What do you think?
Rate this 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. 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 states 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. He reveals, for instance, that prehistorical tactics favoring raids and ambushes, as opposed to formal battles, often yielded a high death-rate; that adult males falling into the hands of their enemies were almost universally killed; and that surprise raids seldom spared even women and children. Keeley cites evidence of ancient massacres in many areas of the world, including the discovery in South Dakota of a prehistoric mass grave containing the remains of over 500 scalped and mutilated men, women, and children
(a slaughter that took place a century and a half before the arrival of Columbus). In addition, Keeley surveys the prevalence of looting, destruction, and trophy-taking in all kinds of warfare and again finds little moral distinction between ancient warriors and civilized armies. Finally, and perhaps most controversially, he examines the evidence of cannibalism among some preliterate peoples.
Keeley is a seasoned writer and his book is packed with vivid, eye-opening details (for instance, that the homicide rate of prehistoric Illinois villagers may have exceeded that of the modern United States by some 70 times). But he also goes beyond grisly facts to address the larger moral and philosophical issues raised by his work. What are the causes of war? Are human beings inherently violent? How can we ensure peace in our own time? Challenging some of our most dearly held beliefs, Keeley's conclusions are bound to stir controversy.
Building on much fascinating archeological and historical research and offering an astute comparison of warfare in civilized and prehistoric societies, from modern European states 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. He reveals, for instance, that prehistorical tactics favoring raids and ambushes, as opposed to formal battles, often yielded a high death-rate; that adult males falling into the hands of their enemies were almost universally killed; and that surprise raids seldom spared even women and children. Keeley cites evidence of ancient massacres in many areas of the world, including the discovery in South Dakota of a prehistoric mass grave containing the remains of over 500 scalped and mutilated men, women, and children
(a slaughter that took place a century and a half before the arrival of Columbus). In addition, Keeley surveys the prevalence of looting, destruction, and trophy-taking in all kinds of warfare and again finds little moral distinction between ancient warriors and civilized armies. Finally, and perhaps most controversially, he examines the evidence of cannibalism among some preliterate peoples.
Keeley is a seasoned writer and his book is packed with vivid, eye-opening details (for instance, that the homicide rate of prehistoric Illinois villagers may have exceeded that of the modern United States by some 70 times). But he also goes beyond grisly facts to address the larger moral and philosophical issues raised by his work. What are the causes of war? Are human beings inherently violent? How can we ensure peace in our own time? Challenging some of our most dearly held beliefs, Keeley's conclusions are bound to stir controversy.
245 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1996
76 people are currently reading
4513 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 83 reviews
July 18, 2012
This book is subtitled "the Myth of the Peaceful Savage" and aims at showing two things: 1) that the anthropological community systematically ignored or altered data that suggested extreme violence in past societies largely due to widely-held romantic beliefs that simpler indigenous worlds were better than today's complex-industrial world, and 2) the evidence that was thus altered, ignored, dismissed, or explained away showing that past societies and civilizations were as brutal and violent as anything today. "The facts recovered by ethnographers and archaeologists indicate unequivocally that primitive and prehistoric warfare was just as terrible and effective as the historic and civilized version... In fact, primitive warfare was much more deadly than that conducted between civilized states because of the greater frequency of combat and the more merciless way it was conducted" (p174).
Next time you're with a group of people who are expounding on the virtues of indigenous societies and peoples and how we should follow their wisdom, direct them to this book.
Next time you're with a group of people who are expounding on the virtues of indigenous societies and peoples and how we should follow their wisdom, direct them to this book.
July 13, 2023
If you are someone that either want to read this book because you want to prove "political correctness is bullshit and corrupts our generation because pre-civilized populations are simply savages", or deconstruct that "Westerners invented the idea of savage in order to dominate them", skip this book, this book is not for you. (I saw enough book reviews that repeatedly talked about those cliches.)
This book in fact shows how intelligent and foolish, brutal and kind, altruistic and apathetic pre-civilized population can be when they confront warfare, just like civilized populations today. It starts with the myths made up by both Hobbists (who believed that pre-civilized societies are brute, nasty and short) and Rousseauists (who believed that pre-civilized societies are peace-loving,) and debunk myths one by one based on solid historical and archaeological evidences. It shows the violent confrontations between pre-historic and historic communities are common, but never failed to mention their courage, intelligence and humanities when they face warfare. The only weakness of this book is Keeley's final political statements, in which he should not jump to the conclusion.
It is brilliantly written and important book. When today a lot of Western Conservatives still believed that they cannot restore "conservative morality" without dehumanizing non-Westerners, and liberals sugarcoated the reality of the non-Western world by systematically ignoring and fabricating the past of non-Westerners. Both mentalities have dehumanized pre-civilized populations, and this book can present a prehistorical world that do the justice.
This book in fact shows how intelligent and foolish, brutal and kind, altruistic and apathetic pre-civilized population can be when they confront warfare, just like civilized populations today. It starts with the myths made up by both Hobbists (who believed that pre-civilized societies are brute, nasty and short) and Rousseauists (who believed that pre-civilized societies are peace-loving,) and debunk myths one by one based on solid historical and archaeological evidences. It shows the violent confrontations between pre-historic and historic communities are common, but never failed to mention their courage, intelligence and humanities when they face warfare. The only weakness of this book is Keeley's final political statements, in which he should not jump to the conclusion.
It is brilliantly written and important book. When today a lot of Western Conservatives still believed that they cannot restore "conservative morality" without dehumanizing non-Westerners, and liberals sugarcoated the reality of the non-Western world by systematically ignoring and fabricating the past of non-Westerners. Both mentalities have dehumanized pre-civilized populations, and this book can present a prehistorical world that do the justice.
May 4, 2017
Last year I read an online newspaper article about an anarchist/back to nature type who asserted in the article that “Warfare was unknown amongst humans until the invention of farming about 12,000 years ago.” No backing evidence was provided (in fairness it wasn’t the sort of article where you would expect any) but the statement got me interested enough to do some basic internet searching for further info. It seems that the oldest conclusive evidence for organised warfare (as opposed to homicide) comes from a mass grave site at a place called Jebel Sahaba near the present-day Egypt/Sudan border, dated to between 12,000 and 14,000 years ago. To re-use an old maxim, absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence, and at the time I made a mental note to read more on this subject.
For most of the 20th century, anthropologists have argued that pre-state societies experienced violence at very low levels. This book’s subtitle “The Myth of the Peaceful Savage” gives away that this particular author believes there is overwhelming evidence for extensive warfare in pre-state societies. It should be noted though that the author’s definition of “before civilisation,” encompasses not just hunter-gatherer societies but also nomadic pastoralists and village farmers.
I must admit that I lean towards a Hobbesian view of pre-state societies myself, so the book reinforced some of my preconceptions. Confirmation bias aside, I think the author does a very good job in arguing his case, citing extensive evidence both from archaeology and from observations made of the few pre-state societies that lasted through to the 20th century (those of the Amazon, New Guinea etc). There is a lot of really interesting stuff, and I would frequently find myself pausing to consider the implications of something I had just read. There were a few weaker chapters. On a couple of occasions the author seems to take nationalistic offence at criticisms of American society, and goes off on a rant when this happens. I found the last chapter, on the prospects for lasting future peace, to be both rambling and fairly unconvincing. Overall though, a really worthwhile and interesting read.
For most of the 20th century, anthropologists have argued that pre-state societies experienced violence at very low levels. This book’s subtitle “The Myth of the Peaceful Savage” gives away that this particular author believes there is overwhelming evidence for extensive warfare in pre-state societies. It should be noted though that the author’s definition of “before civilisation,” encompasses not just hunter-gatherer societies but also nomadic pastoralists and village farmers.
I must admit that I lean towards a Hobbesian view of pre-state societies myself, so the book reinforced some of my preconceptions. Confirmation bias aside, I think the author does a very good job in arguing his case, citing extensive evidence both from archaeology and from observations made of the few pre-state societies that lasted through to the 20th century (those of the Amazon, New Guinea etc). There is a lot of really interesting stuff, and I would frequently find myself pausing to consider the implications of something I had just read. There were a few weaker chapters. On a couple of occasions the author seems to take nationalistic offence at criticisms of American society, and goes off on a rant when this happens. I found the last chapter, on the prospects for lasting future peace, to be both rambling and fairly unconvincing. Overall though, a really worthwhile and interesting read.
January 27, 2015
Anthropology and ethnography are definitely not areas about which I know much, so it is hard for me to tell where this book fits into the professional literature. It is a hybrid—a book by a professional anthropologist, meant largely for a popular audience, but not written in a popular style. It is, however, a book that appears to have had a very significant, if not generally acknowledged, impact on popular culture, in that it destroyed the idea that primitive peoples were peaceful, and established the opposite. That is, it established that every group of pre-civilized human people for tens of thousands of years, from small bands of hunter-gatherers through organized chiefdoms, engaged in continuous horrendous violence.
My general understanding is that any normal person, by which I mean someone other than an ideological hack employed at a university because that’s the only place he could be employed, or an aging hippie who thinks that American Indians spent their time communing silently with nature rather than running buffalo herds off cliffs, understands and completely agrees that primitive peoples were extremely violent, to a degree much greater even than modern people during the great wars of the 20th Century. However, this is a very recent realization, and flows basically from this book.
Keeley documents in extensive detail that prior to the late 1980s, and accelerating after World War II, anthropologists and ethnographers blithely assumed both that primitive societies either did not engage in any conflict, or to the extent they did, did so in ritualized fashion with extremely low injury and body counts. Keeley then demonstrates that ALL archaeological evidence proves the exact contrary, as does much, if not all, ethnographical evidence.
This comports with common sense, of course—why would primitive peoples be peaceful? It sounds stupid now to say that they’re peaceful, to most people, because as far as I can tell the lessons of this book and subsequent scholarship are accepted without argument. But it was only recently that, for example, all academics would make silly arguments like “that man is only buried with all those axes because he chopped a lot of trees” and “that big fence is a purely symbolic sign meaning ‘Keep Out’” (leaving aside the bodies, carrying babies, with arrows in their back under the burned remains of the fence). Or, my favorite, academics apparently maintained with a straight face that primitive tribes like the Yananamo were entirely peaceful, until one day the Europeans showed up and they immediately started killing each other because of the talismanic evil qualities of white people (or something like that).
Of course, ideology driving anthropology is nothing new. Witness the attempts to suppress study of Kennewick Man and the shrill insistence that the Clovis culture were the first peoples in the Americas. What interests me is that the impact of this book was so great, presumably because there was no evidence at all for the once-dominant academic and popular consensus. (I wonder what other academic consensus today might be proved wrong in the future?)
Keeley spends quite a bit of time analyzing the causes of primitive war as well. There are some interesting conclusions, among them that trade increases, rather that decreases, the chances of war. There is a brief, but very interesting, analysis of how American Indians engaged in constant warfare with Europeans while Canadian Indians, due to a different approach by the Canadian government, did not. The book is fairly dry, though, and ends up a bit oddly with some rambling about the need for one world government. It is also fairly short, and so being dry doesn’t really hurt it.
My general understanding is that any normal person, by which I mean someone other than an ideological hack employed at a university because that’s the only place he could be employed, or an aging hippie who thinks that American Indians spent their time communing silently with nature rather than running buffalo herds off cliffs, understands and completely agrees that primitive peoples were extremely violent, to a degree much greater even than modern people during the great wars of the 20th Century. However, this is a very recent realization, and flows basically from this book.
Keeley documents in extensive detail that prior to the late 1980s, and accelerating after World War II, anthropologists and ethnographers blithely assumed both that primitive societies either did not engage in any conflict, or to the extent they did, did so in ritualized fashion with extremely low injury and body counts. Keeley then demonstrates that ALL archaeological evidence proves the exact contrary, as does much, if not all, ethnographical evidence.
This comports with common sense, of course—why would primitive peoples be peaceful? It sounds stupid now to say that they’re peaceful, to most people, because as far as I can tell the lessons of this book and subsequent scholarship are accepted without argument. But it was only recently that, for example, all academics would make silly arguments like “that man is only buried with all those axes because he chopped a lot of trees” and “that big fence is a purely symbolic sign meaning ‘Keep Out’” (leaving aside the bodies, carrying babies, with arrows in their back under the burned remains of the fence). Or, my favorite, academics apparently maintained with a straight face that primitive tribes like the Yananamo were entirely peaceful, until one day the Europeans showed up and they immediately started killing each other because of the talismanic evil qualities of white people (or something like that).
Of course, ideology driving anthropology is nothing new. Witness the attempts to suppress study of Kennewick Man and the shrill insistence that the Clovis culture were the first peoples in the Americas. What interests me is that the impact of this book was so great, presumably because there was no evidence at all for the once-dominant academic and popular consensus. (I wonder what other academic consensus today might be proved wrong in the future?)
