DJS : Ms. Mirazon appears to be - or have been - in the 'anthropologists of peace" camp where they believe hunter/gatherers were noble and egalitarian. This camp seems to have had its genesis from the 18th-century philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who believed Native Americans and other pre-state people as peaceful "noble savages". ... "Ms. Mirazon appears to be someone we should ignore, because, based on the evidence, she and her camp have been ignoring or spinning the evidence for politically correct reasons. Perhaps evidence of this massacre will open her eyes and has switched sides"
Ummm! I looked for some indication of Dr Marta Mirazon Lahr (to use her full name) arguing that position in the quotes I posted. I also had a brief look at the titles of various papers attributed to her and didn't see anything supporting the position you suggest. A mere mention that some have believed that some pre-history peoples were peaceful does not (of course) indicate that she once believed that position. Her mention of that position in the YT video merely recapitulates 'the contemporary state of the argument."
Her page on the LCHES ( http://www.human-evol.cam.ac.uk/marta.html ) states her research interests:
Research Interests
My interests cover many aspects of human evolution, from the study of morphological evolution in the genus Homo, to human evolutionary history and dispersals, evolutionary genetics and adaptation in hunter-gatherers, the formation of population boundaries, and the evolution of diversity in technology and tools.
Not, I would suggest, that starting a research from that position is wrong. Research projects may adopt a position with the goal of supporting or refuting a position. And, of course, as Dr Robert Foley, (also associated with that research project) says, its a matter of seeing the interplay between aggression and co-operation
The LCHES page briefly summarising the paper published in Nature* notes:
"This site, Nataruk, provides evidence for inter-group conflict among hunter-gatherers, and so contributes to our understanding of the history of warfare, showing clearly that hunter-gatherers, as well as food-producers, engaged in organised and lethal conflict."
Link: http://www.human-evol.cam.ac.uk/index.html
* Nature (for those not familiar with the journal) is a highly regarded interdisciplinary scientific journal. It would not normally publish highly speculative material.
But thank you DJS, for raising that previous view. The evidence found at Nataruk is important in questioning the veracity of the biblical record. The biblical myth is understood by many to suggest that YHWH created a naturally peacefully inclined human race,who became violent as a result of turning away from YHWH. The reality is, as this paper published in 'Nature' is different. The research challenges not only the biblical view of human origins but also challenges the biblical time-scale of human existence.
And then there is the associated concept (we all likely held as JWs - and maybe by some differently branded believers) that we can regain that peaceful state as a result of being saved by YHWH's alter ego Jesus, who gave his 'blood' (spilt in an act of senseless violence) to 'save' us, because that's the way YHWH sasid it had to be.
But the seer who wants us to believe that he knew the future of humanity (the author of 'A Revelation - to John) believed that even after a thousand year rule of Jesus many humans will still be inclined to violence and will want to fight in the war of Gog and Magog. (Revelation 20:8 ).
In contrast take a look at DJS's mention of Dr. Steven Pinker (I assume that is who he means)
who argues (in this TED video) that,
"... we are living in the most peaceful time in our species."Link: https://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence?language=en