Book Review: War Before Civilization

Gun Watch ^ | 10 April, 2017 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

War Before Civilization; The Myth of the Peaceful Savage by Lawrence H. Keeley, 1996, Oxford University Press, paperback edition, 1997, 245 pages.

War Before Civilization is one of those works that cause observers of the human condition to have an "Aha!" moment.

I first read the book over a decade ago. I have recommended it to many, including my friend, Curtis Eykamp of Medway, Quirindi NSW, Australia.

He ordered a copy, and while I was helping take care of his 100 year old father, Roy, I had the happy occasion to entertain Roy by reading to him. War Before Civilization was one of my choices.

I read through the preface, which explains how prevalent the bias against the acceptance of warfare in pre-history was among archaeologists in the post WWII era. Evidence of pre-historic warfare was routinely ignored and suppressed.

Roy nodded in agreement. His 100 years of experience agreed that men are routinely selfish, combative, and violent.

Keeley spells out in exquisite detail how the common experience of pre-historic man is much closer to the Hobbesian archetype in the State of Nature than the "noble savage" of Rosseau.

Keeley proceeds to show us how universal war is and was. He shows how violent people are when they lack higher levels of social organization. Higher levels of social organization, that organize larger numbers of people beyond close relatives, involves creating mechanisms for resolving conflict without violence.

Pacific people sometimes exist; they are simply overwhelmed, conquered, or destroyed by war-like neighbors when they are discovered. Most examples of pacific peoples are refugees that were driven to undesired territory by more violent neighbors.

100 year old Roy Eykamp was not interested in the academic study in Keeley's work, but I was. The tables and charts were fascinating. It is clear even the worst 21st century governments are no worse than existence in a "state of nature". Most governments are far better, and most residents within those realms live far better lives.

Most in paleolithic and neolithic societies were in constant danger of violence, raids, simple homicide and extermination.

The author relies on secondary sources for his treatment of the effectiveness of ancient projectile weapons compared to firearms. He states that "...until the late 19th century, civilized soldiers were at a slight disadvantage in fire weaponry when facing primitive bowmen."

I disagree. The primitive bowmen immediately transitioned to muskets as soon as they could obtain them. The advantages were obvious: the ability to fire from a prone position, the ability to hold fire until advantageous and the enormous psychological effect on opponents. Perhaps the most profound advantage is the ability to penetrate all primitive armor at a distance.

To be fair, very early muskets, were essentially equivalent to powerful cross bows, as noted in The Discovery and Conquest of Mexico. But powerful cross bows are beyond the technology of bowmen in less technologically advanced societies.


Both bows and early firearms suffered in wet weather. Bows because bowstrings became useless when wet, firearms because of damp gunpowder.


As gunpowder weapons advanced beyond the matchlock, the advantages over bows became obvious. This is a mere quibble in an otherwise excellent book.

To understand how violent life is with low levels of organization, read War Before Civilization.

It is available at Amazon.com  and abebooks.com.

©2018 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

[marktwain]

As people became more organized, they found more ways to exist together without bloodshed.

Most tribal societies live in a constant fear of raids, homicide, and massacres.

[Joe 6-pack]

"It makes no difference what men think of war, said the judge. War endures. As well ask men what they think of stone. War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner. That is the way it was and will be. That way and not some other way."

~Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian

[blueunicorn6]

The biggest battle site in North America, before the Civil War, was in Montana where two Indian tribes tried to exterminate each other.

[moovova]

“His 100 years of experience agreed that men are routinely selfish, combative, and violent.”

Sharp as a tack at 100 years old but I bet he learned that lesson early in life.

[dsc]

“He states that ...until the late 19th century, civilized soldiers were at a slight disadvantage in fire weaponry when facing primitive bowmen.I disagree.”

He’s wrong. Civilized soldiers were at a huge disadvantage when facing plains and southwestern Indians. It was not until the advent of the lever-action rifle that the tables turned.

[WayneS]

A great and disturbing book.

[WayneS]

Both bows and early firearms suffered in wet weather. Bows because bowstrings became useless when wet...

They do?

[RatRipper]

Roy nodded in agreement. His 100 years of experience agreed that men are routinely selfish, combative, and violent.

Pay attention to the Bible. Genesis covers this point very well. We learn in the Bible that man is sinful by nature. They aren't breading new ground here.

[marktwain]

Here is a post about wet weather and bows:

“As a longbow archer, I can tell you that there will be even more problems.

