The Earliest Evidence for Warfare?: A Comment on Carbonell et al.

Author(s): Keith F. Otterbein

Reviewed work(s):
Source: Current Anthropology, Vol. 52, No. 3 (June 2011), p. 439
Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological
Research
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/659742 .
Accessed: 02/01/2012 12:52

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The University of Chicago Press and Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research are collaborating
with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Current Anthropology.

http://www.jstor.org
Current Anthropology Volume 52, Number 3, June 2011
The Earliest Evidence for Warfare?
A Comment on Carbonell et al.
Keith F. Otterbein
Department of Anthropology, University at Buffalo, Am-
herst, New York 14261-0026, U.S.A. (keitho@buffalo.edu).
24 X 10
The recent report by Carbonell et al. (2010) on cultural can-
nibalism as a paleoeconomic system at 800,000 years ago raises
the question of whether this cannibalism is evidence of raiding
and warfare. The conclusions reached by the authors strongly
suggest that it is. “In conclusion, about 1 million years ago,
the hominids [Homo antecessor] of level TD6 [of Gran Dolina,
Burgos, Spain] added cannibalism to their set of survival strat-
egies as a way of competing with other human groups for
available resources” (Carbonell et al. 2010:548). The authors
contend that “this type of cannibalism would have reaped a
double benefit. On the one hand it served a dietary purpose,
while on the other it would have proved useful in defending
the group’s territory from other human groups” (Carbonell
et al. 2010:547–548). The authors inferred “group cohesion”
as necessary for the “survival of the group” (Carbonell et al.
2010:545). A minimum of 11 individuals of different ages
were found, eight of them under the age of 14 years. The
bones were processed in the same manner as faunal remains.
Photographs show incisions related to defleshing of the
corpses.
The picture presented is that of hunter-gatherers raiding
each others’ camp sites over a long period of time, although
the term “raid” is not used in the report. The purpose of the
raids was to obtain human flesh. The victims of such an attack
might have been captured and taken to the butchering site
and there killed, or killed and transported back to the site.
The preponderance of children among the victims suggests
attacks upon settlements, attacks that occurred when the
males were hunting or the adults fled and were not able to
take their children with them. If adult males had been in the
majority in the fossil finds, this would suggest the ambushing
of a lone hunter. The article is silent as to what weapons
might have been used. I speculate that clubs were used, and
possibly stabbing spears and even throwing spears. Since lithic
tools were used in butchering, it is possible that flakes were
embedded in the clubs and the ends of spears. The hunting
䉷 2011 by The Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research.
All rights reserved. 0011-3204/2011/5203-0008$10.00 DOI: 10.1086/
659742
439
bands may have consisted of related males, what I have called
“fraternal interest groups” (Otterbein 2004:60–62).
I prefer a broad, general definition of war: “armed combat
between political communities” (Otterbein 2009:117). Al-
though the authors present no direct evidence of separate
hunter-gatherer bands that acted as polities, the term “group
cohesion” suggests they viewed the bands in this fashion. They
also speak of a band as “defending the group’s territory.” If
the attacked group defended its camp site or territory with
weapons, my definition of war is met. Although the hominids
that fought each other are classified as Homo antecessor, the
authors are clear that what they call a “new species” is the
“last common ancestor between the African lineage that gave
rise to our species, H. sapiens, and the lineage leading to the
European Neanderthals” (Carbonell et al. 2010:543); hence,
the above definition of war is applicable. The question of
whether cultural cannibalism is the earliest evidence for war-
fare is, thus, answered in the affirmative.
The above conclusion has caused me to reconsider what I
have said elsewhere about cannibalism destroying the evidence
for war. “If those eaten were war captives or individuals killed
in ambushes, the evidence for war no longer exists—the evi-
dence of war has been destroyed by the crushing of long bones
and skulls” (Otterbein 2004:77). But in Spain, the evidence
from long, long ago appears to have survived. Assuming that
the analysis of Carbonell et al. (2010) is correct, and my
further rendition is warranted, I believe we can conclude that
the earliest known evidence for warfare has been found. I
further believe that we must now consider the possibility that
the origin of war lies in cannibalism, a conjecture that must
go back to the earliest speculations about war’s origin.
References Cited
Carbonell, Eudald, Isabel Cáceres, Marina Lozano, Palmira Saladié,
Jordi Rosell, Carlos Lorenzo, Josep Vallverdú, Rosa Huguet, Antoni
Canals, and José Maria Bermúdez de Castro. 2010. Cultural can-
nibalism as a paleoeconomic system in the European Lower Pleis-
tocene: the case of level TD6 of Gran Dolina (Sierra de Atapuerca,
Burgos, Spain). Current Anthropology 51(4):539–549.
Otterbein, Keith F. 2004. How war began. College Park: Texas A&M
University Press.
———. 2009. The anthropology of war. Long Grove, IL: Waveland.