8 ms·

No. Neither did the Mayans. There has always been a strain of utopianism in the study of ancient history that tries desperately to fit radically implausible so

No. Neither did the Mayans. There has always been a strain of utopianism in the study of ancient history that tries desperately to fit radically implausible social critiques into areas we are ignorant of. It is the sociological or anthropological equivalent of the "God of the gaps" approach in the hard sciences, which disingenuously begs the question "Does God exist?" by insisting that anything we can't positively and fairly certainly explain by physical causes must be due to the Big Guy in the Sky. In the case of magically peaceful civilizations, the most extreme instance was the Maya, who up until the last quarter of the 20th century were presumed to have "solved the problem of war", unlike we nasty brutish and short moderns. Then we learned to read their writing, and discovered they were incredibly violent and war-prone, just like every other human civilization: http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1986-05-27/news/8601310832_1_temple-walls-torture-new-history http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1986-05-27/news/8601310832_... The similarity between the article's claims about the Harappan civilization to the myths about the Maya are so striking that I've got to say the author and editor are both pretty far out of their depth to have not mentioned it. So my prediction is that contrary to the article's closing complex question, we won't ever find out how the Harappan civilization avoided war, because they didn't. When their writing is eventually translated there will be the "surprising" revelation that their highly ordered civilization was heavily regulated by highly organized violence at all scales, just like every other one we know anything detailed about. As a river civilization, state control of irrigation may have played a significant role in social control, but violence underpinned it, and warfare was the largest-scale expression of that violence. Lack of evidence of sacked cities is evidence that they didn't sack cities, not that they didn't engage in war. Maybe they simply killed all the inhabitants in a more organized way. They were, after all, highly organized. In general, it is more likely that the gaps are filled with things similar to well-studied cases than completely and entirely at odds with them. These mysterious people are deeply fascinating and were clearly extremely accomplished, but the odds are they had basic sociological similarities to everyone else.

