Robber Baron? Or capitalism in action?

[rogue06]

Frank's article is largely a review of the archaeologist Lawrence H. Keeley's research that he published in War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage. In it Keeley shows that peaceful societies are a rare exception and that nearly 95% of them are warlike or regularly go to war. Of the fraction that doesn't, they tend to fall into two groups: isolated nomadic groups (who also have the option of flight) and defeated refugees.

The attrition rate of the close-quarters combat that is the feature of tribal warfare whether ancient or modern, results in much higher (up to 60 times!^[1]) casualty rates that what we see today. And it doesn't matter if you base your calculations on the total deaths due to war or as the average deaths per year from war as a percent of the total population.

Here's a graph from the article showing this comparison:

Figure 2. Death Rates From Warfare.jpg






1. According to TJ Nelson's review of Keeley's work.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Frank's article is largely a review of the archaeologist Lawrence H. Keeley's research that he published in War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage. In it Keeley shows that peaceful societies are a rare exception and that nearly 95% of them are warlike or regularly go to war. Of the fraction that doesn't, they tend to fall into two groups: isolated nomadic groups (who also have the option of flight) and defeated refugees.

The attrition rate of the close-quarters combat that is the feature of tribal warfare whether ancient or modern, results in much higher (up to 60 times!^[1]) casualty rates that what we see today. And it doesn't matter if you base your calculations on the total deaths due to war or as the average deaths per year from war as a percent of the total population.

Here's a graph from the article showing this comparison:

Figure 2. Death Rates From Warfare.jpg

1. According to TJ Nelson's review of Keeley's work.

From chapter 5 in Douglas Fry's 2009 Beyond War: The Human Potential for Peace [OUP]

After reviewing the archaeological evidence on prehistoric homicides and warfare, Lawrence Keeley reaches the conclusion "that homicide has been practiced since the appearance of modern humankind and that warfare is documented in the archaeological record of the past 10,000 years in every well-studied region." I would not be surprised if occasional homicides occurred long before the emergence of modern humans. In fact, Marilyn Roper's review of published sources suggests that homicides did occur even before modern humans arrived on the scene some 40,000 to 50,000 years ago. [...] Keith Otterbein points out that Keeley, under the heading "Prehistoric War," includes archaeological instances of homicide and "violent death" [a rather ambiguous term] along with the evidence for warfare. In other words, many The Earliest Evidence of War of the examples Keeley mentions under the label "Prehistoric War" actually do not pertain to war at all. Otterbein criticizes Keeley for surreptitiously shifting concepts: "I object to sliding from Violent death' in the Paleolithic to 'warfare' in the Late Paleolithic without comment upon his changing use of terminology." Furthermore, pertaining to the same section of Keeley's book, Raymond Kelly questions Keeley's assertion that certain European mass burials were probably the result of war. "In winter there is no inducement to prompt burial, especially during a time of general illness and famine. . . . Multiple burials should not be interpreted as evidence of war unless skeletal indications of trauma or proximate projectile points support this."

In sum, Keeley intermingles archaeological examples of individual homicides, sometimes ambiguous cases of "violent death," and perhaps even nonviolent deaths due to starvation and disease with the archaeological examples of warfare, all under the heading "Prehistoric War." This creates an impression that there is more and older evidence for warfare than actually exists. However, despite this unfortunate exaggeration of warfare—and this is really the crucial point—Keeley finds no solid evidence of warfare, anywhere in the world, older than about 10,000 years before the present [BP in archaeological lingo].

