What do you think?
Rate this book
Before Civilization
The refinement of radiocarbon dating using the information form tree-ring counts has raised serious doubts about the accepted theoretical frameowkr of European prehistory. Monuments in Central and Western Europe have proved to be considerably older than their supposed Near-Eastern forerunners, and the record must be almost completely rewritten in the light of these new dates. Before Civilsation is a preliminary attempt to do this with the help of analogies from more recent and well-documented primitive societies. The more glaring inconsistencies in the old theory are re-examined and Professor Renfrew shows convincingly how the baffling monuments of prehistoric Europe, like Stonehenge, could have been built without recourse to help from the 'more civilized' Near East.
320 pages, Paperback
First published September 6, 1973
2 people are currently reading
197 people want to read
About the author
Colin Renfrew
97 books59 followersAndrew Colin Renfrew, Baron Renfrew of Kaimsthorn was a British archaeologist, paleolinguist and Conservative peer noted for his work on radiocarbon dating, the prehistory of languages, archaeogenetics, neuroarchaeology, and the prevention of looting at archaeological sites.
Renfrew was also the Disney Professor of Archaeology at the University of Cambridge and Director of the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research and was a Senior Fellow of the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.
Renfrew was also the Disney Professor of Archaeology at the University of Cambridge and Director of the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research and was a Senior Fellow of the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
Read
February 4, 2017In the beginning lots of things were going on about which we can guess like eating or drinking, falling in and out of relationships and things that we can know about because their physical remains loom like Silbury Hill over the landscape, in places mysterious stone tools were found. All of this was very mysterious to our ancestors, they were familiar with the Greeks and the Romans, but if Stonehenge wasn't a Roman temple then who had built it? Such questions seem to have bothered people for a while, even in the 12th century Geoffrey of Monmouth suggested that Stonehenge was the work of Merlin, who had moved it to England from Ireland, while this was maybe a reasonable working hypothesis, one can't help noticing that it didn't resolve the basic question, it just shifted it geographically John Aubrey in the seventeenth century, after a certain amount of deep thought, decided that if Stonehenge wasn't a Roman temple then it must have been built by what ever people there were about before the Romans, namely the Celts. This was a helpful idea in that it created or contributed towards the creation of a notion of prehistory - a time when people were still doing stuff but lacked the means or will to boast to future generations about it. Perhaps in retrospect it could have been called the long ages of modesty instead. The beginning of this book however is in the decided immodest and boastful nineteenth century when in Denmark the need to rationally organise museum exhibits and to tell a compelling story of human brilliance led to the development of a now familiar systematisation of prehistory into an iron age preceded by a bronze age which came after a stone age helpful when digging the oldest stuff tends to be lowest down so by comparing stratigraphy and the styles or types of objects found at different layers one could relatively date objects by declaring them older or younger, luckily for the writers of museum display cabinet labels down in Africa the Egyptians had not been so casual and disorganised as their prehistoric European counterparts and had been keen if not insistent on labelling their tombs, so if one found a certain kind of Egyptian pottery in an Aegean grave then one could have an approximate date for the Aegean burial. Which is obviously great provided the site you were digging your way down through happened to be in commercial contact with Ancient Egypt and so long as it didn't pre date Egyptian civilisation. However the ages of modesty were not simply modest, but also very long, and quite how the relative ageing of different European sites might relate to some kind of European or world story was debatable until the advent of Carbon 14 dating, which is the subject of this book., in the 1940s. It was realised that C14 dating while amazing did require calibration which was done through dendrochronology or counting tree rings, here Bristle cone pine trees from California played a heroic role as they live to frighting ages, allowing the creation of a chronological sequence in excess of 9,000 years. Anyway, once the trees had come to the rescue of scientific ingenuity it was possible to have a go at dating prehistory. The results were mildly shocking. As a result of the mighty age of Imperialism even scholars, who one might have hoped would have known better, tended to assume that your basic primitive savage dwelling on the wet Atlantic coast of Europe would obviously have been inspired to erect his humble megalith due to the entirely friendly visitations of a more sophisticated higher civilisation. Carbon dating showed the opposite, that big structures were going up in the West at around the same time or even earlier as proper Civilisations in the near east were only getting going. Now Renfrew's book gets going with the mysterious temples on Malta and the tombs of the ancient Orkneys . Both phenomena Renfrew suggests were the product of competition between families or communities each trying to build bigger and better than their neighbour. The location of the temples and tombs he argues when plotted on to maps suggests each was a focal point for a smallish district. Plainly the central problems remain why did they start and why did they stop? Even taking wandering bands of proto-Belgians into account the mystery remains, although I recall that one Friday in the office I created Chairhenge, a work of profound spiritual and cultural meaning, sadly unappreciated by my colleagues, who de-constructed it on the following Monday morning. Admittedly I know that I was only taking advantage of the pest control people coming in to spray the last of the Deer Ticks into the next world, but I felt it had a certain haunting quality even if not nominated for the Turner Prize.
