Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Archaeological discoveries, breakthroughs and theories

i really wish my time machine would allow me to travel further back than 1951. i want to witness the moment when humans first acquired language..
 
Morgan's study above makes perfect sense to me Dot'. Until i recall that my friends Chomsky and Darwin would find it difficult to accept that social acts could enter the gene pool.. if they could, presumably we would all need to become Lamarckians? i understand that Noam believes that the language facility is hard wired into humans in some way, and isn't an acquired characteristic. But its all a big mystery to me - hence my frustration about not owning a decent time machine. i'm back to bed for a bit now - this 5.00am shift that my head seems to be in atm is crap
:)
 
Last edited:
redcogs said:
Another huge thumbs up for Graeber and Wengrows 'The Dawn of Everything'. Rivetting read which fundamentally challenges many archaeological and anthropological orthodoxies.
Click to expand...
Just finished reading this, at last. I thought I had a fair grasp of prehistory, at a general level. How wrong I was. There is so much knowledge out there, so much of which is new knowledge about places and peoples I never even knew existed, let alone how to pronounce their names. That makes it difficult to be critical, in a positive sense, and I have to take most of it on trust, because Graeber and Wengrow obviously do (did) know and understand such a vast amount of stuff.

If I might be so bold I would summarise their overall conclusions thusly:
Our understanding of prehistory and our current condition is fundamentally flawed and biased by the conventional views of humanity and society. Things could have been different, and have been different in the past. The world is littered with examples of agricultural and urban societies, complex and large scale, where authoritarian and hierarchical social elites never emerged. Others where they did emerge and were then rejected and overthrown. Others where the place of women was revered or equal to that of men. Others where war and violence were rare or nonexistent.

There was nothing inevitable about how things have turned out, no iron laws of history or social development. Nothing inevitable about where we are headed.

Almost optimistic.
 
Kandiaronk, some guy! Kevbads assessment is mine also - but i'm slow at reading dense text and much doesn't really penetrate. About to begin a chapter on 'prehistory' China, after the excellent section on Uruk around the Euphrates delta. 'The more we learn the less we really know' - cheers boys n girls.
 
BTW, just recalled listening to Wengrow being interviewed about this stuff on Novara. Very cogent and persuasive:

 
I'm reading Dawn of Everything now, and it is good . . . but I think it really needs a thread of its own.

Importantly, it's been hammered in a lot of places and by very different people. I'm going to have sit down and read the adverse reviews as well.

While it's definitely nowhere near the ancient astronauts thing, or similar rubbish, what it reminds me most of all is reading stuff like Von Daniken's Gold of the Gods. Unlike obviously fraudulent texts like that DoE does make its case on the basis of proper research. Where I see the comparison with (convicted fraudster) Von Daniken is in the style of presentation, a style of guru-like lifting of the scales from one's eyes.
 
Having read another half chapter, I am a bit less convinced of it being reliably insightful, a couple of things in it have been, if not utter bollocks, then quite a distortion at the very least.
 
Last edited:
belboid said:
Having read another half chapter, I am a bit less convinced of it being reliably insightful, a couple of things in it have been, if not utter bollocks, then quite a distortion at the very least.
Click to expand...
i am unable to be so confidently dismissive. my guess is that DofE will stimulate healthy debate, especially in universities, which can only be usefully constructive. Wish i had a broader knowledge base and the time to acquire one..
 
I think as redcogs does: it's best value is as a provocation, a tool to get people talking. Even if their answers may be wrong, the questions they're asking still need some sort of answers.

I never met Graeber, but all the people I know who did spoke highly of him. I did meet Marshall Sahlins once, whom W and G refer to more than once in their book, and I can definitely vouch for that guy, anyway (and if I read him right, Graber studied under Sahlins for a long time).
 
I'm not being dismissive, just pointing out that some bits are wrong. I would also suspect that various of their 'insights' won't be taught at unis because they are already fairly commonly agreed. The first two chapters are brilliantly written, but it's all stuff that has been well argued and documented before.
 
belboid said:
just pointing out that some bits are wrong. I would also suspect that various of their 'insights' won't be taught at unis because they are already fairly commonly agreed.
Click to expand...
i have no idea which bits are incorrect, and i have to admit that i was drawn towards the book after listening to the exchange between Wengrow and Bastani (above). Prior to reading this work my main understandings came via Gordon Childe! students of course are rarely aware of the main debates at uni level until they begin properly engaging in 'the process', which is why i believe that the value of the book lays in its ability to stimulate discussion. Insights and interpretations are often just points of view no?
 
Like everyone I just don't know enough to be properly critical. I do think that it has to be inevitable that there are mistakes and misinterpretations in a book trying to encompass the prehistory of everywhere, so I don't expect infallibility. And in the light of discoveries yet to be unearthed or properly investigated some of their assertions will be invalidated, sure. But if we look at more standard works on prehistory, as the two Davids do, and judge them by the same standards then we find far more unevidenced assumptions. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt, in general.
 
i used to adore the idea that pre-history basically involved many roving groups of egualitarian hunter gatherers until they suddenly discovered agriculture and animal domestication thereby producing surpluses and enabling class societies to begin. but this book seems to suggest such notions are largely romantic/inaccurate/wrong. my jaundiced eyes today lead me to believe that this is very possible, and that a hugely more variable pattern of human development was likely - which is perhaps the main theme of Dawn of Everything. whatever the case, i have stuck with the book, finding it most enjoyable.
 
redcogs said:
i have no idea which bits are incorrect, and i have to admit that i was drawn towards the book after listening to the exchange between Wengrow and Bastani (above). Prior to reading this work my main understandings came via Gordon Childe! students of course are rarely aware of the main debates at uni level until they begin properly engaging in 'the process', which is why i believe that the value of the book lays in its ability to stimulate discussion. Insights and interpretations are often just points of view no?
Click to expand...
I don't wanna listen to something like that till I've finished it, ditto avoiding the reviews, tho I will come back rot them with interest.

As to 'insights,' I am not objecting to the validity of their (well researched) opinions on that topic, but to the fact that they're not really their insights. They are repeating a lot of what other have argued for decades. And while that doesn't really bother me (beyond it being a bit darned cheeky) I can see why it would fucking infuriate anthropologists who have been saying the same thing for all those decades. But if it popularises the actuality, then it's fine by me.

Whether that means it is taught in archeology/anthropology lessons, I don't know, but am dubious, but I do agree it is likely to provoke discussion. The common view, certainly amongst people around our age, is undoubtedly still overwhelmingly Childean. And it is good that that is challenged - furiously and amusingly in this case.
 
Kevbad the Bad said:
If you've got the time could you tell us where they've got it so wrong. Genuinely interested.
Click to expand...
I'm gonna wait until I have read rather more of it, or it'll just sound like being a picky fucker at the moment, if that's okay.

I'm not massively well read on the subject by any means, but do feel that if even I can see significant shortcomings, how many more am I missing? It's still a bloody good read tho.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life, Purpose of Human Life, philosophical/religious facts, theories etc.
Replies
27
Views
1K
SheilaNaGig
S
AmateurAgitator
Self-Determination Theory
Replies
21
Views
1K
Shechemite
Shechemite
A
Affect theory, embodiment, biopolitics and their relation to Marxist or anarchist theory
Replies
2
Views
368
Alastor Trivia
A
H
Most pretentious theorist
Replies
24
Views
1K
HerbertS
H
eoin_k
Works of Feminist Theory, Philosophy & History
2
Replies
38
Views
3K
zedr
zedr
Back
Top Bottom