I’m always amused by things like this:
Before the 1990s, “for a long time we didn’t really believe in war in prehistory,” DAI’s Hansen says. The grave goods were explained as prestige objects or symbols of power rather than actual weapons. “Most people thought ancient society was peaceful, and that Bronze Age males were concerned with trading and so on,” says Helle Vandkilde, an archaeologist at Aarhus University in Denmark. “Very few talked about warfare.”
Because they bought into Rousseau’s “noble savage” BS.
I suspect there’s still a lot more that we don’t know about human history than we do.
You only suspect? If history were all written we’d only have one page out of tens of thousands.
We were all living in a bonobo sex-Eden back then…
I know you are joking but…
There was a recent article about a study that looked at that and determined that early human societies were more like great apes than chimpanzees. They concluded this because there were fewer males contributing genetically than in chimpanzee groups. The ancient world was filled with harems apparently.
““Most people thought ancient society was peaceful, and that Bronze Age males were concerned with trading and so on,” says Helle Vandkilde, an archaeologist at Aarhus University in Denmark. “Very few talked about warfare.” ”
They also think that’s the norm today….right up until the bomb goes off……
They had weapons. How delusional do you have to be to believe they had no use?
Presumably they believe that international law strictly reserved them for hunting.
Not only did they have weapons…they had tribes too
Dear God but these people are highly credentialed fools. As a students in elementary school I read every book I could find on Bronze Age armies, so at least previous generations of archaeologists knew there were wars in the Bronze Age.
And this: ‘“If you fight with body armor and helmet and corselet, you need daily training or you can’t move,” Hansen says. [….] “This kind of training is the beginning of a specialized group of warriors,” Hansen says.’
Wikipedia knows that’s nonsense: ‘Hoplites were citizen-soldiers of Ancient Greek city-states [….] The hoplites were primarily free citizens—propertied farmers and artisans—who were able to afford the bronze armor suit and weapons.’ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoplite
Wikipedia knows lots of things that are nonsense, heh… Seriously, Greek hoplites may not have been an official military aristocracy, but they weren’t modern city dwellers either. Hand-tool dirt-farming, or stone-carving, or carpentry, etc requires being in pretty good shape.
And even once you’re in good shape, fighting for your life with hand weapons in sixty-odd pounds of armor takes practice to do well, and takes LOTS of practice – several hours, several times a week – to do well for anything more than minutes between breaks. (I played SCA mass battles for ten years. Fun, yes. Easy to get in shape for, not so much… Fortunately, if you like that sort of thing at all, the practice is fun too!)
That said, yeah, the guy seems to be drawing conclusions about their social organization not really justified by the actual facts: That some were better armored, armed, and ornamented than others.
The thing I find really interesting here is the hints that thousands of people came from all over Europe for this battle. I’d love to know the story behind that.
” Seriously, Greek hoplites may not have been an official military aristocracy, ..”
Some where and some weren’t.
The Spartans were a complete and total official military aristocracy – all the male Spartan citizens ever did was train for war.
Athenians and most other city states were as you suggest…..farmers and blackmiths etc who trained for war occasionally.
Hoplite phalanx battle didn’t take a lot of finesse (unless you were a Spartan – they worked out a few battlefield movements). Each phalanx pushed and shoved against the other (spearing and hacking where they could) until one side gave away. Given that most soldiers had to get back to their day jobs, most battles were short, sharp and brutal. Decisions were arrived at quickly and there weren’t many battles of pursuit and annihilation. Ground had to be chosen which enabled phalanx battle – sometimes by mutual consent of the sides.
This is where Western Civ got the notion that War should be short and sharp with decisions made as rapidly as possible. Not every opponent thinks that way though…..
“Most people thought ancient society was peaceful, and that Bronze Age males were concerned with trading and so on,” says Helle Vandkilde, an archaeologist at Aarhus University in Denmark. “Very few talked about warfare.”
I doubt that’s accurate, I read Clarke’s 2001 in the mid ’70’s and to me the book suggested that we’ve been doing warfare for a million years, and I doubt that anyone familiar with the challenges faced by early European explorers would suggest that prehistoric societies outside of Europe, – for example throughout Africa, North America, and Oceania weren’t familiar with warfare before European contact.
Clarke wasn’t an anthropologist or archaeologist and hadn’t been reading the BS they were spewing.
I highly recommend War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage. It’s written by an archaeologist who thought his colleagues were either nuts or completely blind to logic, reason, and evidence.
He traces how the peaceful primitive idea took hold after WW-II when the left decided that we were the real savages, and that nothing could compare to the death toll of our modern wars. This was of course completely wrong (as Steven Pinker points out), and it led to nonsense like the explanations for why early Germanic chiefs were buried with axes (Academic’s answer: their social hierarchy was based on skill at woodcutting!).
Of course on this blog, we have a commenter that believes the savages are peaceful and that toddlers are more dangerous. People like him think they should be allowed to make policy, which pretty much explains the spread of warfare in the last 7 years.