And a haunting quality is what we're left with, we may know approximately when corbelled stone community tombs were constructed by people with time on their hands, but not why nor what the monuments meant to them, beyond lasting back pain, the ages of prehistory are also ages of silence. Yet of late while on my evening walk that silence has come to feel comforting, rather like a sweetheart laying a finger across your lips with a sense of an understanding beyond words, sufficient in itself .
And a haunting quality is what we're left with, we may know approximately when corbelled stone community tombs were constructed by people with time on their hands, but not why nor what the monuments meant to them, beyond lasting back pain, the ages of prehistory are also ages of silence. Yet of late while on my evening walk that silence has come to feel comforting, rather like a sweetheart laying a finger across your lips with a sense of an understanding beyond words, sufficient in itself .
October 28, 2019
The ideal reader for this book would have been an undergraduate about to embark on graduate study in archaeology 45 years ago. But the reader today will still find a fascinating record of a moment when the study of prehistoric Europe moved away from a model that had dominated the field in the first half of the twentieth century. Renfrew repeatedly cites V. Gordon Childe’s Dawn of European Civilization as the classic statement of the moderate diffusionist model. That model held that all technological innovation originated in Egypt and the Middle East and spread from there, either through migration or at the very least by diffusion.
This model began to wobble with the advent of radiocarbon dating. When radiocarbon dates were supplemented by dendrochronology (analysis of tree-rings), dates of artifacts and monuments throughout Europe turned out to be much older than previously assumed. Renfrew’s book appeared at a time when this revolution in dating had come about, but when the question of which new model might take the place of the diffusion model was still open.
That’s why a student in the 1970s would have found this book a useful leg-up, not only in exam preparation but, more importantly, in being exposed to possible topics for his or her own graduate research. Any new model would continue to start with the remains in the field — and here, Renfrew certifies Childe’s continued value as a paragon of comprehensive knowledge of the sites and a careful documenter of their strata. Researchers coming along could aspire to emulate such careful excavation — in fact, through the use of improved methods, do an even better job. One danger Renfrew hopes they will avoid, however, is to simply collect and sort artifacts as if more data will somehow yield a coherent picture.
Instead, Renfrew sees the future of the study of prehistory drawing on studies of population density and growth, of pre-market exchange of goods, and of social organization. Theorizing about these matters can make cautious use of ethnographic parallels (pre-industrial cultures of the more recent past). The spread of ideas from neighboring or even distant cultures (diffusion) is not ruled out, but can no longer be invoked as a convenient explanation for every advance, especially in the absence of any material evidence. And even when diffusion might have occurred, one is still left with the question of why an innovation was adopted (neolithic cultures are conservative). Nor is a change in the mix of artifacts in a stratum automatically taken as evidence of migration.
Anyone looking to quickly get up to speed on the current state of research into prehistoric Europe can bypass this book. Someone like me, who enjoys watching changes in scientific thought take place, might, however, find it worthwhile reading. Keeping in mind that the ideal reader was a student of the field, that is, neither an expert nor a layperson, I found the writing clear and the presentation of ideas easy to follow.
This model began to wobble with the advent of radiocarbon dating. When radiocarbon dates were supplemented by dendrochronology (analysis of tree-rings), dates of artifacts and monuments throughout Europe turned out to be much older than previously assumed. Renfrew’s book appeared at a time when this revolution in dating had come about, but when the question of which new model might take the place of the diffusion model was still open.
That’s why a student in the 1970s would have found this book a useful leg-up, not only in exam preparation but, more importantly, in being exposed to possible topics for his or her own graduate research. Any new model would continue to start with the remains in the field — and here, Renfrew certifies Childe’s continued value as a paragon of comprehensive knowledge of the sites and a careful documenter of their strata. Researchers coming along could aspire to emulate such careful excavation — in fact, through the use of improved methods, do an even better job. One danger Renfrew hopes they will avoid, however, is to simply collect and sort artifacts as if more data will somehow yield a coherent picture.
Instead, Renfrew sees the future of the study of prehistory drawing on studies of population density and growth, of pre-market exchange of goods, and of social organization. Theorizing about these matters can make cautious use of ethnographic parallels (pre-industrial cultures of the more recent past). The spread of ideas from neighboring or even distant cultures (diffusion) is not ruled out, but can no longer be invoked as a convenient explanation for every advance, especially in the absence of any material evidence. And even when diffusion might have occurred, one is still left with the question of why an innovation was adopted (neolithic cultures are conservative). Nor is a change in the mix of artifacts in a stratum automatically taken as evidence of migration.
Anyone looking to quickly get up to speed on the current state of research into prehistoric Europe can bypass this book. Someone like me, who enjoys watching changes in scientific thought take place, might, however, find it worthwhile reading. Keeping in mind that the ideal reader was a student of the field, that is, neither an expert nor a layperson, I found the writing clear and the presentation of ideas easy to follow.