ashark 12y ago
I took a poli-sci class covering war a(n increasingly long) while back. The professor devoted a huge amount of time[1] to disproving the notion of the peaceful "noble savage" and assigned Keeley's War Before Civilization[2], which is, I gather, still one of the best accessible texts about war in prehistory. May be of interest to anyone wanting to read a book-length exploration of the topic. TL;DR: it corroborates tjradcliffe's claim that the Harappan almost certainly regularly engaged in all kinds of violence, including organized warfare. It would be a huge find if it could actually be proven that they didn't. [1] Way too much time, IMO, since I don't think the idea informed the thinking of his students the way it may have in earlier decades. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Before_Civilization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Before_Civilization [edit] missing word, formatting
- Harris1246 12y ago
  The Indus Valley Civilization was not "before civilization".
  - ashark 12y ago
    Quite true and I didn't mean to imply otherwise, thank you for clarifying that. Indeed, the article seems to focus on their high degree of technological and social advancement rather than the speculative headline. Title aside, I think the book's main point is relevant to claims that any group of people in contact with other groups of people were, to any substantial extent, peaceful. I'm not saying it's "aliens built the pyramids" implausible—I don't want to overstate the case against it—but it's the sort of claim that ought to prompt disbelief by default. In particular I brought up that book since this civilization sits just on the other side of prehistory (do correct me if I'm wrong), which allows many of the same gaps in knowledge that historically produced this exact sort of speculation—the "god (peaceful, harmonious ancestors) of the gaps" that tjradcliffe mentioned. My guess is that, to the extent that it's true, it represents a kind of local "Pax Harappan", and that farther from their core territory they fought and killed at what would be, by modern standards, considered shockingly often, though it's possible they were less warlike than many of their contemporaries, which would be a worthwhile find on its own. A prolonged period of low-violence in their core territories could represent remarkable stability, certainly. The linked article doesn't provide much to go on, though, so it's hard to say without more extensive reading.
  - wozniacki 12y ago
    A highly favorited comment on the io9 page says: Mainstream archaeology's inability to accept these are proto Hindu/vedic people is staggering. So much evidence, so much conjecture... of course a culture followed it - it's called "India". The colonial biases in Indology need to stop. The seals, the standard measurements, the maths, etc - all are now present in India today. Most of Indology was written by colonial brits and germans in the 1800s who had a vested interest in suppressing's India's knowledge and heritage. It has to stop.[1] Let me preface this by saying that I do not know the quality of comments on io9 nor am I familiar with the quality of the content and authorship, there. Having said that, let me ask the following: 1) Historically, have there been systemic pro-European biases in Indology research and scholarship? 2) Is this bias unique to Indology and not found in say Egyptology or Oriental studies or the study of other great civilizations of yester era? 3) Is there a generally well studied consensus among Indologists, about the origin of Indic peoples and the emergence of their society & culture? 4) I know Indo-European languages are generally well studied. So do linguists and phonologists generally agree on which proto-language(s) gave rise to the rest? 5) What is a good introductory text (or tome) that all students of Indology are assigned in universities across the world, the authority & veracity of which is generally uncontested? [1] http://io9.com/mainstream-archaeologys-inability-to-accept-these-are-p-1595649886 http://io9.com/mainstream-archaeologys-inability-to-accept-t...
Agustus 12y ago
Great points tjradcliffe. The basis for which to draw non-war status is the absence of ash, suggesting burning to the ground. That is a large leap. Applying this same standard, we could technically say the Egyptians never engaged in war as there are no ashen layers. Also, the Romans would be said to have engaged in war because of Nero's folly. The correct conclusion would be the simpler: The town/civilization was strong enough to avoid being sacked or designed well enough to avoid complete burning. Walls are used to reduce the success of surprise attacks, provide a fortified position to defenders, and provide a means of access regulation; if there is no war, what is their purpose. This echos what Zeto says.
tegeek 12y ago
I visited Harrapa & Mohenjo-daro many times as I've lived there for the most of my life. I also visited nearby museums and saw the Harappan art, tools etc. I didn't see a single art warfare ever or a soldier's sword or any war-weapon like thing at all. I've been reading about Indus civilisation since I was 10 but in almost all the time, I came to conclusion that Indus Civilisation was one of the most peaceful era of all that area (I'm not comparing that time with now but relative to other parts of the world at that time). It is very unfortunate that India & Pakistan has most of the cities as unplanned, dirty & polluted even though they have some of the most fascinated civilisation buried behind their backyard.
- fillskills 12y ago
