man: The Evidence of Skeletons,@ in Sherwood Washburn, Ed., Social Life of Early Man (Chicago, IL), 1961, p. 225; cited in Lloyd deMause, AThe Evolution of Childhood,@ in Lloyd deMause, Ed., The History of Childhood, (Jason Aronson, Northvale, N.J.), 1974, p. 27.

Homo erectus evolves into Homo sapiens:

Simons, E., AHuman Origins,@ Science 245, 1989, p. 1344; cited in Lloyd deMause, The Emotional Life of Nations (Karnac, New York, N.Y.), 2002, p. 299.

Jericho:

Children are sealed in walls, bridges and building foundations:

Five sources cited in Lloyd deMause, AThe Evolution of Childhood,@ in Lloyd deMause, Ed., The History of Childhood (Jason Aronson, Northvale, N.J.), 1974, p. 27.

Infants are decapitated:

Von Cles-Reden, Sibylle, The Realm of the Great Goddess B The Story of the Megalith Builders (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs), 1962, p. 21; cited in Lloyd deMause, The Emotional Life of Nations (Karnac, New York, N.Y.), 2002, p. 299.

Stonehenge:

Taylor, Timothy, The Pre-history of Sex (Bantam, New York, N.Y.), 1996, p. 189; cited in Lloyd deMause, The Emotional Life of Nations (Karnac, New York, N.Y.), 2002, p. 299.

The Maya:

Carey, Celia, ASecrets B The Incas appeased Mountain Gods with their Children=s Lives,@ Discovering Archeology, July/August 1999, pp. 44-53; cited in Lloyd deMause, The Emotional Life of Nations (Karnac, New York, N.Y.), 2002, p. 299.

Ancient Jews, under Egyptian King Ramses II (d. 1225 B.C.)

Abt-Garrison, H., The History of Pediatrics (W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia, PA), 1965, p. 29; cited in Lloyd deMause, The Emotional Life of Nations (Karnac, New York, N.Y.), 2002, p. 298.

***