War Before Civilization

Rating:
Summary: Archeology vindicates civilized man
Review: "In the aftermath of the Battle of Little Bighorn, Indian women used marrow-cracking mallets to pound the faces of dead soldiers into pulp." - Lawrence H. Keeley

For Lawrence Keeley, the study of prehistory (a period which, for some peoples, ended only a few dozen years ago) has been torn between two paradigms: the Hobbesian and the Rousseauian. According to the former, primitives are warlike, and need the institution of the state to put an end to the nastiness and brutishness of their lives. According to the latter, civilization is the corrupter, subverting the harmony and peacefulness of primitive life with overpopulation, greed and the encouragement of exploitative behaviour.

For several decades, the Rousseauian myth has ruled academia, where swords have been "beaten into metaphors": omnipresent fortifications are interpreted as expressions of "the symbolism of exclusion" and weapons as a form of money or status symbols, so that- to paraphrase Keeley- the obviously bellicose becomes the arcanely peaceable.

But what the civilization-bashers had not counted on was that their Big Lie would ultimately be exposed by objective scientists working on the basis of incontrovertible facts: the archeologists, whose patient, reality-oriented detective work completely refutes the fashionable whitewashing of primitive peoples.

What bones tell us is that wars were more common among the primitives than among modern nations, that proportionately more people were involved in them and died in them. Admittedly, those wars were waged on a smaller scale than modern man's, because primitive economies could neither support the large populations nor the impressive logistics that enable modern nations to sustain long-term and wide-ranging war efforts. But relative to their population figures, primitives are a much more violent breed than civilized men.

As always, of course, statistics tell only part of the story. Just as enlightening are the picture of the corpse of a U.S. cavalryman, horribly mutilated by the Cheyenne, or the simple description of what a Tahitian warrior would do to his vanquished enemy's corpse: crush it flat with his war club, then cut a slit through it and wear it as a poncho. (Horror is mitigated by irony when one considers that, in the 18th century, "the explorer Louis de Bougainville reported that Tahitians exactly fulfilled Rousseau's predictions"...)

*War Before Civilization* is an excellent illustration of what the application of logic to reality can do to dispel the myths woven by evaders and ideologically motivated revisionists, and so long as the author sticks to his own discipline, he shines as a beacon of perspicaciousness and objectivity. Outside of his own field, though, Keeley is less brilliant: his recommendations for the preservation of peace in our age (such as compromising with our enemies or letting foreign powers monopolize resources we could produce ourselves) are examples of fallacious induction; his choice of Hobbes as the antithesis of Rousseau creates an unsavory alternative between two proponents of absolute power (which is all the more regrettable as Locke would have served the author's purposes just as well); and his endorsement of the theory that "real" war is total war makes him mistake the moral constraints of civilized warfare for a lack of realism or even inefficiency. As for his analysis of the causes of the academic distortion of the prehistorical record, it would have benefited from a familiarity with Ayn Rand's Objectivism, and Gross and Levitt's debunking of the academic left in *Higher Superstition*.

If you are the kind of person who always feels compelled to put such words as "civilized" and "primitive" in quotes, Lawrence Keeley's book is the best therapy I can think of, along with Robert B. Edgerton's *Sick Societies* and Ayn Rand's *Return of the Primitive*.

Rating:
Summary: War is Hell -- and it always was
Review: Although extremely poorly edited, this slim volume represents a revolution in understanding early human history.

The received wisdom in cultural ethnology is that true war was unknown to our species before the advent of so-called civilization. Not so; this book draws upon archeological and comparative ethnological data to show persuasively that bloody war has been a constant in human development up until the latter half of the twentieth century. Indeed, despite advancements in the technology of slaughter, and despite the cataclysmic events of the two world wars, on average the likelihood of death in battle has never, at any point in human evolution, been lower than during the current century.

Much of the book is dedicated to an analysis of pre-civilization battle tactics (i.e., tribal tactics as observed during the modern period, ancient descriptions of tribal adversaries, inferences from the archeological record), and of their comparison with the methodologies of modern warfare. Keeley takes great pains to "defend" pre-civilization warfare as equally deadly and even "total" as any modern campaign.

Overall, this is fine scholarship, and important reading for anyone seeking to understand human culture or the conditions of human evolution.

Rating:
Summary: War is Hell -- and it always was
Review: Although extremely poorly edited, this slim volume represents a revolution in understanding early human history.

The received wisdom in cultural ethnology is that true war was unknown to our species before the advent of so-called civilization. Not so; this book draws upon archeological and comparative ethnological data to show persuasively that bloody war has been a constant in human development up until the latter half of the twentieth century. Indeed, despite advancements in the technology of slaughter, and despite the cataclysmic events of the two world wars, on average the likelihood of death in battle has never, at any point in human evolution, been lower than during the current century.