Perhaps he had in mind Dennis the menace and a slingshot?
I wouldn’t describe “the savages” (i.e. Islamist terrorists) as peaceful, just observe that they haven’t killed very many Americans in the U.S. lately. In 2015 the count was 19 killed by Islamist terrorists and 21 by armed toddlers, so the toddlers were slightly more deadly (mostly to themselves). But neither was a major cause of death, or even of violent death (the FBI estimates there were 14,249 U.S. murders in 2014).
I think Pinker has made a good case that violence was much more common in ancient and prehistoric times, and that the world is safer today than its ever been.
Jim, there’s a thing called the front line. Behind the front line much less killing goes on. If not countered those front lines tend to expand and eventually would exterminate any and all unwilling to defend themselves.
Toddlers are not intent on taking over the world (or do you know something the rest of us don’t?)
Yes, it is very dangerous to live in an area controlled (or being fought over) by murderous terrorists. The U.S. is not such a place, and is in no danger of becoming one. The people most interested in having you believe otherwise are the terrorists themselves: sowing irrational fear is what they’re all about.
in no danger of becoming one
I would agree that most terrorists are stupid and ineffective but that’s not the same as nothing to fear. More than half of all muslims support violent jihad. Yes, we are a long way from the tipping point but that is changing. History shows the violence increases in every territory they move into. Head in sand is not an option.
Yours is an empty assertion.
So you think that to look at 9/11, Boston marathon, San Bernardino (just to name a few), the increasing rates of violence death and destruction at the hands of Islamic terrorists in Europe and to fear that happening here again is irrational?
If the world is safer, then there shouldn’t be any refugees to take in. So why is US policy to take in refugees without question in such a safe world? Should we question what they are escaping to understand what danger they are in? If there is no danger, we should tell them to go back home, because they are more likely to die from armed toddlers than whatever they are fleeing.
I stand affirmed that idiots like you, Jim, shouldn’t be arguing what US policy should be.
If the world is safer, then there shouldn’t be any refugees to take in.
Nonsense. Safer does not mean perfectly safe, it means safer.
So why is US policy to take in refugees without question in such a safe world?
It is not U.S. policy to take in refugees without question.
You are right, it is not US policy, but only because Congress writes the law, and Obama’s attempt to make a phone call and sign an Executive Order is failing in the courts.
The world is safer but people overlook why it is safer than before. It didn’t just magically happen. It is because of the Pax Americana and Western Civilization. The very things that our friends to the left are dismantling and causing the recent uptick in genocide, slavery, and crucifixions.
Its rather sad that they are taking credit for the works of others while hiding behind those outcomes to excuse their failed policies.
Things would be even safer if not for Obama lighting the ME on fire and future safety requires people working hard to keep it that way.
if not for Obama lighting the ME on fire
Here, have a song.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFTLKWw542g
And Jim, since you like quoting unsourced numbers as if that makes you seem like a statistician, consider: US Census puts the US toddler at 6.6% of the total population and Muslims at 2% of the total US population. That means Islamist terrorist are 3 times more likely to kill you than armed toddlers just using your numbers and suggested thought process, Jim. It bares repeating often: you are an idiot Jim.
US Census puts the US toddler at 6.6% of the total population and Muslims at 2% of the total US population. That means Islamist terrorist are 3 times more likely to kill you than armed toddlers
There are lots of problems with this analysis. “Muslims” are not interchangeable with “Islamic terrorists”; the vast majority of U.S. Muslims are not terrorists. For that matter, the vast majority of toddlers are not armed, and most victims of armed toddlers are the toddlers themselves.
The point isn’t whether the average American should spend his time trying to decide whether they should be more worried about being killed by an Islamic terrorist or a gun-toting toddler. The point is that both scenarios are vanishingly rare.
The point is that both scenarios are vanishingly rare.
If that’s the point, you never made it or you don’t know what the word “vanishingly” or “rare” actually mean. Considering you don’t know what Lame Duck means, I’ll assume ignorance on your part.
Jim’s definition of vanishingly rare: The nonprofit Investigative Project on Terrorism found that an average of nearly 30,000 people per year have been killed by terrorists since 2010, when terrorism’s death toll was 3,284.
” The point is that both scenarios are vanishingly rare.”
It’s a stupid point because it doesn’t take into account recent history (in the case of being killed by an Islamic terrorist). Nor is it true. Vanishingly? You err.
First off it’s on the rise – before, say, 1970 or so, it never happened.
Secondly we can see what happens if you continue down the same path as Europe – which is precisely what Obama wants to do. The rate will increase.
Thirdly it’s funny – you don’t care about (so far) small numbers of people being killed or maimed by terrorists…nor do you care about 50,000 highway deaths per year.
Just what DO you care about?
Fourthly please go visit the family of a Boston Marathon victim or one of the living victims themselves, or San Bernardino victims, and inform them that no one should be worried about Islamic terrorism in the US.
After all – the numbers are small right?
A mere trifle.
