The dawn of everything : a new history of humanity

A good and thought-provoking read, but it could have been about a quarter of the size (with copious appendices).

1) "Most of human history is irreparably lost to us. Our species, Homo sapiens, has existed for at least 200,000 years, but for most of that time we have next to no idea what was happening. In northern Spain, for instance, at the cave of Altamira, paintings and engravings were created over a period of at least 10,000 years, between around 25,000 and 15,000 BC. Presumably, a lot of dramatic events occurred during this period. We have no way of knowing what most of them were."

2) "Rather than asking how we ended up unequal, we will start by asking how it was that ‘inequality’ became such an issue to begin with, then gradually build up an alternative narrative that corresponds more closely to our current state of knowledge. 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 did they imply? What was really happening in those periods we usually see as marking the emergence of ‘the state’? The answers are often unexpected, and suggest that the course of human history may be less set in stone, and more full of playful possibilities, than we tend to assume."

3) "In the years between 1703 and 1751, as we’ve seen, the indigenous American critique of European society had an enormous impact on European thought. What began as widespread expressions of outrage and distaste by Americans (when first exposed to European mores) eventually evolved, through a thousand conversations, conducted in dozens of languages from Portuguese to Russian, into an argument about the nature of authority, decency, social responsibility and, above all, freedom. As it became clear to French observers that most indigenous Americans saw individual autonomy and freedom of action as consummate values – organizing their own lives in such a way as to minimize any possibility of one human being becoming subordinated to the will of another, and hence viewing French society as essentially one of fractious slaves – they reacted in a variety of different ways."

4) "If we are right, and if human beings really have spent most of the last 40,000 or so years moving back and forth between different forms of social organization, building up hierarchies then dismantling them again, the implications are profound. For one thing, it suggests that Pierre Clastres was quite right when he proposed that, rather than being less politically self-conscious than people nowadays, people in stateless societies might actually have been considerably more so. [...] If human beings, through most of our history, have moved back and forth fluidly between different social arrangements, assembling and dismantling hierarchies on a regular basis, maybe the real question should be ‘how did we get stuck?’ How did we end up in one single mode? How did we lose that political self-consciousness, once so typical of our species? How did we come to treat eminence and subservience not as temporary expedients, or even the pomp and circumstance of some kind of grand seasonal theatre, but as inescapable elements of the human condition? If we started out just playing games, at what point did we forget that we were playing?"

5) "What we can now suggest, in light of these wider considerations, is that such carefully co-ordinated ritual theatres, often laid out with geometrical precision, were exactly the kinds of places where exclusive claims to rights over property – together with strict demands for unquestioning obedience – were likely to be made, among otherwise free people. If private property has an ‘origin’, it is as old as the idea of the sacred, which is likely as old as humanity itself. The pertinent question to ask is not so much when this happened, as how it eventually came to order so many other aspects of human affairs."

6) "Invent agriculture – or so the story once went – and you set yourself on a course that will eventually lead to Assyrian charioteers, Confucian bureaucrats, Inca sun-kings or Aztec priests carrying away a significant chunk of your grain. Domination – and most often violent, ugly domination – was sure to follow; it was just a matter of time. Archaeological science has changed all this. Experts now identify between fifteen and twenty independent centres of domestication, many of which followed very different paths of development to China, Peru, Mesoamerica or Mesopotamia."

7) "[Much] of what we have come to learn in the last forty or fifty years has thrown conventional wisdom into disarray. In some regions, we now know, cities governed themselves for centuries without any sign of the temples and palaces that would only emerge later; in others, temples and palaces never emerged at all. In many early cities, there is simply no evidence of either a class of administrators or any other sort of ruling stratum. In others, centralized power seems to appear and then disappear. It would seem that the mere fact of urban life does not, necessarily, imply any particular form of political organization, and never did."

8) "It’s important to stress that we are not arguing that the very first cities to appear in any region of the world were invariably founded on egalitarian principles (in fact, we will shortly see a perfect counter-example). What we are saying is that archaeological evidence shows this to have been a surprisingly common pattern, which goes against conventional evolutionary assumptions about the effects of scale on human society. In each of the cases we’ve considered so far – Ukrainian mega-sites, Uruk Mesopotamia, the Indus valley – a dramatic increase in the scale of organized human settlement took place with no resulting concentration of wealth or power in the hands of ruling elites. In short, archaeological research has shifted the burden of proof on to those theorists who claim causal connections between the origins of cities and the rise of stratified states, and whose claims now look increasingly hollow."