Keeley spends quite a bit of time analyzing the causes of primitive war as well. There are some interesting conclusions, among them that trade increases, rather that decreases, the chances of war. There is a brief, but very interesting, analysis of how American Indians engaged in constant warfare with Europeans while Canadian Indians, due to a different approach by the Canadian government, did not. The book is fairly dry, though, and ends up a bit oddly with some rambling about the need for one world government. It is also fairly short, and so being dry doesn’t really hurt it.
January 7, 2015
Another book that changed my life and thoughts. It's fairly skimpy, and old, and I almost didn't bother, when I set out to research early war. Now it's my bible on the topic: the book I most trust, learnt most from. The answer (how violent were we in the past?) isn't simple: oh we were bloody, but not because we enjoyed to be. He uses much evidence from early-style societies that have survived into the modern age, with people who can tell us firsthand their attitudes to war and combat. And what they say opens or often pops your eyes.
In spite of the subtitle and blurb (sensational, and cynical, for the public) you learn the most bloodthirsty natives want peace, which is almost impossible to organise, and have nightmares about combat. It gives you heart, in fact, although no lies.
In spite of the subtitle and blurb (sensational, and cynical, for the public) you learn the most bloodthirsty natives want peace, which is almost impossible to organise, and have nightmares about combat. It gives you heart, in fact, although no lies.
December 16, 2025
Якщо ви, як і я, цікавитеся історією війни, то ця книга може стати для вас справжнім відкриттям ( хоча якщо ви цікавитесь саме антропологією війни чи доісторичною війною, то шансів не чути про неї майже нуль)
Чесно кажучи, коли я брався за цю працю, мої очікування були доволі стриманими. Я знав, що про доісторичні війни ми знаємо критично мало — ну, знайшли пару черепів з дірками, умовно, і все. А тут — ціла монографія!
Кілі робить цікавий фінт: замість того, щоб покладатися виключно на скупу археологію (хоча вона тут є), він будує своє дослідження на етнографії та антропології. Він аналізує "примітивні" суспільства, які застали дослідники в Північній Америці, Азії та Океанії.
Дуже багато уваги приділено північноамериканським індіанцям та їхнім війнам (як між собою до Колумба, так і з колоністами).
Археології як такої менше, навіть , ніж я очікував.
Але менш з тим, це чудова розвідка про саму природу «дикої війни». Автор показує тактику, жорстокість та ефективність бойових дій у племенах, розбиваючи романтичні уявлення про «золоту мирну епоху людства» і «війну як продукт цивілізації»
Крах міфу про «Мирного дикуна» - центральна вісь книги: після Другої світової війни в наукових колах (та й у поп-культурі) став популярним тренд на «пацифікацію минулого». Вчені намагалися довести, що війна — це винахід цивілізації та держав, а первісні люди були дітьми природи, які жили в гармонії.
Мовляв, якщо дикуни й билися, то це були «ритуальні ігри», де всі просто кричали одне на одного, кидали пару списів і розходилися з подряпинами.
Кілі каменя на камені не лишає від цієї теорії. Серйозно. Просто в одні ворота. Статистика говорить, що у відсотковому відношенні втрати чоловічого населення у війнах "примітивних" племен були значно вищими, ніж у найкривавіших війнах ХХ століття. Це була тотальна війна за виживання, без полонених і правил.
Але попри все описане насильство, Кілі не стверджує також, що війна — це наша біологічна програма чи невід'ємна частина природи. Він підкреслює, що війна — це соціальний феномен, вибір, а не інстинкт. І це робить книгу збалансованою, а не просто збіркою історій про різанину.
Для розуміння людської природи та еволюції конфліктів — річ вкрай корисна. Трохи забагато Америки, але загальна картина вражає.
Рекомендую всім, хто хоч�� зняти (комусь) рожеві окуляри стосовно нашого "мирного" минулого.
January 21, 2015
This is one of the most important (and frankly bravest) anthropological works I've encountered in recent years. The history of "primitive" peoples has been an academic battleground for several centuries, pitting Hobbesian and Rousseaun (sic) thinkers against one-another for longer than the science of anthropology has existed.
In brief, the camp of Hobbesian thinkers believed that technologically advanced societies were superior, and had a duty (construed sometimes as "the White Man's Burden") to civilize and Christianize unfortunate, less developed people. This reasoning many times became a self-serving excuse to enslave, colonize, and exploit Native Americans and Sub-Saharan Africans.
On the other hand, adherents to Rousseau believed in the idea of the "noble savage" (a term, incidentally, not coined by Rousseau), and these academics slowly gained ground, especially in a post-World War Two environment. This strand of thought held basically that the people Eurocentrics regarded as inferior were actually superior, and that Sub-Saharan Africans and Native Americans existed basically in a state of grace, enjoying a near-Utopian existence before ravenous Europeans introduced greed and pestilence into their midst.
Lawrence H. Keeley's "War Before Civilization" destroys the myths cherished by both camps with a lucid and even-handed investigation that shows that "primitive" people were more than capable of killing each other in acts of mass genocide, as well as hunting animals to extirpation, well before the White Man showed up with his vast fleet of ships. But Keeley also dispels the Eurocentric notion that superior military tactics and sophistication allowed Europeans to conquer the Red and Black Man; this wasn't the case at all, according to the convincing arguments elucidated in this book. In fact, the opposite was many times the case, and the only reason the White Man won was frankly due not to his vast military expertise, but rather due more prosaically to the vast numbers in which he arrived and the germs he carried in his immune system.
This was an incredibly informative, brilliant read, bound no doubt to anger anyone with an agenda, bound also to satisfy anyone eager to learn.
In brief, the camp of Hobbesian thinkers believed that technologically advanced societies were superior, and had a duty (construed sometimes as "the White Man's Burden") to civilize and Christianize unfortunate, less developed people. This reasoning many times became a self-serving excuse to enslave, colonize, and exploit Native Americans and Sub-Saharan Africans.
On the other hand, adherents to Rousseau believed in the idea of the "noble savage" (a term, incidentally, not coined by Rousseau), and these academics slowly gained ground, especially in a post-World War Two environment. This strand of thought held basically that the people Eurocentrics regarded as inferior were actually superior, and that Sub-Saharan Africans and Native Americans existed basically in a state of grace, enjoying a near-Utopian existence before ravenous Europeans introduced greed and pestilence into their midst.
Lawrence H. Keeley's "War Before Civilization" destroys the myths cherished by both camps with a lucid and even-handed investigation that shows that "primitive" people were more than capable of killing each other in acts of mass genocide, as well as hunting animals to extirpation, well before the White Man showed up with his vast fleet of ships. But Keeley also dispels the Eurocentric notion that superior military tactics and sophistication allowed Europeans to conquer the Red and Black Man; this wasn't the case at all, according to the convincing arguments elucidated in this book. In fact, the opposite was many times the case, and the only reason the White Man won was frankly due not to his vast military expertise, but rather due more prosaically to the vast numbers in which he arrived and the germs he carried in his immune system.
This was an incredibly informative, brilliant read, bound no doubt to anger anyone with an agenda, bound also to satisfy anyone eager to learn.
Want to read
September 23, 2025Found a post about this book online today, the poster's name was "Dumb Pollock".
"The 16-year-old girl’s once-beautiful face was grotesque.
She had been disfigured beyond all recognition in the 18 months she had been held captive by the Comanche Indians.
Now, she was being offered back to the Texan authorities by Indian chiefs as part of a peace negotiation.
To gasps of horror from the watching crowds, the Indians presented her at the Council House in the ranching town of San Antonio in 1840, the year Queen Victoria married Prince Albert.
‘Her head, arms and face were full of bruises and sores,’ wrote one witness, Mary Maverick. ‘And her nose was actually burnt off to the bone. Both nostrils were wide open and denuded of flesh.’
Once handed over, Matilda Lockhart broke down as she described the horrors she had endured — the rape, the relentless sexual humiliation and the way Comanche women had tortured her with fire. It wasn’t just her nose, her thin body was hideously scarred all over with burns.
When she mentioned she thought there were 15 other white captives at the Indians’ camp, all of them being subjected to a similar fate, the Texan lawmakers and officials said they were detaining the Comanche chiefs while they rescued the others.
It was a decision that prompted one of the most brutal slaughters in the history of the Wild West — and showed just how bloodthirsty the Comanche could be in revenge."
“When that Indian delegation to San Antonio realised they were to be detained, they tried to fight their way out with bows and arrows and knives — killing any Texan they could get at. In turn, Texan soldiers opened fire, slaughtering 35 Comanche, injuring many more and taking 29 prisoner.
But the Comanche tribe’s furious response knew no bounds. When the Texans suggested they swap the Comanche prisoners for their captives, the Indians tortured every one of those captives to death instead.
‘One by one, the children and young women were pegged out naked beside the camp fire,’ according to a contemporary account. ‘They were skinned, sliced, and horribly mutilated, and finally burned alive by vengeful women determined to wring the last shriek and convulsion from their agonised bodies. Matilda Lockhart’s six-year-old sister was among these unfortunates who died screaming under the high plains moon.’”
“They were infamous for their inventive tortures, and women were usually in charge of the torture process.
The Comanche roasted captive American and Mexican soldiers to death over open fires. Others were castrated and scalped while alive. The most agonising Comanche tortures included burying captives up to the chin and cutting off their eyelids so their eyes were seared by the burning sun before they starved to death.
Contemporary accounts also describe them staking out male captives spread-eagled and naked over a red-ant bed. Sometimes this was done after excising the victim’s private parts, putting them in his mouth and then sewing his lips together.
One band sewed up captives in untanned leather and left them out in the sun. The green rawhide would slowly shrink and squeeze the prisoner to death.”
This is the reason why so many Westerns made before 1960 have scenes where the men tried to shoot their women so that they won't fall into captivity. John Wayne in The Searchers was very familiar with this which was why he wanted to kill his kidnapped niece because he was afriad she would be ruined for life. The fact that she saved their lives was what convinced him to not kill her. Of course, most people refused to believe that such things happened, especially those back in Boston even during those times.
"Absense make the heart grow fonder" but "Familiarity breed comtempt."
November 6, 2024
The myth of the noble savage crops up every time a “civilized” nation conquers them all and then has time to become disillusioned with city life. Even the Romans waxed nostalgic about the Germanic tribes in time.
This seems to cause military historians and archaeologists alike to view pre-history with rose coloured glasses.
Military men in the 19th century dismissed tribal weapons and tactics as childish and ineffectual. Thought they found out fighting the Zulus in Africa and the a number of native tribes in America they were more than a match for the stringent “modern tactics” of lining up to fire volleys from breach loading rifles, only two modern armies can fight in that way because they must both agree to fight and blindly follow their orders to stand there and get shot at.
Tribesmen could fire arrows much more quickly and accurately. They used what we would call guerilla tactics: fast hit and run raids, rarely engaging in one on one orderly combat. In the end they were beaten by superior economic power and logistics. Ironically they were also beaten with help from their own “primitive” rivals, aiding modern military men with their tracking skills and tactics, backed up with the economic power of the modern nation in question.
Another assertion of some historians was that they didn’t war for the boon of resources or land. It turns out when the end result is studied, the losing tribe is often displaced.
The truly important distinction between pre-historic or tribal warfare and civilized modern warfare is that it happens up close and affects everyone, rather than at a distance from the civilian population.
It seems in the end that violence is a component of human nature and actual peaceful societies are exceedingly rare no matter how far back in time you go.
A really great book that illustrates many of these points is empire of the summer moon - it’s about the Comanche tribe and how they spent several hundred years making settlers and the US army eat shit.
This seems to cause military historians and archaeologists alike to view pre-history with rose coloured glasses.
Military men in the 19th century dismissed tribal weapons and tactics as childish and ineffectual. Thought they found out fighting the Zulus in Africa and the a number of native tribes in America they were more than a match for the stringent “modern tactics” of lining up to fire volleys from breach loading rifles, only two modern armies can fight in that way because they must both agree to fight and blindly follow their orders to stand there and get shot at.
Tribesmen could fire arrows much more quickly and accurately. They used what we would call guerilla tactics: fast hit and run raids, rarely engaging in one on one orderly combat. In the end they were beaten by superior economic power and logistics. Ironically they were also beaten with help from their own “primitive” rivals, aiding modern military men with their tracking skills and tactics, backed up with the economic power of the modern nation in question.
Another assertion of some historians was that they didn’t war for the boon of resources or land. It turns out when the end result is studied, the losing tribe is often displaced.
The truly important distinction between pre-historic or tribal warfare and civilized modern warfare is that it happens up close and affects everyone, rather than at a distance from the civilian population.
It seems in the end that violence is a component of human nature and actual peaceful societies are exceedingly rare no matter how far back in time you go.
A really great book that illustrates many of these points is empire of the summer moon - it’s about the Comanche tribe and how they spent several hundred years making settlers and the US army eat shit.