Neither here nor there.
You have to break a few eggs to make an omelet right?
You can afford to live in a bubble because the odds are less that NH will suffer a terrorist attack, than, say NYC.
But the rest of us who are adults care about NYC, and other places; can see the trend, care about the victims and laugh at your imbecility, and decry the fact that you have a vote.
But, terrorist strikes are increasing exponentially.
Deaths due to toddlers, not so much.
I wrote that it is vanishingly rare for an American to be killed by an Islamist terrorist in the U.S. It is; in 2015 there were only 19 such cases, out of over 2 million deaths.
an average of nearly 30,000 people per year
That figure is for terror deaths worldwide.
It’s a stupid point because it doesn’t take into account recent history
2015 isn’t recent history?
First off it’s on the rise – before, say, 1970 or so, it never happened.
Alternatively, you could argue that it’s in steep decline from its 2001 peak, all the way down from about 3,000 to only 19.
Secondly we can see what happens if you continue down the same path as Europe
Europe has a bigger problem than we do, but it’s still small compared to the terror problem they faced in the 1970s and 80s, and small compared to other risks we take for granted. You are much more likely to die from a car accident in Paris or Brussels than you are to be killed by a terrorist.
nor do you care about 50,000 highway deaths per year
Fortunately in the U.S. that’s down to about 33,000. Hopefully self-driving cars will bring that down much further. I think we should worry at least 100x as much about highway deaths as we do about terror. Unfortunately, the reverse is closer to true.
inform them that no one should be worried about Islamic terrorism in the US.
It takes nothing away from their personal tragedies to observe that their experience is, thankfully, extremely rare.
You can afford to live in a bubble because the odds are less that NH will suffer a terrorist attack, than, say NYC.
I like to visit cities and would love to make a return visit to Belgium and France, where I spent some of my childhood as a U.S. Army brat. But it’s a simple fact that I am much more likely to be killed by a car here in NH than anyone is to be killed by a terrorist in NYC or Paris or Brussels.
I have heard that some U.S. schools are cancelling class trips to Europe over terrorism concerns. That is completely nuts — they are more likely to die driving to and from the airport.
As Rand put it in his book title, safety is not an option. You can’t get all risks to zero. But you can compare known risks, and think about them rationally. For an American in the U.S., being killed by a terrorist is a vanishingly small risk.
Yeah there’s always “lots of problems” with analyses which reveals the stupidity of your assertions.
Never a problem with those which look like they support yours….which they never really so since you invariably read them thoroughly.
“I wouldn’t describe “the savages””
Isn’t it interesting that Obama can call them savages and its cool but if someone else does it racist islamophobia?
“I think Pinker has made a good case that violence was much more common in ancient and prehistoric times, and that the world is safer today than its ever been.”
You Pinker and a lot of Americans have become so used to stuffed supermarkets and no direct combat here in the US that you think it’s now the norm of the planet.
It is not.
You also forget that you – nice and cozy up there in NH, do not live, say, in Chicago.
Go to the inner city of Chicago in the evening, stand on a street corner of the projects and proclaim loudly that the world is a safer place than it was long ago.
You’ll be dead in minutes.
Same thing in Detroit.
You live in a bubble. You live in fantasy land.
Hmm.
When an acquaintance was in college about twenty years back, studying sociology, she permitted me to take a look at her textbook. Early in it was a full-page illustration of a pair of low-browed cavemen wearing animal skins, the one on the left armed with rather anachronistic (metal) sword and shield, the one on the right with a long spear. “The entire history of warfare is one of longer and longer ranged weapons being created by technology.” I could get no further because my eyes rolled up into my head and came out of my ears, from which position it was rather painful to extract and reinstall them. Anyway, Shaka Zulu, Mikhail Kalashnikov, the Caesars, Eugene Stoner, Curtis LeMay, and John Hawkwood would all like to have a word with the editors.
““Most people thought ancient society was peaceful, and that Bronze Age males were concerned with trading and so on,” says Helle Vandkilde, an archaeologist at Aarhus University in Denmark. “Very few talked about warfare.” ”
Clearly the people who thought that never read the Illiad…….
…or much Egyptian History.
Lately I’ve been watching a series of videos on YouTube called Decisive Battles. This series shows the battles using video game technology to animate all the soldiers, interspersed with commentary from such historians as Victor Davis Hansen. Highly recommended.
Its a bit like the recent claims that living as hunter gatherers was really rather pleasant and easy, with little work being done and much time spent playing. The reality is quite the opposite as making things easier is what has driven much of human invention and innovation. Who needs a bronze axe when stone works just fine? Who needs a bed when the ground is right there waiting for you?
This BBC show, First Contact, illustrates the longing that all people have for a better life made possible by inventions and innovations. The main character speaks about how horrible it is to sleep on the ground and how they wanted beds, clothes, and tools used by other human beings.
Even in the early 1700’s North America, with European tech, every day was filled with the struggle to stay alive…that day and to also get through the next Winter alive.