3 ms·
Turchin isn't saying that majority of archaelogists don't believe that warfare was a major part of human history. It's a specific statement about theories abou
by icegreentea2 4y ago
Turchin isn't saying that majority of archaelogists don't believe that warfare was a major part of human history.
It's a specific statement about theories about enabled/drove the increase in societal complexity in the last 10,000 years. The question is about the relative importance of agriculture and warfare as enablers and drivers.
Unfortunately without the whole interview/quote, it's hard to parse out exactly what Turchin means when he says "the warfare theory". We do know that Turchin is arguing that warfare (external conflict) and agriculture are together the two dominant factors in driving societal complexity.
The most charitable explanation would be that the people who are "against the warfare theory" would probably argue that agriculture is the dominant factor, with external conflict firmly in second place, as an important (perhaps the most important) secondary factor. Another reasonable reading would be that the majority of archaeologists do not believe that warfare is the dominant factor in societal complexity.
- kipchak 4y agoMy understanding of Turchin's argument from Ultrasociety is basically that for very early civilizations people were generally worse off individually giving up autonomy to absolute rulers, and that it goes against most people's and similar primates feelings about fairness/egalitarianism. As a result there must have been some very large advantage to centralization, which he argues was likely war in order to defend against external threats or raiders.
- WalterBright 4y agoThe thing about warfare is the side that is better organized and led tends to win. Strategy and tactics play a huge role in victory, and don't arise spontaneously. I would expect it to drive society to more complexity.
- AlotOfReading 4y agoThat is very emphatically not the argument Turchin is making and the tenuousness of the connection between military success and institutional complexity is evident by looking at the pretty obvious exceptions like the Mongol empire, the Huns, etc.