The Dawn of Everything: a New History of Humanity

En un ensayo reciente, un arqueólogo y un antropólogo cuestionan la historia que hasta ahora se daba por aceptada sobre la forma en que operaban las sociedades primitivas. Una revisión del pasado que abre nuevos caminos para el futuro.

Andrew Anthony

Bandera UK
Sarah Davison

Speaker (UK accent)

Actualizado a

441 The Guardian Dawn Everithing Istock

Escucha este articulo

Imprimir

In the wake of bestsellers such as Jared Diamond’s Collapse and Yuval Noah Harari’s Sapiens, that backwater of history —prehistory— has been infused by a surge of popular interest. It’s also proved an area of fertile promise for those who find the established narratives of modernity either constricting or based on false premises or both.

The last point is particularly relevant for the egalitarian-minded. After the catastrophic failure of the Soviet experiment, there were few places left to turn in support of the belief that humanity is at heart cooperative rather than competitive. The notable exception was the pre-agricultural era, those tens of thousands of years in which humans were thought to live in a state of… well, what exactly?

Since the Enlightenment, there have been two conflicting visions of humanity stripped of its civilised trappings. On the one hand, there is Hobbes’s notion of us as predisposed to violence —waging war against each other in a “nasty, brutish and short” existence. On the other, Rousseau’s idyll of prelapsarian innocence, in which humanity led a life of Edenic bliss before being destroyed by the corruptions of society.

Both these understandings of humanity’s roots are manifestly wrong, contend the late anthropologist David Graeber and his co-author, the archaeologist David Wengrow in their new and richly provocative book, The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity. As the title suggests, this is a boldly ambitious work that seems intent to attack received wisdoms and myths on almost every one of its nearly seven hundred absorbing pages.

441 The Guardian Dawn Everything Istock

Of course, few modern scholars accept either Hobbes’s bleak caricature or Rousseau’s romantic musings. Nonetheless, Graeber and Wengrow argue, these antithetical conceptions of human nature feed into the consensus that has been popularised by figures such as Diamond and Harari.

That is to say that for most of human history our ancestors lived an egalitarian and leisure-filled life in small bands of hunter-gatherers. Then, as Diamond put it, we made the “worst mistake in human history”, which was to increase population numbers through agricultural production. This, so the story goes, led to hierarchies, subordination, wars, disease, famines and just about every other social ill — thus did we plunge from Rousseau’s heaven into Hobbes’s hell.

According to Graeber and Wengrow’s reading of up-to-date archeological and anthropological research, that story, too, is nonsense. Humanity was not restricted to small bands of hunter-gatherers, agriculture did not lead inexorably to hierarchies and conflicts and there was not one mode of social organisation that prevailed, at least until thousands of years after the introduction of agriculture.

On the contrary, they maintain, prehistory was a time of diverse social experimentation, in which people lived in a variety of settings, from small travelling bands to large (perhaps seasonally occupied) cities and were wont to change their social identities depending on the time of year.

The author of Debt: The First 5,000 Years and Bullshit Jobs, Graeber, it’s worth bearing in mind, was a committed anarchist who was instrumental in setting up the Occupy Wall Street protest. Another factor that bears consideration is that both archaeology and anthropology are disciplines that are notoriously vulnerable to subjective interpretation.

Such “distant times can become a vast canvas for the working out of our collective fantasies”, the authors caution, but then do not entirely heed their own warning. While readily acknowledging the limitations of verifiable evidence, they nonetheless engage in creative speculation.

The histories they weave are fascinating, bringing to light extraordinary illustrative characters such as Kandiaronk, the brilliant Native American Huron-Wendat chief who confounded French Jesuits with his powerful debating skills.

Yet there is a distinct sense of cherrypicking, of stringing together examples that fit the broad sweep of their argument, and dismissing the rest. One historian has accused them of making at least one “ballistically false” claim (that captured settlers in America preferred to remain with their native captors).

All the same, the strength of the book is the manner in which it asks us to rethink our assumptions. It isn’t, say the authors, that earlier humans were egalitarian, for there were often differences in material wealth. Rather, they enjoyed an equality of social —and therefore political— participation and, moreover, a shared sense of freedom: of movement, to disobey command and to “shape entirely new social realities, or shift back and forth between different ones”.

Most significantly, the authors replace the idea of humanity being forced along through evolutionary stages with a picture of prehistoric communities making their own conscious decisions of how to live. Our distant forebears were not hopeless puppets of historical inevitability but masters of their own trajectory.

Still, the question the authors repeatedly ask, but never quite get round to answering is, how then did we become “stuck” in a system of hierarchies and conspicuous inequalities of power and consumption? Despite inferring and speculating at almost every turn, the two Davids become suddenly circumspect when confronting this central mystery that haunts their book.

They write that “for now the material at our disposal, especially for the early phases of the process, is still too sparse and ambiguous to provide definitive answers”. In truth, that proviso could be employed for almost everything under discussion in this book, but then it would not have been nearly as entertaining and thought-provoking.

It is, in the end, an impressively large undertaking that succeeds in making us reconsider not just the remote past but also the too-close-to-see present, as well as the common thread that is our shifting and elusive nature.

Published in The Guardian on October 18, 2021. Reprinted with permission.

More in C2 Advanced

The New York  Times: “How Taylor Swift  Conquered the World”
Getty

People

The New York Times: “How Taylor Swift Conquered the World”

En un panorama mediático polarizado, la figura de la artista de Tennessee trasciende el negocio del espectáculo. Taylor Swift no es solo la estrella del pop que más brilla, es un fenómeno generacional que define una nueva era en la cultura popular.

Should We All Be Putting Chips in Our Brains?
AdobeStock

Current Affairs

Should We All Be Putting Chips in Our Brains?

Los implantes neuronales como el que pretende comercializar Elon Musk a través de su empresa Neuralink prometen avances en distintos frentes, pero también enormes problemas éticos.

More in Explore

Crema inglesa: historia, receta y cómo servirla
iStock

Tips and resources

Crema inglesa: historia, receta y cómo servirla

La crema inglesa es una de las cremas básicas de repostería. Se elabora con muy pocos ingredientes y está deliciosa sola o como acompañamiento de otros postres. ¡Aquí tienes la receta paso a paso!

Julia Nigmatullina

TODAY’S TOP STORIES

Medical English: Lifting the Language Barrier in Health
Gtres

Language

Medical English: Lifting the Language Barrier in Health

El sistema de salud pública del Reino Unido ha iniciado una campaña para acercar el lenguaje médico al gran público y favorecer así las comunicación entre los pacientes y los profesionales sanitarios.

Conor Gleeson