  Thank you. I posted this link because the article (not the title) attracted me to the Harappan culture and I wanted to know if it really was true that they fought no wars. Finding absolutely no war instruments is actually a really big deal. Great to know someone who actually interacts with the place so often.
- lappet 12y ago
  >I visited Harrapa & Mohenjo-daro many times as I've lived there for the most of my life Wow that is fascinating. If I may ask have you visited the sites in both India and Pakistan? I think a majority of the sites are in Pakistan and being Indian that is not going to be easy any time soon
  - tegeek 12y ago
    Harrapa & Mohenjo-daro are both in Pakistan. Both of the sites are famous and most of the kids in Punjab province visit these sites through school/college trips. Most of the remains of the Indus Civilization are in Pakistan. One of the oldest known sites of early Harrapan culture is not mentioned in the article is Mehrgarh [1] and belongs to Neolithic period (6500 BCE to c. 2500 BCE). 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehrgarh http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehrgarh
humanrebar 12y ago
> which disingenuously begs the question "Does God exist?" by insisting that anything we can't positively and fairly certainly explain by physical causes must be due to the Big Guy in the Sky. I agree with your position, but in my view your summary of some well-considered theological positions undermines your on-topic points. To be sure, there are people with shallow appreciation of the metaphysical implications of the exploration of nature, but people with more rich views are easy to find and the typical viewpoint is probably more reasonable than you give credit to. I hope you would consider being more measured and even-handed in your critiques of other viewpoints, especially when any responses would be off-topic. Thanks.
- kbenson 12y ago
  tjradcliffe's comment may have summarily dismissed some "well-considered theological positions" without explanation, but your defense of them with no evidence given is exactly the same but in the opposite direction. Rather than admonish, why don't you engage? If there are well-considered theological positions he's dismissing, I would like to hear them, and I'm sure others here would as well.
  - saraid216 12y ago
    I, for one, appreciate that he did not actually derail the conversation.
    - kbenson 12y ago
      Conversations are threaded here. It's not like we are limited to one or a few channels of active communication at a time on this, like when speaking with a group of people. It's very easy to carry on multiple conversations at once and keep track, and only slightly harder to keep track while reading (and that can be mitigated more through one of the numerous browser extensions that add more features to HN, such as collapsing threads). I'm not sure it's possible to derail a conversation here, they just naturally splinter into multiple aspects and tangents, which take differing amounts of time to run to their conclusion. An strong argument can probably be made about how the larger conversations on a page may reduce involvement in some other conversations, but I'm not sure I buy that it's necessarily a bad thing without careful consideration of the pros and cons, and wouldn't classify it as derailment.
rdtsc 12y ago
But you still base it on one example -- Maya. We were confused about it and assumed they didn't have wars but then we discovered they were violent. I think the best way to proceed is to do neither (assuming they were peaceful or liked war) but just explore what is there. There is also a confusion between war and violence. I presume "war" could be fighting with neighbours (other tribes, cultures) but violence could be internal -- brutal sacrifices, punishments, infanticide, and so on. Another flaw or rather double standard I see in the argument is that you claim we/others imbue or fill the gaps of unknowns with "Gods" -- "Oh those irrational people believing Higgs boson is God" before we discovered that it isn't. But then you do the same -- you assume there were wars even though you admit there is lack of proof that there was any (understanding writings, discovering sacked cities) .
jessaustin 12y ago
Maybe they simply killed all the inhabitants in a more organized way. They were, after all, highly organized. My reading of James C. Scott's work on Southeast Asia leads me to suspect a highly-organized state that controlled irrigable valley lands would wage war in order not to kill, but rather to enslave/enserf. (The various kingdoms of what would later become Thailand and Burma he writes about were after the Harrapan, but seem to have been similarly situated.) TFA actually mentions "So the Harappans appear to have been a very diverse lot", which may or may not be credible but is certainly consistent with the regular conscription of agricultural labor from afar. The idea is that in such a situation labor is the limiting resource, not land, water, or military might. The "nobility" always want to have more people at work in the fields than they can really control. Regular promotion of civic-minded peasants to military or bureaucratic service helps to ensure not just that their families will remain peaceable but that more families will be available to work soon. Of course Scott documents this process more comprehensively for the societies he studies than would be possible for this much more ancient society.
syaramak 12y ago
Great comment. I just read a book called Ten Kings. It's loosely based on a small portion of the Vedas that talks about the 'tribes' in the indus valley region and the constant wars that took place for control of the fertile lands there. I guess the region wasn't as peaceful as it's pointed out to be.

