Human Remains From the Chilean Desert Reveal Its First Farmers Fought to the Death

675

For those of you too lazy to read the article:

The desert inhabitants attacked and slayed one another with maces, knives and hunting weapons, probably fighting over scarce water and fertile land.

Any good source recommendations for looking up how dueling or ritualized combat evolved in various regions? You’ve gotta wonder how and when a society develops coping mechanisms for perpetual conflict over resources.

201

u/War_Hymn 21d ago

There's a documentary film called Dead Birds (1963) that shows footage of a real skirmish between two tribes armed with stone-age weapons in Papua New Guinea. A clip of was available on youtube a few years back, but it was taken down.

119

u/Poopy_McTurdFace 21d ago

I think I saw that before. They just kind of approached each other and threw/shot stuff briefly before backing off again, rinse repeat. Very little damage on both sides. Was really cool to watch.

160

u/LordBinz 21d ago

That is how historians think real battles were waged, generally. Before massive formations anyway, people only have a few mins of energy to use at maximum effort - so it makes sense to get in quick, let loose a flurry of blows or throw some stuff then get back out to rest, and let another guy have a turn.

144

u/Axelrad77 21d ago

Yep.

Even once formation warfare was a thing, the current consensus among military historians is for the "pulse model". It argues that units approached once another, fought briefly in melee, broke off slightly to recover & redress their lines, then re-engaged to melee. This helps explain how battles could last for hours despite being exhausting, how skirmishers were integrated, and how some more complex maneuvers were performed so often.

65

u/Southpaw535 20d ago

Which makes sense. While movies have made charges popular in our heads, if you look at the closest equivalents we can find these days (riot police clashes, gang fights) they all follow this sort of model.

Tentative approach, loads of taunting, throwing stuff, a couple braver people take a step and swing then back off quick, until eventually that galvanises the crowd/group to go for it, they clash for a few seconds, then pull apart. Rinse and repeat

42

u/justbrowsinginpeace 20d ago

The classic line in Seven Samourai when they are training the villagers explaining that in battles you 'mostly run'

90

u/FriendlyCloset 21d ago

And also they don’t want to die. Hand to hand combat is not something most humans want to engage in

65

u/RichRaichu5 21d ago

This is why the Roman legion formations and macedonian Phalanxes were special and effective. People could not easily rout. Even in the Byzantine era, romans chose those infantry formations that would discourage fighters from turning and fleeing.

30

u/ComradeGibbon 20d ago

Could be BS but I read a book about the history of warfare and it said that training infantry got a lot more effective in the late 17th century. Before that you could charge a line of infantry with cavalry and they would break and run. After they would stand in place. Infantry would also stand in place and take grapeshot for hours at a time.

I remember a quote from the Napoleonic wars. Soldier said after the same cavalry repeatedly charged his formation without any effect except to get shot at point blank range he started feeling sorry for them.

24

u/MrLoadin 20d ago

It's not BS so much as the infantry square became a lot more commonly used, and multiple infantry squares deployed in a line tended to slaughter unsupported cavalry charges.

14

u/jmlsasgzhiwala 20d ago edited 20d ago

Infantry squares essentially served as a much more modern take on the phalanx given that you could take a bunch of infantry armed with say France's 5 foot long Modèle 1777 that was 5 feet long and attach a bayonet and you got a somewhat usable pike at around 7 ft long. Edit(Not exactly as effective as a purpose built pike, but good enough in many situations.) If things went as planned people would fire and reload their muskets with the line of infantry behind them nearly instantly replacing them with their bayonets forward and ready for their signal to fire a volley and repeated as necessary. With a properly disciplined square a direct cavalry charge would result a bunch of men and their horses cut down in a volley of muskets and subsequently rushing into a wall of bayonets.

Unless you could get your own infantry or artillery to hone in and force a square into disarray a headlong cavalry attack became near suicidal.

2

u/Baljit147 20d ago

What's the book, I want to add it to the list that seems to grow more quickly than I can read books.

47

u/OnVelvetHill 21d ago

It’s little wonder that people shat themselves when the Vikings turned up. When your enemy believes that to get to Valhalla he must die on the battlefield you know you are in for an eventful afternoon..

