Wednesday, 21 May 2025

Authentic Tribal Warfare on Film, and What It Means

YouTube's algorithm knows me spookily well. I mostly use the site to watch whisky reviews and Rick Beato interviews (as well as reaction videos to Rick Beato interviews - don't judge me). And yet somehow it knew that my absolute visual highlight of the year would be a 12 minute long clip titled West Papua Tribal War (Original Footage 1964) - a film consisting of...well....tribal war in West Papua, shot in cinéma vérité style with no soundtrack and minimal narration - and that it should make this video pop up on the home screen this lunch time when I visited for my daily fix. 

I strongly recommend you watch this. I will even go so far as to embed it for you here, so you can simply click on it and appreciate what an astonishing piece of footage it is:


The clip is from a film called Dead Birds, which is apparently well known among ethnographers, though I had never heard of it before. (This is the cue for a hundred people to pop up in the comments demanding to know how it is possible to be so ignorant as to not know of its existence until now.) The director's description adds powerful, and poetic, context:

Dead Birds is a film about the Dani*, a people dwelling in the Grand Valley of the Baliem high in the mountains of West Irian. When I shot the film in 1961, the Dani had an almost classic Neolithic culture. They were exceptional in the way they focussed their energies and based their values on an elaborate system of intertribal warfare and revenge. Neighboring groups of Dani clans, separated by uncultivated strips of no man's land, engaged in frequent formal battles. 

"When a warrior was killed in battle or died from a wound and even when a woman or a child lost their life in an enemy raid, the victors celebrated and the victims mourned. Because each death had to be avenged, the balance was continually being adjusted with the spirits of the aggrieved lifted and the ghosts of slain comrades satisfied as soon as a compensating enemy life was taken. There was no thought in the Dani world of wars ever ending, unless it rained or became dark. Without war there would be no way to satisfy the ghosts. Wars were also the best way they knew to keep a terrible harmony in a life which would be, without the strife they invented, mostly hard and dull. 

"'Dead Birds' has a meaning which is both immediate and allegorical. In the Dani language it refers to the weapons and ornaments recovered in battle. Its other more poetic meaning comes from the Dani belief that people, because they are like birds, must die. In making Dead Birds certain kinds of behavior were followed, never directed. It was an attempt to see people from within and to wonder, when the selected fragments of that life were assembled, if they might speak not only of the Dani but also of ourselves.”


Images like this are about as close as a modern Westerner can get to a glimpse of a fantasy world. When I say this, I do not intend for one moment to dehumanise or belittle the subjects of the film. But short of Mars, this is about as distant a place, both geographically, temporally and conceptually, as it is possible for us to go. These are human beings who are under pressures that are as different to ours as can be imagined - though of course we share the same, underlying human condition. What can we say about what is depicted in this footage of them?

The first thing is the obvious: war is hell, but some wars are more hellish than others. War for people in a 'classic Neolithic culture' looks dangerous, but also kind of exhilerating and fun. At first glance the director's observation that the Dani invented strife to distract them from the dullness of their lives seems gratuitous. But after watching the full clip, you can readily believe it. I've known men over the years who have been perfectly happy to admit that they like a good fight on a Friday or Saturday night and that it livens up their lives. And in this respect, indeed, the Dani do not appear to be so different - is this not the 'classic Neolithic culture' equivalent of a good old street barnie after an Old Firm game

The second: note how careful everybody is. Initially one is tempted to caricature the apparent timidity of the participants as just a bit of handbags at dawn. But then you recall that these people live in a world without modern medicine, antibiotics, or painkillers, and where surgery is performed with teeth. You'd be pretty damn cautious too if it was you. But this also contributes to the slightly ritualistic, performative nature of the proceedings. Despite hundreds of men apparently having fought each other for most of the day, off and on, nobody appears to have been killed, and only one man on each side badly wounded. This is more or less the exact opposite to how things would go if this was D&D combat.

The third: there is a thesis, advanced by Victor Davis Hanson in the book Carnage and Culture, that there is something specifically bloody about the 'Western' way of war, dating back to ancient Greece. The suggestion here is not that only Westerners wage bloody war. Rather, it is that a specific form of exceptionally murderous warfare emerged in the West, and was exported from there to the rest of the world afterwards. A big element of this would appear to revolve around the willingness to 'die in place' - to stand one's ground and risk being killed in the service of a tactical or strategic objective, and typically to ensure that one's comrades get to slaughter as many of the enemy as possible. The men in this footage do not have that willingness, entirely understandably (I refer you to point 2, above), and the result is something radically different in emphasis to what one might have seen at, say Waterloo. The men in the battle depicted here chiefly appear to want to survive without looking too cowardly. At Waterloo the aim was to win. This distinction matters.