March 31, 2021
An informative work concerning the practices and customs of Indigenous First Peoples across the globe. Well-documented academic anthropological overview that certainly accentuates historical archeological findings over the recent decades as opposed to the typical-as-a-rule ever-changing 'mythical science' proclamations. Whether you travel through the history of Oceania, Asia, Africa, America, etc. you will find this book's common thread more common than the false history creators attempt to promote. Human wickedness has always been widespread throughout the earth and their intentions toward 'outsiders' just as evil then as now. "They can’t sleep or rest until they do wrong or harm some innocent victim."
A nice work to accompany:
-Cannibalism Headhunting and Human Sacrifice in North America: A History Forgotten by George Feldman
-Among cannibals an account of four years travels in Australia and of camp life with the aborigines of Queensland by Carl Sofus Lumholtz, Norwegian Anthropologist/Ethnographer
-The Passing of the Aborigines - Daisy Bates 1938
-African Leopard Men by Birger Lindskog
-Erromango - Cannibals and missionaries on the Martyr Isle by James L. Flexner
-Zen at War by Brian Daizen Victoria
-Qi Jiguang Military Training (China)
A nice work to accompany:
-Cannibalism Headhunting and Human Sacrifice in North America: A History Forgotten by George Feldman
-Among cannibals an account of four years travels in Australia and of camp life with the aborigines of Queensland by Carl Sofus Lumholtz, Norwegian Anthropologist/Ethnographer
-The Passing of the Aborigines - Daisy Bates 1938
-African Leopard Men by Birger Lindskog
-Erromango - Cannibals and missionaries on the Martyr Isle by James L. Flexner
-Zen at War by Brian Daizen Victoria
-Qi Jiguang Military Training (China)
February 28, 2025
"Given the aversion of modern archaeology to the idea of migration of colonization (let alone conquest), the problem of documenting such processes in prehistory is difficult." (p. 111)
The sentence is merely 28 years old and highlights how dramatic changes in archaeology have been. In 1996 Keeley broke a taboo by highlighting that neither the archaeological nor the anthropological record justify the idea that prehistorical societies, i.e. societies before statehood were more peaceful and averse to warfare. Today research on migrations and population replacements in this period are all over the place, and finally supported by genetic research.
Keeley's own staring point is his research on the borderline between agriculturalists and hunter gatherers in Western Europe between 7000 and 5000 BC. Although no evidence of warfare could be documented. the clear division as well as fortifications point at a neighborhood that was anything but conflict free.
Based on his own research and a broad selection of archaeological and anthropological literature as well as travelogues from the time of Western expansion, Keeley shows that warfare was an essential aspect of the life of hunter-gatherer and in particular pre-state agricultural societies. Moreover, he demonstrates that the rates of mobilization of the male population and of victims in conflict (often on both sides) were extremely high, when compared to many conflicts between states from antiquity to modernity. Warfare was, however, not a goal in itself. The respective societies mostly resorted to it to gain resources often in times of crises due to crop failure or bad hunting seasons, whereas it reflects in other contexts the confrontation between profoundly different lifestyles (hunter-gatherers/ agriculturalists). When it comes to the confrontation of such societies with empires, above all Western imperialism, he argues that they were quite resilient, and that their final defeat was not due to superior armory and discipline of the West (as Westerners like to believe) but rather it rather occurred to disease and the destruction of the ecological basis of their economy. Here he exaggerates perhaps, when it comes to the subjugation of native Americans in the US, it has to be taken into account, that the government did not dedicate many resources to that purpose, in particular when compared with the Civil War. Even more problematic are the parallels he draws with guerrilla warfare in recent history. Firstly, he is quite selective (Vietnam, but not European conquests in North Africa for example), Secondly he disregards the character of many of this conflicts as proxy wars (ietnam, Afghanistan), where the guerrilla received resources from a competing empire/ state.
Keeley leaves some aspects out which would be worthwhile to be discussed in tjos context, above all Eurasian Nomadic warfare is conspicuously absent.
In the final chapter Keeley explains the rebirth and dominance of the Rousseauan "noble savage" myth after the Second World War as an expression of self guilt among Western academic elites.
The sentence is merely 28 years old and highlights how dramatic changes in archaeology have been. In 1996 Keeley broke a taboo by highlighting that neither the archaeological nor the anthropological record justify the idea that prehistorical societies, i.e. societies before statehood were more peaceful and averse to warfare. Today research on migrations and population replacements in this period are all over the place, and finally supported by genetic research.
Keeley's own staring point is his research on the borderline between agriculturalists and hunter gatherers in Western Europe between 7000 and 5000 BC. Although no evidence of warfare could be documented. the clear division as well as fortifications point at a neighborhood that was anything but conflict free.
Based on his own research and a broad selection of archaeological and anthropological literature as well as travelogues from the time of Western expansion, Keeley shows that warfare was an essential aspect of the life of hunter-gatherer and in particular pre-state agricultural societies. Moreover, he demonstrates that the rates of mobilization of the male population and of victims in conflict (often on both sides) were extremely high, when compared to many conflicts between states from antiquity to modernity. Warfare was, however, not a goal in itself. The respective societies mostly resorted to it to gain resources often in times of crises due to crop failure or bad hunting seasons, whereas it reflects in other contexts the confrontation between profoundly different lifestyles (hunter-gatherers/ agriculturalists). When it comes to the confrontation of such societies with empires, above all Western imperialism, he argues that they were quite resilient, and that their final defeat was not due to superior armory and discipline of the West (as Westerners like to believe) but rather it rather occurred to disease and the destruction of the ecological basis of their economy. Here he exaggerates perhaps, when it comes to the subjugation of native Americans in the US, it has to be taken into account, that the government did not dedicate many resources to that purpose, in particular when compared with the Civil War. Even more problematic are the parallels he draws with guerrilla warfare in recent history. Firstly, he is quite selective (Vietnam, but not European conquests in North Africa for example), Secondly he disregards the character of many of this conflicts as proxy wars (ietnam, Afghanistan), where the guerrilla received resources from a competing empire/ state.
Keeley leaves some aspects out which would be worthwhile to be discussed in tjos context, above all Eurasian Nomadic warfare is conspicuously absent.
In the final chapter Keeley explains the rebirth and dominance of the Rousseauan "noble savage" myth after the Second World War as an expression of self guilt among Western academic elites.
June 19, 2025
I for one can not believe humans beings have been committing atrocities against one another for seemingly as long as we’ve been around. Big shout out to human ponchos and to penis potions that increase the drinker’s magical power; easily some of the most legendary spoils of war.
The book has a lot of interesting information, but I personally did not find myself entirely engaged during an early chapter that went into the semantics of what people have historically considered uncivilized vs civilized reasons for going to war. I felt this went on a bit long to simply conclude that most reasons for going to war have been varied but also the same variety of things in the past as well as in more recent times.
I did enjoy the discussion surrounding outdated assumptions that uncivilized people were generally more peaceful and did not go to war made by anthropologists who never actually did ethnographic studies, as well as how Keeley absolutely obliterates these bad takes by examining later evidence and ethnographic research.
It was also fun to learn about various old tactics from the days of “primitive” warfare and about the practices and tools used therein. If you want to take a journey of discovery about the various ways people have killed each other through the ages and how war may be the unifying universal trait of humans everywhere, this book is definitely worth checking out.
The book has a lot of interesting information, but I personally did not find myself entirely engaged during an early chapter that went into the semantics of what people have historically considered uncivilized vs civilized reasons for going to war. I felt this went on a bit long to simply conclude that most reasons for going to war have been varied but also the same variety of things in the past as well as in more recent times.
I did enjoy the discussion surrounding outdated assumptions that uncivilized people were generally more peaceful and did not go to war made by anthropologists who never actually did ethnographic studies, as well as how Keeley absolutely obliterates these bad takes by examining later evidence and ethnographic research.
It was also fun to learn about various old tactics from the days of “primitive” warfare and about the practices and tools used therein. If you want to take a journey of discovery about the various ways people have killed each other through the ages and how war may be the unifying universal trait of humans everywhere, this book is definitely worth checking out.
January 20, 2025
"Men are killed but the land remains. The land is there on its own right and it does not command people to fight for it."
November 19, 2012
In his "Human: The Science Behind What Makes Us Unique," Michael Gazzaniga states in one innocent enough sentence that prehistoric humans were peaceful. That statement is woven seamlessly into a larger sentence as accepted fact, and is made without qualification or citation. This is an example of what Lawrence Keeley calls a pervasive view over the last half century to pacify the prehistoric past. In this view, only when humans became civilized did they start down the path of war.
Keeley presents extensive circumstantial evidence to support his argument that prehistoric humans were as violent as, or more violent than, modern-day humans. His evidence is systematically presented across several criteria that constitutes violent conflict ("war"). This pacification of the prehistoric past, he believes, is a mythical reconstruction that suits our need and hope for a view of humankind that is different than what is clearly seen in contemporary time and our recent past.
The strongest parts of Keeley's book are his last two chapters where he speculates on the reasons for what he calls this "neo-Rousseauian," view of our past. Keeley writes about the widespread horror of WW II that affected humans everywhere, as compared to the prior hundred plus years where wars were largely fought "elsewhere." Keeley provides other associated reasons too, but our horror of group versus group conflict and inhumane regard for humans is the core concept. Keeley's arguments also constitute a critique on science. Science too often reflects the views of its era, and ignores or re-interprets evidence to suite a preconceived worldview. This helps to explain why much of the writing about evolutionary biology and "primitive man" makes the same claims about our pre-historic ancestors. These writers quote and infect each other. "What saves scientific propositions from being mere intellectual fashions," Keeley writes, "is their ability to withstand testing against critical evidence." No doubt, many dispute Keeley's evidence and his thesis, but Keeley challenges us to think that perhaps a yearned for non-violent past is factually non-existent.
Keeley is careful not to lodge this tendency for group versus group violence in our biology. He writes about the causes of conflict that are dependent upon certain circumstances. In fact, Keeley writes that peaceful times are more common than war times. This is where Keeley perhaps over extends his argument. Actual armed conflict may be relatively brief, but periods of absolute subjugation and post-war traumatic effects may be long. Even if we are not pre-destined for war (and if we ignore the predominant influence of "bad actors" - leaders and societies that are particularly greedy, or ambitious, or otherwise just plain bad), conflicts are biologically based, focused on imperatives such as territory, economic need, sexual access, and social dominance. The prevalence of these internal drivers are such that one group pushes into another group. That group resists in turn, which sets up the cycle of violence. As Will Durant says, our past is the best predictor of our future. This push-pull dynamic seen in our history, and perhaps pre-history, may reflect an even more cosmic, yin-yang, dynamic seen in all organic and inorganic matter.
Keeley presents extensive circumstantial evidence to support his argument that prehistoric humans were as violent as, or more violent than, modern-day humans. His evidence is systematically presented across several criteria that constitutes violent conflict ("war"). This pacification of the prehistoric past, he believes, is a mythical reconstruction that suits our need and hope for a view of humankind that is different than what is clearly seen in contemporary time and our recent past.
The strongest parts of Keeley's book are his last two chapters where he speculates on the reasons for what he calls this "neo-Rousseauian," view of our past. Keeley writes about the widespread horror of WW II that affected humans everywhere, as compared to the prior hundred plus years where wars were largely fought "elsewhere." Keeley provides other associated reasons too, but our horror of group versus group conflict and inhumane regard for humans is the core concept. Keeley's arguments also constitute a critique on science. Science too often reflects the views of its era, and ignores or re-interprets evidence to suite a preconceived worldview. This helps to explain why much of the writing about evolutionary biology and "primitive man" makes the same claims about our pre-historic ancestors. These writers quote and infect each other. "What saves scientific propositions from being mere intellectual fashions," Keeley writes, "is their ability to withstand testing against critical evidence." No doubt, many dispute Keeley's evidence and his thesis, but Keeley challenges us to think that perhaps a yearned for non-violent past is factually non-existent.
Keeley is careful not to lodge this tendency for group versus group violence in our biology. He writes about the causes of conflict that are dependent upon certain circumstances. In fact, Keeley writes that peaceful times are more common than war times. This is where Keeley perhaps over extends his argument. Actual armed conflict may be relatively brief, but periods of absolute subjugation and post-war traumatic effects may be long. Even if we are not pre-destined for war (and if we ignore the predominant influence of "bad actors" - leaders and societies that are particularly greedy, or ambitious, or otherwise just plain bad), conflicts are biologically based, focused on imperatives such as territory, economic need, sexual access, and social dominance. The prevalence of these internal drivers are such that one group pushes into another group. That group resists in turn, which sets up the cycle of violence. As Will Durant says, our past is the best predictor of our future. This push-pull dynamic seen in our history, and perhaps pre-history, may reflect an even more cosmic, yin-yang, dynamic seen in all organic and inorganic matter.