October 16, 2025
Top class explanation of radiocarbon dating method and its subsequent calibration by the means of dendrochronology. Detailed, not shying away from discussing potential problems, but at the same time clear and written in such a way that even someone who's never been great at chemistry (Meaning me. That's me. Might've finished my high school course with an A, but that doesn't change the fact that I was never great at it, plus it was... many years ago. More than I wish it was, lol) can easily follow the explanation.
The rest of the book, however... I mean, it's not bad, in a way it was even interesting, but it's hard to forget all of it was written in 1970. In some cases - like Stonehenge, which gets it's own chapter - I know for a fact that the past 55 years were rich in new discoveries. Which made reading Renfrew's analysis of 'how it could've been made if it wasn't Mycenaean architects after all' feel kind of pointless. And while the author trying to come up with some type of social organisation which would fit in between standard neolithic egalitarianism and a full-fledged state might have been revolutionary at the time it was written, in 2025 it feels like an attempt to bash down an open door. (His answer, in case you wonder, is chiefdoms and retribution systems. Not really a brand new concept in this day and age, huh?)
The references to pre-industrial societies were cool (even if I think I'm less convinced of their relevance than the author) and I'm trying my hardest in here to stay focused... NO, we're not researching Polynesian chiefdoms or Native Americans (who btw are called 'Indians' in the book, in the good ole archaeological fashion. I wasn't even aware this term exists in English before I went down the archaeological rabbit hole...), as interesting as they may sound, concentrate!
The absolute cherry on the top though were the Maltese temples. Never heard of them before, not even in Prehistoric Europe: An Illustrated History (might have been briefly mentioned, but that's all). A fascinating topic, and one into which I'd even let myself dive for a short while... If finding books on the topic wasn't such a mission impossible. Maybe one day.
It was my first book by Renfrew and I was holding back buying anything else by him until I read it, to see first if I like the authors style. Looks like I do. We'll meet again.
The rest of the book, however... I mean, it's not bad, in a way it was even interesting, but it's hard to forget all of it was written in 1970. In some cases - like Stonehenge, which gets it's own chapter - I know for a fact that the past 55 years were rich in new discoveries. Which made reading Renfrew's analysis of 'how it could've been made if it wasn't Mycenaean architects after all' feel kind of pointless. And while the author trying to come up with some type of social organisation which would fit in between standard neolithic egalitarianism and a full-fledged state might have been revolutionary at the time it was written, in 2025 it feels like an attempt to bash down an open door. (His answer, in case you wonder, is chiefdoms and retribution systems. Not really a brand new concept in this day and age, huh?)
The references to pre-industrial societies were cool (even if I think I'm less convinced of their relevance than the author) and I'm trying my hardest in here to stay focused... NO, we're not researching Polynesian chiefdoms or Native Americans (who btw are called 'Indians' in the book, in the good ole archaeological fashion. I wasn't even aware this term exists in English before I went down the archaeological rabbit hole...), as interesting as they may sound, concentrate!
The absolute cherry on the top though were the Maltese temples. Never heard of them before, not even in Prehistoric Europe: An Illustrated History (might have been briefly mentioned, but that's all). A fascinating topic, and one into which I'd even let myself dive for a short while... If finding books on the topic wasn't such a mission impossible. Maybe one day.
It was my first book by Renfrew and I was holding back buying anything else by him until I read it, to see first if I like the authors style. Looks like I do. We'll meet again.
July 28, 2025
I picked this up at the recommendation of a lab mate though I questioned the utility in such an out of date book for my studies (echoing the thoughts of at least one review I read here). I actually found Renfrew's account of the introduction of radiocarbon dating into prehistoric archaeology really exciting, sort of contagiously so. Like, I hadn't ever imagined how groundbreaking such a technological advancement would be to the study of prehistory (I mean obviously duh, but I'm a student of my generation); I had taken it for granted!
The descriptions of the relative dating and using the established Egyptian calendar were interesting. Once again I had really taken for granted the relative consensus we now have on the dates of different cultures. The second half of the book included a handful of case studies arguing against the previous notions of diffusionism in Europe, and this was more irrelevant/out of date with the current state of knowledge. Still I enjoyed it as a book and felt it gave me a better understanding not just of prehistory but the history of archaeology.
The descriptions of the relative dating and using the established Egyptian calendar were interesting. Once again I had really taken for granted the relative consensus we now have on the dates of different cultures. The second half of the book included a handful of case studies arguing against the previous notions of diffusionism in Europe, and this was more irrelevant/out of date with the current state of knowledge. Still I enjoyed it as a book and felt it gave me a better understanding not just of prehistory but the history of archaeology.
January 3, 2019
An exceptional seminal work of archaeology. A lovely introduction to prehistory and a valued insight on radiocarbon dating.
August 17, 2021
Sadly this read like a typical textbook and left me wholly unsatisfied.
June 20, 2012
The radiocarbon stuff was OK. But I'm just glad I chose to read this at work where I don't have the temptation or opportunity to sleep...
June 14, 2012
It was okay.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews