Human Nature: The Nomadic Forager Model

Abstract

Smith (2007:81) asserts that “We’ve inherited our warlike nature from prehistoric bands that were able to kill their neighbors and acquire their resources. These groups flourished while the pacifists withered on the evolutionary vine.” In a similar vein, Alexander (1979:222, 223) speculates that “At some early point in our history the actual function of human groups—their significance for their individual members—was protection from the predatory effects of other human groups. …Multi-male bands…stayed together largely or entirely because of the threat of other, similar, nearby groups of humans.” Shaw and Wong (1989:17) assume that “warfare propensities are deeply entrenched in human nature.” They portray human ancestors over the last one-to-two million years as living in “small, tight-knit groups” of kin that they dub nucleus ethnic groups (Shaw and Wong, 1989:14). In their view, “relationships between nucleus ethnic groups were shaped largely by conflict in an environment of scarce resources,” and “intergroup competition and warfare over scarce resources would have had to be widely prevalent throughout evolution” (pp. 50, 54, italics added).

For more than 99 percent of the approximately two million years since the emergence of a recognizable human animal, man has been a hunter and gatherer. …Questions concerning territorialism, the handling of aggression, social control, property, leadership, the use of space, and many other dimensions are particularly significant in these contexts. To evaluate any of these focal aspects of human behavior without taking into consideration the socioeconomic adaptation that has characterized most of the span of human life on this planet will eventually bias conclusions and generalizations. M. G. Bicchieri (1972:iii, iv–v)