War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage

This is one of the best books on the topic I have ever read. It is well written and accompanied by a profusion of charts and tables with lots of data that supports the thesis that the author proposes, i.e., that there was war before civilization, contrary to the opinion of many many researchers and scholars. The prevailing trend was based on a worldview that considered the emergence of war as a consequence (unintended, anyway) of the complexities that the new forms of organization (protostates and empires) brought with them. With the empires appeared the war and with the war the armies, in an infinite and unstable cycle of peace and war.Now, what professor Keeley did, or better, what he discovered at some moment during the exercise of his career as an archaeologist, was that he was wrong in following the prevalent opinion. In his words: "Like most archaeologists trained in the postwar period, I emerged from the first stage of my education so inculcated with the assumption that warfare and prehistory did not mix that I was willing to dismiss unambiguous 'physical' evidence to the contrary."After some findings in Stuttgart - Germany that revealed that several "men, women and children," have been "killed by blows to the head inflicted by characteristicly Early Neolithic axes," the prevalent opinion began to stagger. "The resistance," he adds, "that we archaeologists showed to the notion of prehistoric war, and the ease whit which it was overcome when the relevant evidence was recognized, impressed me and convinced me that a book on this subject would be worthwhile."Thus, after twelve chapters you got everything you need in order to decide what to think. Anyway, the problem with accepting that the epoch we live in right now has been the most pacific of all is really hard to assimilate. Just think about it for a moment and then you can say to yourself "this is impossible." But is it?Page after page, the author exposes you to the intricacies and multi layered aspects of the human behavior, so the book is more than counting corpses and bones with holes and injury marks in them. In fact, it is about the reason behind our tendency to fight before talking. The impulse that pushes us into fight everywhere and every time. That's why the narration covers a full spectrum that goes from evolution to biology to sociology to politics and the like.If you are interested in history, in warfare, in topics about violence, aggressiveness, "human condition in extremes," "political intrigues," and so on, this is your book. Also if you want to know about that idealized world that existed before the cities (and the wars between them) destroyed the pastoral landscapes, this is your book.If you teach or if you study about war or strategy, this is your book also.You won't forget it for a long time, I guess. In fact I finished the reading some months ago but the book is still with me.And a final advice: read it after or before "Sex and war" by Malcolm Potts and Thomas Hayden. Both of them are genuine contributions.Five stars.

The default position of much social science has been that the societies existing prior to human history were largely peaceful and cooperative. When they did fight with one another the `fighting' was more a kind of ritual or rough play. Ultra-violence was something practiced by modern, `civilized' man. Hobbes's views were, in effect, trumped by Rousseau's.Lawrence H. Keeley's book was written to counter that view and it does so with hard facts and common sense. Not only was the warfare of prehistory often nearly constant; it was extremely violent and vast in its effects. The percentage of a population that could be obliterated was far greater than the percentages resulting from modern, `civilized' warfare.To tell his story, Keeley utilizes a worldwide canvas, studying warfare from New Guinea to the American northern plains. He discusses the anthropology of war, the prevalence of war and its importance, the tactics and weapons employed in war, the forms of combat, the differences between primitive and civilized war, casualty rates, profits and losses, the potential causes of war, the desirability and fragility of peace and the manner in which the ancient images and ethnographic evidence have been transmuted by contemporary (and earlier) social science. Subsidiary material such as cannibalism is also given due attention.The book is readable, the evidence compelling. This is a book that should be part of the repertoire of every practicing social scientist and every political commentator. I became aware of it when one of the latter recommended it on a news broadcast. This is not a screed or a half-baked bit of special pleading. This is an extensive, nearly exhaustive Oxford University Press monograph. Check it out.

The Author consistently uses the words and idea of war "before civilization" - but I would certainly say this is actually documenting "war at the dawn of civilization" - which is to say, the beginning of "agricultural revolution" and the formation of towns and cities, as the evidence only goes back to about 10,000 years ago. The so-called "Cognitive Revolution" - when our species became different from other species of Homo - THAT was when Homo Sapiens were actually "savage" in the sense of possessing no civilization and being pure hunter-gatherers. So 60,000 years of evidence are missing from that - really this book is primarily investigating the "Dawn Of Civilization." A few examples of the last tribes are shown, but it's difficult to draw much from that about those missing 60,000 years.

If you aré interested in warfare, this Is probably going to be one of your books of the year

Libro molto interessante ed approfondito che cambia molto il modo di vedere la storia

Sehr gutes Buch, dass die europäische Überlegenheit betont.

This is an excellent book which I would strongly recommend people to read. In fact, I would go as far as to say that it should be required reading for all high school students. The value of the book, is that it cuts through the romantic myths that we currently hold that before the evil Europeans turned up, mankind lived some kind of idyllic harmonious lifestyle. Everyone got along just fine apart from the occasional squabble which may have resulted in little more than a few bruised egos. Keeley is apparently an archaeologist and purely from the irrefutable evidence of the remains of pre civilisational skeletons with arrows embedded in them or their skull bashed in with axes, we can see that the idea of the "noble and peaceful savage" is little more than romantic wishful thinking with no supporting evidence or basis in fact.Keeley further strengthens his case through case studies of ethnographers who studied people who had only recently met with the outside world. The tales these people tell of their past is not one of peace. In many, or in fact most, cases, there was an almost constant state of low level warfare which was extremely deadly by modern standards. Tribal bands cannot afford the luxury of such institutions as the Geneva Convention. They are forced to wage total, no holds bared war. Males are never taken prisoner (they can't build POW camps) and are therefore always dispatched if possible. Women and children are frequently killed, with the alternative being slavery.The news is not all bad however and the author also debunks the condescending PC narrative of primitive people being helpless and passive victims of Western aggression. In fact, as Keeley convincingly demonstrates, those "primitives" were generally superior fighters to the Westerners due to a lack of baggage in the way of "ethics." The savages fought instead with savagery as they knew they were fighting for the survival of their entire society. The Westerners won out due almost solely due to factors such as smallpox which wiped out more than half their opposition in many cases. Added to this was their superior logistical and productive capacity. At the end is a serious and well rounded summary and well thought out suggestions. I didn't agree with the idea of supra-national bodies being the answer personally but that is just my opinion (being a fan of the nation state).A word of warning. This is a serious academic work and not what i would call light reading. However, if you are prepared to push on, you will be rewarded with a far greater facutally based understanding of conflict in pre civilised societies. Well worth the effort in my opinion.

I took a Canadian military history course at university. One of my essays was how pre-industrial and “civilized” societies influenced each other in terms of warfare. My proff recommended this book for me to begin. The most basic argument of the book is to take away the idea that Europeans brought war to the Natives of America or any other peoples they came into contact with. This has been an idea about history for a long while. Keeley is trying to show that the idea of the peaceful savage is not true, that warfare plagued every society in history, that no one people were predisposed to war or peace than any other. He presents his argument by comparing warfare of the modern world with that of pre-history. He looks more to pre-history than the modern. Each chapter is a condition of warfare that is an element of war in any time period At times I found the book lacking, as Keeley does not use many European examples such as the Celts or other very well known groups and thus sticks to groups predominately outside of Europe. This does not make his argument or approach any less appealing. This is a great book, showing the divide between popular history and archeology and professional. Two big thumbs up for Keeley!