December 25, 2021
A truly excellent presentation of anthropological, historical, and most especially, archaeological data which ought to be required reading in the modern "self-hating" Western societies. While the conclusions herein were no surprise to me from other sources, Keeley has done an outstanding job of condensing data from a wide variety of sources in to one comprehensible volume. Whether one finds the result depressing or uplifting, it is demythologizing -- pretechnological, preliterate, and small-scale societies are not in general more peaceful, more gentle, less destructive, or subject to any other Rousseauian myths of 'noble savagery'. They are people, just as we are, and if we have reduced the average rate of death in warfare (and all evidence is that we have), that is due to the institutions we have evolved for doing so and not to any superiority. Nor are the few examples of peaceful society encouraging for the myth that some kind of cultural homogenization is required; instead they are characterized by a willingness to let the strange practices of the out-group to be practiced "over there" so long as they leave us to do things our way "over here".
Again, nothing new for people who have studied history and prehistory, but anecdote suggests that that describes far too few people.
Again, nothing new for people who have studied history and prehistory, but anecdote suggests that that describes far too few people.
May 17, 2018
What a great book. Although, at the end of the book, he completely contradicts himself by suggesting a one-world-government would somehow bring peace to mankind while spending the majority of the book giving us the panoply of human wickedness; Government styles have never changed a single human heart. However, in spite of that, as well as the naturalistic assumptions about humanity throughout, this book is quite fascinating and well-written. From a Christian perspective, the fact that the Rousseauian-inspired thesis of the peaceful savage is wrong, as deftly shown in this book, should be non-controversial. The Bible begins with the bloodshed of Cain and Able, shows us that at the heart of our fallen humanity is our temptation to warfare and bloodshed. And we've been those fallen people from then till now, so why wouldn't history be marked by continual warfare?
April 12, 2023
War Before Civilization presents an informative read and a compelling argument.
Keeley offers a processual analysis on the frequency of war among prehistoric social groups and the causes of those conflicts using ethnographic and archaeological evidence. If you are interested in processual theory or arguments for the presence of conflict among early humans and modern tribal societies and their neighbors, then this is for you.
Keeley offers a processual analysis on the frequency of war among prehistoric social groups and the causes of those conflicts using ethnographic and archaeological evidence. If you are interested in processual theory or arguments for the presence of conflict among early humans and modern tribal societies and their neighbors, then this is for you.
April 8, 2020
One of my little sisters sent me this book.
It reminds me when P.J. Harvey was asked if she thought her recent album (showing the violent side in man) helped anything toward peace. P.J. responded she came to realize through making it that violence seems a bigger thing in humans now that has a life of it’s own and cannot be stopped anymore.
This was so a long time ago too, this book is right in showing that and showing moderns suppress this heavily from the records.
Do you want to look at it? It’s just minor notes and not the big matter, but ok as a book for that.
Yet there are bigger matters it doesn’t see. It states it’s reasons but doesn’t get too philosophical as I don’t wish to either here much. Yet it’s reasoning behind violence is mostly reductionist, pat. But let us not get too philosophical.
For I would add even today, the more one stake’s one’s life on philosophy the more one sees all is not philosophy at all but a blood meridian of hypnotism and clever levers of violence acting out in people in different ways; and one should have been studying hypnotism all along. For it - more nearly than archaeology as a revealing art shown here - approaches why, in archaic times to now, man has been violent. Yet Platonic Philosophy brings one to see this as an outsider of it and more objectively and makes one a hypnotist among the new faux-Aristotelian polite but inwardly savage if taken seriously. As I always say, who in history do we know was strongly Platonist and also violent? About no one.
The more one is a philosopher the more one becomes a hypnotizer, or rather dehypnotizer from a certain bloody sophistry in the self, a type of hypnotization repeating its violent algorithmic activities among man like physical graffitti, then and now in very non-platonic diatribe.
The real problem this author does not reveal (and why should he? It is not his field and too hard a one anyway for most) is hypnotism is the root of ancient violence in man acting out from his pain as Buddha shows: wrong thinking resulting in his giving back a little hatred now to others through limited outsmarting, sophist, behavior cause others treated them bad.
If he could see the violence in himself as a modern author and academic he could answer his own riddle as to how man could be so violent today and then via this hidden root in him see how his wrong thinking creates such. Does he see this and answer his own riddle in this book?
I will explain clearly, only philosophizing very briefly, how he doesn’t, though he had good facts on violence in the ancient world.
So let me back up a little here to show this first. How does man give back hatred to the world, through truth or deceiving? He does this through sophistry, outsmarting even more than a brute ignorant type hitting, sacrificing others on an alter; such is the real pain: outsmarting, outsmarting is the real perpetuator of violence.
The modern thinks Buddha taught getting rid of wrong thinking is not getting rid of sophistry but getting rid of all sense of “attachment” to cosmic justice and truth in one and toward others rather than a return to it. Such is the queen teaching and problem to all sophistry today and modernity today and not what Buddha taught at all but quite the opposite. He was precluding all types of people all the time. Why, if he was, as the moderns say, just trying to teach people to all accept everyone and get rid of their long held beliefs in a cosmic sense of justice and truth in them; in short, accept people’s tendency to want to outsmart others rather than co-contemplate with them?
Hypnotic sophistry perpetuated on others for the sake of power (for low urge gains and justifications in us) is the main cause of violence repeating on earth from ancient times to now, convincing people out of their good basis in them to the degree they are infected with it; not people’s attachment to a cosmic sense of justice like the modern thinks the ancient wrongly had and so was violent under the delusion of. This is really what Buddha taught as the root problem perpetuating violence, people outsmarting each other in limited thought patterns and self calming, people not seeing this inner psychic violence in them.
It is not the needle going in of the mosquito [ie our sense of higher cosmic justice] that hurts a person scientifically and factually. It is the serum they use so you can’t feel their needle as it goes in that then causes the stinging feeling after it is already injected. This is what really ruins the skin. It is the same with cleverness. We think it is the best way to assuage peacefully ourselves and toward others through use of such but the main thing that hurts a person after is not you ruining their plans and life but the sneaky betrayal part of it, the serum. It is the same within (the serum of self calming to be demolished in one). The serum perpetuates pain and violence. The serum is clever sophistry that we think is the peace. Tolerance=Love=Perfection is the new mantra and faulty addition. Remove wrong thought of such sophistry and cleverness needed in self and in people and the mania and samsaric suffering goes away and only raw Great Nature in pain beneath Cosmic Objective Justice in us is all that is left, which is more manageable and of the heart and gnostic.
The serum is sophistry, unmanageable, outsmarting others, street smarts, something too identified to the senses and samsaric pain and the perpetuator of violence and negative emotions and internal considering and not necessary.
Sophisticated thought flow as we think now today, finally, at last among all, is what has given us our proud higher inner aesthetic goal of “peace” among all us though, we all as intuitive moderns no longer savage (sic) have mostly achieved this in our new happy, successful technocratic dream wisdom so sophisticated. No, this is not so. It is more anesthetic hypnotism and mere sophistry, empty smoke. We have become less truthful, less red pill the more sophisticate. It is the serum that keeps one from seeing the needle and the pain of it’s deception will be felt in later time and is now.
Such cleverness, dogmatic focus on practical material resources outside of spiritual context, down to only bettering such in a technocracy at the expense of the rest of man’s other bigger inner goals (being academically and systematically waylaid today such as being in harmony with and not tampering with dna), is the perennial problem actually per the Hopi and all Ancient Cultures and always the main violence perpetuator (materiolatry, reductionism is where the lower will to power lays and those who want such more than want to be spiritual are creating this problem).
Those who seek after mastery of such only increase violence; from the sophist hypnotizing minds of the “the best of us” (sic) deemed most peaceful sage among us of the sacrificers standing atop the ancient alters; to modern alters of sacrifice that the most clever technocrat officials now stand atop today sacrificing all the lemmings upon in their wrong thinking and practices; it goes on, different flavor, same stuff.
Such is bigger than ancient blood religions traces in people, for it is the new and ever ancient perennial blood religion itself then and now that was always actually against all the Ancient Cultures Great Spirit Ways.
It is something today to unhypnotize oneself from the happy facade of the religion of new modern sophistry aimed to deconstruct all into the vacuum of nothingness and materially productive ants and that was at the core of the smiling bloody savage pagan of the more Aventine and not Palatine, more Chichen Izae not Toltec, more Sarmatian not Samarian, more aristophanes and not Socrates, more merchant mercenary types in the calm, cold, bloody, also sophisticated, wrong ancient world of the past obsessive, wrong, over focus, on matter, materiolotry (and here today under different guise). Such were the foul priests then and now always opposing the *real* ancient world.
This author does not see this at all. He “is” it partly as a continuing being of ever new formation never seeing himself a mere product of his different flavored same stuff times and so is bewildered by his own facts for he feels no remorse yet from violence in him truly or transcendence yet from it as one should upon seeing it. He is vaguely proud of it and resigned to it as are near all askew moderns, self calmingly smiling at it perpetuated by it’s sophist priests.
The more bloody priests in ancient day were all materiolotor sophist technocrats like the moderns and not perennialists of an ancient many dimensional Way of wholeness, not Platonist. Now you see the philosophy this author doesn’t behind all? They just wanted crops and fertility and to appease their inner clever war gods (violent urges) and were masters rather of more lower realms of power and deconstructivist sacrificing (and so, all at each others throats).
They were just like the modern who tries to convince us in his classrooms that all pagans were like that long ago and goes to no end saying that and discounting the transcendental and Platonist and more non unidimensional Gnostics and Pagans, the former promoting rather their own half ever destroying all cosmic spirit culture then and now.
The modern sophist one must thoroughly be unhypnotized from to escape such predilections and recreations in one’s good being is this then. It is more a question of inner violence unexamined in people going on that makes them clever, evangelically passing along such hatred back to the world, then and now, and going along with mere technocrats priesting their lives whom they mimmick. But he who is clever is a fool. Yet this is not seen as you are not anymore allowed to hold to the good honest being about yourself much today - lest people come and try to lay the dirt on you as rather the fool.
Most are flying around now today as in the 1700’s with coiffed cuffs and guillotines and smiles, it is just in the air again, and no there have been different aires before among man too above these long standing algorithms, times where almost no man was as such for very long periods. This author does not see that either and that is a key to this review. But today is not one of those peace periods as the lemmings think of today, of themselves.
This is also missed by this book though and is a key missed, the 1776 interludes when things did truly return to peace briefly after (and long ages ago when they did for vast periods of time and essence prevailed over mere personalism). This author can’t come to see this half of reality that sometimes rises unalloyed beyond belief among the skeptical unwashed masses. Revolution is the only peace that surpasses all understanding for the Primordialist.
When Neil Young was asked if he idealized too much the Aztec in his song Cortez, given the new finds on their (non toltec only chichen itzae snake kings but this is forgotten) “bloody sacrifices”; he said both were true but in a certain way. He was correct. There were unfathomably long ages of peace among the Toltecs, not so among the Chichen Itzae Snake Kings who came in among them and all this is thoroughly documented in their ancient records.
Reading Christian writers of the 300’s AD they praise Christianity for having brought bloody ancient pagan sacrifice of humans down to an end worldwide, the clever leveragers were thwarted, the old hunger games technocracy baffled (which rises again in our times does it not in the fine young cannibals?).
But it didn’t do this except briefly, then Christianity was reversed into it’s enemies militant worldview by Gallerius’s bedfellow, as Con. was called and was. But that is not the point. The point is people in the 300’s a long time ago also were aware of the ancient world being completely bloody and so they confirm as witnesses the anthropological accuracy of this book.
But they are right too something stopped for awhile when Christ did his number. And this book doesn’t see this side of things, both sides ongoing. That is the problem with it. What sides ongoing? You need to really see them and he doesn’t.
The cycle waves are not seen properly by man now to assess his own violence in him and unecessary sophistry that gives rise to such.
There are two counterpoised rhythms going on among man at once. Chomsky is right both grow alongside of each other at once. Christ was right of the wheat and the tares becoming more clear in times till they reach a head. This is more truly how man works upon the land algorithmically until he wakes up sometimes and all is seen clear and not just one side or another or a fuddled mix denying there is one or other like today.
Man has been bloody for a long time. There have been times we were filled with peace for long ages forgotten worldwide too though per Emperor Julian - who, when chiding the Alexandrians, said they forgot their ancient link to a forgotten Palatine Romanism and Minervan Ellenism (then he was shot with an arrow).
And a few centuries later the roman pagan Zosimus said Christians were now killing each other in the streets over the slightest differences, something he said ancient pagans (of course the Palatines not the Aventines) would never descend to. And he was right. But who now knows this? It goes on in different ways on it’s own, the sophistry hypnotism that defeats Primordialism over and over.
But sometimes Primordial Platonic Peace surpasses among man for long ages now forgotten by moderns, the bridgemen come.
And people are sort of proud of this violent quality in them today and amnesia and sort of indifferent about that in them at once, both in spoiled flavors as a practiced cleverness that emanates from such putridness as exemplified in this authors tone a bit (he's not bad really compared to some) and most modern academics and by the count of Monte Christo’s friend who, after framing him, kept stabbing him reaching for the window.