Here's a graph from the article showing this comparison:

I have no idea why why you are replicating a graph that I have at my disposal.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

From chapter 5 in Douglas Fry's 2009 Beyond War: The Human Potential for Peace [OUP]

After reviewing the archaeological evidence on prehistoric homicides and warfare, Lawrence Keeley reaches the conclusion "that homicide has been practiced since the appearance of modern humankind and that warfare is documented in the archaeological record of the past 10,000 years in every well-studied region." I would not be surprised if occasional homicides occurred long before the emergence of modern humans. In fact, Marilyn Roper's review of published sources suggests that homicides did occur even before modern humans arrived on the scene some 40,000 to 50,000 years ago. [...] Keith Otterbein points out that Keeley, under the heading "Prehistoric War," includes archaeological instances of homicide and "violent death" [a rather ambiguous term] along with the evidence for warfare. In other words, many of the examples Keeley mentions under the label "Prehistoric War" actually do not pertain to war at all. Otterbein criticizes Keeley for surreptitiously shifting concepts: "I object to sliding from Violent death' in the Paleolithic to 'warfare' in the Late Paleolithic without comment upon his changing use of terminology." Furthermore, pertaining to the same section of Keeley's book, Raymond Kelly questions Keeley's assertion that certain European mass burials were probably the result of war. "In winter there is no inducement to prompt burial, especially during a time of general illness and famine. . . . Multiple burials should not be interpreted as evidence of war unless skeletal indications of trauma or proximate projectile points support this."

In sum, Keeley intermingles archaeological examples of individual homicides, sometimes ambiguous cases of "violent death," and perhaps even nonviolent deaths due to starvation and disease with the archaeological examples of warfare, all under the heading "Prehistoric War." This creates an impression that there is more and older evidence for warfare than actually exists. However, despite this unfortunate exaggeration of warfare—and this is really the crucial point—Keeley finds no solid evidence of warfare, anywhere in the world, older than about 10,000 years before the present [BP in archaeological lingo].




I have no idea why why you are replicating a graph that I have at my disposal.

Edited to remark on an earlier missed observation by you where you wrote " archaeologist Lawrence H. Keeley'. Keeley is an anthropologist.

[rogue06]

Edited to remark on an earlier missed observation by you where you wrote " archaeologist Lawrence H. Keeley'. Keeley is an anthropologist.

Some sources list him as an archaeologist, others as an anthropologist.

I have to ask, have you actually read the article? I ask because I've seen no indication that you have. No quotes. No paraphrasing. Just stuff from reviews of it.

[Sparko]

Sociology is not Anthropology.

Sociology is the branch of science that is more qualified to comment on human violence throughout history than Anthropology. While Anthropology does study human societies in general, Sociology specializes in studying human interactions in society.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Some sources list him as an archaeologist, others as an anthropologist.

In his obituary he is professor emeritus of anthropology. https://today.uic.edu/deaths-lawrence-keeley .

I have to ask, have you actually read the article? I ask because I've seen no indication that you have. No quotes. No paraphrasing. Just stuff from reviews of it.

I have to ask, have you actually read my reply at post #225?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Sociology is the branch of science that is more qualified to comment on human violence throughout history than Anthropology.

On what basis?

While Anthropology does study human societies in general,

Which of the main branches of anthropology are you referencing?

Sociology specializes in studying human interactions in society.

In what regard do you consider sociology to be better placed to look at other societies than anthropology?

[Sparko]

On what basis?

Which of the main branches of anthropology are you referencing?

In what regard do you consider sociology to be better placed to look at other societies than anthropology?

So you are admitting you have no idea what sociology is about then? Interesting. Perhaps you could provide some sources that show that Anthropology is more suited to determine the history of violence of humanity than sociology?

[Cow Poke]

So you are admitting you have no idea what sociology is about then? Interesting. Perhaps you could provide some sources that show that Anthropology is more suited to determine the history of violence of humanity than sociology?

I'll never forget my sociology professor spending so much time at the beginning of the semester claiming that 'sociology' is every but as much a science as mathematics or physics.

[Sparko]

I'll never forget my sociology professor spending so much time at the beginning of the semester claiming that 'sociology' is every but as much a science as mathematics or physics.

Bless his heart.

[tabibito]

In his obituary he is professor emeritus of anthropology. https://today.uic.edu/deaths-lawrence-keeley .

From the linked article

Lawrence Keeley, 69, professor emeritus of anthropology, died Oct. 11.

His honors include the Society for American Archaeology’s Award for Excellence in Lithic Studies in 1995, and UIC’s University Scholar award in 1989.