Much of the book is dedicated to an analysis of pre-civilization battle tactics (i.e., tribal tactics as observed during the modern period, ancient descriptions of tribal adversaries, inferences from the archeological record), and of their comparison with the methodologies of modern warfare. Keeley takes great pains to "defend" pre-civilization warfare as equally deadly and even "total" as any modern campaign.

Overall, this is fine scholarship, and important reading for anyone seeking to understand human culture or the conditions of human evolution.

Rating:
Summary: definitely not politically correct
Review: It has been some years since I read this book, but having come across it again by chance recalled the impact it made on my first reading. Forgive any flaws in my memory of the details, but this is what I have carried with me from "War Before Civilization." If you adhere to the concept of the 'peaceful savage,' the book may offend you. If you believe in a past 'golden age' where life was simple and carefree compared to the present, you will likely dismiss this book. If you think life now is harder and more dangerous than it was in the past, you will not get much out of this read. If you are sure that primitive societies lived long, healthy, safe lives in harmony with the environment and at peace with one another, then stay in your bubble and skip this book. Keeley does not carry the guilt many today feel regarding the destruction of "primitive" cultures and societies. Archaeology and statistics more than sociology and anthropology form the basis of Keeley's conclusions (if I recall correctly). To summarize: people are violent regardless of the era, and more so when resources are scarce, meaning modern technology makes more resources available now than were available 'Before Civilization.' Modern science allows people to live healthier and longer now than in the past - i.e. probably very few people died from Alzheimer's or cancer in primitive societies because hardly anyone lived long enough to acquire these diseases, regardless of what the causes today are (old age, diet, genes, pollution, whatever). Sure, more people today die in armed conflict than did 'Before Civilization', but as a percentage of the whole, the numbers today are no worse, if not better, than in the past. In addition, the losses today are more easily survived by the whole, as there are more people to start with in a modern society (which doesn't do the individual dead any good, but that's not the point). And while killing methods today are both faster and more efficient, healing and recovery from non-fatal wounds has also improved (e.g. gangrene vs. penicillin). Now if you were one of the people who survived broken bones, avoided impacted wisdom teeth or the need for a root canal, recovered from injuries, always had proper clothing and shelter regardless of the weather, had abundant and consistent nutrition without access to a grocery store or vitamins or your backyard garden, had no allergic reactions to anything, reproduced with ease, skipped any birth defects, resisted all those nasty viruses, bacterial infections, and festering wounds, then you might have lived long enough to meet your grandchildren. It definitely would have been a 'Golden Age' for you and you alone, but doesn't that same thing apply to any era? With that kind of good fortune, you probably would have been running things in a primitive society just by outliving everybody else. And while any complaints we today have about the imperfections of modern 'Civilization' may be legitimate, "War Before Civilization" makes it abundantly clear that, ultimately, complaining is a luxury.

Rating:
Summary: demolishes the myth of the "golden age"
Review: Keeley utterly demolishes the "golden age" idiotological mythos with hard anthropological, ethnographic and archaeological fact. He also, very cleverly to my mind, considering the biases of modern academics, gives "primitives" a great deal of credit for their fighting prowess. There were some flaws to his thesis, of course. But I think he gets through his point well. It also contains some great black humor, such as his recounting of a Maori chief taunting the preserved head of an enemy chief: " You wanted to run away, did you? But my war club overtook you: and after you were cooked, you made food for my mouth. And where is your father? he is cooked:- and where is your brother? he is eaten:- and where is your wife? there she sits, a wife for me:- and where are your children? there they are, with loads on their backs, carrying food, as my slaves."

Rating:
Summary: Very interesting, but requires some skimming
Review: The thesis of this book is that warfare has always been an aspect of the human condition, and that it was as frequent and as deadly in Pre-historic times as in recorded history. The book relies on two types of evidence: archeological, and ethnographic. Archeological evidence can attest to the existence of warfare, not the frequency, but the distinction is lost. Another distinction not properly made is between peoples who fight defensive wars and aggressive wars. Keeley devotes entirely too much time to arguing with early 20th century scholars, and the tendency of more recent scholars to ignore evidence in order to maintain that war was primarily a function of civilization. Ironically, Keeley frequently cites a study of Yanomomo Indians, discredited by Kenneth Good's wonderful book ("Into the Heart ...."): Good did not find the aggression his mentor had declared existed. Having said all this, if the reader is willing to skim at times, this is a very interesting book It provides insight into how war was waged, the causes of war, psychology of the peoples involved, and what warfare implies as regards the human animal. It adds to the discussion on wars between primitives and Europeans found in Jared Diamond's Pulitzer prize winning book ("Guns, Germs and Steel"). Keeley makes a fascinating contrast between Indian/White conflicts in the US west vs. the Canadian west, and the causes of this difference.

