7 ms·

It's kinda light on evidence for some things, which isn't great when we're talking about someone they describe as an "activist" challenging mainstream history.

by Natsu 4y ago

It's kinda light on evidence for some things, which isn't great when we're talking about someone they describe as an "activist" challenging mainstream history. For example, it just drops assertions like "The authors also show that the earliest cities in Ukraine and Mesopotamia of the 4th millennium BCE were egalitarian and organised without the presence of kings, temples or royal palaces." But why are we to believe these societies were "egalitarian"? I mean, the usual understanding of that means a lot more than just living somewhere without a king or a temple. I can imagine a lot of ways for a city without any of these as such to be far less than what most people think of as "egalitarian" and they really need to flesh this idea out a lot more by going over why we should think that and to what degree, because there's a big gap between the modern understanding of the word "egalitarian" and the evidence provided. Maybe the book does better, if so I'd like to hear that part, but the article is a bit scant here, which is bad when the only thing it is clear on is that this was written by an activist with political motivations.

cmrdporcupine 4y ago
> But why are we to believe these societies were "egalitarian"? I haven't read this book, but my understanding is this is usually ascertained from looking at burial grounds, and building remains. Lack of distinction between high status and low status burials is indicative of a society with less stratification. Lack of specialized ceremonial and ruling buildings another. In the case of the Cucuteni-Tripolye civilization & associated cultures in Ukraine & the Danube, though, my understanding is that there really aren't many graveyards or human remains because they didn't bury their dead, at least not in graveyards. Not until the Yamnaya culture (Indo-Europeans) intruded/conquered/took-over/became-dominant later on. So, I dunno. But in that culture the lack of palatial buildings and so on does imply the lack of a kingship system. Plus they didn't build walls around their settlements, and there's few artifacts that imply weaponry until much later.
eightysixfour 4y ago
> It's kinda light on evidence for some things, which isn't great when we're talking about someone they describe as an "activist" challenging mainstream history. I agree. I find it interesting that Graeber makes the same mistake he admonished so many others for - the interpretation of small amounts of historical data through their specific lens with minimal evidence - however, since his perspective is unique compared to much of the mainstream his view feels novel, interesting, and ultimately should open reader’s minds to the idea that their view of the past is exceptionally biased by the paradigm we live in today. There are alternate paradigms, and the same evidence can be interpreted entirely differently to challenge many preconceptions.
- Natsu 4y ago
  This puts it in a weird place because if you interpret the evidence in light of the theory, it's not really usable as evidence that the theory is right, because it ends up begging the question of why we should believe the theory in the first place. That said, agriculture did radically transform society, as several other technologies have done since then. I do think this is worth highlighting, it just comes off better when it's not coming from someone trying to sell you on an ideology. Because I bet that their idea of 'egalitarian' only includes castes like priests and kings, but not men & women, and we know those groups were quite different all over the world until the technology of birth control upended things.
  - eightysixfour 4y ago
    > Because I bet that their idea of 'egalitarian' only includes castes like priests and kings, but not men & women According to the book, some included both.

by Natsu 4y ago

cmrdporcupine 4y ago

> But why are we to believe these societies were "egalitarian"? I haven't read this book, but my understanding is this is usually ascertained from looking at burial grounds, and building remains. Lack of distinction between high status and low status burials is indicative of a society with less stratification. Lack of specialized ceremonial and ruling buildings another. In the case of the Cucuteni-Tripolye civilization & associated cultures in Ukraine & the Danube, though, my understanding is that there really aren't many graveyards or human remains because they didn't bury their dead, at least not in graveyards. Not until the Yamnaya culture (Indo-Europeans) intruded/conquered/took-over/became-dominant later on. So, I dunno. But in that culture the lack of palatial buildings and so on does imply the lack of a kingship system. Plus they didn't build walls around their settlements, and there's few artifacts that imply weaponry until much later.

eightysixfour 4y ago

> It's kinda light on evidence for some things, which isn't great when we're talking about someone they describe as an "activist" challenging mainstream history. I agree. I find it interesting that Graeber makes the same mistake he admonished so many others for - the interpretation of small amounts of historical data through their specific lens with minimal evidence - however, since his perspective is unique compared to much of the mainstream his view feels novel, interesting, and ultimately should open reader’s minds to the idea that their view of the past is exceptionally biased by the paradigm we live in today. There are alternate paradigms, and the same evidence can be interpreted entirely differently to challenge many preconceptions.

Natsu 4y ago
This puts it in a weird place because if you interpret the evidence in light of the theory, it's not really usable as evidence that the theory is right, because it ends up begging the question of why we should believe the theory in the first place. That said, agriculture did radically transform society, as several other technologies have done since then. I do think this is worth highlighting, it just comes off better when it's not coming from someone trying to sell you on an ideology. Because I bet that their idea of 'egalitarian' only includes castes like priests and kings, but not men & women, and we know those groups were quite different all over the world until the technology of birth control upended things.
- eightysixfour 4y ago
  > Because I bet that their idea of 'egalitarian' only includes castes like priests and kings, but not men & women According to the book, some included both.