50

u/PolkadotPiranha 21d ago

No. They shat themselves because they were farmers, fishermen, monks or other easy targets far enough away from any armed forces to respond in time, and suddenly these guy show up out of nowhere and kill you or enslave you.

8

u/Deadly_nightshadow 20d ago

The Vikings weren't the unbeatable warriors that are depicted in TV shows. There tactic was to appear in numbers at unprepared towns or monasteries and be gone before any kind of resistance could be organised. In cases were they had to fight a semi-organised force (=a group of farmers hold together by some mercenaries/town guards) they would usually retreat or get routed.

3

u/DJ-Big-Penis69 20d ago

Well thats not entirely true. It is true they are over glorified but they didnt just raid small farms. They conquered almost the entirety of the british isles. And raided the entirety of the mediterenean. Whats more the locals could not really retaliate because what are you gonna do? Sail to Norway? Add to that the fact they were heathern and you got yourself a terrifying legend.

1

u/Heyyoguy123 20d ago

Once the great armies started forming, yeah, ofc a couple of determined farmer militia wouldn’t be enough

1

u/DJ-Big-Penis69 19d ago

Yeah but it is impressive how fast and effectivr e the Viking were at conquering the isles. Just didn’t have the infrastructure and organization to hold it effectively. But the first guy was right that for the most part it was just small raiding party that avoided fighting larger forces head on.

14

u/Gadgetman_1 21d ago

Also, those Vikings had a high stamina, so they could fight for longer.

18

u/Techutante 20d ago

Lots of rowing, so much upper body strength.

13

u/flaretwit 20d ago

Lower body actually and back.

3

u/DibblerTB 20d ago

Probably logging as well

2

u/Tastewell 20d ago

Farmers and fishermen have high stamina too.

3

u/Combatical 20d ago

Helps that they took mushrooms on top of that dogma.

3

u/WolfDoc 20d ago

That is essentially a myth.

0

u/sirspacey 20d ago

The original Taliban

-2

u/XDDDSOFUNNEH 21d ago

Hell yeah. There was even that one Viking that killed like a few dozen guys on a bridge, they were fuuuucking tough.

31

u/MrMcChronDon25 21d ago

HBOs “Rome” the very first minutes of the very first episode show a reply great example of this. The romans would change out their front line every few minutes to stay fresh and get wounded out and what not. A lot of the “barbarians” they went up against didn’t do this and was one of the reasons for their centuries of success in warfare.

13

u/arafdi 20d ago

Yeah. A shame we only get the battle scenes ever so scarcely on the series – including the long-anticipated climactic battle between Pompeii (and the senators) and Caesar. Ugh, they should've done the anime style of presentation with some movies thrown in between or after the seasons, depending on the source material, studio funding commitment, and audience/market traction.

But hey, it's still an interesting look at how the Romans fought in formation and had rolling orders to fight in (so as to distribute the fighting time and stamina to all the soldiers, not just the front).

8

u/Ragni 21d ago

Sounds like a lot like what the Zulu movie (or show? It's on netflix) tried to portray as well

5

u/PapaSmurfOrochi 20d ago

I remember reading about a tribe that existed in the Caribbean who would battle with dull wood swords so no one would actually be fatally wounded.

5

u/BalloonBollicks 21d ago

Yes, I mean who really wants to cleave another humans head apart with an axe? Every now and again you will find someone in history who relished skewering people, up to a point in history they were known as "champions" or "heroes" ...but nowadays we call them "psychopaths" or "serial killers"

They say that copious amounts of alcohol was taken before battles in the shield walls in England, and before the clash there was a lot of abuse hurled at each other, taunting and the showing of arses and genitals etc, basically pre match banter, just so they could drum up the courage to get ripped into one another. These were (by and large) ordinary people who were summoned to stand for their lord or king, and often would have been using reaping hooks or scythes and the like, stiffened by a body of professional warriors who would direct them.

2

u/I_AM_AN_ASSHOLE_AMA 20d ago

I always think responses like this are kind of weird. There are plenty of soldiers who are willing to fight that are not psychopaths. They’re just willing to fight.

3

u/BalloonBollicks 20d ago

In WW2 the majority of soldiers were just firing in the general direction of the enemy, afterwards new training programmes were worked out to train soldiers to kill with intent, some practices are still employed today, and have lasting effects where our veterans struggle to "turn it off" when they get back to civvy street.

