Can totally see how some people who think everything is fair game from nature and people who cultivated land and raised livestock would end up in conflict.
Its just that population densities were on the whole lower. And there was a lot of land and resources to live from. So the impact was lessened.
But even then, there were in fact tribal groupings that effectively wiped out other tribal groupings.
Also it's becoming clearer and clearer that the line between settled agrarian and hunter gatherer was a lot less clear than we initially imagined. There were all sorts of grain and maize growing societies that continued to rely on deer and fish for their protein sources and trade in skins etc for hundreds of years after they started tending crops.
These are tribes, or in the case of the Mexicans, a civilization. Not hunter gatherer bands.
Meanwhile out west or near the arctic were hunter-gatherer bands. They were not making continual war. They were hunter-gatherer bands and not tribal.
Not sure which side I should be rooting for, but at least hunter-gatherers didn't try to own the land.
Also if anyone wants to say "if it wasn't for the farmers, you wouldn't be here right now," to me, that's not quite the boon you might be imagining. I'm actually perfectly fine with not having existed if it meant that nature wasn't ravaged.
They also had no problem driving species to extinction.
This idea of a group of people living in harmony with nature is fantasy.
You're saying hunter gatherer bands are tribes which is contradictory. Migratory hunter-gatherer bands max out at 50 people. They migrated there was no land which was "theirs", this is the point.
Tribes were hundreds of people, often had class systems within them, often had surplus and farmed. So yes, tribal farmers had conflict but they were not hunter gatherer bands.
>All three involved projectiles, one of the hallmarks of inter-group conflict. Two of the projectiles found embedded in the bones at Nataruk and in two of the other cases were made of obsidian. This tells us that such attacks happened multiple times, and were part of the life of the hunter-gatherer communities at the time.
https://theconversation.com/finding-a-hunter-gatherer-massac...
>In this study, Standen and colleagues examined signs of violent trauma on the remains of 288 adult individuals from funerary sites across the Atacama Desert coast, dating from 10,000 years ago to 1450 AD. The researchers also analyzed patterns in weaponry and in artistic depictions of combat during this time. They found that rates of violence were surprisingly static over time, though there was a notable increase in lethal violence during the Formative Period starting around 1000 BC, a trend also found in similar studies of the Andean region. Data from strontium isotopes indicate that this interpersonal violence was occurring between local groups, not between local and foreign populations.
https://popular-archaeology.com/article/long-term-history-of...
> I concluded that most recent foraging groups were likely to have at least occasionally participated in lethal intergroup violence. I used this evidence alongside several other lines of evidence, such as archaeological remains, the behavior of other species, and predictions from behavioral ecology, to argue that at least occasional intergroup violence extended well into the Pleistocene.
>Progression in science typically requires agreement on a shared empirical reality. Once we identify well-supported empirical findings, we then make inferences about how these findings relate to hypotheses about behavior we cannot directly assess, such as the role of war or cooperation in human evolution (Table 1). Much of the current stasis on the role of intergroup violence in human evolution is due to a failure to agree on the nature of mobile forager intergroup relationships with minimal colonial/state influence or impact from agriculturalist neighbors. If we cannot reasonably agree on whether ethnographically recent mobile foragers sometimes killed members of other groups as part of or supported by a coalition, then we cannot begin to reach a consensus on what those relationships may tell us about warfare in human evolution.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S10905...