When “the count” asked why his friend did this he simply said: “it’s complicated”
It’s complicated. Now you see what Buddha was getting at as the root to violence being this type of wrong thinking: outsmarting. Yes, maybe that darling psychological feature in man, that slight complication and 6 other minor things beneath such sophistry outsmarting for sake of outsmarting, are what keeps all such going precisely; but one cannot address this matter of distinction between lower ego in people and their better more unseen nature or there are repercussions, one cannot stop such from taking over by exposing it - well nor by hiding from it.
Yet it goes on and the wheat and tares interweave in it’s dark violence perpetuation till sometimes both become really clear beyond man’s hiding or exposing.
But it is going on and till clear we have those proud to push their active agnostica, anti-gnostic “it’s complicated” as true gnosticism and the author of this book here falls under such hidden proudness and indifference to violence too (and it’s sophisticate origins). These are qualities unbecoming of Spirit Culture taught among the great Ancient 11 Cultures globally but quite at home among the fully Aventine-like modern psyche sophisticates, unfortunately, who praise their faux peace and have violence beneath their facade ever toward all daily.
This must be thoroughly defeated in one and can only be done through either non-feigned remorse or virile attachment to the transcendent, not by mama nature and or new technocrat sophists so delighted and identified with low power talk and the deconstruction of all Spirit Culture (to be replaced by a fast moving physical exonomy defined as “new spirit culture”).
It cannot be stopped merely by seeing it's record as we do in this book, though that is a better less amnesiac start. It would be well to get past even the deconstructivists and find sacred primordial perennialism again if we wish to get past their outsmarting ever causing violence and removal in us from our more honest spiritual commonality with each other that is essence and not mere persona.
Till then we must agree with this author that many are the violent times long ago and now; and with P.J. that they will continue to be.
https://youtu.be/3spgKgoElaE
For the author did a good job - materially but not *essentially* - in showing it’s long roots. Deception - not our common connection to primordial justice - is at the basis of all violence and is it’s root. As the Elder Edda states: better to fight against another than engage in swirling staves (practicing outsmarting one another it goes on to say this means...outsmarting...as if this were real psychological evolution of survival of the fittest when no such is precisely man’s psychological devolution from our once Primordial Ideal angelic state to practice such and behave in such way dishonestly toward other humans).
It reminds me when P.J. Harvey was asked if she thought her recent album (showing the violent side in man) helped anything toward peace. P.J. responded she came to realize through making it that violence seems a bigger thing in humans now that has a life of it’s own and cannot be stopped anymore.
This was so a long time ago too, this book is right in showing that and showing moderns suppress this heavily from the records.
Do you want to look at it? It’s just minor notes and not the big matter, but ok as a book for that.
Yet there are bigger matters it doesn’t see. It states it’s reasons but doesn’t get too philosophical as I don’t wish to either here much. Yet it’s reasoning behind violence is mostly reductionist, pat. But let us not get too philosophical.
For I would add even today, the more one stake’s one’s life on philosophy the more one sees all is not philosophy at all but a blood meridian of hypnotism and clever levers of violence acting out in people in different ways; and one should have been studying hypnotism all along. For it - more nearly than archaeology as a revealing art shown here - approaches why, in archaic times to now, man has been violent. Yet Platonic Philosophy brings one to see this as an outsider of it and more objectively and makes one a hypnotist among the new faux-Aristotelian polite but inwardly savage if taken seriously. As I always say, who in history do we know was strongly Platonist and also violent? About no one.
The more one is a philosopher the more one becomes a hypnotizer, or rather dehypnotizer from a certain bloody sophistry in the self, a type of hypnotization repeating its violent algorithmic activities among man like physical graffitti, then and now in very non-platonic diatribe.
The real problem this author does not reveal (and why should he? It is not his field and too hard a one anyway for most) is hypnotism is the root of ancient violence in man acting out from his pain as Buddha shows: wrong thinking resulting in his giving back a little hatred now to others through limited outsmarting, sophist, behavior cause others treated them bad.
If he could see the violence in himself as a modern author and academic he could answer his own riddle as to how man could be so violent today and then via this hidden root in him see how his wrong thinking creates such. Does he see this and answer his own riddle in this book?
I will explain clearly, only philosophizing very briefly, how he doesn’t, though he had good facts on violence in the ancient world.
So let me back up a little here to show this first. How does man give back hatred to the world, through truth or deceiving? He does this through sophistry, outsmarting even more than a brute ignorant type hitting, sacrificing others on an alter; such is the real pain: outsmarting, outsmarting is the real perpetuator of violence.
The modern thinks Buddha taught getting rid of wrong thinking is not getting rid of sophistry but getting rid of all sense of “attachment” to cosmic justice and truth in one and toward others rather than a return to it. Such is the queen teaching and problem to all sophistry today and modernity today and not what Buddha taught at all but quite the opposite. He was precluding all types of people all the time. Why, if he was, as the moderns say, just trying to teach people to all accept everyone and get rid of their long held beliefs in a cosmic sense of justice and truth in them; in short, accept people’s tendency to want to outsmart others rather than co-contemplate with them?
Hypnotic sophistry perpetuated on others for the sake of power (for low urge gains and justifications in us) is the main cause of violence repeating on earth from ancient times to now, convincing people out of their good basis in them to the degree they are infected with it; not people’s attachment to a cosmic sense of justice like the modern thinks the ancient wrongly had and so was violent under the delusion of. This is really what Buddha taught as the root problem perpetuating violence, people outsmarting each other in limited thought patterns and self calming, people not seeing this inner psychic violence in them.
It is not the needle going in of the mosquito [ie our sense of higher cosmic justice] that hurts a person scientifically and factually. It is the serum they use so you can’t feel their needle as it goes in that then causes the stinging feeling after it is already injected. This is what really ruins the skin. It is the same with cleverness. We think it is the best way to assuage peacefully ourselves and toward others through use of such but the main thing that hurts a person after is not you ruining their plans and life but the sneaky betrayal part of it, the serum. It is the same within (the serum of self calming to be demolished in one). The serum perpetuates pain and violence. The serum is clever sophistry that we think is the peace. Tolerance=Love=Perfection is the new mantra and faulty addition. Remove wrong thought of such sophistry and cleverness needed in self and in people and the mania and samsaric suffering goes away and only raw Great Nature in pain beneath Cosmic Objective Justice in us is all that is left, which is more manageable and of the heart and gnostic.
The serum is sophistry, unmanageable, outsmarting others, street smarts, something too identified to the senses and samsaric pain and the perpetuator of violence and negative emotions and internal considering and not necessary.
Sophisticated thought flow as we think now today, finally, at last among all, is what has given us our proud higher inner aesthetic goal of “peace” among all us though, we all as intuitive moderns no longer savage (sic) have mostly achieved this in our new happy, successful technocratic dream wisdom so sophisticated. No, this is not so. It is more anesthetic hypnotism and mere sophistry, empty smoke. We have become less truthful, less red pill the more sophisticate. It is the serum that keeps one from seeing the needle and the pain of it’s deception will be felt in later time and is now.
Such cleverness, dogmatic focus on practical material resources outside of spiritual context, down to only bettering such in a technocracy at the expense of the rest of man’s other bigger inner goals (being academically and systematically waylaid today such as being in harmony with and not tampering with dna), is the perennial problem actually per the Hopi and all Ancient Cultures and always the main violence perpetuator (materiolatry, reductionism is where the lower will to power lays and those who want such more than want to be spiritual are creating this problem).
Those who seek after mastery of such only increase violence; from the sophist hypnotizing minds of the “the best of us” (sic) deemed most peaceful sage among us of the sacrificers standing atop the ancient alters; to modern alters of sacrifice that the most clever technocrat officials now stand atop today sacrificing all the lemmings upon in their wrong thinking and practices; it goes on, different flavor, same stuff.
Such is bigger than ancient blood religions traces in people, for it is the new and ever ancient perennial blood religion itself then and now that was always actually against all the Ancient Cultures Great Spirit Ways.
It is something today to unhypnotize oneself from the happy facade of the religion of new modern sophistry aimed to deconstruct all into the vacuum of nothingness and materially productive ants and that was at the core of the smiling bloody savage pagan of the more Aventine and not Palatine, more Chichen Izae not Toltec, more Sarmatian not Samarian, more aristophanes and not Socrates, more merchant mercenary types in the calm, cold, bloody, also sophisticated, wrong ancient world of the past obsessive, wrong, over focus, on matter, materiolotry (and here today under different guise). Such were the foul priests then and now always opposing the *real* ancient world.
This author does not see this at all. He “is” it partly as a continuing being of ever new formation never seeing himself a mere product of his different flavored same stuff times and so is bewildered by his own facts for he feels no remorse yet from violence in him truly or transcendence yet from it as one should upon seeing it. He is vaguely proud of it and resigned to it as are near all askew moderns, self calmingly smiling at it perpetuated by it’s sophist priests.
The more bloody priests in ancient day were all materiolotor sophist technocrats like the moderns and not perennialists of an ancient many dimensional Way of wholeness, not Platonist. Now you see the philosophy this author doesn’t behind all? They just wanted crops and fertility and to appease their inner clever war gods (violent urges) and were masters rather of more lower realms of power and deconstructivist sacrificing (and so, all at each others throats).
They were just like the modern who tries to convince us in his classrooms that all pagans were like that long ago and goes to no end saying that and discounting the transcendental and Platonist and more non unidimensional Gnostics and Pagans, the former promoting rather their own half ever destroying all cosmic spirit culture then and now.
The modern sophist one must thoroughly be unhypnotized from to escape such predilections and recreations in one’s good being is this then. It is more a question of inner violence unexamined in people going on that makes them clever, evangelically passing along such hatred back to the world, then and now, and going along with mere technocrats priesting their lives whom they mimmick. But he who is clever is a fool. Yet this is not seen as you are not anymore allowed to hold to the good honest being about yourself much today - lest people come and try to lay the dirt on you as rather the fool.
Most are flying around now today as in the 1700’s with coiffed cuffs and guillotines and smiles, it is just in the air again, and no there have been different aires before among man too above these long standing algorithms, times where almost no man was as such for very long periods. This author does not see that either and that is a key to this review. But today is not one of those peace periods as the lemmings think of today, of themselves.
This is also missed by this book though and is a key missed, the 1776 interludes when things did truly return to peace briefly after (and long ages ago when they did for vast periods of time and essence prevailed over mere personalism). This author can’t come to see this half of reality that sometimes rises unalloyed beyond belief among the skeptical unwashed masses. Revolution is the only peace that surpasses all understanding for the Primordialist.
When Neil Young was asked if he idealized too much the Aztec in his song Cortez, given the new finds on their (non toltec only chichen itzae snake kings but this is forgotten) “bloody sacrifices”; he said both were true but in a certain way. He was correct. There were unfathomably long ages of peace among the Toltecs, not so among the Chichen Itzae Snake Kings who came in among them and all this is thoroughly documented in their ancient records.
Reading Christian writers of the 300’s AD they praise Christianity for having brought bloody ancient pagan sacrifice of humans down to an end worldwide, the clever leveragers were thwarted, the old hunger games technocracy baffled (which rises again in our times does it not in the fine young cannibals?).
But it didn’t do this except briefly, then Christianity was reversed into it’s enemies militant worldview by Gallerius’s bedfellow, as Con. was called and was. But that is not the point. The point is people in the 300’s a long time ago also were aware of the ancient world being completely bloody and so they confirm as witnesses the anthropological accuracy of this book.
But they are right too something stopped for awhile when Christ did his number. And this book doesn’t see this side of things, both sides ongoing. That is the problem with it. What sides ongoing? You need to really see them and he doesn’t.
The cycle waves are not seen properly by man now to assess his own violence in him and unecessary sophistry that gives rise to such.
There are two counterpoised rhythms going on among man at once. Chomsky is right both grow alongside of each other at once. Christ was right of the wheat and the tares becoming more clear in times till they reach a head. This is more truly how man works upon the land algorithmically until he wakes up sometimes and all is seen clear and not just one side or another or a fuddled mix denying there is one or other like today.
Man has been bloody for a long time. There have been times we were filled with peace for long ages forgotten worldwide too though per Emperor Julian - who, when chiding the Alexandrians, said they forgot their ancient link to a forgotten Palatine Romanism and Minervan Ellenism (then he was shot with an arrow).
And a few centuries later the roman pagan Zosimus said Christians were now killing each other in the streets over the slightest differences, something he said ancient pagans (of course the Palatines not the Aventines) would never descend to. And he was right. But who now knows this? It goes on in different ways on it’s own, the sophistry hypnotism that defeats Primordialism over and over.
But sometimes Primordial Platonic Peace surpasses among man for long ages now forgotten by moderns, the bridgemen come.
And people are sort of proud of this violent quality in them today and amnesia and sort of indifferent about that in them at once, both in spoiled flavors as a practiced cleverness that emanates from such putridness as exemplified in this authors tone a bit (he's not bad really compared to some) and most modern academics and by the count of Monte Christo’s friend who, after framing him, kept stabbing him reaching for the window.
