Yes? What’s your point? Was the land irreversibly damaged by their fighting over land? Surely you can’t be trying to compare the ecological impacts tribal warfare to modern industry?
The argument is not that they chose not to harm the land, but that they simply couldn’t significantly harm the land, and there usually wasn’t any incentive to, because they couldn’t get at anything under the land anyway.
About the only option was intentionally setting first/grass fires, and that happened plenty.
Yes? What’s your point? Was the land irreversibly damaged by their fighting over land? Surely you can’t be trying to compare the ecological impacts tribal warfare to modern industry?
The argument is not that they chose not to harm the land, but that they simply couldn’t significantly harm the land, and there usually wasn’t any incentive to, because they couldn’t get at anything under the land anyway.
About the only option was intentionally setting first/grass fires, and that happened plenty.