3 ms·

I honestly don't know your background. Do you have an education and training in anthropology and/or archeology? Maybe you do. When I read the criticisms in the

by mempko 2y ago

I honestly don't know your background. Do you have an education and training in anthropology and/or archeology? Maybe you do. When I read the criticisms in the press and blogs about the work, I found it telling that most of the criticism about Graeber and Wengrow's book is from non-experts. While experts seem to find it a breathe of fresh air. I personally don't have enough training and education in anthropology and archeology to properly interpret the evidence. I suspect most readers here do not. That's why it's such an important work, because it synthesizes the latest research. Turns out a lot of it is counter to a lot of contemporary works that don't rely on such depth.

Nicholas_C 2y ago
Another poster here referenced the Wikipedia page for the book which has some good content under the “Reception” section. Not all anthropologists thought it was a breath of fresh air. And again, I looked up a lot of the evidence and it wasn’t as cut and dry as he made it out to be. He was trying to build a narrative to sell a book. Just because I’m not an anthropologist doesn’t mean I have to take Graeber’s word for everything.
- mempko 2y ago
  Did you read the same reception section as me? It seems to be very well regarded and even when there were some criticism, they were minor. For example, > Anthropologist Durba Chattaraj said "elisions, slippages, and too-exaggerated leaps" when referring to archaeology from India, but stated that its authors are "extremely rigorous and meticulous scholars", So yes, there are criticism of the book by experts in the field, but they seem minor compared to the whole picture and impact the book is having. There is a reason this book is so positively received because Graeber and Wengrow are real scholars.
  - Nicholas_C 2y ago
    There are many other criticisms in the Reception section such as the below excerpt which is a good summary of how I felt about what I read of the book. > The historian David A. Bell, responding solely to Graeber and Wengrow's arguments about the Indigenous origins of Enlightenment thought and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, accused the authors of coming "perilously close to scholarly malpractice." They are real scholars but also trying to use their reputation to sling a narrative to sell a book for the masses. I don’t care that some of their Ivy League/anthropology buddies said it was a breath of fresh air, what I read and researched myself said it was a good amount of hot air.

by mempko 2y ago

Nicholas_C 2y ago

Another poster here referenced the Wikipedia page for the book which has some good content under the “Reception” section. Not all anthropologists thought it was a breath of fresh air. And again, I looked up a lot of the evidence and it wasn’t as cut and dry as he made it out to be. He was trying to build a narrative to sell a book. Just because I’m not an anthropologist doesn’t mean I have to take Graeber’s word for everything.

mempko 2y ago
Did you read the same reception section as me? It seems to be very well regarded and even when there were some criticism, they were minor. For example, > Anthropologist Durba Chattaraj said "elisions, slippages, and too-exaggerated leaps" when referring to archaeology from India, but stated that its authors are "extremely rigorous and meticulous scholars", So yes, there are criticism of the book by experts in the field, but they seem minor compared to the whole picture and impact the book is having. There is a reason this book is so positively received because Graeber and Wengrow are real scholars.
- Nicholas_C 2y ago
  There are many other criticisms in the Reception section such as the below excerpt which is a good summary of how I felt about what I read of the book. > The historian David A. Bell, responding solely to Graeber and Wengrow's arguments about the Indigenous origins of Enlightenment thought and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, accused the authors of coming "perilously close to scholarly malpractice." They are real scholars but also trying to use their reputation to sling a narrative to sell a book for the masses. I don’t care that some of their Ivy League/anthropology buddies said it was a breath of fresh air, what I read and researched myself said it was a good amount of hot air.