Remix.run Logo
yorwba 2 hours ago

They had had a long battle with what looks to be hundreds of participants and there were a few wounded, but nobody died. Compare with e.g. battles in the ancient Mediterranean, where the fighting would have continued until one side panics and tries to flee, and the winning side kills anyone who can't run away fast enough. Now maybe they're simply bad at warfare, but I think a more likely explanation is that they're intentionally not escalating to that level of violence and mostly stay at a standoff distance where fatalities are unlikely. The narrator also calls it a "formal battle" at one point.

In any case, I don't think you can ascribe much of their bow-and-arrow tactics to base instincts.

throwup238 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I took an anthropology class that focused heavily on the Papua New Guinea highlanders and they fight a ritualized tit-for-tat warfare where they rarely kill and when they do, it’s essentially tribal revenge for the last kill. Almost every male participates and they specifically avoid high intensity warfare because the cost could effectively kill a tribe’s agricultural output.

Note though that even in the Mediterranean, routes where most of the enemy was killed were relatively rare.

hermitcrab an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Sometimes this sort of ritualised combat is a way for young men to show off their bravery without too much chance getting killed. Probably also helps with tribal cohesion. And I assume reduce the chance of full-on, lets kill everyone in the tribe, violence between groups.

Jcampuzano2 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

To be fair, I wish the whole world was much "worse" at warfare in the same way as they are. We'd probably be a much happier world overall. Or at the very least less destructive.

nephihaha an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

"They had had a long battle with what looks to be hundreds of participants and there were a few wounded, but nobody died."

Observe the weapons. Most of them are sharpened sticks and they had a limited supply. Less deadly than swords and no mass manufacturing of weapons either.

The spears would be lucky to penetrate the ribcage. But they could go through the gut or throat, and if they were embedded in a thigh, they could easily cause sepsis.

hermitcrab an hour ago | parent [-]

You can easily kill someone with a fire-hardened pointed stick or a wooden club, if you really want to. I think it is just that they don't want to.

Der_Einzige 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That's because very primitive humans still have a bicameral mind, i.e. things appear to them as auditory hallucinations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameral_mentality

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Consciousness_in...

"a bicameral mentality was the "normal and ubiquitous state" of the human mind as recently as 3,000 years ago, at the end of the Bronze Age"

marliechiller an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I'm pretty sure Julian Jaynes' work is entirely hypothetical and is thought if as just an interesting idea rather than actually having any semblance of truth to it... unless you actually believe the Greeks were amongst the first humans to truly emerge with consciousness which seems farfetched to me

post-it an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You read Snow Crash and missed that it was fiction.

vinceguidry an hour ago | parent [-]

When Stephenson wants to deliver a male protagonist to a location, he constructs an elaborate 15-step storyline complete with motivations and character rationale. Female? He just has her kidnapped.

30 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
dmd an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

You are aware that this is the theory of a single crank, and not supported by any modern scientific thought, yes?