ashark 12y ago

I took a poli-sci class covering war a(n increasingly long) while back. The professor devoted a huge amount of time[1] to disproving the notion of the peaceful "noble savage" and assigned Keeley's War Before Civilization[2], which is, I gather, still one of the best accessible texts about war in prehistory. May be of interest to anyone wanting to read a book-length exploration of the topic. TL;DR: it corroborates tjradcliffe's claim that the Harappan almost certainly regularly engaged in all kinds of violence, including organized warfare. It would be a huge find if it could actually be proven that they didn't. [1] Way too much time, IMO, since I don't think the idea informed the thinking of his students the way it may have in earlier decades. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Before_Civilization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Before_Civilization [edit] missing word, formatting

Harris1246 12y ago
The Indus Valley Civilization was not "before civilization".
- ashark 12y ago
  Quite true and I didn't mean to imply otherwise, thank you for clarifying that. Indeed, the article seems to focus on their high degree of technological and social advancement rather than the speculative headline. Title aside, I think the book's main point is relevant to claims that any group of people in contact with other groups of people were, to any substantial extent, peaceful. I'm not saying it's "aliens built the pyramids" implausible—I don't want to overstate the case against it—but it's the sort of claim that ought to prompt disbelief by default. In particular I brought up that book since this civilization sits just on the other side of prehistory (do correct me if I'm wrong), which allows many of the same gaps in knowledge that historically produced this exact sort of speculation—the "god (peaceful, harmonious ancestors) of the gaps" that tjradcliffe mentioned. My guess is that, to the extent that it's true, it represents a kind of local "Pax Harappan", and that farther from their core territory they fought and killed at what would be, by modern standards, considered shockingly often, though it's possible they were less warlike than many of their contemporaries, which would be a worthwhile find on its own. A prolonged period of low-violence in their core territories could represent remarkable stability, certainly. The linked article doesn't provide much to go on, though, so it's hard to say without more extensive reading.
- wozniacki 12y ago
  A highly favorited comment on the io9 page says: Mainstream archaeology's inability to accept these are proto Hindu/vedic people is staggering. So much evidence, so much conjecture... of course a culture followed it - it's called "India". The colonial biases in Indology need to stop. The seals, the standard measurements, the maths, etc - all are now present in India today. Most of Indology was written by colonial brits and germans in the 1800s who had a vested interest in suppressing's India's knowledge and heritage. It has to stop.[1] Let me preface this by saying that I do not know the quality of comments on io9 nor am I familiar with the quality of the content and authorship, there. Having said that, let me ask the following: 1) Historically, have there been systemic pro-European biases in Indology research and scholarship? 2) Is this bias unique to Indology and not found in say Egyptology or Oriental studies or the study of other great civilizations of yester era? 3) Is there a generally well studied consensus among Indologists, about the origin of Indic peoples and the emergence of their society & culture? 4) I know Indo-European languages are generally well studied. So do linguists and phonologists generally agree on which proto-language(s) gave rise to the rest? 5) What is a good introductory text (or tome) that all students of Indology are assigned in universities across the world, the authority & veracity of which is generally uncontested? [1] http://io9.com/mainstream-archaeologys-inability-to-accept-these-are-p-1595649886 http://io9.com/mainstream-archaeologys-inability-to-accept-t...

Agustus 12y ago

Great points tjradcliffe. The basis for which to draw non-war status is the absence of ash, suggesting burning to the ground. That is a large leap. Applying this same standard, we could technically say the Egyptians never engaged in war as there are no ashen layers. Also, the Romans would be said to have engaged in war because of Nero's folly. The correct conclusion would be the simpler: The town/civilization was strong enough to avoid being sacked or designed well enough to avoid complete burning. Walls are used to reduce the success of surprise attacks, provide a fortified position to defenders, and provide a means of access regulation; if there is no war, what is their purpose. This echos what Zeto says.

tegeek 12y ago

I visited Harrapa & Mohenjo-daro many times as I've lived there for the most of my life. I also visited nearby museums and saw the Harappan art, tools etc. I didn't see a single art warfare ever or a soldier's sword or any war-weapon like thing at all. I've been reading about Indus civilisation since I was 10 but in almost all the time, I came to conclusion that Indus Civilisation was one of the most peaceful era of all that area (I'm not comparing that time with now but relative to other parts of the world at that time). It is very unfortunate that India & Pakistan has most of the cities as unplanned, dirty & polluted even though they have some of the most fascinated civilisation buried behind their backyard.

