The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity
- Downloads：8257
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2022-03-30 04:16:48
- Update Date：2025-09-23
- Status：finish
- Author：David Graeber
- ISBN：0141991062
- Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
- Download
Summary
'Pacey and potentially revolutionary' Sunday Times
'Iconoclastic and irreverent 。。。 an exhilarating read' The Guardian
'This is not a book。 This is an intellectual feast' Nassim Nicholas Taleb
For generations， our remote ancestors have been cast as primitive and childlike - either free and equal， or thuggish and warlike。 Civilization， we are told， could be achieved only by sacrificing those original freedoms or， alternatively， by taming our baser instincts。 David Graeber and David Wengrow show how such theories first emerged in the eighteenth century as a reaction to indigenous critiques of European society， and why they are wrong。 In doing so， they overturn our view of human history， including the origins of farming， property， cities， democracy， slavery and civilization itself。
Drawing on path-breaking research in archaeology and anthropology， the authors show how history becomes a far more interesting place once we begin to see what's really there。 If humans did not spend 95 per cent of their evolutionary past in tiny bands of hunter-gatherers， what were they doing all that time？ If agriculture， and cities， did not mean a plunge into hierarchy and domination， then what kinds of social and economic organization did they lead to？ The answers are often unexpected， and suggest that the course of history may be less set in stone， and more full of playful possibilities than we tend to assume。
The Dawn of Everything fundamentally transforms our understanding of the human past and offers a path toward imagining new forms of freedom， new ways of organizing society。 This is a monumental book of formidable intellectual range， animated by curiosity， moral vision and faith in the power of direct action。
'Fascinating， thought-provoking， groundbreaking。 A book that will generate debate for years to come' Rutger Bregman
'Graeber and Wengrow have effectively overturned everything I ever thought about the history of the world。 The most profound and exciting book I've read in thirty years' Robin D。 G。 Kelley
'Iconoclastic and irreverent 。。。 an exhilarating read' The Guardian
'This is not a book。 This is an intellectual feast' Nassim Nicholas Taleb
For generations， our remote ancestors have been cast as primitive and childlike - either free and equal， or thuggish and warlike。 Civilization， we are told， could be achieved only by sacrificing those original freedoms or， alternatively， by taming our baser instincts。 David Graeber and David Wengrow show how such theories first emerged in the eighteenth century as a reaction to indigenous critiques of European society， and why they are wrong。 In doing so， they overturn our view of human history， including the origins of farming， property， cities， democracy， slavery and civilization itself。
Drawing on path-breaking research in archaeology and anthropology， the authors show how history becomes a far more interesting place once we begin to see what's really there。 If humans did not spend 95 per cent of their evolutionary past in tiny bands of hunter-gatherers， what were they doing all that time？ If agriculture， and cities， did not mean a plunge into hierarchy and domination， then what kinds of social and economic organization did they lead to？ The answers are often unexpected， and suggest that the course of history may be less set in stone， and more full of playful possibilities than we tend to assume。
The Dawn of Everything fundamentally transforms our understanding of the human past and offers a path toward imagining new forms of freedom， new ways of organizing society。 This is a monumental book of formidable intellectual range， animated by curiosity， moral vision and faith in the power of direct action。
'Fascinating， thought-provoking， groundbreaking。 A book that will generate debate for years to come' Rutger Bregman
'Graeber and Wengrow have effectively overturned everything I ever thought about the history of the world。 The most profound and exciting book I've read in thirty years' Robin D。 G。 Kelley
Reviews
Jung
，
