The Dawn of Everything

Which came first, state or farming? Traditional archaeology says farming, leads to the state. This then leads to kings and dictators. Truth be told, some people rejected farming just because they wanted to. Why? It’s just hard. 

The Dawn of Everything by David Graeber and David Wengrow was a fascinating book that presented me with a lot of exciting questions. I wanted to record my impressions before I forgot them. In writing this, I’ve already moved past the first few chapters and let them fade from my memory. However what I remember boils down to the fact that what I know of as history, freedom and liberty was highly Eurocentric and unknown before the New World opened its doors. Literally, Rousseau was wrong and Native speakers could run rings around Europeans

.

By the fourth chapter, the authors discuss archaeologists' fallacy regarding foraging societies. Previously, it was said that they forged because they had no choice and that it was a primitive step on the road to civilization. It was the best way for them to live. 

However, they chose to do this. Basically, hunter-gatherers lived the best lives they could and created just as complex a society as Europeans. They had private property, but much of it consisted of traditions and stories. It was European arrogance that had them decide that Native American people were second-class citizens. Agriculture was labour intensive and difficult to get any return so many societies when the horse returned went back to hunting. It allowed them to live their best life. This is a continuation of their argument that Rousseau was wrong. 

Chapter 5 asks the question; why are people defined by what they share. It should be that they are defined by what they reject. If two societies share a similar area but reject the things the other society has, even though they definitely knew about them, why was that? Was it because they wanted to assert their differences more than their similarities?

In chapter 6 they make the suggestion that farming set humanity on the path to greater equality. They also suggest that it didn't just happen in a Revolution, but was rather a slow, conscious adoption of plants over a long period of time. They also adopted a lazy method of farming in lands that weren’t good for forging.

Chapter 7 starts off by stating that while there is a lack of evidence for overt violence. While this harkens back to the idea that people lived in balance with nature, I think this is misleading. Violence itself can be hard to see in the archaeological record. I do believe that violence against outsiders remained one of the defining characteristics of ancient societies. 

There is also a lack of evidence of conscious adoption of plants. Mostly people adopted whatever they had at hand. If it worked, it worked. They did know which ones were the best choice, however. Experience in casual farming gave them the skills necessary to choose the right plants.

Why did it start so late? We are living in a warm period. In 1500 during the Little Ice Age which may have been caused when 95% of American natives died and the land returned to wilderness.

In chapter 8 the authors inform us that most of the early cities were pretty egalitarian and huge, governed by something that probably wasn't a king. Ukraine may have had one of the first huge cities, without a leader. Kings probably came later, but they never had the power we think they did. Kings often developed in response to the cities and appeared in the outskirts, often accompanied by elaborate burials. These kings would raid the cities for materials and women. Within the cities, community rules were stronger than any ruler. 

Chapter 9 presented a part of history I never knew. Democracy, once believed to be a Greek invention was practiced in Mexico. I always knew the Aztecs were hated. I didn't realize that the groups that opposed them chose to do so through debate and discussion. Some were opposed to helping the Spanish, but most hated the Aztecs more. My education told us that Cortez came to America. People thought he was a God and followed him. They never told us that the Spanish were smelly pigs who were only accepted because the Natives hated the Aztecs more and wanted to use the Spanish after a long debate and discussion.

What is a state? Is it a place where a power can punish people? Is it a place that exploits people? A top-down control to coordinate everything?

Why do people focus so much on Kings when unstructured government is more common?

In reading this book I am left with more questions than answers. This review is not everything that happened in the book. I got lazy and didn't write down all my thoughts. However, it has helped clarify things for me. The most common reason states fail is that people refuse to accept the orders of a play king and realize that they can do better elsewhere. In addition, the events of the past are still playing out today. It's only Western arrogance that refuses to accept things are moving past their worldview.