In a 2015 Chicago Tribune profile of Field Museum archaeologist Bill Parkinson, the UIC alumnus described the guidance he received from Keeley, who inspired Parkinson’s career path.

Keeley earned a bachelor’s degree from San Jose State University and master’s and doctoral degrees from Oxford University.

https://awrana.org/obituaries/ - he is referred to as an archaeologist.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

So you are admitting you have no idea what sociology is about then? Interesting. Perhaps you could provide some sources that show that Anthropology is more suited to determine the history of violence of humanity than sociology?

I am not "admitting" anything of the sort.

I asked you some questions premised on your statements. If you are unwilling or unable to defend and define those comments we are at an impasse.

[rogue06]

In his obituary he is professor emeritus of anthropology. https://today.uic.edu/deaths-lawrence-keeley .

As Tab has confirmed, various sources list him as having been an anthropologist while others list him as an archaeologist

I have to ask, have you actually read my reply at post #225?

It's the reason why I asked if you really read the article or just reviews.

[rogue06]

I'll never forget my sociology professor spending so much time at the beginning of the semester claiming that 'sociology' is every but as much a science as mathematics or physics.

I'll never forget being told that there are five sciences that are anything but. That you can ask five experts a question about and receive five different, often contradictory, authoritative replies (the joke was you could get six different answers from five experts). Those fields are psychology, psychiatry, sociology, political science and economics.

And this was by a guy who held a PhD in both the first two.

Funny, how many multi-PhD holders I knew when I was younger.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

As Tab has confirmed, various sources list him as having been an anthropologist while others list him as an archaeologist

His books refer to him as a professor of anthropology. He was clearly involved in archaeological digs but in what capacity - either as an archaeologist or anthropologist I do not know. His early research was in microwear which indicates a cross-over between two related disciplines. However, for what discipline his Ph.D was awarded, again, I do not know.

It's the reason why I asked if you really read the article or just reviews.

And I answered you. Nor is the extract I quoted from Fry a "review" it is from a chapter in his book - again this is information that I also provided in my post with that extract.

Furthermore [and Sparko might like to read this as it is written by a sociologist]:

From The Sociology of War and Violence, Siniša Maleševic´ CUP, 2010, Chapter 3

Despite its near universality war is, historically speaking, a very late development. If one discounts the neo-Darwinian views that conflate warfare with aggression and feuding, most social scientists and archaeologists agree that there were no structural conditions for war before the end of the Palaeolithic and beginning of the Mesolithic. Although there is pronounced disagreement on the precise origins of warfare most would concur with the view that warfare emerged somewhere in the last 10,000 years of human development... To place this date in the larger historical context one can say that for more than 99 per cent of its existence Homo sapiens had no experience of warfare. Before the Mesolithic era humans largely lived in very small, isolated, non-sedentary, bands of hunter-gatherers, tribes and other kinship-related groups that rarely exceeded 500 people ... Although there is some scant archaeological indication of group-induced violence before this period, as Ferrill points out, there is no conclusive evidence ‘until the final stages of the Palaeolithic Age’ that ‘prehistoric tools or hunting weapons were used against man at all’.


It is only with key technological developments such as the invention of more complex weaponry (the bow, the mace, the sling and the dagger), the development of strategy and tactics, the deployment of columns and lines of men and the build-up of larger defensive fortifications that one can start talking about serious inter-group violent conflicts that resemble wars. What is sociologically interesting is that these military and technological advancements arrived on the historical stage at the very time when human beings were starting to replace their hunter–gatherer lifestyle with a sedentary agricultural lifestyle. In other words, it is no accident that large-scale collective violence emerged with the Neolithic revolution whereby nomadic bands and tribes were gradually replaced by permanent human settlements involving the domestication of plants and animals, expansion of farming techniques and radically transformed diets (with a reliance on vegetables and cultivated grain). All these changes had direct economic and sociological implications.

So while we can all agree that early human beings were not the Rousseauian pacific "tree-huggers" of soft primitivism the extent and frequency of violence between "very small, isolated, non-sedentary, bands of hunter-gatherers, tribes and other kinship-related groups" is unknown because we have no record.