Early human societies were much more complex than previously imagined。 There was no linear journey to get from band society to the modern state – rather， there were prolonged periods of experimentation。 This shows us that history isn’t over; it’s still possible for things to change。---Society didn’t develop in a linear fashion。When it comes to how human society developed， there are two opposing stories。 The first one comes from the French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau， and it goes like this: Early human societies were much more complex than previously imagined。 There was no linear journey to get from band society to the modern state – rather， there were prolonged periods of experimentation。 This shows us that history isn’t over; it’s still possible for things to change。---Society didn’t develop in a linear fashion。When it comes to how human society developed， there are two opposing stories。 The first one comes from the French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau， and it goes like this: Once upon a time， we were all hunter-gatherers。 We lived in small bands， and everyone was more or less equal。 Then came the advent of agriculture。 We figured out how to cultivate plants and animals， and we stopped hunting and gathering。 This agricultural revolution led to more complex political structures， not to mention advancements in cultural phenomena such as the arts， philosophy， and literature。 It also spawned hierarchical phenomena like patriarchy， mass execution， and interminable bureaucracy。The other story was developed by a decidedly grumpier thinker， the English writer Thomas Hobbes。 His story goes like this: Humans are， at their core， selfish creatures。 In the past， life was “solitary， poor， nasty， brutish， and short。” Hierarchy and domination， he believed， have always been an aspect of human society。So which story is true？ Most social scientists would anwer: a bit of both。 But when you look at the evidence， including an ever-increasing archeological archive， it becomes clear that the bit-of-both answer is also unsatisfactory。 You see， both stories posit linearity。 That is， they both argue that， from a pre-civilized condition – be it Rousseau’s condition of equality or Hobbes’s condition of hierarchy – we evolved into our current “civilized” state。 But when you examine the evidence and think carefully about it， the truth is that human society did not develop linearly。 Civilization did not march forward。 It marched sideways， it went backward， it stood still。 And， anyway， the “marching forward” metaphor is silly and misleading， since it’s not necessarily accurate to think that our society is better than those that preceded it。 So why is it so hard for us to imagine alternatives to the stories of Rousseau and Hobbes？Early societies were a lot more complex – and interesting – than we’re taught to believe。 These seek to restore our ancestors to their full humanity， showing that many more possibilities for political organization and social interaction exist。---Early kings relied on spectacular displays of violence to prove their cosmic power – and necessity。Some of the societies we’ve considered begin to resemble what we might think of as a state。 A state， according to conventional definition， claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of coercive force within a given territory。Three principles form the basis of social power: control of violence， control of information， and individual charisma。 Each of these has become the basis for institutions the modern state depends on， such as bureaucracy。 Many assume that these three modes of domination were destined to come together at a certain time。 But how did domination at scale first emerge？The Olmec civilization， known as the “mother culture” for later Mesoamerican societies， centered around charismatic leaders who derived power from excelling at ball games。 In the pre-Inca city of Chavín de Huántar， in the highlands of Peru， leaders derived power based on control of esoteric knowledge。But despite their power， these cultures weren’t states。 For something akin to a state to form， two of the three principles of domination had to be brought together in some spectacular display of violence。 This happened in ancient Egypt。 In Egypt and other early states， kings were buried with their followers – sometimes thousands of them， especially killed for the occasion。 Archeologists now regard ritual killing as a sure sign that state formation was underway。 Violence， in a way， makes kings。 But it’s really important to remember that political organization wasn’t only found in violent proto-states。 Actually， archeological evidence suggests that the first systems of specialized administrative control emerged in small Neolithic villages， like Tell Sabi Abyad in today’s Syria， to keep track of resource allocation。 These emerged as a corrective to bureaucrats taking more than their share。 Neolithic people seemed to know that things could always be adjusted if they weren’t working out。 So we’re still left with the question， Why did kings and ruling classes develop？Remember how large scale agricultural production started out with play farming？ What if political systems like kingdoms started out with temporary play kings？ It makes sense for newly raised royals to be concerned with building monumental architecture like pyramids – huge structures like these were meant to project eternal power， just as massive human sacrifices were。 In other words， it seems clear that the state was never an inevitability， but a relatively recent confluence of the three forms of domination。 And if the state was never inevitable， maybe it’s not permanent， either。 。。。more
