War before civilization
The myth of the peace-loving "noble savage" is persistent and pernicious. Indeed, for the last fifty years, most popular and scholarly works have agreed that prehistoric warfare was rare, harmless, unimportant, and, like smallpox, a disease of civilized societies alone. Prehistoric warfare, according to this view, was little more than a ritualized game, where casualties were limited and the effects of aggression relatively mild. Lawrence Keeley's groundbreaking War Before Civilization offers a devastating rebuttal to such comfortable myths and debunks the notion that warfare was introduced to primitive societies through contact with civilization (an idea he denounces as "the pacification of the past"). Building on much fascinating archeological and historical research and offering an astute comparison of warfare in civilized and prehistoric societies, from modern European nations to the Plains Indians of North America, War Before Civilization convincingly demonstrates that prehistoric warfare was in fact more deadly, more frequent, and more ruthless than modern war. To support this point, Keeley provides a wide-ranging look at warfare and brutality in the prehistoric world.
Stats for nerds
8recommend
18mentions
15people
2009–2026years
50% recommend44% neutral6% critical
Mentions per year
What Hacker News says
- Land can only be nonviolently settled exactly once. The arrangement of who had what land 400 years ago when many European-Americans' ancestors started to arrive was merely the then-current state shaped by centuries of violent bloodshed (or "colonization") between one Native tribe and another Native tribe.
I'm saying that pre-colonial-age America was not a place where each tribe came in, found their own piece of virgin land, and lived in peace and harmony. They were not any different than the homo sapiens on other continents, which is to say, smart, determined, and willing to kill outsiders to improve their own tribe's chances of survival.
The only reason of course that they are viewed so sympathetically today is the tragedy of their near-complete destruction, which can be explained very thoroughly by their incredibly bad luck of having almost no domesticable native animals, and their not having gotten Iron Age technology. But in the end their destruction was mostly due to disease, traceable to early Spanish contact, which had absolutely decimated North American societies before almost any human Europeans had set foot on the mainland.[1] Europeans indeed did lots of bad things to those peoples, but I argue this is less proof that "Europeans are uniquely mean" and more proof that humans are brutal when they come into conflict over scarce resources and will press whatever advantages they have, whether it's large numbers of braves with obsidian arrowheads or muskets.
A good read for some perspective on what we can piece together about what pre-colonial America was like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Before_Civilization
> "According to Keeley, among the indigenous peoples of the Americas, only 13% did not engage in wars with their neighbors at least once per year. The natives' pre-Columbian ancient practice of using human scalps as trophies is well documented. Iroquois routinely slowly tortured to death captured enemy warriors (see Captives in American Indian Wars for details)."
- Also Lawrence Keeley, War Before Civilization
- This reminds me of the book War before Civilization, about the archeological evidence for pre-historical war and the many attempts to dismiss it, to declare walls merely symbolical (symbols of what?), weapons as means of exchange (valuable why?). A water pipe network is evidence of a centralized authority in the same way that a wall or a weapon is evidence of conflict.
- I am not aware of any theory that would suggest humans in forcible future will eradicate violent conflicts, regarding past there is great book;
War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage
- The myth of the peace-loving "noble savage" is persistent and pernicious. Indeed, for the last fifty years, most popular and scholarly works have agreed that prehistoric warfare was rare, harmless, unimportant, and, like smallpox, a disease of civilized societies alone.
Lawrence Keeley's groundbreaking War Before Civilization offers a devastating rebuttal to such comfortable myths and debunks the notion that warfare was introduced to primitive societies through contact with civilization (an idea he denounces as "the pacification of the past").[1]
[1] https://www.amazon.com/War-Before-Civilization-Peaceful-Sava...
- But tribes fight better than civilizations (less concern for social status, less internal dissention; read War Before Civilization for an interesting discussion of this) -- so over-civilization is self-correcting in a way. Turchin sees his ideas as an elaboration on ibn Khaldun...
Related
The Dawn of Everything
111 recommend · 270
War in human civilization
5 recommend · 8
Civilization
1 recommend · 4
The Clash of Civilizations?
3 recommend · 17
The War of Art
112 recommend · 165
American nations
25 recommend · 49
The Great War for Civilisation
6 recommend · 10