The fourth and final: I was struck once again, watching this film, that the real world is impossibly richer and more interesting than any fantasy world could ever be. Any fantasy author or DM could dream up the concept of 'classic Neolithic culture'. But could they dream up this? And bear in mind that on West Papua (itself only half of the island of New Guinea) there are perhaps 700 different languages and tribal groupings, all with their own related but distinct cultures, beliefs, and traditional practices. No imagined world could ever hope to compete.

42 comments:

  1. This video was fed to me as well, and I agree with your main takeaways. Disheartening to me was the way the comments on the video devolve into tribalism, rather than a recognition of the shared humanity represented in the video. Maybe there's a reflection there, in the wars of the Dani.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. YouTube comments are probably always best avoided...

      Delete
  2. The anthropologist Marvin Harris talked about this type of tribal warfare, and specifically included the Dani as well as other people, in his book Cannibals and Kings: The Origins of Cultures (1977). He called this type of tribal warfare the 'nothing fight' phase (p. 44), but notes the Dani also carry out raids and sneak attacks resulting in the rout of entire enemy villages and the deaths of hundreds of people, and that around 29 percent of Dani males die of combat injuries. Interestingly, in the same study, only 3 percent of Dani female deaths are due to combat. Excellent and thought-provoking book, totally recommend reading it - Cannibals and Kings is like an earlier, shorter version of Guns Germs and Steel, but written during the energy crisis and general despondency of the late 1970s.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have that book on my shelf, but it is not read (yet). Will get to it!

      Delete
  3. The purpose of the skirmish on this case vs Waterloo reveals in part the tactics adopted. To balance their spiritual books, the Dani need only kill a man or two. This is not a war of annihilation or even to seize and hold territory or establish some other strategic gain. It's a skirmish with one very limited particular goal. And yes, it does remind on quite well of a D&D 1 attack roll covering a round type of battle.

    It would be a mistake to assume they _never_ fought wars of annihilation or to seize territory based on the objective of this one skirmish.

    As an aside we watched this and other footage as young anthropology students in Australia. PNG being our closest neighbour and a gold mine for study of cultures. PNG is so rugged there were a few peoples living in valleys or a few miles away separated by towering snow covered (in the tropics!) mountain ranges who were completely unaware their neighbours or indeed other people at all- existed, in the 20th century, totally separate language and culture.

    (while other peoples on the island might have extensive trade networks from their sections of mountains, to the sea and surrounds)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do we know if they ever did fight wars of annihilation or to seize territory?

      Delete
    2. I don't know with this particular tribe/people. And it's hard to say offhand with finality. In PNG currently- no it would be very unusual, although mass killings and massacres have become more common with modern weapons. But control of resources is still fought over but I think in a modern capitalist motive.

      In the past in PNG in general- yes, anecdotally. Territory certainly but I guess I chose a loaded word with annihilation. But there are no written records to verify, just oral accounts second hand of "were you always here on this mountain?", No, how so? How big was your territory then? Now. Why? So yes for territory certainly.

      Delete
    3. Tangentially related: I used to know a guy who had grown up and spend a big chunk of his life on the border area between Colombia, Peru and Brazil, in the Amazon. He said that a lot of the native peoples there essentially have no concept of historical time. Their understanding of the past is geographical rather than temporal. They can tell you exactly what happened, to whom, where - right down to the last tree. But they can't tell you when.

      Delete
    4. Fascinating idea. I wonder if they just sublimate it because of course if they were in X region it was the dry season, it's just a given and if they were in Y then of course it was wet season. I lived in Singapore right on the equator for a few years- duration of day and night is the same all year, even the monsoons weren't reliable, exact same temperature and weather all year round. I can't place my memories in order very easily without seasons, but I remember that happened while I was there.

      Delete
    5. That has to be part of it - really interesting observation that I'd never really thought about before.

      Delete
  4. You never heard of Dead Birds!?! OMG! Neither have I.

    The Heretic

    ReplyDelete
  5. Lost in Shangri-La by Mitchell Zuckoff is an interesting read. It covers a 1945 plane crash where three survivors were stranded in the Baliem valley. Arguably the first outside contact with the Dani.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sounds fascinating, thanks.

      Delete
    2. Another one- but non Dani specific is Fear Drive My Feet by an Australian soldier of zero experience who was dropped into PNG in 1942 and tasked with trying to organise these barely contacted tribes into a resistance/assistance and spy on Japanese activity in a ridiculously rugged and remote, vast region.

      Delete
    3. There's quite a good book called Notebook from New Guinea by a Czech biologist who spent a lot of time in the unchartered areas of PNG.