Shubhra
，
This was such a slog。 The cuteness and snark in the tone adopted only detracts from the work。 It is hard to follow the train of thought or why specific incidents or things have so much significance。 Also， there is a big disconnect between what the book seems to be about and what the book is actually about。 That said， there is clearly very substantial academic work and interesting ideas – especially on having certain assumptions of western superiority questioned but I personally struggled to stay This was such a slog。 The cuteness and snark in the tone adopted only detracts from the work。 It is hard to follow the train of thought or why specific incidents or things have so much significance。 Also， there is a big disconnect between what the book seems to be about and what the book is actually about。 That said， there is clearly very substantial academic work and interesting ideas – especially on having certain assumptions of western superiority questioned but I personally struggled to stay focused and to keep relating to what is being discussed。 Do you learn something new， totally， but it’s not an engaging read。 。。。more
Paul Tenorio
，
Excellent book！！ The book is comparable to titles by Jared Diamond， Yuval Noah Harari， etc。 but it differentiates itself by having direct agenda。 It states， deliberately， that our interpretation of history is lacking a fair and reasoned evaluation of a complex set of civilizations for a narrative that reinforces our need for a state system based on capitalism。 It challenges that there are alternative analysis of multitudes of peoples that demands us to change the narrative of governing bodies wi Excellent book！！ The book is comparable to titles by Jared Diamond， Yuval Noah Harari， etc。 but it differentiates itself by having direct agenda。 It states， deliberately， that our interpretation of history is lacking a fair and reasoned evaluation of a complex set of civilizations for a narrative that reinforces our need for a state system based on capitalism。 It challenges that there are alternative analysis of multitudes of peoples that demands us to change the narrative of governing bodies with a new respect for egalitarian approaches to governance。 。。。more
Julia Boechat
，
Livro maravilhoso， que nos mostra um novo entendimento do passado， em que milhares de anos de pre-história não podem ser resumidos a uma transição de caçadores-colheitores para agricultores， e a invenção do Estado。 Os autores mostram como essa época foi bem mais rica e interessante， marcada por experimentação política， e por pessoas que estavam longe de serem nobres selvagens que não tinham imaginado ainda o Estado， mas de fato por mentes argutas que rejeitavam essa idéia。Ligado com isso， tem a Livro maravilhoso， que nos mostra um novo entendimento do passado， em que milhares de anos de pre-história não podem ser resumidos a uma transição de caçadores-colheitores para agricultores， e a invenção do Estado。 Os autores mostram como essa época foi bem mais rica e interessante， marcada por experimentação política， e por pessoas que estavam longe de serem nobres selvagens que não tinham imaginado ainda o Estado， mas de fato por mentes argutas que rejeitavam essa idéia。Ligado com isso， tem a nossa idéia de First Nations da América do Norte como outro grupo de nobres selvagens que não tinham inventado o Estado - e os autores os mostram também como grupos que eram completamente capazes de imaginá-lo， mas tinham optado por outra forma de organização。 Mais que isso， eles mostram a enorme influência que suas idéias filosóficas e políticas tiveram no Iluminismo - algo admitido por esses autores à época， mas apagado da História desde então。 。。。more
John
，
I prefer the book 1491 to this one as a pre-history。
Laurence
，