9) "In ancient Egypt, as so often in history, significant political accomplishments occur in precisely those periods (the so-called ‘dark ages’) that get dismissed or overlooked because no one was building grandiose monuments in stone."

10) "After AD 1400 the entire fertile expanse of the American Bottom (which at the city’s height had contained perhaps as many as 40,000 people), along with the territory from Cahokia up to the Ohio River, became what’s referred to in the literature as the Vacant or Empty Quarter: a haunted wilderness of overgrown pyramids and housing blocks crumbling back into swamp, occasionally traversed by hunters but devoid of permanent human settlement."

11) "If there is a particular story we should be telling, a big question we should be asking of human history (instead of the ‘origins of social inequality’), is it precisely this: how did we find ourselves stuck in just one form of social reality, and how did relations based ultimately on violence and domination come to be normalized within it?"

No logro determinar cuánto tiempo he tardado en leer 'El amanecer de todo', pero puedo asegurar que han sido al menos dos años. Es, sin duda, el mayor reto al que me he enfrentado en lo referente a la lectura y me he encontrado aparcando el libro durante meses por sentirme incapaz de reunir la lucidez necesaria para absorber todo lo que propone. Dicho esto, le pongo cinco estrellas porque no le puedo poner más.

Estoy plenamente convencido de que si se pudiese obligar a una parte importante de la población a leer una versión simplificada y resumida de este ensayo, la clarividencia de lo que explica tendría la fuerza suficiente como para cambiar en gran parte este orden social que nos arrastra hacia el precipicio a marchas forzadas. Aceptar un sistema que devora las vidas de la práctica totalidad de los seres vivos del planeta pasa por erradicar la posibilidad de imaginar siquiera una alternativa. La humanidad se organiza así porque estamos programadas para ello, se nos dice, pero Graeber y Wengrow desmontan indiscutiblemente este dogma con pruebas no solo irrefutables, sino también -y quizá sobre todo- muy inspiradoras.

Leed 'El amanecer de todo', regalad 'El amanecer de todo' y contadle a todo el mundo que no tenemos por qué malvivir de esta forma.

Dette var en interessant bok. Den var overraskende lettlest uten at jeg fant sitatvennlige avsnitt på annenhver side. Bokens store prosjekt er å skisse på en fortelling av vår fortid som skiller seg fra den vanlige eurosentriske fortellinga der man blikket man ser fortiden med er farget av det kapitalistiske samfunnet vi lever i og hva som er politisk mulig nå — og dermed gi en annen fortelling av hvem vi er (gjetter jeg).

Jeg har alt for lite bakgrunn i feltet til å bedømme om argumentene som legges fram er godt underbygde eller ikke. Det er vanskelig når man skriver om en tid som ligger så langt tilbake at man ikke har tilgang til hvordan de som levde da så på seg selv, man kan bare anta. De påpeker flere steder at andre forskere har tolket funn utifra sin egen samtid, sikkert med fare for å snuble i samme fella selv.

Noen saker jeg har lært i denne boka: * Folk før i tida var sånn omtrent som folk er nå. Folk før i tida var minst like opptatt av politikk og filosofi som vi er nå, men den kunne ta andre uttrykk. Mennesker i urtiden var mer opptatt av frihet enn likhet, men det andre var ofte en konsekvens av det første. * Jordbruksrevolusjonen for sånn omtrent 12 000 år siden var ingen revolusjon i det hele tatt. Det var en prosess som gikk ganske langsomt og som begynte med at man eksperimenterte med å så, men at man lenge levde som jegere/sankere. Det var ingenting som pekte fra det første sådde frøet til dagens industrijordbruk. * Mennesker har levd i mange forskjellige typer samfunn gjennom historien. Vi har både gått fra små samfunn til store samfunn, og fra store til små. Vi har både gått mot mer auktoritære samfunn og mot mer egalitære. Politiske strukturer har tidvis hatt mye makt, tidvis hatt begrenset makt. * Mange samfunn har vekslet mellom auktoritære og egalitære samfunn utifra årstid eller situasjon, likeså med om man lever som jegere/samlere eller jordbrukere. * Vi er på mange måter mindre frie nå enn hva vi var for både noen hundre og noen tuser år siden.

