Full article · 7 min read
Did Prehistoric Humans Always Fight Wars?
The idea that humans have always been at war sounds dramatic, but the real picture is much less settled. Anthropologists, who study humans, societies, and cultures, do not agree on whether warfare was common throughout deep prehistory or whether it became more important later, after agriculture or organized states appeared.
That uncertainty exists for a simple reason: the farther back in time we go, the thinner the evidence becomes. For the Paleolithic, often called the Old Stone Age, known remains are sparse. That makes it difficult to say with confidence whether early humans regularly fought organized conflicts between groups, or whether many communities mostly lived without what we would clearly call war.
Why the question is so hard to answer
Prehistory refers to the long stretch of human existence before written records. Without documents, historians and anthropologists must rely on physical remains, patterns of injury, settlement evidence, and other traces that survive over thousands of years. In the Paleolithic, those traces are limited, which is why the debate remains open.
Some scholars argue that many Middle and Upper Paleolithic societies may have been fundamentally egalitarian. In this context, egalitarian means relatively equal in social standing, without strong hierarchies or large concentrations of power. According to this view, such societies may have rarely, or perhaps never, engaged in organized violence between groups.
That does not necessarily mean there was no violence at all. The real issue is organized warfare: sustained, group-based conflict rather than isolated fights or individual acts of aggression. Distinguishing one from the other is difficult when the evidence is fragmentary.
The Mesolithic shift: signs of rising conflict
While the Paleolithic record is uncertain, evidence of violent conflict appears to increase during the Mesolithic period, beginning around 10,000 years ago. The Mesolithic sits between the Old Stone Age and the later farming age, making it a transitional period in human history.
This increase in evidence does not end the argument, but it does suggest that something may have changed. Researchers who believe war became more common later often point to shifts in social organization, competition, and resources. If communities became more settled or more tied to productive environments, conflict may have become more likely.
American anthropologist and ethnologist Raymond Case Kelly offered a version of this argument. He claimed that before 400,000 years ago, humans clashed more like groups of chimpanzees, but later preferred what he described as positive and peaceful social relations between neighboring groups, including joint hunting, trading, and courtship. In his work on warless societies and the origins of war, he explored the idea that high surplus product encourages conflict, suggesting that raiding often begins in the richest environments.
A surplus product means a society has more resources than it immediately needs for survival. That extra wealth can make a community stronger, but it can also make it a target.
The biggest split in the debate
One major fault line in the discussion is whether war is nearly universal in human societies or whether it emerged under specific historical conditions.
Lawrence H. Keeley argued strongly for the first view. In his 1996 book War Before Civilization, he wrote that about 90 to 95 percent of known societies throughout history engaged in at least occasional warfare, and that many fought constantly. He described several forms of early combat, including small raids, large raids, and massacres, arguing that all of these were used by so-called primitive societies.
Keeley also emphasized that early war raids were often not highly organized. Participants usually lacked formal training, and defensive works were not always a cost-effective way to protect a society against enemy raids, especially where resources were scarce.
This perspective paints prehistoric and non-state societies as far more warlike than older romantic images suggested.
But that is not the only interpretation. Other scholars argue that war was a later invention connected to changing social conditions, especially the development of agriculture, denser populations, organized political structures, and increased competition over resources. In this view, warfare is not simply a timeless human constant. Instead, it is something that took shape as societies became more complex.
What counts as “war” anyway?
Part of the disagreement comes from definitions. War is not just any violent act. It generally refers to armed conflict between organized groups that have some command structure and the ability to sustain military operations. In very early societies, the line between a raid, a feud, and a war may be blurry.
That matters because two researchers may look at similar evidence and classify it differently. One may see signs of organized conflict; another may see sporadic violence that does not rise to the level of warfare.
The debate, then, is not only about bones and artifacts. It is also about how scholars define war and how much organization must exist before violence between groups becomes warfare in the full sense.
Life before states was not necessarily peaceful—or permanently violent
There is a temptation to choose between two simple stories: either early humans were peaceful innocents, or they were locked in endless brutal conflict. The evidence described here supports neither extreme with total certainty.
On one hand, some sources suggest many Paleolithic societies may have been relatively equal and may rarely have fought organized wars. On the other hand, the evidence for violent conflict appears to increase later, and some researchers argue that the overwhelming majority of known societies have experienced warfare at least occasionally.
That leaves us with a more complicated possibility: human societies may have varied enormously. Some may have lived for long periods without organized war. Others may have raided or fought frequently. And major social changes may have altered how often conflict occurred and how deadly or organized it became.
From prehistoric conflict to the rise of states
Once states emerged roughly 5,000 years ago, military activity continued across much of the globe. This matters for the prehistoric debate because it suggests a broader pattern: as societies grew more structured and politically organized, warfare also became easier to identify and sustain.
Later periods saw major intensifications in warfare. The Bronze Age is described as a key period, with the emergence of dedicated warriors and metal weapons such as swords. Over time, technological changes such as gunpowder transformed war even further.
This longer history does not prove that prehistoric humans always fought wars. But it does show that warfare changed dramatically over time. That supports the idea that war is not a fixed, unchanging human behavior. Even if conflict is very old, its scale, organization, and social meaning have evolved.
So, did prehistoric humans always fight wars?
The most accurate answer is: we do not know for sure.
Anthropologists remain divided. Evidence from the Paleolithic is too sparse to settle the issue. Some scholars think many early societies may have been egalitarian and may have rarely or never engaged in organized warfare. Evidence of violent conflict appears to grow stronger in the Mesolithic, from around 10,000 years ago onward. And a major scholarly divide remains between those who see warfare in 90 to 95 percent of known societies and those who view war as a later development shaped by specific social conditions.
That uncertainty is what makes the question so fascinating. The story of human conflict may not begin with endless war, or with perfect peace, but with a messy and still unresolved mix of both.
Why this debate still matters
Asking whether prehistoric humans always made war is really a way of asking what kind of species we are. If war has always been with us, people may see it as nearly inevitable. If it emerged under certain social conditions, then it may be something humans can also reduce, reshape, or avoid.
The evidence does not hand us an easy conclusion. But it does show that warfare has a history, and histories can change.
Sources
Based on information from War.
More like this
Was war ancient, invented, or somewhere in between? Swipe through the debate and more — download DeepSwipe and dig into human history one episode at a time.