Another sweeping tale of the history of the human race， frawing on anthropology rather than economics， which was the subject of David G's earlier book， which I adored。This gave some wonderful persepctives on pre-historic and historic group practices and how leadership is or is not exercised， and debunks a lot of the conventional wisdom that so constrains our ability to think our way our of late stage capitalism。The authors propose three components for esatblishing control through governance of p Another sweeping tale of the history of the human race， frawing on anthropology rather than economics， which was the subject of David G's earlier book， which I adored。This gave some wonderful persepctives on pre-historic and historic group practices and how leadership is or is not exercised， and debunks a lot of the conventional wisdom that so constrains our ability to think our way our of late stage capitalism。The authors propose three components for esatblishing control through governance of peoples - control of resources， control of information and individual leadership （politics）。 Extending this into the era of tech giants control of information is an obvious development path， that DG would have been up for if he had not died too young I still preferred Debt the first 5，000 years， which is probably because it is closer to my personal interest area 。。。more
Kit
，
This is a shotgun blast of little pellets of data from anthropology， packed together here to try and destroy some old myths。 It pretty much accomplishes that goal。 Basically， we have come to think of a lot of things as a package deal: cities， capitalism， agriculture， technological and social 'progress'。 In the absence of clear data about human origins and diversity， Hobbes and Rousseau both made similar mistakes。 The stories we tell need to be updated in light of the available evidence。 Apparent This is a shotgun blast of little pellets of data from anthropology， packed together here to try and destroy some old myths。 It pretty much accomplishes that goal。 Basically， we have come to think of a lot of things as a package deal: cities， capitalism， agriculture， technological and social 'progress'。 In the absence of clear data about human origins and diversity， Hobbes and Rousseau both made similar mistakes。 The stories we tell need to be updated in light of the available evidence。 Apparently， not a lot of people do 'synthesis' work like Graeb-Grow。 Obviously that requires some serious scholarship and a wide-ranging intellect， the kind of think that ultra-competitive， hyper-specialized academia doesn't really produce。 You can read Malcolm Gladwell （no thanks， I graduated high-school a long time ago） or try to piece together the data from ten thousand anthropology papers （sounds fun， but I only have one life）。 Also， you have to be prepared to take gutsy swings。 Some of the explanations about social arrangements from the past are rather speculative。 There's no getting around that: our window on the past is very small and cramped。 If we are going to speculate， though， there's no reason to put artificial boundaries on our guesses。 We don't have to assume that there have always been and will always be money， war， domination。Graeb-Grow want to argue that human social relations are contingent; they are articulated over a much wider range of possibilities than the old wisdom would suggest。 Even though sometimes the other contingencies are hidden from us （because they left no record， or just never came into being） doesn't mean that we must limit our options。How much is it really up to us？ At times it feels like Graeb-Grow are arguing that we could whip this ship around if we could only snap out of our stupor and bear hard on the tiller。 Yet there is inertia to overcome first。 I believe in human agency， I believe their story about how we have lost our freedoms， I even believe that we can recover them if we try。 I'm just not sure that the Anarchist conception of how these changes-of-course take place is the correct one。 。。。more
Zuz reads
，
3。5Interesting and informative。 I listened to this on audio book which was probably not the best way to consume this book given the density。
Tristan
，
Definitely feels like the most important book I’ve ever read
Pixie Alexander
，
I find David Graeber’s writing （here with co-author Wengrow）， to be， as always， a fantastically rewarding intellectual adventure; refreshingly un-fussy and alive yet richly detailed and specific。 Very sad he left us so soon。
Paul
，
2。75 stars。 Many good points， but way too long。 The authors also criticize， rightly， misleading earlier theories， but gloss over holes in their own theories。
Todd
，
I finished this a while back; I wanted to review and organize my notes but who knows when I'll get to that。 When I do I may update this。I treated this like a textbook， reading carefully and taking notes。 It reads really easy though， its style is conversational and engaging。 The basic point is we've got these narratives in our minds about prehistorical societies。 Narratives we learned in school or perhaps reading Sapiens or Scientific American。 But where do these narratives come from since the so I finished this a while back; I wanted to review and organize my notes but who knows when I'll get to that。 When I do I may update this。I treated this like a textbook， reading carefully and taking notes。 It reads really easy though， its style is conversational and engaging。 