The Dawn of Everything utfordrer oss først å fremst til å drømme og diskutere hvordan vi vil at samfunnet vi lever i skal se ut, ettersom vi har dette i oss. Graeber og Wengrows blikk på fortiden, selv om også dette bilder er mangelfullt, sier i det minste: om de kunne, så kan vel vi — så forskjellige er vi ikke.

The authors warn that their conclusions might be discouraging, because they (convincingly) show that our present predicament was not inevitable—that we could have chosen to make a different world, but didn't. What I found discouraging (or at least bracing) is how the authors show that the task ahead of us—to make a more just world—isn't just about subtracting "civilization" and returning to humanity's supposed egalitarian past. It will involve constructing something new that is contextual and tactical, and that needs constant maintenance.

The archeological rigor and discovery explained in this book do indeed shed new light on our arrogant and foreordained conceptions of prehistory and the development and status of what has become known as "civilization." I have always found the notion of near-instantaneous "revolutions," whether agriculture, industrial, or computer, to be inherently questionable (and most often preceded by a blizzard of trial and error and half-steps and experimentation over centuries). I find it much easier to believe in an ebb, neap, and rip tide of different intellectual and cultural phenomena and traditions (moving into and back from the cultural shore that it changes) to be a more likely scenario. The new archeology would appear to support such a story.

If I have a misgiving about this book, it is the authors' sharp tongue for what amounts to enlightenment political philosophers who, while they may have had their views of the nature of man, were neither archeologists nor social scientists, and lacked the wealth of modern discoveries and tools available to these authors. So too, the work of prehistory scholars (such as Gordon Childe, Robert Redfield, Henri Frankfort, and many others) is dismissed readily, some sub silentio, for want of the more modern discoveries, when many of these older scholars took pains to point out the anomalies in what record they did have, which they could not resolve. Finally, this is a book about prehistory, not history. It spends scant time discussing the impact of writing on cultural development, and concedes in its silence on the point that it is mostly making informed judgements from a physical record, rather than reading how prior cultures and periods conceived of themselves. Notwithstanding these minor matters, this is a book not to be missed (as many others have concluded).

the main thesis of this book is an attack on the just-so story of how civilizations always progress through hunter-gatherers to agriculture and urbanism followed by a "modern" state. it builds this thesis very thoroughly.

an extremely important and well-written sholarly book.

I usually find Graeber's work a bit annoying as I agree with the conclusions, but I find his arguments for how to get there lacking. I had high hopes for this book as the premise was interesting. Unfortunately, this book was even more frustrating that his others. I enjoyed the critique of eurocentric views on civilization, and I liked that the book argues against a narrative of progress through feudal lords and then capitalism.

However, a main argument in the book is against the idea that large population governance is not inherently oppressive. I wholly reject this idea. The arguments Graeber and Wengrow make are hundreds of pages long and never get beyond "well there is no evidence of a monarchy so they must have had people's assemblies and been democratic." The city, they infer, is therefore a structure we can have without oppressive relations. There is then much advocating for the city as a body politic.

I just don't see this as being likely or even desirable. The culture of the city and the community life that brings are something that I think can be valuable, but I find no need or desire for an overarching body politic for a physical space just because we conceive an arbitrary line around it. I don't care how "democratic" it is. I believe politics, justice, and governance are pluralistic and need to be worked out on a case by case basis, depending on context, and involve those effected.

Can we have a future with technology and high standards of living in such a pluralistic society? I think so, but admittedly it would look nothing like what we have now, and would not look like early agricultural adoption either. We can make the future what we want without trying to erect our pet political strategies onto a group of people living in a single location.

That's what's so frustrating I guess. The book begins to give us the space to dream of a possible future, but then just settles on another system of governance that is appropriated from an incomplete picture of some Indigenous groups and some early Europeans.