      Delete
  6. You might be interested in David Grossman's book On Killing - taking the parts about video games with a grain of salt. However, he argues convincingly that even the European-culture way of war was not as lethal as it could have been (certainly not compared to gaming it out in D&D) due to a fundamental unwillingness to kill someone you can see. A combination of purposeful behavioural training and reliance on indirect and crew-manned weapons leads to increasing kill rates as the 20th century grinds along, even as troops retreat to trenches and other places of cover rather than marching boldly across the field.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very hard to know, isn't it? I live not all that far from the site of the Battle of Flodden. There, the English slaughtered up to 14,000 Scotsmen who had got caught in boggy ground in just a couple of hours. They didn't seem to have much unwillingness about killing people they can see. Nor did the Carthaginians at Cannae. It seems to me to be very contingent on circumstance.

      Delete
    2. Indeed, I think Grossman explains this kind of thing as killing being psychologically easier once their backs are turned and they're in rout. But I also can accept that cultures vary a lot over history in their exposure to and acceptance of violence. I probably need to see if there has been any scholarly counter to his claims (I know there has for the claim that video games are conditioning kids to kill easily outside of military discipline).

      Delete
    3. Ah, looks like Grossman indulged in wild exaggeration:

      https://havokjournal.com/law-enforcement/on-grossman-how-a-pseudoscientist-pushed-our-understanding-of-killing-back-20-years/

      https://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo9/no2/doc/16-engen-eng.pdf

      Delete
    4. Yeah, my feeling is that actually in battle the chimp brain kicks in for a lot of people (as it doses in a mob) and killing becomes easier.

      Delete
    5. It is also probably easier to kill when you can 'other' your opponents. Perhaps that's how the English could slaughter all those Scotsmen, maybe they seemed different enough to the English to be dehumanized.

      The Heretic

      Delete
  7. This was like a blast from the past, I remember watching this footage in one of my Anthropology classes around 1990ish.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I’ve watched this clip many times, and the whole movie as well. I can’t remember where I first heard about it; it might have been in Jared Diamond’s book The World Until Yesterday, which draws on his experience doing fieldwork in New Guinea to illustrate some ideas of what pre-agricultural life was/is generally like. It’s been a while since I read the book, but I believe he discusses the “nothing fight”/raid dichotomy. The War Nerd aka John Dolan writes a lot about tribal warfare as well, his overarching thesis being that much of warfare today has essentially reverted to a low-intensity, tribal skirmish-style form. And I believe ACOUP wrote about this style of war, I’ll see if I can hunt down the specific post.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nice - that all sounds really interesting.

      Delete
  9. I've always been a fan of Victor Davis Hanson, but sometimes he will miss his occasional layup. The idea that war is in any way worse or substantively different here or there is difficult to buy. For one reason, in the West, we have a pretty extensive and, at times, introspective paper trail that is not always present in other cultures. Consider the ease with which we can estimate the victims of the Holocaust versus the other part of the Axis Japan, where massive debates still exist around just how many died in Asia and the Pacific under Japan's rule. Likewise, some wars and battles fought in such cultures in the past are lost to time. Those cultures with no clear literary record are almost impossible to analyze. And with what we do know, there were battles and wars in other parts of the world, well outside any connection to anything Western, where the deaths and carnage are reported to make Waterloo look like an off day in the park. I would say like anything, wars and tactics and expectations and goals differ from culture to society, but they are ultimately the same - death on a scale that the society or culture at the time finds acceptable until it doesn't. For example, a tribal society with a population counted by the thousands might well have the same attitudes, it will merely look different and on a different scale than a civilization that counts population in the tens of millions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To be fair to him, I might be putting words in his mouth - I must have read that book 20 years ago. But I think the broad point is an interesting one: in Europe there seemed to develop an idea that wars are merely things to be won, rather than opportunities to display valour, capture sacrifice victims, enact ritual, and so on.

      Delete
    2. IIRC, I think you're not far from his point, but that point is the problem. I don't think in Europe wars were just things to be won. I have a hard time believing men ready to die were doing it 'just to win.' The wars of Europe, especially as European and Western culture developed, were often based on higher ideals and beliefs and, in some ways, that set it apart from other wars that were merely fought to take this from them or kill those people or simply because the emperor or divine leader says so. By the time Europe was moving into the last thousand years, yes things like sacrificial victims or such more primitive motivations were definitely fading. But they were replaced by increasingly higher ideals and purposes and causes, not simply to kill for but also die for - a trend that, some have noticed, quickly faded after the two world wars. You might say that was when the West went from a Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends ' to simply a 'nothing to kill or die for' mentality. I think it’s through that lens he was, unfortunately, trying to sum up the differences.