The basic point is we've got these narratives in our minds about prehistorical societies。 Narratives we learned in school or perhaps reading Sapiens or Scientific American。 But where do these narratives come from since the societies didn't write anything？Well it turns out， from a few Enlightenment thinkers。 They might have been smart dudes but in this case they had little idea what they were talking about。 We still don't know that much for obvious reasons。 But we know a heck of a lot more than people 200-400 years ago and can definitely say they were wrong。So what can be said about pre-historical societies？ What can we learn from how they organized and governed themselves？ What narratives should we unlearn？ Running through these ideas while learning about various prehistorical societies was a lot of fun。 。。。more
Nekosensei
，
I hardly write reviews on this site， but I have to admit that this is one of the most brilliant books I have ever read。 It has me re-evaluating what I think about history， human nature， and human civilization。 Too bad one of the authors died of COVID in 2020。 I would have loved to have read further work done by him。
Spencer
，
Compelling ideas but plagued by discursivensss， lack of organization， and argument by anecdote。 Quit at 25%
Taylor Burris
，
Fascinating subject that sparks imagination。 The style is academic and maybe dry in parts， but with more than enough humor to make up for it。 If you’re interested in how people organize themselves and our early history， you’ll love it。
Lisa Houlihan
，
The authors' argument should have interested me to read this in less time than three weeks。 If I were better at noping out of books， I'd've noped out of this。 The authors' argument should have interested me to read this in less time than three weeks。 If I were better at noping out of books， I'd've noped out of this。 。。。more
Dan Clifford
，
genuinely emotional in how inspiring it is。 feels like taking the old ancient history books and tearing them up， exposing them for the myths they are。 RIP David I hope we catch up to you someday
Azad
，
Not the pop-anthropology book I was expecting， like Sapiens。 Beware！ You have to slog through chapters of thoroughly explained evidence to get at the really interesting insights and arguments。 Cant say I would have dove in if I knew what I was in for， but I'm glad I stuck with it。Things that will stick with me， as a layman: the Indigenous Critique chapter that further breaks down European primacy in the development of the liberal state; the notion that the modern citizen has far less imagination Not the pop-anthropology book I was expecting， like Sapiens。 Beware！ You have to slog through chapters of thoroughly explained evidence to get at the really interesting insights and arguments。 Cant say I would have dove in if I knew what I was in for， but I'm glad I stuck with it。Things that will stick with me， as a layman: the Indigenous Critique chapter that further breaks down European primacy in the development of the liberal state; the notion that the modern citizen has far less imagination for alternate social and political arrangements than a human born 10，000 years ago; how our language for discussing the supposed hierarchy of social arrangements （bands， tribes， chiefdoms， states） is inherently problematic; the evidence that early humans rejected agriculture even as it promised explosive growth， in contrast with our modern growth-at-all-costs mindset， and may have been happier for it; and the evidence for cities in North America run like the modern notion of a state well before European conquest， which were discarded for reasons we can only speculate about but feel familiar。 。。。more
Cristina
，
In classic David Graeber fashion， I'm left with more questions than answers after reading this book。 In classic David Graeber fashion， I'm left with more questions than answers after reading this book。 。。。more
Jonathan Blanton
，
An interesting but frustrating read。 Without doubt， it answers a core question "what sorts of governmental and power structures have existed in history， and pre-history？" Beyond that， it sets out to discuss a great deal of history， and connect many political and social movements throughout history。 It does this with mixed success。 Due to the breadth of the topics covered， some of them feel rushed， or under-supported。 Large claims are often made which are a supported by a handful of speculative a An interesting but frustrating read。 Without doubt， it answers a core question "what sorts of governmental and power structures have existed in history， and pre-history？" Beyond that， it sets out to discuss a great deal of history， and connect many political and social movements throughout history。 It does this with mixed success。 Due to the breadth of the topics covered， some of them feel rushed， or under-supported。 Large claims are often made which are a supported by a handful of speculative anecdotes， with the assertion that many other exist。 The authors set themselves a monumental challenge， and I don't feel like they truly bested it。 What we're left with is certainly an edifying read， but not one that lives up to the hype。 。。。more