When “the count” asked why his friend did this he simply said: “it’s complicated”
It’s complicated. Now you see what Buddha was getting at as the root to violence being this type of wrong thinking: outsmarting. Yes, maybe that darling psychological feature in man, that slight complication and 6 other minor things beneath such sophistry outsmarting for sake of outsmarting, are what keeps all such going precisely; but one cannot address this matter of distinction between lower ego in people and their better more unseen nature or there are repercussions, one cannot stop such from taking over by exposing it - well nor by hiding from it.
Yet it goes on and the wheat and tares interweave in it’s dark violence perpetuation till sometimes both become really clear beyond man’s hiding or exposing.
But it is going on and till clear we have those proud to push their active agnostica, anti-gnostic “it’s complicated” as true gnosticism and the author of this book here falls under such hidden proudness and indifference to violence too (and it’s sophisticate origins). These are qualities unbecoming of Spirit Culture taught among the great Ancient 11 Cultures globally but quite at home among the fully Aventine-like modern psyche sophisticates, unfortunately, who praise their faux peace and have violence beneath their facade ever toward all daily.
This must be thoroughly defeated in one and can only be done through either non-feigned remorse or virile attachment to the transcendent, not by mama nature and or new technocrat sophists so delighted and identified with low power talk and the deconstruction of all Spirit Culture (to be replaced by a fast moving physical exonomy defined as “new spirit culture”).
It cannot be stopped merely by seeing it's record as we do in this book, though that is a better less amnesiac start. It would be well to get past even the deconstructivists and find sacred primordial perennialism again if we wish to get past their outsmarting ever causing violence and removal in us from our more honest spiritual commonality with each other that is essence and not mere persona.
Till then we must agree with this author that many are the violent times long ago and now; and with P.J. that they will continue to be.
https://youtu.be/3spgKgoElaE
For the author did a good job - materially but not *essentially* - in showing it’s long roots. Deception - not our common connection to primordial justice - is at the basis of all violence and is it’s root. As the Elder Edda states: better to fight against another than engage in swirling staves (practicing outsmarting one another it goes on to say this means...outsmarting...as if this were real psychological evolution of survival of the fittest when no such is precisely man’s psychological devolution from our once Primordial Ideal angelic state to practice such and behave in such way dishonestly toward other humans).
July 1, 2025
"Most of the evils attributed to civilization and progress... are found concentrated in the conduct and effects of war. Therefore, in a neo-Rousseauian world view, war itself constitutes one of the principal products of Western progress, and the precivilized condition and the non-Western world before European expansion must have been idyllic and peaceful. As ever, when faith in the myth of progress declines, the myth of the golden age finds new adherents."
September 23, 2024
Pretty interesting book overall. Based on the fact that Stephen Pinker cites this book, I get the impression it was only selectively read to present a haphazard defense of neoliberal capitalism (which counts among the systems that can potentially create violence, as Keeley notes in his analysis on potential causes of armed conflict).
July 2, 2025
A review will come
March 23, 2017
This book is intended to correct the misconception among anthropologists as well as laypeople that prehistoric communities did not wage war, or if they did, it was inconsequential and limited to ceremonial displays that did not result in widespread casualties. Keeley argues that prehistoric warfare was deadly, and tremendously consequential to the parties involved, with the losing side often wiped out of existence or deprived of territory.
At issue is the old conflict between the Hobbsian vision of a state of nature in which each person is in arms against all others in the absence of a sovereign who can impose order, and Rousseau's diametrically opposite vision of a noble savage at peace in nature and moved to violence only when constrained by the artificial bounds of society. During colonial times, anthropologists embraced the Hobbsian vision since it gave legitimacy to a superior European colonial power imposing order on otherwise unruly and violent black and brown peoples. But in the years since then, the pendulum has swung to the opposite extreme, with anthropologists counterpoising the brutality of European world wars and nuclear confrontations against the supposed pacifism of primitive peoples.
Keeley argues that neither vision is fully true. If a constant state of war did not exist in primitive society, neither was it always peaceful. Prehistoric societies were much like ours, often coexisting peacefully but equally frequently resorting to war. The anthropologists' bias towards the peaceful savage emerges because they are, due to their experience of Western modes of war, primed to look for large-scale armed confrontations between standing armies. But this is not the predominant form of warfare in primitive societies. Primitive societies do not have the wherewithal to field or equip large standing armies. Instead, the predominant form of warfare in primitive societies is the ambush or the raid -- an attack by a small number of warriors against a preferably outnumbered, unguarded or unwary enemy. Though the loss of life in each confrontation is not significant, raid and counter-raid over time result in tremendous attrition to both sides.
Primitive war results in casualty figures comparable to modern warfare - and not just among combatants, but among civilians as well. Defeat is also of tremendous consequence, with the losing side sometimes summarily executed or exiled, and only women of breeding age and young children left alive to be assimilated into the winner's ethnic group. Keeley argues that it is on the contrary modern warfare that is more sparing of life: since modern victors can enrich themselves from the tax revenues and labor force of new territories, the goal of armies is to protect the civilian infrastructure and populations as much as possible while defeating the armed combatants. But primitive societies do not have the administrative machinery to tax or coerce labor from a defeated enemy. Hence the reasonable course of action is to exterminate or exile the defeated enemy and take over their land.
Keeley also challenges the notion that primitive warriors cannot fight against modern armies. He cites numerous examples of primitive societies successfully resisting modern armies in individual battles. In fact, modern armies have often failed against enemies that have fought the primitive way with guerrilla tactics. Only by adopting "primitive" techniques of ambush and destruction of crops and water sources have modern armies defeated their primitive enemies. But if the outcome of individual battles is uncertain, that of longer campaigns is invariably in favor of the more "civilized" side. Keeley argues that this success comes from neither superior weaponry or tactics - it is, he says, a consequence of more robust supply chains. Primitive societies living close to the edge of survival have no chance against modern armies in the long run.
On the matter of what causes war, Keeley is equally iconoclastic. Challenging the view that societies that trade do not fight, Keeley points to the evidence that most primitive (and modern) wars take place between societies that have close trading relations or have regular marital exchanges. This is natural, according to Keeley, since it is proximity that enables societies to trade and intermarry, but also develops the frictions that lead to war. It is not uncommon for tribal warriors to spot close kin on the other side -- and even in modern times, the close kinship between European monarchies in WW I was no impediment to conflict, and indeed family jealousies might have catalyzed hostilities.
At the end of this fine book, Keeley feels obligated to dispel some of the pessimism engendered by his vision of unavoidable war by recommending some actions to avoid conflict and build peace. Considering the clarity of the earlier analysis of the causes and consequences of primitive war, this last chapters seems to be somewhat of a commonplace afterthought. Otherwise, it is a fine and bold book.
At issue is the old conflict between the Hobbsian vision of a state of nature in which each person is in arms against all others in the absence of a sovereign who can impose order, and Rousseau's diametrically opposite vision of a noble savage at peace in nature and moved to violence only when constrained by the artificial bounds of society. During colonial times, anthropologists embraced the Hobbsian vision since it gave legitimacy to a superior European colonial power imposing order on otherwise unruly and violent black and brown peoples. But in the years since then, the pendulum has swung to the opposite extreme, with anthropologists counterpoising the brutality of European world wars and nuclear confrontations against the supposed pacifism of primitive peoples.
Keeley argues that neither vision is fully true. If a constant state of war did not exist in primitive society, neither was it always peaceful. Prehistoric societies were much like ours, often coexisting peacefully but equally frequently resorting to war. The anthropologists' bias towards the peaceful savage emerges because they are, due to their experience of Western modes of war, primed to look for large-scale armed confrontations between standing armies. But this is not the predominant form of warfare in primitive societies. Primitive societies do not have the wherewithal to field or equip large standing armies. Instead, the predominant form of warfare in primitive societies is the ambush or the raid -- an attack by a small number of warriors against a preferably outnumbered, unguarded or unwary enemy. Though the loss of life in each confrontation is not significant, raid and counter-raid over time result in tremendous attrition to both sides.
Primitive war results in casualty figures comparable to modern warfare - and not just among combatants, but among civilians as well. Defeat is also of tremendous consequence, with the losing side sometimes summarily executed or exiled, and only women of breeding age and young children left alive to be assimilated into the winner's ethnic group. Keeley argues that it is on the contrary modern warfare that is more sparing of life: since modern victors can enrich themselves from the tax revenues and labor force of new territories, the goal of armies is to protect the civilian infrastructure and populations as much as possible while defeating the armed combatants. But primitive societies do not have the administrative machinery to tax or coerce labor from a defeated enemy. Hence the reasonable course of action is to exterminate or exile the defeated enemy and take over their land.
Keeley also challenges the notion that primitive warriors cannot fight against modern armies. He cites numerous examples of primitive societies successfully resisting modern armies in individual battles. In fact, modern armies have often failed against enemies that have fought the primitive way with guerrilla tactics. Only by adopting "primitive" techniques of ambush and destruction of crops and water sources have modern armies defeated their primitive enemies. But if the outcome of individual battles is uncertain, that of longer campaigns is invariably in favor of the more "civilized" side. Keeley argues that this success comes from neither superior weaponry or tactics - it is, he says, a consequence of more robust supply chains. Primitive societies living close to the edge of survival have no chance against modern armies in the long run.
On the matter of what causes war, Keeley is equally iconoclastic. Challenging the view that societies that trade do not fight, Keeley points to the evidence that most primitive (and modern) wars take place between societies that have close trading relations or have regular marital exchanges. This is natural, according to Keeley, since it is proximity that enables societies to trade and intermarry, but also develops the frictions that lead to war. It is not uncommon for tribal warriors to spot close kin on the other side -- and even in modern times, the close kinship between European monarchies in WW I was no impediment to conflict, and indeed family jealousies might have catalyzed hostilities.
At the end of this fine book, Keeley feels obligated to dispel some of the pessimism engendered by his vision of unavoidable war by recommending some actions to avoid conflict and build peace. Considering the clarity of the earlier analysis of the causes and consequences of primitive war, this last chapters seems to be somewhat of a commonplace afterthought. Otherwise, it is a fine and bold book.
July 14, 2025
Stars: 3
This is an interesting and probably important book that tackles the lies our culture has told about the "peaceful savage" of the past. This book does a pretty good job putting that idea to bed. The complaint an average reader will have is that the book is very academic. Some of the chapters are pretty dry, but the last couple are very good. Keeley is best when he analyzes why our culture has sought after and accepted the lie of the noble savage.
The areas I thought Keeley was wrong or when I felt he was making very poor arguments (even when I sometimes agreed with his point) did get on my nerves.
There are times when Keeley makes poor arguments or distinctions I find very strange.
- "The general claim that the difference between civilized and primitive warfare is analogous to that between serious business and a game is invariably bolstered by the observation that civilized soldiers can always defeat primitive warriors. But while it is true that European civilization has steadily and dramatically extended itself to the utmost parts of the earth during the past four centuries, it is by no means clear that this expansion is a consequence of superior weaponry, unit discipline, and military science. But they have seldom lost campaigns or wars." I don't accept the premise that campaigns and wars aren't an extension of the previous list. He's basically saying, "yeah, the civilized warriors won pretty much every single campaign and war, but they lost some battles so we can't say they were better at war." And Keeley regularly discounts the fact that very often the civilized side has supply lines that span the globe. The civilized side starts off with a strong disadvantage because reinforcements and key supplies could be on the other side of the world. Keeley will give examples when civilized nations failed at conquest in wars that crossed oceans and say something like, "this provides no support that civilized people possessed inherent military superiority." I'd say it does in large part because these wars are happening in the homelands of the primitive people and not the civilized ones. Maybe the British would decide it's not worth continuing a war with the Zulu because they have bigger fish to fry elsewhere or the juice isn't worth the squeeze. But it would be laughable to think about the Zulu conquering London. Then Keeley will write something like, "..when civilized soldiers have been caught in the open by superior numbers of primitive warriors, they often have been defeated..." So now it's not enough just to beat the primitive side, you have to beat them when you are outnumbered. It'd be like if the US sent 30 Delta Force guys up against 3000 Libyans. We would lose that battle, but would anyone think that this meant that the Libyans are better warriors or are superior militarily?
Keeley often makes comments about how many times primitive strategy is actually better than civilized strategy. I largely felt this was unsubstantiated. He'll often back it up with an example of a civilized general making a stupid decision, and that is evidence that the primitives were actually more tactically sound. I don't think generals sometimes making poor decisions is good evidence that primitives in general were better tacticians. He also gives too much credit to their tactics when it is most often just the tactics of a weaker force. Even in civilized warfare, the weaker force most often will avoid direct conflict and will wage more of a guerilla war. But he acts like civilized tacticians weren't aware of this. He was somewhat justified in pointing out that some civilized war parties struggled against guerilla warfare until they adopted similar strategies, but this was more stubbornness lack of creativity in their leadership than a lack of tactics.