In actual fact you would be surprised how many who don't want to kill.

2

u/RibeyeRare 20d ago

I wonder if this is how “counting coup” came about as a practice.

16

u/YourDadsUsername 21d ago

That was the genius of roman formations. The "front line" was a ton of guys standing at the front of long lines of soldiers. After a few minutes of intense fighting a whistle blows and the guy in front sinks back to the end of the line while the next guy takes his place. There was always a fairly fresh fighter at the front.

3

u/PlankWithANailIn 21d ago

That was retaliation for an alleged crime against one tribe. In a resource war one side would just destroy the others village and kill anyone they fight. They would have to decide to get stuck in or flee if there was anywhere else to go.

2

u/MrMcChronDon25 21d ago

I’ve seen this, absolutely wild! If I remember right it was real but also kinda ritualistic in some form? Like they weren’t trying to “conquer” each other as westerners know war but more like a ceremony or ritual or somethin like that? There was still real weapons and combat but it was more to wound rather than kill? I could be talkin out my ass, just trying to move the convo along don’t downvote me if I am wrong just give me more info please! Cheers!

1

u/InevertypeslashS 21d ago

It’s been posted on Reddit a lot over the years

1

u/seeriktus 20d ago

That'll be my project to scan the internet for it tonight then

20

u/El_Diegote 21d ago

Even greater apes go to war over resources.

12

u/poor_decisions 21d ago

slayed

Slew?

8

u/Panzerbeards 20d ago

slayed

Slew?

Slood*

32

u/Poopy_McTurdFace 21d ago

I think r/AskHistorians has some dueling sources in their big list of sources on their sidebar. I also think one of the historians that participates over there specializes in dueling history (mostly 19th C. I believe).

39

u/spaghettilee2112 21d ago

dueling sources

What, is the internet not big enough for the two of them?

6

u/grossguts 21d ago

Not sure about specifics, but joseph Campbell wrote some stuff about how human sacrifice in religion started with early agricultural society most of the time. Maybe these battles between farmers had similar factors leading to them starting.

2

u/AgoraiosBum 20d ago

Lottery in June; corn be heavy soon

3

u/grossguts 20d ago

*khorne. Blood for the blood God and all.

68

u/[deleted] 21d ago

[deleted]

24

u/Voydx 21d ago

cue www: world war water

10

u/JukeSkyrocker 21d ago

which leads to Water World

6

u/turalyawn 21d ago

Water, water everywhere, and not a drop to drink

3

u/PlankWithANailIn 21d ago

Two armies of each sides young men fighting a battle and the loser accepting the victor as their new leader (unless its Rome who's special power seemed to be just carrying on like they hadn't lost at least in their early days). Human history is filled with these and it didn't end until shortly before the Napoleonic era.

2

u/kupo160 20d ago

Ritualised combat is briefly covered in The Sling and the Stone, but it is a brief portion in an overall look at how warfare has evolved through the ages.

I read it for uni, but its legitimately a fascinating read just for fun.

8

u/vbcbandr 21d ago

I anticipate some fights in the near future over clean scare water and fertile land.

1

u/fxx_255 20d ago

Can confirm, am lazy. I also just started reading some long boring article that basically had a very small payoff, so yeah, I'm not doing that again.

Anywho, thanks!

1

u/Z0mbies8mywife 20d ago

Not all heroes wear capes

1

u/ModeThis 20d ago

Ah, the Dune Fremen approach

1

u/B_easy85 20d ago

Too lazy!? I prefer efficient!

0

u/Tastewell 20d ago

You’ve gotta wonder how and when a society develops coping mechanisms for perpetual conflict over resources.

Stay tuned, we're about to see it first hand.

143

u/Nocodeskeet 21d ago

From the article:

Around 1,000 B.C., some foragers decided to try farming in one of the driest spots on Earth, the Atacama Desert, which lies between the Andes Mountains and Pacific Ocean, in what’s now northern Chile. When farming began, lethal violence surged and remained high for centuries. The desert inhabitants attacked and slayed one another with maces, knives and hunting weapons, probably fighting over scarce water and fertile land.