Sam Bruskin
，
Yes， it is repetitive as others have pointed out， but I did not mind。 The observations and alternative interpretations are so valuable to my general knowledge of anthropology and archeology that I needed to be reinforced。
Byram
，
When I first heard about this book， I figured I was unlikely to read it given how massively daunting this compendium is and the comically ambitious title。 But when the audiobook came time to check out from the library， I was immediately captivated and wrapped into its premise。 An ambitious， but extraordinarily well-communicated and -researched work outlining civilization as we know it into the modern era， starting from the now-preposterous premise of where did social inequality come from and mig When I first heard about this book， I figured I was unlikely to read it given how massively daunting this compendium is and the comically ambitious title。 But when the audiobook came time to check out from the library， I was immediately captivated and wrapped into its premise。 An ambitious， but extraordinarily well-communicated and -researched work outlining civilization as we know it into the modern era， starting from the now-preposterous premise of where did social inequality come from and migrating instead into treatises on what freedom means， the philosophical influences of aboriginal thinkers on Enlightenment thinkers， and ultimately a reflection on how countless societies before ours made far more fluid and equitable communities time and again while we are completely stuck in our thinking of bureaucratic administrations and hierarchical organizations for the only workable system。 It's rare that I've read a book （or in this case listened to a wonderfully narrated audiobook） that not only taught me a ton on things I know very little about， but made me see people and the world in a whole new way and in an entirely engrossing manner。 I cannot recommend this book highly enough。 。。。more
Tania
，
It has always horrified me how much we extrapolate about natural history and human history based on such flimsy， intermittent evidence in the fossil and archeological record。 So this was a satisfying approach to humanity's origins in that it pushes on common assumptions and opens up our thinking to wider possibilities。 I cannot judge its scholarship but I appreciated the arguments！ It has always horrified me how much we extrapolate about natural history and human history based on such flimsy， intermittent evidence in the fossil and archeological record。 So this was a satisfying approach to humanity's origins in that it pushes on common assumptions and opens up our thinking to wider possibilities。 I cannot judge its scholarship but I appreciated the arguments！ 。。。more
G J
，
The staggering oppression posed by modern capitalism makes even the most earnest social activists feel impotent。 And it is this that I believe is at the heart of Dawn of Everything。 It is difficult to imagine another world， an escape from the inequality that is imposed upon us， and that makes it vitally important for us to be knowledgeable and critical political actors。 Science and anthropology can provide us the means of seeking our way out by understanding the conditions that imprison us。 Howe The staggering oppression posed by modern capitalism makes even the most earnest social activists feel impotent。 And it is this that I believe is at the heart of Dawn of Everything。 It is difficult to imagine another world， an escape from the inequality that is imposed upon us， and that makes it vitally important for us to be knowledgeable and critical political actors。 Science and anthropology can provide us the means of seeking our way out by understanding the conditions that imprison us。 However， Graber and Wengrow seem bizarrely intent on depriving us of this knowledge。 They claim to be resolving anthropological inconsistencies in the typical narrative， broadly that the development of agriculture and surplus generation led to inequality， in an effort to show us that humans are imaginative， 'playful' as he likes to use and experienced a plethora of social structures in a rather elastic fashion rather than the current inelastic one we find ourselves stuck in。 They claim that humanity oscillated between periods of equality and hierarchy and 'experimented' much more with social form in the Upper Paleolithic than the typical narrative allows which usually claims "nothing happened" or rather small bands of humans existed in equality without fluctuation。 