Instinctive archery requires that you have shot so many times you know the arrow’s tragectory intuitively. The wood arrows tend to soak up water and become heavier, htereby altering the tragectory. Further, the flethching, depending on the type of feather, when it gets wet becomes effected. THe modern standard for fletching is turkey feathers, and they tend to soak up water, lose their shape, as it were (It looks like they get crushed), and makes the arrows heavier. I believe in older times, goose feathers were used, and goose feathers, although not as durable as turkey feathers were much better at repelling water due to oils in htem. The feathers were glued on and wrapped on with some kind of thread, so if htey did get wet, the fletching would still stay on the arrow.

For the strings, today we use Dacron and a material called fast flite, back then, I’ve heard of linen strings being used, as well as sinew.

What you’ve got to remember is that the stirng when strung is always under some sort of tension. War bows back then were under a lot more tension, and consequently the strings would stretch over time, each string being good for a short period of time, after which it having stretched so much, you’d put a new string on (I suppose they used the old strings for other things, htey were still good for repairs, but not for bows.)
Even today, a modern string is only good for so many shots (I make my own and can tell you).

Here’s the deal though, even today, each bowstring is waxed, so they will, to an extent, repell water, but as the organic material absorbs water, I suppose it will lose some of its structure and stretch, thereby, vompletelythrowing of the tragectory of the arrow.

THere is now also a rest on the bow, made up of fur or feather to let the arrow slide over and reduce the friction. As water is absorbed by this, it also reduces the speed of the arrow, increasing friction.

Also, the wood in the bow.

There are a couple things going on, the bow wood has a cellular structure that gives it its rigidity and flexibility. (Some woods are more flexible han others, naturally) By having water soak into the wood, the limbs ofthe bow gain weight, slowing the bow down. Further, the water destroys the cellular structure of the wood and also the elasticity, thereby slowing the bow down.

In sum, the arrow will fly at a significantly slower speed, throwing off the archer’s aim, lessening the force of impact, and if the water continues, destroying the arrow and the bow.”

http://absolutewrite.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-39918.html

[ASOC]

Wet weather, and wet bowstrings decided, in part, the Battle of Crecy in 1346.

They lose elasticity when they get wet.

This happened to the Genoese mercenary crossbowmen at the Battle of Crecy in 1346. Their range was seriously hampered by their wet bowstrings, and they were unable to counter the English bowmen,who had wisely kept their strings dry (being able to unstring a simple bow when not in use comes in handy).

The result was a slaughter inflicted on their French employers, and the introduction of the longbow as a primary weapon of warfare.

[WayneS]

Thank you both. I did not know it could make that much of a difference.

[chesley]

Yeah, but the Bible is just a collection of myths, with no information that is not useless for understanding humanity in our modern society /s

[VR-21]

"The biggest battle site in North America, before the Civil War, was in Montana where two Indian tribes tried to exterminate each other."

Can you give me some details...names dates...reference material. I'd appreciate.

[NFHale]

“Tribal Wars of the Southern Plains” by Stan Hoig is another book that quite eloquently describes this.

[Berosus]

I am reminded of a cartoon I saw about forty years ago, that shows a team of archeologists looking in a pit they had dug. In the pit are several skeletons, with arrows and spears sticking out of the bones. One archaeologist says, “3.75 million years old ... And they were definitely humn.”

[Berosus]

I meant to say “definitely human.” Sorry.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Related subject: (Russeau mentioned) The Dark Side of the Enlightenment The source article is, unfortunately, behind a paywall. It’s a gem.

[MileHi]

Most tribal societies live in a constant fear of raids, homicide, and massacres.

Witness Chicago.

[jonno]

This reviewer takes issue with the author’s philosophy - namely the author seems to advocate for a ‘one world system’ as a workable solution for future peace:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303263602_Book_Review_of_WAR_BEFORE_CIVILIZATION

Does anyone who has read the book care to weigh in on this?

[DesertRhino]

” He states that “...until the late 19th century, civilized soldiers were at a slight disadvantage in fire weaponry when facing primitive bowmen.””

He is pretty close. Until repeating arms were common, bows were pretty much superior. Comanches with bows pretty much rolled back the Texas frontier about 150 miles and held it until revolvers came out.

I’ve used a basic osage plains bow with metal tipped dogwood arrows and it was shocking how fast and accurately it will snap out an arrow. A guy with a muzzle loader would be doomed and usually was.
As far as superiority of a muzzleloader over a bow in the rain...a flintlock was even worse.

And very few indian attacks were done in the rain or in winter for common sense reasons alone. That “sense to get out of the rain” thing.