This sadly stands true to this day, control the land, control the power.

Also: no shit they fought over land

37

u/risajajr 21d ago

They might very well have fought over land, but that is speculation. They could have fought over tribal safety, trying to keep outsiders away from their own group. Of course, that could be seen as fighting over land since the tribe has to be somewhere and fighting to defend themselves means they didn't plan to leave.

12

u/PlankWithANailIn 21d ago edited 21d ago

Farmers not fighting over control of land...interesting theory. Early farming communities had to fight off raids from those still following the nomadic hunter gathering lifestyle and the attackers didn't actually want the farmers to leave, it only stops when the farmers get big enough and rich enough to stamp the hunter gathers out.

These farmers were probably already outcasts from other tribes i.e. criminals forced to live on the edges which aren't fit for human habitation.

3

u/elgallogrande 20d ago

Probably not criminals, just happened to be the weakest local tribe and got pushed to the desert by a stronger force.

0

u/Nocodeskeet 21d ago

I don’t disagree with you to a point. Certain groups of people (tribes) were more aggressive than others and wanted to take in more territory. Others were more passive and focused maintaining what they had.

It gets more complicated when you talk about migration tribes vs farming tribes but ultimately, farming changed the whole landscape of the human civilization. When that came about, land became essential and changed our history as a whole.

4

u/smallwaistbisexual 21d ago

You get to be passive when there’s more resources

4

u/BalloonBollicks 21d ago

100%

We like to think of ourselves as being enlightened and sophisticated, but imagine some catastrophe happened and there was only a single 1000 mile piece of ground on the planet that was habitable or farmable... we would be right back to hacking and slashing each other to bloody bits for every inch of that ground inside a day.

19

u/DontTexasMyTejas 21d ago

Such a vivid picture to paint with essential zero context.

3

u/DownRangeDistillery 20d ago

Right! Humans fought and killed each other. Maybe, maybe not. Self harn or sacrifice could have been popular at that time too.

3

u/FoomFries 20d ago

Read this as Chilean Dessert. Had quite the double take.

52

u/[deleted] 21d ago

[removed]

5

u/[deleted] 21d ago

[removed]

-73

u/[deleted] 21d ago

[removed]

-16

u/[deleted] 21d ago

[removed]

-59

u/[deleted] 21d ago

[removed]

16

u/[deleted] 21d ago

[removed]

8

u/Duweniveer 21d ago

In those days, you had that fight the crops.

2

u/BuffMangle 20d ago

Damn Chile really do be wilding since the beginning

1

u/heresyforfunnprofit 20d ago

Cain and Abel ain’t got nothing on us.

2

u/onlyonetruthm8 18d ago

I remember hearing about this, What happened was two little established farming communities lived near each other. The chief of one had a hot wife and the son of the other hooked up with her and she moved into the other village. They had a few fights over it but the son lived in the bigger village and the other lot were scared of them after their little skirmishes.
The other group grabbed one of the whale skeletons lying around and built it all together with wood and bushes on a big cart and wheeled it over to the sons village. They thought it was a peace offering and wheeled it in and had a big party. They all got drunk and went to sleep Then when they were asleep the hidden guys from the other village climbed out of the whale and slaughtered the whole village while they slept.

It was terrible but revenge was served and everyone learned that hot chicks are nothing but trouble.

-2

u/[deleted] 21d ago

[removed]

-11

u/[deleted] 21d ago edited 21d ago

[removed]

-7

u/DownRangeDistillery 20d ago

I hate the inference "probably fighting over sacrse resources...". VS reality. "probably fighting over a football match, or something equally stupid. Were talking about modern humans here".

3

u/Fruitdispenser 20d ago

Yes, because modern humans don't fight for resources

-2

u/DownRangeDistillery 20d ago

Modern human are much more prone to kill each other of silly things than resources.

What you looking at... cut me off in traffic... you looking at my girl...

The narrative that the deaths were over resources is baseless. Maybe trial by combat was a thing? Maybe the winner got the prize? Maybe it was a population control method, like human sacrifice? Maybe a lot of things, but little to no evidence to support this speculative narrative.

I would like to go with a gladiator style narrative, mixed with some type of hallucinating drug, mixed with a rite of passage.