This is all true to an extent and as much as I am extremely annoyed by this book， there is a lot of great anthropology here to support this claim including disabusing of notions that there is a scale limitation to equality。 They show that early cities may have developed with very little dominance hierarchies。 What they get wrong however， they get extremely wrong。 Rather than just showing this dynamic or elastic change in social structure they are rather intent on ascribing this solely to human imagination to make a divisive break with material explanations for these changes in social practice。 What we are left with is that humans are capable of changing their social form at will， sporadically， and seemingly intentionally all the time。 However， that imagination does not help us build a solid foundation for social emancipation。 By this logic nothing is stopping us from right now throwing off our chains and being free。 However， there are material ways in which our society is designed that prevent sheer willpower from being an emancipatory tool。 “Humans make their own history， but they do not make it as they please， they do not make it under self-selected circumstances， but under circumstances existing already， given and transmitted from the past。”Their rejection of materialism is strange as they almost invoke the perfect examples。 They talk extensively on societies that change their social form with the seasons as their means of acquiring subsistence change and yet do not recognize this as a perfectly material explanation。 The weirder thing is that these anthropologists frame materialism around contesting populists like Diamond （Guns Germs and Steel） and Harari （Sapiens） instead of the bulk of modern anthropology that has largely established a consensus on egalitarian origins for early humans。There are many other issues here including: 1） the bizarre insistence on in instances where we do not see property relations to insist on property relations existing mentally （or his usage of ‘sacred’） despite many early religions not having hierarchies in the way modern Abrahamic faiths do， 2） cherry picking the Upper Paleolithic （50 000-12 000 BCE） for examples of diverse social form but not being transparent that this is when more advanced foraging styles begin to develop while most of the Paleolithic where simple immediate return foraging is dominant human societies are essentially egalitarian for hundreds of thousands of years （even along sex and age）， and 3） insisting that for some reason imagination would make people adopt authoritarian hierarchies for no reason rather than as the natural conclusion of leverage of power and resources。In many instances they are so close to recognizing material explanations like their three categories of freedoms （control of information， resources， and movement） and how losing some leads to inequality。 But then insisting this is some form of political choice that is being made rather than coercion。 In adopting these views， we are made less politically literate。 It deprives us the skills and opportunity to identifying the causes of our inequality and thus how to organize out of them。 There is always more to say but this youtube series does a great job at exploring them more in depth。 I highly recommend them as a critique to this book。 Graber rightly critiques that the replacement of the ‘noble savage’ myth with the ‘stupid savage’ is no improvement。 Early humans were political。 They were smart。 They had equality and enacted social practices to consciously keep it that way and avoid slipping into inequality。 Yet in disproving these myths another insulting one is put in place。 That of the ‘quirky or playful savage’。 The people that enslave themselves out of boredom。 The ones that create inequality as a means of political expression。 Power creates inequality。 We must reject explanations of history that do not focus on the origins and causes of power and the means by which control is exerted。 We must equally reject narratives that present early humans as morally superior or too stupid to have developed inequality。 Our social forms were diverse but were imposed not of our own choosing。 Thus， we must be conscious of them if there is any hope of changing them。 Humans are messy but we were equal once upon a time， that is no myth， and that means we may one day be again， but by developing social systems in spite of these flaws。 Not because they did not exist。 。。。more
Mothwing
，