"To a great extent, the superior transportation and agricultural technology of Europe and its efficient economic and logistic methods made possible its triumph over the primitive world, not its customary military techniques and advanced weapons." It is true that European powers had tremendous economic and logistic advantages (I still don't accept logistical abilities are not a part of warfare), but I think it's silly to argue that the advanced weapons wouldn't easily overwhelm a nation using bow and arrows (all else being equal). If France and Germany went to war, and France had modern technology, the wheel, locomotives, and guns while Germany had horses and bows, Germany would be absolutely destroyed. There would be a time when guerilla warfare could be punishing, but the outcome would be inevitable as long as France kept their resolve.
"In general, the Roman legions performed much better against civilized opponents who 'fought fair' than against the more barbarous tribesmen and provincial guerrillas who did not." This is another example of Keeley just ignoring a military reality. If I am Rome and I have elite fighting units, then yes, obviously, I want to go head to head in battles because I have an advantage. It will obviously be harder for me to subject opponents who avoid battles that give me a clear advantage.
"In other words, where Europeans were deprived of their biological advantages, their supposed military superiority was useless...the claim that the superior tactics and military discipline of Europeans gain them dominion over primitives in the Americas, Oceania, and Siberia is so inflated that it would be comic were not the facts that contradict it so tragic." Another example of Keeley ignoring that the Europeans had to travel the world to fight these battles. He just never accepts that having to travel by ship thousands of miles to fight the battle put the Europeans at an incredibly steep starting disadvantage.
This one was laughable. Keeley claims that primitive warriors were often quicker to appreciate the military potential of items that the civilized people invented. His example is absurd. He says some New Guinea tribesmen got introduced to an airplane, and within 15 minutes wanted to go drop a rock on someone's head. The civilized military leaders initially only used airplanes for recon. Two things: 1. How in the world is Keeley discounted the military value of good intelligence? How is an airplane only of military value if you are dropping literal rocks from it? This was so dumb. 2. I'd imagine dropping a rock on a civilized power would be far more dangerous since they have guns to shoot you with instead of bows and arrows. When airplanes were new and probably in high demand, you'd prefer to utilize them in a way that gained you the biggest advantage (recon) while keeping your losses to a minimum (not flying low dropping bombs on people who can shoot back).
I guess my main complaint is that he gifts the military tactics of a guerilla war to the primitives when I think that is just the sound military tactic of the weaker army. It isn't particularly primitive. It's just that the primitives were almost always weaker.
Keeley has some really bad comparisons here: "Is there any behavioral difference between Caesar's extermination of the Bituriges at Bourges, the slaughter of Minnesota settlers by the Sioux in 1862, the massacres of the US Army at Wounded Knee and My Lai, the Allied air strikes at Dresden and Hiroshima, the massacres committed by Japanese soldiers in Nanking and Manila...except body counts and the assignment of our sympathies with the perpetrators or the victims?" I always get annoyed when people purposefully refuse to acknowledge the difference between troops of a nation committing an atrocity and troops of a nation committing an atrocity with the approval and support of that nation. My Lai is a good example. US troops slaughter Vietnamese villagers in vicious fashion. But that was not sanctioned or planned by the military, it was something the troops did on their own. The worst you could say about the US military in this instance was that the perpetrators weren't really punished. It is pure insanity to compare something like My Lai to Nanking. Go read the Rape of Nanking, and get back to me on your opinion of the two. Nanking was My Lai on a tremendously larger scale with far more government approval. My Lai was a small group of troops murdering in a jungle without oversight. Nanking was the coordinated torture and murder of almost 200,000 Chinese civilians. It is just laughable to place them in the same sentence. The examples of Dresden and Hiroshima (he could've added Tokyo and Nagasaki), are more interesting, but still not very compelling. They are great examples of the horrors of war, but it was more macabre arithmetic than atrocity. A huge percentage of the Japanese would have likely fought to the death. Maybe you'd feel virtuous not bombing the cities, but I'm not convinced you have the moral high ground if far more civilians die in your plan. Again, I have a major problem comparing these acts of war to the barbarism of Nanking.
Great line: "As cynics often observed in the United States during the 19th century, the nobility of savages was directly proportional to one's geographic distance from them." A modern example would be how the people pushing hardest to not punish criminals and keep them out of jail are those who are rich enough to rarely deal with the consequences of these policies.
Oh good Lord, this line again. "It should be clear from this book that this Western 'discovery' is comparable to the European discovery of the Far East, Africa, or the Americas. The East Asians, sub-Saharan Africans, and Native Americans always knew where they were; it was the Europeans who were confused or ignorant." I can't convey how stupid this argument is, and my opinion drops drastically of anyone who makes it. Did John Dalton discover the atom? Of course not you moron. The atom was always there. John Dalton and us stupid humans were just ignorant of it. Why should the tribes of America get credit for "knowing where they were" when they had no concept of where they were. Why are Europeans travelling the globe "ignorant" but the Indians aren't while they still haven't discovered the wheel or written language? This is a good example of bias from Keeley similar to what his entire book is fighting against. If I discovered alien life, the headlines would exclaim that I discovered aliens. They wouldn't say I was the first human to look through my telescope and see aliens existing where they always knew where they were. Nobody would hesitate to describe a newly discovered Amazonian tribe as newly discovered. And nobody would come back with "Oh, did that tribe not already know they existed." (Other than sarcastically).
This is an interesting and probably important book that tackles the lies our culture has told about the "peaceful savage" of the past. This book does a pretty good job putting that idea to bed. The complaint an average reader will have is that the book is very academic. Some of the chapters are pretty dry, but the last couple are very good. Keeley is best when he analyzes why our culture has sought after and accepted the lie of the noble savage.
The areas I thought Keeley was wrong or when I felt he was making very poor arguments (even when I sometimes agreed with his point) did get on my nerves.
There are times when Keeley makes poor arguments or distinctions I find very strange.
- "The general claim that the difference between civilized and primitive warfare is analogous to that between serious business and a game is invariably bolstered by the observation that civilized soldiers can always defeat primitive warriors. But while it is true that European civilization has steadily and dramatically extended itself to the utmost parts of the earth during the past four centuries, it is by no means clear that this expansion is a consequence of superior weaponry, unit discipline, and military science. But they have seldom lost campaigns or wars." I don't accept the premise that campaigns and wars aren't an extension of the previous list. He's basically saying, "yeah, the civilized warriors won pretty much every single campaign and war, but they lost some battles so we can't say they were better at war." And Keeley regularly discounts the fact that very often the civilized side has supply lines that span the globe. The civilized side starts off with a strong disadvantage because reinforcements and key supplies could be on the other side of the world. Keeley will give examples when civilized nations failed at conquest in wars that crossed oceans and say something like, "this provides no support that civilized people possessed inherent military superiority." I'd say it does in large part because these wars are happening in the homelands of the primitive people and not the civilized ones. Maybe the British would decide it's not worth continuing a war with the Zulu because they have bigger fish to fry elsewhere or the juice isn't worth the squeeze. But it would be laughable to think about the Zulu conquering London. Then Keeley will write something like, "..when civilized soldiers have been caught in the open by superior numbers of primitive warriors, they often have been defeated..." So now it's not enough just to beat the primitive side, you have to beat them when you are outnumbered. It'd be like if the US sent 30 Delta Force guys up against 3000 Libyans. We would lose that battle, but would anyone think that this meant that the Libyans are better warriors or are superior militarily?
Keeley often makes comments about how many times primitive strategy is actually better than civilized strategy. I largely felt this was unsubstantiated. He'll often back it up with an example of a civilized general making a stupid decision, and that is evidence that the primitives were actually more tactically sound. I don't think generals sometimes making poor decisions is good evidence that primitives in general were better tacticians. He also gives too much credit to their tactics when it is most often just the tactics of a weaker force. Even in civilized warfare, the weaker force most often will avoid direct conflict and will wage more of a guerilla war. But he acts like civilized tacticians weren't aware of this. He was somewhat justified in pointing out that some civilized war parties struggled against guerilla warfare until they adopted similar strategies, but this was more stubbornness lack of creativity in their leadership than a lack of tactics.
"To a great extent, the superior transportation and agricultural technology of Europe and its efficient economic and logistic methods made possible its triumph over the primitive world, not its customary military techniques and advanced weapons." It is true that European powers had tremendous economic and logistic advantages (I still don't accept logistical abilities are not a part of warfare), but I think it's silly to argue that the advanced weapons wouldn't easily overwhelm a nation using bow and arrows (all else being equal). If France and Germany went to war, and France had modern technology, the wheel, locomotives, and guns while Germany had horses and bows, Germany would be absolutely destroyed. There would be a time when guerilla warfare could be punishing, but the outcome would be inevitable as long as France kept their resolve.
"In general, the Roman legions performed much better against civilized opponents who 'fought fair' than against the more barbarous tribesmen and provincial guerrillas who did not." This is another example of Keeley just ignoring a military reality. If I am Rome and I have elite fighting units, then yes, obviously, I want to go head to head in battles because I have an advantage. It will obviously be harder for me to subject opponents who avoid battles that give me a clear advantage.
"In other words, where Europeans were deprived of their biological advantages, their supposed military superiority was useless...the claim that the superior tactics and military discipline of Europeans gain them dominion over primitives in the Americas, Oceania, and Siberia is so inflated that it would be comic were not the facts that contradict it so tragic." Another example of Keeley ignoring that the Europeans had to travel the world to fight these battles. He just never accepts that having to travel by ship thousands of miles to fight the battle put the Europeans at an incredibly steep starting disadvantage.
This one was laughable. Keeley claims that primitive warriors were often quicker to appreciate the military potential of items that the civilized people invented. His example is absurd. He says some New Guinea tribesmen got introduced to an airplane, and within 15 minutes wanted to go drop a rock on someone's head. The civilized military leaders initially only used airplanes for recon. Two things: 1. How in the world is Keeley discounted the military value of good intelligence? How is an airplane only of military value if you are dropping literal rocks from it? This was so dumb. 2. I'd imagine dropping a rock on a civilized power would be far more dangerous since they have guns to shoot you with instead of bows and arrows. When airplanes were new and probably in high demand, you'd prefer to utilize them in a way that gained you the biggest advantage (recon) while keeping your losses to a minimum (not flying low dropping bombs on people who can shoot back).
I guess my main complaint is that he gifts the military tactics of a guerilla war to the primitives when I think that is just the sound military tactic of the weaker army. It isn't particularly primitive. It's just that the primitives were almost always weaker.
Keeley has some really bad comparisons here: "Is there any behavioral difference between Caesar's extermination of the Bituriges at Bourges, the slaughter of Minnesota settlers by the Sioux in 1862, the massacres of the US Army at Wounded Knee and My Lai, the Allied air strikes at Dresden and Hiroshima, the massacres committed by Japanese soldiers in Nanking and Manila...except body counts and the assignment of our sympathies with the perpetrators or the victims?" I always get annoyed when people purposefully refuse to acknowledge the difference between troops of a nation committing an atrocity and troops of a nation committing an atrocity with the approval and support of that nation. My Lai is a good example. US troops slaughter Vietnamese villagers in vicious fashion. But that was not sanctioned or planned by the military, it was something the troops did on their own. The worst you could say about the US military in this instance was that the perpetrators weren't really punished. It is pure insanity to compare something like My Lai to Nanking. Go read the Rape of Nanking, and get back to me on your opinion of the two. Nanking was My Lai on a tremendously larger scale with far more government approval. My Lai was a small group of troops murdering in a jungle without oversight. Nanking was the coordinated torture and murder of almost 200,000 Chinese civilians. It is just laughable to place them in the same sentence. The examples of Dresden and Hiroshima (he could've added Tokyo and Nagasaki), are more interesting, but still not very compelling. They are great examples of the horrors of war, but it was more macabre arithmetic than atrocity. A huge percentage of the Japanese would have likely fought to the death. Maybe you'd feel virtuous not bombing the cities, but I'm not convinced you have the moral high ground if far more civilians die in your plan. Again, I have a major problem comparing these acts of war to the barbarism of Nanking.
Great line: "As cynics often observed in the United States during the 19th century, the nobility of savages was directly proportional to one's geographic distance from them." A modern example would be how the people pushing hardest to not punish criminals and keep them out of jail are those who are rich enough to rarely deal with the consequences of these policies.
Oh good Lord, this line again. "It should be clear from this book that this Western 'discovery' is comparable to the European discovery of the Far East, Africa, or the Americas. The East Asians, sub-Saharan Africans, and Native Americans always knew where they were; it was the Europeans who were confused or ignorant." I can't convey how stupid this argument is, and my opinion drops drastically of anyone who makes it. Did John Dalton discover the atom? Of course not you moron. The atom was always there. John Dalton and us stupid humans were just ignorant of it. Why should the tribes of America get credit for "knowing where they were" when they had no concept of where they were. Why are Europeans travelling the globe "ignorant" but the Indians aren't while they still haven't discovered the wheel or written language? This is a good example of bias from Keeley similar to what his entire book is fighting against. If I discovered alien life, the headlines would exclaim that I discovered aliens. They wouldn't say I was the first human to look through my telescope and see aliens existing where they always knew where they were. Nobody would hesitate to describe a newly discovered Amazonian tribe as newly discovered. And nobody would come back with "Oh, did that tribe not already know they existed." (Other than sarcastically).