Rating:
Summary: Very interesting, but requires some skimming
Review: The thesis of this book is that warfare has always been an aspect of the human condition, and that it was as frequent and as deadly in Pre-historic times as in recorded history. The book relies on two types of evidence: archeological, and ethnographic. Archeological evidence can attest to the existence of warfare, not the frequency, but the distinction is lost. Another distinction not properly made is between peoples who fight defensive wars and aggressive wars. Keeley devotes entirely too much time to arguing with early 20th century scholars, and the tendency of more recent scholars to ignore evidence in order to maintain that war was primarily a function of civilization. Ironically, Keeley frequently cites a study of Yanomomo Indians, discredited by Kenneth Good's wonderful book ("Into the Heart ...."): Good did not find the aggression his mentor had declared existed. Having said all this, if the reader is willing to skim at times, this is a very interesting book It provides insight into how war was waged, the causes of war, psychology of the peoples involved, and what warfare implies as regards the human animal. It adds to the discussion on wars between primitives and Europeans found in Jared Diamond's Pulitzer prize winning book ("Guns, Germs and Steel"). Keeley makes a fascinating contrast between Indian/White conflicts in the US west vs. the Canadian west, and the causes of this difference.

Rating:
Summary: An Amazing Book
Review: This amazing little book ( 244 pgs. including footnotes and index.) should utterly change the way anthropologists view man's prehistory and the remaining prestate societies in the world. Keeley thoroughly and meticulously documents that prehistoric warfare was in fact far more frequent and deadly than modern warfare between state societies. Keeley shows that prestate warriors often more than not held their own in battles against civilized armies and often defeated them. Their ultimate defeats at the hands of state societies were often more attributable to introduced diseases and the logistical superiorty of modern economies than to military strategy and tactics. One particularly illuminating passage involves a New Guinean tribal leader who after seeing an airplane for the first time, asked for a ride and then permission to take along some heavy rocks. These rocks he wanted to drop on an enemy village!! He had understood within minutes the military significance of aircraft that had eluded many generals and admirals for a generation. Some of the passages in the book make for gruesome reading, particularly the sections on cannibalism, enemy torture, and civilian massacres. Most importantly, Keeley documents how anthropologists have in his words "pacified the past" out of a sense of guilt over imperialism and the two world wars of the 20th century. He shows numerous examples of anthropologists and archaeologists grasping at straws to explain away unambiguous evidence of warfare at numerous sites in North America and Europe. He even points out as a young archaeologist that he also engaged in a lot of similar wishful thinking. This book should be required reading in anthropology classes throughout the world, but sadly it will probably be ignored because it challenges too many entrenched beliefs.

Rating:
Summary: Peace Lost
Review: This book has a lot going for it. The style in which it is written may appeal to a broad audience as well as specialists. It puts lengthier, more technical discussions in notes at the back of the book and makes its points short and sweet (about 180 pages of text). The format of contrasting views of human violence by way of Rousseau and Hobbes is effective and carried throughout. Ethnographic and archeological examples are both fascinating and well chosen. These examples gain even more in interest when discussed in certain aspects of war, e.g. weaponry and fortifications. There are several ways in which this book is wanting, however. It employs a dichotomy throughout between "civilized" and "primitive" war. These words deserve to go the way of an inaccurate musket; more relevantly, they mask an acknowledged continuum of warfare. For example, a table in the appendix shows that hunter-gatherers engage in war less often than other "primitive" societies, such as pastoralists. It makes more sense to understand the variance in warfare among all societies than create an artifical dichotomy, despite its usefulness as an organizing theme for the book, between civilized and primitive warfare. The other major weakness of the book is its lack of a good definition of "war". The author overemphasizes economic motivations in primitive warfare at expense to blood revenge, wife stealing, etc. It isn't clear whether small-scale raiding in the form of blood revenge gets counted as "war" among primitive societies; it shouldn't be if it involves but a wronged man and a couple of his allies raiding. More precise descriptors such as "raiding" should thus be used. Most readers will still find the bold and blunt exposition as well as subject matter outweighs these weaknesses. Bid farewell to paradise.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent, sheds light on a subject long misunderstood.
Review: This book sheds light on a subject that most people overlook, whether they are normal readers, or experienced anthropologists. It is very descriptive, and to the point. And as a former student of Proffessor Kelley's I must say that the success of this book comes as no surprise.