Rethinking Human Violence: Myths of Our Nature

Does Our Past Define Us as Violent Beings?

With the Middle East aflame, and individuals, groups, and whole countries wrestling with questions of justice and restraint, thoughts inevitably go to the question of our ‘nature’; Are we hardwired for violence, or is peace and cooperation our instinctual heritage?

‘The Flint Workers of the River Vézère’ by Charles Robert Knight (1920). Source: Charles Robert Knight, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

English anthropologist and primatologist Richard Wrangham released The Goodness Paradox in 2019, which explores the contradictory nature of human behavior, where humans are both capable of extreme violence and remarkable cooperation. Wrangham argues that humans have evolved to be unusually peaceful in everyday interactions (low reactive aggression), yet capable of coordinated, planned violence, such as warfare (high proactive aggression).

‘The Goodness Paradox’ by Richard Wrangham. Source: Penguin Random House

He suggests that this paradox arose through a process of “self-domestication” over thousands of years, where humans selectively bred for docility and cooperation within groups while still retaining the ability for proactive violence – planned, deliberate violence – when necessary. The book highlights how this evolutionary development distinguishes humans from our primate relatives, and offers insights into the origins of human violence, morality, and society.

Though much of the discussion focused on Wrangham’s explanation for the duality of human nature, a more profound assumption in his work flew under the radar: the idea that organised human violence comes from the same wellspring as chimpanzee’s violent coalitionary behaviors.

According to Wrangham, warfare is not just a historical fact — it’s part of our biological inheritance. As he wrote in his 1999 paper The Evolution of Coalitionary Killing: “selection has favored a tendency among adult males to assess the costs and benefits of violence, and to attack rivals when the probable net benefits are sufficiently high.”

This belief that warfare and violence are rooted in human nature is echoed throughout evolutionary psychology, which draws on anthropology and primatology to link modern human behavior to our so-called “violent” ape ancestors. The problem? Much of the evidence for this evolutionary narrative is questionable.

The Origins of a Killer-Ape Narrative

The idea of violence as a fundamental human trait in the scientific discourse dates back to the mid-20th century. Raymond Dart’s “killer ape” theory suggested that humanity’s evolutionary leap from ape to man was driven by predatory aggression. Later, Robert Ardrey amplified this idea, famously asserting, “Man has emerged from the anthropoid background for one reason only: because he was a killer.”

More contemporary arguments, such as those of biologist Jeremy Griffith, suggest that humans evolved cooperative instincts. According to Griffith, human violence is not instinctive but stems from a psychological struggle — a view seldom explored in the scientific discussion.

Archaeological Evidence: Does It Support a Violent Past?

What does the archaeological record reveal about our ancestors’ tendencies toward violence? Evidence of warfare becomes apparent during the Holocene Epoch (spanning the last 12,000 years), but Paleolithic records — which date back over 2.5 million years — paint a different picture.

If violence were as inherent to human nature as Wrangham and others claim, we would expect consistent archaeological evidence of violence throughout the Paleolithic period. However, the evidence is scarce.

I.J.N. Thorpe, an expert in ancient warfare, notes three key markers scientists rely on when searching for signs of violence: weapons, depictions of warfare, and skeletal remains showing injuries from combat.

The gold standard of evidence — human remains with embedded weapons or trauma from interpersonal violence — is surprisingly rare during the Paleolithic. A few possible exceptions include:

• 250,000 years ago: Sima de los Huesos, Spain. Several skulls from a collection of 32 skeletons exhibit healed fractures, though it is unclear if these were caused by interpersonal violence.
• 90,000 years ago: A skull from Kasies River, South Africa, shows a healed fracture, possibly from a violent attack.
• 50,000 years ago: Some burial sites, like those at Predmosti in Moravia, present multiple individuals buried together, but it’s unclear if their deaths were due to conflict or other causes such as disease.
• 13,000 years ago: Woman in the San Teodoro cave in Sicily with a flint point lodged in her iliac crest, and in Grotta dei Canciulli, France, a child with a flint in its Thoracic vertebra.
• 12,000 years ago: At Jebel Sahaba in the Nile Valley, 59 individuals were buried, with 24 skeletons showing evidence of flint points either embedded in the bones or found within the grave fill. The site’s excavator proposed that environmental pressures and dwindling resources were likely the driving forces behind the violence.

Thorpe argues that biological theories like Wrangham’s should predict a more uniform presence of violence across different regions and time periods. Instead, what we find is variability — some cultures and times show little evidence of violence, while others show instances of significant conflict. The inconsistencies in this data challenge the idea that violence is a natural, inevitable aspect of human evolution.

A Missing Artistic Record

If violence were a defining feature of human life, we would expect early art to reflect it. Yet Paleolithic art, which spans tens of thousands of years, shows no depictions of warfare. In sharp contrast, Holocene art is filled with scenes of conflict, both mythological and real.

Palaeobiologist R. Dale Guthrie, a leading expert on Paleolithic art, concludes that

warring conflicts constitute most of recorded and mythic Holocene history. But Palaeolithic art shows no drawing of group conflict, and there is virtually no indication from late Palaeolithic skeletons of murderous violence.

(Guthrie, R.D., The Nature of Paleolithic Art, 2005)

The absence of warlike imagery from Paleolithic art further undermines the claim that humans are naturally predisposed to violence. This stark contrast between the peaceful representations of Paleolithic life and the war-dominated art of the Holocene suggests that violence, rather than having a hereditary source, stems from other factors.

Rethinking the Instinct for Violence

Biological theories of violence, such as those championed by Wrangham and others, suggest a instinctual heritage based on violence. However, the archaeological and artistic records do not support this view. While violence has occurred throughout human history and continues to be as pervasive as ever before, the evidence suggests that it was not an inevitable outcome stemming from our early ancestors. In fact, for much of our evolutionary past, humans may have lived in relative harmony.

Rather than accepting that violence is part of our instinctual make-up, we should revisit exactly what our ‘true’ nature really is, and explore the likelihood that violence stems from an alternate source.