May 1, 2009
I found this book disturbing, perhaps because, like many others, I like to think that humans have been and can be peaceful creatures. Keeley is an anthropologist. What he does in this book is to collate and synthecize the reports from archaeology, ethnology, and anthropology of how the earliest humans made war on each other. It is not a pretty picture. It wasn't quite what Hobbes postulized as the "war of every man against every man," and certainly far from Rousseau's "noble savage." From the records we have, human prehistory is violent; raids, lootings, homicide are frequent and often grisly. He notes, for instance, that massacres occur about every generation among the tribes and bands of prestate cultures. The most startling conclusion he draws is that, despite the dreadful weapons we now posses, "civilized" war (and that includes what we're doing now) is less ruthless and more humane than that of prehistoric people. It's a book to read if you share the hope that somehow the people of Earth can stop making war and find a way to live peaceably together.
February 24, 2020
My ratings of books on Goodreads are solely a crude ranking of their utility to me, and not an evaluation of literary merit, entertainment value, social importance, humor, insightfulness, scientific accuracy, creative vigor, suspensefulness of plot, depth of characters, vitality of theme, excitement of climax, satisfaction of ending, or any other combination of dimensions of value which we are expected to boil down through some fabulous alchemy into a single digit.
May 14, 2009
There's much to criticize here if you know your stuff. But anyone wishing to cling to simplistic illusions of peace as a natural human state tragically disrupted by civilization should read this book and experience a little healthy disillusionment. Just be sure to follow this up with some wider reading... More: http://dreamflesh.com/library/lawrenc...
March 29, 2019
I had seen this book referenced in several discussions of violence in prehistory. If you've read Steven Pinker's book The Better Angels of our Nature, your first reaction might be "this guy seems to have been heavily influenced by Pinker!", until you realize that Keeley's book was published 15 years before Pinker's book. Because Keeley is more careful with where he goes with his data, and also his book is shorter, I prefer this book to Pinker's.
Keeley investigates the facts of prehistoric conflict as a puzzle. To begin with, at the time he was writing, no one thought this was much of a problem; the real problem was how modern society had degenerated from our more peaceful beginnings. So the book has the feel of a personal memoir and a detective story. He talks about weapons and tactics, and what happens when the "primitives" come into conflict with civilized states. The "civilized" usually win, but only because of logistics, not because of tactics, and only when they start to imitate the primitives. He discusses both the losses and gains of primitive war, and tries to locate the motives for warfare.
Pinker does expand on this thesis quite a bit. Pinker continues the discussion beyond the development of civilization. Even civilized states, for Pinker, are improving; we're much better off now than (say) in the Middle Ages. So far, so good, but there is a gap between truly prehistoric people (before, say, agriculture) and the Axial Age (about 800 to 200 BCE), where we are on more slippery ground. Keeley never precisely defines what "civilization" is or when it started; it appears that he intends it to start with written records, thus perhaps around 3000 BCE or so, which is quite fair. According to Peter Turchin in Ultrasociety, though, violence actually increased between the rise of agriculture and the Axial Age, thus (contrary to Pinker) there has not been a gradual decline in violence, even in "civilized" times.
To me, books like this one and also by Steven LeBlanc (Constant Battles)are the ones that establish much of the basic discussion. Everyone seems to be agreed that humans are not naturally violent; even primitive peoples would prefer peace. Pinker has made a further contribution, and Turchin has done the best job that I've seen at explaining exactly why violence has declined and been more precise about the timing of this decline --- only after the Axial Age. The first step is to look at human behavior in primitive times in a systematic way, before we start comparing it to this or that other period of history. That's what Keeley does.
Keeley investigates the facts of prehistoric conflict as a puzzle. To begin with, at the time he was writing, no one thought this was much of a problem; the real problem was how modern society had degenerated from our more peaceful beginnings. So the book has the feel of a personal memoir and a detective story. He talks about weapons and tactics, and what happens when the "primitives" come into conflict with civilized states. The "civilized" usually win, but only because of logistics, not because of tactics, and only when they start to imitate the primitives. He discusses both the losses and gains of primitive war, and tries to locate the motives for warfare.
Pinker does expand on this thesis quite a bit. Pinker continues the discussion beyond the development of civilization. Even civilized states, for Pinker, are improving; we're much better off now than (say) in the Middle Ages. So far, so good, but there is a gap between truly prehistoric people (before, say, agriculture) and the Axial Age (about 800 to 200 BCE), where we are on more slippery ground. Keeley never precisely defines what "civilization" is or when it started; it appears that he intends it to start with written records, thus perhaps around 3000 BCE or so, which is quite fair. According to Peter Turchin in Ultrasociety, though, violence actually increased between the rise of agriculture and the Axial Age, thus (contrary to Pinker) there has not been a gradual decline in violence, even in "civilized" times.
To me, books like this one and also by Steven LeBlanc (Constant Battles)are the ones that establish much of the basic discussion. Everyone seems to be agreed that humans are not naturally violent; even primitive peoples would prefer peace. Pinker has made a further contribution, and Turchin has done the best job that I've seen at explaining exactly why violence has declined and been more precise about the timing of this decline --- only after the Axial Age. The first step is to look at human behavior in primitive times in a systematic way, before we start comparing it to this or that other period of history. That's what Keeley does.
February 21, 2025
Notes on _War Before Civilization_:
"Savages" may or may not have been noble, but they definitely weren't peaceful. War in pre-state societies was chronic and brutal, often resulting in casualty rates higher than those in modern warfare. Given the small size of most pre-state societies, such casualties could have a devastating effect.
Most attacks seem to have been surprise raids, often carried out repeatedly on an opponent's tribe. Even when a single raid did not inflict high casualties, recurrent raids could degrade the opponent's society quickly.
We can't know for sure what many pre-state societies fought over since we have no written records for most of their wars. Ethnographic accounts of modern forager societies recount blood feuds and revenge raids. There does seem to be a correlation between higher population density on the attacker's side and willingness to launch wars -- which makes sense, given that pre-state societies typically lived on the Malthusian edge.
Trade between societies did not lessen warfare, but rather seems to have increased it. (Once a tribe learned what a neighbor had to offer, they probably decided that stealing it made more sense than trading for it, especially if the attacker was short of tradable goods at the time.)
Despite its prevalence, war was not popular. Modern forager societies lament the costliness of war and want to avoid it. Men who have killed in battle often boast of their exploits (and flaunt their opponents' body parts as trophies), but they also may be viewed as tainted, and sometimes have to undergo ritual purification before they can rejoin society.
So why did pre-state warfare persist? Basically, because there was no one to stop it. Every tribe knew it was vulnerable to attack, so pre-emptive strikes often made sense. Pre-state warriors fought in loosely organized groups that were hard to control; their ferocity often escalated once battle was underway.
The rise of larger, centralized states probably decreased casualties from warfare because rulers could now stop rival groups from fighting one another, while also imposing discipline on their own troops.
The author presents a wide range of data, including ethnographic accounts and historical commentaries about modern societies' early encounters with "primitive" tribes. Most telling is the extensive archeological evidence of weapons, fortifications, and skeletal remains (it's hard to argue with an arrowhead embedded in bone or a skull that's been split by a battle ax) .
"Savages" may or may not have been noble, but they definitely weren't peaceful. War in pre-state societies was chronic and brutal, often resulting in casualty rates higher than those in modern warfare. Given the small size of most pre-state societies, such casualties could have a devastating effect.
Most attacks seem to have been surprise raids, often carried out repeatedly on an opponent's tribe. Even when a single raid did not inflict high casualties, recurrent raids could degrade the opponent's society quickly.
We can't know for sure what many pre-state societies fought over since we have no written records for most of their wars. Ethnographic accounts of modern forager societies recount blood feuds and revenge raids. There does seem to be a correlation between higher population density on the attacker's side and willingness to launch wars -- which makes sense, given that pre-state societies typically lived on the Malthusian edge.
Trade between societies did not lessen warfare, but rather seems to have increased it. (Once a tribe learned what a neighbor had to offer, they probably decided that stealing it made more sense than trading for it, especially if the attacker was short of tradable goods at the time.)
Despite its prevalence, war was not popular. Modern forager societies lament the costliness of war and want to avoid it. Men who have killed in battle often boast of their exploits (and flaunt their opponents' body parts as trophies), but they also may be viewed as tainted, and sometimes have to undergo ritual purification before they can rejoin society.
So why did pre-state warfare persist? Basically, because there was no one to stop it. Every tribe knew it was vulnerable to attack, so pre-emptive strikes often made sense. Pre-state warriors fought in loosely organized groups that were hard to control; their ferocity often escalated once battle was underway.
The rise of larger, centralized states probably decreased casualties from warfare because rulers could now stop rival groups from fighting one another, while also imposing discipline on their own troops.
The author presents a wide range of data, including ethnographic accounts and historical commentaries about modern societies' early encounters with "primitive" tribes. Most telling is the extensive archeological evidence of weapons, fortifications, and skeletal remains (it's hard to argue with an arrowhead embedded in bone or a skull that's been split by a battle ax) .
June 18, 2023
This book is a tough look at conflict between pre-state cultures, and how they differ from the common story we hear in anthropology texts of warfare among tribes and bands being little more than ritualistic shows of force. One of the most important points the author makes at the beginning is the problem that, at the simplest form of human organization, there's often no clear way to distinguish between warfare and ordinary interpersonal conflict ending in homicide.
Also, the author notes in several chapters the way in which the view of primitive warfare may be correct in the specific details, but that the conclusions often are erroneous because of certain invisible assumptions. For instance, casualty numbers may be low -- but if low-grade warfare goes on for months or years, even one or two deaths per battle can soon deplete a tribe's fighting strength to dangerous levels (similar to the way that World War II had the highest casualty numbers, but the Thirty Years' War was the most deadly per capita, for the simple reason that there weren't as many people in Europe in the 1600's).
Much of primitive warfare involves raids and skirmishes rather than fixed battles, with fighters attacking and then melting back into the wilderness. Interestingly enough, it has often proven astonishingly effective against modern technology-heavy armies (Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc) -- and civilized armies at a power disadvantage have often found it most effective to adopt those tactics and techniques (the Minutemen in the American War of Independence).
It's also a disturbing book, particularly when the author investigates the evidence of massacres and wholesale destruction of the communities and cultures of the vanquished.
Also, the author notes in several chapters the way in which the view of primitive warfare may be correct in the specific details, but that the conclusions often are erroneous because of certain invisible assumptions. For instance, casualty numbers may be low -- but if low-grade warfare goes on for months or years, even one or two deaths per battle can soon deplete a tribe's fighting strength to dangerous levels (similar to the way that World War II had the highest casualty numbers, but the Thirty Years' War was the most deadly per capita, for the simple reason that there weren't as many people in Europe in the 1600's).
Much of primitive warfare involves raids and skirmishes rather than fixed battles, with fighters attacking and then melting back into the wilderness. Interestingly enough, it has often proven astonishingly effective against modern technology-heavy armies (Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc) -- and civilized armies at a power disadvantage have often found it most effective to adopt those tactics and techniques (the Minutemen in the American War of Independence).
It's also a disturbing book, particularly when the author investigates the evidence of massacres and wholesale destruction of the communities and cultures of the vanquished.
November 15, 2022
Tribal life was not peaceful; war and widespread violence is not limited to civilization. Keeley, an archaeologist, lays out step-by-step the evidence and analysis of violence in uncivilized cultures. For example, huge proportions of ancient skeletons show probably- or definitely human-caused trauma. Many were buried with arrowheads or spear heads embedded in the bodies. Even the weapons buried as grave goods - often impracticable for hunting or utility - are signs that violent warfare was considered high-status for those cultures.
The normal argument (at least before the late 90's, when this archaeological evidence came to prominence) was to observe how tribal skirmishes usually ended after only a few people were killed or seriously wounded. Keeley responds by pointing out that these skirmishes are very frequent - several times a year - and tribes are usually small enough that even these few deaths in each skirmish are very demographically serious across years. Large-scale violence is part of human nature, not merely a consequence of civilization.
I liked how this book drew together several points I'd heard before to open my eyes to an aspect of tribal life that I hadn't fully appreciated. If you want to dive into this subject at book length, I'd recommend it.
The normal argument (at least before the late 90's, when this archaeological evidence came to prominence) was to observe how tribal skirmishes usually ended after only a few people were killed or seriously wounded. Keeley responds by pointing out that these skirmishes are very frequent - several times a year - and tribes are usually small enough that even these few deaths in each skirmish are very demographically serious across years. Large-scale violence is part of human nature, not merely a consequence of civilization.
I liked how this book drew together several points I'd heard before to open my eyes to an aspect of tribal life that I hadn't fully appreciated. If you want to dive into this subject at book length, I'd recommend it.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 83 reviews