4 ms·

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

by 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...
  - tokenadult 12y ago
    You are asking a factual question. One place to look for citations of facts on the issue is in the extensive footnotes of the book The Hindus: An Alternative History[1] by Sanskrit scholar Wendy Doniger. The book points out that the Harappan inscriptions depict several animals that are mentioned nowhere in the Vedas, while the Vedas in turn mention (in writing) several animals that appear nowhere in the Harappan inscriptions. In other words, the Vedas were composed in a region of Asia with different animals, because of different climate, from the region where the Indus Valley civilization arose. The Vedas also describe many aspects of an ancient lifestyle that was certainly not centered around cities in a river valley like the valley of the Indus. There are multiple lines of evidence to show that the Vedic culture and the Harappan culture were distinct and arose in different parts of south Asia. The historiography of India is a very complicated issue, in large part because of lack of written records in key phases of the development of civilization and religion in India, and also because historical claims about India are tightly bound up in political claims about current Indian politics. A Google search on "Indian historiography" (a search I just did) will disclose some of the competing claims. [1] http://www.amazon.com/Hindus-Alternative-History-Wendy-Doniger/dp/014311669X/ http://www.amazon.com/Hindus-Alternative-History-Wendy-Donig...
100k 12y ago
War Before Civilization is a terrific book. One of the things I recall from it is a debunking of the "ceremonial" nature of war in stone age cultures. It may seem ceremonial that two groups meet, fight, and disengage without a clear result, but on a percentage basis the casualty levels are unbelievable (the linked Wikipedia article says 60%).
whtrbt 12y ago
Is the convention you used for a/an in "a (n increasingly long) while back" common? As soon as I saw it, I wondered how I had ever handled the scenario but nothing came to mind. Perhaps I just ignored it and would have written "a (increasingly long) while back".
- ashark 12y ago
  I've seen it before, so I can't claim credit for inventing it. Not sure how common it is. Situations where it may be employed are unusual so even if everyone always used that construction when possible, it would be rare. I don't like that part of my post, on reflection. Complexity to no real purpose, and the words miss the meaning I intended. Obviously it's increasingly long ago. Sloppy writing.
  - whtrbt 12y ago
    I didn't even realise it was redundant until you pointed that out. I got what you meant.
- lobster_johnson 12y ago
  "An (increasingly long) while back" is more grammatically correct because the paranthesis is not a separate sentence; it's part of the grammar structure of the sentence as a whole.
  - whtrbt 12y ago
    Yes, that way of writing it is actually the least disruptive to my reading.
- nl 12y ago
  As an aside, it's pretty rare that something a while back isn't also an increasingly long while back.

by ashark 12y ago

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...
- tokenadult 12y ago
  You are asking a factual question. One place to look for citations of facts on the issue is in the extensive footnotes of the book The Hindus: An Alternative History[1] by Sanskrit scholar Wendy Doniger. The book points out that the Harappan inscriptions depict several animals that are mentioned nowhere in the Vedas, while the Vedas in turn mention (in writing) several animals that appear nowhere in the Harappan inscriptions. In other words, the Vedas were composed in a region of Asia with different animals, because of different climate, from the region where the Indus Valley civilization arose. The Vedas also describe many aspects of an ancient lifestyle that was certainly not centered around cities in a river valley like the valley of the Indus. There are multiple lines of evidence to show that the Vedic culture and the Harappan culture were distinct and arose in different parts of south Asia. The historiography of India is a very complicated issue, in large part because of lack of written records in key phases of the development of civilization and religion in India, and also because historical claims about India are tightly bound up in political claims about current Indian politics. A Google search on "Indian historiography" (a search I just did) will disclose some of the competing claims. [1] http://www.amazon.com/Hindus-Alternative-History-Wendy-Doniger/dp/014311669X/ http://www.amazon.com/Hindus-Alternative-History-Wendy-Donig...

100k 12y ago

War Before Civilization is a terrific book. One of the things I recall from it is a debunking of the "ceremonial" nature of war in stone age cultures. It may seem ceremonial that two groups meet, fight, and disengage without a clear result, but on a percentage basis the casualty levels are unbelievable (the linked Wikipedia article says 60%).

whtrbt 12y ago

Is the convention you used for a/an in "a (n increasingly long) while back" common? As soon as I saw it, I wondered how I had ever handled the scenario but nothing came to mind. Perhaps I just ignored it and would have written "a (increasingly long) while back".

ashark 12y ago
I've seen it before, so I can't claim credit for inventing it. Not sure how common it is. Situations where it may be employed are unusual so even if everyone always used that construction when possible, it would be rare. I don't like that part of my post, on reflection. Complexity to no real purpose, and the words miss the meaning I intended. Obviously it's increasingly long ago. Sloppy writing.
- whtrbt 12y ago
  I didn't even realise it was redundant until you pointed that out. I got what you meant.
lobster_johnson 12y ago
"An (increasingly long) while back" is more grammatically correct because the paranthesis is not a separate sentence; it's part of the grammar structure of the sentence as a whole.
- whtrbt 12y ago
  Yes, that way of writing it is actually the least disruptive to my reading.
nl 12y ago
As an aside, it's pretty rare that something a while back isn't also an increasingly long while back.