Warfare and hominid brain evolution.

This paper reviews literature on the evolutionary effects of warfare upon the hominid brain. Alexander &; Tinkle (1968) and Bigelow (1969) are found to be the first to propose that warfare was the principle evolutionary pressure that created the novel substance of the human brain, and that it acted at least from the early Pleistocene. These writers are distinguished from Darwin (1871), Keith (1947) and Wilson (1975) who saw warfare influencing the development of the brain only in historical or near-historical times.The warfare hypothesis of Alexander &; Tinkle is found to be an excellent explanation of the evolution of the human brain, but to be unsatisfactory from a biological viewpoint because they do not explain how warfare evolved in the first place, nor do they attempt to account for the apparent absence of warfare as a behavioral adaptation in species other than some eusocial insects.This author underpins the warfare hypothesis, arguing that it evolved as a necessary consequence of the circumstances of early hominids. Proficient tool use gave domination over predators and opened up new food resources, thereby diminishing two population controls. A population explosion resulted and, at critical densities, when starvation threatened, warfare was the genetically most successful behavioral adaptation. Alternative hypotheses are shown to be inadequate. Finally, the author asks why such an important hypothesis has been ignored for almost a decade.