But you still base it on one example -- Maya. We were confused about it and assumed they didn't have wars but then we discovered they were violent.
I think the best way to proceed is to do neither (assuming they were peaceful or liked war) but just explore what is there.
There is also a confusion between war and violence. I presume "war" could be fighting with neighbours (other tribes, cultures) but violence could be internal -- brutal sacrifices, punishments, infanticide, and so on.
Another flaw or rather double standard I see in the argument is that you claim we/others imbue or fill the gaps of unknowns with "Gods" -- "Oh those irrational people believing Higgs boson is God" before we discovered that it isn't. But then you do the same -- you assume there were wars even though you admit there is lack of proof that there was any (understanding writings, discovering sacked cities) .
I think the best way to proceed is to do neither (assuming they were peaceful or liked war) but just explore what is there.
There is also a confusion between war and violence. I presume "war" could be fighting with neighbours (other tribes, cultures) but violence could be internal -- brutal sacrifices, punishments, infanticide, and so on.
Another flaw or rather double standard I see in the argument is that you claim we/others imbue or fill the gaps of unknowns with "Gods" -- "Oh those irrational people believing Higgs boson is God" before we discovered that it isn't. But then you do the same -- you assume there were wars even though you admit there is lack of proof that there was any (understanding writings, discovering sacked cities) .