      Delete
    3. Yes, that makes sense.

      Delete
  10. THE OLD TESTAMENT from THE BIBLE certainly seems to be at odds with the idea that total war is uniquely Western

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stop being awkward! ;) Actually, I suppose it depends how you define 'Western' and whether you include the ancient Near East within the roots of Western civilisation.

      Delete
  11. Great find, thanks for sharing.

    With regard to this point: "the real world is impossibly richer and more interesting than any fantasy world could ever be" - I think the reverse is also true, that actually conceiving of how people might be in a world where an afterlife or metempsychosis or gods who can be bargained with or served for immediate and obvious gain and so on and so on are mere facts of the world is extraordinarily difficult.

    How might such a fight look in such a world? At least as alien to us & the West Papuans as each other's forms of war are - people might get much more violent, being comfortable with either magical healing after or being welcomed into the heaven of the god they've lived the law of, and yet the actual behaviour of the fighters might be more ritualistic, focused on gaining an immaterial magico-religious advantage rather than physically eliminating the opponent or seizing ground or what have you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No doubt you're right and I love thinking about such matters - we do a pretty bad job of it by and large.

      Delete
  12. My thoughts:
    - it highlights what a difference the reason for fighting might make for how a battle might go. It would totally change strategies and tactics.
    - it shows how running away doesn't necessarily mean that the person has finished fighting. They may have just run back to the main body and be finished fighting for now.
    - I'm imagining organising a weapon list by technology, where first is tribal, what someone can create themselves and use everyday. Hunting tools. (short bows, spears, nets, blowguns). Second is village, what a skilled person can create when they are a dedicated craftsman. Still simple weapons and generally useful. e.g. smithy or tanner (short swords, long swords, bows, axes, maces, chain mail). Third is complicated and / or specialised weapons (crossbows, barding, plate, polearms, two handed swords, lances).
    - it made me think what a difference the technology level between two parties would make. Imaging someone on horseback on that battlefield. Without horses the people can run away. With a horse, they can strike where they like and no-one can run away from them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, on the 'running away' point, I believe it is a bit of a source of controversy among historians as to how much 'running away to catch a breather' went on in e.g. the Battle of Hastings, or in Greek hoplite battles, and whatnot. Presumably, watching this, it went on a lot.

      Delete
  13. I think it is 'northern' rather than 'western' - think Genghis Khan, for example.

    And these wars of annihilation were driven by limited resources. They happen in places where farming has been established (you can't just move away when a stronger tribe turns up) and where the seasons are more significant. If you have a bad harvest and are going to starve come winter, invading and annihilating your neighbour makes more sense then in the tropics where famine is never really an issue.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Like many others, I think this "brutal war being uniquely Western" stuff is bunk. Just look at the history of China! If anything deserves to be considered its own separate cultural sphere distinct from Western influence, *surely* it's premodern China? And just look at them! Maniacally violent battles, war to the knife. Even their criminal penalties are insanely savage compared to historical Western ones. Similarly, I find it hard to credit the idea that sub-Saharan African violence in the present day is somehow due to mimesis of the West.

    On another note, for more footage of this type, I don't have a link to it but there should be a film clip of Yanomamö indians (in the Amazon jungle, that is) engaging in tribal war from the Sixties or Seventies. The Yanomamö were famous for their indulgence in violence, apparently, second only to the Jivaro whom even the Yanomamö regarded as genuinely insane and viewed with a combination of fear and awe.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'll investigate. There is a famous chart showing murder rates among the Yanomamo and Jivaro and how they are orders of magnitude higher than in modern Tijuana, Caracas, Johannesburg, etc.

      Delete
  15. Playing with gel blasters in a club with my youngest, it is very interesting in the different scenarios how people act. In scenarios with unlimited respawn players are certainly less cautious, and in fact caution will not help. When it's a scenario with 1 life then everyone is trying to snipe around corners and otherwise quite "cowardly". You also quickly see how a team with only just a basic plan really dominates the other team that doesn't. Lone heroes die and can even cost the battle.
    That, and the whole randomness of it all. You might be holding an area in spectacular fashion, then a team mate who is unaware of what you are doing springs out from behind a building, sees you lioming large in the corner of his eye, and turns to shoot before he understands what he is seeing...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gel blasters look great. I often think about buying one just to have in my office to fire at passers-by.... ;)

      Delete
  16. The point about dying in place reminds me of the famous reply of the Scythian king Idanthyrsus to Darius the Great, who had demanded the Scythians come to face him in formal battle or submit as vassal. Idanthyrsus told Darius to 'seek out the graves of our fathers', for that was the only land for which the nomadic Scythians were willing to fight.

    ReplyDelete