fillskills 12y ago
Thank you. I posted this link because the article (not the title) attracted me to the Harappan culture and I wanted to know if it really was true that they fought no wars. Finding absolutely no war instruments is actually a really big deal. Great to know someone who actually interacts with the place so often.
lappet 12y ago
>I visited Harrapa & Mohenjo-daro many times as I've lived there for the most of my life Wow that is fascinating. If I may ask have you visited the sites in both India and Pakistan? I think a majority of the sites are in Pakistan and being Indian that is not going to be easy any time soon
- tegeek 12y ago
  Harrapa & Mohenjo-daro are both in Pakistan. Both of the sites are famous and most of the kids in Punjab province visit these sites through school/college trips. Most of the remains of the Indus Civilization are in Pakistan. One of the oldest known sites of early Harrapan culture is not mentioned in the article is Mehrgarh [1] and belongs to Neolithic period (6500 BCE to c. 2500 BCE). 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehrgarh http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehrgarh

humanrebar 12y ago

> which disingenuously begs the question "Does God exist?" by insisting that anything we can't positively and fairly certainly explain by physical causes must be due to the Big Guy in the Sky. I agree with your position, but in my view your summary of some well-considered theological positions undermines your on-topic points. To be sure, there are people with shallow appreciation of the metaphysical implications of the exploration of nature, but people with more rich views are easy to find and the typical viewpoint is probably more reasonable than you give credit to. I hope you would consider being more measured and even-handed in your critiques of other viewpoints, especially when any responses would be off-topic. Thanks.

kbenson 12y ago
tjradcliffe's comment may have summarily dismissed some "well-considered theological positions" without explanation, but your defense of them with no evidence given is exactly the same but in the opposite direction. Rather than admonish, why don't you engage? If there are well-considered theological positions he's dismissing, I would like to hear them, and I'm sure others here would as well.
- saraid216 12y ago
  I, for one, appreciate that he did not actually derail the conversation.
  - kbenson 12y ago
    Conversations are threaded here. It's not like we are limited to one or a few channels of active communication at a time on this, like when speaking with a group of people. It's very easy to carry on multiple conversations at once and keep track, and only slightly harder to keep track while reading (and that can be mitigated more through one of the numerous browser extensions that add more features to HN, such as collapsing threads). I'm not sure it's possible to derail a conversation here, they just naturally splinter into multiple aspects and tangents, which take differing amounts of time to run to their conclusion. An strong argument can probably be made about how the larger conversations on a page may reduce involvement in some other conversations, but I'm not sure I buy that it's necessarily a bad thing without careful consideration of the pros and cons, and wouldn't classify it as derailment.

rdtsc 12y ago

But you still base it on one example -- Maya. We were confused about it and assumed they didn't have wars but then we discovered they were violent. I think the best way to proceed is to do neither (assuming they were peaceful or liked war) but just explore what is there. There is also a confusion between war and violence. I presume "war" could be fighting with neighbours (other tribes, cultures) but violence could be internal -- brutal sacrifices, punishments, infanticide, and so on. Another flaw or rather double standard I see in the argument is that you claim we/others imbue or fill the gaps of unknowns with "Gods" -- "Oh those irrational people believing Higgs boson is God" before we discovered that it isn't. But then you do the same -- you assume there were wars even though you admit there is lack of proof that there was any (understanding writings, discovering sacked cities) .

jessaustin 12y ago

Maybe they simply killed all the inhabitants in a more organized way. They were, after all, highly organized. My reading of James C. Scott's work on Southeast Asia leads me to suspect a highly-organized state that controlled irrigable valley lands would wage war in order not to kill, but rather to enslave/enserf. (The various kingdoms of what would later become Thailand and Burma he writes about were after the Harrapan, but seem to have been similarly situated.) TFA actually mentions "So the Harappans appear to have been a very diverse lot", which may or may not be credible but is certainly consistent with the regular conscription of agricultural labor from afar. The idea is that in such a situation labor is the limiting resource, not land, water, or military might. The "nobility" always want to have more people at work in the fields than they can really control. Regular promotion of civic-minded peasants to military or bureaucratic service helps to ensure not just that their families will remain peaceable but that more families will be available to work soon. Of course Scott documents this process more comprehensively for the societies he studies than would be possible for this much more ancient society.

syaramak 12y ago

Great comment. I just read a book called Ten Kings. It's loosely based on a small portion of the Vedas that talks about the 'tribes' in the indus valley region and the constant wars that took place for control of the fertile lands there. I guess the region wasn't as peaceful as it's pointed out to be.