Excellent look at， as it says in the title， the origins of what we cosnider civilisation and also at how the progression most of us are taught at schools is very wrong， that actually slavery， war， and governments were invented and abolished multiple times the world over， and why usually people prefer to stay with peoples they perceived as "less civilised" over returning to their European origins。 Highly recommended！ Excellent look at， as it says in the title， the origins of what we cosnider civilisation and also at how the progression most of us are taught at schools is very wrong， that actually slavery， war， and governments were invented and abolished multiple times the world over， and why usually people prefer to stay with peoples they perceived as "less civilised" over returning to their European origins。 Highly recommended！ 。。。more
Tamás Szajkó
，
Sajnos túlságosan nagy rajongója vagyok a nagy emberiségtörténelmes megmondókönyveknek， így amikor a 444-en olvastam egy cikket pár hónapja erről a könyvről， ami kimondja， hogy na， valójában nem is úgy nézett ki a civilizáció hajnala， mint ahogy azt hittük， egyből belelkesültem。 A lelkesedésem aztán egészen gyorsan lelohadt， megszámlálhatatlan módon sikerült elaludnom ezen a könyvön， ami gyakorlatilag egy pillanatig sem tudta fenntartani az érdeklődésemet。 Persze az， hogy tudományos emberek nem Sajnos túlságosan nagy rajongója vagyok a nagy emberiségtörténelmes megmondókönyveknek， így amikor a 444-en olvastam egy cikket pár hónapja erről a könyvről， ami kimondja， hogy na， valójában nem is úgy nézett ki a civilizáció hajnala， mint ahogy azt hittük， egyből belelkesültem。 A lelkesedésem aztán egészen gyorsan lelohadt， megszámlálhatatlan módon sikerült elaludnom ezen a könyvön， ami gyakorlatilag egy pillanatig sem tudta fenntartani az érdeklődésemet。 Persze az， hogy tudományos emberek nem képesek közérthetően fogalmazni， önmagában még nem különösen meglepő fejlemény， és én meg is bocsátanám az összefüggéstelen， túlírt， csapongó stílust， de sajnos az igazi probléma a tartalommal van。Úgy tűnik ugyanis， hogy a szerzők beleestek a tudomány egyik nagy csapdájába， és addig csavargatták a valóságot， amíg az eredeti hipotézisüket sikerült elképesztően haloványan "bebizonyítani"。 Magát a hipotézist persze a borzalmas szerkesztés és fogalmazás miatt nehéz pontosan visszaadni， de a lényeg az， hogy az emberiség "civilizálódása" valójában nem volt elkerülhetetlen， és valójában szuperjól demokratikusan és boldogan elvoltunk a gyűjtögető ősközösségekben， csak aztán az a fránya mezőgazdaság beosont a hátsó ajtón， és mindenkit nyomorba taszított。Ahhoz， hogy valaki ilyen nagyot mondhasson， és szembemenjen a tudományos konszenzussal， nem árt， ha rendelkezik érvekkel， azonban a szerzőknél ilyen nem bújik meg， helyette elszigelt törzsi közösségek viselkedésmódjából extrapolálnak a régmúltra， illetve az archeológiai feltárások eredményeit elképesztően megengedően kezelve mondanak nagyokat （ha egy lelőhelyen pont nem találtak királysírt， akkor az egyértelműen azt jelenti， hogy az adott közösségben sosem volt alá-felé rendeltség） 。 。。。more
Kelly Pine
，
I really enjoyed this book。 I liked the dual perspective of both archaeology and anthropology， as well as the new perspective as a whole。 I appreciated how the authors were clear about what is and isn't， might be and will probably never be known。 Reading this book that presents itself as the beginning of a new conversation and not the end-all， be-all answer was really refreshing。 I really enjoyed this book。 I liked the dual perspective of both archaeology and anthropology， as well as the new perspective as a whole。 I appreciated how the authors were clear about what is and isn't， might be and will probably never be known。 Reading this book that presents itself as the beginning of a new conversation and not the end-all， be-all answer was really refreshing。 。。。more
Sue Hedin
，
Epic。 A rethinking of social evolution。 Very well thought out and researched。 Convincing。
Maki Iatridis
，
A powerful， thought-provoking book。 It is refreshing to look at history with new eyes and add new information about human nature and experience。 I learned so many new things， and got an insightful perspective on old things。 I highly recommend the book。 This would be an excellent discussion book and apply it to the world around us。It is not the best of writing and at times has tangents that are not intended to be tangents but they feel like it because the flow is broken and more synthesis is need A powerful， thought-provoking book。 It is refreshing to look at history with new eyes and add new information about human nature and experience。 I learned so many new things， and got an insightful perspective on old things。 I highly recommend the book。 This would be an excellent discussion book and apply it to the world around us。It is not the best of writing and at times has tangents that are not intended to be tangents but they feel like it because the flow is broken and more synthesis is needed。 But this is insignificant。 The material is dense and the examples voluminous。 Makes me want to learn much more。 。。。more
William Adams
，