I picked this book up because I was moderately interested in the topic of this book – to the extent of how do you defend places/wage war against an advanced civilization/conduct guerilla war or total war. I got a lot out of the book.
This book sets that information into the context of archaeological revelations of defensive fortifications, mass burials of slaughtered victims, and first-person accounts (oral histories and pictographs) to determine A) how widespread was warfare as a way of life before civilized historians wrote it down; B) how lethal was warfare among “primitive” societies; all while C) examining the core beliefs behind the modern anthropologists’ description of tribal societies as “peaceful.”
I would recommend reading this book and Jared Diamond’s “Guns, Germs, and Steel” soon after one another. The two books treat similar topics, but with different approaches.
First, Lawrence Keeley endeavors to explain why archaeologists “pacify” the past. They refuse to “see” the results of conflict and war, as though they are wearing academic blinders. In Keeley’s opinion, clear evidence points to the warlike nature of primitive (non-literate) tribes: fortified dwelling places, defensive structures, mass burials (especially after a period of exposure of the corpses), and skeletal remains that show execution methods or cannibalism cuts. Keeley goes all the way back to Hobbes vs. Rousseau to tackle the “why” and examine confirmation biases, both in the colonial reports that exist and in modern ethnologies. (note: Keeley draws more than once on the work of Chagnon with the Yanomamo tribe, and my understanding is that this work has become doubtful. At the time Kelley published, Chagnon was a legitimate source, and including Chagnon’s material in this book does not undercut Keeley’s ideas.)
We look at pre-colonial raids and massacres:
1) 10% of some populations died violently (p. 68)
2) Burials are unequivocal evidence
3) Frequent deadly raids and occasional horrific massacres (about once per generation)
4) Sometimes entire villages and settlements were wiped out.
We examine whether civilized armies hold a tactical advantage in combat against a primitive foe:
1) It comes down to fortifications and manpower
2) Primitives have important advantages: dispersed units; knowledge of terrain; skirmishes and ambushes; raids; surprise attacks on military camps or settlements far from the army; and the destruction of the enemy’s economic advantages
3) In 1874-1975, the US Army conducted a total war against the Plains Indians: adopted primitive techniques of relentless pursuit, during winter, with no rest, and the destruction of bison
4) In 1876-1877, the US Army conducted total war vs. Sioux and Cheyenne Indians: pursuit through fall and winter, no time to gather/harvest, destruction of tipis and stored food, destruction of Indian horses, destruction of bison
5) Look at Crook’s campaigns against the Apaches: adopted primitive methods of attacks on encampments, utilization of Indian scouts, and the use of mules, not horses
6) Also looks at Ancient Roman records and colonial records from central and south America
Keeley makes the case that primitive war was far deadlier and more destructive than modern war (Chapter 6). In particular, he cites these characteristics of primitive war:
+no quarter will be given
+enslavement of captured women and children
+cannibalism by the victors on the corpses of the defeated
+mutilation of enemy corpses
+sometimes ransom of prisoners
+sometimes “adoption” of prisoners
+expect atrocities
Keeley lists some of the most war-prone societies on page 128, but he omits Islam. He posits that the causes of war generally are: the proximity to belligerent neighbors, hard times, and frontiers (p. 127)
Takeaways:
1) Keeley offers an extra-good analysis of the differences between the Canadian frontier system and that of the US and Mexico (pp 154-156). In Canada, the government got there first, establishing Army/Mountie posts and allowing the army to resolve disputes as they arose. The Army/Mounties moved the Indians off the land before the settlers arrived. Result: Much less conflict.
2) The first Rule of War is: DO NOT LOSE
3) Page 129 points to the rise of China as dangerous for world peace, because of rapid population increases and new technology in food production/transportation/weaponry
Read Also: Quincy Wright “A study of War” – lawyerly
Read Also: Harry Holbert Turney-High “Primitive War” about the plains tribes – considers war as a social institution
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required. Learn more
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Loading your book clubs
There was a problem loading your book clubs. Please try again.
Not in a club? Learn more
Join or create book clubs
Choose books together
Track your books
Bring your club to Amazon Book Clubs, start a new book club and invite your friends to join, or find a club that’s right for you for free.
![War Before Civilization by [Lawrence H. Keeley]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51TUo+RUinL._SY346_.jpg)
Follow the Author
Something went wrong. Please try your request again later.
Limited-Time Offer
3 Months FREE of Audible Premium Plus. Get this deal
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
Page 1 of 1 Start overPage 1 of 1
About the author
Follow authors to get new release updates, plus improved recommendations.
Top reviews from other countries
subversive@lineone.net
Interesting and some deep insights into human nature.
Reviewed in the United Kingdom 🇬🇧 on December 3, 2014observer100
Highly recommended
Reviewed in the United Kingdom 🇬🇧 on February 27, 2017Token
A serious, well-done academic piece.
Reviewed in Canada 🇨🇦 on January 25, 2021
