I don't agree, but then we're both adults and that's fine!

What you say is very Darwinian, the survival of the fittest. Its worth remembering that Darwin was the first to admit that there were things in nature that appeared to contradict his theory, though. Like the Flattid Bug, for example.

Barbarism is an incredibly loaded word. It comes from a Greek root meaning "foreigner", and the "bar-bar" sound is thought to have originated as a way of mocking the "unintelligible" speech of foreigners. It's xenephobic in the extreme, is the bottom line of it, and the slurs of violence, ignorance etc. that are heaped upon the "barbarian's" head are simply racist slanders. But then I don't believe in "civilization", a word which is the "us" to barbarism's "them".

I'd argue that the "eye-for-an-eye" mentality is rooted in city-living - the city of Ur, some would say, where the Sun-god Shamash is believed to have given this ultra-vengeful law to Hammurabi.

I agree with you that in many ways human beings are the same now as they were in the distant past, but I also think some things have changed. City living changed something in the human psyche, as did the coming of agriculture, and metal.

There are thought to be more slaves in the world today than there have ever been at any other time.

"It is part of human nature to put ones own family first, extended family second, tribal loyalties third, we may pretend otherwise but this has always been so."

Yes, I think you're probably quite right here. It doesn't necessarily follow that the stones were raised solely to mark territory, though. And even if they were, it still leaves the unanswered question of why then?

apologies for the multiple posts, I should have thought it all through properly and stuck it in one!

"evolutionaryly (can't be bothered to look up the spelling - <i>me neither!</i>) we will have changed little"

This may well be true, I'm not scientifically minded enough to be able to say. It seems a little irrelevant, though? Please enlighten me if I'm being ignorant, but the psychology of a people can change radically without any need to invoke Darwin, surely?